The end of the shutdown delivered something rare in Washington: a second chance to get healthcare right. As part of the agreement to reopen the government, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., committed to holding a vote in December on extending the enhanced premium tax credits in the individual market. That creates an opportunity to avoid steep premium hikes and to begin building a system that works better for patients. 

For Democrats who voted to end the shutdown, the incentives are straightforward. They want to show that their compromise leads to real relief for families facing higher premiums. They will look for a deal that solves the problem in front of them, but they will back away if Republicans turn the bill into another fight over repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The task now is to fix what is broken, not revisit old conflicts. 

This moment also gives Republicans a chance to show they can govern. Healthcare costs are a major driver of the affordability crisis facing families. They reduce take-home pay, increase the price of goods and services, and push both households and governments deeper into debt. Employers, who carry most of the cost of coverage for people under 65, feel the pressure directly, and workers feel it in their wages. 

President Donald Trump has already outlined an important principle: instead of routing federal subsidies through insurance companies, direct that support to individuals so they can choose the care and coverage that work best for them. Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott has made a similar argument, calling on Republicans to fix Obamacare. Combined with growing bipartisan support for price transparency, these ideas point toward a practical strategy that empowers patients and employers and encourages a more competitive market.

Today’s system moves in the other direction. Prices are hidden, administrative layers keep expanding and incentives are misaligned in ways that guarantee prices will rise year after year. These problems are especially severe in the individual market, which has fewer participants, a less healthy risk pool and limited plan competition. Making this market functional again requires more enrollment, more choices and more transparency. 

The December vote is the right moment to begin that shift. A package that addresses the immediate subsidy issue and lays the groundwork for long-term reform is both achievable and necessary. There are practical solutions already developed by center-right institutions such as the America First Policy Institute, the Paragon Institute, leaders in Congress and Trump’s policy proposals. 

The first step is a responsible phase-out of the enhanced premium tax credits through 2026. This avoids an abrupt cutoff and gives the rest of the reforms time to take effect.

Second, Congress should adopt a proposal from the Paragon Institute to restore and reform the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments in Obamacare, giving qualifying enrollees the option to receive their CSR subsidies directly into a health savings account (HSA). This one change addresses several problems at once. 

It lowers premiums and reduces federal costs. When CSR payments were halted in 2017, insurers responded by sharply raising premiums on silver plans, a practice known as ‘silver loading.’ Because premium tax credits are tied to the price of silver plans, this increased federal spending. A 2018 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that restoring CSR funding would reduce the federal deficit by about $30 billion over a decade. Providing the funding is less expensive than continuing the current workaround. 

It also creates the budget space needed to phase out the enhanced premium tax credits in a responsible way. The savings could be used to fund the phase-out or to provide more generous HSA contributions from the CSRs to strengthen support for lower-income Americans. 

Most importantly, it empowers patients. According to Paragon, the typical annual HSA contribution for someone receiving CSR assistance would be about $2,000. That is meaningful support that families can control directly. If they remain healthy, unused dollars stay in the account and continue to grow. If they get sick, they can use the funds for out-of-pocket costs. Because the money belongs to them, they have a clear incentive to compare prices and choose high-value care, which encourages greater competition among providers.

Next, Congress should strengthen the individual market’s risk pool by expanding affordable choices. That means allowing any health plan approved by the state insurance commissioner to be included in the exchanges, expanding access to copper plans, adjusting age-rating rules so younger people pay less, and modernizing individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs) so more small businesses can offer coverage. Practical changes, such as letting employees choose between an ICHRA and a traditional group plan, allowing workers to contribute pretax dollars to close premium gaps and removing unnecessary COBRA requirements, would make ICHRAs more attractive.  

The first step is a responsible phase-out of the enhanced premium tax credits through 2026. This avoids an abrupt cutoff and gives the rest of the reforms time to take effect.

Finally, these reforms should be paired with the bipartisan Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, sponsored by Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall and Colorado Democrat Sen. John Hickenlooper. The bill would strengthen enforcement of price transparency rules so small businesses, self-funded employers and new purchasing groups can contract directly with providers and transparent pharmacies. This would reduce costs, remove middle men, and increase competition.

This is a moment for practical governing. The shutdown deal did not only reopen the government. It opened a door. If Republicans take this opportunity, they can solve a real problem for millions of Americans and begin a long-overdue transition to a health system that puts patients, not bureaucracies, in charge. 

