China is pushing back Tuesday after Vice President JD Vance told Fox News last week that the U.S. borrows ‘money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.’ 

Vance, during an interview with ‘Fox & Friends,’ made the remark while speaking about the effects of the Trump administration’s tariffs. 

‘I think it’s useful for all of us to step back and ask us, ask ourselves, what is the globalist economy gotten the United States of America? And the answer is fundamentally, it’s based on two principles — incurring a huge amount of debt to buy things that other countries make for us, and to make it a little bit more crystal clear, we borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture,’ Vance said.  

When asked about Vance’s comments on Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian said, ‘To hear words that lack knowledge and respect like those uttered by this Vice President is both surprising and kind of lamentable. 

‘China has made its position perfectly clear on its trade relations with the U.S.,’ he added. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

China’s criticism of Vance on Tuesday comes as the U.S. and China are involved in an escalating dispute over tariffs. 

‘Remember the during the first Trump administration, everybody said that Trump’s tariffs were going to be inflationary back then. What actually happened — we had 1.5% inflation, we had the fastest growing economy in a generation. And we had the beginning of a manufacturing renaissance in the United States of America,’ Vance told Fox News. ‘Then, of course, we had four terrible years of the Biden administration.’ 

‘We’ve seen closing factories. We’ve seen rising inflation. We’ve seen the cost of housing so high that most Americans can’t afford to buy a home right now,’ he also said. ‘President Trump is taking this economy in a different direction. He ran on that. He promised it. And now he’s delivering.’ 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will be on Capitol Hill again on Wednesday to meet with a key Republican caucus, Fox News Digital has learned.

A source familiar with the planning told Fox News Digital that Bessent is among the speakers at the Republican Study Committee’s weekly lunch on Wednesday. Discussions are likely to focus on tariffs and the budget reconciliation process, the source anticipated. It comes as House Republicans wrestle with a way forward on both fronts.

On tariffs, some Republican lawmakers have said they would like more clarity from the White House on President Donald Trump’s plans – including whether his sweeping import taxes on friends and foes are a negotiation tactic or a matter of long-term policy.

One GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital that Trump’s messaging has been ‘well-received’ but added, ‘It would be nice to have more information.’

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who is leading a bipartisan bill to retake Congress’ power on tariffs, told reporters on Tuesday, ‘I don’t like the thought of waging a trade war with the entire world, and that’s what we’re doing right now.’ 

‘I mean, I surely support tariffs on China. It’s not that I oppose all tariffs, I think there are some countries that would need it. But I question why on Canada,’ Bacon said.

Others, like Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., were more supportive – though he also signaled he saw it as more of a negotiating tool.

‘I believe in fair and free trade, I really do, but what we have right now is not fair, and it’s not free – we pay a disproportionate tax to other nations,’ Haridopolos told Fox News Digital. ‘Whatever you tax me, I’ll tax you. Even better, if there’s no tax between the two countries, that’s a win for the United States in general.’

‘I think the president has taken a strong position to say, ‘We’re a very generous country, and….all we’re asking for is for our trading partners to treat us the way they want to be treated.”

The Republican Study Committee has more than 170 members and acts as the House Republican conference’s de facto think tank at times.

Bessent, meanwhile, opened the door to using tariffs as a hardball tactic in trade talks with other countries – likely welcome news for Republicans who were concerned about the long-term impact on their districts.

He told CNBC on Tuesday morning that he and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer were tapped to lead talks with Japan. He also said Trump himself would be ‘directly involved in those negotiations.’

‘There are 50, 60, maybe almost 70 countries now who have approached us. So it’s going to be a busy April, May, maybe into June. And Japan is a very important military ally,’ Bessent said. ‘And the U.S. has a lot of history with them, so I would expect that Japan’s going to get priority, just because they came forward very quickly. But it’s going to be very busy.’

On the other end, the White House is working with House GOP leaders to convince critics of the Senate’s version of a sweeping bill to advance Trump’s agenda.

Republicans are aiming to use their majorities to pass a massive piece of legislation dealing with border security, energy and defense, as well as extending Trump’s 2017 tax policies. 

