House Republicans have released a 111-page plan for reforming healthcare that they hope to vote on next week.

House GOP leadership aides also told reporters on Friday afternoon that they expected a vote on extending enhanced Obamacare subsidies to also happen next week as part of the amendment process to the final bill, called the ‘Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act.’ The subsidies have been the subject of fierce inter-party debate for Republicans.

‘We expect that there will be an amendment that I believe is being worked on, so the process will allow for that amendment,’ aides said.

The plan as-is includes provisions to codify association health plans, which allow small businesses and people who are self-employed to band together to purchase healthcare coverage plans, giving them access to greater bargaining power.

Republicans also plan to appropriate funding for cost-sharing reductions beginning in 2027, which are designed to lower out-of-pocket medical costs in the individual healthcare market. House GOP leadership aides said it would bring down the cost of premiums by 12%.

New transparency requirements for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are also in the legislation, aimed at forcing PBMs to be more upfront about costs to employers.

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.

But the most divisive measure for Republicans is likely not yet fleshed out. 

A majority of House Republicans are against extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies, which were designed to get affordable health insurance for more Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Democrats voted to pass the enhanced subsidies in 2021 and extended them through 2022 when they controlled Congress.

A group of moderate House Republicans has joined Democrats now in vehemently pushing for those subsidies to be extended again, as millions of Americans face near-certain healthcare price hikes beginning in January.

Two separate bipartisan efforts have been launched to force a vote on extending the subsidies in some form. But any such push would require support from virtually all House Democrats to succeed, and their leaders have not given their blessing to either plan.

‘We’re going to evaluate every single good faith proposal. But it has to meaningfully provide certainty to the American people who are at risk of having their health care ripped away from them,’ House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told reporters on Friday.

But conservatives have warned they would not support any such extension unless paired with significant reforms to what they view as a long-broken system that fuels healthcare price inflation.

‘I think that would be a disastrous plan. I mean, we’ve clearly seen that Obamacare is the Titanic. It’s going down. I think throwing money after it is just going to be wasteful,’ House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox News’ Chad Pergram on Friday.

A top Senate Republican argued that if allegations against ‘Squad’ member Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., that she married her brother to enter the U.S. were true, she’d be breaking several laws.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, joined the long-standing scrutiny against Omar Friday after President Donald Trump revived the allegations during a rally pushing his affordability agenda in Pennsylvania earlier this week.

In a post on X responding to a White House social media account that charged, ‘Yes, [Omar] married her brother,’ Cruz listed a trio of federal and state laws the progressive lawmaker may have violated.

‘If this is true, then Omar faces criminal liability under three different statutes,’ Cruz said.

Cruz argued that Omar could have committed federal marriage fraud, which stipulates that it is a felony to knowingly enter into a marriage to evade immigration laws, and could lead to up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and deportation.

Omar was born in Somalia and came to the U.S. in 1995 after her family was granted asylum. She became a citizen in 2000. Omar, who is Muslim, has been married legally three times, first in a religious marriage to Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi in 2002, then to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009 before later divorcing and legally marrying Hirsi. In 2020, she married political aide Tim Mynett. 

Cruz noted that Omar could also be breaking Minnesota’s state incest law, a felony in the state punishable by jail time up to 10 years. He also contended that she could be liable for tax fraud, specifically if joint tax returns were filed while she was not legally married.

That violation would levy up to a $100,000 fine and up to three years in prison.

The Senate Republican’s legal analysis of the situation comes after Trump resurrected the unsubstantiated claims that Omar had married her brother for immigration purposes that have dogged the lawmaker since she entered politics nearly a decade ago. She has denied the allegations.

Still, Trump charged, ‘She married her brother to get in, right?’

‘If I married my sister to get my citizenship, do you think I’d last for about two hours or something less than that? She married her brother to get in,’ he said. ‘Therefore, she’s here illegally. She should get the hell out.’

Fox News Digital did not immediately hear back for comment from Omar’s office.

GOP House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said he plans to commence contempt of Congress proceedings against Bill and Hillary Clinton for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas related to its ongoing probe into the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. 

In July, a bipartisan House Oversight Subcommittee approved motions to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton and a slew of other high-profile political figures to aid its investigation looking into how the federal government handled Epstein’s sex trafficking case. 

The subpoenas were then sent out in early August, and the Clinton’s were scheduled to testify Dec. 17-18. 

