Senate Democrats have undergone a steady tonal shift on Israel, with a recent vote to block arms sales to the Jewish State giving a glimpse at the evolution on the Hill.

More Democrats in the upper chamber than ever before voted alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to halt the $675 million sale of thousands of bombs and guidance kits for the bombs and to block the sale of automatic rifles to Israel.

Sanders’ push ultimately failed late last month, but over half of all Senate Democrats voted alongside him, with many voting with him for the first time. Meanwhile, all Senate Republicans voted against them.

‘The tide is turning,’ Sanders, who routinely caucuses with Democrats, said in a statement. ‘The American people do not want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza. The Democrats are moving forward on this issue, and I look forward to Republican support in the near future.’

Getting Republicans on board for future attempts, as Sanders hoped would happen, is a stretch at best.

‘Republicans stand with Israel,’ Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch, R-Idaho, told Fox News Digital in a statement.

‘Senator Sanders’ resolution to block arms sales would have reinstated the failed policies of the Biden administration and would abandon America’s closest ally in the Middle East,’ he continued. ‘We can’t afford to go back there.’

But the change within the Democratic caucus was likely spurred by the release of photos of starving children in the Gaza Strip, which earned shocked reactions from both lawmakers and President Donald Trump.

Many Democrats have pinned the blame on Israel and argued that the Jewish state has put a chokehold on aid that is meant for civilians in Gaza, while Republicans contend that the terrorist organization Hamas is stealing the food.

‘What’s going on is unacceptable, and Israel has the power to fix it,’ Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told Fox News Digital.

Like Sanders, King typically caucuses with Senate Democrats. But unlike his fellow Independent colleague, he has routinely stood firm in his support of Israel. But the photos and reports of widespread malnutrition prompted him to vote to block arms sales.

‘Israel’s the one that’s not letting the aid get in,’ he said. ‘The humanitarian response is entirely within Israel’s hands, and they’ve been blocking, slowing, starting and stopping, to the point where I just could no longer stand silent.’

And like King, Sen. Jean Shaheen, the top ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, changed course and voted in favor of blocking arms sales out of concern that food aid was not making its way to Palestinians.

‘I think it’s important to send the message to Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and his government that things need to change,’ the New Hampshire Democrat said in an interview with PBS Newshour.

But Republicans charged that it was not Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fault that food aid was not making its way into Gaza, and instead believed that it was Hamas stealing the food.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that Israel wants to make sure that the food aid actually makes it to civilians in Hamas.

‘Israel and the US have cut out, cut off most of Hamas’ cash flow,’ Kennedy said. ‘And a lot of their cash flows depends on stealing the food and selling it, sometimes to their own people, absorbing the prices.’

And not every Senate Democrat is on the same page when it comes to their position on the Jewish State.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., has routinely slammed Democrats for criticizing Israel, and believed that his party was moving further away from his position.

‘What I really fundamentally believe, there’s been a wholesale shift, even within my party, to blame Israel for the situations and the circumstances overall,’ Fetterman told Fox News Digital. ‘And I don’t really understand. It’s like we’ve seen the same pictures and, of course, what’s happened in Gaza is devastating.’

‘But so, for me, I blame Hamas and Iran,’ he continued. ‘And I don’t know why there’s not like a collective global outrage.’

Senate Republicans left Washington this week to sell President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ but the road to creating and passing the legislation began just over a year and a half ago. 

Trump’s $3.3 trillion megabill, crammed with his legislative priorities on border security, defense and energy, was a product months in the making. And it was the marquee policy in the bill, which was to extend or make permanent many of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that was the driving force behind Republicans’ desire to pass it.

But Senate Republicans have had little time to rest on their laurels and celebrate the bill’s passage, spending the month since Trump signed it advancing a $9 billion clawback package and trying to ram through Senate Democrats’ blockade of the president’s nominees.

The journey to pass the bill began well before Republicans had a trifecta in Washington in early 2024, when then-Senate Republican Conference Chair John Barrasso, R-Wyo., hosted a policy retreat with Senate Republicans to hash out what the GOP’s agenda could look like should the win out in November.

