Congressional Republicans are sorting out what their plan to tackle expiring Obamacare subsidies will be, but they acknowledge that, ultimately, President Donald Trump will be the deciding factor. 

Senate Democrats turned the latest record-breaking shutdown into a push to extend the subsidies, which were enhanced during the pandemic under former President Joe Biden and are set to sunset by the end of this year. 

Many Republicans recognize that the subsidies must be dealt with as healthcare premiums begin to skyrocket, but most don’t want to extend them in their current form. 

And both chambers are eyeing different approaches, which could further complicate the path forward to reaching a deal by the end of the year.

In the upper chamber, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has guaranteed Senate Democrats a vote on a proposal of their choice. However, whatever kind of legislation they put on the floor has to be bipartisan, given the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold, in order to pass. 

Whether a plan can be bipartisan is still in the early stages, and a roadblock could be the GOP’s desire to include the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds from covering the costs of abortions.   

Thune said the major question was ‘will the Democrats accept applying Hyde to any changes or reforms that might be made?’

‘I mean, I think there’s an openness, because, you know, we’ve got members, and a lot of members, who are very interested in addressing the affordability of healthcare,’ he said. ‘The question is, what’s the best way to do it?’

Senate Republicans have floated proposals since before the shutdown ended, but there is some consensus growing behind taking subsidy money and putting it directly into healthcare savings accounts (HSAs) for Americans — something Trump has backed and was first floated by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla. 

Scott and Republicans scoffed at Senate Democrats’ proposal to extend the subsidies for one year, and contended doing so would send billions directly to insurance companies. They also want reforms and guardrails like the Hyde Amendment language. 

‘They pay for abortions. Republicans are not going to vote to have taxpayers pay for abortions under their COVID-19 Biden subsidies,’ Scott told Fox News Digital.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., also has his own proposal that would similarly transfer funds directly to the consumer rather than to insurance companies.

Cassidy, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, told Fox News Digital that whichever plan Republicans went with would originate in his committee and from the Senate Finance Committee, where he hoped that ‘we have something which is bipartisan.’ 

He also noted that the Hyde Amendment language is important to Republicans, but that in the end, all roads lead back to Trump. 

‘Anybody looking for something which actually can be signed into law has got to look at the kind of direction that President Trump has given,’ he said. 

In the House of Representatives, meanwhile, multiple top Republicans are eyeing a second ‘big, beautiful bill’ via the budget reconciliation process — this time focused mostly on healthcare.

‘We’ve got a variety of options for affordability, but most importantly, we want to make healthcare affordable,’ Republican Study Committee Chairman August Pfluger, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital of plans for a second reconciliation bill. ‘We want it to be transparent, we want it to be competitive. Not a single Republican voted for any of these provisions over the last 15 years, and yet prices have gone up, so it’s a shame.’

The reconciliation process allows the party in power to change federal budgetary law while completely sidelining the minority, by effectively allowing legislation to bypass the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold in favor of a simple majority.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., told Fox News Digital a healthcare-focused reconciliation effort ‘may come to pass.’

‘It depends on whether the Democrats are serious about actually bringing down healthcare premiums for Americans. And I’m not talking about subsidized healthcare premiums, I’m talking about actual healthcare premiums,’ Harris said. ‘If they’re not serious, then it’s going to have to be done through reconciliation.’

Harris also backed the idea of an HSA, telling reporters, ‘It works with the functionality of a debit card. You can go to any provider, and that provider has to give you the most favorable rate.’

A senior House GOP lawmaker also told Fox News Digital that Republicans were in the process of working on legislation specifically aimed at reforming different sectors of the healthcare system.

Tentative plans include reforms on cost-sharing reductions, or CSRs, pharmaceutical reform, and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reforms, the lawmaker said.

CSRs are a discount facilitated by the federal government, written under Obamacare, which help lower how much people pay for deductibles and copayments.

PBMs, meanwhile, act as intermediaries between drug companies and insurers — a system critics have said chiefly serves to inflate the cost of prescription drugs for consumers.

But another House Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity was skeptical that the GOP could pass another reconciliation bill after the long and politically precarious process of Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill.’

‘I don’t even see close to the votes for another reconciliation,’ the second GOP lawmaker said. ‘I think some of us are a little snake-bit on where the money that was supposed to go places, isn’t going where it’s supposed to go.’

Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Bryan Bedford announced Thursday that hundreds of air traffic controllers and technicians who worked during the government shutdown will receive bonus checks.

