Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., said the confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services is ‘not a slam dunk,’ as President Donald Trump’s nominee works to shore up support.

In an appearance on ‘Fox News Sunday,’ Fetterman said he has met with Kennedy twice in his office and that whatever his decision ends up being on the HHS nominee, it will be ‘an informed view.’ 

‘I’ve invested a lot of time to really understand his background and to learn more about the man,’ Fetterman said, adding: ‘I approached with an open mind and I watched the hearing. And that’s how the process works.’ 

Asked if he’s reached a decision on whether he’ll vote ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ for Kennedy, Fetterman said he has spoken to colleagues on both sides regarding the matter. 

‘It’s been challenging for sure. Absolutely. It’s certainly not a slam dunk for the nomination,’ Fetterman told ‘Fox News Sunday’ host Shannon Bream. 

‘I’ve made an investment to really understand and talk to all of the nominees, and I treated everyone with respect and I took the time to listen, and that’s been part of my commitment,’ he added.

Kennedy, a lifelong Democrat who switched his presidential campaign against Biden to run as an Independent before ultimately dropping from the race to back Trump, made it through back-to-back grillings by the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday and the Health Committee on Thursday. He still faces crucial committee and full Senate confirmation votes in his mission to lead 18 powerful federal agencies that oversee the nation’s food and health.

Most of the tough questions and sparring over his stances on vaccines, abortion, Medicaid and other issues came from Democrats on the two committees, but Thursday’s hearing ended with the top Republican on the Health panel saying he was ‘struggling’ with Kennedy’s nomination.

‘Your past of undermining confidence in vaccines with unfounded or misleading arguments concerns me,’ Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., told the nominee.

The physician from Louisiana, who is a crucial vote and who has voiced concerns over Kennedy’s past stance on vaccines, asked whether Kennedy can ‘be trusted to support the best public health.’ The senator told Kennedy, who seeks to lead key health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, that ‘you may be hearing from me over the weekend.’

Kennedy, whose outspoken views on the pharmaceutical and food industries have also sparked controversy, has said he aims to shift the focus of the agencies he would oversee toward promotion of a healthy lifestyle, including overhauling dietary guidelines, taking aim at ultra-processed foods and getting to the root causes of chronic diseases.

A strong pro-life advocate, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told ‘Fox News Sunday’ that he is supporting Kennedy despite the nominee’s past comments saying he supported codifying Roe v. Wade and abortion ‘even if it’s full term.’  

‘I am now OK to supporting RFK Jr. because I think during the course of the hearing he’s committed to a Republican pro-life agenda, President Trump’s pro-life agenda,’ Graham said when asked about those specific past remarks from Kennedy. ‘So I will take him at his word. I’m comfortable with what he said on the pro-life issue. He has been radically pro-choice as a person. But I do believe that as secretary, he will implement a pro-life agenda that will be pushed by President Trump. I will be a yes, but I’ll also watch every move he makes.’ 

Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump repeated his suggestion that Canada become the 51st on Sunday, noting that it would not be subjected to his incoming tariffs should the country join the U.S.

‘We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason,’ Trump wrote on TRUTH Social. ‘We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use. Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true!’ 

‘Therefore, Canada should become our Cherished 51st State,’ Trump added. ‘Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada – AND NO TARIFFS!’ 

Trump has for weeks suggested the United States should take control of Canada through economic pressure.

Citing the flow of illicit drugs across the northern border, Trump signed an order Saturday to implement a 25% tariff on goods entering the United States from Canada. The order, which takes effect Tuesday, also puts a 10% duty on energy or energy resources from Canada. The order states, ‘gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illicit drugs of all kinds have poured across our borders and into our communities,’ adding that ‘Canada has played a central role in these challenges, including by failing to devote sufficient attention and resources or meaningfully coordinate with United States law enforcement partners to effectively stem the tide of illicit drugs.’ 

Trump also said he would implement tariffs of 25% on goods from Mexico, as well as 10% on imports from China due to the flow of drugs across U.S. borders.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum both vowed retaliation on Saturday. 

‘We categorically reject the White House’s slander of the Government of Mexico for having alliances with criminal organizations, as well as any intention to interfere in our territory,’ Sheinbaum said, adding that she instructed her administration officials to implement ‘tariff and non-tariff measures in defense of Mexico’s interests.’ 