Fiscal hawks are angry that the Senate’s version of the bill mandates a minimum of $4 billion in cuts, whereas the House plan calls for at least $1.5 trillion.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Treasury Department but did not immediately hear back.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the Trump administration and upheld the mass firing of tens of thousands of probationary federal employees, granting a request for an emergency administrative stay on a lower court order blocking the firings.

The majority of the high court ruled that the plaintiffs, nine non-profit organizations who had sued to reinstate the employees, lacked standing to sue. 

‘The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing,’ the court said in an order. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the application for a stay.

In their final brief to the Supreme Court, government attorneys argued that lower courts overstepped their authority by ordering the reinstatement of probationary employees last month.

The legal battle stems from the termination of an estimated 16,000 probationary federal employees since President Donald Trump took office, prompting a wave of lawsuits from Democrat-led states and former workers.

Probationary employees are particularly vulnerable to termination because they lack the civil service protections granted to full-time federal workers, which typically take effect after a designated period of service.

Justice Department lawyers have warned that forcing the government to rehire those employees would create ‘chaos’ across federal agencies. They have also maintained that the firings were tied to poor performance – an allegation the dismissed employees strongly dispute.

Last month, a federal judge in Baltimore ordered the Trump administration to reinstate probationary employees who had been fired from multiple government agencies.

Chief Judge James Bredar also directed the administration to return within seven days with a list of the affected employees and an explanation of how the agencies were complying with the reinstatement order.

In their Supreme Court filing, the plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration’s ‘decimation’ of probationary staff had caused deep and lasting harm to key federal agencies.

At the Department of Veterans Affairs – already plagued by chronic understaffing – the layoffs have ‘already had and will imminently continue to have’ serious negative consequences for those who rely on its services, the plaintiffs wrote.

‘Similarly, cuts to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have already harmed and will continue to harm the ability of Respondent environmental and outdoor organizations to enjoy and protect a wide range of federal lands and resources,’ they said.

The plaintiffs, represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, argued that the terminations have already caused significant disruption across the federal government, impairing agencies’ ability to carry out critical functions.

Most recently, a federal judge in Maryland expanded an order this week requiring the Trump administration to rehire terminated probationary federal employees. The ruling also barred the administration from carrying out future mass firings of probationary staff unless done in accordance with federal laws governing employee removals.

That includes providing affected employees with a 60-day notice period, as required under current civil service regulations.

In a Supreme Court filing, Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the lower court’s injunction had forced the Trump administration to rehire federal workers ‘despite agencies’ judgments about what best serves their missions.’

‘Courts do not have license to block federal workplace reforms at the behest of anyone who wishes to retain particular levels of general government services,’ the government wrote in its brief.

The administration argues that reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy in this case, claiming it exceeds the court’s authority – and that even if the terminations were deemed ‘unlawful,’ that still would not justify such a sweeping order.

House Republicans are in disarray ahead of an expected Wednesday afternoon vote to advance the Senate’s version of a massive bill advancing President Donald Trump’s agenda. 

Several people who spoke with Fox News Digital said they were concerned that even the president may not be able to sway holdouts ahead of a planned Wednesday vote – despite Trump’s ability to do so on key pieces of legislation on multiple occasions this year.

‘This one is tough to tell,’ one senior House Republican said when asked if Trump could persuade enough critics to pass the legislation. ‘There’s a level of distrust, historically – that from [$1.5 trillion] to $4 billion, it’s like, why did we go so low?’

Fiscal hawks’ chief concerns with the bill lie in the differences between minimum mandatory spending cuts. 

The House’s version, which the chamber passed in late February, calls for at least $1.5 to $2 trillion in federal spending cuts to offset the new spending for Trump’s priorities on defense, the border and taxes. 

The Senate passed an amendment to the House version over the weekend that, while closely mirroring the lower chamber, called for at least $4 billion in spending cuts.

Sources told Fox News Digital that there are as many as 30 to 40 people who have at least shared serious concerns about the bill.

Some skeptics are expected to be part of a group of House Republicans heading to the White House on Tuesday afternoon to meet with Trump.

But at least three lawmakers who have shared concerns about the bill – Reps. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., Ralph Norman, R-S.C., and Keith Self, R-Texas – said they were not invited.

Meanwhile, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., signaled to reporters that he turned the invitation down.