TheDepartment of Transportation (DOT) said in a statement that 776 air traffic controllers and technicians will be awarded $10,000 for their ‘patriotic work to ensure the safety of the skies during the Democrats’ 44-day government shutdown.’

‘These patriotic men and women never missed a beat and kept the flying public safe throughout the shutdown,’ Duffy said in a statement. ‘Democrats may not care about their financial well-being, but President Trump does.’

The secretary added, ‘This award is an acknowledgment of their dedication and a heartfelt appreciation for going above and beyond in service to the nation.’

DOT said checks would only be sent to workers who maintained perfect attendance during the recent shutdown and that the payments should arrive by Dec. 9, in time for the holidays.

‘I am profoundly proud and grateful for the air traffic personnel who worked during extraordinary operational challenges to keep the National Airspace System (NAS) running safely during the longest government shutdown,’ Bedford said in a statement. ‘Their dedication represents the highest levels of public service.’

The announcement came after President Donald Trump previously floated the idea of rewarding controllers who remained on the job, writing in a post on Truth Social last week, ‘For those Air Traffic Controllers who were GREAT PATRIOTS, and didn’t take ANY TIME OFF for the ‘Democrat Shutdown Hoax,’ I will be recommending a BONUS of $10,000 per person for distinguished service to our Country.’

‘For those that did nothing but complain, and took time off, even though everyone knew they would be paid, IN FULL, shortly into the future, I am NOT HAPPY WITH YOU,’ Trump added.

On Nov. 13, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem handed out $10,000 bonus checks to Transportation Security Administration TSA agents at Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport who continued working during the shutdown.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

The chair of the House Republican campaign arm says the Democrats’ sweeping victories in this month’s 2025 elections are a ‘wake-up call’ for GOP voters.

And Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina, who’s chairing the National Republican Congressional Committee for a second straight election cycle, said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital that he wants President Donald Trump ‘out there on the trail’ in next year’s midterm elections, when the party defends its razor-thin House majority.

Democrats won the only two races for governor this year, in New Jersey and Virginia, by double digits, and also scored big wins in ballot box showdowns in battlegrounds Georgia and Pennsylvania and left-tilting New York City and California.

Plenty of Republicans have discounted the Democrats’ high-profile victories, since they mostly occurred in blue-leaning states, since they mostly occurred in blue-leaning states.

Hudson noted the top elections took place in ‘Democrat states,’ but added, ‘I think our big takeaway as Republicans is the Democrats were energized. They turned out at record levels. Republicans turned out in normal levels.’

‘I think there’s a wake-up call there to conservatives and Republicans who are happy with the direction of the country. They’re glad President Trump’s back in the White House. But if they want to keep this momentum going, they’ve got to show up and vote,’ he emphasized.

Many of Trump’s MAGA supporters are considered low-propensity voters, who head to the polls only when Trump is on the ballot. But Trump won’t be on the ballot in the 2026 midterms.

Hudson, who noted that ‘House Republicans are very closely aligned with President Trump, and we’re supporting his agenda,’ said that ‘we want him out there on the trail, campaigning with our candidates. I think he brings a lot of energy.’

Pointing to ‘a lot of folks who don’t vote when he’s not on the ballot,’ Hudson said, ‘I don’t need all of them to show up, but I need some of them. And so having President Trump out there will be a big benefit for us.’

Those requests for the MAGA motivator are already coming in to the president’s political team.

Matt Van Epps, the Republican nominee in next month’s special congressional election for a vacant GOP-held House seat in Tennessee, has asked for Trump to campaign in person with him ahead of the Dec. 2 election.

Democrats were laser-focused on affordability on the 2025 campaign trail.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said his party’s candidates met ‘voters at the kitchen table. . . . From New Jersey and Virginia and New York, to Georgia and beyond, Democrats ran campaigns relentlessly focused on costs and affordability.’

And Martin emphasized the 2025 elections were a preview of things to come in next year’s midterms.

‘In ‘26, we’ll do it again. We’ll run a National Coordinated Campaign to win races up and down the ballot to provide a check on the out-of-control Trump administration and its Republican rubber stamps,’ he argued.

Hudson, pointing to former President Joe Biden, said ‘there are challenges out there with the economy, because Biden broke it, and House Republicans, working with President Trump, are going to fix it, and we’re working very hard to do that. ‘

‘Certainly, we could always improve the way we communicate with our voters about it,’ he added. ‘But we are laser focused on the issues that matter to them. You know, it’s the cost of things, it’s the security in their neighborhood, it’s a secure border. We are very focused on that, and we’ve delivered a lot of things that are going to make their lives better.’

