The Defense Department inspector general report analyzing the use of messaging app Signal to share classified information, particularly in planning for Houthi strikes in March, will be released on Thursday. 

A classified version of the report has been handed over to the Senate Armed Services Committee and an unclassified, redacted version will be made public, a source familiar with the process told Fox News Digital after Axios first reported it. 

Trump administration officials used Signal to discuss sensitive military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen in March. Then-national security advisor Mike Waltz had created the chat, which included many of Trump’s top Cabinet members, and inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic.

The IG launched a probe in April following requests from top lawmakers on the hill. It was intended to examine whether Hegseth improperly discussed operational plans for a U.S. offensive against the Houthis in Yemen and will also review ‘compliance with classification and records retention requirements,’ according to a memo from Inspector General Steven Stebbins.

Hegseth’s Signal messages revealed F-18, Navy fighter aircraft, MQ-9s, drones and Tomahawks cruise missiles would be used in the strike on the Houthis.

‘1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),’ Hegseth said in one message notifying the chat of high-level administration officials that the attack was about to kick off.

‘1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)’ he added, according to the report.

‘1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)’

‘1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)’

‘1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.’

‘MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)’

‘We are currently clean on OPSEC’ — that is, operational security.

Waltz later wrote that the mission had been successful. ‘The first target — their top missile guy — was positively ID’d walking into his girlfriend’s building. It’s now collapsed.’

Trump administration officials have insisted that nothing classified was shared over the chat. The report should offer clarity on that claim.

Thursday will be a contentious day for the Pentagon — Admiral Mitch Bradley, commander of Special Operations Command, will also be on Capitol Hill to offer his account of the Sept. 2 ‘double tap’ strike on alleged narco-traffickers. 

After one strike on a boat carrying 11 people and allegedly carting drugs toward the U.S. left two survivors clinging to the wreckage, Bradley ordered another to take out the remaining smugglers.

Lawmakers and legal analysts have claimed that killing shipwrecked survivors is a war crime. Bradley is briefing leaders on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. 

Original reporting by the Washington Post claimed that direction came from the top: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had directed the commander to ‘kill them all.’ But Hegseth claimed he issued no such directive and did not witness the second strike. He said Bradley made the decision on his own, but he stands by it. U.S. officials who spoke with the New York Times said Hegseth did not order the second strike.

On about two dozen occasions, the Supreme Court had to step in during President Trump’s second term because many inferior courts refused to accept that he is the president. The justices must do so again, after lower courts invalidated the appointments of acting U.S. attorneys Alina Habba of the District of New Jersey and Lindsey Halligan of the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Senate has a tradition that is over a century old called the blue slip. Home-state senators have an extraordinary power: the ability to veto U.S. marshals, U.S. attorneys and U.S. district judges. In order for nominees to proceed, home-state senators must return a blue slip approving the nominations. Senators will never let this power go, so administrations have to bear the consequences. In New Jersey, leftist Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim have refused to allow the nomination of Alina Habba to serve as U.S. attorney. Likewise, in Virginia, their fellow leftist Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner will not acquiesce to the nomination of Lindsey Halligan to serve as U.S. attorney. As such, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Habba and Halligan to 120-day terms to serve on an interim basis, as 28 U.S.C. § 546 allows. Halligan replaced another interim prosecutor, Eric Siebert, who departed shortly before his 120 days lapsed.

After 120 days have expired, leftists asserted that Bondi can make no more appointments; only district judges can. The Executive Branch, this argument goes, has no say whatsoever after 120 days. This result would lead to a scheme where leftist senators can block President Trump’s nominees. Then, courts composed mostly of leftist judges in these blue states can install leftist puppet U.S. attorneys, and the Executive Branch must grin and bear it, just as with the blue slip process.

The 120-day limit first appeared in a statute in 1986. During the years of Presidents Clinton and Bush, attorneys general made successive 120-day appointments under the statutory scheme in effect from 1986-2006, the same scheme as today. Yet, Clinton Judge Cameron Currie of South Carolina did not view this historical evidence as persuasive when she invalidated Halligan’s appointment. Halligan secured indictments against New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud and former FBI Director James Comey for false statements to and obstruction of Congress concerning the Russiagate hoax.