Trudeau said Canada would impose 25% tariffs on $155 billion of U.S. goods, including ‘immediate tariffs on $30 billion worth of goods effective Tuesday, followed by further tariffs on $125 billion worth of American products in 21 days.’ 

‘I don’t think we’re not at all interested in escalating, but I think that there will be a very strong demand on our government to make sure that we stand up for the deal that we have struck with the United States,’ Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman told ABC News’ ‘This Week’ on Sunday. 

‘This is NPR.’ That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution following the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.

While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.

Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead chose Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.

Some have long questioned the federal government’s subsidization of a media organization. NPR itself continues to maintain that ‘federal funding is essential’ to its work. However, this country has long rejected state media models as undermining democratic values.

This funding is likely more important, given NPR’s cratering audience and revenue. The NPR’s audience has been declining for years. As a result, NPR has been forced to make deep staff cuts.

Ironically, NPR has one of the least diverse audiences in media. Its listeners are is overwhelmingly white, liberal, and more affluent than the rest of the country. Yet, while serving fewer and fewer people, it still expects most of the country to subsidize its programming.

Many of us have argued that NPR should compete with other radio companies in the free market. Notably, some Democratic leaders have pushed to get Fox News dropped from cable news carriers despite the fact that it is not government subsidized and consistently ranks as the most-watched cable news network. (For full disclosure, I am a legal analyst at Fox.)

NPR and PBS are facing calls for the subsidy to be removed at long last. However, at the same time, pressure is coming from the Federal Communications Commission. FCC Chair Brendan Carr is inquiring about NPR’s claim that it does not do commercial advertising.

Many of us have noticed that NPR has ramped up its sponsor statements with taglines about the products or firm’s clientele. Carr wrote, ‘I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.’

The support for noncommercial radio and television stations fell under different regulations. It is hard to see the sponsor acknowledgments as anything other than commercial advertising. It is common for for-profit outlets to have hosts read commercial sponsors.

Noncommercial educational broadcast stations, or NCEs, are prohibited under Section 399B of the Communications Act from airing commercials or other promotional announcements on behalf of for-profit entities. 

What is interesting is that NPR stresses in its sponsor guidelines that the ‘NPR way’ is actually a better method to reach consumers:

‘Across platforms, NPR sponsor messages are governed by slightly different regulations, but the guiding spirit is the same: guidelines are less about what’s ‘allowed’ and more about the approach that works best for brands to craft sponsor recognition messages that connect with people in ‘the NPR way,” read the guidelines.

What is striking is how NPR’s shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to cut off public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming.

It is common for law firms or companies to have hosts herald their work in given areas. It is also common to have product references.

The thrust of NPR’s pitch to advertisers is that this is a different type of pitch to attract more customers. However, the federal government has long ignored the obvious commercial advertisement. 

There is little discernible difference between NPR and competitors beyond pretense when it comes to bias or promotions. What is striking is how NPR’s shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to cut off public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming. What would the reaction be if Congress ordered the same subsidy for more popular competitors like Fox Radio?

I would oppose a subsidy for Fox as I do for NPR. Each outlet should depend on its viewership for support. Notably, many liberal outlets continue to maintain their biased coverage despite falling ratings and revenues. The Washington Post has had to again lay off employees and has lost roughly half of its readership. 

After being called in to right the ship, Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, ‘Let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.’

Nevertheless, writers at the LA Times and other outlets continue to argue against balanced coverage. They would rather lose readers and revenue than their bias. So be it. These outlets have every right to offer their own slanted viewpoints or coverage. They do not have a right to a federal subsidy to insulate them from the response of consumers. 

It is time to establish a bright-line rule against government subsidies for favored media outlets. ‘This is NPR’ but it is not who we should be as a nation.

Former President Jimmy Carter has won a posthumous Grammy.

Carter, who died in December at the age of 100, was nominated at the 2025 ceremony in the audiobook, narration, and storytelling recording category for ‘Last Sundays in Plains: A Centennial Celebration,’ recordings from his final Sunday school lessons delivered at Maranatha Baptist Church in Georgia.

Musicians Darius Rucker, Lee Ann Rimes and Jon Batiste are also featured on the album, made up of 10 tracks of folk songs and Sunday school lessons from Carter. 