And looking ahead to next year, he added, ‘come tax season, a lot of families are going to be really happy to see they’ve got a lot more take-home pay, and that’s because of Donald Trump and House Republicans.’

Hudson, in step with fellow Republicans, aimed to link Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a socialist who pushed a far-left platform on the campaign trail this year, to House Democrats who may face challenging re-elections next year.

‘The entire Democrat Party has shifted to the left. This is Mamdani’s party now,’ Hudson charged. ‘And every single House Democrat needs to answer for his policies, and they need to let their constituents know, do they stand with Mamdani or not?’

The power in power, which nowadays is clearly the Republicans, traditionally faces political headwinds in the midterm elections.

And Hudson was interviewed as two new national polls indicated Democrats with the upper hand in the 2026 battle for the House majority.

But Hudson said: ‘The only number I’m concerned about is three. We have three Republicans in seats Kamala Harris carried.’

And he highlighted that Democrats have ‘thirteen sitting in seats Donald Trump won. They’ve got 21 more sitting in seats that Donald Trump barely lost. So there, there are only a few seats up for grabs this time, most of them are Democrat seats.’

The conservative movement has found itself in a season of confusion in recent weeks. Former friends quarrel, familiar institutions are in turmoil, and some voices, both new and old, on the right have begun to wonder aloud whether the United States should still stand with Israel. 

That question deserves a resolute answer, and the answer is this: for our security, for democracy in the Middle East and for the very destiny of our nation, America must stand with Israel.

Americans should always be open to debate how we spend our money abroad and whether our foreign policy truly serves national interest. The rising generation in particular demands rigorous answers beyond empty platitudes.  

But lately, it seems that something deeper, something darker, has driven those questions. After decades of conflict in the Middle East, some are tempted to embrace isolationism, to treat moral clarity as naïveté, and to spurn our allies as unwanted burdens under the strain of massive national debt. For others, it is nothing more than antisemitism.  

The acceptance of antisemitic voices on the left and the right, from the halls of Congress to social media, represents a vile and dangerous trend in American politics, and it must be forcefully opposed wherever it appears. There is no place in the conservative movement for antisemitism.

For nearly 80 years, the bond between the United States and Israel has been more than a diplomatic arrangement. It has been a covenant of free peoples who share the same ideals: faith in God, belief in human dignity and gratitude for the blessings of liberty. Israel’s survival has never depended on our charity; it has depended on our partnership, and that partnership has made America safer and paid dividends. 

Centuries before the founding of modern Israel, our Founding Fathers championed the return of the Jewish people to Israel and made special provision for the Jewish faith in America. George Washington assured Jewish Americans that the fledgling United States ‘gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.’ John Adams supported ‘the Jews again in Judea’ as ‘an independent nation.’ Elias Boudinot, the president of the American Revolution’s Congress, boldly suggested that ‘God has raised up these United States… for the very purpose of… bringing his beloved people to their own land.’ Even the famously thrifty Benjamin Franklin once opened his coffers to help a local Philadelphia synagogue weather financial difficulty.  

But the case for Israel is far more than historic.

Today, Israel stands as an oasis of democracy in a Middle East where dozens of its neighbors are Islamic states or still practice monarchy. It is a cruel irony that, in a world of 46 majority-Muslim nations, the presence of a single majority-Jewish nation is seen by many of Israel’s neighbors as one too many. Thirty-one countries still refuse to recognize Israel on their maps. Some of those would love nothing less than to see Israel wiped off the map altogether. And yet Israel persists.  

Thanks to Israel’s courage and the decisive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States, we no longer live under a nuclear sword of Damocles wielded by a regime that chants ‘Death to America.’ From the Stuxnet cyber operation that crippled Iran’s enrichment program, to Israel’s assistance with U.S. airstrikes, and to many heroic covert operations, Israel has repeatedly helped delay Tehran’s progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons. Those actions protected not only Jerusalem and Tel Aviv – they protected Washington, New York and every American city within reach of Iran’s hatred. 

That may not matter much to a segment of the New Right that confuses isolation for safety. But the rest of us know better. We understand what it would mean if the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism ever possessed nuclear weapons.  When Israel takes the fight to Iran’s terror network proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Revolutionary Guard, it is not merely doing our bidding; it is doing what conscience and common sense require. It stands between civilization and chaos. Israel’s cause is our cause.  

When Israel succeeds, as it did in 2024 by decapitating Hezbollah’s leadership in a precision pager-bombing campaign, America is safer. The practical case for our alliance is clear.