Those indictments are, for the moment, invalid. Currie’s opinion drips with disdain for Halligan, noting Halligan’s lack of prosecutorial experience. This issue is irrelevant to the legal question. Halligan, under Currie’s analysis, could have had three decades of prosecutorial experience, and her appointment would still have violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Currie also quoted another irrelevant piece of evidence: President Trump’s social media post demanding Bondi move faster on prosecutions. Whether Halligan’s appointment is valid has nothing to do with that post. Its inclusion thus has no valid legal purpose.

The Appointments Clause vests appointment power in a president, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for principal officers. Congress can also require the advice and consent process to apply to inferior officers, and it did so with respect to U.S. attorneys. As such, presidents nominate U.S. attorneys, and the Senate confirms them. When there are vacancies, attorneys general can fill them for 120 days at a time, and a separate part of Section 546 allows for district courts to make appointments after the 120 days have expired. The Constitution grants department heads and courts the power to appoint inferior officers. District judges, for example, appoint magistrate judges.

Section 546 does not vest the authority to appoint U.S. attorneys exclusively in district courts. Under the reading of the judges who have invalidated the appointments of Habba and Halligan, President Trump’s attorney general could not make a 120-day appointment, either. The text of Section 546 does not specify a 120-day appointment per president. When one president’s attorney general makes a 120-day appointment, these judges absurdly prevent any future president’s attorney general from doing so in that district. District judges, therefore, have all the power until the Senate confirms a nominee one of these years or decades.

Fortunately, the issue now is ripe for Supreme Court review. This week, a Third Circuit panel ruled that Habba’s appointment is invalid. The justices should decide the cases together, even though the Fourth Circuit has not ruled on the Halligan appeal. There is only one circuit with all states that have Republican senators: the Fifth. This district court control could continue into the terms of a President Vance.

The easiest way to correct the lower court’s error is for the Supreme Court to hold that Section 546 allows attorneys general to make more than one 120-day appointment. Alternatively, the justices could hold that Section 546’s stripping of appointment power from the Executive Branch with respect to its officials violates the separation of powers.

In the face of immense criticism from Democrat politicians, the leftist media, and academic elites, the justices have intervened time and again to thwart unlawful interference by resistance lower courts. Because of the Supreme Court’s intervention on issues ranging from the ability to fire Executive Branch employees to the ability of the president to revoke temporary protected status from illegal immigrants, President Trump has been able to do his job far more effectively.

Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and their team of stellar lawyers have amassed a success rate of over 90% at the Supreme Court. The justices must restore Habba and Halligan to preserve the separation of powers and prevent U.S. attorneys from being servants of district courts instead of presidents.

: Last week, Taiwan President William Lai unveiled a massive $40 billion supplemental defense procurement proposal, casting it as proof that the independently ruled, democratic island is serious about countering escalating military pressure from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The PRC has not governed Taiwan for even a single day but claims it as its territory.

A State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital that, ‘We welcome Taiwan’s announcement of a new $40 billion special defense procurement budget. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and more than 45 years of commitment across multiple U.S. Administrations, the United States supports Taiwan’s acquisition of critical defense capabilities, commensurate with the threat it faces.’ 

The spokesperson also commended Taipei, ‘We also welcome the Lai administration’s recent commitments to increase defense spending to at least 3% of GDP by 2026 and 5% of GDP by 2030, which demonstrates resolve to strengthen Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities.’

The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) – the de facto American embassy – responded very positively almost immediately after Lai’s proposal was announced. Courtney Donovan Smith, a political columnist for the Taipei Times, told Fox News Digital that the strong support from AIT, ‘Amounts to a public American stamp of approval.’

A day after Lai’s announcement, Taiwan’s Defense Minister, Wellington Koo, told the media that preliminary talks have already been held with the United States about the kinds of weapons it wants to buy as part of this budget that would run from 2026 to 2033. But Koo said he could not make any details of discussions public until Congress receives a formal notification.

Yet some in Taiwan expressed concern that the language from the administration was somewhat understated, and didn’t come from senior-enough officials. 