This makes for Carter’s fourth Grammy to his name, setting the record for the category and breaking his previous tie with Maya Angelou.

He’s previously won Grammy Awards in the same category for ‘Faith: A Journey For All’ in 2019, ‘A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety’ in 2016 and ‘Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis’ in 2007. The 39th president has, in total, been nominated for a Grammy nine times.

If he had won before his passing, Carter would have been the oldest Grammy Award winner in history.

Jason Carter, Jimmy Carter’s grandson who now chairs The Carter Center governing board, received the award on his behalf with Kabir Sehgal, who handled instrumental arrangements for the album.

‘Having his words captured in this way for my family and for the world is truly remarkable,’ he said in an acceptance speech. ‘Thank you to the academy.’ 

The former president beat out Barbra Streisand, George Clinton, Dolly Parton and producer Guy Oldfield.

Carter was in office from 1977 to 1981. Post-presidency, he continued to focus on public service, predominantly through his work with Habitat for Humanity.

He died on Dec. 29, 2024, and was survived by his children, Jack, Chip, Jeff and Amy, 11 grandchildren and 14 great-grandchildren. He was preceded in death by his wife of 77 years, Rosalynn Smith Carter, who died on Nov. 19, 2023, and one grandchild.

‘My father was a hero, not only to me but to everyone who believes in peace, human rights, and unselfish love,’ his son, Chip, said. ‘My brothers, sister, and I shared him with the rest of the world through these common beliefs. The world is our family because of the way he brought people together, and we thank you for honoring his memory by continuing to live these shared beliefs.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Amid a wave of early shakeups in the new administration, President Donald Trump has twice this month proposed ‘denuclearization’ talks with U.S. adversaries.

‘Tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capacity is something we don’t even want to talk about today, because you don’t want to hear it,’ Trump mused in remarks to the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, last week. 

‘I want to see if we can denuclearize, and I think it’s very possible,’ suggesting talks on the issue between the U.S., Russia and China. 

Such an idea could represent a major thawing in U.S. relations with two global adversaries – but beg the question of whether the U.S. could trust the nations to hold up their end of the deal. 

President Vladimir Putin announced Russia would suspend its participation in the New START treaty in 2023 over U.S. support for Ukraine. Russia had frequently been caught violating the terms of the deal. But China has never engaged in negotiations with the U.S. over arms reduction. 

Trump reiterated to Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday that he’d been close to a ‘denuclearization’ deal with Russia during his first term. 

‘I was dealing with Putin about the denuclearization of Russia and the United States. And then we were going to bring China along on that one. I was very close to having a deal. I would have made a deal with Putin on that denuclearization. It’s very dangerous and very expensive, and that would have been great, but we had a bad election that interrupted us.’

The Defense Department now expects that China will have more than 1,000 nuclear warheads, a near-doubling of the estimated 600 they possess right now. 

In a speech on Jan. 17, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that ‘amid a ‘hybrid war’ waged by Washington against Russia, we aren’t seeing any basis, not only for any additional joint measures in the sphere of arms control and reduction of strategic risks, but for any discussion of strategic stability issues with the United States.’

But Putin, in an address on Monday, struck a more diplomatic tone: ‘We see the statements by the newly elected president… about the desire to restore direct contacts with Russia. We also hear his statement about the need to do everything possible to prevent World War III. We, of course, welcome this attitude.’ 

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said of Trump’s comments at a news conference on Wednesday: ‘China’s development of nuclear weapons is a historic choice forced to be made. As a responsible major country, China is committed to the path of peaceful development and friendly cooperation with all countries in the world.’

Experts argue Russia is using its leverage over nuclear arms control as a means for the U.S. agreeing to favorable terms to end the war with Ukraine.

‘Russians are ‘me first’ painstaking negotiators, and what they’re doing in this case, is they’re clearly laying a bit of a trap,’ said John Erath of the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation.

‘It makes sense dangling arms control, which they perceive as something that we want, in front of us and saying, ‘Oh, by the way, we’ll talk about reducing nuclear weapons,’ as an incentive to get us to throw the Ukrainians under the bus.’

But whether Trump was revealing a policy priority or speaking on a whim with the Davos comments is anyone’s guess.  

The president took heat during his first term for meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to discuss nuclear reduction. That effort fell apart, and Trump resorted to threatening to rain ‘fire and fury’ on North Korea. 

