From Washington: President-elect Trump’s Cabinet Picks Court Congress
35:24 Share

The Subaru Share the Love event is a fulfilling way to get in a great vehicle and support a great cause. When you buy or lease a new Subaru from now until January 2nd, Subaru and its retailers will donate a minimum of $300 to charity. By the end of this year's event, Subaru will have donated nearly $320 million to charity. Visit Subaru.com slash share to support a great cause today.

Saturday, November 23rd, 2024. I'm Ryan Schmelz. Shockwaves on Capitol Hill as President-elect Trump's pick for Attorney General withdraws his nomination. The term is advice and consent. So some of them will provide consent. Others of them might provide advice. And I think what we got the other day with Matt Gaetz,

was advice. I'm Jared Halpern. Russia intensifies attacks on Ukraine, but will the incoming Trump administration change the war's trajectory? So I think there's every reason to see that Russia needs to end this war pretty soon, too. And Putin probably realizes that when Trump's in office, he's finally going to have to do that. This is the Fox News Rundown from Washington.

Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was back on Capitol Hill this week, and he brought some friends with him. The current Ohio senator is helping to arrange meetings with senators and President-elect Trump's cabinet nominees. That includes Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who spoke briefly with reporters after the meetings. And we welcome the opportunity to talk to any senator.

- Hagseth is one of several nominees that may face a challenge when getting enough senators on board to get confirmed. The transition team says meetings will continue after the Thanksgiving recess. One of those nominees won't be taking on any more meetings.

Shockwaves were felt across Congress when President-elect Trump's pick for Attorney General Matt Gaetz decided to withdraw his nomination, as a number of Republican senators like Alaska's Lisa Murkowski had concerns. I think it was a sound decision.

I think it was important. Gates was facing a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and illicit drug use. What's next for the former representative of Florida, who now says he won't return to the 119th Congress? And what's next for the president-elect's nominees? We were in the middle of recording this podcast when we heard that Matt Gates was

was stepping down, stepping aside from his nomination to be the attorney general in the Trump administration. Chad Pergram is Fox's senior congressional correspondent. We were talking about the challenges of trying to confirm him, along with Pete Hegseth, who's up to be defense secretary, and maybe Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence nominee, maybe a few others. This kind of shocked Capitol Hill, although in other respects, it didn't shock people because

We didn't think that he had the votes. There were a lot of Republicans who were taking a pretty dim view of him. And they thought if they were going to get him confirmed, you might have some Republican senators who are willing to go along with all this. But they were very fearful of information that might come out from this House Ethics Committee investigation involving alleged sexual misconduct, possible drug use and other things. And they certainly didn't want to be on the hook.

voting for someone who is to be the top law enforcement official in the country if that's true. Now, again, you see, I'm going to underscore that. Allegedly, allegations, but they're not looking at nothing here, so that's significant. But nonetheless, Matt Gaetz has stepped aside and he will not be the attorney general. And Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general, she is now in the catbird seat.

And what else do we think contributed to why Matt Gaetz ultimately came to this conclusion? Not just the votes, but based off what Alexis McAdams is saying is that Gaetz told the Trump team he came to this conclusion on his own. And according to the statement he put out, he felt like he was becoming a distraction to...

to the transition team and what they were trying to do with putting together their cabinet. And it seemed like some senators were surprised by this. It seemed like others really weren't that surprised. And it just, you know, like you said, based off the math, it looked like there were at least four Republican senators who looked like they were not coming off of being no's and it looked like it could have been more.

Yeah, and this shifted rather quickly. I mean, you had J.D. Vance, who's up here trying to shop him around to his Senate colleagues. Keep in mind, it probably helps to have a senator who's going to be the vice president-elect to help, you know, navigate the Senate waters and the shoals here. But then again, J.D. Vance has not been in the Senate that long, not even two years. And so his relationships are not that deep, frankly.

He has pretty good credibility on the Republican side of the aisle, but you need to maybe pluck off some Democrats and maybe get all Republicans on board here because, as you say, you can only lose a few. And that's the thing about how this shifted so quickly because Matt Gaetz came out after four or five meetings saying,

with the senators and even went and talked to others here on Capitol Hill left and was very upbeat. I looked forward to going down to the DOJ and working on issues like fentanyl, something that probably would be a bipartisan effort, something that he might have some credibility on. That was what was shocking about this. And this is where some people continue to say, was he just a stalking horse?

