Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., said the confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services is ‘not a slam dunk,’ as President Donald Trump’s nominee works to shore up support.

In an appearance on ‘Fox News Sunday,’ Fetterman said he has met with Kennedy twice in his office and that whatever his decision ends up being on the HHS nominee, it will be ‘an informed view.’ 

‘I’ve invested a lot of time to really understand his background and to learn more about the man,’ Fetterman said, adding: ‘I approached with an open mind and I watched the hearing. And that’s how the process works.’ 

Asked if he’s reached a decision on whether he’ll vote ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ for Kennedy, Fetterman said he has spoken to colleagues on both sides regarding the matter. 

‘It’s been challenging for sure. Absolutely. It’s certainly not a slam dunk for the nomination,’ Fetterman told ‘Fox News Sunday’ host Shannon Bream. 

‘I’ve made an investment to really understand and talk to all of the nominees, and I treated everyone with respect and I took the time to listen, and that’s been part of my commitment,’ he added.

Kennedy, a lifelong Democrat who switched his presidential campaign against Biden to run as an Independent before ultimately dropping from the race to back Trump, made it through back-to-back grillings by the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday and the Health Committee on Thursday. He still faces crucial committee and full Senate confirmation votes in his mission to lead 18 powerful federal agencies that oversee the nation’s food and health.

Most of the tough questions and sparring over his stances on vaccines, abortion, Medicaid and other issues came from Democrats on the two committees, but Thursday’s hearing ended with the top Republican on the Health panel saying he was ‘struggling’ with Kennedy’s nomination.

‘Your past of undermining confidence in vaccines with unfounded or misleading arguments concerns me,’ Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., told the nominee.

The physician from Louisiana, who is a crucial vote and who has voiced concerns over Kennedy’s past stance on vaccines, asked whether Kennedy can ‘be trusted to support the best public health.’ The senator told Kennedy, who seeks to lead key health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, that ‘you may be hearing from me over the weekend.’

Kennedy, whose outspoken views on the pharmaceutical and food industries have also sparked controversy, has said he aims to shift the focus of the agencies he would oversee toward promotion of a healthy lifestyle, including overhauling dietary guidelines, taking aim at ultra-processed foods and getting to the root causes of chronic diseases.

A strong pro-life advocate, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told ‘Fox News Sunday’ that he is supporting Kennedy despite the nominee’s past comments saying he supported codifying Roe v. Wade and abortion ‘even if it’s full term.’  

‘I am now OK to supporting RFK Jr. because I think during the course of the hearing he’s committed to a Republican pro-life agenda, President Trump’s pro-life agenda,’ Graham said when asked about those specific past remarks from Kennedy. ‘So I will take him at his word. I’m comfortable with what he said on the pro-life issue. He has been radically pro-choice as a person. But I do believe that as secretary, he will implement a pro-life agenda that will be pushed by President Trump. I will be a yes, but I’ll also watch every move he makes.’ 

Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

‘This is NPR.’ That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution following the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.

While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.

Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead chose Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.

Some have long questioned the federal government’s subsidization of a media organization. NPR itself continues to maintain that ‘federal funding is essential’ to its work. However, this country has long rejected state media models as undermining democratic values.

This funding is likely more important, given NPR’s cratering audience and revenue. The NPR’s audience has been declining for years. As a result, NPR has been forced to make deep staff cuts.

Ironically, NPR has one of the least diverse audiences in media. Its listeners are is overwhelmingly white, liberal, and more affluent than the rest of the country. Yet, while serving fewer and fewer people, it still expects most of the country to subsidize its programming.

Many of us have argued that NPR should compete with other radio companies in the free market. Notably, some Democratic leaders have pushed to get Fox News dropped from cable news carriers despite the fact that it is not government subsidized and consistently ranks as the most-watched cable news network. (For full disclosure, I am a legal analyst at Fox.)

NPR and PBS are facing calls for the subsidy to be removed at long last. However, at the same time, pressure is coming from the Federal Communications Commission. FCC Chair Brendan Carr is inquiring about NPR’s claim that it does not do commercial advertising.

Many of us have noticed that NPR has ramped up its sponsor statements with taglines about the products or firm’s clientele. Carr wrote, ‘I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.’

