FBI warns foreign apps could collect Americans’ data — even from people who never downloaded them
Your personal data could be collected and stored overseas — even if you never download a foreign-developed app yourself — according to a new FBI alert warning about the risks tied to popular mobile platforms. That means information like your name, email address or phone number could be pulled from someone else’s contact list and potentially stored abroad if a friend or family member grants an app access to their device. The warning comes after years of scrutiny over TikTok’s ties to China, but the FBI alert suggests the concerns extend beyond any single platform to a broader range of foreign-developed apps. In a public service announcement, the FBI said many widely used apps developed overseas, particularly those tied to China, may access extensive data once permissions are granted, including address books containing information on both users and non-users. 5 SIMPLE TECH TIPS TO IMPROVE DIGITAL PRIVACY The bureau also warned that some apps may continue collecting data in the background after access is granted and, in certain cases, store that information on servers in countries where local laws could allow government access. “Developer companies can store collected data on users’ private information and address books, such as names, e-mail addresses, user IDs, physical addresses, and phone numbers of their stored contacts,” the FBI said. “The app can persistently collect data and users’ private information throughout the device, not just within the app or while the app is active.” CHINESE HACKERS REPORTEDLY BREACHED PHONES AT ‘HEART OF DOWNING STREET’ IN GLOBAL SPY CAMPAIGN The FBI did not name specific companies, but the warning could apply to a range of widely used apps developed by Chinese firms — including video-editing platform CapCut, shopping apps like Temu and SHEIN, and social media platforms such as Lemon8 — several of which rank among the most downloaded apps in the United States. U.S. officials have long warned that data collected by Chinese-linked platforms could be used to build detailed profiles of Americans, map personal and professional networks, and potentially support intelligence-gathering efforts, particularly if accessed under China’s national security laws. The FBI added that apps operating in China are subject to the country’s national security laws, which could allow the government to access user data. The FBI also pointed to possible warning signs that an app may be collecting more data than expected, including unusual battery drain, spikes in data usage, or unauthorized account activity after installation — indicators that could suggest background data collection or other suspicious behavior. The bureau urged users to limit unnecessary data sharing, download apps only from official app stores, and regularly review permissions granted to mobile platforms. The bureau also warned that apps obtained from third-party sites may carry malware designed to gain unauthorized access to personal data. Years of scrutiny over TikTok, culminated in a 2026 deal that forced its Chinese parent company to relinquish control of U.S. operations to an American-led group in order to address fears over data access and national security. The FBI’s latest warning suggests those risks may extend beyond a single platform to a broader range of foreign-developed apps used by millions of Americans. The Chinese embassy could not immediately be reached for comment.
Illegal immigrants will no longer get in-state tuition in Kentucky after federal ruling
Illegal immigrants will no longer receive in-state tuition at Kentucky’s public colleges after a federal judge ruled the policy violated U.S. law and permanently blocked its enforcement. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, hands a win to the Trump administration and Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman after they challenged the policy as giving benefits to those in the country illegally that federal law does not allow. The decision forces Kentucky’s higher education system to end the discounted rates after a months-long legal fight. The lawsuit argued the policy violated federal law, which states that, “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” TRUMP’S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MOVES TO BLOCK BLUE STATE FROM GIVING FINANCIAL AID TO ILLEGALS On Wednesday, Coleman celebrated the ruling by Tatenhove, who wrote that the Kentucky education regulation violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and “permanently enjoins the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education… from enforcing [it].” “Federal law is clear: illegal immigrants don’t get preferential treatment at Kentucky’s public universities, and Kentucky taxpayers certainly shouldn’t be footing the bill. As Kentucky’s chief law officer, I was proud to join the Trump Administration to make sure our Commonwealth is upholding federal law and fundamental fairness for American citizens,” Coleman exclusively told Fox News Digital. “We’ll continue focusing on helping Kentucky students reach for their full potential.” In August, Bondi’s lawsuit led Kentucky officials to forge a consent decree, or legal agreement, instead of fighting to defend the policy. OVER 100 CALIFORNIA COLLEGES ACCUSED OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST US-BORN STUDENTS IN NEW DOJ COMPLAINT The DOJ originally named Kentucky Gov. Andrew Beshear as the defendant, but Beshear’s office previously told Fox News Digital that Kentucky’s KCPE education agency is independent of his office. While Coleman and others celebrated that development as potentially ending the policy, a court found the judiciary still needed to act on the constitutionality of the law, according to the first page of Van Tatenhove’s ruling. “Here, despite the [education] council’s agreement with the United States that its regulation is preempted, it continues to enforce the regulation. As such, a justiciable controversy remains present,” Van Tatenhove wrote. In his 22-page decision, Van Tatenhove wrote that his ruling was “precipitat[ed]” in part by a February 2025 executive order “ending taxpayer subsidization of open borders.” After the consent decree was forged in late August, a student advocacy group attempted to intervene, and the court allowed it but rejected its arguments in favor of the policy. The ruling also said that states do have the right to extend certain benefits to illegal immigrants but must do so through law and not agency-based regulations. Fox News Digital reached out to Beshear for comment.