‘It has been more than four months since Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed to sit for depositions related to our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s horrific crimes. Throughout that time, the former president and former secretary of state have delayed, obstructed, and largely ignored the committee staff’s efforts to schedule their testimony,’ Comer said in a press release issued Friday evening.

‘If the Clintons fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January, the Oversight Committee will begin contempt of Congress proceedings to hold them accountable.’

Comer’s threats come as Democrats from the House Oversight Committee released a new batch of photos obtained from Epstein’s estate, which included further images of the disgraced financier with powerful figures like President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Thousands of images were reportedly released, with potentially more to come.

Other high-profile figures subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee include James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales.

In addition to testimony from these individuals, Comer and the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for all documents and communications pertaining to the case against Epstein.

In September, the committee released tens of thousands of pages of Epstein-related records in compliance with the subpoena, and the Oversight Committee indicated the DOJ would continue producing even more records as it works through needed redactions and other measures that must occur before they are released.

James Boasberg, the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and a Biden appointee, is a judicial disgrace. Boasberg’s recent rulings show he is unfit for the bench.

His repeated abuse of judicial power, whether undermining national security, releasing violent threats, or enabling unlawful surveillance, demonstrates a blatant disregard for the Constitution and a dangerous partisan agenda that disqualifies him from holding a lifetime appointment.

The time has come for the House of Representatives to do its job and impeach him.

The Constitution fixes the term of service for a judge as ‘during good Behaviour.’ The Constitution also dictates that impeachment is proper for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’  House Democrats in 2020 argued an official can get impeached for an abuse of power even without a statutory crime, setting an important precedent. The Constitution draws no distinction between the requirements for impeaching Executive Branch and Judicial Branch officials. What is good for the Executive Branch goose is just as good for the Judicial Branch gander, so the House should not hesitate to pursue a judicial impeachment.

Boasberg’s first act of misconduct occurred during a judicial conference. During the earliest stages of President Trump’s second term, Boasberg expressed the view to Chief Justice John Roberts that President Trump would not follow court orders. The President has not violated a court order. Boasberg’s claim had no basis and was plainly partisan. Boasberg baselessly told Chief Justice Roberts that Trump wouldn’t follow court orders, an unfounded partisan claim that undermines any expectation of impartiality.

Tren de Aragua is a barbaric international state-sponsored terrorist organization from Venezuela. MS-13 is an animalistic gang based in El Salvador.  Thousands of these gang members have come to the United States and perpetrated horrific acts. In March, the Trump administration deported hundreds of these barbarians to El Salvador, where they were sent to a maximum security prison. Boasberg issued a highly illegal and dangerous order directing the government to turn around planes as they were in international airspace, flying over the Gulf of America. In doing so, Boasberg exposed an ongoing military operation and gave an order that could have endangered Americans.

Why would we have security in place in the United States to deal with an unexpected influx of hundreds of dangerous terrorist, because some rabidly partisan judge just illegally opened his courtroom and stunningly attempted to sabotage an ongoing military operation? Rather, the security footprint was in El Salvador—hundreds of military, intel, and law-enforcement officials—where the terrorists were expected to land. There was also a serious risk to the personnel on the planes, given that they had a limited fuel supply and were in the middle of the Gulf of America. Boasberg showed a blatant disregard for these serious risks in issuing a highly illegal and dangerous order that he lacked jurisdiction to give.

The planes landed in El Salvador, and Boasberg began contempt proceedings. Even after a D.C. Circuit panel rejected his reasoning, Boasberg pressed ahead, ordering the administration to detail its deliberations that March day. The Justice Department is objecting, asserting that Boasberg is violating the foundational principle of separation of powers by having executive branch officials illegally divulge privileged internal discussions.

Moreover, Boasberg played a key role in Operation Arctic Frost—one of the most dangerous spy scandals in our history. Biden Special Counsel Jack Smith, a political scud missile sent to take out President Trump via lawfare with the full blessing of Biden and his Justice Department, subpoenaed the phone records of nearly a dozen U.S. senators. Boasberg issued a gag order preventing the phone companies from disclosing the information for a year. With no basis, he reasoned that disclosure could lead to destruction of evidence and witness intimidation. The relevant statute, 2 U.S.C. § 6628, explicitly requires disclosure to the Senate when such spying occurs. Boasberg now is attempting to weasel his way out of this jam, claiming that he did not know that Smith was seeking the senators’ records. Either Boasberg is lying, or he was an illegal rubber stamp who signed whatever Smith put under his nose. It is disgraceful, and Boasberg, citing the same separation-of-powers claim that the Justice Department is using in the contempt proceeding, refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee last week.

