President Donald Trump wants Senate Republicans to gut the Senate filibuster, but it’s a request that puts his quick-fix desire to end the shutdown at odds with the GOP’s long-held defense of the filibuster.

The Senate filibuster is the 60-vote threshold that applies to most bills in the upper chamber, and given the nature of the thin majorities that either party has commanded in recent years, that means that legislation typically has to be bipartisan to advance.

It has also proven to be the main roadblock in reopening the government. Despite Republicans controlling the upper chamber, they have routinely come up a handful of votes short in their 13 attempts to end the shutdown.

Three members of the Democratic caucus have broken from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and their colleagues to reopen the government, but Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., needs five more to hit the magic number.

Trump, in a late-night Truth Social post, said that on his return trip from Asia, he ruminated heavily over why the government had shut down despite Republicans being in control. His solution was for Senate Republicans ‘to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option.’

‘Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW,’ Trump said.

Senate Republicans have already gone nuclear this year to unilaterally change the rules to blast through Schumer’s and Democrats’ blockade of Trump’s nominees. But for many Senate Republicans, including Thune and his leadership team, nuking the filibuster is a proverbial third rail.

‘There’s always a lot of swirl out there, as you know from, you know, social media, etc., but no, we’re not having that conversation,’ Thune said earlier this month when asked about pressure to go nuclear on the filibuster.

And there isn’t much daylight between his sentiments from earlier in October to now.

‘Leader Thune’s position on the importance of the legislative filibuster is unchanged,’ Thune’s spokesperson Ryan Wrasse said in a statement.

Earlier this month during an appearance on Fox & Friends, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., shared a similar outlook as Thune when asked if the filibuster was under consideration to be on the chopping block.

‘No, that’s not going to be the case,’ he said. ‘There aren’t the Republicans that would want to support it.’

The filibuster has come under fire in the last decade from Senate Democrats, a point that Trump noted in his lengthy post.

The last time the filibuster was put to the test was when Democrats controlled the Senate in 2022. Schumer, who was majority leader at the time, tried to change the rules for a ‘talking filibuster’ in order to pass voting rights legislation.

But the effort was thwarted when then-Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., joined Republicans to block the change. Both have since retired from the Senate and become independents.

Still, the stalemate in the Senate has shown no signs of shattering as the shutdown heads into November, though bipartisan talks among rank-and-file members have been on the rise as federal food benefits career toward a weekend funding cliff.

Across the building, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., also warned against turning to the nuclear option for the filibuster, even as a handful of House Republicans have demanded that the safeguard be erased.

‘Look, I’ll just say this in general, as I’ve said many times about the filibuster, it’s not my call. I don’t have a say in this. It’s a Senate chamber issue,’ Johnson said. ‘But the filibuster has traditionally been viewed as a very important safeguard. If the shoe was on the other foot, I don’t think our team would like it.’

With no deal in place to reopen the government and no action from the administration to make up for a funding shortfall in federal benefits, millions of Americans are at risk of losing food benefits starting on Saturday.

The argument raging in the Senate mirrors the same argument that has so far seen the government shutdown for 32 days.

Senate Democrats contend that with the stroke of a pen — like on expiring Obamacare subsidies — President Donald Trump could easily see the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps, funded as the shutdown drags on.

‘We don’t want to pit healthcare and food, [Republicans] do,’ Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. ‘We think you can have both.’

But congressional Republicans and the administration argue that food stamp benefits, and numerous other government programs, could be fully funded if Schumer and his caucus would unlock the votes to reopen the government.

Democrats are suing the Trump administration in part over its refusal to use the SNAP emergency fund, which they contend has about $5 billion, to fund the program. But a recent memo by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) argued there was no legal standing to use the fund and that federal SNAP funds would run dry by Nov. 1 if Democrats did not vote to end the shutdown.

A pair of federal judges ruled on Friday that the administration would have to pay out the food stamp benefits for November, either in full or partially. 

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins affirmed the memo during a Friday press conference, ‘There is a contingency fund at USDA, but that contingency fund, by the way, doesn’t even cover, I think, half of the $9.2 billion that would be required for November SNAP. But it is only allowed to flow if the underlying program is funded.’

Nothing typified the dysfunction over the benefits, which 42 million Americans rely on, more than an explosion on the Senate floor this week between Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M.