December’s vote could be the start of that transition. It should be. 

Disclaimer: Gingrich 360 has consulting clients in the healthcare industry which may be impacted by changes to healthcare laws. 

President Donald Trump says Ukraine and Russia are ‘making progress’ toward a peace agreement, but he conceded that the conflict remains ‘difficult’ to solve.

Trump made the comments while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday night, giving insight into the ongoing Ukraine-Russia talks. He went on to say that U.S. Envoy Steve Witkoff would soon be engaging in talks in Moscow, potentially alongside Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

‘We’re having good talks,’ Trump said. ‘Ukraine is doing well. I think they’re pretty happy about it. I’d like to see it end, and we won’t know for a little while. Well, we’re making progress.’

‘We settled eight wars, and I thought this would be one of the easier ones because of my relationship with President Putin, but this is probably one of the more difficult ones. There’s a lot of hatred,’ he added.

Trump said that Europe is playing a large part in ensuring there are security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent any further aggression from Russia.

The Trump administration had come under scrutiny last week after presenting a 28-point peace plan to U.S. lawmakers. Some lawmakers, including Republicans, initially described it as a ‘wish list’ for Russia.

Trump downplayed that plan while speaking Tuesday night, telling reporters that it was ‘just a map.’

‘All that was was a map. That was not a plan. It was, a concept. And from there they’re taking each one of the 28 points, and then you get down to 22 points. A lot of them were solved and actually very favorably solved. So, so we’ll see how we’ll see what happens,’ he said.

While the talks are moving quickly, Trump said he does not have a deadline for securing a deal.

‘The deadline for me is when it’s over,’ he said. ‘I think everybody’s tired of fighting at this moment. They are losing, losing too many people.’

A local Namibian politician named Adolf Hitler Uunona is widely expected to retain his council seat in the country’s latest round of regional elections, drawing international attention for a name he says carries no ideological meaning.

A longtime member of Namibia’s ruling SWAPO party, he is running again in the Ompundja constituency in the northern Oshana region. 

While final tallies have not yet been released, several international outlets report he is projected to win by a wide margin, consistent with previous elections. SWAPO, which has governed Namibia since independence in 1990, has shifted from its socialist liberation roots toward a more centrist, market-oriented governing approach.

His German dictator-linked name — ‘Adolf Hitler’ — was given to him by his father, he told the German outlet Bild, who he claimed did not understand the historical weight the name carried.

‘It was a perfectly normal name for me when I was a kid,’ Uunona told Bild. ‘It wasn’t until I grew older that I realized this man wanted to subjugate the whole world and killed millions of Jews.’

He said his childhood name reflected no political intent and stressed that he has never held extremist beliefs. 

‘The fact I have this name does not mean I want to conquer Oshana,’ he said, adding in earlier interviews he generally goes by Adolf Uunona in daily life.

Namibia was a German colony from 1884 to 1915, and Germanic names and place names remain common in some communities. Historians note that this legacy sometimes results in unusual or jarring combinations by modern standards, though they carry no inherent ideological meaning.

According to official information from the Oshana regional government, the Ompundja constituency has 4,659 inhabitants, 19 administrative centers and covers 466 square kilometers.

A federal court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump and his former lawyer, Alina Habba, are still on the hook for a $1 million penalty for filing a ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, former FBI director James Comey and others.

The ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals relates to a now-dismissed lawsuit filed by Trump relating to Russian collusion claims. Trump was first ordered to pay the $1 million in the case in 2023, but he and Habba appealed the ruling.

In addition to Clinton and Comey, their lawsuit also named Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and many more.

Trump and Habba, who now serves as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, will be forced to pay approximately $938,000 — split between the dozens of individuals named in the lawsuit.

In the original lawsuit, Trump accused the high-profile figures of conspiring to tank his successful 2016 presidential campaign.

‘Here we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose,’ wrote Judge Donald Middlebrooks in his 2023 ruling, which was upheld Wednesday.

‘Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer,’ he added.

Two defendants in the case also claimed that Trump’s appeal itself was frivolous and sought additional sanctions for it, but the court disagreed.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment, but they did not immediately respond.

Wednesday’s ruling comes just days after a separate federal court dismissed false statements charges leveled against Comey. Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the charges were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney. That U.S. attorney is Lindsay Halligan, who Trump appointed to the position just weeks prior.