‘There’s nothing I don’t understand about this issue. So, you know, let the president spend time with people who maybe will change their mind,’ Harris said. 

He said of Trump’s influence, ‘It’s not going to help getting enough votes to pass this week. It’s just, there too many members who are just not going to vote for it, no matter what.’

‘I don’t see it happening,’ a second House Republican told Fox News Digital when asked if Trump could get the legislation over the line.

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., said, ‘I love the president,’ but similarly doubted whether the legislation could pass a Wednesday afternoon vote.

‘I think that because what the Senate sent over is so financially immoral, that it doesn’t matter how much pressure, there’s so many of us that can’t swallow it,’ he told reporters.

Congressional Republicans are working on a massive piece of legislation that Trump has dubbed ‘one big, beautiful bill’ to advance his agenda on border security, defense, energy and taxes.

Such a measure is largely only possible via the budget reconciliation process. Traditionally used when one party controls all three branches of government, reconciliation lowers the Senate’s threshold for passage of certain fiscal measures from 60 votes to 51. As a result, it has been used to pass broad policy changes in one or two massive pieces of legislation.

Trump publicly called for House Republicans to fall in line to pass the Senate version on Monday night.

‘There is no better time than now to get this Deal DONE! The House, the Senate, and our Great Administration, are going to work tirelessly on creating ‘THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL, BILL,’ an appropriate name if Congress so likes. Everyone is going to be happy with the result,’ he wrote on Truth Social. ‘THE HOUSE MUST PASS THIS BUDGET RESOLUTION, AND QUICKLY – MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!’

House GOP leaders have argued that passing the Senate’s version is a critical step to unlocking the main portion of the reconciliation process, where the relevant committees find ways to enact conservative policy goals in line with the funding set out by Republicans’ reconciliation framework.

They’ve also insisted that passing the Senate’s version does not impede the House from working toward its more conservative goal.

‘The budget resolution is not the law, OK? All this does is it allows us to continue the process, begin drafting the actual legislation that really counts. And that’s the one big, beautiful bill. Number two, the Senate amendment makes no changes to the reconciliation instructions that we put into the budget resolution. So our objectives remain intact,’ Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during his weekly press conference.

‘Number three, any final reconciliation bill has to include historic spending reductions that we included in our, resolution while also safeguarding essential programs.’

But fiscal hawks critical of the bill, like Harris, are pushing Republican leaders to allow the House to begin working on its reconciliation bill now and forcing the Senate to reckon with that proposal.

And some Republican holdouts are optimistic that Trump could get them to a point where they can support the legislation Wednesday.

‘I sure hope he can,’ Norman told Fox News Digital. ‘We’re in favor of what he’s doing.’

The House of Representatives is expected to vote Tuesday on a bill to limit federal district court judges’ ability to block President Donald Trump’s agenda on a national scale.

The No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA) was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., earlier this year and quickly became a priority for House GOP leaders after Trump made clear he supported the bill.

House Republicans see it as a way to fight back against ‘rogue’ judges blocking Trump’s agenda. 

The Trump administration has faced more than 15 nationwide injunctions since the Republican commander in chief took office, targeting a wide range of Trump policies from birthright citizenship reform to anti-diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

Issa’s bill would limit district judges – of which there are more than 670 – from issuing rulings with nationwide effect. Instead, they would be forced to tailor those rulings to the specific parties named in the lawsuit.

It has broad support from House Republicans and the backing of GOP leadership.

However, Issa told Fox News Digital that he was skeptical it would get any Democratic support.

‘Sadly, I’m not sure that it will. It obviously should,’ Issa said last week. ‘The administration can win 15 times, and they lose once—they get an injunction. That’s not the way it’s supposed to be.’

Issa pointed out that district judges overstepping was not just a Republican complaint.

‘I mean, we could have called [President Joe Biden’s] former solicitor general and ask, have you changed your opinion in less than a year? Of course, the answer would be no,’ he said.

Former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in a December filing to the Supreme Court, regarding a district judge barring the Biden administration from enforcing a financial crimes law, ‘Universal injunctions exert substantial pressure on this court’s emergency docket, and they visit substantial disruption on the execution of the laws.’

