A first-term House Republican and military veteran is eyeing a bid for Sen. Thom Tillis’ North Carolina Senate seat after the GOP lawmaker announced he would not run for re-election, a source close to the congressman told Fox News Digital.

Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., a former Army Special Forces Officer who was deployed to Afghanistan, was elected to represent North Carolina’s 10th congressional district in November 2024.

It comes after President Donald Trump pledged to find a primary challenger for Tillis over the senator’s decision to vote ‘no’ on a key procedural hurdle to advance the commander-in-chief’s ‘big, beautiful bill.’

Harrigan was elected to replace former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry, R-N.C.

He’s among the first to express interest in Tillis’ seat in what could shape up into a crowded Republican primary race ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Rep. Tim Moore, R-N.C., another first-term House Republican, is also considering a bid for Tillis’ Senate seat, a source familiar with his plans told Fox News Digital.

Moore is the former speaker of the North Carolina state House of Representatives.

Tillis revealed he would not run for re-election in a bombshell statement on Sunday afternoon, criticizing the current political environment.

‘Too many elected officials are motivated by pure raw politics who really don’t give a damn about the people they promised to represent on the campaign trail. After they get elected, they don’t bother to do the hard work to research the policies they seek to implement and understand the consequences those policies could have on that young adult living in a trailer park, struggling to make ends meet,’ Tillis said.

‘As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven’t exactly been excited about running for another term. That is true since the choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family back home.’

The statement came on the second continuous day that senators are wrestling with the ‘one big, beautiful bill,’ a vast piece of legislation advancing Trump’s agenda on tax, immigration, energy, defense, and the national debt.

Tillis said he had objections to the bill’s spending cuts targeting Medicaid, arguing they would be damaging to rural communities and hospitals in North Carolina.

The senate voted 51-49 to begin debate on the legislation late on Saturday. Tillis and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., were the only two Republicans to vote ‘no.’

Trump posted on Saturday, ‘Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the primary against ‘Senator Thom’ Tillis. I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks, looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina and, so importantly, the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’

Sen. Thom Tillis, one of the two Republicans to vote against advancing President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ plans to retire from the Senate at the end of his term.

The North Carolina Republican announced on Sunday that he would not seek reelection in the 2026 cycle. Tillis would have been among the most vulnerable Republicans running next year and faced threats from Trump to face a challenger after his vote against the president’s agenda Saturday night.

The lawmaker voted against advancing the bill and is likely to vote against final passage, because deep Medicaid cuts inside the colossal bill brought on changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate.

Tillis railed against the slow death of bipartisanship in Washington in a statement.

‘In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,’ he said.

Tillis gave a shout-out to former Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for their unwillingness to not ‘cave to their party bosses to nuke the filibuster for the sake of political expediency.’

‘They ultimately retired, and their presence in the Senate chamber has been sorely missed every day since,’ he said.

‘It underscores the greatest form of hypocrisy in American politics. When people see independent thinking on the other side, they cheer,’ he continued. ‘But when those very same people see independent thinking coming from their side, they scorn, ostracize, and even censure them.’

He said that the choice broke down to spending time with his family, or spending another six years in Washington navigating ‘the political theater and partisan gridlock.’

‘It’s not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re-election,’ he said.

However, Tillis did give himself wiggle room to rebuke Trump over the next 18 months, as he did earlier this year when he refused to support Ed Martin, the president’s pick to serve as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. The decision scuttled Martin’s nomination. 

‘I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit,’ he said. 

His decision to retire tees up what will likely be a competitive race in North Carolina, and one that Democrats will look to pounce on quickly.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson Maeve Coyle said in a statement shortly after Tillis’ decision that his choice ‘not to run for re-election is another blow to Republicans’ chances as they face a midterm backlash that puts their majority at risk.’ 

‘Even Tillis admits the GOP plan to slash Medicaid and spike costs for families is toxic – and in 2026, Democrats will flip North Carolina’s Senate seat,’ she said.  

However, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Tim Scott, R-S.C., contended that Trump would remain a huge factor in the upcoming midterm cycle given that he has won North Carolina three times and that the state has been represented by two Republican senators for over a decade. 