Currie, a Clinton appointee based in South Carolina, was brought in from out of state to preside over proceedings about the question of Halligan’s authority because it presented a conflict for the Virginia judges. Comey’s and James’ challenges to Halligan’s appointment were consolidated because of their similarity.

Read the full document below (App users click here)

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued an order dismissing the 2020 election interference case against President Donald Trump and his co-defendants after the state of Georgia had moved to drop the matter.

‘The State having moved for an entry of nolle prosequi for all remaining defendants, the Court grants the motion,’ the order declares. ‘This case is hereby dismissed in its entirety.’

Trump’s lead Georgia defense counsel Steve Sadow described the case as ‘lawfare.’

‘The political persecution of President Trump by disqualified DA Fani Willis is finally over. This case should never have been brought. A fair and impartial prosecutor has put an end to this lawfare,’ Sadow said in the statement.

Peter J. Skandalakis, who took over prosecution after Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from handling it, filed a motion to dismiss the case earlier Wednesday in order to ‘serve the interests of justice and promote judicial finality.’

‘This entire case, from the initiation of the District Attorney’s investigation in 2021 to the present, is without precedent,’ noted Skandalakis. ‘In my professional judgment, the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to ten years.’

The Georgia case yielded the iconic 2023 mugshot of then-candidate Trump.

‘Never before, and hopefully never again, will our country face circumstances such as these. The case is now nearly five years removed from President Trump’s phone call with the Secretary of State, and two years have passed since the Grand Jury returned charges against President Trump and the eighteen other defendants,’ Skandalakis noted. ‘There is no realistic prospect that a sitting President will be compelled to appear in Georgia to stand trial on the allegations in this indictment. Donald J. Trump’s current term as President of the United States of America does not expire until January 20, 2029; by that point, eight years will have elapsed since the phone call at issue.’

The prosecutor explained why the other defendants in the criminal case would not be tried separately. 

‘Severing President Trump from the remaining defendants and conducting separate trials, while simultaneously waiting for the conclusion of his term and addressing all of the aforementioned legal issues, would be both illogical and unduly burdensome and costly for the State and for Fulton County,’ Skandalakis wrote. ‘The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia lacks the resources to conduct multiple trials in this matter.’

Fox News’ Samantha Daigle and David Lewkowict contributed to this report

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would not invite South Africa to the 2026 G-20 summit in Florida, citing alleged ‘horrific human rights abuses.’

‘To put it more bluntly, they are killing white people and randomly allowing their farms to be taken from them,’ Trump alleged in a Truth Social post. ‘At my direction, South Africa will NOT be receiving an invitation to the 2026 G-20, which will be hosted in the Great City of Miami, Florida next year,’ he added.

The Embassy of South Africa did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Clayson Monyela, head of diplomacy for the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, dismissed the notion that South Africa could be shut out.

‘South Africa is a founding member of the G-20. We don’t get invited to G-20 meetings and leaders summit. Those are gatherings of members. If other members allow this then the G-20 will die,’ Monyela told Fox News Digital.

‘Other countries have already told us that they too will boycott the U.S. G-20 if South Africa is excluded,’ Monyela added.

If carried out, the move would break with more than two decades of precedent and mark the first time a member has been formally excluded from the gathering of the world’s major economies.

The G-20, which brings together major advanced and emerging economies and accounts for roughly 80% of global GDP and two-thirds of the world’s population, has historically operated on the principle of inclusion.

That tradition already was strained after the U.S. boycott of the 2025 meeting held in Johannesburg earlier in November.

The Trump administration argued that the country’s government had failed to address violence and discrimination it claimed was occurring in rural farming communities. Additionally, the U.S. objected to the meeting’s focus on climate and development issues rather than core economic priorities.

The boycott marked a notable break from past U.S. engagement, leaving the world’s largest economy missing from a key forum for global economic policymaking.

Trump also said in the same Truth Social post that he would halt U.S. payments to South Africa.

‘South Africa has demonstrated to the world they are not a country worthy of membership anywhere and we are going to stop all payments and subsidies to them, effective immediately,’ Trump wrote.

The White House and State Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for further details.

It remains unclear how the move will affect the country’s standing within the G-20 or broader U.S.–South Africa relations ahead of the 2026 summit in Florida.

Relations between Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa have steadily deteriorated in recent months.

In February, Trump suspended U.S. aid to South Africa, alleging discrimination against White farmers. Tensions escalated again in March when the State Department expelled the South African ambassador, labeling him ‘persona non grata.’