And months later, Trump visited with Senate Republicans to discuss the strategy they had been working on behind-the-scenes.

‘With President Trump in the White House, we discussed how Republicans will get America back on track,’ Barrasso said at the time. ‘That starts with helping families escape the pain of Democrat high prices, unleashing American energy, stopping Democrat tax increases, and securing the Southern Border. Republicans are united.’

The real, nitty-gritty work began in January where concepts were taken and fleshed out into legislation.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., opted to leapfrog the House and move forward with the Senate’s own budget framework, which initially divided the ‘big, beautiful bill’ into two chunks. That added pressure on Republicans in the lower chamber to coalesce behind a plan of their own.

For much of the earlier part of this year, however, the Senate was waiting on the House to fine-tune and pass their own version of the bill. Still, Thune and his leadership team, including Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., worked to get a product from one side of the building to the other that the Senate GOP could work with.

And when the bill made its way to the upper chamber in early June, the pressure was on to deliver a finished product to Trump by July 4, an artificial deadline used to help corral lawmakers into finishing work on the bill.

One of the major disagreements in the upper chamber before the bill ever hit the floor was over the nature of cuts to Medicaid, particularly aimed at the provider tax rate. The issue was eventually smoothed over through the creation of a $50 billion rural hospital fund, but lawmakers who sounded the alarm against it vowed to ensure that the changes to the provider would never take effect.

‘I think it was a huge mistake,’ Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said at the time. ‘I think this has been an unhappy episode here in Congress, this effort to cut Medicaid.’ 

‘And I think, frankly, my party needs to do some soul-searching,’ he continued. ‘If you want to be a working class party, you’ve got to get delivered for working class people. You cannot take away health care from working people.’

And when the bill did finally hit the floor for what would evolve into a multi-day affair of passing through procedural hurdles, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., forcing the reading of the entire bill and a marathon vote-a-rama, Senate Republicans were still not entirely on board.

At first, a cohort of fiscal hawks led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., appeared to not support the package — they wanted even deeper cuts to Medicaid by tweaking the percentage that the federal government pays for healthcare in states that opted into Obamacare, which they argued would have saved billions extra.

They were offered an amendment that eventually never came to the floor, but was enough for them to back down from tanking the bill. And their resistance began in the first of a handful of huddles inside Thune’s office outside the Senate floor.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., joined them for the closed-door conversations, and told Fox News Digital that while her vote was not contingent on getting the change added, she wanted to make the case for why it should be.

‘It saved a lot of money,’ she said. ‘It saved a lot of money, and so I was anxious to see us use the opportunity, since we were able to open up mandatory spending, use the opportunity to really save some money.’

And later on, in the wee hours of the night, Republicans were bouncing from Thune’s office to the Senate floor, hashing out deals as they went to get Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to support the bill, knowing that Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., could vote against it.

‘Sometimes it’s got to be put on a clock, because at some point the argument has to come to an end,’ Mullin told Fox News Digital. ‘And that’s why we had to do some of it on the floor. We had to, we had to force the hand.’

And in the end, only three Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Collins and Tillis voted against the bill. From there it went to the House, where Republicans in the lower chamber had their own dramatic rally to pass the legislative behemoth.

And now, as Republicans scatter to their home states to sell the bill to their constituents, Tillis said that the ‘foundational’ piece of information that lawmakers can share is that they averted a nationwide tax hike.

‘The shame of the Medicaid provision is that the vast majority of the bill is supported,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘I think we have to remind them the problem with the tax bill is they’re not going to see a cut, but if we hadn’t done it, they would have seen a historic increase.’

‘So we need to remind them of what we’re doing is continuing what we started, and the economy that we created, it was able to withstand COVID,’ he continued. ‘And I firmly believe if we hadn’t passed it. We’d have been in a different posture.’

A senior member of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle warned that multiple countries are mounting ‘titanic efforts’ to undermine the upcoming summit between the Russian leader and U.S. President Donald Trump.

