Sen. Josh Hawley again drew a line in the sand on proposed cuts to Medicaid benefits, and warned his colleagues to follow President Donald Trump’s lead and leave the widely used healthcare program largely intact.

Republican-led Senate committees have spent the last few weeks since the House GOP advanced its version of the president’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ preparing their own tweaks to the colossal bill, but much of the focus has been on the work being carried out by the Senate Finance Committee.

The panel, which is responsible for health care, tax and other policy provisions, is expected to release its chunk of the budget reconciliation package Tuesday afternoon. House GOP-authored Medicaid provisions, in particular, have been a sticking point for a small group of Senate Republicans.

What those changes on the Senate side of the bill might look like could jump start or stall the momentum of the massive legislative package in the upper chamber.

Hawley, R-Mo, is among that cohort and has long been outspoken in his position that if Senate Republicans produce a version of the president’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ that strips benefits from his constituents, he won’t support the package. But his vision for Medicaid clashes with fiscal hawks who are in search of deeper spending cuts.

One of his main arguments is to listen to what Trump wants to do.

‘This is what I continue to tell my colleagues,’ he said. ‘Anybody who asks me and who’s interested is that, why don’t we just listen to the guy who won the election who said that he doesn’t want any Medicaid benefit cuts, he doesn’t want rural hospitals to close. He wants Medicare not to be touched at all.’

The lawmaker’s remarks came during a press call on Friday discussing the inclusion of his Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which provides compensation to people who have been exposed to nuclear waste, into the ‘big, beautiful bill.’

Hawley said the addition was certainly a sweetener for his support, considering that the measure has been his ‘leading legislative priority for two years now.’ Still, Medicaid is one of his top issues in the broader reconciliation fight.

The lawmaker said that he did not have a problem with some of the marquee changes to Medicaid that his House Republican counterparts wanted, including stricter work requirements, booting illegal immigrants from benefit rolls and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the program that serves tens of millions of Americans.

However, he noted that about 1.3 million Missourians rely on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and contended that most were working.

‘These are not people who are sitting around, these are people who are working,’ he said. ‘They’re on Medicaid because they cannot afford private health insurance, and they don’t get it on the job.’

‘And I just think it’s wrong to go to those people and say, ‘Well, you know, we know you’re doing the best, we know that you’re working hard, but we’re going to take away your healthcare access,’’ he continued. 

After nearly 150 days since President Donald Trump entered office, the U.S. still does not have an ambassador to the United Nations despite geopolitics playing a cornerstone role in his second term.

Following the withdrawal of Elise Stefanik from the nomination in late March over concerns that Republicans would not be able to hold onto her New York seat in the case of a special election, Trump nominated former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz for the top job on May 1.

Though his nomination process appears to be just now moving forward as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which needs to vote on his confirmation before a full Senate vote can be cast, only just confirmed receipt of the nomination on Thursday. 

The first movement in Waltz’s nomination process comes more than 45 days after it was first announced despite comments to Fox News Digital in early May by a GOP staffer who said, ‘The committee has been working at a historically fast pace and this nomination will be a priority moving forward.’

Though on Monday the committee was unable to confirm when Waltz’s hearing and subsequent vote would take place.  

When asked by Fox News Digital why it had only just confirmed receipt of the nomination, the committee directed questions regarding the timeline to the White House. 

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s questions about what the holdup could be, given that other nominations, like that of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, were pushed through within five days of Trump entering the Oval Office. 

Though the lack of a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is not necessarily ‘dangerous,’ it weakens the U.S.’s ability to influence major geopolitical situations at a time when the U.S. is facing some of its greatest multifront geopolitical challenges since World War II.

‘There are downsides diplomatically to not having senior leadership and supporting political staff in New York. It lessens U.S. influence and its ability to negotiate at the top level with other missions and the Secretariat,’ Brett Schaefer, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and an expert on multilateral treaties and international organizations like the U.N., told Fox News Digital.