‘That streak will continue in 2026 when North Carolinians elect a conservative leader committed to advancing an agenda of opportunity, prosperity, and security,’ he said. 

It also comes after Trump spent much of Saturday evening blasting Tillis as a ‘grandstander’ and vowing to interview potential primary challengers, while Vice President JD Vance, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and his leadership team worked over holdout fiscal hawks.

‘Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the Primary against ‘Senator Thom’ Tillis,’ Trump said on Truth Social. ‘I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks, looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina and, so importantly, the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’

Nearly all the universal injunctions blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda were issued by just five of the nation’s 94 federal district courts, a statistic that the administration said lays bare the Left’s strategy of lawfare.

Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi spoke at a news conference Friday just after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that district judges, the lowest-level jurists in the federal system, cannot impose nationwide injunctions. Bondi noted that out of 40 nationwide injunctions issued since Trump retook the White House, 35 came out of five districts perceived as liberal.

‘Active liberal… judges have used these injunctions to block virtually all of President Trump’s policies,’ Bondi said. ‘No longer. No longer.’

Nationwide injunctions are court orders that prevent the federal government from implementing a policy or law. They have a cascading effect impacting the entire country, not just the parties involved in the court case, and have been used against the Trump administration at a vastly higher rate than previous administrations. 

Trump’s first administration faced 64 injunctions out of the total 127 nationwide injunctions issued since 1963, Fox News Digital previously reported. There were 32 injunctions issued against the Bush, Obama and Biden administrations collectively since 2001, meaning the first Trump administration was on the receiving end of double the amount of nationwide injunctions than his two predecessors and successor combined, according to an April 2024 edition of the Harvard Law Review. 

Bondi pointed to the five district courts – Maryland, Washington, D.C., Massachusetts, California and Washington state – calling it ‘crazy’ that such an overwhelming number of nationwide injunctions originated in those jurisdictions. Conservatives have accused the Left of bringing their cases in liberal judicial districts stocked with Democratic-appointed judges.

Fox News Digital looked at the five district courts and how judges in them have issued sweeping injunctions that have hampered Trump’s federal policies. 

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

The Supreme Court agreed this year to take up three consolidated cases involving nationwide injunctions handed down by federal district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state related to Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. 

The U.S. District Court for Maryland was one of the courts nationwide that issued an injunction against Trump’s January executive order to end the practice of granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Maryland U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued the injunction in February following a lawsuit brought by five pregnant illegal immigrant women in the state, which was followed by other district judges in Washington state and Massachusetts ordering injunctions of their own. 

The Maryland district court also issued a separate preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s executive orders ending federal support for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in February. 

The court recently came under fire from the Trump administration when the Department of Justice filed lawsuits against each of the 15 federal judges on the Maryland federal bench earlier this month for automatically issuing injunctions for certain immigration cases. The injunctions have prevented the Department of Homeland Security from deporting or changing the legal status of the immigrant in question for two business days.

‘President Trump’s executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda,’ Bondi said in a press release of the state’s automatic injunction practices.  ‘The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.’

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Judges on the bench for the Northern District of California have issued at least six significant injunctions hampering policies put forth by the Trump administration this year. The Northern California district court includes counties such as San Francisco, Sonoma and Santa Clara. 

Back in March, Judge William Alsup, for example, granted a preliminary injunction ordering federal agencies to reinstate probationary employees fired under the Trump administration’s efforts to slim down the size of the federal government. Judge Susan Illston granted a temporary pause in May to the Trump administration’s federal reductions in force initiatives, and Judge William Orrick granted a separate injunction in April that prevented the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from areas deemed sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. 

Federal judges on the Northern California bench also issued injunctions to block the enforcement of Trump administration polices related to organizations that promote DEI and LGBTQ programs and to prevent the administration from terminating the legal visa status of international students. 

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued at least six signigicant injunctions against the Trump administration this year, including Judge James Boasberg’s March injunction preventing the Trump administration from deporting violent illegal immigrant gang members under the Alien Enemies Act – which received widespread backlash among conservatives.  