In May, the two leaders clashed in the Oval Office when Trump pressed Ramaphosa over allegations that White Afrikaners were being targeted and killed in South Africa. 

Ramaphosa pushed back, telling Trump he had seen no evidence to support those claims.

Paul Tilsley contributed to this report from Johannesburg, South Africa.

President Donald Trump pardoned two turkeys Tuesday — Gobble and Waddle — as part of an annual tradition that has occurred at the White House for more than 35 years. 

The Thanksgiving Turkey Pardoning is a ceremony originating from the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation dating back to the 1940s, when the National Turkey Federation would present the president with a live turkey for Thanksgiving. 

President John F. Kennedy is often credited with pardoning the first turkey in 1963, when he said that he would ‘let this one grow.’ Although Kennedy didn’t use the word ‘pardon,’ the L.A. Times reported on the matter with the headline, ‘Turkey gets presidential pardon,’ according to an NBC News archive. 

President Ronald Reagan also made a joke about pardoning that year’s turkey, Charlie, in response to a question from a reporter, according to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum.

‘If they’d given me a different answer on Charlie and his future, I would have pardoned him,’ Reagan said in 1987. 

However, the tradition was codified during George H.W. Bush’s administration, according to the White House Historical Association. Bush used the word pardon, and the tradition continued each year afterward. 

‘But let me assure you, and this fine tom turkey, that he will not end up on anyone’s dinner table, not this guy — he’s presented a presidential pardon as of right now — and allow him to live out his days on a children’s farm not far from here,’ Bush said in 1989. 

Gobble and Waddle clocked in at 50 pounds and 52 pounds each, and traveled from North Carolina to the Washington’s Willard InterContinental Hotel for the annual tradition. Following the pardoning, they will head to North Carolina State University’s Prestage Department of Poultry Science.

During the ceremony in the Rose Garden, Trump also took aim at former President Joe Biden, and said Biden used the autopen to pardon the 2024 turkeys, and as a result those pardons were ‘totally invalid.’ 

As a result, Trump quipped that he had pardoned those turkeys too, and said he ‘saved them in the nick of time.’

The FBI and Department of Justice have contacted Capitol Police to schedule interviews with the six members of Congress who appeared in a controversial video urging service members to ignore orders they may deem illegal, Fox News has learned.

Last week, a group of Democratic lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds, including Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.; Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.; Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H.; Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa.; and Rep. Jason Crow released a video directed at service members and intelligence officers stating: ‘Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.’

In response to the video, President Donald Trump said the lawmakers should be arrested and tried for ‘seditious behavior.’ 

‘SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!’ he said. 

On Monday, the Department of War announced that it has opened a formal review into allegations of misconduct against Kelly over the video. 

The Pentagon said it may even call Kelly, a retired Navy captain, back to active duty to face court-martial proceedings or other administrative actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Four of the other Democrats are former military, but not retired and therefore are not subject to the UCMJ, according to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, while Slotkin is a former CIA officer.

Hegseth on Tuesday posted on X that the video ‘may seem harmless to civilians — but it carries a different weight inside the military.’

He called the video a ‘politically-motivated influence operation’ and listed reasons for his conclusion, including how the lawmakers never named a specific ‘illegal order,’ which ‘created ambiguity rather than clarity.’ He added that the video used ‘carefully scripted, legal-sounding language’ and argued that the lawmakers ‘subtly reframed military obedience around partisan distrust instead of established legal processes.’

‘In the military, vague rhetoric and ambiguity undermines trust, creates hesitation in the chain of command, and erodes cohesion,’ Hegseth wrote. ‘The military already has clear procedures for handling unlawful orders. It does not need political actors injecting doubt into an already clear chain of command.’ 

He continued: ‘As veterans of various sorts, the Seditious Six knew exactly what they were doing — sowing doubt through a politically-motivated influence operation. The @DeptofWar won’t fall for it or stand for it.’

This is a developing story; check back for updates.

Fox News’ Digital’s Morgan Phillips and Taylor Penley contributed to this report.

The Trump-aligned lawfare group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller is petitioning two of the government’s top federal health agencies to immediately repeal a Biden-era regulation they claim promotes organ transplantation allocation based on race, not medical need. 

Initially, the proposed rule from the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) had an equity performance adjustment, but that part of the rule was scrapped before it was finalized.