FBI notified Congress last week of China-linked hack deemed ‘major incident’
FBI officials recently reached out to members of Congress to alert them to a cyber hack classified as a “major incident.” Fox News is told that China is the culprit and that the breach could pose a threat to national security. The FBI made this designation last week when notifying several members of Congress. SWALWELL THREATENS FBI WITH LEGAL ACTION AS PATEL REPORTEDLY WEIGHS ‘FANG FANG’ FILES RELEASE FOX News has reached out to the FBI for comment. The FBI ruled that the incident met the major incident criteria under federal law, the outlet reported, citing an unidentified congressional aide and two unidentified American officials. FBI WARNS OF ZONING PERMIT SCAM EMAILS Congress was notified about the decision earlier this week, the outlet reported, citing the aide. Politico reported that in a March notice to Congress, the federal law enforcement agency informed lawmakers that hackers appeared to breach an FBI system by “leveraging a commercial Internet Service Provider’s vendor infrastructure,” which it characterized as reflective of the group’s “sophisticated tactics.” FBI EMAIL HACK SHOWS WHY YOU MUST LOCK DOWN YOUR TECH The outlet reported that the notice indicated that the “affected” system included “returns from legal process, such as pen register and trap and trace surveillance returns, and personally identifiable information pertaining to subjects of FBI investigations.”
Trump elevates immigration fight at Supreme Court, turning up heat on Democrats ahead of midterms
President Donald Trump‘s presence at the Supreme Court this week may not sway the justices, who appeared skeptical of the president’s push to curb birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But Trump’s historic appearance — no sitting president has attended oral arguments at the high court before — showcased the president’s great interest in his landmark effort to upend more than a century of legal precedent that allowed automatic citizenship to those born in the U.S. And the president’s presence at the Supreme Court may pack a political punch by energizing MAGA voters ahead of the midterm elections, when Republicans will be defending their fragile House and Senate majorities. INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS “Immigration is the issue that has most defined Donald Trump during his time as a national political figure, and his record on border security remains one of the core accomplishments of his second term,” longtime Republican strategist Colin Reed told Fox News Digital. Reed emphasized that “even if the Supreme Court does not side with his perspective in this particular case, the president is making clear that he is not abandoning his commitment to the broader issue.” TRUMP MAKES HISTORIC APPEARANCE AT THE SUPREME COURT On his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order which declared that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on limited-duration visas would no longer be granted U.S. citizenship. But the order never took effect, after it was quickly hit with a slew of lawsuits and was subsequently blocked by federal judges from coast to coast who argued it violated long-standing legal precedent. The president on Wednesday stayed quiet until after he left the court, and after the arguments in the case concluded, before taking to social media to write, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Most Americans appear to disagree. Sixty-nine percent of voters support birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, according to a Fox News national poll conducted March 20-23. EXPERTS FLAG ‘DISAPPOINTING’ QUESTIONS FROM JUSTICES IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE But there’s a wide partisan divide, with 91% of Democrats and three-quarters of independents but only 44% of Republicans supporting birthright citizenship in such cases. A majority of Republicans questioned in the poll, 55%, disagreed. And among self-described MAGA Republicans, opposition edged up to 60%. “Combating illegal immigration has always been President Trump’s strongest issue, and he’s made our borders more secure than they’ve ever been. He’s obviously fighting a lot of battles and birthright citizenship is one of them,” seasoned Republican communicator Tim Murtaugh told Fox News Digital. Murtaugh, a veteran of Trump’s 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns, said “the president’s attendance