The Israel Defense Forces and Israel Security Agency have exposed what they describe as a secret Hamas money-exchange network operating in central Turkey ‘under Iran’s direction,’ according to documents and statements released this week.

According to the intelligence released by the IDF and ISA, exiled Gazans based in Turkey have used the country’s financial infrastructure to move large sums of money for Hamas, with transfers totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

The agencies say the network operates in cooperation with the Iranian regime, transferring funds to Hamas and its senior officials and, according to Israel, helping the group rebuild its capabilities outside Gaza.

The newly exposed documents include records of currency transfers amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, which officials say represent only a small portion of the overall activity.

According to the Israeli security agencies, the network receives, stores, and transfers Iranian funds from within Turkey.

The IDF and ISA identified three Gazan operatives working in Turkey whom they say are central to the network: Tamer Hassan, described as a senior official in Hamas’s finance office in Turkey operating directly under Khalil al-Hayya, and currency exchangers Khalil Farwana and Farid Abu Dair.

Israel says Iran’s backing has remained constant and that Hamas continues to rebuild its operational capabilities beyond the borders of the Gaza Strip.

The timing of the IDF and ISA revelations comes amid an ongoing U.S. debate over Turkey’s regional role and its relationship with Hamas. Fox News has previously reported that Turkey has hosted Hamas figures for years and has sought a leading role in postwar Gaza, even as the Trump administration weighs whether to allow Turkish troops to participate in a U.S.-backed stabilization mission.

Sinan Ciddi, a Turkey expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital that Ankara’s political protection of Hamas — paired with its hostility toward Israeli military actions — has created a permissive sanctuary that Israeli pressure alone cannot shut down. 

Ciddi argues the presence of Turkish-based operatives shows how Hamas has diversified its financial footprint to evade sanctions and border controls. Ciddi added that for Israel, ‘this is not just a financial concern but a strategic warning signal’, arguing that Iran is embedding itself deeper into Turkey’s economic ecosystem and enabling a regional proxy to regenerate and project forces. If left unchecked, he warned, ‘the network could fuel future attacks and expand Hamas’s influence across the region, undermining Israel’s war aims and long-term security.’

In a recent interview with Fox News Digital, Gonul Tol, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and author of ‘Erdoğan’s War: A Strongman’s Struggle at Home and in Syria,’ said Turkey’s aggressive Gaza posture is deeply tied to Erdoğan’s domestic political survival and his longstanding support for Islamist movements across the region.

‘The primary goal there is domestic politics,’ she said. ‘Erdoğan has always framed himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause, and by his most conservative constituency, he’s often pushed to take a strong stance against Israel.’

But Tol noted that Erdoğan has also been pragmatic behind the scenes, particularly in his dealings with Washington. ‘People in his circle say the Hamas leadership had been asked to leave Turkey quietly. They are doing everything not to anger the Trump administration,’ she said.

She added that Erdoğan even pushed Hamas to accept Trump’s Gaza proposal, noting that it included provisions that did not favor the organization.

Israeli officials have long argued that Turkey’s permissive environment has allowed Hamas to operate external networks, including financial arms backed by Iran, and say the newly released intelligence underscores the risks of allowing Turkey deeper involvement in Gaza’s future.

In announcing the findings, the IDF and ISA warned individuals and institutions against engaging with the exposed network or any other financial arms linked to Hamas, saying such interactions risk contributing to terrorist financing and aiding Hamas’s attempts to reconstitute its infrastructure abroad.

The Turkish Embassy did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

One of the few U.S. lawmakers who have seen classified footage of the U.S. military’s strikes against a suspected drug boat off the coast of Venezuela believes the public should get to see the evidence, too.

‘I think it’s really important that this video be made public. It’s not lost on anyone, of course, that the interpretation of the video, which you know, six or seven of us had an opportunity to see last week, broke down precisely on party lines,’ Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said in an interview with ‘Face the Nation’ on Sunday.

‘I know how the public is going to react, because I felt my own reaction,’ Himes added.

Democrats quickly condemned the administration when news first broke that the U.S. Department of War had ordered a second strike to eliminate survivors who had somehow escaped an initial strike.

Republicans, by contrast, largely came to the defense of the strike, arguing that the administration had taken the necessary steps to eliminate narco-traffickers that President Donald Trump had designated as terrorists.

The War Department has ordered over 20 different strikes on small boats in the Caribbean, targeting what it calls drug smuggling activity. 

Only one strike is thought to have had multiple attacks to eliminate survivors.

‘I think it’s important for Americans to see it because, look, there’s a certain amount of sympathy out there for going after drug runners,’ Himes said. ‘But I think it’s really important that people see what it looks like when the full force of the United States military is turned on two guys who are clinging to a piece of wood and about to go under, just so that they have sort of a visceral feel for what it is that we’re doing.’

Himes said his estimation of the video turned on the defenselessness of the targets. 

‘These guys — and this is why the American people need to see this video — these guys were barely alive, much less engaging in hostilities,’ Himes said.

In addition to viewing the footage, Himes said he had met with Adm. Frank Bradley, suggesting that Bradley had received pressure to carry out the strikes.

‘Anyone who has ever worked with Adm. Bradley will tell you that he has a storied career and that he is a man of deep, deep integrity. And frankly, I have no reason to doubt that,’ Himes said.

‘An apparently good man like Adm. Bradley is placed in a context where he knows that if he countermands an order that he is perhaps uncomfortable with, it is very likely that he’ll be fired,’ Himes said.

The details of the communication surrounding the second strike and its ordering remain unclear. 

The House of Representatives and the Senate both opened inquiries into the strikes late last month. When asked about their progress, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, declined to describe the probe but said lawmakers would evaluate all relevant evidence.

‘The investigation will be done by the numbers,’ Wicker said.

Congress is moving to limit the Pentagon’s ability to pull forces out of Europe and South Korea, easing concerns among allied governments.

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, finalized by House and Senate negotiators and released Sunday evening, keeps force presence at roughly its current levels in both regions. It states that the U.S. cannot reduce its forces in Europe below 76,000 without submitting an assessment and certifying to Congress that such a move would not harm U.S. or NATO security interests.

The bill places restraints on reductions below 28,500 in South Korea. Any drawdown would require the Pentagon to assure Congress that deterrence against North Korea would not be weakened, confirm that allies were consulted, and provide both a national security justification and an assessment of regional impact.

The legislation also requires the U.S. to retain the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), NATO’s top military post, codifying into statute a role traditionally held by an American general.

These limits follow reports that the Pentagon had considered reducing forces in Europe and South Korea and even relinquishing the SACEUR position. Whether those ideas reflected genuine planning or were intended as pressure on allies to invest more in their own defenses, U.S. leaders have recently signaled they are stepping back from such moves even without congressional restrictions.

During a meeting last week with U.S. national security officials and European leaders, American officials told their counterparts that Europe must be prepared to bear the brunt of NATO’s defense responsibilities by 2027, three European officials familiar with the meeting told Fox News Digital.

The U.S. plans to hold onto the SACEUR position but will offer some other senior NATO military posts to European nations, officials said. They also noted that Washington has no near-term plans for major troop reductions in Europe.

‘We’ve been very clear in the need for Europeans to lead in the conventional defense of Europe.  We are committed to working through NATO coordination mechanisms to strengthen the alliance and ensure its long-term viability as European allies increasing take on responsibility for conventional deterrence and defense in Europe,’ Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said in response. 

Earlier this year, the Army pulled a rotating brigade stationed largely in Romania back to the United States, prompting European allies to question whether that move might signal the beginning of broader U.S. force drawdowns on NATO’s eastern flank.

The NDAA — the yearly must-pass package outlining the Pentagon’s spending and policy priorities — is expected to move swiftly to a House vote this week. Congress aims to have the legislation on the president’s desk before Christmas.

The bill also includes $400 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative over two years and an amendment specifying when the Pentagon may reclaim equipment purchased for Ukraine but not yet delivered: only when the equipment is urgently needed for an ongoing or imminent U.S. contingency operation and failing to use it would risk loss of life or critical mission failure.

This provision follows the Pentagon’s decision earlier this year to pause delivery of certain U.S.-funded military equipment to Ukraine.

Over the weekend, War Secretary Pete Hegseth described South Korea and several European nations as ‘model allies.’

‘Model allies that step up, like Israel, South Korea, Poland, increasingly Germany, the Baltics and others, will receive our special favor,’ he said at the Reagan National Defense Forum. ‘Allies that still fail to do their part for collective defense will face consequences.’

The Senate is readying for a vote on extending expiring Obamacare premium subsidies, but the proposal on the table is all but certain to fail.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., unveiled Senate Democrats’ long-awaited plan to prevent the subsidies from lapsing, which Senate Republicans nearly universally panned. A vote on the plan is expected on Thursday.

‘I mean, it’s obviously designed to fail,’ Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital.

Schumer’s proposal would extend the subsidies for another three years without any of the reforms demanded by the GOP. And bipartisan talks that have been ongoing since the government shutdown ended have virtually ground to a halt.

Thune said when the proposal fails, ‘if they want to have a serious conversation about a real solution, that can get underway.’

‘But, you know, we haven’t decided yet exactly what we’re going to do. But what that signals, though, and evidences, is they’re just not serious,’ he said.

Senate Republicans have not landed on their own proposal and may not before the upper chamber leaves Washington, D.C., next week until the start of the New Year.

There are several plans circulating among Republicans to choose from, but none have gained enough traction or support to hit the floor in a possible side-by-side vote.

The subsidies, which were initially passed under former President Joe Biden during the COVID-19 pandemic and then enhanced to virtually remove any income caps — one of the many sticking points for Republicans — are set to expire by the end of the year.

While the Senate struggles to find a way forward, lawmakers are quick to point the finger at who would own the subsidies’ expiration.

Senate Republicans contend that it’s Schumer and Senate Democrats who are to blame, given that they set the subsidies to sunset by the end of this year when they controlled the Senate. And Senate Democrats argue that Republicans would own the issue since they have yet to produce their own proposal.

Schumer argued that Republicans have ‘chosen to do nothing, absolutely nothing,’ as the deadline creeps closer. And he believes that Senate Democrats’ plan could succeed, despite a likely insurmountable math problem.

‘It is not a nonstarter, 13 votes could solve the problem,’ Schumer said. ‘That’s where the onus should be.’

But the plan is a nonstarter for Republicans for several reasons, including the lack of reforms, the length and that it has no inclusion of Hyde Amendment language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions — a tricky issue that has largely derailed bipartisan negotiations.

Meanwhile, Republicans are eyeing a proposal that would send the subsidy money directly to Americans in the form of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), a plan first pushed by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., and then co-opted by President Donald Trump.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., has been working on an HSA plan that he presented, among other ideas, last week to Senate Republicans during their closed-door lunch. Still, lawmakers exited the meeting and left Washington by the end of the week, without a counteroffer to Senate Democrats’ dead-on-arrival proposal.

‘The president gave the marching orders. We’re working on it. We want to deliver it,’ Cassidy told Fox News’ Shannon Bream.

The Department of Health and Human Services has altered the official portrait of a transgender former Biden administration official to display the individual’s birth name, rather than adopted name.

The former official, who currently goes by Rachel Levine, achieved the rank of admiral and served in President Joe Biden’s administration as an assistant secretary for health. Levine was born a male and was the first transgender person to secure a Senate confirmation.

Up until the government shutdown this year, Levine’s portrait plaque in the HHS offices featured the name ‘Rachel Levine,’ but it now displays the official’s birth name, ‘Richard Levine.’

‘Our priority is ensuring that the information presented internally and externally by HHS reflects gold standard science. We remain committed to reversing harmful policies enacted by Levine and ensuring that biological reality guides our approach to public health,’ HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement.

Levine responded to the move both personally and through a spokesman in statements to NPR.

‘During the federal shutdown, the current leadership of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health changed Admiral Levine’s photo to remove her current legal name and use a prior name,’ Adrian Shanker, a spokesman for Levine, told NPR, going on to describe the move as an act ‘of bigotry against her.’

‘I’m not going to comment on this type of petty action,’ Levine told the outlet.

Levine was a steady source of controversy during the Biden administration, claiming that there was ‘no argument’ regarding effectiveness and safety of transgender medical procedures, and claiming that hormone blockers ought to be used to stop children from ‘going through the wrong puberty.’

‘Gender-affirming care is medical care,’ Levine said in 2023. ‘Gender-affirming care is mental health care. Gender-affirming care is literally suicide prevention care.’

President Donald Trump and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., have been taking shots at each other on social media Monday, following Greene’s Sunday night appearance on ’60 Minutes’ in which she drew the president’s ire.

Greene, who is set to retire from Congress when her term ends in January, said during the interview that Republicans are ‘terrified’ of not going along with Trump and being the subject of an angry Truth Social post. During the interview, Lesley Stahl asked Greene, ‘Are you MAGA?’ Greene replied, ‘I am America first.’

Trump took to the social media platform Monday morning with his sights set on Greene.

‘The only reason Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Brown (Green turns Brown under stress!) went BAD is that she was JILTED by the President of the United States (Certainly not the first time she has been jilted!). Too much work, not enough time, and her ideas are, NOW, really BAD – She sort of reminds me of a Rotten Apple! Marjorie is not AMERICA FIRST or MAGA, because nobody could have changed her views so fast, and her new views are those of a very dumb person,’ Trump declared in part of a lengthy Truth Social post on Monday.

Greene fired back, repudiating the president’s assertion.

‘I AM AMERICA FIRST,’ she declared in a post on X, adding the American flag emoji. ‘Thank you for your attention to this matter.’

Her post included a graphic indicating she received $0 from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and that she ‘condemns Israel for committing genocide.’ Next to that was another graphic indicating that for Trump, there had been millions in ‘independent expenditures & campaign contributions received from pro-Israel interest groups.’ 

Fox News Digital reached out to Greene’s office on Monday for additional comment, but she did not immediately respond.

Greene had also been going after Trump over the weekend, before her interview aired.

In a Sunday post on X, Greene claimed Trump turned on her after she ‘stood with the Epstein Survivors.’ She also said the president had fired off ‘harsh accusatory replies and zero sympathy’ after she alerted him about threats made against her adult son’s life.

A White House official told Fox News Digital that the messages Greene cited had been referred to the FBI.

Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, who chairs the Senate Small Business Committee, is urging 24 federal agencies to halt funding for a Biden-expanded program for ‘socially and economically disadvantaged’ business owners now under fire for alleged fraud and corruption, Fox News Digital has learned.

‘Despite concerns with the 8(a) program, Joe Biden opened the floodgates to fraud,’Ernst told Fox News Digital about the program. ‘I have found evidence of alarming, potentially fraudulent 8(a) awards made across government that need to be investigated. The program must be halted at every agency while a thorough review is conducted to ensure taxpayers are not being ripped off by con artists. Tax dollars designed to help small businesses must actually benefit all small businesses.’

The federal government’s 8(a) program is an initiative under the Small Business Administration (SBA) to assist ‘socially and economically disadvantaged’ small businesses, according to the agency’s website, including training and counseling, and exclusive access to federal contracting opportunities.

Ernst sent letters to the chiefs of 24 federal agencies that have established 8(a) programs — stretching from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — calling on them to halt funding amid fraud concerns. 

‘The SBA’s 8(a) program is the largest set-aside program at the agency, which dished out $40+ billion in contract awards during fiscal year 2024 (FY 24) alone,’ Ernst wrote in the letters. ‘Yet decades of Government Accountability Office (GAO), SBA’s Office of Inspector General, and DOJ probes expose the same rot. Sloppy oversight and weak enforcement measures allow 8(a) participants to act as pass-through entities, snagging unlimited no-bid deals with little transparency.4 Every loophole guts public trust and rigs the system against honest competitors.’

Ernst said the Biden administration tripled the initiative’s contracting goals from an original aim of awarding 5% of federal contracts to 8(a) companies, up to 15% during his tenure. Ernst pointed to a recent Department of Justice bust in her push to halt funding, as well as an October guerrilla-style sting interview conducted by James O’Keefe that allegedly uncovered an 8(a) firm admitting ‘to Violating Federal Law, Using Minority-Owned Status as a Front to Obtain $100M+ No-Bid Government Contracts While Outsourcing 80% of the Work.’