The Increasing Organ Transplant Access (IOTA) Model in question scores selected hospitals, which are required to participate, across three domains as it relates to kidney organ transplantation: achievement, efficiency and quality. Based on the scores, hospitals will either get money for their efforts, owe money back to the federal government for not meeting expectations, or neither receive nor owe anything.  

Rather than an explicit score adjustment, the rule’s equity agenda was embedded more subtly through a ‘voluntary’ health equity plan that mandatory participating hospitals are encouraged to complete. The plan pushes hospitals to identify ‘health disparities’ and identify ‘equity goals to monitor and evaluate progress in reducing targeted health disparities,’ which will be measured by ‘one or more quantitative metrics that the IOTA participant uses to measure the reductions in target health disparities arising from the health equity plan interventions.’

‘A federal rule cannot invite or normalize discrimination—not even under the guise of improving ‘equity,” stated an America First Legal (AFL) press release accompanying the group’s petition. ‘Although CMS ultimately made Health Equity Plans ‘voluntary,’ the agency embedded them inside a mandatory federal model that encourages hospitals to integrate race and identity into transplant decision-making.’

The six-year mandatory payment program builds on earlier payment experiments, testing whether financial rewards and penalties can improve care and expand access for Medicare and Medicaid patients. The rule was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 4, and began operating on July 1, 

Meanwhile, according to AFL, 67 of the 103 hospitals mandated to participate in the IOTA Model are ‘still engaging’ in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts. The conservative lawfare group argues this is normalizing ‘identity-based preferences’ within the nation’s organ transplant system.

‘The IOTA Model is a leftover remnant of an unlawful equity agenda that encouraged hospitals to view lifesaving care through a DEI lens,’ said AFL attorney Megan Redshaw. ‘Federal law requires that organ allocation be based on established medical criteria, not race or identity, and no rule should push hospitals to pursue transplant volume while layering race-based pressures onto a system already plagued by ethical failures.’

Just days after Biden took office in 2021, he signed Executive Order 13985, directing all federal agencies to conduct ‘Equity Assessments’ to determine whether ‘underserved communities and their members’ faced systemic barriers to accessing federal programs. The order also required federal agencies to develop an action plan to address those barriers.

As part of this effort, in December 2021, CMS issued a request to the public for comments on how the agency could ‘Advance Equity and Reduce Disparities in Organ Transplantation.’

‘CMS is focused on identifying potential system-wide improvements that would increase organ donations, improve transplants, enhance the quality of care in dialysis facilities, increase access to dialysis services, and advance equity in organ donation and transplantation,’ the agency said at the time. ‘Black Americans are almost four times more likely, and Latinos are 1.3 times more likely, to have kidney failure compared to White Americans. Despite the higher risk, data shows that Black and Latino patients on dialysis are less likely to be placed on the transplant waitlist and have a lower likelihood of transplantation. Because of these stark inequities, CMS’ [Request For Information] asks the public for specific ideas on advancing equity within the organ transplantation system.’ 

Trump officials and allies, including AFL, have questioned the role outside groups played during the process of drafting the final IOTA Model rule, prompting AFL to file FOIA requests as part of a broader investigation into the new IOTA model and the Biden administration’s alleged push to infuse DEI into the nation’s organ transplant framework.

One example AFL has pointed to is a ‘modernization initiative’ for the national organ transplant system under the Biden administration, which included plans to strengthen ‘equity, and performance in the organ donation and transplantation system.’ The Biden admin also announced changes to the ‘labeling of race and ethnicity information for organ donors,’ on numerous data reports used by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). 

The nation’s organ transplant system has also recently been targeted for prematurely initiating organ retrievals while patients were still alive, or improving. In July, HHS released a statement announcing an initiative to reform the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), following a federal investigation that found ‘disturbing practices by a major organ procurement organization.’

AFL argues that the IOTA Model final rule, specifically, violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, the equal protection clause, precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court, and executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. 

The lawfare group added that the rule also exceeds CMS’ statutory authority under the Social Security Act, and is ‘arbitrary and capricious’ under the Administrative Procedure Act.  

‘The Biden Administration built this kidney transplant policy on the false premise that fairness requires discrimination,’ Redshaw said. ‘This rule treats race as a substitute for medical judgment, and it risks condemning patients to die on waitlists based on immutable traits instead of clinical need. Every American deserves equal treatment under the law, especially when life and death are at stake.’

HHS and CMS didn’t reply to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment on this story in time for publication.

Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch, Melissa Rudy, and Angelica Stabile contributed to this report.