at the oral arguments shows how much he cares about the issue, and draws a far brighter spotlight onto the illogic of birthright citizenship than would otherwise have happened if he hadn’t shown up.” And Murtaugh sees the issue putting Democrats on defense in the midterms. “It’s possible that the court will say that Congress must address the issue. If so, this would be highly relevant in the midterm elections because Democrats are very much going to be put on the defensive for their support of illegal aliens and lawlessness,” Murtaugh argued. Immigration and border security were winning issues for Trump and Republicans and helped fuel their sweeping victories in the 2024 elections, when they won back the White House and the Senate and defended their House majority. But in the wake of political backlash earlier this year over Trump’s unprecedented illegal immigration crackdown, polling on the issue raises warning signs for Republicans and suggests immigration may come back to take a bite out of the GOP in the midterms. “Let’s be clear: Ending birthright citizenship is central to Trump’s broader radical agenda to target immigrant families,” Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin charged. “If Trump gets his way, overturning birthright citizenship will create chaos in our communities.” Fox News’ Ashley Oliver and Victoria Balara contributed to this story.
‘We didn’t cave’: Thune highlights Schumer, Dems’ losses in DHS funding deal
As a Homeland Security shutdown drags on, the top Senate Republican says Democrats are getting “zero” of the reforms they demanded. Congressional Democrats have taken victory laps, viewing the outcome as a key win in their push for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). They have also accused congressional Republicans of caving to their demands. While the Senate’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deal includes funding for ICE and much of CBP, it does not include the structural reforms Democrats spent the last 48 days pushing. SENATE PASSES BILL TO FUND MOST OF DHS AFTER HOUSE GOP CAVES When asked whether Republicans gave in, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” “No, we didn’t cave.” “I mean, ultimately, what the Democrats did, you could say… this was all about ‘reforms,’ restrictions on ICE and CBP agents and what they could or couldn’t do,” Thune said. “They got none of that. They got zero of the reforms they were advocating for.” Thune was responding to accusations from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who argued that “House Republicans caved” after backing down from their push for a 60-day funding extension for the agency. HOUSE CONSERVATIVES RAGE AGAINST SENATE DHS SHUTDOWN DEAL Schumer argued that divisions in the GOP “derailed a bipartisan agreement” and said Democrats were clear in their objectives to “fund critical security, protect Americans, and provide no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.” “We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer said. Thune countered, “In the end, this was all about their left-wing base demanding that no funding be provided.” HOUSE GOP RAMS THROUGH NEW DHS FUNDING PLAN WITH SHUTDOWN FAR FROM OVER “The good news for us is we saw this coming, and we pre-funded this last summer, so ICE and CBP are funded through the end of the fiscal year. Then we’ll add to those accounts and make sure they’re funded in future years,” Thune said. Republicans, now with the backing of President Donald Trump, are eyeing the budget reconciliation process to fund immigration enforcement operations for the foreseeable future. It’s a tricky maneuver that would require full buy-in from Senate Republicans. Trump lauded Republicans, including Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who originally torpedoed the Senate deal, for coming together to reopen most of DHS. He also noted that he would soon sign an executive order to pay, “ALL of the incredible employees at the Department of Homeland Security,” which comes as the funding plan currently wouldn’t pay immigration enforcement support staff. “Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers,” Trump said on Truth Social. In the meantime, the shutdown is still ongoing. The Senate’s redo of its funding plan Thursday morning sets up another vote in the House, where there is still significant resistance among some hardline Republicans, and the House is not expected to return to Washington, D.C., until April 13.
