The Senate is gearing up for a vote on extending expiring Obamacare premium subsidies, but a tense debate over restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions is proving a major roadblock on the path to a bipartisan healthcare solution. 

Broadly, lawmakers in the upper chamber do not want to see the subsidies expire by the end of the year, given the political ramifications and expected leaps in healthcare premiums that would come should they lapse. 

But Republicans demand that Hyde Amendment protections, which prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions, be added to an extension of the subsidies. Senate Democrats view that as a non-starter. 

‘It’s a sticky situation,’ Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told Fox News Digital.

The Hyde Amendment was first enacted in 1976, and has routinely been added to funding bills in the years since to ensure that federal dollars don’t prop up abortions. The issue has become a political third rail in the ongoing healthcare debate. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., acknowledged that it was a tricky situation and how difficult carving a path forward on extending the subsidies would be. 

‘Well, I think dealing with Hyde is a big issue,’ Thune said. ‘And so, obviously, for both sides we’ll have to figure out how to make that work, and we’ll see on that. I don’t know the answer.’

The Senate is set to vote on Senate Democrats’ subsidy proposal next week, which comes after Thune’s guarantee that there would be a vote in his bid to end the government shutdown last month. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., unveiled Democrats’ proposal on Thursday, which would largely be a clean extension of the subsidies for three years. Republicans have panned it as unserious, and the legislation is expected to fail. 

‘Republicans have spent more time kicking low-income people off health insurance and raising costs for those who stay covered, than on doing anything to lower premiums,’ Schumer said. ‘They’ve riddled their plan with poison pills that would ban abortion nationwide.’

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital that the underlying framework of Obamacare comports with Hyde Amendment restrictions but that Democrats were insisting that the enhanced premium subsidies, which were passed during the COVID-19 pandemic under former President Joe Biden, not be covered by the abortion language, 

‘We have never, ever agreed to taxpayer funding of abortions in the Republican Party. We’re not going to start now, and they know that,’ he said. ‘So it may very well be, unfortunately, that that might be their reason for not wanting to do anything on health care because they think it’s a really good midterm election issue.’ 

Key negotiators that helped end the shutdown on both sides of the aisle are still trying to find a bipartisan solution, but talks have virtually ground to a halt over issues with the Hyde Amendment protections.

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, was one of the Senate Democratic caucus members that crossed the aisle to end the shutdown. He told Fox News Digital he wouldn’t comment on the Hyde Amendment back and forth, but he cast a grim outlook on how bipartisan talks were going. 

‘I don’t know if progressing is a word I would use,’ King said. ‘I would say that they are ongoing, and we’ll see if we can find some resolution.’ 

The Obamacare subsidies were a driving force behind Senate Democrats’ shutdown posture, and with the public unveiling of their proposal, it has some Senate Republicans wondering what the government shutdown was even for.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala, who was one of main figures in building a bipartisan bridge to reopen the government, told Fox News Digital that it was clear Schumer wanted to use healthcare as a ‘political issue in an election.’  

‘Looking at it that way, I mean that you would care more about making sure that taxpayers have to fund abortions than you do about these subsidies shows you their priorities are clearly, in my opinion, out of whack,’ Britt said.

For now, the only option on the table is Democrats’ proposal. Republicans are still trying to land on what exactly they want to do with the Obamacare issue. Funneling subsidy money into Healthcare Savings Accounts rather than to insurance companies has become a strong contender, but Senate Republicans still haven’t made their play call. 

‘I think that, my assumption is, if this is what they’re going to do next week, when it fails, then we will have a serious conversation about a real solution,’ Thune told Fox News Digital. ‘We haven’t decided yet exactly what we’re going to do, but what that signals though, evidences, is they’re just not serious.’

The leader of the House GOP’s largest caucus is rolling out a plan to scale back Obamacare while giving Americans the option to open new health savings accounts (HSAs) named after President Donald Trump.

Republican Study Committee Chairman August Pfluger, R-Texas, is filing legislation on Monday called ‘The More Affordable Care Act,’ he told Fox News Digital.

States would be allowed to opt out of major facets of Obamacare, formally called the Affordable Care Act (ACA), provided they had other systems in place for ensuring premiums were not hiked for high-risk patient pools. 