Those worried about what they perceive as a muted tone from the Trump administration wondered if the timing could be sensitive, coming shortly after President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping agreed to a trade deal, and just days after Xi phoned Trump to reiterate Beijing’s claims over Taiwan, claims the U.S. ‘acknowledges’ but does not accept.

Even so, Taipei-based political risk analyst and Tamkang University assistant professor Ross Feingold told Fox News Digital that U.S. support fundamentally has not shifted and that when it comes to U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan, ‘If Taiwan is a willing buyer, the Trump administration is likely to be a willing seller.’

Also causing distress to the fragile egos of China’s communist leaders is Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, a conservative who became Japan’s first female prime minister in October. She appeared to break long-standing Japanese strategic ambiguity over Taiwan when, asked on Nov. 7 in parliament whether a Chinese attack on Taiwan would qualify as ‘a situation threatening Japan’s survival.’

Takaichi didn’t deflect with a ‘I don’t comment on hypotheticals.’ Instead, she said, ‘If there are battleships and the use of force, no matter how you think about it, it could constitute a survival-threatening situation.’

Under Japan’s 2015 security law, that designation could allow Japanese military action in defense of an ally.

China predictably lashed out, immediately calling her remarks ‘egregious.’ A Chinese diplomat in Osaka escalated further, reposting coverage on X with a threat-like warning: ‘The dirty head that sticks itself in must be cut off.’

Kerry K. Gershaneck, a visiting scholar at National Chengchi University and a former U.S. Marine counterintelligence officer, told Fox News Digital that the U.S. needed to clearly denounce China for threats against Japan and the Japanese prime minister. Gershaneck warned that Asian allies remember past U.S. abandonment’ under what he called the ‘do not provoke China!’ policy of the Obama administration. ‘Unless high-level Washington officials signal stronger support, he said, ‘the Trump 47 administration risks going down in history as Barack Hussein Obama’s third term.’

Feingold noted that while Takaichi’s stance was enthusiastically received in Taiwan, the excitement ‘was unsustainable and not based on a formal policy decision by Japan to defend Taiwan.’

Following reports that President Trump phoned the Japanese prime minister and requested that she dial down talk about Taiwan, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Kihara Minoru issued a strong denial, saying Trump did not advise Takaichi to ‘temper the tone of her comments about Taiwan.’

While the geopolitical shifts grabbed headlines, Lai’s real challenge is domestic. Taiwan has a single-chamber legislature, and Lai’s Democratic Progressive Party does not have a majority.

Cheng Li-wun, the new chair of the main opposition Kuomintang (KMT), campaigned against boosting defense spending to 5% of GDP and has repeatedly argued Taiwan is ‘not an ATM’ for ‘unreasonable’ military budgets. The KMT supports renewed engagement with Beijing and acceptance of the ‘1992 Consensus,’ a proposed framework that allows both sides to claim there is ‘one China’ while interpreting the meaning differently. Lai rejects that position entirely, calling it a path toward subordination to China.

Bryce Barros, associate fellow at GLOBSEC and a former U.S. Senate national security advisor, told Fox News Digital that there are serious hurdles. ‘Opposition leaders have cited cuts to other essential services like healthcare, lack of details on how the budget will be paid for and concerns over more hostilities with China,’ he said. But Barros said the head of the de facto American embassy has called for bipartisan support for the bill, and he noted Lai needs only six opposition defections for the vote to pass.

Analysts also stress the proposal is not solely for U.S. weapons. Lai wants major investment in domestic defense manufacturing, including a ‘dome’ anti-missile system, which could help blunt accusations of excessive spending to curry favor with Washington. But the plan still faces a volatile parliament and certain retaliation from China.

In March, President Donald Trump announced the Air Force’s new F-47 stealth fighter, built by Boeing.  So where is the Navy’s secret new carrier plane?

Fifteen years ago, the U.S. Navy read the signals from China and secretly started development of a long-range, stealthy plane to launch from aircraft carriers.  The Navy’s newest bird is more like a fighter-bomber, with the AI smarts to lead drones into combat and enough range to scare China.