Conservative group urges crackdown on hidden campus crime with gov’t filing to expose the true scope
FIRST ON FOX: A conservative legal group is calling on the federal government to overhaul how crime data is reported on college campuses, arguing that parents and students are being left in the dark about safety risks. America First Legal (AFL) filed a supplemental petition on Thursday with the U.S. Department of Education, urging officials to create a centralized, publicly accessible database of campus crime logs nationwide. The reason, AFL argues, is gaps in the Clery Act where schools are already required to maintain daily crime logs documenting reported incidents, but that information is scattered, inconsistent and often hard to access. “AFL’s petition today brings a new level of accountability to college campuses,” Emily Percival, senior counsel at America First Legal, said in a press release. SIGN UP TO GET THE CAMPUS RADICALS NEWSLETTER “Parents, students, and policymakers deserve the truth in real-time about the safety of college and university campuses. Today’s action is another step toward shining the light on the dangers that have festered at our academic institutions.” The petition also calls for a new “Political and Religious Violence Transparency Report,” which would document incidents involving threats, assaults and harassment tied to political or religious beliefs, as well as the university’s response. AFL is also pushing for penalties for schools that fail to comply, including fines of up to $71,545 per violation. The proposal comes as colleges nationwide have faced a surge in high-profile incidents involving protests turning violent, clashes between rival groups and reports of intimidation targeting students over political and religious views. LA UNITED SCHOOL DISTRICT SCANDAL LEADS TO CHARGES AS $22M SCHEME ALLEGEDLY DRAINED FUNDS MEANT FOR STUDENTS From disruptive demonstrations that have led to arrests and property damage, to allegations of targeted harassment, campus shootings and assaults tied to ideological disputes, campus tensions have increasingly spilled into violence, prompting lawmakers and watchdog groups to question whether universities are fully disclosing the scope of the problem. AFL argues current reporting rules under the Clery Act allow schools to obscure the true scope of campus disorder, particularly when it comes to protest-related violence. The AFL has previously cited some examples of egregious behavior on college campuses, including the protest that broke out at the University of California at Berkeley during a Turning Point USA event, which led to multiple arrests as demonstrators attempted to breach police barricades. The unrest that unfolded at UC Berkeley prompted the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation. Major schools like the University of Michigan and Columbia University dealt with hostile environments during protests that addressed the war in Gaza. Because of protests causing safety and discrimination concerns for Jewish students, the Trump administration put a freeze on federal funding at some of these schools. Fox News Digital’s Joshua Q. Nelson contributed to this report.
FLASHBACK: Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs hit one-year mark as economists split on fallout
A year ago today, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping new round of global tariffs, escalating trade tensions with key allies and adversaries alike, raising fresh concerns about the outlook for the U.S. and global economy. The “Liberation Day” tariffs were introduced as a broad set of import taxes that Trump said would correct long-standing trade imbalances and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign goods. In the months that followed, markets experienced bouts of volatility as businesses and investors adjusted to the shifting trade landscape. Policymakers and economists, meanwhile, debated the longer-term impact on growth, inflation and global trade flows. Many economists warned of potential consequences, including higher prices, slower growth and rising uncertainty for businesses and investors. TRUMP SAYS US WOULD BE ‘DESTROYED’ WITHOUT TARIFF REVENUE But not everyone agreed. “Trump proved 12 Nobel Prize economists wrong,” economist Stephen Moore told Fox News Digital. “Inflation didn’t rise. Why? Because the tax cuts, deregulation and ‘drill, baby, drill’ policies lowered prices and offset the tariffs,” added Moore, a former Trump adviser and co-founder of the free-market advocacy group Unleash Prosperity. But Moore’s view was not widely shared. Here’s a look back at what other economists said at the time. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers called the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs “masochistic,” saying they were the worst levy the U.S. had imposed in decades. “Never before has an hour of Presidential rhetoric cost so many people so much,” Summers wrote on X. “The best estimate of the loss from tariff policy is now closer to $30 trillion or $300,000 per family of four.” Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, said Trump had “gone full-on crazy” in the hours after the “Liberation Day” tariffs were announced. “If you had any hopes that Trump would step back from the brink, this announcement, between the very high tariff rates and the complete falsehoods about what other countries do, should kill them,” Krugman, a former MIT and Princeton University professor, wrote in his Substack newsletter. Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, warned that the tariffs would be “negative the world over,” in an interview with Ireland’s Newstalk. She said Trump’s trade policy would weigh on global growth and carry broad consequences. “It will not be good for the global economy, and it will not be good for those who impose the tariffs or those who retaliate,” Lagarde said. Economist Joseph Stiglitz said Trump’s tariff threats have made the U.S. “a scary place to invest” and could unleash stagflation. Stagflation refers to a combination of slow economic growth and rising prices. Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and former World Bank economist, warned in an interview with The Guardian that he does not see a strong economic outlook ahead. “I cannot see a really robust economy,” said Joseph Stiglitz, former chair of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. “I see the global economy suffering greatly from the uncertainty that Trump poses.” He also said the inflation triggered by the tariffs is moving in the wrong direction and that the only thing the Trump administration will succeed in doing is “to crater the economy.” Jared Bernstein, the former White House chief economist under President Joe Biden, said the U.S. is a “large, dominant economy” that is relatively closed, meaning it relies less on trade than most countries. “That means, as Trump has argued, we can hurt other countries more than they can hurt us,” Bernstein said. “But he hasn’t offered a clear rationale for why we should start a trade war with traditionally reliable partners like Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Europe.” Bernstein said Trump may reverse course if mounting economic pressures—such as higher inflation, slower growth, falling stock prices and rising recession risks—intensify from the tariffs. “So far, that may have been the approach in Trump’s first term; it doesn’t appear to be the approach this time around,” he said. Allianz chief economic adviser Mohamed El-Erian called for clarity from the White House. “If we get clarity on this, this is an economy that can adjust,” he told FOX Business. El-Erian, the former CEO of bond giant PIMCO, wrote on X that “the price action in global financial markets in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. tariff announcement points to major worries about global economic growth.” Bill Gross, the co-founder of Pacific Investment Management Co., known as Pimco, said the latest round of tariffs is “similar to going off the gold standard in 1971″—an “epic” shift that markets won’t quickly recover from. “It’s not something where you can time a market bottom quickly,” Gross told CNBC. “It’s something we’re going to have to live with as long as President Trump maintains this stance.” Gross, dubbed the “Bond King,” added that he does not expect Trump to reverse course. “To be very blunt, President Trump is a macho male, and this macho male is not going to back down tomorrow simply because the Nasdaq is down 5%,” he said.
Expert flags ‘disappointing’ questions from justices in Trump birthright citizenship case
President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants appears to be in jeopardy following Supreme Court oral arguments on Wednesday. Supreme Court justices pursued what Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, described as a “disappointing” line of questioning. Liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s order, which the president has argued is necessary to end a “magnet” for illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” in which foreign nationals travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children gain citizenship. Lawyers for the Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment’s stipulation that individuals must be subject to U.S. jurisdiction to be American citizens means children of illegal immigrants are excluded from automatic citizenship. The administration pointed to “striking” numbers of illegal immigrants abusing current law through a type of birth tourism. Meanwhile, opposing lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Supreme Court precedent, particularly the Wong Kim Ark case, supports a broader interpretation that all those born on U.S. soil are automatic citizens. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Swearer said that while the oral arguments went “a little bit better than anticipated” for the administration in some regards, the day was a mixed bag for the government. SAUER CITES ‘STRIKING’ FIGURES ON SECRETIVE BIRTH TOURISM IN HIGH-STAKES SCOTUS CASE “Most people understood coming into this, and I suspect even the government understood coming into this, that this was probably going to be a bit of an uphill battle,” Swearer said. She said conservative and liberal justices seemed hesitant about how the government would apply Trump’s order. Swearer said, “We did see a lot of those types of questions,” adding, “I’m not sure they are actually that important to the overall doctrinal questions of, ‘What does the 14th Amendment citizenship clause actually mean?’” Meanwhile, she said it was “a bit disappointing” not to see more pushback from the justices on the ACLU’s broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. While there was much discussion of the Wong Kim Ark case, which revolved around the citizenship of a child of legal Chinese immigrants, Swearer said she “was disappointed” not to see discussion of other legal precedent she believes is crucial. ALITO INVOKES SCALIA ANALOGY IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT OVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION “The ACLU’s argument is essentially no one up until Donald Trump ever thought that this was a viable way of framing birthright citizenship. And the reality is when you look at decisions by other presidents during the 19th century, you actually did have executive branch decisions saying, ‘No, we’re not going to issue passports to this person, even though they were born in the United States because they weren’t born subject to our jurisdiction, because their parents weren’t lawfully or permanently present in the United States.’ And I think that’s important,” she said. “I think that was one of the missed opportunities to really push back on the ACLU’s position, and it just didn’t come up in the same way that Wong Kim Ark did,” she added. What does this mean for the future of Trump’s order? Swearer said that while the three liberal justices’ stances are obvious, she admitted, “It’s hard to know what to make of” the six other justices’ lack of questioning on what she believes are the more “foundational questions about the history and tradition” of the citizenship issue. Despite this, Swearer said, “I do think there’s a path forward” for a Trump victory, though it would likely be narrow and partial. INSIDE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS “I would not quantify it, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see some sort of plurality of opinions splitting the baby somewhere,” she said. Swearer speculated that possible routes the court could take include differentiating between illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders, delivering a partial victory for the administration, or deciding the question based on existing statute rather than attempting to interpret the language of the 14th Amendment, which would cut against Trump’s order. “Maybe they split the baby that way,” she said, adding, “I think at the end of the day, there are just so many options for what this could look like.”
Ex-counterterrorism chief says Trump must restrain Israel before he can declare victory in Iran
Former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent — who quit his government role last month over his opposition to the Iran war — suggested in a Wednesday night post on X that President Donald Trump will only be able to declare victory in Iran if he “restrains” Israel. “The purpose of POTUS’s speech this evening was to show that we can declare victory when we choose. This is only possible if POTUS restrains the Israelis 1st. Israel needs us committed indefinitely, we are seeking a quick end to the war. We have drastically different goals than Israel & must act accordingly,” Kent asserted in the post. Kent made the comments after Trump — who launched the controversial U.S. war against Iran last month in conjunction with Israel — delivered an address to the nation about the ongoing conflict on Wednesday night. TRUMP SAYS IRAN ‘NO LONGER A THREAT’ AFTER 32 DAYS — OUTLINES NEXT PHASE OF US WAR “Thanks to the progress we’ve made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly. We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We are going to bring them back to the stone ages where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing,” he said. “Because of the actions we have taken, we are on the cusp of ending Iran’s sinister threat to America and the world. And I’ll tell you, the world is watching. And when we do… the United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous and greater than it has ever been before,” Trump said during his remarks. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS FRM TRUMP’S IRAN ADDRESS Kent indicated that the U.S. should exit the war immediately. “We do not honor our fallen by getting more of our best men & women killed in the Middle East. We honor our fallen by learning from our past & only shedding American blood in defense of our nation. The best time to get out of a war of choice is now, before we lose more lives,” he wrote in a post on X. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on Thursday. FORMER REP MTG VENTS THAT SHE’S ‘SO BEYOND DONE,’ CHARACTERIZING TRUMP’S ADDRESS AS ‘WAR WAR WAR’ In a Thursday morning post on X, Kent wrote, “The purpose of a system is what it does: Israel is targeting the negotiators to ensure we can’t end the war & to ensure that the Iranian leaders who come next will be more extreme, thereby ensuring that the war goes on. The 1st step to end the war must be restraining Israel.”