The legislation advanced through the House Rules Committee on Monday night with no Democratic support.

It was expected to get a vote last week, but an unrelated fight about remote voting for new parents derailed House proceedings and sent lawmakers home less than 24 hours after they had returned to Washington for the week. That matter has since been resolved.

A procedural vote is expected on Tuesday at about 1:30 p.m. ET. If it passes, as expected, lawmakers will debate and vote on the final bill later in the day.

It must pass the Senate – where it would need at least some Democratic support to reach its 60-vote threshold – before heading to Trump’s desk for a signature.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard established a new task force charged with restoring transparency and accountability in the intelligence community, Fox News Digital has learned. 

The group, dubbed the Director’s Initiative Group (DIG), is starting by investigating weaponization within the intelligence community. 

Officials said the group will also work to root out politicization and expose unauthorized disclosures of classified intelligence. In addition, it will work to declassify information ‘that serves a public interest.’ 

So far, the Director’s Initiative Group has reviewed documents for potential declassification, including information related to the origins of COVID-19 and the John F. Kennedy Jr., Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. assassination files; the original Trump–Russia investigation; anomalous health incidents; the Biden administration’s domestic surveillance and censorship against Americans, and more. 

Officials told Fox News Digital that the Director’s Initiative Group also is leading assessments of the structure of the intelligence community, its resources and its personnel to ‘approve efficiency and eliminate wasteful spending.’ 

Gabbard told Fox News Digital that she established the group ‘in order to rebuild trust in the intelligence community and execute the tasks required by President Trump’s intelligence-related executive orders.’ 

‘We are already identifying wasteful spending in real time, streamlining outdated processes, reviewing documents for declassification, and leading ongoing efforts to root out abuses of power and politicization,’ Gabbard told Fox News Digital. 

‘President Trump promised the American people maximum transparency and accountability,’ she continued. ‘We are committed to executing the president’s vision and focusing the intelligence community on its core mission: ensuring our security by providing the president and policymakers with timely, apolitical, objective, relevant intelligence to inform their decision-making to ensure the safety, security and freedom of the American people.’

Gabbard also has held employees who participated in sexually explicit NSA chatrooms accountable, and is pursuing action on those who have made unauthorized leaks of classified information within the intelligence community. 

In February, Gabbard said former President Joe Biden’s administration was aware of ‘very sexually explicit, highly inappropriate and unprofessional chatter’ happening on internal agency messaging boards across national intelligence entities for years, but they allowed it to go on. She said the chat rooms ‘were set up because of DEI policies.’ 

Federal employees are still under investigation for allegedly misusing an internal agency messaging board to dish on their sexual fantasies under the guise of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), officials say. 

Chat logs from the National Security Agency’s (NSA) ‘Intelink’ messaging platform, obtained by researchers from the conservative Manhattan Institute reportedly via sources within the NSA, revealed employees from various intelligence agencies discussing their experiences with gender-reassignment surgery, artificial genitalia, hormone therapy, polyamory and pronoun usage. Some of these agencies reportedly include the Defense Intelligence Agency, U.S. Naval Intelligence and the NSA.

After the Intelink chat logs were released, an NSA spokesperson indicated to Fox News Digital that it was ‘actively investigating’ potential abuses of the agency-operated messaging platform. 

Meanwhile, since becoming director of national intelligence, Gabbard revoked the security clearances of several people, including Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton and other Trump political opponents. 

She also revoked the security clearances of ‘the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden ‘disinformation’ letter.’ 

President Donald Trump on Monday said the situation with Iran is entering ‘dangerous territory’ as he announced his administration would be talking to Iran on Saturday.

While it’s not yet known what the talks will achieve, experts continue to warn that time is running out to not only block Iran’s nuclear program but to utilize existing tools to counter Tehran’s dismissal of international law, a mechanism known as ‘snapback’ sanctions.

‘This is the one time that we have the ability to sort of put new sanctions on Iran where we don’t need Russia and China’s help, and we can just do it unilaterally,’ Gabriel Noronha of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America told Fox News Digital. Noronha is an Iran expert and former special advisor for the Iran Action Group at the State Department.

The ability to employ snapback sanctions on Iran expires Oct. 18, 2025, which coincides with when Russia will lead the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) presidency for its rotational one-month stint. 