Schaefer explained that though the U.S. does not have a Senate-approved official in place at the U.N., it does not mean the administration does not have representatives at U.N. headquarters in New York working to push U.S. interests.

The U.S., as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, continues to hold its position and ability to use veto powers, should major geopolitical policy come into effect, like the use of snapback sanctions against Iran.

Though the U.S. has representation should an emergency meeting be called, as one was over the weekend by Iran following Israel’s Thursday night military strikes, the ambassador is seen as having the direct ear of the president and can therefore be more influential diplomatically when it tops to the top international body.

‘The United Nations is a serious playground whether you like it or not,’ Jonathan Wachtel, who served as counsel to the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations during the previous Trump administration, told Fox News Digital, adding that there are arguments for reform and policy changes. ‘But at the end of the day it’s a flash point for every conflict in the world, and it’s important to have the representation of the United States at the world body.’ 

Wachtel also pointed out that with all the conflicts around the world, whether the U.S. is directly involved or not, including Russia’s war in Ukraine, Israel’s war against Iran and in Gaza, as well as broader crises like world hunger, Washington needs its voice heard, otherwise its adversaries will step in. 

‘[There’s] just too many things going on in the world and too much ground to cover,’ Wachtel added. ‘And instead of the U.S. voice heard [at the U.N.], you’re going to have the press corps here and diplomats listening more to the arguments of our adversaries, frankly speaking.’

Diana Stancy contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump denied reports on Tuesday that he left the G7 summit in Canada early to work on a cease-fire between Israel and Iran, hinting that it was for something ‘much bigger.’

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One during an overnight flight back to Washington that he was looking to achieve something better than a cease-fire and would meet with advisers in the Situation Room early Tuesday.

‘We’re looking at better than a cease-fire,’ Trump said. ‘We’re not looking for a cease-fire. I didn’t say that I was looking for a cease-fire.’

When asked what was better than a cease-fire, Trump responded, ‘An end. A real end, not ceasefire. An end.’ The president added that ‘giving up entirely’ was also an option.

Trump earlier denied reports that he was rushing back to Washington to work on a cease-fire, saying on his Truth Social platform that ‘it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that.’

Trump also issued an ominous warning on the platform Monday evening, writing that ‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON,’ and adding ‘Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!’

When reporters aboard Air Force One asked about his call for the residents of Tehran to evacuate, Trump said there was no threat, but ‘there’s a lot of bad things happening and I think it’s safer for them to evacuate.’

Trump, however, echoed his stance on Iran’s nuclear program.

‘Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, it’s very simple,’ Trump told reporters.

He accused Iranian leaders of being unwilling to reach an agreement over their nuclear program, and suggested he was now less interested in talking with them.

‘They should have done the deal. I told them, ‘Do the deal,’’ Trump said. ‘So I don’t know. I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate.’

When Trump was asked again if the U.S. getting involved militarily would ensure a wipeout of Iran’s nuclear program, Trump said, ‘I hope their program is going to be wiped out long before that. They’re not going to have a nuclear weapon.’

While Trump appeared bearish on negotiations, he said that he may consider sending Vice President JD Vance and U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff to meet with the Iranians.

‘It depends on what happens when I get back,’ Trump said of the Israel-Iran conflict, telling reporters that ‘nobody’s slowed up so far.’

Fox News’ Kaitlin Sprague, Luke Trevisan and Nick Rojas contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump issued a full-throated endorsement of Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., backing the lawmaker for re-election less than half a year into the freshman House member’s first term in office.

‘Abe Hamadeh has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election – HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!’ the president declared in a Truth Social post in which he described the congressman as ‘an America First Patriot.’

Trump endorsed Hamadeh in December 2023, ahead of the 2024 GOP U.S. House primary in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

But then later he issued an unusual dual endorsement of both Hamadeh and another GOP primary candidate, Blake Masters, just ahead of the 2024 contest that Hamadeh ultimately won.

Back in February Hamadeh introduced a resolution to limit the types of flags that may be displayed in House facilities, though the text of the proposal stipulates that it would not ‘apply to the individual personal office space of a Member of the House of Representatives.’