Today that plane – known only as F/A-XX or fighter attack, experimental – is ready to go. Both Boeing and Northrop Grumman have flown test planes. Their prototypes are waiting in the wings; or rather, in discreet guarded hangars, most likely in Missouri and Florida. 

Yet, for some reason, the Pentagon isn’t in the mood to make the ‘downselect’ purchase decision. The delay is shocking and dangerous.

Congress wants the Navy plane so much they added nearly $1 billion to the budget to accelerate F/A-XX. ‘The U.S. Navy needs sixth-generation fighters. I’m concerned that any hesitancy on our part to proceed with the planned procurement of the sixth-gen fighters for the Navy will leave us dangerously outmatched in a China fight,’ Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., the head of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said on May 14. 

Of course, U.S. Navy F/A-18EFs have pounded Middle East targets during various air campaigns for almost three decades.  Just look at the damage they did to Houthi missile sites and weapons caches in Yemen during Operation Rough Rider this past spring.  But for the fierce fighting scenarios of the Pacific, the Navy pilots that fly from aircraft carriers need a new plane. 

All that President Trump has to do now is take this opportunity to pick the best plane for the Navy.

Here are six things to know about the Navy’s secretive project.

The Navy has not let us see photographs of the F/A-XX, obviously. Tantalizing concept art released over the summer reveals a smooth stealth shape, with a cockpit canopy similar to the F-35.  The diamond or delta-wing shape provides lift and range, especially at higher cruise altitudes. 

  In April, the Navy announced F/A-XX would have at least 25% more range than current fighters.  The range could be up to 1,000 miles, according to a top analyst’s estimate. Add in air refueling, longer-range missiles, and you have the ability to take the fight all across the Pacific.  I can tell you this: the Navy has been short of a true long-range fighter since the retirements of the A-6 Intruder and the F-14 Tomcat of TOPGUN fame, so range is a priority.

  While the F-35C excels with just one engine, the Navy preference has always been for two engines, due to all that flying over water. You won’t see the engines because they are tucked inside the plane to diminish heat signature. U.S. engine technology is far ahead of China’s, in areas like thermal management and overall thrust. 

Early stealth aircraft like the SR-71, F-117 and the B-2 sported flat black coatings to help absorb radar waves.  The current trend in stealth materials is an avian grey, like the B-21 Raider bomber now in production.  Fortunately, the U.S. is the world leader in aerospace-grade carbon fiber composites.

  Expect an impressive bomb bay for internal carriage of long-range missiles.  Current fighters like the Superhornet hang missiles from hard points under the wings.  To achieve stealth, the FA-XX will follow the path of the F-35C, and tuck missiles inside.  Sawtooth bomb bay doors help maintain the aircraft’s stealth profile.

Part of the Navy’s plan is to stock carriers with drone refuelers like the new MQ-25 Stingray to accompany the F/A-XX on its stealthy missions.  Since you ask, no, drones cannot do it all.  Naval strike demands payload to carry heavy bombs and missiles.  Plus, it turns out a pilot is pretty useful. The FA-XX can also control wingmen drones in the battlespace. With FA/XX, the Navy can target enemy ships, land bases, and radar sites.

Trump certainly understands the value of stealth after the B-2 bomber’s obliteration of Iran’s nuclear sites.  It’s unclear whether anyone has laid out for the president just how a massive risk the Pentagon is taking with naval aviation by slowing down F/A-XX.

Please note that China flew a stealthy demonstrator designed for carrier landings over a year ago.  On Nov. 7, China commissioned its third carrier, the Fujian, and is laying modules for a fourth carrier — designed to be bigger than the USS Gerald R. Ford and to run on nuclear power for the first time. In a few years, China may have six of its own carriers. That’s a serious threat.

Put simply, the Navy must have this long-range, stealthy fighter. The idea is to pair the FA/XX with long-range missiles so the carrier airwing regains the long-range punch they will need to maneuver and strike against China in the Pacific.

No one wants to say this, but without FA-XX, the carrier mission may diminish in the future.    

