President Donald Trump is on the cusp of seeing his 14th Cabinet member confirmed in former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. 

Gabbard is slated for a final Senate confirmation vote to be Trump’s director of national intelligence (DNI) on Wednesday morning, after the planned midnight vote was scrapped due to a snowstorm in Washington, D.C.

The 30 hours of post-cloture debate officially expires on her nomination just after midnight. 

Frequently, the debate between the cloture motion and the final vote is minimized in what’s referred to as a ‘time agreement’ between Republicans and Democrats. But with the controversial nature of Gabbard’s nomination and ongoing frustrations with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its government audit, no such agreement is expected. 

Gabbard is expected to be confirmed and has already amassed support from hesitant Republicans who voted against Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, requiring Vice President JD Vance to break the tie in the upper chamber. 

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who are often considered the conference’s moderate members, have both already come out in support of Gabbard. Both lawmakers voted against confirming Hegseth. 

Collins is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and voted in favor of the nomination, helping advance it to the full Senate floor. 

Gabbard also snagged the backing of key Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Todd Young, R-Ind., despite the latter being uncertain before the committee vote. 

Young is also on the Intel Committee and ultimately voted to advance her to the floor, but only after some prodding and discussions with Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Vance, who operated rigorous operations to ensure the nomination got through. 

Some concerns that followed Gabbard through her confirmation hearing were her past meeting with former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, her previous FISA Section 702 stance and her past support for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. 

But these worries were apparently quelled by her answers and the persuasive support of both Cotton and Vance.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order Tuesday instructing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to coordinate with federal agencies and execute massive cuts in federal government staffing numbers.  

The order will instruct DOGE and federal agencies to work together to ‘significantly’ shrink the size of the federal government and limit hiring new employees, according to a White House fact sheet on the order. Specifically, agencies must not hire more than one employee for every four that leave their federal post. 

Agencies will also be instructed to ‘undertake plans for large-scale reductions in force’ and evaluate ways to eliminate or combine agency functions that aren’t legally required.

DOGE Chair Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office that the American people voted for ‘major’ government reform and that the Trump administration would deliver. 

Trump voiced similar sentiments about providing voters what they wanted – to tackle ‘all of this ‘horrible stuff going on’ – and told reporters that he hoped the court system would cooperate. 

‘I hope that the court system is going to allow us to do what we have to do,’ Trump said, who also said he would always abide by a court’s ruling but will be prepared to appeal.

The order builds on another directive Trump signed after his inauguration implementing a federal hiring freeze, as well as an initiative from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management offering more than 2 million federal civilian employees buyouts if they leave their jobs or return to work in person. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration’s plan from advancing amid challenges from union groups.

Trump’s executive order aligns with DOGE’s ‘workforce optimization initiative’ and would impose restrictions to hire only for ‘essential positions’ as agencies brace for significant cuts to their workforce, according to the White House fact sheet. 

The executive order will leave just a few areas of the federal government unscathed, including positions affiliated with law enforcement, national security and immigration enforcement. 

DOGE is focused on eliminating wasteful government spending and streamlining efficiency and operations, and it is expected to influence White House policy on budget matters. The group has been tasked with cutting $2 trillion from the federal government budget through efforts to slash spending, government programs and the federal workforce.

The White House said on Feb. 4 that it predicted a ‘spike’ in resignations close to the original Feb. 6 deadline for the buyout offer, which would allow employees to retain all pay and benefits and be exempt from in-person work until Sept. 30.

‘The number of deferred resignations is rapidly growing, and we’re expecting the largest spike 24 to 48 hours before the deadline,’ a White House official told Fox News Digital on Feb. 4.  

So far, approximately 65,000 federal employees have accepted the buyout offer, but a federal judge has issued a pause on the deadline for when employees must submit their resignations. 

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole indefinitely extended a temporary restraining order Monday, pausing the deadline as he evaluates a preliminary injunction request stemming from cases against the buyout program filed by union groups, including the American Federation of Government Employees.

When asked about the buyout, Trump said that there are empty office spaces and that his administration is attempting to reduce the size of government. 

‘We have too many people. We have office spaces occupied by 4% – nobody showing up to work because they were told not to,’ Trump said. 

DOGE has moved to slash other areas of the federal government as well. 

Other recent initiatives by DOGE have included launching an effort to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development, a group that works to deliver aid to impoverished countries and development assistance. 