Luján tried to force a vote on his bill that would fund both food stamps and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), but was promptly blocked by an angry Thune, who argued that Democrats have had 13 chances to fund the program through the shutdown.

‘This isn’t a political game, these are real people’s lives we’re talking about,’ Thune said. ‘And you all have just figured out, 29 days in, that, oh, there might be some consequences.’

Democrats contend that Trump and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the program, are actively choosing not to fund the program, given that there is roughly $5 billion in an emergency contingency fund that the administration could dip into.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., charged that it was ‘Trump’s choice.’

‘He’s got $5 billion that he could be using right now to help people, to help people feed their kids, and he’s choosing not to do that,’ he said. ‘What he’s doing is sick, deliberately making this shutdown more painful as a means to try to get Democrats to sign on to an immoral, corrupt budget.’

The argument has been much the same in the House of Representatives, which passed the GOP’s federal funding bill on Sept. 19. Both Republicans and Democrats appear worried, however.

‘I just left the local food pantry in my district and was speaking with seniors there, and they’re all very concerned,’ Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., whose district is home to more than 120,000 SNAP recipients, told Fox News Digital. ‘They agree with me that the Senate, beginning with their own senator, Senator Schumer, should vote to continue the existing funding levels that they previously voted for four times and prevent this unnecessary pain.’

There is a desire among both sides of the aisle to fund the program before the government reopens, but the likelihood of piecemeal bills, or ‘rifle-shots,’ making it to the floor was squashed by Thune during the week.

Both Luján and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., have bills that would fund food stamps, with Hawley’s bill having 29 bipartisan co-sponsors, including Schumer.

One of the co-sponsors, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital that the administration’s argument, in part, was because the $5 billion in the contingency fund was not enough to cover a month’s worth of food stamp benefits.

‘It’s hurricane season, and that’s what it’s really satisfying,’ he said. ‘But it’s not enough, either way. We’ve tried 14 times to be able to fully fund SNAP — once with an actual appropriation bill … to say, ‘let’s just fund it for the entire year,’ 13 times to do short term. It’s a little frustrating. Some of my Democratic colleagues are saying, ‘Well, find some way to fund it for a week or so, move things around.’’

But on the House side, it’s not clear if Democrats nor Republicans have the appetite for piecemeal bills during the shutdown.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has consistently said he will only call the House back into session if Senate Democrats vote to reopen the government.

Meanwhile, Fox News Digital asked Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., during a press conference on SNAP this week whether he was discussing food stamp legislation with his Senate counterparts.

‘I’m familiar with the proposals, and I know that many of my colleagues … have proposed legislation here in the House as well. Those conversations will continue,’ Neguse said. But, ‘ultimately,’ he added, ‘legislation doesn’t need to be passed in order for these funds to be released. It is the law.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rationale: deterrence and parity

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

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

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

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

A brief history: lessons written in fire

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

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

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

The risks: moral, strategic and existential

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

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

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

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

A better path: lead, don’t imitate

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

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

Such a summit would accomplish three things:

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

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

Conclusion: the test before us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

App users: 

Click to read the Verizon letter

Click to read the Verizon subpoena

Click to read the AT&T letter

Click to read the AT&T subpoena

President Donald Trump on Thursday called for Republicans to end the filibuster in order to end the month-long government shutdown.

In a late-night Truth Social post, Trump argued that Democrats had sought to eliminate the Senate procedure when they had control of both chambers of Congress and the White House during the Biden administration, but then-Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema helped block the effort.

Trump suggested using the ‘nuclear option,’ following his return to the U.S. after his trip to Asia.

‘The one question that kept coming up, however, was how did the DemocratsSHUT DOWN the United States of America, and why did the powerful Republicans allow them to do it? The fact is, in flying back, I thought a great deal about that question, WHY?’ Trump wrote on Truth Social.

‘Majority Leader John Thune, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, are doing a GREAT job, but the Democrats are Crazed Lunatics that have lost all sense of WISDOM and REALITY,’ he continued. ‘It is a sick form of the now ‘legendary’ Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) that only comes from losing too much. They want Trillions of Dollars to be taken from our Healthcare System and given to others, who are not deserving — People who have come into our Country illegally, many from prisons and mental institutions. This will hurt American citizens, and Republicans will not let it happen.’

Trump added that it is ‘now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!’