The two leaders are scheduled to meet in Alaska on Aug. 15, though Trump’s announcement, made via a Truth Social post on Friday, offered few additional details about the summit. It is also unclear if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be invited to join the talks as the Kremlin’s unprovoked war stretches into its fourth year. 

‘Undoubtedly, a number of countries interested in continuing the conflict will make titanic efforts to disrupt the planned meeting between President Putin and President Trump,’ wrote Russia’s investment envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, in a Telegram post on Saturday, referencing the Kremlin’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

While Dmitriev did not name specific countries, he warned that critics of the upcoming talks could seek to sabotage the summit through diplomatic maneuvers or media-driven provocations. Several NATO countries in Europe have been openly skeptical of any deal that rewards Russian aggression in the three-year-old war.

Dmitriev, who met with Trump administration officials in Washington in April, has been dubbed Putin’s ‘shadow foreign minister’ for his behind-the-scenes role in shaping Russia’s global diplomacy.

 As head of the Kremlin’s sovereign wealth fund and a recently appointed special envoy, he has often acted as an informal bridge between Moscow and Washington.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin said in a statement on Saturday that Trump and Putin are expected to ‘focus on discussing options for achieving a long-term peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian crisis.’

‘This will evidently be a challenging process, but we will engage in it actively and energetically,’ the statement added.

Trump has previously said that Putin and Zelenskyy were close to a ceasefire deal but suggested that Kyiv would have to concede significant territory, an outcome that Ukrainians and many European allies oppose. 

Senate Republicans faced a choice recently: Remain in session and confirm more of President Trump’s nominees, or finally abandon Washington for the vaunted August recess.

Senators hung around – a little while – knocking out some of the President’s nominees for administration positions. But not all. That drew the ire of some conservatives, Trump loyalists and President Donald Trump himself.

Trump seethed at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for requiring the Senate to run lengthy parliamentary traps and incinerate valuable floor time to confirm even non-controversial nominees. The President finally unloaded on the New York Democrat in a digital coup de grace, telling him to ‘GO TO HELL!’

It’s notable that Trump has not yet met with Schumer or House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., during his second term. But then again, this is a two-way street. And Democrats remember multiple tumultuous meetings with Mr. Trump during the last time he was in office. It culminated in verbal grappling between the President and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, and ended with Democrats abandoning the meeting after only a few moments.

So, it’s far from certain any such meeting would yield anything remotely productive.

But back to the ‘August recess.’

First, it’s important to establish that members of the House and Senate are not on ‘summer vacation.’ Sure, there are always some breaks to visit with family and friends. Lawmakers are people, too. But truly, this is not a ‘break.’ Lawmakers are always ‘on.’ Not everything they do is centered around Washington. Any congressman or senator worth their salt will tell you that spending time back in their home states or districts is just as important – if not more so – than what goes down on Capitol Hill. Meeting with constituents. Visiting businesses. Conducting town hall meetings. Stopping by local coffee bars. Breaking bread at diners. Chatting up the local press corps. 

Members also use this longer respite for political travel and fact-finding missions overseas. These ‘CODELS’ – short for ‘Congressional Delegation’ – are a critical function for lawmakers to build bridges with foreign leaders and make their marks on how the U.S. approaches the rest of the globe. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., have recently led groups on trips to Israel. At least one other major trip is booked for later this month.

So, the ‘August recess’ is not inherently a ‘bad’ thing. It’s an essential part of the job and probably one of the biggest misnomers in American politics. 

Still, many Americans simply dismiss August as a ‘vacation’ for House members and senators, and it is a challenging optic for Congress.

Which brings us back to the tension between staying in session to get ‘something’ done and returning home.

It’s clear the Senate could have stayed in session to plow through more of President Trump’s nominees. Schumer and other Democrats simply weren’t going to relent and allow Republicans to confirm a slate of nominees ‘en bloc.’ That’s where the Senate greenlights a large slate of nominees all at once and approves them either by unanimous consent or via voice vote. The Senate confirms the nominees all at once. The House certainly could have stayed in session to hammer out a few spending bills ahead of the deadline to fund the government by October 1.

