The White House is in ongoing discussions with Capitol Hill to amend a proposed sanctions bill targeting Russia, Fox News Digital has learned, and prefers that route over sanctions led by the executive branch. 

Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced the legislation months ago and garnered 82 co-sponsors, but the Senate has delayed a vote to give President Donald Trump room to pursue a diplomatic settlement between Russia and Ukraine.

Now, with Trump increasingly skeptical of Vladimir Putin’s intentions to end the war, the bill could soon come to the floor. According to three sources familiar with the matter, talks between lawmakers and the White House are active, though no firm timeline has been set.

‘The House has appetite to move it, too,’ said one congressional source. 

Companion legislation has 70 House co-sponsors.

State Department policy planner Michael Anton has privately indicated to allies that the White House isn’t interested in imposing unilateral sanctions, but also won’t stand in the way of the Graham–Blumenthal legislation.

Behind the scenes, the White House is pushing for revisions that would grant the president greater discretion in enforcement. Specifically, officials are seeking to replace any ‘shall’ with ‘may’ in the bill’s text — a subtle but significant shift that would weaken mandatory enforcement.

‘The White House, no matter who is there, always wants the bill watered down — it’s normal,’ the source said. ‘Whenever any committee, congressman or senator wants to do a sanctions bill, career officials always email back and say, ‘Change the ‘shall’ to ‘may.’’

The legislation would impose sweeping economic penalties, including 500% tariffs on any country that does business with Moscow, and sanctions on key Russian officials and entities.

Graham has acknowledged that revisions are likely, including potential carve-outs from the tariff provision for nations providing aid to Ukraine. The exception would offer relief to European allies that are still dependent on Russian energy.

‘Why don’t we carve out for countries who are helping Ukraine?’ Graham said in an interview with Semafor earlier in June. ‘If you’re providing military economic assistance to Ukraine, you get a carve-out. So China, if you don’t want to get sanctioned, help Ukraine.’

Trump, speaking candidly on a podcast published Wednesday, questioned whether Putin has any interest in ending the conflict.

‘I’m starting to think maybe he doesn’t,’ Trump said when asked whether the Russian president minds losing thousands of soldiers in Ukraine each week.

On Capitol Hill, Trump’s top military advisors were pressed Wednesday on whether they believe Putin intends to halt his offensive.

‘I don’t believe he is,’ said Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

‘Remains to be seen,’ added Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The European Union unveiled a fresh sanctions package, that still needs to be voted on, which would ban transactions with the Nord Stream energy pipelines. 

Since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. has imposed sweeping sanctions: cutting Russian banks off from the U.S. financial system, freezing over $300 billion in Kremlin assets, banning key technology exports, and blocking imports of Russian fuel.

The House of Representatives passed President Donald Trump’s $9.4 billion plan to claw back federal funds for foreign aid, PBS and NPR.

The 214 to 212 vote was mostly along party lines, with no Democrats voting for the bill. Four Republicans voted against the measure, however – Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Mike Turner, R-Ohio, Mark Amodei, R-Nev., and Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y.

A dramatic scene played out on the House floor on Thursday afternoon as the bill appeared poised to fail, with six Republican lawmakers having voted ‘no.’

Fox News Digital observed Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., huddled with several moderate Republicans who either voted ‘no’ or had not yet voted.

In the end, two of those holdouts – Reps. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., and Don Bacon, R-Neb. – elected to support the bill, enabling it to pass on a narrow margin.

Trump allies largely viewed the package as a test run to see whether congressional Republicans could stomach cuts that were widely seen across the GOP as low-hanging fruit.

Spending cuts in the legislation include a $8.3 billion rollback of funding to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and just over $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funnels federal dollars to NPR and PBS.

Republican leaders argued the majority of the USAID dollars getting cut were going toward ‘woke’ programs like $1 million for voter ID in Haiti and $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street.

On NPR and PBS, conservatives have long accused the two networks of taking federal money while growing increasingly liberal in their bias, rather than focusing on impartiality.

But some moderate Republicans had concerns about the legislation’s effect on critical disease prevention research in Africa.

Others argue that entirely slashing federal funding to public broadcasting would disproportionately hurt small local news outlets that rely on it most, and which are situated in areas that otherwise would be an information desert without those resources.

The legislation ultimately passed, however, and will now be sent to the Senate for consideration.

The $9.4 billion proposal is called a rescissions package, a mechanism for the White House to block congressionally approved funding it disagrees with.

Once transmitted to Capitol Hill, lawmakers have 45 days to approve the rescissions proposal, otherwise it is considered rejected. 

Such measures only need a simple majority in the House and Senate to pass. But that’s no easy feat with Republicans’ thin majorities in both chambers.