Those ‘waiver states’ would then be allowed to either run their own healthcare exchange platforms or oversee private company-run platforms, which Republicans argue will allow more choice in the healthcare marketplace in addition to the federal government’s options.

Federal dollars that currently go toward lowering the cost of insurance premiums in those states would be rerouted into personal HSAs for eligible enrollees called ‘Trump Health Freedom Accounts.’

The bill would also allow Americans to shop across state lines for healthcare plans, with any healthcare program run under a ‘waiver state’ needing to be easily available to people in other ‘waiver states.’

Rather than doing away with Obamacare altogether — something many GOP lawmakers have acknowledged may be an impossible task — the bill would seek to increase competition for people where the federal option is the only choice.

The legislation’s introduction comes as Republican lawmakers are scrambling for a solution to address rising healthcare premium prices, which could see millions of Americans pay significantly more for healthcare starting next year.

One of the most high-profile factors in that price cliff is Obamacare subsidies that were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic, but which are set to expire at the end of this year.

The majority of Republicans are opposed to extending those enhancements, arguing the COVID-era program only helped fuel skyrocketing health costs without addressing the core problem.

But Democrats and some moderate Republicans have viewed an extension as a key way to prevent healthcare from becoming unaffordable for millions of people.

House GOP leaders are working on a healthcare package that Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said could get a vote by the end of this month.

It’s not clear if Pfluger’s bill will be included in that package. But as the head of the House GOP’s de facto conservative think tank, he’s played a key role in advising Republican leadership in crafting their reforms.

A source familiar told Fox News Digital that they anticipated ‘significant interest’ from other House Republicans once the bill is introduced on Monday.

Meanwhile, Pfluger told Fox News Digital, ‘By establishing Health Freedom Accounts, we’re putting healthcare decisions back where they belong: in the hands of American families, not Washington bureaucrats. The American people deserve better than throwing more money at a failed system, and we’re delivering the commonsense solutions they expect.’

His bill is the House counterpart to legislation previously introduced by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., in Congress’ upper chamber.

Scott told Fox News Digital, ‘We don’t have to replace Obamacare, we keep exchanges, we keep protections for preexisting conditions – but we can add options for families, allowing them to shop across state lines, increasing transparency in health care, and giving any financial support to them directly through HSA-style Trump Health Freedom Accounts, so families can choose the care that fits their needs.’

The Trump administration is being urged to go on offense and make sure the next United Nations chief is aligned with U.S. and Western values and doesn’t kowtow to what critics say is an increasingly anti-American institution.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’ tenure ends Dec. 31, 2026. The former socialist prime minister of Portugal’s tenure has been beset with major wars and crises that have led to accusations of bias against him, especially when it comes to Israel. 

Experts agree the Trump administration needs to keep a close handle on who is best to serve the interests of the U.S.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, told Fox News Digital, ‘As long as the United States continues to make the mistake of being the largest bankroller of the United Nations and in keeping U.N. headquarters (some call a fifth column) a stone’s throw from our financial capital, it ought to care deeply about who leads the organization.’

Jonathan Wachtel, a former director of communications and a senior policy advisor at the United States Mission to the United Nations to U.S. ambassadors Nikki Haley and Kelly Craft, said, ‘Since its inception, the United Nations has been a frontline of the Cold War, and today it is increasingly a frontline of hostility toward the United States.

‘As the Security Council prepares for its mid‑2026 straw polls, we face the stark reality that Russia and China can veto any candidate who reflects our values, even as they work to undermine U.S. foreign policy and erode Western principles. The next secretary‑general must … be a leader with backbone and conviction to champion the ideals on which the U.N. was founded, and the United States has long stood — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for as many people as possible.’

With just over a year to go for the selection process, member states have begun to nominate candidates who best fit their national interests. 

Brett Schaefer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told Fox News Digital that of the candidates named thus far, few would be considered acceptable to the U.S. 

‘The announced and rumored candidates … are, for the most part, either U.N. insiders or on the left side of the political spectrum,’ Schaefer said. ‘It’s hard to say that the U.S. would be willing to support any of them at the current stage.’

As electioneering gets underway, Hugh Dugan, former National Security Council special assistant to the president and senior director for international organization affairs, told Fox News Digital, ‘After campaigns and a series of straw pulls and eliminations of candidates, members of the Security Council will present the U.N. General Assembly with a preferred candidate for their formal acceptance late next year.’