‘People are shocked by what is going on with the Court System. I was elected for many reasons, but a principal one was LAW AND ORDER, a big part of which is QUICKLY removing a vast Criminal Network of individuals, who came into our Country through the Crooked Joe Biden Open Borders Policy! These are dangerous and violent people, who kill, maim and, in many other ways, harm the people of our Country,’ Trump posted to Truth Social in March following Boasberg extending his restraining order against the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants with alleged ties to gangs, such as Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua (TdA).

Federal Judge Loren AliKhan issued a preliminary injunction in January barring the Trump administration’s freeze on federal grant disbursements through various federal agencies; Judge Paul Friedman blocked the Trump administration from targeting foreign service workers’ collective bargaining rights in May; and Judge Ana Reyes granted a nationwide injunction in March barring the Pentagon from enforcing Trump’s executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military. 

Judges on the court have also issued injunctions targeting the Trump administration’s plans to dismantle the federally-funded state media network Voice of America, and another that blocked the Bureau of Prisons from implementing a Trump executive order restricting transgender healthcare and accommodations for federal inmates. 

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has issued at least four significant injunctions against the Trump administration this year, including the nationwide preliminary injunction barring Trump’s executive order ending the practice of granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. 

Other injunctions issued this year include Judge Julia Kobick this month blocked Trump’s presidential action requiring passports to reflect a person’s biological sex and not their gender identity, and another that involved the Trump administration’s efforts to end a Biden-era parole program for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Afghanistan, Latin America and Ukraine.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Ahead of the Supreme Court’s ruling limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions, judges on the District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a handful of injunctions targeting Trump policies, including joining courts in Maryland and Massachusetts earlier this year blocking Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. 

Judge Jamal Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction in February halting Trump’s January executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program. While another federal judge on the bench in March granted a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s executive order barring transgender individuals from serving in the military.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington includes counties such as King – home to Seattle – Snohomish and Clark. The two courts for the Western District of Washington and the Northern District of California are both in the 9th Circuit. 

Trump celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling restricting the scope of federal judges’ powers to grant nationwide injunctions as ‘a monumental victory for the Constitution.’

‘The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions… I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months, we’ve seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers. It was a grave threat to democracy,’ Trump said on Friday. 

SCOTUS’ ruling followed the Trump administration filing an emergency appeal with the highest court in March, when the then-acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, sounded the alarm that nationwide injunctions had hit ‘epidemic proportions’ under the second Trump administration. She noted that the federal government faced 14 universal injunctions in the first three years of the Biden administration, compared to 15 leveled against the Trump admin in one month alone. 

Universal injunctions were also a sticking point for officials in the first Trump administration, who railed against the flow of injunctions ordered against the 45th president’s policies and laws, including the former chiefs of the Department of Justice. 

‘Courts issued an average of only 1.5 nationwide injunctions per year against the Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, and 2.5 per year against the Obama administration,’ former Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams said in February 2019.  

‘In President Trump’s first year in office, however, judges issued a whopping 20 nationwide injunctions – an eight-fold increase. This matches the entire eight-year total of such injunctions issued against President Obama during his two terms. We are now at 30, matching the total number of injunctions issued against the first 42 presidents combined.’

Fox News Digital’s Andrew Mark Miller, Breanne Deppisch and Ashley Oliver contributed to this report. 

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has directed staff to slash budgets ahead of the 2026 budgetary vote as part of a wider reform effort through his UN80 Initiative. 

Much of the belt-tightening comes at a time when the Trump administration has looked to save money with the help of DOGE. In March, Guterres warned about cuts to U.S. spending at the U.N., stating that ‘going through with recent funding cuts will make the world less healthy, less safe, and less prosperous.’ The U.S., as the top funder to the world body, has given billions over the last few years, while paying around a third of its budget.

However, organizational belt-tightening does not appear to have hit senior-level U.N. staff. 

‘The American people don’t even see this,’ a diplomatic source told Fox News Digital. ‘These people that are appointed to care for the poor of the world, get better perks than any investment banks out there.’

The diplomatic insider told Fox News Digital that the current ‘zero-growth’ budget for 2026 still includes ‘a lot of perks’ for professional- and director-level U.N. staff along with assistant-secretaries, under-secretaries and the secretary-general. 