Was this an effort to kind of, you know, just test the limits of President-elect Trump? Maybe he got bad advice in picking Matt Gaetz. Maybe this was a method of Matt Gaetz to, you know, resign from the House, have an excuse to resign from the House, to bottle up this ethics committee report because that was supposed to come out.

I'll underscore supposed to come out a couple of days ago. But then Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, said, no, no, no, you can't do that to a former member. I should point out, and this is a little bit unclear right now, that he can't revoke his resignation based on the precedence of the House. Once you resign, you're done. And I can even give you a citation on that.

And you could just look down. There's several states that have attorney generals who fought the Biden administration at the Supreme Court and actually won. So, I mean, yeah, there were a number of candidates that were thrown out there that could have been likely nominees. Obviously, Pam Bondi is now the nominee moving forward. But she's not...

Gaetz isn't the only one that's faced some controversy over their selection. Certainly Pete Hegseth is somebody who has come onto the scene kind of out of nowhere. He was on Capitol Hill this week meeting with lawmakers and senators. How do you gauge if he had a successful week so far within the first round of interviews he's done with and meetings he's done with senators? Well, there's some people who thought that Gaetz being out there was kind of a heat shield to take some of the pressure off of Pete Hegseth.

Seth because of some of the allegations that had been made about him, whether or not he's the right person for the job, somebody who's never managed an organization, certainly not this big. In fact, I talked to one aide who had been in a meeting with his boss, you know, meeting with Hegseth, and they said, well, nobody's ever managed an organization this big. But, you know, you have somebody who's not, you know, who has military experience but doesn't have that sort of managerial experience. You know, there's a difference in that.

And that's kind of what you want for somebody in this capacity. But I think that senators are generally more open to Hegseth. But almost as soon as you got the Gates stuff off the table, it seemed like the Hegseth stuff flared up and that there were some serious allegations there about him and things that people want to look at. So

Maybe the fact that Gates was able to be nominated and then withdrawn might indicate – and maybe it's not Pete Hegseth. Maybe it's other people too that maybe there's a precedent here now that the idea that we think if some of these nominations are too toxic or too problematic, we might pull them back or we might convince them to be pulled back or they're probably going to be defeated.

Again, they probably have somebody that's much more confirmable in Pam Bondi. The jury remains out with Hegseth, but I don't know that Gates going away necessarily sent a better signal to Hegseth.

And also we have some other nominees who could face an interesting confirmation process. Certainly, Linda McMahon stands out. She was somebody who served in the Trump administration, SBA administrator, got through that process relatively easily with a lot of bipartisan support. And Richard Blumenthal, I went up to him and said, your thoughts on Linda McMahon? He said, well, she'd make a great commerce secretary. And I said, well, she's up for education, though. He says, exactly.

Exactly. She'd make a great Commerce Secretary. That's the point. And then you also have Robert Kennedy Jr. for HHS Secretary and Tulsi Gabbard for a position as well. And we need to keep in mind, these were people who were Democrats up until about two years ago.

Yeah, that's an interesting dynamic also. I mean, I think that the Gabbard nomination will be tough. The Kennedy nomination might be tough, although I think there might be some bipartisanship there when it comes to big pharma and also on things in the food. The vaccine stuff is going to be a real problem for him with some of the investigations and some of the, you know, providing advice and consent here.

Gabbard, you know, seemingly had some ties to Syria and the regime of Assad there. I'm not so sure that all senators are going to look favorably on that. But the one thing I think you need to know is

is that Republicans in the Senate, many of them are going to say, "Okay, this is who President-elect Trump wants. We're going to vote for them." And there's going to be a few others who stand back and say, "No, we really look at this and we think that there is a problem." The term is "advice and consent." So some of them will provide consent. Others of them might provide advice. And I think what we got the other day with Matt Gaetz was advice.

And if we could transition, Chad, we have a situation brewing on the House side where Nancy Mace is pushing this resolution that would prohibit transgender women from being able to use the women's restroom.

Speaker Johnson has said that he will allow or that he's going to require people use the restroom that coincides with their biological sex. And this is coming as we have we're about to welcome the first transgender member of Congress starting in January. How do things kind of shape up there right now?