Centuries before the founding of modern Israel, our Founding Fathers championed the return of the Jewish people to Israel and made special provision for the Jewish faith in America.

But the heart of American support is still a matter of shared values and faith. We stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny. Israel must be empowered to finish the fight against those who would harm her, terrorists who hide behind women, children, hospitals and holy places as they launch rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Peace and justice, within Gaza and without, require that Hamas be destroyed. 

In the end, Americans have always supported Israel because the very existence of this enduring nation bears witness to God’s faithfulness. And the support of millions of Americans throughout the generations has been built upon the ancient words recorded in Genesis where God promises to ‘bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse, and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’

For 250 years, America has been blessed like no other country in history. As we prepare to celebrate our blessings as a nation, I believe we must never forsake that promise or our cherished ally. If the world knows nothing else, let the world know this: America stands with Israel. 

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that officials who pushed radical climate change policies should be immediately investigated.

While speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in Washington, D.C., Trump said the American people rejected ‘failed’ far-left models, including regulation aimed at curbing climate change.

The event, which was held at the Kennedy Center, aims to bring together ‘visionaries, leaders, and changemakers shaping the future of global investment,’ according to its website. Speakers include Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Albert Bourla and several other heavy hitters.

Trump went through climate activists’ change in terminology, noting that what is now called ‘climate change’ was once called ‘global warming.’

‘Perfect words, ‘climate change.’ They’re covered if it rains, if it snows, if it’s warm, it’s climate change, ‘it’s destroying the world,” Trump said. He later remarked, ‘It’s a little conspiracy out there. We have to investigate them immediately. They probably are being investigated.’

‘Their policies punish success, rewarded failure and produced disaster, including the worst inflation in our country’s history,’ Trump added.

While it was not immediately clear who Trump was referencing when he called for an investigation, he has spoken out against the Green New Deal, which he calls the ‘Green New Scam.’

Trump issued a proclamation declaring October ‘National Energy Dominance Month.’ In his proclamation, Trump lamented the Biden administration’s ‘war on American energy,’ saying that ‘the Green New Scam shuttered dozens of coal plants leaving our power grid vulnerable, halted mining productions, and shipped our energy jobs from Texas to Tehran, from the Midwest to Moscow, and from Baton Rouge to Beijing.’

Additionally, on Earth Day, the White House declared that, ‘Unlike the previous administration, which wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on virtue signaling and ineffective grifts, the Trump administration’s policies are rooted in the belief that Americans are the best stewards of our vast natural resources — no ‘Green New Scam’ required.’ 

The White House article listed Trump’s environment-related policies, such as the promotion of U.S. energy dominance, his support for forest management and his actions to protect public lands.

During his remarks on Wednesday, Trump declared that, under his administration, ‘America is back and America is open for business. And America is actually stronger than it’s ever been before.’

On Tuesday, MBS committed his country to increasing its planned investment in the U.S. economy to nearly $1 trillion over the next year. Trump welcomed the investment, saying it was ‘great.’

‘You know, that’s great. I appreciate that. That’s great. We’re doing numbers that nobody’s ever done. And in all fairness, if you didn’t see potential in the U.S., you wouldn’t be doing it,’ Trump said.

‘Definitely,’ MBS replied.

Fox News Digital’s Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

Republican legislation brewing in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing civil litigation transparency is sparking concern from some conservative organizations that fear it could chill donor participation and make it more difficult for Americans of modest means to hold ‘woke’ companies accountable. 

In a letter sent earlier this week, Tea Party Patriots Action urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject HR 1109, introduced by GOP Reps. Darrell Issa, Scott Fitzgerald, and Mike Collins, which is known as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 and is aimed at ensuring greater transparency in civil litigation, requiring parties receiving payment in lawsuits to disclose their identity. 

The letter warns that ‘sweeping disclosure mandates in this bill threaten our core American principles of personal privacy, confidentiality, and freedom of speech and association.’

‘This legislation would require litigants to preemptively disclose detailed information about private financial arrangements, such as litigation funding agreements, independent from the discovery process and without any finding of relevance by a judge,’ the letter, signed by over a dozen conservative groups including America First Legal, Defending Education, Heartland Institute, former treasurer of Ohio Ken Blackwell, and American Energy Institute, states. 

‘The bill’s forced disclosure mandates would broadly apply to any number of political organizations, religious groups, law firms, or individual plaintiffs that rely on outside support to vindicate their rights.