But here’s a stark reality – especially for the Senate:

Lawmakers and staff desperately needed a break.

Period. Full stop.

Since May, the Senate in particular has conducted multiple overnight, round-the-clock and weekend sessions. Not just a few. The Senate voted deep into the night or overnight on the Big, Beautiful Bill. Then the Senate was back for late-night sessions confirming nominees. 

Yes. This is the people’s business. But the floor staff and support teams were exhausted. Senate leaders were mindful of that. And that’s to say nothing of the lawmakers themselves.

It’s anecdotal, but lawmakers probably needed a break from one another, too. That makes them happier – and probably more productive when they return to Washington. 

But this still doesn’t solve the political dilemma facing Republican senators with a substantial core of their party demanding they remain moored in Washington to grind out nominees.

And it may not satisfy President Trump, either.

There’s lots of Senate talk now about ‘changing the rules’ to accelerate the confirmation of nominees. 

One thing is for sure: the Senate won’t change the ‘rules’ to expedite the confirmation process. The Senate boasts 44 standing rules. It takes 67 votes to break a filibuster on an actual rules change. But what Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., could do is back the Senate into a special parliamentary posture where he can initiate a new ‘precedent’ to confirm different types of nominees. That’s a maneuver that late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., executed to confirm some of former President Obama’s nominees. The same with former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to confirm Supreme Court nominees.

‘New precedents’ in the Senate require some complicated parliamentary wrangling. But only a simple majority is necessary to make good on this gambit for nominees. So, it’s easier and much more plausible than ‘changing the rules.’

To the lay person, a new ‘precedent’ doesn’t sound important. But there’s a reason why the Senate only has 44 standing rules and a voluminous book of precedents. You can accomplish a lot in the Senate if you’re able to concoct a new precedent.

And note that it’s not just Republicans who want to change the way the Senate does things for some lower-tier, non-controversial nominees. Some Senate Democrats have expressed interest in changes, too.

There are only so many minutes and so many hours. Time is just as valuable to Democrats as it is to Republicans.

Everyone on Capitol Hill knows that more long nights and overnight sessions await lawmakers in September and the fall as the Senate attempts to confirm additional nominees.

That’s to say nothing of avoiding a government shutdown in October.

This is why Senate Republicans elected to stick around for a bit recently – and then call it a day. Or a month.

After all, there is only so much time available in August.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Sunday thanked European leaders for backing his push to join this week’s U.S.–Russia summit, as Kyiv fears Washington and Moscow could strike a deal to end the war but in a way that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty.

‘The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people today for the sake of peace in Ukraine, which is defending the vital security interests of our European nations,’ Zelenskyy said.

The leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland and the European Commission said in a joint statement that any diplomatic solution brokered between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin must protect the security interests of Ukraine and Europe.

‘The U.S. has the power to force Russia to negotiate seriously,’ EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told Reuters on Sunday. ‘Any deal between the U.S. and Russia must have Ukraine and the EU included, for it is a matter of Ukraine’s and the whole of Europe’s security,’ she added.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said the upcoming summit ‘will be about testing Putin’ and will serve as a measure of how serious the Russian leader is about ‘bringing this terrible war to an end.’

Both the White House and the Kremlin have acknowledged Zelenskyy’s request to join the talks, though no formal invitation has been issued. Trump and Putin are scheduled to meet in Alaska on Aug. 15. If Zelenskyy were to take part, the meeting would mark the first between Putin and Zelenskyy since the start of Moscow’s war.

The meeting, which Trump announced in a Truth Social post on Friday, comes on the heels of Washington’s threats to impose steep tariffs on the Kremlin and its allies.

Trump has previously singled out countries like India and China—top buyers of discounted Russian crude — for undermining G7 price caps and weakening the impact of Western sanctions.

In response, bipartisan lawmakers introduced the Sanctioning Russia Act, which would impose a 500% tariff targeting the core of Russia’s economy — its oil and gas exports — if Moscow continues to resist peace efforts or escalates the conflict.