Senate passes bill to fund most of DHS after House GOP caves
The 48-day Department of Homeland Security shutdown is one step closer to ending after the Senate moved to fund most of the department Thursday morning. The Senate agreed via voice vote to send a bipartisan deal funding the whole department except for President Donald Trump‘s immigration enforcement and border security efforts to the House for consideration. The chamber is not expected to vote on the legislation until House lawmakers return to Washington on April 13. The Senate vote follows GOP leaders endorsing a two-track approach to funding DHS on Wednesday, with President Trump giving lawmakers a hard deadline to end the record-breaking funding lapse. HOUSE CONSERVATIVES RAGE AGAINST SENATE DHS SHUTDOWN DEAL The Senate bill accomplishes the first phase of the plan by working with Democrats to fund as much of DHS as possible on a bipartisan basis. However, it would zero out funding for ICE and much of the Border Patrol, save for $11 billion in customs funding going to the agency. Additionally, $10 billion teed up for ICE won’t be funded under the measure. As for ICE and the Border Patrol, Republicans have said they will seek three full years of funding for both of these agencies in a party-line budget reconciliation package that will bypass Democrats’ opposition. Trump says he wants the forthcoming bill on his desk by June 1. “We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday. The Senate bill’s passage on Thursday was a déjà vu moment for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who helped steer the same measure through the upper chamber last week. But House GOP leadership sharply rejected it, calling the measure’s exclusion of ICE and CBP money a “crap sandwich” and warning about the risks of funding those entities using the budget reconciliation process. The chamber then put forward a rival proposal that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., made clear was “dead on arrival” in the Senate. Thune said shortly after the vote that he was hopeful the House would move onto the bill quickly, and that the next step would be budget reconciliation. Still, he blamed Senate Democrats, and not Republicans in-fighting at the finish line, for the current position Congress was in. “I think this whole where we are is just a regrettable place. We have the Democrats who are holding the appropriations process hostage and their anti-law enforcement, open borders, defund the police wing is the ascendant wing,” Thune said. “And there, I think everybody’s afraid of them, and so we’re stuck in a spot that’s just not good for the country, the future of the appropriations process, or, for that matter, the future of the Senate.” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., appeared to relent Wednesday after Trump issued a statement outlining an end to the shutdown that appeared to side with Thune’s two-part approach to funding the department. GOP INFIGHTING, DEMOCRATS’ UNMET DEMANDS AND A CLEAR WINDFALL: WHO’S WINNING AND LOSING THE DHS SHUTDOWN As the DHS shutdown drags on, Trump and congressional Republicans are gambling that budget reconciliation will be the way to fund immigration enforcement for several years to come. Some Republicans have floated funding ICE not just through Trump’s term, but for up to a decade. The GOP used the same process to fund ICE last year, teeing up $75 billion for enforcement operations for the next four fiscal years. But the party-line process comes with a host of challenges that could test Republican unity in an election year. GOP lawmakers will have to identify spending cuts to pay for it. When Republicans used the process to pass Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025, lawmakers nearly stumbled at the finish line over disagreements on cuts to federal Medicaid spending and food assistance programs. Without a looming deadline like the expiration of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts that Republicans extended in July 2025 through the “big, beautiful bill,” some GOP lawmakers have voiced concern that the party will stay unified. Republicans have proposed adding other issues into the reconciliation mix, including supplemental funding for the Iran war, affordability measures, the president’s tariff regime and pieces of the election integrity-focused SAVE America Act. The budget reconciliation process allows a party with control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to pass tax and spending priorities with a simple majority threshold, though the process is governed by stringent requirements for what is eligible to be included. Punting ICE and CBP money to a future spending bill could also negatively affect support staff employed by both agencies who have not been paid during the seven-week shutdown. Democrats have repeatedly blocked funding for ICE and the Border Patrol in the Senate since the beginning of the shutdown in mid-February. Though none of their proposals to reform immigration enforcement have been adopted, Democratic leaders claimed victory on Wednesday. “Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement. “We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win.” The Senate deal funding most of DHS could still face roadblocks in the House. A handful of conservatives have already said they will vote “no” while using the same messaging employed by House GOP leadership to oppose the bill last week. “Let’s make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again,” Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., wrote on social media Wednesday. “If that’s the vote, I’m a NO.”