‘If adopted, H.R. 1109 will have a chilling effect on free speech and association and directly threaten the privacy rights of Americans,’ the letter warns. ‘The end result will be fewer Americans having the resources or willingness to bring legitimate claims, which threatens to undermine future legal battles over issues critical to our movement.’

‘The privacy interests at stake here are not abstract. We have seen how disclosure regimes can be easily weaponized by bad actors, particularly those seeking to attack and intimidate political opponents.’

Issa told Fox News Digital on Thursday afternoon that there is ‘misinformation’ circulating about what the bill actually does and there will be a ‘small update tomorrow to clarify one item.’

‘What’s actually happened is language has been put in to assure groups that we’re not looking to overturn NAACP v. Alabama or any of the other historical 501c privileges that you don’t turn over your donor list and so on,’ Issa said. ‘That was something that Obama and Biden tried to do a couple of times. We want nothing to do with that. We’re only asking that if there is a material funder slash partner in a lawsuit, that they be disclosed.’

‘I fully respect and appreciate the concerns of people who want to make sure that this does not turn into a burdensome discovery of, for example, a nonprofit’s hundreds, thousands or millions of donors,’ Issa explained. 

‘We share the concern of all these groups that we wanted to make sure we believed we were on solid ground as written but in an abundance of caution, my staff and all the parties worked to try to come up with the most straightforward, effective way to say, of course, you don’t have to disclose your donors.’

Proponents of the legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, call it a ‘vital step toward ensuring that our legal system remains a tool for justice rather than being a playground for hidden financial interests.’

In his press release announcing the legislation in February, Issa said, ‘Our legislation targets serious and continuing abuses in our litigation system that distort our system of justice by obscuring public detection and exploiting loopholes in the law for financial gain.’

‘Our approach will achieve a far better standard of transparency in the courts that people deserve, and our standard of law requires. We fundamentally believe that if a third-party investor is financing a lawsuit in federal court, it should be disclosed rather than hidden from the world and left absent from the facts of a case.’  

The press release explained that hundreds of cases a year involve civil litigation funded by undisclosed-third-party interests as an investment for return from hedge funds, commercial lenders and sovereign wealth funds through shell companies and that there are often investor-backed entities who seek hefty settlements from American companies that end up ‘distorting the free market and stifling innovation.’

The conversation about the legislation reignites an ongoing showdown between insurers and large corporations who have made the case that third-party funding drives abusive suits and inflated settlements therefore needing more visibility into funders of litigation and limits to speculative investment in lawsuits against advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks, who argue they are the only mechanism for those without deep pockets to take legal action against well funded companies. 

Many advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks don’t simply hand over charitable donations to a lawsuit but instead use structured litigation vehicles, limited liability companies, donor-advised funds, or legal-defense trusts,  that front the costs of a case and are reimbursed, sometimes with interest, if the case wins or settles. The process is known as non-recourse or outcome-contingent funding, meaning the funder only gets money back if the case succeeds.

Nonprofits like Consumers’ Research have been using litigation finance in recent years to push back against ‘woke capitalism’ to counter ESG and DEI policies and the group’s executive director, Will Hild, told Fox News Digital that it has been ‘all too easy for major companies to use their outsized influence and powerful market shares to push an ideological agenda with little to no recourse.’

Hild told Fox News Digital he views the legislation an ‘attack’ on one of the ‘few tools Americans have to hold powerful, woke corporations accountable.’

Hild added, ‘Even worse, it imposes dangerous disclosure mandates that would force plaintiffs to expose confidential litigation funding agreements. This bill blatantly tips the scales in favor of woke corporations and makes it far harder for victims to secure the resources they need to fight back.’

The letter from the conservative groups also expresses fear that ‘compelled disclosure of private financial arrangements would force litigants to unveil the identity of donors — violating donor privacy rights and exposing them to threats of harassment and retaliation.’

In a Tuesday op-ed in The Hill opposing the legislation, Alliance Defending Freedom founder Alan Sears pointed to Supreme Court decisions that he says have ‘affirmed that forced disclosure of private association undermines fundamental freedoms.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Rep. Fitzgerald said, ‘As reiterated to these groups in multiple discussions, it remains Congress’ intent to protect the First Amendment rights of those who contribute to political groups and religious organizations, consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens’ United.’

Organizations that have endorsed the bill have pointed to concerns about foreign funding in courtrooms, specifically from China, including High Tech Investors Alliance who said in a press release they ‘commend’ the legislators who put it forward for ‘defending American businesses against the exploitation of our courts by foreign adversaries and unscrupulous hedge funds.’