The resolution would allow for displaying the American flag and various other kinds of flags, some of which would include ‘The State flag of the represented district of a Member of the House of Representatives, displayed adjacent to the office of such Member’ and ‘The flags of visiting foreign dignitaries during an official visit.’

‘Congress is supposed to embody the AMERICAN people. That’s why I’ve introduced a resolution to ban foreign and ideological flags in the Halls of Congress. It’s pathetic that I even have to introduce this resolution,’ Hamadeh declared in a tweet this month.

Six other House Republicans are listed as cosponsors on congress.gov, including three original cosponsors and three other lawmakers listed as backing the measure this month.

‘You have inspired me and so many other young men and women to fearlessly serve our country in our nation’s Armed Services and the halls of Congress,’ Hamadeh wrote in a June 14 letter to Trump marking the president’s 79th birthday and the Army’s 250th.

On October 7, 2023, like many around the world, I awoke to news of the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas against more than 1,200 innocent Israeli, American and other civilians who that day were doing nothing other than going about their lives. The television newscasts were bone-chilling – pictures of mutilated babies; of fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers slain in front of family members; of peace activists murdered in cold blood; and of the taking of 250 hostages, some of whom more than 20 months on are still being held.  

Later that day, the United States called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to address this mass terror attack, the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust. As the American ambassador to the UN responsible for Security Council matters, I represented the United States at the October 8 emergency meeting and demanded the council issue a statement expressly condemning Hamas for the ruthless terrorist attacks.  

Unfortunately, Russia, China and a few other council members refused to endorse such a statement. To put it simply, their refusal to call a spade a spade was abhorrent and incomprehensible. Note: To this day, the Security Council has yet to formally declare Hamas a terrorist group. 

Going into the October 8 emergency Security Council meeting, there had rightfully been much global sympathy for Israel – and certainly an expectation that Israel would have to respond militarily. However, once Israel took measures to defend itself, a right enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, many nations, most notably from the Global South, condemned Israel’s response as disproportionate and used it as a rallying cry to further isolate Israel in the multilateral system and beyond.  

To me and many of my U.S. government colleagues, this was not unexpected. Since joining the UN in 1948, there has been an unfortunate decline in support for Israel at the world body, a decline that began to accelerate following the period of decolonization in the 1960s. Many former colonies wrongly began to view the Israel-Palestinian conflict through the prism of their own struggles against European colonizers, with Israel viewed as a colonizer and the Palestinians as being colonized. 

Israel’s relationship with the UN reached a nadir in 1975, when the UN General Assembly passed a highly politicized resolution equating Zionism with racism, a document that was finally revoked by the UNGA in 1991. Regrettably, efforts by the Palestinians and their supporters to isolate Israel at the UN have not abated and in fact have intensified since October 7, 2023.  

During my two-plus years in New York as ambassador, I engaged in a great deal of difficult diplomacy on the situation in Gaza and cast the sole veto of two UNSC draft resolutions related to the war, both of which lacked a clear condemnation of Hamas, a direct linkage of a ceasefire to the release of hostages, and a reference to Israel’s Article 51 rights. 

Had these texts been adopted by the council, they would not have delivered an immediate ceasefire or a release of the hostages – but certainly would have given Hamas the time and space to rearm. Other council representatives privately agreed but nevertheless felt increasing pressure from their capitals to produce a council document calling for an immediate ceasefire. 

From the beginning of the conflict through the end of the Biden administration, the U.S. regularly proffered creative alternatives on ceasefire language, while most other council members insisted on an explicit reference to an immediate ceasefire. On rare occasions, the council was able to find common ground on Gaza wording when it focused on upholding the principles of humanitarian assistance and protection of civilians. 

But when some members opted to abandon council unity and force votes on resolutions containing unacceptable ceasefire language, the U.S. was left with no choice but to exercise its veto. Before each veto was cast, we recognized the potential collateral damage to America’s international reputation; however, in our view the adoption of an unbalanced council resolution would have made a ceasefire neither practicable nor implementable given the highly charged and extremely complex situation on the ground.  