Finally, Boasberg has shown a flippant concern for the security of President Trump. Nathalie Rose Jones is a deeply disturbed woman. She made a social media post threatening to disembowel President Trump. She admitted to the post when the Secret Service visited her. Then, Jones attended a protest and was spotted near the White House carrying a knife. Authorities arrested her, and even Democrat-appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, exercising the most basic level of common sense, ordered her held without bail. Then, Boasberg stepped in and overruled Upadhyaya, releasing Jones to go home with an electronic monitor.

Boasberg has not simply issued a ruling with which conservatives disagree. Boasberg instead has engaged in a pattern of impeachment-worthy behavior—extremely lawless and dangerous partisan rulings—that shows no signs of ending. He is bolder than ever, refusing to testify before Congress and proceeding merrily along with his absurd contempt vendetta. The House disgraced itself with two impeachments of President Trump. It is time for the House to redeem itself by bringing reason back to the impeachment process. Boasberg is a more-than-worthy candidate, and the House should impeach him before they go home for the year.

Senate Democrats banded together to kill Republicans’ plan to replace expiring Obamacare subsidies on Thursday, knocking the first of two proposals down for the count.

Senate Republicans’ plan from Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, the chairs of the Senate health and finance panels, would have abandoned the Obamacare enhanced premium subsidies for health savings accounts (HSAs), along with several reforms that Republicans appeared largely unified behind earlier this week.

Still, not every Senate Republican voted for the bill. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., joined all Senate Democrats in tanking the legislation on a largely party-line vote.

Lawmakers are now set to vote on Senate Democrats’ plan, which would extend the subsidies for another three years. That proposal is also expected to fail, given that Senate Republicans broadly don’t want to extend the subsidies without myriad reforms.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Democrats have pitched their plan as the only option to prevent healthcare premiums from skyrocketing, while Republicans contended that the subsidies are rife with fraud and that the entire Obamacare system was causing premium prices to crank up year after year.

‘The Cassidy-Crapo [plan] is not a healthcare plan,’ Schumer said. ‘It’s not a plan at all. It’s an excuse. It’s a fig leaf. Because Republicans are so divided and can’t come up with a plan that unites them. They propose this fig leaf.’

‘My guess is most Republicans themselves are grimacing that they even have to vote for this thing,’ he continued. ‘How is a one-time check going to help you if you’re paying 1,000 or $2,000 a month more for health insurance?’

Cassidy and Crapo’s plan would have seeded HSAs with $1,000 for people ages 18 to 49 and $1,500 for those 50 to 65 for people earning up to 700% of the poverty level. In order to get the pre-funded HSA, people would have to buy a bronze or catastrophic plan on an Obamacare exchange.

It also included several provisions that didn’t make the cut in President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ including measures to reduce federal Medicaid funding to states that cover illegal immigrants, requirements that states verify citizenship or eligible immigration status before someone can get Medicaid, a ban on federal Medicaid funding for gender transition services and nixing those services from ‘essential health benefits’ for Obamacare exchange plans.

It also included Hyde Amendment provisions to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions through the new HSAs, a red line for many Senate Republicans that has proven divisive between the aisles.

The deadline to either extend or replace the credits, which were first passed and then enhanced under former President Joe Biden during the COVID-19 pandemic, is at the end of the year.

But whether the Senate acts before the deadline remains in the air, given that next week will be their last working week before leaving Washington, D.C., until the new year. There are several plans still on the table for lawmakers to choose from.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said ahead of the vote that it was clear that Schumer wanted Senate Democrats to fall in line for the upcoming vote but noted that there were still ongoing bipartisan conversations, and he didn’t close the door a possible Obamacare fix with the limited time lawmakers had left before the clock runs out.

‘If there is an interest in solving that, I don’t rule it out,’ Thune said. ‘I mean, obviously we don’t have a lot of time to do this, but I think there are ways in which you could where there’s a will, and if there are two sides willing to come together.’

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., called on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign Thursday during opening remarks at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on ‘Worldwide Threats to the Homeland.’