If passed, Republican leaders hope the bill will be the first of several rescissions packages codifying spending cuts identified by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., confronted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Thursday in a tense exchange over whether Hegseth improperly shared classified details about U.S. airstrikes against Houthi rebels.

In what was the sharpest line of questioning during a week of congressional hearings, Moulton pressed Hegseth to take ‘accountability’ if it’s confirmed he disclosed sensitive operational timing on an unclassified chat app.

‘When you texted the launch time for F-18s going into combat over enemy territory, facing anti-aircraft missiles, on an unclassified Signal chat – did that launch time come from Central Command? Yes or no?’ demanded Moulton, a Marine Corps veteran. 

Hegseth declined to give a direct answer, stating that any communication from the secretary of defense is inherently classified.

‘As you know, having served yourself, any way that the secretary of defense communicates or provides information in and of itself is classified and not to be discussed,’ Hegseth responded.

Moulton pressed again for specifics: ‘So what was the classification marking of the launch time when it was sent to you? Because DoD regulations require classified information to be labeled. Was it secret or top secret?’

Hegseth sidestepped, emphasizing the mission’s outcome. 

‘What’s not classified is that it was an incredibly successful mission against the Houthis,’ he said. 

‘OK, so it was classified,’ Moulton replied. ‘Are you trying to say that the information was unclassified?’ 

‘I’m not trying to say anything,’ Hegseth said.

Moulton then accused the secretary of receiving marked classified information from Central Command and allegedly sharing it outside secure channels.

He also noted the Pentagon inspector general is expected to release a report ‘in a few days’ on the matter. ‘If the DoD inspector general finds what is pretty obvious… that the information was, in fact, classified, do you plan to take any accountability for that?’ Moulton asked.

Hegseth pushed back, stating, ‘There were no names, targets, locations, units, routes, sources, methods – no classified information.’

When pressed again on whether he would accept accountability if the report finds a breach, Hegseth added: ‘Of course. I serve at the pleasure of the president, like everybody else.’

Moulton shifted gears to question the cost of the U.S. campaign against the Houthis, citing reports suggesting the operation topped $1 billion. ‘How many U.S.-flagged commercial ships have transited the Red Sea since your so-called successful operation?’ he asked. ‘The answer is zero.’

The Pentagon IG probe, launched in April, will examine whether Hegseth improperly discussed operational plans for a U.S. offensive against the Houthis in Yemen and will also review ‘compliance with classification and records retention requirements,’ according to a memo from Inspector General Steven Stebbins.

Hegseth’s Signal messages to the president’s principal advisers, leaked when former national security advisor Mike Waltz inadvertently added the Atlantic magazine’s Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat, revealed F-18, Navy fighter aircraft, MQ-9s, drones and Tomahawks cruise missiles would be used in the strike on the Houthis.

‘1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),’ Hegseth said in one message notifying the chat of high-level administration officials that the attack was about to kick off.

‘1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)’ he added, according to the report. 

‘1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)’

‘1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)’

‘1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.’

‘MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)’

‘We are currently clean on OPSEC’ – that is, operational security.

Trump administration officials have long insisted that nothing classified was shared over the chat. 

President Donald Trump on Thursday wouldn’t say an attack by Israel on Iran was imminent, but warned it ‘could happen’ as the U.S. continues to pressure Tehran on a nuclear deal, but simultaneously prepares evacuations from the Middle East. 

‘I don’t want to say imminent, but it looks like it’s something that could very well happen,’ Trump said. ‘Look, it’s very simple, not complicated. Iran can not have a nuclear weapon. 

‘Other than that, I want them to be successful,’ he continued. ‘We’ll help them be successful, will trade with them. We’ll do whatever is necessary.’

Trump said ultimatelyhe’d ‘love to avoid the conflict,’ but said that Iran is going to have to negotiate a ‘little bit tougher.’

‘Meaning they’re going to have to give us some things that they’re not willing to give us right now,’ he said in apparent reference to Iran’s so far refusal to give up nuclear enrichment capabilities. 

The president said the U.S. and Iran are ‘fairly close to a pretty good agreement’ but then added, ‘It’s got to be better than pretty good though.’

Trump on Wednesday told reporters that the U.S. has advised some evacuation efforts in the Middle East as the security situation with Tehran could become ‘dangerous’ amid uncertain nuclear negotiations. 

‘They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place,’ Trump said.  ‘We’ve given notice to move out, and we’ll see what happens.’

The president’s comments came after the U.S. embassy in Iraq ordered a partial evacuation of non-emergency government personnel and military dependents have been authorized to leave locations around the Middle East.