It’s past time for President Trump to make a decision. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday charged five men from across the U.S. with running an online ‘child exploitation enterprise’ called ‘Greggy’s Cult,’ that allegedly used Discord servers to terrorize, blackmail and coerce minors into ‘horrific acts of self-harm.’

The indictment unsealed by federal prosecutors charges five individuals with ‘conspiracy to produce child pornography, conspiracy to receive and distribute child pornography, and conspiracy to communicate interstate threats.’

Hector Bermudez, 29, of Queens, New York; Zachary Dosch, 26, of Albuquerque, New Mexico; Rumaldo Valdez, 22, of Honolulu, Hawaii; David Brilhante, 28, of San Diego, California; and Camden Rodriguez, 22, of Longmont, Colorado, were arrested Tuesday will be arraigned in the Eastern District of New York at a later date, according to the DOJ.

Prosecutors described a ‘nightmarish platform on the internet,’ alleging that ‘Greggy’s Cult’ carried out ‘depraved conduct’ that included ‘repeatedly encouraging victims to kill themselves or encouraging them to insert household objects into their genitals or anus.’

‘These five defendants allegedly targeted vulnerable children and others via online platforms – they exploited, threatened, and harassed them, and encouraged horrific acts of self-harm,’ FBI director Kash Patel said in a statement. ‘The FBI is sending a message to those individuals involved in criminal activity through violent online networks: you can’t hide in the shadows hovering over a keyboard – we will find and hold accountable those who participate in these illegal and heinous acts.’

The indictment stated that the defendants allegedly engaged in the ‘production and distribution of child sex abuse material’ between January 2020 and January 2021, and also participated in other forms of ‘exploitation and harassment’ of both minors and adults.

According to prosecutors, the defendants and other members of ‘Greggy’s Cult’ met on Discord servers and ‘directed minor victims, who had joined a video call on either Discord or another video conferencing platform, to engage in sexually explicit or other degrading conduct.’

The group is also accused of finding victims on gaming platforms such as Roblox and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.

The cult members allegedly captured screenshots and screen recordings of the ‘sexually explicit conduct’ before sharing it to other Discord servers and with each other, according to the DOJ.

Attorney General Pam Bondi reacted to the indictment, stating that ‘no child should ever be terrorized or exploited online, and no online platform should give refuge to predators.’

‘The Department of Justice will continue to protect children, support survivors, and hold accountable anyone who preys on the vulnerable – online or offline – with every tool we have,’ Bondi added.

Prosecutors also accused the defendants of extorting their targets, alleging that they tried to frame the adult victims as pedophiles or send malware to minor victims, which was then used as ‘leverage to get the victims to engage in degrading acts on camera.’

The defendants were allegedly able to convince victims to commit acts of ‘degradation,’ including having them be ‘owned’ by a member of the cult to demonstrate loyalty, or writing the names of cult members on their bodies, which prosecutors referred to as ‘fansigning.’

Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Galeotti of the DOJ’s Criminal Division said in a statement that the defendants were charged with an ‘unspeakable act of coercing and blackmailing children and adults to engage in self-harm and other degrading acts.’

U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr. for the Eastern District of New York called the alleged conduct ‘monstrous,’ adding that children were ‘at times driven to the brink of suicide.’

The DOJ stated that ‘Greggy’s Cult’ formed before the emergence of the ‘764’ network, another online child-exploitation group that the FBI has launched an intensified effort to take down.

Members of ‘764’ allegedly use popular online platforms such as Discord, Telegram and Roblox to recruit and manipulate minors.

President Donald Trump announced in a Truth Social post on Tuesday that he would ‘fully and completely’ terminate any documents signed by former President Joe Biden’s autopen, including pardons and commutations.

‘Any and all Documents, Proclamations, Executive Orders, Memorandums, or Contracts, signed by Order of the now infamous and unauthorized ‘AUTOPEN,’ within the Administration of Joseph R. Biden Jr., are hereby null, void, and of no further force or effect,’ Trump wrote.

‘Anyone receiving ‘Pardons,’ ‘Commutations,’ or any other Legal Document so signed, please be advised that said Document has been fully and completely terminated, and is of no Legal effect. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth chastised the press following media reports that he signed off on a second strike against an alleged drug boat after the first one left survivors. 