‘For too long, a lack of transparency has allowed shell entities to manipulate the legal system to prey on American employers, concealing their predatory practices and identities of their financial backers,’ HTIA said. ‘As President Trump takes bold action against aggressive economic maneuvers by China and other countries, Congress must also act decisively to protect our judges and juries from becoming tools in the economic warfare waged by antagonists.’

Leonard Leo, who operates a vast network of conservative nonprofits and is tied to Consumers’ Research, told Politico earlier this year that ‘while there are areas, like mass tort, where litigation financing has been abused, and could be reformed, it has always been a critical tool for the conservative movement to advance the public good by taking on the liberal woke agenda.’

The House Judiciary Committee did not mark the bill up Tuesday and Fox News Digital is told it will be marked up on Thursday at 12 p.m. 

‘If someone is acting as a principal litigant, either directly or one step removed, then you have a right to face them, you have the right to cross-examine them, you have a right to know if they receive your trade secrets that were exposed and disclosed in litigation, these things are all important,’ Issa said, adding that the legislation does not require materials to be turned over to the defendant and a judge can review them in camera, a legal term for in private.

Issa continued, ‘We just want to make sure that the judge knows that just as the markman is a required part of determining what a patent means, that it’s a responsibility of the judge to determine who the litigants are and, as appropriate, disclosing them is required — and that last part has always been ignored a little bit, we’re only making sure that that discovery is asked for and evaluated at a minimum by the judge or magistrate overseeing the case.’

AT&T turned over private, personal cellphone records belonging to then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy to then-Special Counsel Jack Smith in January 2023 amid his investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, Fox News Digital has learned.

Fox News Digital first reported Thursday that Smith subpoenaed AT&T for McCarthy’s records, but AT&T had indicated to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that the company had not shared any of the former speaker’s phone records.

But Fox News Digital exclusively obtained a letter AT&T sent to Grassley, R-Iowa, citing the previous reporting, which led the telecommunications company to review the case and change its response.

Smith, on Jan. 24, 2023, allegedly sought the ‘toll records for the personal cell phones of U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (AT&T) and U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert (Verizon.)’

The information was included as part of a ‘significant case notification’ drafted by the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division May 25, 2023.

AT&T, though, notified Grassley that the company received a subpoena for McCarthy’s records in January 2023 — separate from the May 2023 subpoena for other toll records, and allegedly inadvertently supplied those personal cellphone records to Smith.

‘AT&T is producing today a January 23, 2023 grand jury subpoena issued by former Special Counsel Jack Smith to AT&T, also accompanied by a non-disclosure order relating to the subpoena,’ AT&T wrote.

AT&T referenced Fox News Digital’s exclusive reporting on the subpoena.

‘We identified (the subpoena) yesterday as such based on the phone number in the subpoena,’ the company continued. ‘Based on this newly found record, we write to correct our October 24, 2025 response, which was based (on) a reasonable review of our records at that time.’ 

‘AT&T’s Global Legal Demand Center receives hundreds of thousands of legal demands each year, and unlike the May 2023 subpoena discussed in our October 24 response, the subpoena we produced today did not seek records from a campaign account,’ AT&T explained.

‘Rather, as confirmed from press accounts, the subpoena sought records for a personal cellular phone number,’ AT&T continued. ‘It also did not in any way indicate that the information sought related to a member of Congress. As a result, the subpoena processing center had no reason to believe that the phone number was associated with a member of Congress, and AT&T did not make further inquiries to the Special Counsel and produced the information as required by the subpoena.’

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told Fox News Digital that ‘Jack Smith broke the law and seized my phone records as Speaker of the House.’

‘If corrupt justice will do it to the Speaker, they’ll do it to anyone,’ he said. ‘The DOJ has the authority and responsibility to hold him accountable.’

Lawyers for Smith declined to comment.

AT&T had initially told Grassley that when the company received the May 2023 request for records it ‘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.’

AT&T had also stressed that the company ‘has not produced any records or other information to Special Counsel Jack Smith’ relating to ‘any member of Congress.’

The revelations come after Fox News Digital exclusively reported in October that Smith and his ‘Arctic Frost’ team investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots were tracking the private communications and phone calls of nearly a dozen Republican senators as part of the probe, including Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and GOP Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania.

An official told Fox News Digital that those records were collected in 2023 by Smith and his team after subpoenaing major telephone providers. 

Smith has called his decision to subpoena and track Republican lawmakers’ phone records ‘entirely proper’ and consistent with Justice Department policy.