‘I think he’s very sensitive to the dangers of nuclear war, and realizes that in many ways, we’re closer to that today than we have been in many, many decades,’ said George Beebe, a director at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. 

One thing most experts agree on is that the U.S. nuclear program is expensive and outdated. With some 3,700 warheads in its arsenal, the U.S. is expected to spend $756 billion to store and maintain its nuclear weapons between 2023 and 2032. 

‘Regardless of reductions, however, the administration and Congress must continue modernizing and ensuring the reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal while eliminating excessive spending where possible,’ said Andrea Stricker, deputy director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy’s nonproliferation program. 

Arms experts admit that Russia has cheated on arms treaties, but U.S. intelligence capabilities have grown to ensure compliance.

‘We’ve done it throughout the Cold War to varying degrees, and I think we’ve gotten better and more capable in our intelligence community of monitoring compliance with these sorts of things. So that is certainly a feasible approach to take,’ said Beebe.

But China and Russia aren’t the only U.S. adversaries with nuclear weapons. North Korea is estimated to have an arsenal of 50 nuclear warheads, Iran is on the precipice of enriching uranium to potent enough levels for a bomb. 

‘Before engaging in arms control talks, Washington needs a strategy for how it will simultaneously deter two peer nuclear competitors, Russia and China, which could combine forces with states like North Korea and Iran to attack or coerce the United States,’ said Stricker.

In the four decades between the U.S. atomic bombings of Japan in 1945 and the first arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia, the world was on edge as the two superpowers raced to claim the world’s largest arsenal. In 1987, Washington and Moscow signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which led to the dismantling of thousands of bombs.

But over the years, the U.S. and Russia lost their monopoly on civilization-ending weapons: now nine countries are nuclear-armed, rendering bilateral treaties less and less effective. 

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is led by tech billionaire Elon Musk, is taking aim at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and, according to senior congressional sources, moved to seize control of the independent agency over the weekend.

The senior congressional sources told Fox News that more than 50 senior USAID staff members were placed on administrative leave and subjected to a gag order, meaning they were not allowed to communicate with anyone outside the agency without approval.

Signs were also removed from USAID’s headquarters in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., and the DOGE team took over the computer systems, the sources said. USAID is responsible for distributing civilian foreign aid and development assistance to countries around the globe. The agency managed approximately $40 billion in appropriations last year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

On Sunday, the Associated Press reported that the Trump administration placed two top security chiefs at USAID on leave after refusing to turn over classified material in restricted areas to DOGE.

After initially being refused access to USAID’s classified information, DOGE eventually gained that access on Saturday, allowing them to see things like intelligence reports, a current and a former U.S. official told the AP.

The DOGE team members lacked high enough security clearance to access the information, so the two USAID security officials – John Voorhees and deputy Brian McGill – believed they were legally obligated to deny access.

On Sunday, Musk took aim at USAID on his social media platform X, writing, ‘USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.’

He also wrote several other posts about the agency, saying things like, ‘USAID was a viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America’ and ‘USAID is evil.’

The latter was in response to a post suggesting USAID helped fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China, which referred to an interaction posted on Forbes between Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and now former USAID Administrator Samantha Power in April 2023.

ABC News reported that those familiar with USAID were questioning whether the moves at USAID were being made in an effort to move the agency under the State Department, where there could be better accountability.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., turned to social media on Sunday to sound off on the ‘dismantling’ of USAID.

‘Trump and Musk are recklessly and illegally dismantling USAID, an essential national security agency that saves lives, advances U.S. interests, and promotes peace,’ Booker wrote. ‘Their malicious actions are putting the health of people, especially children, at grave risk, and will surely lead to future public health and migration crises in the U.S. – let alone suffering around the globe.’ 

Last week, at least 56 USAID officials were placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits, and several hundred contractors based in Washington and elsewhere were laid off.

The actions came after Secretary of State Marco Rubio, acting on Trump’s executive order, paused all U.S. foreign assistance funded by or through the State Department and USAID.

The 90-day pause has halted thousands of U.S.-funded humanitarian, development and security programs worldwide and forced aid organizations to lay off hundreds of employees because they can’t make payroll.

Fox News Digital’s Chris Pandolfo and the Associated Press contributed to this report.