The group has come under scrutiny from DOGE amid concerns about wasteful government spending, poor leadership and questionable funding, including an Iraqi version of ‘Sesame Street’ and reportedly millions of dollars in funding to extremist groups tied to designated terrorist organizations and their allies. 

‘It’s been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we’re getting them out,’ Trump told reporters on Feb. 2.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman, Emma Colton and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

The Trump administration’s decision to slash overhead costs linked to federally funded research has sparked an immense backlash. But some doctors are praising the move, suggesting it will help ‘optimize’ how taxpayer dollars are used when it comes to scientific research.

A new rule from the Trump administration that went into effect Monday, capped facilities and administrative costs, also known as ‘indirect costs,’ at 15% for federally funded research grants provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). When a grant is awarded to a scientist by the NIH, an additional percentage, on top of the allocated research funding, goes to the facility housing their work to cover these ‘indirect costs.’

According to an announcement about the new funding cap from the Trump administration, that percentage has historically been around 27% to 28% for each grant. But in some cases, negotiated rates can be as high as 70 to 90%, according to doctors who spoke with Fox News Digital.

‘If that money is cut to 15%, what that means is there’s actually going to be more grants given out to do science. You get more money back to the NIH to give out more science,’ said Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

‘It’s about time,’ said Dr. Erika Schwartz, the founder of Evolved Science, which is a concierge medical practice in New York City with more than 1,500 active patients. 

‘While infrastructure support is necessary, there’s room for more efficient cost management. A reformed funding model could redirect more resources to direct research activities while maintaining essential support services. This could potentially increase the number of funded research projects and accelerate medical breakthroughs, ultimately benefiting patients more directly.’

Prasad posited that universities and research institutions have negotiated ‘sweetheart deals’ that allow them to rake in funds that sometimes aren’t even necessary to the research at hand. To demonstrate his point, he explained the numbers for a research institution that has negotiated a 57% rate for indirect costs:

‘Let’s say I get $100,000 [for a research project] and I need a laboratory… I get $100,000, and then they still get the $57,000 to the university that goes to the administrators, and presumably the fact that I have a lab bench, and the lights, etc. But now let’s say I do the same $100,000 project, but my project is we’re going to analyze genomic sequences from an online repository. So, I just have a laptop… but they still get the $57,000 even though there’s literally no space being given to this person. There’s no bench, there’s no desk, there’s nothing.’

Prasad added that another ‘fundamental problem’ with these negotiated rates is that the money is not formally budgeted, so ‘the American people don’t know where that money is going.’

‘A famous researcher once said to me, an NIH dollar is more valuable than any other dollar because they can use it for whatever purpose they want. Although, nominally, they’re supposed to use it to keep the lights on and, you know, make the buildings run, but that’s not always the case,’ he said.

David Whelan, a former healthcare writer for Forbes who has spent time working in hospitals and now works in the healthcare consulting space, echoed this concern in a post on X that claimed universities have used indirect research grant payments ‘to pocket money.’ 

‘Indirects are just ways for wealthy academic hospitals to pocket money that their investigators won and then create slush for those who are incapable of getting funded on their own,’ Whelan wrote. ‘It’s a huge grift and great place for cuts.’

The Trump administration’s cap on indirect funding associated with NIH research grants was immediately challenged in court with lawsuits from 22 Democratic state attorneys general and a cohort of universities, which argued the move will ‘devastate critical public health research at universities and research institutions in the United States.’

‘Once again, President Trump and Elon Musk are acting in direct violation of the law. In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families,’ said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee. ‘The Trump Administration is attempting to steal critical funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action.’  

In response to the lawsuit from Democratic state attorneys general, a federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order prohibiting NIH agencies from taking any steps to implement, apply or enforce the new rule. 

The judge’s order also required Trump administration agencies that are impacted by the new rule to file reports within 24 hours to confirm the steps they are taking to comply with the ruling. Meanwhile, an in-person hearing date on the matter has been scheduled for Feb. 21.

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restore web pages and datasets that were taken down in accordance with President Donald Trump’s executive order.

Under U.S. District Judge John Bates’ order, HHS, the CDC and the FDA are required to restore data sets and pages that were ‘removed or substantially modified’ last month ‘without adequate notice or reasoned explanation.’

Earlier this month, Doctors for America, represented by Public Citizen Litigation Group, filed a lawsuit against the Office of Personal Management (OPM), the CDC, the FDA and HHS for removing information that it says was used by doctors and researchers.