‘As described by various Senators, the toll data collection was narrowly tailored and limited to the four days from January 4, 2021 to January 7, 2021, with a focus on telephonic activity during the period immediately surrounding the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol,’ Smith’s lawyers wrote in October to Grassley.

Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are investigating ‘Arctic Frost.’ 

‘Arctic Frost’ was opened inside the bureau April 13, 2022. Smith was appointed as special counsel to take over the probe in November 2022. 

An FBI official told Fox News Digital that ‘Arctic Frost’ is a ‘prohibited case,’ and that the review required FBI officials to go ‘above and beyond in order to deliver on this promise of transparency.’ The discovery is part of a broader ongoing review, Fox News Digital has learned.

Smith, after months of investigating, charged President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request. 

Smith’s case cost taxpayers more than $50 million. 

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday evening that he signed legislation greenlighting the Justice Department to release files related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

‘I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!’ Trump wrote in a lengthy message on the Truth Social platform. ‘As everyone knows, I asked Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, to pass this Bill in the House and Senate, respectively. Because of this request, the votes were almost unanimous in favor of passage. 

‘At my direction, the Department of Justice has already turned over close to fifty thousand pages of documents to Congress. Do not forget — The Biden Administration did not turn over a SINGLE file or page related to Democrat Epstein, nor did they ever even speak about him.’

Trump’s ties to Epstein had faced increased attention after Trump’s Justice Department and FBI announced in July it would not unseal investigation materials related to Epstein, and that the agencies’ investigation into the case had closed.

But Sunday Trump announced that he backed releasing the documents, asserting that he had ‘nothing to hide.’ 

‘As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat ‘Shutdown,” Trump wrote.

The House voted Tuesday to release the files by a 421–1 margin, following pressure for months from the measure’s ringleaders, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and other Democrats. 

Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., was the only House member to vote against the release, and said he didn’t back the measure because ‘this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people — witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.’ 

Although Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., ultimately voted in favor of the measure, he also voiced similar concerns during a Tuesday press conference.

‘Who’s going to want to come forward if they think Congress can take a political exercise and reveal their identities? Who’s going to come talk to prosecutors? It’s very dangerous. It would deter future whistleblowers and informants,’ he said. ‘The release of that could also publicly reveal the identity, by the way, of undercover law enforcement officers who are working in future operations.’

After the House’s approval of the measure, the bill headed to the Senate and passed hours later Tuesday by unanimous consent. 

The Epstein Files Transparency Act specifically directs the Justice Department to release all unclassified records and investigative materials related to Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell, as well as files related to individuals who were referenced in Epstein previous legal cases, details surrounding trafficking allegations, internal DOJ communications as they relate to Epstein and any details surrounding the investigation into his death. 

Files that include victims’ names, child sex abuse materials, classified materials or other materials that could threaten an active investigation may be withheld or redacted by the DOJ. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters Wednesday that she would comply with the law after it was signed, which directs the Justice Department to release the files online in a searchable format within 30 days. 

The Epstein files received fanfare among supporters of the president in the early days of the administration as they rallied around the Trump DOJ to release details on Epstein’s alleged ‘client list’ and death. 

The DOJ and FBI said in a joint memo obtained by Fox News in July that the two agencies had no further information to share with the public about Epstein’s case and suicide in 2019, sparking outrage among some MAGA supporters as they demanded the DOJ release more documents. 

Trump has since railed against the Epstein case as a ‘Democrat hoax,’ before calling for their release Sunday. 

The push to release the files gained increased momentum after Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released three emails Wednesday that Epstein’s estate provided to them that mentioned Trump. In turn, Republicans released their own stash of 20,000 pages of Epstein documents that same day.

Included in the tranche of documents are emails between Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and correspondence with author Michael Wolff, former President Barack Obama’s White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler, among others, where Epstein mentions Trump.

‘i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump.. (VICTIM) spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75 % there,’ Epstein said in an email to Maxwell in April 2011, which was provided with other correspondence to the committee by Epstein’s estate in response to a subpoena request.

‘I have been thinking about that…’ Maxwell said in response.

Epstein told Wolff in a separate email in 2019 that ‘of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop’ — a reference to Trump. Trump has said that he barred Epstein from his Florida Mar-a-Lago golf club because Epstein kept ‘taking people who worked for me.’

While the documents themselves are authentic, Epstein’s statements in the emails remain unverified and uncorroborated. The documents do not claim that Trump committed any wrongdoing, and only portray Epstein mentioning the president. 

Likewise, Trump has not faced formal accusations of misconduct tied to Epstein, and no law enforcement records connect Trump to Epstein’s crimes.