The support for noncommercial radio and television stations fell under different regulations. It is hard to see the sponsor acknowledgments as anything other than commercial advertising. It is common for for-profit outlets to have hosts read commercial sponsors.

Noncommercial educational broadcast stations, or NCEs, are prohibited under Section 399B of the Communications Act from airing commercials or other promotional announcements on behalf of for-profit entities. 

What is interesting is that NPR stresses in its sponsor guidelines that the ‘NPR way’ is actually a better method to reach consumers:

‘Across platforms, NPR sponsor messages are governed by slightly different regulations, but the guiding spirit is the same: guidelines are less about what’s ‘allowed’ and more about the approach that works best for brands to craft sponsor recognition messages that connect with people in ‘the NPR way,” read the guidelines.

What is striking is how NPR’s shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to cut off public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming.

It is common for law firms or companies to have hosts herald their work in given areas. It is also common to have product references.

The thrust of NPR’s pitch to advertisers is that this is a different type of pitch to attract more customers. However, the federal government has long ignored the obvious commercial advertisement. 

There is little discernible difference between NPR and competitors beyond pretense when it comes to bias or promotions. What is striking is how NPR’s shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to cut off public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming. What would the reaction be if Congress ordered the same subsidy for more popular competitors like Fox Radio?

I would oppose a subsidy for Fox as I do for NPR. Each outlet should depend on its viewership for support. Notably, many liberal outlets continue to maintain their biased coverage despite falling ratings and revenues. The Washington Post has had to again lay off employees and has lost roughly half of its readership. 

After being called in to right the ship, Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, ‘Let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.’

Nevertheless, writers at the LA Times and other outlets continue to argue against balanced coverage. They would rather lose readers and revenue than their bias. So be it. These outlets have every right to offer their own slanted viewpoints or coverage. They do not have a right to a federal subsidy to insulate them from the response of consumers. 

It is time to establish a bright-line rule against government subsidies for favored media outlets. ‘This is NPR’ but it is not who we should be as a nation.

President Donald Trump repeated his suggestion that Canada become the 51st on Sunday, noting that it would not be subjected to his incoming tariffs should the country join the U.S.

‘We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason,’ Trump wrote on TRUTH Social. ‘We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use. Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true!’ 

‘Therefore, Canada should become our Cherished 51st State,’ Trump added. ‘Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada – AND NO TARIFFS!’ 

Trump has for weeks suggested the United States should take control of Canada through economic pressure.

Citing the flow of illicit drugs across the northern border, Trump signed an order Saturday to implement a 25% tariff on goods entering the United States from Canada. The order, which takes effect Tuesday, also puts a 10% duty on energy or energy resources from Canada. The order states, ‘gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illicit drugs of all kinds have poured across our borders and into our communities,’ adding that ‘Canada has played a central role in these challenges, including by failing to devote sufficient attention and resources or meaningfully coordinate with United States law enforcement partners to effectively stem the tide of illicit drugs.’ 

Trump also said he would implement tariffs of 25% on goods from Mexico, as well as 10% on imports from China due to the flow of drugs across U.S. borders.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum both vowed retaliation on Saturday. 

‘We categorically reject the White House’s slander of the Government of Mexico for having alliances with criminal organizations, as well as any intention to interfere in our territory,’ Sheinbaum said, adding that she instructed her administration officials to implement ‘tariff and non-tariff measures in defense of Mexico’s interests.’ 

Trudeau said Canada would impose 25% tariffs on $155 billion of U.S. goods, including ‘immediate tariffs on $30 billion worth of goods effective Tuesday, followed by further tariffs on $125 billion worth of American products in 21 days.’ 

‘I don’t think we’re not at all interested in escalating, but I think that there will be a very strong demand on our government to make sure that we stand up for the deal that we have struck with the United States,’ Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman told ABC News’ ‘This Week’ on Sunday. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu left for the U.S. on Sunday to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump, looking to strengthen ties with the U.S. government following tensions with the Biden administration over the war in Gaza.

Netanyahu departed for Washington amid the ceasefire with Hamas – which includes hostage releases – still in effect and negotiations for a second phase expected to begin this week. He will be the first foreign leader to visit Trump since his inauguration on Jan. 20.

‘The fact that this will be his first meeting with a leader of a foreign country since his inauguration holds great significance for the State of Israel,’ Netanyahu said in a statement.