Reports originally claimed similar orders had been issued in Bahrain and Kuwait, though no notices have been posted to the U.S. embassy in Kuwait, and the embassy in Bahrain said that reports that it ‘has changed its posture in any way are false’ and staffing operations remain ‘unchanged and activities continue as normal.’

Embassies near Iran have been ordered to hold emergency action committees and report back to DC on their risk-mitigation plans.

No U.S. troops have been pulled from the Middle East at this time. 

The State Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s questions on why Iraq was deemed particularly dangerous when similar notices have not been issued in other nations surrounding Iran. 

Bahrain holds the highest number of military families according to reports, and though no embassy or military changes have been made, Trump on Thursday said, ‘We have a lot of American people in this area. And I said, we got to tell them to get out because something could happen soon, and I don’t want to be the one that didn’t give any warning and missiles are flying into their buildings.

‘It’s possible. So I had to do it,’ he added. 

When asked this week how the U.S. can calm the escalating security situation in the region, Trump did not provide a direct answer, but said, ‘They can’t have a nuclear weapon. Very simply, they can’t have a nuclear weapon. We’re not going to allow that.’

The status of negotiation progress remains unclear as Special Envoy Steve Witkoff prepares to head to Oman on Sunday for the sixth round of direct and indirect nuclear negotiations with Iran, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi confirmed on Thursday. 

The negotiations have become increasingly strained in recent weeks and appear to have reached an impasse over the levels of enriched uranium.

The U.S. has repeatedly said Iran must not be allowed to have any enrichment programs, including for civil energy use – of which Iran contributes less than 1% of its overall energy needs to nuclear energy.

Iran has thus far flatly refused to abandon all nuclear enrichment, and it remains unclear what it would be required to do with the stockpiles of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium that it currently possesses – which it drastically increased over a three-month period earlier this year.

The IAEA began sounding the alarm last month that Iran had increased its stockpiles by nearly 35% between February and May, when the nuclear watchdog said its stores had jumped from roughly 605.8 pounds worth of uranium enriched to 60% to 900.8 pounds by mid-May.

The Institute for Science and International Security assessed earlier this week that Iran could further the enrichment process to create at least one nuclear warhead’s worth of weapons-grade uranium in as little as two to three days at its Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP).

Nine nuclear weapons could be made within three weeks, and in coordination with Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP), Iran could turn around 22 nuclear warheads within a five-month period, the Institute for Science and International Security claimed.

The IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors on Thursday declared Iran is in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in nearly 20 years.

The board may next take the breach to the UN Security Council, which could then be prompted to enforce severe snapback sanctions on Tehran, which Western security experts have long been urging the UNSC to pursue.

Only three nations on the board objected to the breach declaration, including Russia, China and Burkina Faso, despite years of mounting evidence of man-made highly enriched uranium, and Tehran’s refusal to grant the IAEA full access to all its nuclear facilities, which is a violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPAO). 

Tehran is still bound to the international deal, though the agreement drastically unraveled after the U.S. withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under the first Trump administration after it claimed Iran was already in breach of the terms. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who returned to the Hill today to testify in front of the House Armed Services Committee, told Senators on Wednesday that ‘There are plenty of indications that [Iran has] been moving their way towards something that would look a lot like a nuclear weapon.’

The secretary’s comments contradict assertions made by the Director of National Intelligence, who said in March that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

Senate Republicans rammed through another of President Donald Trump’s nominees on Thursday, this time giving a green-light to the president’s pick to lead the IRS.

The GOP-controlled Senate approved former House Rep. Billy Long to be the next IRS commissioner in 53 to 44 vote along party lines. Long’s ascension to the role marks him as the fifth commissioner atop the tax agency since the beginning of this year.

He will replace Michael Faulkender, who is serving as acting commissioner alongside his duty as deputy Treasury secretary. Long will also be taking over an agency that, like many others, saw drastic cuts to its workforce under the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. 

The former lawmaker and auctioneer will now lead an agency he once sought to dismantle.

Long, who served in the House from 2011 to 2013 representing Missouri’s 7th District, was grilled by Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee during his confirmation hearing last month.

Lawmakers questioned his backing of legislation that would have abolished the IRS and replaced income taxes with a national sales tax, and his promotion of a pair of tax credits – the Employee Retention Tax Credit and ‘tribal tax credits’ – that raised questions of a possible conflict of interest with his new position.

During the hearing, Long argued that as commissioner, he would have a chance to ‘make real, transformational change to an agency that needs it more than any other.’

But Trump has similarly sought to abolish the IRS and replace income taxes with tariffs, among other proposals. That means Long’s elevation to IRS commissioner likely gives the president a key ally in moving forward with his vision of seeing the tax agency scrapped.