Fox News Digital recently reported that Guterres earned $418,348, which is a higher base salary than President Donald Trump receives. And that doesn’t include some of the perks the U.N. chief gets, including a plush Manhattan residence and chauffeur-driven car.

Additionally, though U.N. documents say senior-level U.N. staff are ‘going to be the first thing to be reduced,’ the source says that ‘in the budget of 2026, none of that is touched.’ 

Here is a list of perks:

Salary and Multiplier

U.N. professional staff, including Guterres, are paid a general salary as well as an additional multiplier of their salary based on their post. Multipliers are meant to ‘preserve equivalent purchasing power for all duty stations’ and can range from 16% in Eswatini, Africa, to 86.8% in Switzerland, according to data provided to Fox News Digital by a U.N. source.

The U.N. pay scale has been set to compare with ‘equivalently graded jobs in the comparator civil service in Washington, D.C.,’ with compensation about ’10 to 20% ahead of the comparator service’ to ‘attract and retain staff from all countries, including the comparator.’

Housing Allowance and Tax Exemption

Other expenses that may be compensated for include taxes paid and housing costs.

U.N. staff’s rent may be subsidized by up to 40% if it ‘exceeds a so-called rent threshold’ based on an employee’s income. 

Many member states exempt U.N. employees from paying taxes, but employees of the organization who must pay taxes at their duty station are reimbursed for the cost.

Dependent Costs

There are substantial benefits for staff with dependents.

Staff receive an allowance of 6% of their net income if their spouses earn less than an entry-level general service U.N. salary. 

Staff who are parents receive a flat allowance of $2,929 for children under 18, or who are under 21 and in secondary schooling. A second child allowance for staff without spouses is set at $1,025. 

U.N. employees may receive grants to cover a portion of the education costs for dependent children through up to four years of post-secondary education. Reimbursements are calculated on a sliding scale. In a sample calculation, the U.N. explains that it would reimburse $34,845 of a $47,000 tuition. 

Boarding fees may also be reimbursed up to $5,300 during primary and secondary education.

Pension Fund, Healthcare Fees

U.N. staff have access to the U.N. joint staff pension fund, which allows employees to contribute 23.7% of ‘pensionable remuneration, with two-thirds paid by the organization and one-third by the staff member.’

Travel Fees

The U.N. pays travel expenses for staff ‘on initial appointment, on change of duty station, on separation from service, for travel on official business, for home leave travel, and on travel to visit family members.’ In some instances, the U.N. also pays for eligible spouses and dependent children to travel. 

Travel expenses include a ‘daily subsistence allowance (DSA)’ meant to cover ‘the average cost of lodging and other expenses.’ Eligible family members receive half the DSA, while director-level staff and above receive an additional DSA supplement.

Hardship, Relocation, Mobility and Other Incentives

For staff who change assignments at certain duty stations, U.N. mobility incentives begin at $6,700 and can grow to more than $15,075.

If changing stations for an assignment lasting more than a year, settling-in benefitscomprise30 days’ DSA for staff and half-DSA for eligible families, as well as one month of net pay and one month of post adjustment at the assignment duty station. Moving expenses may include the full or partial removal and transport of household goods, or the storage of those items.

Hardship allowances of between $5,930 and $23,720 may be granted for non-local staff in certain duty stations. The U.N. issues allowances of $19,800 for staff with dependents and $7,500 for staff without dependents stationed at non-family duty stations ‘to recognize the increased level of financial and psychological hardship incurred by involuntary separation.’ Danger pay of $1,645 may also be allocated to staff whose association or employment may make them ‘clearly, persistently, and directly targeted,’ or in duty stations where there is a ‘high risk of becoming collateral damage in a war or active armed conflict.’ 

Terminated Employees

Terminated employees are also allowed separation payments, typically constituting several months’ pay if their appointment has been terminated due to ‘abolition of post or reduction of staff; poor health or incapacitation for further service; unsatisfactory service; agreed termination.’ Those terminated for unsatisfactory service or misconduct may receive half the typical separation payment. 