Well, you know, see, this is something where even Mike Johnson got a little bit over his skis and had to come back and give a brief statement at the microphones here to the press corps at the Capitol to indicate what his position was, because he kind of opened the door. He said, we are, you know, the Bible teaches us to be respectful and, you know, we're going to be accommodating to all persons. And then he came back and he kind of said, he said, a man can't become a woman and a woman can't, you know.

You see where this is going. And this is, again, one of those just white hot issues. Nancy Mace has, you know, gone completely, you know, full hog on this here. She was walking around the Capitol making videos of herself because you had people who were part of the equity caucus on Capitol Hill putting up signs near the restrooms, which were unisex, saying, you know, that these are the people who will be using that restroom. And she ripped it off the wall. I mean, there's a there's a there's a lot of anger.

And frankly, among some members of the transgender community, there is fear. People who work here, people who lobby here, they don't know. You know, this has never been an issue as to what restroom they are to use. You know, Mike Johnson was asked, is this enforceable? He said, yes. I'd like to see the explanation there. I don't know how you do that. I don't think that this has gone away. And I tend to think it's probably going to get worse before it gets better.

Yeah, exactly. And Sarah McBride has said she plans on complying with the rules and not trying to make anything out of it. And, you know, every time she's been approached by the press, you know, because she's here for freshman orientation, she's kind of just said, you know,

I have a statement out there. I'm not going to talk about this right now. But, yeah, this is definitely not going away. And I think this debate is good. Yeah, and I think that's the question, Ryan, because on one hand, Democrats want to embrace that, the idea that they are a big tent party and that somebody like Sarah McBride, who actually is close with President Biden and is from Delaware and, you know, is the own representative of black from that state. Exactly, exactly.

And on the other hand, people say, well, she said, I didn't get elected to just talk about bathrooms. They want to talk about eggs and they want to talk about trade and they want to talk about, you know, all the education policy. OK, you know, these important issues. Fine. But let's go back to the campaign.

And what did President-elect Trump talk about? And what was one of those ads that had Vice President Harris talking about, you know, paying for surgeries for transgender persons in the armed forces? OK, guess what? That must have been an issue that resonated somehow. And so while Sarah McBride might not want to talk about it, it's going to be talked about. Anything else we're missing for this week, Chad, we need to touch on?

Oh, I thought it was very interesting that we were revisited by a few of our friends up here. No sooner were we dealing with the Ethics Committee investigation. And guess who showed up? George Santos, the former congressman from New York who was expelled from Congress. Keep in mind, you can be expelled from Congress, only six of them, only six in the House. Yet because you're a former member, you have access to the building.

And so he was allowed to just come back in scot-free and said he was here. And he commented on how Michael Guest, the chairman of the Ethics Committee, was running it because he handled the ethics investigation of George Santos and facilitated him getting expelled from the Congress. He was upset, got into kind of a shouting match with Mark Molinaro.

a Republican from New York who had, you know, nothing for George Santos, in fact, and of course, Molinaro lost. So that was a humdinger. And then, you know, we came around the corner while we were looking for where J.D. Vance was and who showed up, but Mark Meadows, the former congressman and former chief of staff. As they say here on Capitol Hill, Ryan, this is the people's house.

And the people are still showing up. That is for sure. Chad, thank you so much as always. And we'll be in touch. My pleasure. Thank you. This episode is brought to you by Etsy. Oh. Hear that? Okay. Thank you. Etsy knows these aren't the sounds of holiday gifting. Well, not the ones you're hoping for. You want squeals of delight. Yeah.

Happy tears. How did you? And spontaneously written songs of joy. I am so happy.

Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah. Um, okay, the song needs a bit of work, but anyway, to get those reactions, make sure everyone on your list feels heard with handmade, handpicked, and designed gifts from small shops on Etsy. Gifts like personalized jewelry, custom artwork, cozy style items, vintage pieces, and home decor to celebrate all of your favorite people and their specific kind of special. For original gifts that say, I get you, Etsy has it.

U.S.-provided missiles fired from Ukraine hit targets deep inside Russia this week. Russia retaliated with what the Kremlin says is a newly developed hypersonic ballistic missile. The intensifying fighting also comes at a time of transition here in Washington, with questions about potential policy shifts from Ukraine's largest supplier of military aid.

President-elect Trump has suggested he can quickly negotiate an end to the war. President Biden has ordered defense officials to roll out all the remaining congressionally approved Ukraine funding before he leaves office. And Russia is increasingly threatening more dire consequences for NATO members, including lowering the threshold for nuclear strikes.