‘You have systematically dismantled the Department of Homeland Security, put your own interests above the department, and violated the law. You are making America less safe,’ said Thompson. ‘So rather than sitting here and wasting your time and ours with more corruption, lies and lawlessness, I call on you to resign. Do a real service to the country and just resign. That is, if President Trump doesn’t fire you first.’

As Noem was giving her opening statement, several protesters against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interrupted, yelling, ‘Get ICE off our streets,’ and, ‘Stop terrorizing our community.’

The protesters were escorted out by Capitol Police and detained outside the hearing room.

Noem, who was joined at the hearing by National Counterterrorism Center director Joe Kent and Michael Glasheen, the operations director of the National Security Branch of the FBI, said one of her grandchildren, who was in the audience, was crying a little during Thompson’s remarks.

‘I don’t think she agreed with him,’ Noem said jokingly.

She touted the work DHS has done to secure the southern border and protect the U.S.

‘DHS is eradicating transnational organized crime and the stopping of deadly drugs from continuing to be funneled into our communities,’ she told lawmakers. ‘We’re ending illegal immigration, returning sanity back to our immigration system, and we’re defending against cyberattacks against our critical infrastructure.’

The former South Dakota governor, speaking about the global threats facing the country — including those posed by domestic extremists and radical Islamic terrorism — said the U.S. should brace for heightened risks as it prepares to host major events in 2026 such as the World Cup and the nation’s 250th birthday.

‘These large-scale events will be potential targets for a range of bad actors, and they come with an increased level of risk. DHS is using every tool and authority we have to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens, and our visitors can enjoy next year’s events,’ Noem added.

Rumors had swirled in recent days that President Donald Trump was considering replacing her as head of DHS. Trump pushed back on those rumors on Wednesday, telling reporters that Noem has been ‘fantastic.’

Noem also addressed the rumors, speaking to Fox News prior to Thursday’s hearing.

‘Oh, that’s absolutely not true,’ she said. ‘President Trump and I are doing wonderfully. I’m so proud to work for him, and I’m going to continue to serve at his pleasure.’

Fox News’ Bill Melugin contributed to this report.

A lone progressive’s effort to impeach President Donald Trump failed Thursday, with nearly two dozen Democrats joining the House GOP to quash it.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, moved to get a vote on two articles of impeachment Wednesday night via a privileged resolution, a mechanism allowing lawmakers to force action on a bill within two legislative days.

Republicans called for a vote to table the measure on Thursday, a move that effectively kills consideration of the bill itself when a privileged resolution is called for.

Twenty-three Democrats joined Republicans in pushing the impeachment aside. A significant number of Democrats also voted ‘present,’ including all three senior leaders — House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif.

‘Impeachment is a sacred constitutional vehicle designed to hold a corrupt executive accountable for abuse of power, breaking the law and violating the public trust. The effort traditionally requires a comprehensive investigative process, the collection and review of thousands of documents, an exacting scrutiny of the facts, the examination of dozens of key witnesses, Congressional hearings, sustained public organizing and the marshaling of the forces of democracy to build a broad national consensus,’ the trio said in a statement explaining their vote.

‘None of that serious work has been done, with the Republican majority focused solely on rubber stamping Donald Trump’s extreme agenda. Accordingly, we will be voting ‘present’ on today’s motion to table the impeachment resolution as we continue our fight to make life more affordable for everyday Americans.’

The final vote fell 237 to 140, with 47 ‘present’ votes.

Among the Democrats who voted to table the measure are Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., Josh Riley, D-N.Y., Jared Golden, D-Maine, Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., Sharice Davids, D-Kan., Don Davis, D-N.C., Shomari Figures, D-Ala., and others.

Green has filed articles of impeachment against Trump several times over the past year and notably was thrown out of the president’s joint address to Congress in March for repeatedly interrupting his speech.

The latest impeachment push includes two articles charging abuse of power, according to legislative text viewed by Fox News Digital.

The first count accuses Trump of calling for the ‘execution’ of six congressional Democrats. It was in response to Trump accusing those Democrats of ‘seditious behavior,’ which he said was ‘punishable by death’ after they posted a video urging military service members to refuse illegal orders by the federal government.

The video caused a firestorm on the right, with the FBI opening an inquiry into those Democrats — who all defended their comments.