The Department of Justice in June arrested four individuals in Maryland and Florida for running an alleged decade-long bribery scheme involving at least 14 8(a) contracts worth over $550 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars. One of the four men arrested was a government contractor for the United States Agency for International Development, according to the Department of Justice. The men pleaded guilty in the scheme. 

The scheme involved bribes such as cash, NBA tickets and a country club wedding, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Mike Emanuel reported in June. 

SBA Chief Kelly Loeffler ordered a full audit of all government contracting officers who have exercised grant-awarding authority under the agency’s business development program over the past 15 years back in June. She said the agency’s audit would begin with high-dollar and limited competition contracts within SBA’s 8(a) business development program. 

Loeffler, following O’Keefe’s investigation, opened an investigation related to that contract, she reported on X in October. 

The 8(a) program is facing intensifying heat after Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent announced ‘a comprehensive audit of all contracts and task orders awarded under preference-based contracting, totaling approximately $9 billion in contract value across Treasury and its bureaus’ in November. 

The audit is focused on the ‘Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program, and other initiatives that provide federal contracting preferences to certain eligible businesses,’ the department reported at the time. 

That same month, Ernst introduced legislation, ‘Stop 8(a) Contracting Fraud Act,’ to halt funding to all new no-bid awards until a thorough audit and report of the program is conducted. 

Loeffler additionally sent letters to all 4,300 8(a) contractors across the federal government, which ordered ‘them to produce financial records as part of a comprehensive effort to root out fraud, waste, and abuse,’ she posted to X Friday. 

‘Evidence indicates that the 8(a) Program, initially designed for ‘socially and economically disadvantaged’ businesses, has become a pass-through vehicle for rampant abuse — especially during the Biden Administration, which aggressively prioritized DEI over merit in federal contracting,’ Loeffler added. 

‘While there’s no doubt that the Biden Administration’s indifference toward 8(a) program integrity enabled swindlers and fraudsters to treat federal contracting programs like personal piggy banks, 8(a) program flaws have raised alarm bells for decades,’ Ernst continued in her letters. 

Ernst is calling on the chiefs of the 24 agencies to pause contracting, audit current contracts, review set-aside contracts awarded by the respective agencies since fiscal year 2020 and to report to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship with any findings by Dec. 22. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s office regarding his administration’s expansion of the program and recent investigations into alleged fraud schemes, but did not immediately receive a reply.

Fox News Digital’s Andrew Mark Miller and Peter Pinedo contributed to this report. 

A sweeping new report warns that America’s top universities, including MIT, Stanford, Harvard and Princeton, have been quietly partnering with Chinese artificial intelligence labs deeply embedded in Beijing’s surveillance and security state and in some cases co-authoring thousands of papers with entities tied to oppressive efforts against Uyghur Muslims.

The report, released by Strategy Risks and the Human Rights Foundation on Monday morning, shows that two major Chinese state-backed labs, Zhejiang Lab and the Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (SAIRI), have co-authored roughly 3,000 papers with Western researchers since 2020. 

The labs have direct ties to CETC, the CCP’s defense conglomerate that has sanctioned building the Xinjiang surveillance platform used to target Uyghur Muslims as part of an overall campaign against the group that the Biden and Trump administrations have labeled a ‘genocide.’

‘With Western support and U.S.government funding, the labs have developed technologies in multi-object tracking, gait recognition, and infrared detection,’ Strategy Risks said in a press release. ‘These collaborations facilitated human rights abuses, mass surveillance, and the transfer of sensitive U.S. technology to Chinese companies linked to the Chinese Communist Party.’

The authors stress that the core problem is not covert espionage, but the ‘shocking normalization’ of Western institutions treating Chinese security-linked labs as ordinary research partners, even though Chinese law requires all such entities to support state surveillance and intelligence efforts.

Inside China, no research entities are independent of the CCP, the study emphasizes, while explaining that China’s national security, intelligence, cybersecurity and data security laws compel all organizations, including supposedly civilian research labs, to share information with state security services, meaning Western research can be absorbed directly into systems of repression.