If it all sounds like a rapid escalation, Ambassador Kurt Volker says it's not. Volker served in the first Trump administration as a special representative for Ukraine negotiations. I'm not alarmed at all. First off, this war has been going on for nearly three years. Putin's

Putin is doing everything he can to try to take over Ukraine. He has not been able to succeed. Before that, he was the U.S. ambassador to NATO during the George W. Bush administration. And he's not going to be able to succeed. He just doesn't have the means to do it. His military is in really bad shape right now, both in terms of manpower, ammunition, equipment. There's not much more they can do. So what he does is he issues threats.

and particularly nuclear threats, because he knows that can get inside our heads. And it has caused the Biden administration to adopt a very hesitant policy in supporting Ukraine over the last couple of years, because they're always afraid of escalation, and Putin can play on that.

The reality is I don't think he has any intention of using nuclear weapons at all because it wouldn't achieve any objectives for him and have negative effects for him in terms of possible conventional response against his forces, opprobrium from China and India. So I don't see that as any grave escalation.

On the nuclear rhetoric aside, though, we have seen I mean, Russia says that they fired a hypersonic ballistic missile. The Pentagon says it's not hypersonic, but it is new. That is a weapon that they had not yet used in this war. We heard from the Kremlin this week that it was a direct response to the Biden administration and the UK allowing these longer range missiles to be fired deep inside Russian territory.

Yeah, but they've used so many other types of missiles, long-range, hypersonic, these caliber missiles, submarine-launched missiles. They've been doing this for years. It's just a different type of weapon, not anything that's really materially different if you're on the ground getting hit by a missile. Are they harder to knock out of the sky? Yeah.

That I haven't heard. The caliber ones, the hypersonic ones, those are harder to knock down because they're moving so fast. I don't know whether this one, because it was not hypersonic, is materially more difficult than some of the other missiles that they're using. Did the, in your view, Biden administration wait too long to loosen these restrictions on the way that Western provided and U.S. provided weapons are used? They should never have created the restrictions.

It was made up by the Biden administration. In an armed conflict, first off, the victim has a right of self-defense. So Ukraine is allowed to defend itself against armed attack, which is what's been going on. And secondly, the only restrictions are really under the laws of war, the laws of armed conflict, where you limit yourself to hitting military targets. You don't deliberately target civilians.

Russia violates that all the time, but Ukraine doesn't. Ukraine hits military targets. And that's all we should have said. Here's the weapons. Restrict yourselves to following the laws of armed conflict. And instead, they made up this range limitation. So, well, yeah, you can hit back, but don't hit beyond this distance. That's just giving Russian forces a sanctuary inside Russia from which they can attack Ukraine, which is what they've been doing.

It sounds, you know, as somebody who has covered this administration for the duration of this war, I mean, the concern was always, to your point, escalation. And I had heard, you know, from folks inside or outside the administration both that, you know, the worry is that Russia could try and target some of these weapons before they reach Ukraine, obviously, in NATO territory. That's not an outcome that you see happening out of all of this? Oh, no.

Definitely they're not going to hit NATO territory intentionally because that would draw NATO in directly. And they're having a hard time trying to defeat Ukraine. They would have no chance against NATO forces. And I think they know that.

What is your assessment of the deployment of maybe 10,000, maybe more North Korean troops now entering this conflict? It sounds like they're in the Kursk region. Perhaps they move to the front lines inside Ukraine. What do we make of that sort of burgeoning relationship here between Russia and North Korea? Yeah.

Yeah, I don't think it does very much for Russia's war effort. They burned through 10,000, 12,000 troops in a couple of weeks at the rate that they're taking casualties. So I don't think that number of troops is significant at all. They do get about two-thirds of their artillery shells from North Korea, and that's been happening all year. That's significant.

What I'm mostly worried about with this, though, is what North Korea gets out of it. They're getting political cover and protection from Russia, including in the United Nations. They're getting sanctions evasion from Russia, probably missile technology as well, which led North Korea to conduct a missile test. And they probably North Korea is acting more and more belligerent again. That kind of emboldening North Korea is.

That, even with the possibility of their launching weapons that could potentially hit U.S. territory, that is more concerning than the impact of North Korean forces in Russia. It's what, the technology and every other access that North Korea may be getting now. Yeah, exactly. What should the Zelensky administration and President Zelensky himself expect from the U.S. after January 20th?