Green’s second allegation of abuse of power charges Trump with having ‘fostered a political climate in which lawmakers and judges face threats of political violence and physical assault; and in this climate has made threats and vituperative comments against federal judges, putting at risk their safety and well-being, and undermining the independence of our judiciary.’

But while the vast majority of Democrats have made no secret of their disdain and disagreements with Trump, it appears that few have the appetite to make a largely symbolic gesture toward impeachment.

Even Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has side-stepped questions on supporting impeachment multiple times this year, including most recently on Dec. 1 when asked about the military’s double-tap strikes on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat in September.

‘Republicans will never allow articles of impeachment to be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. And we know that’s the case, because Donald Trump will order them not to do it. So what’s on the table is a meaningful investigation, which we can hope would be bipartisan,’ Jeffries said at the time.

Even if the impeachment vote were to move forward, it’s all but certain that the GOP majority in the Senate would quickly dispense of it.

Senate Republicans rallied to block Senate Democrats’ extension of expiring Obamacare subsidies as both sides of the aisle suffer defeats on their proposals to deal with the looming healthcare cliff.

Over the course of the 43-day government shutdown, Senate Democrats made the longest closure in history all about the subsidies, which were passed and enhanced under former President Joe Biden.

They argued that if Congress didn’t act, Americans who rely on the subsidies would be hit with skyrocketing premiums. Their plan, however, was one that was never going to pass muster with the majority of Senate Republicans, who demanded myriad reforms to the program that they charged was rife with fraud.

Only Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., split from their party to support Democrats’ plan on an otherwise party line vote on Thursday, leaving the upper chamber without a solution to the fast-approaching deadline to either extend or replace the subsidies. Still, both sides of the aisle want to tackle rising healthcare costs, they just can’t agree on the best solution.

‘We don’t need to come up with the perfect plan,’ Hawley told Fox News Digital before the vote. ‘We need to say what will help right now to lower healthcare costs? That’s a more achievable goal, and that’s doable, so I am willing to vote for just about anything that has a legitimate shot at lowering healthcare costs right now. So that’s where I’d start.’

Senate Democrats’ plan, in comparison with Republicans’ offering that was blocked minutes before, was a straightforward three-year extension of the expiring enhanced subsidies.

But the plan did not include several reforms Republicans demanded, like measures to prevent fraud, income caps and more stringent enforcement of Hyde Amendment language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘Our bill is the only proposal on either side that has party-wide support on both sides of the Capitol,’ Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., charged that Democrats’ proposal wasn’t based on reality.

‘What [Schumer] is saying about a Democrat plan that will lower healthcare costs is a fantasy,’ Thune said. ‘It just is. It’s a fantasy.’

While neither side can reach a consensus on how to actually move forward on a healthcare plan, both recognize that time is running out to find a fix and that the cost of healthcare is running rampant.

Democrats see the subsidies as a quick fix that can stop the bleeding, while Republicans are looking for broader, immediate reforms that could start putting a dent in healthcare costs.

Bipartisan talks have continued throughout the process, but those too are being hampered by the GOP’s red line on more stringent enforcement of anti-abortion measures on the Obamacare exchange, which is a nonstarter for Democrats.

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., predicted that both Republicans’ and Democrats’ proposals would fail but that ‘hopefully, that keeps us working on getting something where we provide assistance, but get some reforms.’

‘But we can’t keep just sending the money to insurance companies and continue this runaway medical inflation that just perpetuates the problem,’ Hoeven said.

Britain is preparing to take on the ‘heavy lifting’ in Europe if President Donald Trump secures a Ukrainian ceasefire, U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey said, outlining a deployment-ready coalition that London has been quietly organizing for months.

The defense chief insisted that Trump is leading the negotiations for peace, even as leaders from Germany, Britain and France huddled with Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week to try to craft an alternative to a U.S.-brokered proposal the Ukrainian president viewed as too deferential to Russia.

‘We are ready to step in behind the president in his push for peace,’ he said during a briefing with reporters after meeting with War Secretary Pete Hegseth on AUKUS, the Australia-UK-US nuclear submarine-building deal. ‘We are ready to step in as he forces the pace of the negotiations in the way that only President Trump can. Because if he can get a ceasefire agreement, we are ready to do the heavy lifting in Europe.’