The Trump administration has come under renewed scrutiny for its strikes in the Caribbean targeting alleged drug smugglers, after the Washington Post reported on Friday that Hegseth verbally ordered everyone onboard the alleged drug boat to be killed in a Sept. 2 operation. The Post reported that a second strike was conducted to take out the remaining survivors on the boat. 

On Monday, the White House confirmed that a second strike had occurred, but disputed that Hegseth ever gave an initial order to ensure that everyone on board was killed, when asked specifically about Hegseth’s instructions.

Hegseth said that he watched the first strike live, but did not see any survivors at that time amid the fire and the smoke — and blasted the press for their reporting.

‘This is called the fog of war. This is what you in the press don’t understand,’ Hegseth told reporters at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. ‘You sit in your air-conditioned offices or up on Capitol Hill and you nit pick, and you plant fake stories in the Washington Post about ‘kill everybody’ phrases on anonymous sources not based in anything, not based in any truth at all. And then you want to throw out really irresponsible terms about American heroes, about the judgment that they made.’ 

Hegseth said that after watching the first strike, he left for a meeting and later learned of the second strike. The White House said Monday that Hegseth had authorized Adm. Frank ‘Mitch’ Bradley to conduct the strikes, and that Bradley was the one who ordered and directed the second one. 

At the time of the Sept. 2 strike, Bradley was serving as the commander of Joint Special Operations Command, which falls under U.S. Special Operations Command. He is now the head of U.S. Special Operations Command.

According to Hegseth, carrying out a subsequent strike on the alleged drug boat was the right call. 

‘Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat,’ Hegseth said Tuesday. 

Meanwhile, reports of the second strike have attracted even more scrutiny from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill and calls for greater oversight, amid questions about the strikes’ legality. 

‘This committee is committed to providing rigorous oversight of the Department of Defense’s military operations in the Caribbean,’ Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., and Adam Smith, D-Wash., who lead the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement on Saturday. ‘We take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region and are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question.’

Hegseth said Tuesday that although there has been a pause in strikes in the Caribbean because alleged drug boats are becoming harder to find, the Trump administration’s campaign against the influx of drugs will continue. 

‘We’ve only just begun striking narco-boats and putting narco-terrorists at the bottom of the ocean because they’ve been poisoning the American people,’ Hegseth said. 

The Trump administration has carried out more than 20 strikes against alleged drug boats in Latin American waters, and has bolstered its military presence in the Caribbean to align with Trump’s goal to crack down on the influx of drugs into the U.S.

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he still likes ‘Elon a lot,’ despite their high-profile split earlier this year over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

At the end of the administration’s monthly Cabinet meeting, FOX Business’ Edward Lawrence asked Trump whether Musk was ‘back in [his] circle of friends’ after their falling-out.

Trump responded: ‘Well, I really don’t know. I mean, I like Elon a lot.’ He praised Musk’s endorsement during the 2024 campaign before noting their disagreement over electric-vehicle policy.

Musk was a fixture in the White House in the early days of the second Trump administration as he took on the role as the Department of Government Efficiency’s de facto leader. He served as a special government employee with the Trump administration to help lead DOGE, frequently attending Cabinet meetings and joining Trump during public events. Musk’s tenure with DOGE wrapped up at the end of May. 

Musk had also championed Trump during the 2024 election cycle, criss-crossing battleground states that ultimately all voted for the Republican candidate over former Vice President Kamala Harris. 

Trump repeatedly celebrated Musk for his efforts at DOGE to remove potential federal overspending, fraud and mismanagement – an effort assailed by government employees and Democrats who protested both the Trump administration and Musk repeatedly earlier this year. 

The cozy friendship fell to pieces in June, however, when Musk began publicly ridiculing the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill,’ which was a massive piece of legislation Trump signed into law in July that advances his agenda on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt. 

Musk railed against the legislation, which Trump had been rallying Republican lawmakers to pass since the beginning of his second term, posting on X that it would be the ‘BIGGEST DEBT ceiling increase in HISTORY’ and also claimed in a personal attack on Trump that ‘@RealDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files.’ 