Well, I think he's going to see that the U.S. does not want Ukraine to be defeated.

The U.S., President Trump, will also want to end the war as quickly as possible. And what I think he will look for is, yes, we agree, we want to end the war too. Ukraine wants to end the war. But it has to be a fair peace, as President Trump himself has said. And it has to be a permanent peace. So how do you pivot from just stopping the fighting to something that prevents outbreak of war again once Putin has a chance to regroup?

was olenski says that includes nato membership you've been the ambassador to nato is ukraine going to be a nato member i think they should uh this is obviously something that president trump's going to have to decide but i think that they should because nato is the thing that works nato has prevented attacks on nato members for 75 years it always works

Other security guarantees outside of NATO, like the Budapest Memorandum, they weren't worth the paper that they were written on. The U.S., France, U.K., and Russia all promised to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia grossly violated that in 2014, and nobody did anything. So I think it has to be NATO to be credible, and I think it's the only thing that Putin takes seriously as well.

And you can do this in a way like we did with West Germany and East Germany. You only have NATO cover the territory that the Ukrainian government controls. It doesn't apply, Article 5 doesn't apply to occupied territories, and you don't try to take them back militarily. So you have a dispute over, you know, Russia claims that they're part of Russia. We say, no, we don't recognize that. But that is now no longer a hot conflict.

Well, doesn't that kind of force Ukraine to give up territory that was taken by force? Well, it kind of forces them to accept that they can't take it back right now. They can't take it back militarily. And I think they know that they're not going to be able to take it back militarily now. They don't like it. And no one should should justify this.

So you leave it as an unresolved issue that there's a dispute over the Russian occupation of part of Ukraine's territory. It's what happened to the Baltic states for 40 years.

Do you see the other NATO members, because obviously to join NATO, every NATO ally has to agree. Does that seem to be the path that Ukraine is on or are there going to have to be countries that need to be? I mean, I guess I'm thinking about maybe like a Hungary or a Turkey. Yeah. Well, Turkey has come out in favor of NATO membership consistently. Hungary, I don't think, would stand alone in blocking it.

If it is coupled with an end to the war, which it would have to be. So if it's as long as it's part of ending the war, I think it's achievable there. Apart from that, the only two countries that have been against until now have been the U.S. and Germany. And if the U.S. position were to change, I'm very confident the German position would change, too.

Yeah, the U.S. position, just to be clear, has been that there's not going to be NATO membership while the conflict is going on, while it's underway. It's even wishy-washy-er than that. It is yes to NATO membership someday, you know, down the road, but they're not ready now. And then you ask, well, in what way are they not ready? And then there's never an answer. Like, what would they have to do? They're just not ready.

Meaning that the Biden administration hasn't wanted to do it. Let me ask about the Biden administration in the final months here. President Biden has made clear that he's going to sort of empty the bank here as it relates to the appropriated drawdown authority, the military assistance to Ukraine. That seems to be an indication that there is a concern that those drawdowns will stop.

With the Trump administration, are those fears founded in your view? The way I would put it is this is funding that Congress has already approved and it should be dispersed.

any new appropriation or not even appropriation but say a land lease policy where you let ukraine borrow money it's going to have to happen in the next congress under a new administration so by the administration has no window into that so they should at least just

spend the resources that Congress has already appropriated, and it's going to fall into the Trump administration, how they choose to handle it. I suspect that Congress will want to approve additional support for Ukraine, but I suspect it will be lentil yeast rather than taxpayer funds.

How does explain to me sort of how that works? What's the difference in what we've seen now where I guess the way it works now is this money is essentially going to defense maker, American defense contractors and producers. And those weapons are then sent to Ukraine. Right. That otherwise, I guess, we go to the US. Yeah. What happens now is the combination of giving Ukrainians equipment that is in our inventories. And then we use the money appropriated by Congress to buy new stuff for ourselves. Right.

So it's replenishing the U.S. military and giving Ukraine some older stuff. And money is not going to Ukraine.

Sometimes it is actually using the appropriated money to buy new things and give them to Ukraine as well, such as 155-millimeter artillery shells. We do that. Then lend-lease would be not taking it out of U.S. inventories necessarily, but using the funds directly to buy from U.S. manufacturers and

to provide it to Ukraine, except under a land lease program, Ukraine would be providing a sovereign guarantee that they're going to pay it back.