A repatriation grant may additionally be paid to staff who have been in expatriate service for at least five years, unless staff were ‘summarily dismissed.’

Future Cuts to Senior Pay?

In response to questions about Fox News Digital’s source’s statements about U.N. employee compensation being on par with that of an investment banker, Guterres’ spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the assertion was ‘ludicrous’ and ‘demonstrates an ignorance of both the United Nations and the investment banking worlds.’

Dujarric did not deny that the 2026 budget proposal includes no cutting of senior personnel or benefits. ‘The budget proposal for 2026 was prepared before the launch of the UN80 initiative,’ he said. ‘We are currently working on identifying efficiencies, including reductions in post, and a revised proposal will be submitted to the General Assembly in the Fall for its deliberations, which usually take place between October and December.’ 

Dujarric added that the International Civil Service Commission, an independent group of 15 expert appointees which creates the system of salaries, benefits and allowances for the U.N., is ‘undertaking a comprehensive review of the compensation package for the international Professional and higher category of staff,’ with the results due for presentation in 2026. 

‘The secretary-general has no authority of the decisions of the ICSC or the appointment of its members,’ he said.

The top Democrat in the Senate plans to inflict maximum pain on Senate Republicans in their march to pass President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ before lawmakers even get a chance to debate the legislative behemoth.

Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he’ll force clerks on the Senate floor to read the entirety of the GOP’s 940-page megabill. His move to drain as much time as possible came after Republicans vote on a key procedural test to open debate on the legislation.

‘I will object to Republicans moving forward on their Big, Ugly Bill without reading it on the Senate floor,’ Schumer said on X. ‘Republicans won’t tell America what’s in the bill

‘So Democrats are forcing it to be read start to finish on the floor,’ he said. ‘We will be here all night if that’s what it takes to read it.’

Indeed, staffers were seen carting the bill onto the Senate floor in preparation for the all-night read-a-thon.

Schumer’s move is expected to take up to 15 hours and is designed to allow Senate Democrats more time to parse through the myriad provisions within the massive legislative text. Ultimately, it will prove a smokescreen as Senate Republicans will continue to march toward a final vote.

Once the bill reading is done, 20 hours of debate evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans will begin, likely early Sunday morning. Democrats are expected to use their entire 10-hour chunk, while Republicans will go far under their allotted time.

Then comes the ‘vote-a-rama’ process, where lawmakers can offer an unlimited number of amendments to the bill.

Democrats will again look to extract as much pain as possible during that process, while Republicans, particularly senators that have lingering issues with key Medicaid and land sale provisions, will continue to try and shape and mold the bill.

The last time clerks were forced to read the entirety of a bill during the budget reconciliation process was in 2021, when Senate Democrats held the majority in the upper chamber.

At the time, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., demanded that the entire, over-600-page American Rescue Act be read aloud. Schumer, who was the Senate Majority Leader attempting to ram then-President Joe Biden’s agenda through the upper chamber, objected to the reading. 

A leaked Defense Intelligence Agency report is casting doubt on President Donald Trump’s claim that recent U.S. airstrikes ‘completely and totally obliterated’ three Iranian nuclear facilities, instead concluding the mission only set back Iran’s program by several months.

The report, published by CNN and The New York Times, comes just days after Trump approved the strikes amid escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. In a national address immediately following the operation, Trump declared the sites ‘completely and totally obliterated.’ 

While members of the Trump administration have waged a new war to discredit the initial report from the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, multiple experts told Fox News Digital that there is too little information available right now to accurately determine how much damage the strikes did. 

Piecing together a thorough intelligence assessment is complex and time-consuming, they said. 

Dan Shapiro, who previously served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for the Middle East and the U.S. ambassador to Israel, said he didn’t put a lot of stock in both overly pessimistic or overly optimistic assessments that emerged quickly, and said that the initial assessment from DIA was likely only based on satellite imagery. 

‘That’s one piece of the puzzle of how you would really make this assessment,’ Shapiro, now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told Fox News Digital. ‘You’d really want to have to test all the other streams of intelligence, from signals intelligence, human intelligence, other forms of monitoring the site, potentially visits by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, potentially visits by other people. So that’s going to take days to weeks to get a real assessment.’ 

‘But I think it’s likely that if the munitions performed as expected, that significant damage was done, and would set back the program significantly,’ Shapiro said. 

Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that initial battle damage assessments suggested ‘all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,’ but he acknowledged that a final assessment would ‘take some time.’ 

Still, media reports based on the DIA report painted a different picture, and CNN’s reporting on the initial report said that Iran’s stash of enriched uranium was not destroyed in the strikes, citing seven people who had been briefed on the report. The findings were based on a battle damage assessment from U.S. Central Command, according to CNN. 

Other members of the Trump administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have subsequently pushed back on the DIA report’s conclusions, claiming that the report was labeled ‘low confidence.’ 

The term is commonly used when labeling initial assessments, and means that conclusions are based on limited data, according to experts. 

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, who previously served as the director for transnational threats at the National Security Council for former President Bill Clinton, said the low confidence description is commonly used in early assessments. 

‘Low confidence means the analyst is not sure of the accuracy of their assessment,’ said Montgomery, now a senior fellow at the Washington think tank the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. ‘This is frequent when with a Quick Look 24-hour assessment like this one.’

Montgomery’s colleague, Craig Singleton, also a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that the low confidence label is used in cases with thin evidence and serves as a warning to policy-makers to seek additional information. 

‘Most importantly, low confidence assessments are usually issued when key facts have yet to be verified, which certainly applies in this case,’ Singleton said.

Rob Greenway, former deputy assistant to the president on Trump’s National Security Council, told Fox News Digital that it will take one or two months to get a more thorough assessment with higher confidence. 

Greenway also said that the strikes were designed to create damage underground, which will complicate the assessment of damage, because it is not immediately available and will require multiple sources of intelligence, such as signals or human intelligence, to draw conclusions. 

Israel had also previously conducted strikes targeting the sites, adding to the web of analysis that must be evaluated, Greenway said. 

‘Each of these are one piece of a much larger puzzle, and you’re trying to gauge the ultimate effect of the entirety of the puzzle, not just one particular strike,’ said Greenway, now the director of the Allison Center for National Security at The Heritage Foundation. ‘All of that means it’s going to take time in order to do it.’ 

Even so, Greenway said that the amount of ordnance dropped on the sites – including more than 14 30,000-lb. bombs – means that the targeted facilities have been so heavily compromised they are no longer serviceable. 

‘We were putting twice the amount of ordnance required to achieve the desired effect, just to make sure that we didn’t have to go back,’ Greenway said. 

‘There’s virtually no mathematical probability in which either facility can be used again by Iran for the intended purpose, if at all, which again means that everything now is within Israel’s capability to strike if that’s required,’ Greenway said. 

And Michael Allen, a former National Security Council senior director in the George W. Bush administration, said that even though a final judgment from the intelligence community won’t be ready soon, the intelligence portrait will become ‘richer’ in the coming days. 

‘Stuff is pouring in, and we’re out there collecting it, and they’re trying to hustle it to the White House as soon as possible,’ Allen, now the managing director of advisory firm Beacon Global Strategies, told Fox News Digital. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that very few people had access to this report, and those who leaked it to the media will be held accountable as the FBI investigates who shared the document with the press. 

‘That person was irresponsible with it,’ Leavitt told reporters Thursday. ‘And we need to get to the bottom of it. And we need to strengthen that process to protect our national security and protect the American public.’

Lawmakers from across the aisle are reacting to President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ passing a key Senate vote on Saturday night.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who flipped his vote from a ‘no’ to ‘yes’ in dramatic fashion, said in a statement that the mammoth bill is a ‘necessary first step’ to fiscal sustainability and cleaning up the mess left by the Biden administration.

‘Biden and the Democrats left behind enormous messes that we are trying to clean up – an open border, wars, and massive deficits,’ Johnson said. ‘After working for weeks with President Trump and his highly capable economic team, I am convinced that he views this as a necessary first step and will support my efforts to help put America on a path to fiscal sustainability.’

The 51-49 vote went along party lines, with only Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., voting against unlocking a marathon 20-hour debate on the bill.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was among the Democrats against what he called a ‘radical’ bill.

‘Senate Republicans are scrambling to pass a radical bill, released to the public in the dead of night, praying the American people don’t realize what’s in it,’ Schumer said in a statement. ‘If Senate Republicans won’t tell the American people what’s in this bill, then Democrats are going to force this chamber to read it from start to finish.’

The bill will not immediately be debated thanks to Senate Democrats’ plan to force the reading of the entire, 940-page legislative behemoth on the Senate floor.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., however, said he was ‘proud’ to work with Trump on the bill and ‘put our nation on a path to balance the budget after years of Democrats’ reckless spending.’

Trump has said that he wants the bill, which must pass the Senate before being sent to the House for a vote, on his desk by July 4.

Trump called the Senate vote a ‘great victory’ and directly praised Sens. Johnson, Scott, Mike Lee, R-Ariz., and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., in a post on his Truth Social platform.

‘They, along with all of the other Republican Patriots who voted for the Bill, are people who truly love our Country!’ Trump wrote. ‘As President of the USA, I am proud of them all, and look forward to working with them to GROW OUR ECONOMY, REDUCE WASTEFUL SPENDING, SECURE OUR BORDER, FIGHT FOR OUR MILITARY/VETS, ENSURE THAT OUR MEDICAID SYSTEM HELPS THOSE WHO TRULY NEED IT, PROTECT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT, AND SO MUCH MORE. GOD BLESS AMERICA &, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!’

In a second post, Trump wrote, ‘VERY PROUD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TONIGHT. GOD BLESS YOU ALL! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!’

Fox News Digital’s Alex Miller contributed to this report.

Senate Republicans rammed President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ through a procedural hurdle after hours of tense negotiations that put the megabill’s fate into question. 

Speculation swirled whether Republicans would be satisfied by the latest edition of the mammoth bill, which was released just before the stroke of midnight Saturday morning.

Nearly every Republican, except Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., all voted to unlock a marathon 20-hour debate on the bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., could only afford to lose three votes.

Though successful, the 51-49 party line vote was not without drama.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., flipped his vote from a ‘no’ to ‘yes’ in dramatic fashion, as he and Sens. Rick Scott, R-Fla., Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, made their way to the Senate floor accompanied by Vice President JD Vance.

Vance was called in case he was needed for a tie-breaking vote, but only his negotiating services ended up being used.

No lawmaker wanted to be the fourth and final decisive vote to kill the bill. Republican leadership kept the floor open for nearly four hours while negotiations continued – first on the Senate floor and then eventually in Thune’s office.

The bill won’t immediately be debated thanks to Senate Democrats’ plan to force the reading of the entire, 940-page legislative behemoth on the Senate floor, which could drain several hours and go deep into the night.

The megabill’s fate, and whether it could pass its first test, was murky at best after senators met behind closed doors Friday, and even during another luncheon on Saturday.

Lingering concerns in both chambers about Medicaid — specifically the Medicaid provider tax rate and the effect of direct payments to states — energy tax credits, the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and others proved to be pain points that threatened the bill’s survival.

However, changes were made at the last-minute to either sate holdouts or comply with the Senate rules. Indeed, the Senate parliamentarian stripped numerous items from the bill that had to be reworked.

The Medicaid provider tax rate was kept largely the same, except its implementation date was moved back a year. Also included as a sweetener for lawmakers like Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and others was a $25 billion rural hospital stabilization fund over the next five years.

Collins said that she would support the bill through the procedural hurdle, and noted that the rural hospital stabilization fund was a start, but whether she supports the bill on final passage remains to be seen.

‘If the bill is not further changed, I will be leaning against the bill, but I do believe this procedural vote to get on the bill so that people can offer amendments and debate it is appropriate,’ Collins said.

Tillis, who is also concerned about the changes to Medicaid and would like to see a return to the House GOP’s version, said that he would not vote in favor of the bill during final passage.

The SALT deduction included in the House GOP’s version of the bill also survived, albeit the $40,000 cap will remain intact for five years. After that, the cap will revert to its current $10,000.

Other sweeteners, like expanding nutrition benefit waivers to Alaska and a tax cut for whaling boat captains, were thrown in, too, to get moderates like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, on board with the bill.

Lee announced that he withdrew his open lands sale provision, which proved a sticking point for lawmakers in Montana and Idaho. 

Still, Republicans who are not satisfied with the current state of the bill will use the forthcoming ‘vote-a-rama,’ when lawmakers can offer an unlimited number of amendments, to try and change as much as they can before final passage. 

Democrats, however, will use the process to inflict as much pain as possible on Republicans.

Once the amendment marathon concludes, which could be in the wee hours of Monday morning, lawmakers will move to a final vote to send the bill, which is an amendment to the House GOP’s version of the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ back to the lower chamber.

From there, it’s a dead sprint to get the package on the president’s desk by July 4.

In a statement of administration policy obtained by Fox News Digital, Trump signaled that he would sign the bill.

‘President Trump is committed to keeping his promises,’ the memo read. ‘And failure to pass this bill would be the ultimate betrayal.’ 

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned Saturday of the dangers of politicians using heated rhetoric against judges. 

‘It becomes wrapped up in the political dispute that a judge who’s doing his or her job is part of the problem,’ Roberts said in Charlotte, North Carolina, at the Judicial Conference of the Fourth Circuit, a gathering of judges and lawyers. 

‘And the danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that. And we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of judges just simply for doing their work. So, I think the political people on both sides of the aisle need to keep that in mind.’

Roberts didn’t name anyone but appeared to be referencing President Donald Trump and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer when he said he’d felt compelled to speak out against rhetoric by Democrats and Republicans in the past. 

Trump has criticized judges many times over the years, including calling for the impeachment of a judge who ruled against a deportation policy earlier this year, referring to him as ‘radical left’ and a ‘lunatic.’ 

Roberts responded at the time, saying, ‘For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.’

In 2020, Roberts condemned Schumer for saying that Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch would ‘pay the price’ regarding an abortion rights case during Trump’s first term. 

‘You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,’ Schumer said at a rally outside the Supreme Court at the time. ‘You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’

Schumer later said he was referring to the political price he believed Senate Republicans would pay, but he said, ‘I shouldn’t have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing, and Leader McConnell knows that.’ 

Roberts, at the time, said of Schumer, ‘Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.’

In April, an armed man who was arrested outside of Kavanaugh’s home pleaded guilty to attempting to assassinate the justice. 

Roberts’ remarks came after the Supreme Court issued the final decisions of its term, handing the Trump administration a win Friday by limiting judges’ ability to block his agenda through court orders. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday said alleged calls in Iran for the arrest and execution of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi are ‘unacceptable and should be condemned.’

Rubio’s warning came after Iranian parliament vice speaker Hamid Reza Haji Babaei banned Grossi and removed surveillance from its nuclear facilities, accusing Israel of acquiring ‘sensitive facility data,’ according to a report from Mehr news.

‘We support the lAEA’s critical verification and monitoring efforts in Iran and commend the Director General and the lAEA for their dedication and professionalism,’ Rubio wrote in an X post. ‘We call on Iran to provide for the safety and security of IAEA personnel.’

The lAEA this week commented on damage at Iranian nuclear facilities, following U.S. airstrikes on key nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

While speaking on Fox News’ ‘The Story with Martha MacCallum,’ Grossi said Isfahan and Natanz were damaged, with Natanz showing ‘very serious damage’ in one of the centrifuge halls where enrichment was being performed.

Though a ceasefire agreement was made between Israel and Iran, Grossi alleged 900 pounds of potentially enriched uranium had been taken to an ancient site near Isfahan.

‘I have to be very precise, Martha,’ Grossi said. ‘We are the IAEA, so we are not speculating here. We do not have information of the whereabouts of this material.’

He claimed Iranian officials had told him they were taking protective measures, which could include moving the material.

‘My job is to try to see where is this material, because Iran has an obligation to report and account for all the material that they have, and this is going to continue to be my work,’ Grossi said.

President Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal Tehran signed with the U.S., U.K., European Union, France, Germany and Russia in 2018, prompting Iranian threats to remove cameras and limit access to its facilities.

Rubio did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report.