The provision for snapback sanctions was enacted under UNSC Resolution 2231, which was agreed to just days after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in 2015 as a way to ensure that if Iran was found to be violating the nuclear deal, stiff international sanctions could once again be reimposed. 

The JCPOA has increasingly been considered a collapsed agreement after the U.S. withdrew in 2018 under the first Trump administration, followed by increasingly flagrant violations by Iran of the nuclear deal.

This has culminated in the rapid expansion of Tehran’s nuclear program and the assessment by the U.N. nuclear watchdog earlier this year that Tehran had amassed enough near-weapons-grade uranium to develop five nuclear weapons if it were to be further enriched. 

European nations for years have refused to enact snapback sanctions in a move to try and encourage Tehran to come back to the negotiating table and diplomatically find a solution to end its nuclear program. 

Any participant in the JCPOA can unilaterally call up snapback sanctions if Iran is found to have violated the terms of the agreement. But the U.S., which has been calling for snapbacks since 2018, was found by the U.N. and all JCPOA members to no longer be legally eligible to utilize the sanction mechanism after its withdrawal from the international agreement. 

But as Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, the tone among European leaders has also become increasingly frustrated. 

France’s foreign minister last week suggested that if Iran did not agree to a nuclear deal and halt its program, then military intervention appeared ‘almost inevitable.’

‘Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons,’ Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot reportedly told France’s Parliament on Wednesday.

‘Our priority is to reach an agreement that verifiably and durably constrains the Iranian nuclear program,’ he added.

It remains unclear how much longer European nations will attempt to hold out for discussions with Iran, as Trump has said he is becoming fed up with Tehran and has threatened direct military confrontation, even while he has made clear his administration’s willingness to discuss a deal with Tehran.

With France serving as UNSC president in April and the bureaucratic red tape Russia could employ, UNSC members supportive of blocking Iran’s nuclear program must immediately call up snapback sanctions, Noronha said.

‘It takes about six weeks to actually be implemented properly,’ said Noronha, author of ‘Iran Sanctions, U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, and the Path to Snapback,’ which was released last week. ‘And second, because the distribution of the presidencies and leadership of the U.N. Security Council is weighted towards more favorable leaders right now in the spring before it goes to pretty adversarial leadership in the summer and fall.’

The expert said this is a rare moment for the UNSC, which in recent years has become increasingly ineffective in accomplishing major geopolitical wins because it is generally divided between the U.S., U.K. and France on one side and Russia and China on the other.

A single veto is enough to block a resolution being enacted, and progress in the council has become stagnant following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

But even if Russia objects to reimposing sanctions on Iran, as Tehran has become a close ally of Moscow’s, it actually has very few options for blocking the snapback mechanism that it previously agreed to, so long as at least one other nation actually calls for the sanction tool. 

‘This is the only time this has ever happened at the U.N. before,’ Noronha said. ‘They basically said, when we invoke snapback, what it does is it says U.N. sanctions will automatically return unless there’s a vote by the council to unanimously allow sanctions relief to remain on the books.’

The snapback mechanism would legally enforce all 15 UNSC member nations to reimpose sanctions on Iran, including Russia and any nation that may be sympathetic to Tehran.

If the snapback mechanism expires come October, the U.N.’s hands will likely be tied when it comes to countering Iran’s nuclear program, as it is unlikely any new resolutions on the issue will be able to pass through the council given the current geopolitical climate between the West and Russia.

A conservative energy group has debuted its latest ad as part of a seven-figure campaign supporting President Donald Trump’s ‘all-of-the-above energy’ agenda.

‘You voted for it, you got it, America is booming,’ the 30-second ad from The Restoring Energy Dominance Coalition, a conservative nonprofit organization headed up by former U.S. Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette and former U.S. Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt, says.

‘Meeting a quickly growing energy demand with an all-of-the-above approach will make good on President Trump’s promise to restore American energy dominance,’ the ad continues. 

‘Solar and storage, wind, nuclear, oil and gas. All forms of energy, all across the country.’

The ad then cuts to Trump, who says, ‘All forms of energy, yep’, before the ad says, ‘And that means more jobs and higher wages for you.’