‘The findings show a staggering lack of interest among top Western AI ethics organizations and academic departments with respect to how the CCP weaponizes AI against its own citizens,’ Alex Gladstein, chief strategy officer of the Human Rights Foundation, told Fox News Digital.

‘Often, these organizations simply refuse to address AI and Chinese human rights issues. As the report reveals, there are often financial incentives and ties that prevent anyone from speaking up. HRF’s AI program exists to call out this hypocrisy and drive new investigative research into dictators and how they abuse AI to repress their citizens, while at the same time investing in open-source privacy protecting AI tools to expand individual freedom.’

The report also criticizes leading Western AI ethics institutes, including those at Oxford, Cambridge, MIT and Berkeley, for largely remaining silent on China’s use of AI for repression from 2020 to 2025, even as their universities continued collaborations. Only two organizations publicly condemned Beijing’s practices during that period.

Over the past decade, China has built the world’s most expansive digital police state in Xinjiang, where more than 1 million Uyghur Muslims have been subjected to mass detention, forced labor, coercive ‘re-education’ and blanket surveillance that tracks faces, voices, movements and even biometric data. 

‘The Chinese government systematically deploys surveillance technologies to target rights advocates, ethnic minorities — particularly Uyghurs and other Muslim populations in Xinjiang — and political dissidents,’ the study says.

The report concludes that without new guardrails, Western universities and public research agencies will continue supplying technical breakthroughs that ‘flow seamlessly into China’s apparatus of repression.’

 The authors call for mandatory human-rights due diligence for international research partnerships, greater transparency on foreign co-authorships, and limits on collaboration with Chinese state-linked labs tied to surveillance and defense.

Fox News Digital reached out to MIT, Harvard and Princeton for comment.

The Supreme Court will weigh the legality of President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause on Monday — a blockbuster legal fight that could fundamentally reshape the balance of powers across the federal government, and formally topple a 90-year-old court precedent.  

Justices agreed earlier this year to take up the case, which centers on Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, without cause and well before her term was slated to expire in 2029. 

Slaughter sued immediately to challenge her removal, arguing that it violated protections the Supreme Court enshrined in Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that restricted a president’s ability to remove the heads of independent agencies, such as the FTC, without cause. 

Slaughter also argued her removal violates the Federal Trade Commission Act, or a 1914 law passed by Congress that shields FTC members from being removed by a president except in circumstances of ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’

A federal judge sided with Slaughter’s lawyers in July, agreeing that her firing unlawfully exceeded Trump’s executive branch powers and ordered her reinstated. The Supreme Court in September stayed that decision temporarily, allowing Trump’s firing to remain in effect pending their review.

The Supreme Court’s willingness to review the case is a sign that justices might be ready to do away completely with Humphrey’s protections, which have already been weakened significantly over the last 20 years. Allowing Humphey’s to be watered down further, or overturned completely, could allow sitting presidents to wield more authority in ordering the at-will firing of members of other federal regulatory agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission, among others, and replacing them with persons of their choosing.

The six conservative justices on the high court signaled as much when they agreed to review the case earlier this year. (Justices split along ideological lines in agreeing to take up the case, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.)

.

They asked both parties to come prepared to address two key questions in oral arguments: First, whether the removal protections for FTC members ‘violates the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor, should be overruled,’ and whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, ‘either through relief at equity or at law.’

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has asked the high court to overrule Humphrey’s. He argued in a filing that the FTC authorities of today vastly exceed the authorities granted to the commission in 1935. ‘The notion that some agencies that exercise executive power can be sequestered from presidential control seriously offends the Constitution’s structure and the liberties that the separation of powers protects,’ he said.

A decision is expected to be handed down by the end of June.

The case, Trump v. Slaughter, is one of four cases the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has agreed to review this term that centers on key separation of powers issues, and questions involving the so-called unitary executive theory. 

Critics have cited concerns that the court’s decision to take up the cases could eliminate lasting bulwarks in place to protect against the whims of a sitting president, regardless of political party.