‘Removing critical clinical information and datasets from the websites of CDC, FDA, and HHS not only puts the health of our patients at risk, but also endangers research that improves the health and health care of the American public,’ Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, a member of the board of directors for Doctors for America, said in a statement on the organization’s website.  ‘Federal public health agencies must reinstate these resources in full to protect our patients.’

‘These federal agencies exist to serve the American people by protecting public health,’ Zach Shelley, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel on the case, said in the same statement. ‘Removing this vital information flouts that mandate. Our lawsuit seeks to hold them to their responsibilities to the people of this country.’

Doctors for America alleged in its complaint that the removal of the web pages and data sets created a ‘dangerous gap in the scientific data available to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks.’

According to the complaint, the pages and data sets that were either taken down or modified included a report on an HIV medication, pages on ‘environmental justice,’ pages on HIV monitoring and testing and a CDC guide on contraceptives, among others. Doctors for America claim that these pages and reports were either removed or modified to ‘combat what the president described as ‘gender ideology.’’

The web pages in question were taken down in accordance with President Trump’s order on ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.’ In the order, President Trump outlines precise definitions of ‘woman,’ ‘man,’ ‘female,’ ‘male’ and other gendered words, establishing the recognition of two genders as official U.S. policy.

‘The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself,’ the order reads.

The House and Senate are headed for a collision course on federal budget talks as each chamber hopes to advance its own respective proposals by the end of Thursday.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters Tuesday that the House Budget Committee would take up a resolution for a massive bill to advance President Donald Trump’s agenda later this week. The panel then scheduled its meeting on the matter for 10 a.m. ET on Thursday. 

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, resolved to push forward with their own legislation after the House GOP missed its self-imposed deadline to kick-start the process last week. 

And while the two chambers agree broadly on what they want to pass via reconciliation, they differ significantly on how to get those goals over the finish line. 

‘What’s the alternative, the Senate version?’ Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said when asked if House Republicans could come to an agreement. ‘When has the Senate ever given us anything conservative?’

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, caught some members of the Republican conference by surprise at their closed-door meeting on Tuesday morning when he announced to the room that his panel would be advancing a reconciliation resolution, two lawmakers told Fox News Digital.

House and Senate Republicans are aiming to use their congressional majorities to pass a massive conservative policy overhaul via the budget reconciliation process.

By reducing the Senate’s threshold for passage from two-thirds to a simple majority, where the House already operates, Republicans will be able to enact Trump’s plans while entirely skirting Democratic opposition, provided the items included relate to budgetary and other fiscal matters.

GOP lawmakers want to include a wide swath of Trump’s priorities, from more funding for border security to eliminating taxes on tipped and overtime wages.

House Republicans’ plans to advance the bill through committee last week were scuttled after fiscal hawks balked at initial proposals for baseline reductions in government spending – frustrating rank-and-file lawmakers.

‘This is a mechanism that needs to happen that some people are getting hung up on,’ one exasperated House GOP lawmaker said. ‘Some people are acting as if this – you know, I appreciate they’re taking this seriously, but this is just getting the clock started.’

More recent proposals traded by the House GOP would put that minimum total anywhere between roughly $1 trillion and $2.5 trillion.

Meanwhile, the Senate’s proposal is projected to be deficit-neutral, according to a press release. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., hopes to advance it by the end of Thursday.

Johnson told reporters Tuesday that bill would be dead on arrival in the House.

‘I’m afraid it’s a nonstarter over here. And, you know, I’ve expressed that to him. And there is no animus or daylight between us. We all are trying to get to the same achievable objectives. And there’s just, you know, different ideas on how to get there,’ the speaker said.

Tensions are growing, however, with Johnson’s critics beginning to blame his leadership for the lack of a definitive roadmap.

‘We’re totally getting jammed by the Senate. Leaders lead, and they don’t wait to get jammed,’ Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital. ‘If I had somebody who was arguing with me about a top-line number, and if I was speaker, they wouldn’t be in that position anymore.’

‘And I would figure out a way to be resourceful working with the conference and working lines of communication, as opposed to hiding everything and then being three weeks late on the top-line number.’

Johnson told reporters that details of a plan could be public as soon as Tuesday night.

The Senate’s plan differs from the House’s goal in that it would separate Trump’s priorities into two separate bills – including funding for border security and national defense in one bill, while leaving Trump’s desired tax cut extensions for a second portion.

House GOP leaders are concerned that leaving tax cuts for a second bill could leave Republicans with precious little time to reckon with them before the existing provisions expire at the end of this year.