Trump previously told the media that his relationship with Musk changed when he began discussing plans to eliminate the electic vehicle mandate, which would affect Musk’s signature electric company, Tesla. Trump signed a trio of congressional resolutions in June ending California’s restrictive rules for diesel engines and mandates on electric vehicle sales, with Trump celebrating that his signature ‘will kill the California mandates forever.’

The pair abruptly parted ways in June, with Musk weeks later offering some support to Trump’s presidential actions on social media, such as praising a ceasefire deal between Israel and Gaza in July.

Musk was seen physically back in Trump’s orbit in September during the memorial service for Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA’s founder who was assassinated on Sept. 10. The pair was seen sitting next to each other and chatting during the ceremony. 

Musk most recently attended a Trump event on Nov. 18 at the White House for a dinner with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, as well as dozens of high-profile business leaders. 

Trump’s latest remarks on Musk unfolded during his Cabinet meeting, which marked his ninth such meeting since the start of his second administration and matched the total number of full Cabinet meetings former President Joe Biden held across his four-year tenure. 

Senate Republicans are divided on their view of the deadly Sept. 2 strikes in the Caribbean as congressional inquiries into the matter mount, with some arguing that subduing suspected drug boats is the right move while others question the legality of the so-called double-tap attacks.

The Senate and House Armed Services committees are gearing up for hearings into the strikes after reports that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, later confirmed by the White House, authorized a second strike to eliminate survivors on a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean.

But there is a growing tension among Republicans over what to do. Some support the desire of Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., for stringent oversight of the incident, while others see the strikes as part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on drugs flowing into the country.

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital he was ‘very, very, very supportive of killing drug dealers. I think the more narco-terrorists that we kill, that we save American lives.’

‘I’m not concerned about killing people whose intent was to kill Americans at all,’ Moreno said.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Hegseth gave the green light for the second strike, but noted that it was Adm. Frank Bradley, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, who ordered and directed it.

That confirmation came after a report from The Washington Post claimed Hegseth had ordered to ‘kill them all,’ which some on the Hill have disputed.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said he read the article and charged that there ‘wasn’t an exact quote from Secretary Hegseth. There was an anonymous source paraphrased what the secretary allegedly said.’

‘So, here we’ve got a story in The Washington Post, which is known to hate Trump and Republicans, by a reporter who is citing an anonymous source that supposedly is saying that Hegseth said it before the strike even happened, but they don’t know exactly what he said,’ Kennedy said. ‘That is a waste of your time and mine.’

When pressed about Leavitt’s confirmation of the authorization, Kennedy said, ‘I don’t care what the White House press secretary said.’

Still, some Republicans want answers to what exactly happened.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., reiterated that he believed that the Senate and House Armed Services committees’ impending probes into the matter was a ‘natural place’ to look at what happened with the strikes, but he stopped short of weighing in on whether a second strike was right or wrong. 

‘Well, I don’t know the particulars yet, and that’s why we’re gonna have the — we’ll look,’ Thune said. 

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said that since the report came out, ‘We want to get to the facts.’

‘Obviously, if there was a direction to take a second shot and kill people, that’s a violation of an ethical, moral or legal code,’ Tillis said. ‘We need to get to the bottom of it. But right now, it could be, I think, was it Oxford that the word of the year is ‘rage bait’? Could be rage bait too. So we want to get to the facts.’

Senate Democrats are demanding a fulsome dive into the incident, and toeing the line of whether what transpired was a war crime.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expected to have a briefing with Bradley this week.

When asked what questions he wanted to be answered, Reed said the top priority was to find out whether the strikes comported with ‘the law of war and [Uniform Code of Military Justice] and international law.’

‘I think one of the easiest ways to begin to dispel the question is to make public the video of the strikes,’ Reed said.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., has, time and again this Congress, remained a staunch critic of action taken in Iran and in the Caribbean and moved to curtail the administration’s actions through resolutions that would stymie President Donald Trump’s war powers.

He said lawmakers needed to get to the bottom of ‘whether a war crime has been committed.’

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., was cautious not to fully paint the incident as a war crime before getting more facts, adding that he hoped the reports of the strikes were ‘not accurate.’