Trump has said Ukraine ‘has to be realistic’ about a peace plan that would include ceding territory to Russia — a prospect Zelenskyy has insisted is unacceptable. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Thursday that he, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron had proposed to Trump that they finalize the peace proposal with U.S. officials over the weekend.

Healey said the UK is prepared to send troops and equipment to enforce the peace deal once it is signed. ‘For the last six months we’ve got 200 military planners, over 30 nations working together. We’ve laid reconnaissance visits to Ukraine,’ he said. ‘We have the troops ready, we have the planes available. We have the ships on standby to be able to deploy.’

Healey offered one of the clearest signals yet that Britain expects to play a central role in enforcing any post-war security arrangement — even as Europe remains divided over how a deal should be structured.

While territorial claims appear to be the main sticking point in negotiations, questions remain over what sort of security guarantees the West would offer Ukraine. The initial proposal the U.S. brokered with Russia stipulated that Western troops and jets would remain outside Ukraine in NATO territory.

Western officials have been debating whether any agreement would require a multinational force to monitor front lines or secure key infrastructure inside Ukraine once a ceasefire takes hold. Healey suggested Britain is preparing for that possibility, saying the UK and a coalition of more than 30 nations have already positioned troops, aircraft and ships that could deploy if the terms of a deal allow for an international presence on the ground.

Healey’s meetings in Washington came just after the White House released a national security strategy that took an unusually severe tone toward Europe, warning of political decline and calling for the U.S. to ‘cultivate resistance’ within European nations. The strategy warns that Europe’s economic and social problems are ‘eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure.’

The document also calls for Europe to ‘take primary responsibility for its own defense,’ a point Healey said the UK is already prepared to meet, brushing off questions about whether the strategy had sown division inside the transatlantic alliance.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas grilled prominent left-leaning lawyer Marc Elias this week about a campaign finance law, joining several other conservative justices in voicing skepticism about the law’s restrictions on certain types of political donations.

Thomas’ questions centered on a Federal Election Campaign Act provision that limits how much money state and national political parties can spend when coordinating with specific candidates.

Republicans who brought the lawsuit argued that the coordinated political spending is protected speech and should not be limited by Congress, while Elias, a prolific election lawyer, argued to the high court that Congress has a right to cap those expenses.

Thomas and Elias appeared at odds during oral arguments, as Thomas questioned why coordinated political spending between parties and candidates should face limits — particularly when it covers routine campaign expenses like hotels or food.

‘Just so I’m clear, is there any First Amendment interest in coordinated expenditures?’ Thomas asked.

Elias replied ‘yes,’ but said a party paying an individual campaign’s bills was ‘symbolic speech’ that is not fully protected and should be subject to standard contribution limits.

‘I still don’t understand what you’re saying,’ Thomas told Elias. ‘If the party coordinates with the candidate and pays the bill, does that have a First Amendment protection or is it simply, as you say, a bill-paying exercise?’

‘It is speech,’ Elias said, but he said court precedent says the bill payment ‘is treated as a contribution, and, therefore, though it is speech, it is subject to limit by Congress in how much can be spent on engaging in that speech.’

Congress currently limits individual donations that can be made to a political candidate, and the Supreme Court has in past cases balanced allowing First Amendment-protected political donations while also allowing caps as a safeguard against outsize influence and corruption in elections.

But the high court is now being asked to potentially allow millionaires and billionaires to make unlimited individual contributions to a state or national political party, with the expectation that the money would be redirected and spent in coordination with a particular candidate. The decision could upend the current political spending landscape ahead of the 2026 midterm elections by allowing rich donors to flood state or national political parties with more money.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another skeptic of Elias’ argument, pointed out that outside groups can accept limitless funds and influence elections and that state and national parties appear disadvantaged because of it.

‘I am concerned that a combination of campaign finance laws and this court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared with outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy,’ Kavanaugh said.

‘That’s the real source of the disadvantage. You can give huge money to the outside group, but you can’t give huge money to the party, so the parties are very much weakened,’ he said.

The case was brought to the high court by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and two former Ohio Republican candidates: now–Vice President JD Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot.

The liberal justices leaned toward wanting to avoid further undoing campaign spending limits, which have eroded over time under Chief Justice John Roberts.

‘Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse… our tinkering causes more harm than good,’ said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. ‘Once we take off these coordinated expenditure limits, then what’s left? What’s left is nothing. No control whatsoever.’