Former Vice President Mike Pence’s conservative organization wants Republican senators to gut provisions from the ‘big, beautiful bill’ that could jeopardize the legislation’s survival in both chambers.

Advancing American Freedom, Pence’s organization that he founded in 2021, supports the House’s offering in the budget reconciliation process, and views it as the best move to prevent President Donald Trump’s first-term tax cuts from expiring. 

However, Chair Marc Short and President Tim Chapman called on the Senate GOP to make further refinements to the bill to ensure a better end product, in a letter to Senate Republicans first obtained by Fox News Digital. 

And some of those changes would see key provisions that helped move the president’s bill through the House stripped out.

The duo praised House Republicans for ‘hard-fought’ reforms to Medicaid, rolling back of certain provisions from the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, cuts to Planned Parenthood funding and the end of taxpayer dollars flowing to ‘dangerous sex change operations.’

But they believed the Senate GOP could further polish the House’s offering.

‘Even still, the Senate should build on the House’s hard work to perfect the One, Big, Beautiful Bill to deliver for the American people,’ they wrote.

Pence’s organization also called for further lowering the corporate tax rate, which was set at 21% by Trump’s first-term tax cut package, eliminating the state and local tax (SALT) deduction entirely, ending all Green New Deal subsidies, and gutting a proposed increase to the debt limit.

Some of the changes advocated for by Advancing American Freedom, like nixing the debt-limit language, could go a long way toward earning support from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has vowed to vote against the bill if the debt-limit hike is left in.

But completely ending green subsidies could pose a problem for a cohort of Senate Republicans who have wanted to see the phase-out authored by House Republicans reworked. Doing away with the SALT deduction could hinder the bill, too.

Senate Republicans largely do not care about the increase to the SALT cap to $40,000 pushed for by blue-state Republicans in the House, given that no Republican senator represents a blue state. But House Republicans from New York, New Jersey and California have vowed to vote against the legislation if the cap is touched.

Congressional Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to pass a sweeping bill advancing Trump’s agenda on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt. The main thrust of the colossal package is to extend or make permanent the president’s 2017 tax cuts, but lawmakers are also working to use it to bring down the national debt – nearing $37 trillion – with the aim of cutting $1.5 trillion in federal spending.

While leaders have warned to make as few changes as possible to the House’s offering, the Senate GOP intends to leave its mark on the package, particularly in trying to find steeper savings. Any seismic changes could jeopardize the bill’s survival in the House, where it narrowly passed on a 215 to 214 vote last month.

Short and Chapman noted that the ultimate goal of the package is to prevent Trump’s tax cuts from lapsing.

‘If Congress gets cold feet — or fails to send the package to the president’s desk — 
American households will suffer a $2,100 tax increase on average,’ they wrote.

‘[The One Big Beautiful Bill] not only defuses the looming tax bomb, it takes a first step toward entitlement reform, rebuilds the military, and ensures that our Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have the tools they need to secure the border and deport illegal aliens,’ they said. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent to the Supreme Court’s decision to limit the U.S. Tax Court’s authority in certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) cases, asserting that the federal tax collecting service could avoid accountability in the future.

Gorsuch wrote the dissent to the high court’s opinion in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch, a case that centers on Jennifer Zuch’s dispute with the IRS that began in 2012 over the agency’s moves regarding her late 2010 federal tax return filing. 

‘Along the way, the Court’s decision hands the IRS a powerful new tool to avoid accountability for its mistakes in future cases like this one,’ Gorsuch wrote in his dissent.

In this case, Zuch claimed that the IRS made a mistake, crediting a $50,000 payment to her then-husband’s account instead of her own. The IRS disagreed and sought to collect her unpaid taxes with a levy to seize and sell her property.

Over the years after the dispute began, Zuch filed several annual tax returns showing overpayments. Instead of being issued refunds, the IRS applied these to her outstanding 2010 tax liability.

Once the IRS settled Zuch’s outstanding sum, her liability reached zero, and the IRS no longer had a reason to levy her property.

The IRS then moved to dismiss Zuch’s case in Tax Court, arguing that Tax Court lacked jurisdiction since there was no longer a levy on her property. The Tax Court agreed.

The Supreme Court upheld that Tax Court no longer had jurisdiction without a levy.

‘Because there was no longer a proposed levy, the Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve questions about Zuch’s disputed tax liability,’ read the high court’s opinion.

The decision will not only prevent Zuch from recouping her overpayments that she believes the IRS has wrongly retained, but give the IRS a way to avoid accountability, Gorsuch wrote in his dissent.

‘The IRS seeks, and the Court endorses, a view of the law that gives that agency a roadmap for evading Tax Court review and never having to answer a taxpayer’s complaint that it has made a mistake,’ the justice wrote.