‘I will say, though you know as somebody who has sunk two ships myself, that folks in the military need to understand, you know, the law of the sea, the Geneva Conventions, what the law says,’ Kelly said. ‘And I’m concerned that if there were, in fact, as reported, you know, survivors clinging to a damaged vessel, that could be, you know, over a line. I hope it’s not the case.’

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is seeking to reform the funding structure for presidential libraries in an effort to reduce reliance on taxpayer funding for operational costs and allow NARA to focus more on preserving and providing access to records. 

Fourteen presidential libraries fall under the National Archives system, and that number is expected to jump to 16 for presidential libraries dedicated to Trump and former President Joe Biden. 

While NARA and the presidential foundations have their own individual agreements outlining cost-sharing burdens for these presidential libraries, taxpayer funding is going toward maintenance costs, including mowing lawns, painting walls and cleaning toilets at nearly all these buildings, according to NARA. 

Additionally, the government contracting process for quick repairs like broken door hinges filters through an approval process in Washington and can take weeks or months to be addressed, the agency said. 

As a result, NARA is in the process of negotiating with each presidential foundation on an individual basis so they can take greater ownership of the operational responsibilities for their specific library, Jim Byron, senior advisor to the archivist, told Fox News Digital.

‘Despite decades of well-intentioned oversight and stewardship of America’s presidential libraries by the National Archives, reality now dictates that operational changes can and should be made to ensure the long-term health of these American treasures,’ Byron said in a statement to Fox News Digital Monday. 

‘Presidential libraries have grown in scope and purpose, and with that growth — and with anticipated future additions to the system — comes increased expenditures to be borne by the American taxpayers.’ 

NARA spends $91 million annually on presidential libraries from appropriations, and the deferred maintenance costs across the entire library system total roughly $123 million. 

Under current negotiations that launched in the spring between NARA and the presidential foundations, shifting some of the costs to the presidential foundations is expected to save NARA $27 million. These funds will then be shifted toward NARA’s primary mission of preserving and sharing records, including digitizing and releasing more files, Byron said.

In the event that changes aren’t made to shift more operational costs to presidential foundations, NARA’s ability to focus on its mission will be jeopardized, according to Byron. 

‘The alternative is to do nothing and allow NARA’s appropriations to go to lawn care and toilet cleaning at the expense of FOIA processing, to close all presidential libraries when the government shuts down, to allow a deferred maintenance backlog to grow and to regret that presidential library structures were not addressed,’ Byron said. ‘The National Archives is committed to making sure that doesn’t happen while delivering for the American people.’

Luke Nichter, a history professor at Chapman University who said he averages 100 days annually for research and interviews with former government officials, told Fox News Digital that, given the constraints of the federal budget, it’s necessary for presidential foundations to shoulder more of the cost for upkeep of these presidential libraries.

‘It now takes about as much money to build a presidential library as it does to run for president — about a billion dollars,’ Nichter said in an email to Fox News Digital Tuesday. ‘The American taxpayer should not bear that. The administration deserves credit for starting an important conversation about the future of these cherished institutions.

‘In the future, the National Archives will have to focus more closely on what it does well — the preservation of federal and presidential records — and leave other functions to the presidential foundations.’ 

This most recent effort aligns with other initiatives underway at the National Archives aimed at redirecting efforts to the agency’s mission, including working with other agencies to release the John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Amelia Earhart files. 

The presidential library structure varies, and NARA and each presidential foundation have their own separate public-private agreements. Typically, though, private funds are used to create a presidential library, which NARA then oversees using federal funding.

But this isn’t always the case. For example, the Obama Foundation is an entirely private entity and did not choose to construct a library for NARA to store documents, instead opting to build a private presidential center and private museum. As a result, NARA digitized and stored Obama presidential records at an existing NARA site and still oversees preserving and providing access to those records. 

Previous efforts to revamp the funding partnership between government and private entities successfully occurred in 2018, when NARA coordinated with each presidential foundation to discuss which operations it could take on amid increased budget constraints. Ultimately, those negotiations led to NARA and the George W. Bush Foundation securing a new deal splitting operational costs.