Meanwhile, a senior member of Putin’s inner circle warned that multiple countries are mounting ‘titanic efforts’ to undermine the upcoming summit between the Russian leader and Trump.

‘Undoubtedly, a number of countries interested in continuing the conflict will make titanic efforts to disrupt the planned meeting between President Putin and President Trump,’ wrote Russia’s investment envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, in a Telegram post on Saturday, referencing the Kremlin’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

While Dmitriev did not name specific countries, he warned that critics of the upcoming talks could seek to sabotage the summit through diplomatic maneuvers or disinformation through the media.

President Donald Trump will use the upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin to test how serious Putin is about ending the war with Ukraine, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Sunday.

Rutte told ABC’s ‘This Week’ that the meeting comes as Trump continues to put pressure on Putin, noting the recent secondary sanctions on countries like India, which purchased Russian oil, and delivering lethal weapons to Ukraine.

‘Next Friday will be important because it will be about testing Putin, how serious he is on bringing this terrible war to an end,’ Rutte said.

Trump announced the first in-person meeting with Putin since Moscow launched its deadly invasion of Ukraine in 2022 in a Truth Social post on Saturday. The leaders are expected to meet in Alaska on Friday, Aug. 15.

In recent weeks, Trump has refused to mince words when asked about Putin. Trump said during a Cabinet meeting July 8 he was fed up with Putin and said he was eyeing potentially imposing new sanctions on Russia. 

The NATO chief called the upcoming meeting ‘an important step’ in the process of reaching full-scale peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, however, wasn’t expected to be at the summit with Trump and Putin as of Sunday. Despite Zelenskyy’s absence, Rutte said ‘we need Ukraine at the table.’

‘It will be about territory,’ Rutte said of the upcoming meeting. ‘It will, of course, be about security guarantees, but also about the absolute need to acknowledge that Ukraine decides on its own future, that Ukraine has to be a sovereign nation deciding on its geopolitical future, of course having no limitations to its own military troop levels, and for NATO to have no limitations on our presence on the eastern flank in countries like Latvia, Estonia and Finland.’

U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker told CNN on Sunday that no decision had been made at this point about whether Zelenskyy would be invited to the meeting.

‘If [Trump] thinks that that is the best scenario to invite Zelenskyy, then he’ll do that,’ Whitaker said, adding that ‘there’s time to make that decision.’

When asked about whether Putin can be trusted, Whitaker said that in any situation of competing national interests it will be actions, not words, that decide whether peace is achieved and preserved.

‘Words are cheap, but in this case, whether it’s the Russians or the Ukrainians, both sides are going to have to take the actions to have peace and to continue to honor that peace,’ he said.

Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump recently spoke to the South Carolina Republican Party’s Silver Elephant Gala through a phone that Sen. Lindsey Graham held up to a microphone.

Trump, who endorsed Graham for re-election earlier this year, continued expressing his support for the senator while speaking on the phone.

Trump said the senator has his ‘full endorsement,’ calling him a ‘great guy,’ saying that Graham has always been there for him when he needed him and he ‘won’t forget it.’

‘Thank you for your surprise call, Mr. President!’ Graham said in a post on X that also featured footage of Trump’s remarks about him. 

‘With your support, I’ll keep delivering the America First agenda to the great people of South Carolina. I’m glad to have been part of the most awesome six months in modern history led by President @realDonaldTrump.’

Graham, who has served in the Senate since 2003, is facing Republican primary challengers.

Paul Dans, the former director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project at the Heritage Foundation and who is one of Graham’s challengers, attended the event where Trump spoke by phone.

‘Lindsey Graham’s terrified—his Senate seat’s at risk against me, his toughest challenger yet. After 32 years of broken term-limit promises, he’s done. Clinging to President Trump won’t save him from SC’s America First Patriots who see his grift. #LindseyPanic #PrezTrumpPlsHelpMe,’ Dans wrote in a post on X.

Graham will be up for re-election in 2026.