‘First of all, it indicates the strength of the alliance between Israel and the United States. Secondly, it also reflects the strength of our connection; a connection that has already yielded great things for the State of Israel and the region, and has also brought about the historic peace agreements between Israel and four Arab countries – the ‘Abraham Accords’ that President Trump led,’ the prime minister continued.

This comes nearly 16 months after the war in Gaza began, prompted by Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack against Israel, leading to military retaliation from Israeli forces.

‘The decisions we made during the war, combined with the bravery of our IDF soldiers, have already changed the face of the Middle East,’ Netanyahu said. ‘They have changed it beyond recognition. I believe that with hard work alongside President Trump, we can change it even more for the better.’

‘Our decisions and the courage of our soldiers have redrawn the map. But I believe that working closely with President Trump, we can redraw it even further and for the better,’ he added.

Netanyahu and former U.S. President Joe Biden experienced tension in their relationship during the last administration in Washington, and the Israeli prime minister has not visited the White House since returning to office at the end of 2022.

‘We can strengthen Israel’s security, we can expand the circle of peace even further, and we can bring about a wonderful era that we never dreamed of. An era of prosperity, security, and peace from a position of strength,’ Netanyahu said. ‘The strength of our soldiers, the strength of our citizens, the strength of Israel, and the strength of the alliance between Israel and the United States.’

Fox News’ Yael Rotem-Kuriel and Reuters contributed to this report.

DORAL, Fla. — The lawmaker in charge of House Republicans’ elections arm is feeling confident that the GOP can buck historical precedent and hold onto their majority for the entirety of President Donald Trump’s term.

The 2024 elections saw Republicans make significant inroads with Hispanic and Black voters.

National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Richard Hudson, R-N.C., said progress would continue heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

‘We’ve done well with African Americans, comparatively,’ Hudson told Fox News Digital, referring to years prior. ‘We’ve put a lot more effort in reaching out to that community as well and letting them know that we want your votes, and we want to represent you, and we care about the issues that matter to you and your family.’

‘I think we can do better, and we’ll continue to attempt to do better. But, look, our message, our values, our principles are all universal.’

He said Republicans’ values also lined up with Hispanic and Latino voters, 42% of whom supported Trump, according to the Associated Press.

‘We are focused on the issues you care about,’ Hudson said the pitch was. ‘It’s crime in your neighborhoods. It’s education for your children. It’s securing the borders. It’s the price of things for your family. I mean, these are all things we campaigned on. But we deliberately went out into the Hispanic community and said, ‘We want your vote.’ And they responded.’

Earlier in the interview, he credited Trump with delivering on those values in 2024, and argued that Trump’s policies would get Republicans over the line again next year.

Historically, the first midterm after a new presidential term serves as a rebuke of the party in power.

Democrats won the House of Representatives in a ‘blue wave’ in 2018 during Trump’s first term. Four years later, Republicans wrestled it back under former President Joe Biden.

But the circumstances are somewhat different this time, something Hudson noted.

‘We’re in a unique time in history, where you had a president serve four years with all his policies, and then he was replaced by another president who had completely different policies. . . . And then the two ran against each other,’ Hudson said. ‘So the American people sort of had a referendum on which president they wanted, which policies they chose, and they overwhelmingly selected Donald Trump.’

Trump is in his second term, and Hudson argued that the 2024 presidential race was a referendum between two clear White House records.

‘He has a mandate that I think is unique in history. And so this isn’t a first-term president going into his first midterm. I mean, this is someone the American people know, and they’ve chosen,’ Hudson said.

Hudson also pointed out that Democrats will be defending 13 lawmakers whose districts Trump won, while Republicans only had to hold onto three seats that voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

‘The battlefield out there for us going into 2026 favors Republicans,’ Hudson said. 

He spoke with Fox News Digital at Trump National Doral golf course and resort in South Florida, where Republicans held their three-day retreat to strategize their agenda.

Hudson was one of the senior Republicans who gave a presentation to fellow lawmakers during the event, where his message was: ‘We’re on offense this cycle.’

‘We’re going to lean in. We have a lot of opportunity in those Donald Trump seats,’ Hudson said he told colleagues. ‘We’re going to hold Democrats accountable for their voting against the policies the American people want.’