‘In America, we show up, we get to work, we win.’

The RED Coalition ad is supported by a six-figure ad buy that will air on broadcast, cable TV and digital platforms. 

This ad is the fourth major television ad launched by the group since the start of this year as part of a broader seven-figure campaign to ‘support the administration’s energy priorities.’

Last month, RED Coalition, along with Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio, put out a polling memo stating that 51% of registered voters are in favor of Trump’s ‘All-of-the-Above Energy agenda,’ as well as 65% of GOP voters.

Trump has vowed to use his second White House term to re-exit the Paris Climate Accord, undo strict emissions standards for vehicles and power plants, and bolster production of U.S. oil and gas, including through fracking, which is the controversial technology by which pressurized fluids are used to extract natural gas from shale rock.

In the days after his victory, industry groups representing the nation’s biggest oil and gas producers told Fox News Digital they have little doubt Trump will make good on these promises in a second term.

‘Energy was on the ballot’ in the 2024 elections, American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers said in a statement.

Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.

The Trump administration has sacked a senior NATO official who was recommended by a conservative research group to be fired as part of a broader effort to purge wokeness from the Pentagon.

Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, the only woman on NATO’s military committee, was dismissed from the alliance over the weekend without explanation, according to multiple reports. She is one of only a handful of female Navy three-star officers and was the first woman to lead the Naval War College, a job she held until 2023.

Chatfield reportedly got a call from Adm. Christopher Grady, the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was told the administration wanted to go in a different direction with the job, according to the Associated Press, citing officials. The officials said they believe the decision was made last week by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, but it was unclear whether he received any direction from President Donald Trump. Reuters was first to report on her termination.  

It was unclear if her firing was related to any U.S. policy direction on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Trump and Hegseth have been vocal in their insistence that so-called woke policies are dead and have vigorously sought to remove leaders who promoted diversity, equity and inclusion and to erase DEI programs and online content. The U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, is ditching almost 400 books from its library with DEI content.

In December, the American Accountability Foundation (AAF), a conservative research group, sent a letter to Hegseth with a list of 20 general officers or senior admirals whom it said were excessively focused on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and other similar left-wing initiatives. AAF wrote that focusing on such policies is an impediment to national security and Chatfield was one of eight women who made the list. 

Chatfield made the list due in part to a 2015 speech where she bemoaned that lawmakers in the House of Representatives at the time were 80% males, proclaiming that ‘our diversity is our strength.’ The group said she also quoted a slide from a presentation by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute highlighting ‘Investing in gender equality and women’s empowerment can unlock human potential on a transformational scale.’

Chatfield, a Navy helicopter pilot who also commanded a joint reconstruction team in Afghanistan, had been serving as one of the 32 representatives on NATO’s military committee. The panel is the primary source of military advice to the North Atlantic Council and NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group, according to NATO. It serves as the link between the political decision-makers and NATO’s military structure.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said that he was ‘deeply disturbed’ by her sacking while blasting President Donald Trump. 

‘Trump’s relentless attacks on our alliances and his careless dismissal of decorated military officials make us less safe and weaken our position across the world,’ Warner wrote on X.

Senator Jack Reed, D-R.I., the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also sounded off on the president for the firing of Chatfield, describing it as ‘disgraceful.’

Admiral Chatfield is among the finest military officers our nation has to offer, and she has distinguished herself as the U.S. Military Representative to NATO. Her 38-year career as a Navy pilot, foreign policy expert, and preeminent military educator—including as President of the Naval War College—will leave a lasting legacy on the Navy and throughout the military. Admiral Chatfield’s record of selfless service is unblemished by President Trump’s behavior.

Reed also called out Republicans for not voicing their displeasure at her sacking, noting that Trump has fired 10 generals and admirals since taking office. It follows Thursday’s removal of General Timothy Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. 

For the Navy, it follows the firing of its top officer, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to become Chief of Naval Operations.

‘I cannot fathom how anyone could stand silently by while the President causes great harm to our military and our nation,’ Reed said.

‘I will continue to call out this unconscionable behavior and sound the alarm about the dangers of firing military officers as a political loyalty test. I urge my Republican colleagues to join me in demanding an explanation from President Trump and Secretary Hegseth.’

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.