It also comes as justices for the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority have grappled with a flurry of similar lawsuits filed this year by other Trump-fired Democratic board members, including Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

The arguments in Trump v. Slaughter will be closely watched and are expected to inform how the court will consider a similar case in January, centered on Trump’s attempted ouster of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

Since taking office, Trump has signed hundreds of executive orders and ordered sweeping personnel actions that have restructured federal agencies and led to mass layoffs across federal agencies, including leaders that were believed to be insulated from the whims of a sitting president.

House Republicans are expected to reveal a roadmap sometime this month that they say will lower sky-high healthcare costs.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., have both said they are speaking to various GOP factions to build consensus on what that plan should look like.

In the meantime, Fox News Digital spoke with several GOP lawmakers about what they believe should be in such a package and found several commonalities on what they expect.

‘Health savings accounts (HSAs) need to be expanded to as many individual healthcare recipients or premium payers in our country. Like right now, it’s the people that can access a health savings account, usually high-deductible, catastrophic coverage, those types of plans,’ said House GOP Conference Vice Chair Blake Moore, R-Utah. ‘They’re really well-used, but they need to be extended so basically all Americans on some type of health insurance policy can use health savings accounts.’

HSAs are accounts that allow people to set aside money pre-tax to pay for certain health expenses, but they are currently only available to people with high-deductible health insurance plans.

Expanding HSA use proved a common theme among House Republicans who spoke with Fox News Digital about what they want to see in their party’s health plan.

Another topic that came up frequently was reforming the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) system, an issue that’s gotten bipartisan support in the past.

PBMs are third parties that act as intermediaries between pharmaceutical companies and those responsible for insurance coverage, often responsible for administrative tasks and negotiating drug prices.

PBMs have also been the subject of bipartisan ire in Congress, with both Republicans and Democrats accusing them of being part of a broken system to inflate health costs.

‘I had my own pharmacies for over 32 years, and I can tell you, bringing prescription drug prices down is as simple as is addressing the middleman, the PBMs that are causing increases and causing prices to stay high for drugs,’ Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., said. ‘That is one of the quickest and the easiest ways to bring prescription drug prices down, by reeling them in.’

Republican lawmakers also more broadly called for a competitive marketplace of health insurance plans.

While few said they had any appetite for actually repealing and replacing the Obamacare system, most said they wanted Americans to have more options than just the federal program when choosing their own healthcare.

‘We see that Obamacare has now been around for almost 14 years, and it’s more expensive, and we have less choices than ever before. So Obamacare is not working, and I think that’s what we need to focus on,’ said Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind. ‘There’s plans already being put in place by the administration, by groups in the Republican Party, that want to focus on making sure healthcare is affordable, and it’s available and that people can make choices rather than being told who which doctor they have to go to.’

Democrats have warned that healthcare costs are set to spike for millions of Americans if the subsidies are not extended. But House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., said costs are poised to rise either way if Congress does not act soon.

‘All Americans are getting a health insurance premium increase this coming year of 20 to 30%. Even if we did what they wanted us to do — and I’m not saying that we won’t, because the White House might have a plan to continue it, the Senate might have a plan. Mike Johnson might do something, but even if we do that, you realize that it’s only gonna cover about 4% of that 20 to 30% increase. It’s not solving the problem,’ Emmer said.

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., told Fox News Digital he wanted to see a healthcare package that focuses on doctors in rural areas, as well as reforms for hospital care.

‘I’ve got to make sure that what we do is right for that independent practicing physician, that small-town pharmacist. And so we have to make sure we’re taking care of rural America with what we do, as well as the hospitals that we would all go to if we had, you know, cancer treatment or something like that,’ he said.

None of the conservatives who spoke with Fox News Digital expressed support for extending Obamacare tax credits that were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic, but which are set to expire at the end of this year.

It’s a push led by Democrats and some Republicans, however, who have introduced a range of options, from a one-year extension with certain reforms to House Democratic leaders’ push for a clean, three-year extension.

But whatever lawmakers come up with will likely have to get 60 votes to advance in the Senate, meaning some support from the left will be needed.

‘There’s a lot of good bipartisan healthcare policy legislation that can pass imminently and very soon, unless Democrats play the game of, ‘Oh, I don’t want it to look like the Republicans are being productive on healthcare, so we’re gonna stymie this, even though I agree with the policy,’’ Moore said.