Epstein died by suicide in 2019 as he was awaiting trial on federal charges. Maxwell was convicted on charges including sex trafficking of a minor and is currently serving a 20-year sentence.

Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind and David Spunt contributed to this report. 

The Senate is once again finding a moment of bipartisan unity in its fury over a recently-passed law that would allow lawmakers to sue the federal government and reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money as a reward.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to grapple with the inclusion of a provision in a package designed to reopen the government that would allow only senators directly targeted by the Biden-led Department of Justice (DOJ) and former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000.

Both Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ ire at the provision is multi-pronged: some are angry that it was tucked away into the Legislative branch spending bill without a heads-up, others see it as nothing more than a quick pay day for the relatively small group of senators targeted in Smith’s probe.

‘I think it was outrageous that that was put in and air dropped in there,’ Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told Fox News Digital. ‘It’s outrageous. It’s basically just a cash grab for senators to take money away from taxpayers. It’s absolutely outrageous, and needs to be taken out.’

The provision was included in the spending package by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on request from lawmakers in the GOP. And it was given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

The provision is narrowly tailored to just include senators, and would require that they be notified if their information is requested by the DOJ, be it through the subpoena of phone records like in the Arctic Frost investigation or through other means. The idea is to prevent the abuse of the DOJ to go after sitting senators now and in the future.

Thune pushed back on the notion that lawmakers weren’t aware the provision was in the bill, given that the entire package was released roughly 24 hours before it was voted on, but acknowledged their frustration over how it was added was warranted.

‘I think I take that as a legitimate criticism in terms of the process, but I think on the substance, I believe that you need to have some sort of accountability and consequence for that kind of weaponization against a co-equal branch of the government,’ Thune said.

Schumer, when asked about the anger brewing on both sides of the aisle, heaped the blame on Thune, but noted that it was an opportunity to get protection for Democrats, too.

‘Look, the bottom line is Thune wanted the provision, and we wanted to make sure that at least Democratic senators were protected from [Attorney General Pam] Bondi and others who might go after them,’ Schumer said. ‘So we made it go prospective, not just retroactive, but I’d be for repealing all the provision, all of it. And I hope that happens.’

The House is expected to vote on legislation that would repeal the language, and many in the upper chamber want to get the chance to erase the provision should it pass through the House. Whether Thune will put it on the floor remains in the air though.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was one of the eight senators whose records were requested during Smith’s probe. He told Fox News Digital that he was neither asked about the provision, nor told about it, and like many other lawmakers, found out about it when he read the bill.

‘I just think that, you know, giving them money –- I mean making a taxpayer pay for it, I don’t understand why that’s accountability,’ he said. ‘I mean, the people who need to be held accountable are the people who made the decisions to do this, and, frankly, also the telecom companies. So I just, I don’t agree with that approach.’

He also took issue with the fact that the provision was narrowly tailored to only apply to the Senate, and argued that it could be reworked to only provide for declaratory judgement in court rather than a monetary one.

‘I could see the value of having a court say this was illegal and ruling against the government,’ Hawley said. ‘I think it’s the monetary provisions that most people, including me, really balk at. Like, why are the taxpayers on the hook for this, and why does it apply only to the Senate?’

The provision set a retroactive date of 2022 to allow for the group of senators targeted in Smith’s Arctic Frost probe to be able to sue. That element has also raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital that he supported repealing the provision, but wanted to fix it.

‘The best way to be able to handle it, I think, is to be able to fix it, take away the retroactivity in it,’ he said. ‘The initial target of this whole thing was to make sure this never happened again.’

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., told Fox News Digital that the provision was a ‘total mess,’ and raised concerns on a bipartisan basis.

Not every Senator was on board with ditching the provision, however.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., made clear that he intends to sue the DOJ and Verizon, his phone carrier, and argued that he didn’t believe that the provision was self-dealing but rather to deter future, similar actions. He also wants to take the provision, or the core idea of it, a step further.

Graham said that he wanted to open up the process to others, including dozens of groups, former lawmakers and others affected by the investigation.

‘Is it wrong for any American to sue the government if they violated your rights, including me? Is it wrong if a Post Office truck hits you, what do you do with the money? You do whatever you want to do with the money,’ Graham said.

‘If you’ve been wronged, this idea that our government can’t be sued is a dangerous idea,’ he continued. ‘The government needs to be held accountable when it violates people’s rights.’

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tx., was far more succinct. When asked if he would support a repeal of the provision, he told Fox News Digital, ‘No.’