And that means that it's not an appropriation. We have a sovereign guarantee that the money is coming back so it can be treated as a loan. That would take some time, I would imagine, given the financial strain that is going to be placed on Ukraine once this war ends to even rebuild their own country. Yeah, that's what. Yeah, exactly. It's what we did for the British in World War Two.

And I think they finished up their payments in like the 1970s or the 1980s. It was quite a long time. What do you expect will, you know, the president elect, President-elect Trump has indicated that he thinks he can end this war very quickly. Do you agree with that assessment? I do, actually. I think that things are aligning that make that seem realistic. The Russian military is in very bad shape.

They can't fill out the ranks with personnel very easily. That's why they're bringing in North Koreans, because they don't want to recruit much more inside Russia.

They are low on ammunition themselves, and they are getting the bulk of their ammunition now from North Korea. They are not able to manufacture the stuff that they need to keep their force together. The training is abysmal. They give people a couple weeks of training and send them into the front lines. The casualties are extraordinary. They've probably lost 600,000 people so far.

So that is quite something. So I think every reason to see that Russia needs to end this war pretty soon, too. And Putin probably realizes that when Trump's in office, he's finally going to have to do that. And I think what we're seeing from Putin right now, these desperate efforts to grab more land, I think it's all with a view towards there being some kind of stabilization of the war next year.

ukrainians are also in a very exhausted position having a hard time with the recruitment um they're dependent on us uh and by us i mean the west for the weapons and supplies so i think they're ready to take a break as well and i think trump is determined to to push for that so i think he he does have a good chance of ending this quickly

Let me finish with this. What is the political future look like for both Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin once this conflict is over? Well, Putin is an absolute dictator. There's no threat to his power. I guess he's not up for reelection, is he? Yeah, no threat to his power. I mean, they do sham elections every once in a while. But I mean, he still has to have some level of like domestic support, doesn't he? What does that look like right now? Um,

I think what you have in Russia is tolerance. People will tolerate a lot and they don't want to stick their neck out. So Putin stays in power. And I think he will after this, you know, if some kind of settlement takes place this year, he'll stay in power. He'll claim that it was a great victory. Everyone will know better, but no one's going to do anything about it.

In the case of Zelensky, they will have to have elections. Once there's a settlement, they'll have to lift martial law and they'll have to have elections. And very difficult to orchestrate elections after so many years of war, but they're going to have to do it. And

It's too early to say how it would play out. Right now, Zelensky is not very popular, and it doesn't look like he would win an election in normal times. People would want somebody else for governance. But they respect him as the wartime leader because he's been determined to stand up for the country. So I think that the best case scenario, in my mind, would be that there's a settlement between

martial law is lifted. You have presidential and parliamentary elections both.

And Zelensky chooses not to run, but has kind of a status as a savior of the country. And then lets the next group take over to then worry about democratic governance. It's definitely something that we will continue to keep an eye on and do reporting from now more than a thousand days into this war. Ambassador Kurt Volker, appreciate your time, appreciate your analysis and your expertise. Okay. Thank you very much for having me.

Connect to the world with special Turkish Airlines fares. Book your flight before November 30th and take advantage of great deals. Fly to the most exciting destinations with the award-winning airline that flies to more countries than any other. Terms and conditions apply. For more details, visit TurkishAirlines.com. Turkish Airlines, widen your world.

Tomorrow on the Fox News Rundown from Washington, President-elect Trump's foreign policy team is taking shape. We'll talk to his former deputy national security advisor about what the nominees tell us about foreign policy priorities. In weeks after Hurricane Helene devastated the southeast, many Americans are still waiting for federal assistance. Jessica Rosenthal looks at the near $100 billion funding requests from President Biden.

Until then, thanks for listening. I'm Jared Halpern from Washington. Stay up to date by subscribing to this podcast at foxnewspodcasts.com. Listen ad-free on Fox News Podcasts Plus on Apple Podcasts. And Prime members can listen to the show ad-free on Amazon Music. And for up-to-the-minute news, go to foxnews.com.

I'm Emily Campagno, host of the Fox True Crime Podcast. This week, I'm joined by retired San Francisco Police Captain Yolanda Williams as she details her escape from the People's Temple cult. Available now on foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts.