Jeremy Carl, President Donald Trump’s nominee for assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, withdrew his nomination Tuesday after facing bipartisan criticism over past comments about race, religion and Israel.

Carl, a conservative commentator and senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, wrote on X that he lacked the unanimous Republican support needed to advance his nomination out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was nominated to the State Department role by President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

‘I am withdrawing my nomination for consideration as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs,’ he wrote Tuesday afternoon. ‘I am tremendously grateful to President Trump for nominating me and then (upon expiration of my original nomination) renominating me for this role, and I am also grateful to Secretary Rubio and his team for their continued support throughout this long and time-consuming process.’

Republicans hold a 12-10 majority on the panel, meaning a single GOP defection would result in a tie vote and block the nomination from moving to the full Senate.

‘Unfortunately, at this time this unanimous support was not forthcoming,’ Carl wrote, adding that he did not want the administration to ‘waste valuable time and energy’ attempting to change the outcome.

During his confirmation hearing last month, senators pressed Carl on previous remarks concerning ‘white identity,’ immigration and Israel. Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, specifically pressed him on an October 2024 podcast, in which Carl said, ‘the United States spends too much time and energy on Israel, often to the detriment of our own national interests.’ Curtis challenged Carl on what American interests were harmed, and asked if he recognized the benefits that the U.S. gains from the relationship with Israel. Carl dodged the questions, but did say that he wishes that ‘the UN would stop being antisemitic all the time.’

Curtis also cited the same podcast, in which the host accused Jews of claiming a ‘special victim status’ over the Holocaust, and said, ‘Israel is not a victim, but instead a perpetrator,’ to which Carl responded, ‘Right, right. Yeah, no, I mean, I think that’s true.’ Carl at first said that he would have to review the question, but when Curtis noted that he gave Carl’s exact words, Carl admitted, ‘I’m sure that they’re accurate.’

Curtis said afterward that Carl was not the ‘right person to represent our nation’s best interests in international forums.’

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., questioned Carl about his references to ‘white identity’ and what he believed was being ‘erased.’ Carl responded that he was concerned about the erosion of what he described as a majority American culture due to mass immigration, saying he stood by those comments. Murphy later called him a ‘legit white nationalist’ on social media.

Carl rejected that characterization, saying he is ‘not a White nationalist’ and that his remarks referred to a broadly shared American culture that people of all backgrounds could embrace.

‘Unfortunately, for senior positions such as this one, the support of the President and Secretary of State is very important but not sufficient,’ Carl added on X. ‘We also needed the unanimous support of every GOP Senator on the Committee on Foreign Relations, given the unanimous opposition of Senate Democrats to my candidacy, and unfortunately, at this time this unanimous support was not forthcoming.’

The position Carl was nominated to oversees U.S. engagement at the United Nations and other multilateral organizations. He previously served as a deputy assistant interior secretary during Trump’s first term.

‘I remain extremely confident in President Trump, Secretary Rubio, and the rest of the outstanding team at State (a group of leaders that includes many close friends),’ Carl concluded on X. ‘I know they will continue to pursue a foreign policy that puts America first, and that they will work to ensure America is able to exercise its power and influence in the world like never before.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and the State Department for comment and has not heard back.

Reuters contributed to this report.

A top Senate Republican wants answers on why the Biden administration drained the nation’s oil stockpile but did little to replenish it.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., charged that decisions under President Joe Biden to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) could have a ripple effect as the U.S. continues its war with Iran and as the Iranian government continues its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz.

Cotton, in a letter first obtained by Fox News Digital to Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, charged that the Biden administration released 180 million barrels from the nation’s reserves in 2022 ‘to suppress gas prices ahead of the midterm elections.’

‘That decision drained the reserve to a 40-year low,’ Cotton wrote. ‘The decision to drain the SPR was not a response to a supply emergency; it was a deliberate political act designed to protect Democrats from the consequences of their own failed energy policies.’

Biden tapped the reserve twice — once in 2021 to relieve soaring fuel prices as the nation still grappled with the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic and again the following year to combat increased energy costs at the onset of the war between Russia and Ukraine.

The SPR has capacity for over 700 million barrels of crude oil, but currently, the reserve has far less following the drawdown under the previous administration.

At the end of Biden’s term, the reserve had about 415 million barrels of crude on hand, according to data from the Department of Energy.

Cotton said that it wasn’t ‘the first time Democrats undermined the reserve’ and noted that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and congressional Democrats blocked President Donald Trump’s bid to refill the SPR in 2020, when barrels were cheap, with $3 billion from a colossal COVID-19 stimulus package moving through Congress.

He also said that in 2021, Biden signed an executive order that halted new oil and gas leases on federal lands and offshore, which Cotton charged ‘constrained domestic production while the administration was draining the reserve.’

Cotton demanded that Wright answer how blocking the $3 billion oil purchase and halting oil and gas leases impacted the nation’s overall domestic supplies that could have been used to replenish the SPR.

Meanwhile, congressional Democrats are demanding that Trump tap into the SPR after oil prices spiked to four-year highs over the weekend as the war in Iran intensifies.

Schumer said that the reserve ‘exists for moments exactly like this.’

‘The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important oil transit choke point, with roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption moving through it in recent years,’ Cotton said. ‘That is precisely why the SPR must be treated as a strategic national security asset, not a political tool.’

Republicans sharply criticized former President Joe Biden over rising prices at the gas pump, but a spike in energy prices amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict in Iran threatens to scramble the party’s affordability messaging.

The Iran conflict has led to a surge in gas prices for Americans, leading to an average 50 cents a gallon increase since Operation Epic Fury began on Feb. 28.

The average price of gas reached $3.54 per gallon on Tuesday, according to AAA. Diesel prices have also risen to $4.72 per gallon. The increases have been mostly fueled by volatility in oil prices, which rose above $100 per barrel on Monday as the Strait of Hormuz remained effectively shuttered.

The president characterized the gas price hike amid the Iran conflict as ‘a very small price to pay’ in a Truth Social post Sunday.

That statement represented a sharp break with Trump’s typical messaging touting low gas prices prior to Operation Epic Fury.

‘Gasoline, which reached a peak of over $6 a gallon in some states under my predecessor — it was quite honestly a disaster — is now below $2.30 a gallon in most states. And in some places, $1.99 a gallon,’ President Donald Trump said during his Feb. 27 State of the Union address. ‘And when I visited the great state of Iowa just a few weeks ago, I even saw $1.85 a gallon for gasoline.’

The surge in gas and diesel prices threatens to undermine the economic message of President Trump and congressional Republicans, who have touted low gas prices as a major win in the lead-up to November’s midterm elections. Cost of living issues are expected to be a key concern among voters as both parties claim to be laser-focused on making everyday life more affordable.

During the 2024 presidential contest, Trump frequently campaigned on ending Biden’s ‘war on American energy’ and pledged to reverse a surge in gas prices that occurred under his predecessor’s tenure.

Gas prices averaged $3.45 per gallon across all fuel grades during Biden’s four-year term, surging to a record high of more than $5 per gallon in June 2022 after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

‘Starting on Day 1, we will drive down prices and make America affordable again,’ Trump said during a speech at the Republican National Committee convention in July 2024. ‘People can’t live like this.’

Democrats have seized on rising prices at the pump amid the conflict in Iran.

‘I wish the administration thought about this before they started this unnecessary war,’ Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, said Monday when asked about the gas price hike.

‘Donald Trump’s war has sent gas prices skyrocketing through the roof,’ Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote on social media Monday. ‘What contempt. What cluelessness.’

Schumer has called on the president to release oil from America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to combat supply bottlenecks in the Middle East. The top Democrat notably opposed a Trump-led effort to replenish the stockpile in his first term when oil prices were much lower.

Republicans have voiced confidence that the rise in gas prices would be temporary. GOP lawmakers have frequently cited their efforts to roll back Biden-era energy regulations and boost domestic production as evidence that their policies are working to lower energy prices.

‘It’s going to be probably volatile for a period of time. I think what’s going to be key is ensuring we can get safe access to the Strait of Hormuz,’ Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., said Monday, adding that he was confident the disruption would be short-lived.

Daines, who abruptly suspended his re-election campaign last week, highlighted that average gas prices were under $3 per gallon prior to Trump’s State of the Union speech. 

‘That’s an important win for the American people,’ the retiring Montana lawmaker said. ‘Something you’re reminded of usually weekly when you’re gassing up your vehicle.’

Some Republicans and Trump administration officials are also arguing that a defeated Iran will ultimately spur lower gas prices, even if there is pain in the short run.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt characterized the recent increase in oil and gas prices as ‘temporary’ during a briefing Tuesday.

‘Once the national security objectives of Operation Epic Fury are fully achieved, Americans will see oil and gas prices drop rapidly, potentially even lower than they were prior to the start of the operation,’ Leavitt said.

‘At the end of the day, we’re going to destroy this regime, and their ability to disrupt oil is going to be less, and we’re going to have more production, not less,’ Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters Monday. ‘Once you take the largest state sponsor of terrorism off the planet, who depends on oil for their revenue, that’s a more stable world.’

Nearly seven in 10 Americans — including 44% of Republicans — expect gas prices to keep increasing in the coming months, according to a Reuters-Ipsos poll released Monday.

Trump has threatened Iran with unprecedented force if the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz is further restricted.

‘Death, Fire, and Fury will reign upon them — But I hope, and pray, that it does not happen!’ Trump wrote Monday on Truth Social.

As a physician and a mother, I have seen firsthand how Washington’s decisions ripple into the exam room and around the kitchen table. At a time when healthcare debates often divide, it is worth recognizing leaders who safeguard freedom while tackling real health needs. The Trump administration is doing exactly that: protecting access, preserving choice and confronting public-health challenges while trusting families and their physicians to decide what is best.

President Donald Trump is proving that when Washington listens to everyday Americans and acts with urgency, real change is possible. For too long, the crushing cost of prescription drugs has forced families to make an impossible choice between filling a prescription and paying their bills.

Lowering drug prices has been a cornerstone of his presidency, and he has taken meaningful steps to deliver by expanding generics and biosimilars, implementing historic price transparency rules, capping insulin costs for seniors, advancing TrumpRX to increase competition to increase competition and direct access, and pursuing a ‘Most Favored Nation’ policy, so Americans are no longer paying more for medications than patients in other developed countries.

These policies represent an important shift toward putting patients, not middlemen, first. It’s a strong and necessary start, but sustaining this momentum by increasing competition and expanding access will be critical to finally bringing lasting relief to Americans.

This is not the first time Trump has revolutionized healthcare access. He set the tone during his first term with Operation Warp Speed, a milestone in American biomedical history, after COVID-19 paralyzed the world six years ago this month. By pairing private‑sector innovation with decisive federal coordination, it accelerated effective vaccine development and distribution; proving speed and rigor can coexist when government clears paths instead of creating bottlenecks. Just as important, it expanded options for patients and families, reinforcing a simple principle: access first, always.

What followed, however, is where public trust began to erode. Not because of Operation Warp Speed, but because its success was taken over by bureaucratic overreach. I watched in real time as public trust in health institutions collapsed, common sense was dismissed, legitimate debate was shut down and universal COVID vaccine mandates were imposed. Patients did not turn away from the vaccine recommendations because of the science; they turned away because of coercion despite evolving science and varying risk levels.

When personal autonomy gave way to mandates, they undermined confidence in both institutions and vaccines themselves. The result wasn’t the product of Trump’s leadership and scientific progress; it was the consequence of power being prioritized over personal choice.

Today, this administration is again pursuing strong public‑health outcomes without treating Americans as bystanders. Trust should be built where it matters most: in the home and in the doctor’s office. Parents want choice. Doctors want access. Parents overwhelmingly trust their own physicians. Doctors who know a child’s history and needs should remain the most trusted voices and, increasingly, America’s health agencies are speaking that same language.

The recent shift in tone from top health leaders is significant and worth recognizing. Acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Jay Bhattacharya is urging Americans to get the measles vaccine as cases rise and the U.S. risks losing its hard-won elimination status. He called the decision ‘deeply personal’ while making clear that ‘measles is preventable and vaccination remains the most effective way to protect yourself and those around you.’

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz echoed that in February: ‘There will never be a barrier to Americans getting access to the measles vaccine. It is part of the core schedule.’ This is what responsible public health communication looks like: honest, direct, and rooted in science, without coercion.

President Donald Trump is proving that when Washington listens to everyday Americans and acts with urgency, real change is possible.

The challenge now is sustaining this posture. Keeping vaccines available, affordable and accessible is not a concession to one side of the political debate, it’s broadly popular across the spectrum and conservatives are no exception. Skepticism of mandates and top-down health edicts does not translate into a desire to see vaccines become harder to get or more expensive to access. Americans want the freedom to make their own choices alongside their doctors and that freedom is only meaningful when access is guaranteed.

At the same time, the message must be clear: removing mandates does not mean vaccines are no longer recommended, or they have somehow been deemed unsafe. Vaccines remain one of the most effective tools in modern medicine. When vaccination rates fall, history and modern-day show that preventable disease and mortality rise.

Trump understands this, and his agencies need to hold the line: speak honestly about what the science says, respect personal decision-making and ensure that no American faces a barrier to a vaccine they want. That’s a winning posture politically — and more importantly, it’s the right thing to do.

Three years ago, I came to the United States as a graduate student with the intention of studying public and international affairs at Columbia University, with a focus on public service. Like many who come here from across the world, I had a vision of the United States as the land of the free, a place where freedom of speech was cherished and where I could study freely. I thought it was a place where I could stand up for what I believed in without fear of retaliation from the government.

On March 8, 2025, that vision shattered. Multiple plainclothes ICE agents in unmarked cars grabbed me, without a warrant, from the lobby of my apartment building in New York and threw me on a plane to a federal detention center in Louisiana. As a green card holder with a U.S. citizen wife — who was 8 months pregnant at the time — I couldn’t believe what was happening. I had been targeted by the government because of my lawful speech in support of Palestinian rights, for protesting the use of my tax dollars and tuition fees to support the Israeli occupation.

Throughout my 104 days in federal detention, during which I missed the birth of my first child, I considered myself a political prisoner. The government had deprived me of my liberty, not because I had broken any laws, but because it didn’t like what I had to say.

Once I challenged my detention and Secretary Rubio’s determination that my political views posed a foreign policy threat, the government scrambled to add new accusations. They alleged, baselessly, that I had committed fraud on my green card application. Claims invented not out of evidence, but out of retaliation. Recent evidence in federal court revealed that DHS itself acknowledged, a day before my arrest, that there were no issues with the information I provided on my green card application because everything was complete, true, and correct. Yet I was arrested anyway.

I was not alone. Other students and scholars with valid immigration status were similarly targeted for detention and deportation despite having committed no crime. They were pulled off streets by masked agents, targeted outside of their homes, and tricked into arrests during citizenship appointments. What happened to us is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to prevent: the government deciding which speech is acceptable and which is not. Once that protection is weakened, everyone is at risk.

The Supreme Court recognized eighty years ago that the First Amendment protects all of us in the United States — citizens and noncitizens alike — from government persecution for our beliefs. If we allow that boundary to be violated for noncitizens, or when the government claims a foreign policy concern, a precedent is created that can be used against all of us. Even citizens. Even people who disagree with me vehemently about Palestine.

The government has argued that federal courts must let people sit in immigration detention for months or years before reviewing allegations of constitutional violations. They have argued that Pro-Palestine speech constitutes a foreign policy threat. They have argued that I deserve to be deported because they dislike my ideas. If they can do this to a lawful permanent resident with a U.S. citizen wife and newborn U.S. citizen child, there’s no telling who else they will come for.

The government isn’t allowed to control how we can speak and think. Attorneys representing me in my case, and others like me in similar cases, argued this point in court and secured our release from detention. But my case is still ongoing, and the executive branch’s immigration agency may soon order my deportation. So, I ask Americans directly: do you want to live in a country where you can be snatched off the street by plainclothes agents for your thoughts?

In Assad’s Syria, where I grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp, that was routine. Since the beginning of 2025, the United States, a country whose Constitution protects freedom of speech, has seen an increase in these actions that I once associated with Assad: abductions by plainclothes officers without warrants, forced detention of people who express views the government doesn’t like, and the targeted silencing of dissent.

I will continue to use my platform to advocate for human rights in Palestine. But I ask each and every person reading this to use their voice to defend our First Amendment rights. The right to speak our minds, no matter who holds power, is the foundation of our democracy, and it is in peril. Whatever you may think of me or my views, that foundation belongs to all of us.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated Afghanistan as a ‘state sponsor of wrongful detention,’ accusing the Taliban of ‘unjustly’ detaining Americans and other foreign nationals.

In his announcement on Monday, Rubio said the Taliban continues to use ‘terrorist tactics’ that he insisted ‘need to end.’

‘I am designating Afghanistan as a State Sponsor of Wrongful Detention,’ Rubio said in a statement. ‘The Taliban continues to use terrorist tactics, kidnapping individuals for ransom or to seek policy concessions. These despicable tactics need to end.’

The secretary also called on the terror group to free a pair of Americans who are ‘unjustly detained’ in Afghanistan.

‘It is not safe for Americans to travel to Afghanistan because the Taliban continues to unjustly detain our fellow Americans and other foreign nationals,’ he said. ‘The Taliban needs to release Dennis Coyle, Mahmoud Habibi, and all Americans unjustly detained in Afghanistan now and commit to cease the practice of hostage diplomacy forever.’

Coyle, 64, was detained more than a year ago without charges by the Taliban General Directorate of Intelligence, according to his family, noting that he still has not been charged. His family said he was legally working to support Afghan language communities as an academic researcher.

Habibi, a 38-year-old American citizen who was born in Afghanistan, was taken along with his driver from their vehicle in the capital of Kabul in August 2022 by the Taliban General Directorate of Intelligence, according to the State Department.

The FBI said Habibi was previously Afghanistan’s director of civil aviation and worked for the Kabul-based telecommunications company Asia Consultancy Group. The FBI said the Taliban detained 29 other employees of the company but has released most of them.

Habibi has not been heard from since his arrest, and the Taliban has not disclosed his whereabouts or condition, according to the State Department and FBI. The Taliban has previously denied it detained Habibi.

The U.S. is also calling for the return of the remains of Paul Overby, an author who was last seen close to Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan in 2014, according to Reuters, citing two sources familiar with the situation.

The State Department could restrict the use of U.S. passports for travel to Afghanistan if the Taliban does not meet the U.S. government’s demands, the sources told the outlet.

A passport restriction of this kind is currently only in place for North Korea.

The Taliban called the decision by Rubio to designate Afghanistan a ‘state sponsor of wrongful detention’ regrettable, adding that it wanted to resolve the matter through dialogue.

The Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2021 during the U.S. military’s chaotic withdrawal from the country that ended the 20-year war in the region.

Rubio gave the ‘state sponsor of wrongful detention’ designation to Iran late last month, just one day before the U.S.-Israeli strikes on the country. He warned that the U.S. could restrict travel to Iran over its detention of U.S. citizens, but there have not been any restrictions yet.

‘The Iranian regime must stop taking hostages and release all Americans unjustly detained in Iran, steps that could end this designation and associated actions,’ Rubio said at the time.

Reuters contributed to this report.