In the United States’ view, the establishment of a limited and credible negotiation channel was essential for achieving an effective, durable and sustainable end to the war. While the Biden administration didn’t achieve an end to the war on its watch, it did negotiate a three-phase diplomatic framework to pause the fighting and release the hostages, which was ultimately blessed by the council and backed by the Trump administration. 

To this day, one key factor hampering council unity on Gaza is Moscow and Beijing’s exploitation of the situation there for a clear geopolitical end: deflect international attention away from Russia’s savage war against Ukraine. In response to Russian statements in the Council on Gaza, which habitually condemned the U.S. for allegedly facilitating Israeli actions, I constantly reminded council members that Russia was in no position to criticize any country given the horrific war of aggression it was conducting in Ukraine.  

I also publicly warned Chinese diplomats that should they continue making false accusations about the U.S. concerning Gaza, I would immediately call out their country’s support to Russia’s military industrial base, refuting Beijing’s fictitious claim that it supports neither party to the conflict. Russia and China must end their politicization of Gaza and either contribute constructively to peace efforts or simply get out of the way. 

While I had expected Russia and China to take adversarial positions, I was extremely disappointed that three U.S. partners on the council, Slovenia, Algeria and Guyana, chose to regularly piggyback on Russian and Chinese political shenanigans to push for more urgent council action on the issue. Their aim was to shame the U.S. and compel it to change course from its steadfast support of Israel in the war with Hamas.  

All the while, the three had been keenly aware that Washington was conducting sensitive negotiations behind the scenes with Israel, Qatar and Egypt on steps to facilitate a durable end to the fighting and ease civilian suffering in Gaza. But instead of getting fully behind those steps and working with us in good faith, they preferred to ratchet up public pressure on the U.S. and ignore American concerns about how their actions would be manipulated by Hamas and other malign actors in the region – Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis – to the detriment of regional peace and security.  

Given persistent council divisions over the war in Gaza, some UN member states continue to lay the diplomatic predicate for a future General Assembly resolution (non-legally binding) calling for sanctions, an arms embargo and other tough international measures against Israel. 

The recent U.S. veto of another council resolution on Gaza will certainly provide fuel for those efforts. As I write, the Palestinians and their allies continue to ponder additional pathways to go after Israel throughout the UN system. There is even discussion in some UN circles about suspending Israel’s voting rights in the General Assembly, an act that would deeply anger Washington and trigger severe political consequences for the UN.  

Since this tragic conflict began, I have been mystified as to why many UN officials believe that all the U.S. has to do is instruct Israel to end its pursuit of Hamas and then somehow a magical end to the fighting would materialize.  

On their part, I sense a genuine reluctance to treat Israel as a legitimate state with its own national security concerns. While the United States does indeed have influence with Israel, it is naïve at best for these colleagues to think America can simply dictate to Jerusalem what it should and shouldn’t do in response to what it perceives as existential threats.  

Russia and China must end their politicization of Gaza and either contribute constructively to peace efforts or simply get out of the way. 

Misguided pressure on the U.S., relentless efforts to isolate Israel, Russian and Chinese diversionary tactics, blatant antisemitism, and a reluctance by some states to compromise continue to stymie the Security Council’s ability to speak with one voice on ending the Gaza war. Until these unfortunate practices cease, the council will remain irrelevant to a resolution to Gaza and the broader Israel-Palestinian conflict. 

While no one can ignore the terrible tragedy that is now Gaza, it remains a fact that those UN member states that have influence with Hamas have made a strategic decision not to use it. The hesitancy of many countries over the years to publicly condemn Hamas as a terrorist group has only given it the oxygen it needs to carry on, no matter how much death and suffering Palestinians in Gaza continue to experience.   

To end this war, Hamas must disarm and disband. There will not be peace in Gaza until it does. Gazans deserve an opportunity to live in peace and to seek a prosperous future. Hamas’ continued rule will bring them neither.