Dugan said that custom would indicate that the next secretary-general should come from Latin America. He also emphasized that there is an appetite to appoint a woman after 15 years of calls for a female secretary-general.

‘If they really are to take the helm of a suffering, more or less irrelevant and unmanageable organization like this, they’re going to have to show up as managers,’ Dugan said.

In the midst of the election’s ‘three-ring circus,’ he said, there are six candidates who have officially been named and an additional eight who are considered possible contenders for the role.

The declared candidates

Seemingly the most palatable candidate for the U.S. of those declared is the current head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi of Argentina. An Argentine diplomat, Grossi has been dealing with Iran’s ambition to develop nuclear weapons while also working to prevent a nuclear disaster in Russia’s war against Ukraine. 

Schaefer said Grossi is ‘probably the most acceptable among the candidates that have been listed so far’ given the ‘great deal of courage’ he has shown in his role at the IAEA.

Others include former Bolivian Vice President David Choquehuanca. A member of the Movement for Socialism, Choquehuanca once expressed his disdain for Western thinking after his election as Bolivia’s foreign minister. 

Former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet was the U.N. high commissioner for human rights between 2018 and 2022. U.N. Watch said that, in this role, Bachelet often condemned Israel and the U.S. but ‘turned a blind eye to widespread violations by China, Turkey, North Korea, Cuba, Eritrea’ and others.

According to Schaefer, it is ‘extraordinarily unlikely that [Bachelet] would receive support from the U.S.’ given her political leanings and her ‘remarkable lack of bravery in the conduct of her position as the high commissioner for human rights.’

Former Vice President of Costa Rica Rebeca Grynspan, who headed the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), had recommended regulation as a means ‘to address the deepening asymmetries’ of international finance.

Schaefer said Grynspan would not ‘be an ideal candidate from a U.S. perspective’ because her 30-year U.N. career makes her a ‘consummate insider’ who would likely be unwilling ‘to shake up the system.’

The field is rounded up by two outside candidates, Colombe Cahen-Salvador, a left-wing political activist and co-founder of the Atlas Movement, and Bruno Donat, a joint Mauritius-U.S. citizen and official at U.N. Mine Action Service.

Possible candidates

Though they have not been officially named by a member state, Dugan listed several other officials that are likely to be nominated in the coming months. Many come from the left of the political aisle and are unlikely to get the backing of the Trump administration. 

Jacinda Ardern is a former prime minister of New Zealand who resigned from the role but is considered ‘a global icon of the left.’ Schaefer noted that Ardern’s prior resignation is not ‘a ringing endorsement’ of her capability to take on the demanding role of secretary-general.

Mexico’s former top diplomat, Alicia Bárcena, has 14 years of experience as the head of the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. She is the secretary of environment and natural resources. 

Other names include María Fernanda Espinosa, formerly defense and foreign minister of Ecuador; Nigeria’s Amina Mohammed, U.N. deputy secretary‑general; Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund since 2019 of Bulgaria; and former head of the U.N. Development Programme Achim Steiner of Germany.

‘A long list of anti-American secretaries-general, topped off by the profoundly hostile Antonio Guterres, have done enormous damage to America’s international relations, fueled antisemitism on a global scale and gravely diminished global peace and security,’ Bayefsky said.

‘We take a back seat in this election at our peril.’

As a Democrat who’s been on winning and losing presidential campaigns against Donald Trump, it’s clear to me that the Republican Party’s top competitive edge in recent elections was its anti-establishment populist message. I say ‘message’ because actions always matter more than words — especially when the actions contradict the words. That’s happening now. Trump and Vance are breaking their promises to stand up for everyday Americans against corrupt elites.

The prices Trump and Vance ran on vowing to ‘immediately’ lower — groceries, healthcare, electricity bills – have gone up, while economic growth is down. We’re seeing ‘recession-level’ job loss and unprecedented welfare for the rich. 

As a result, Trump and Vance are crippling Republicans’ flagship political advantage, creating new divides in their party and the country. Those shifts are big openings for Democrats on voters’ #1 issue, their finances. By the same token, if I were one of the Republicans already navigating the 2028 shadow primary, I’d see growing opportunities to outcompete JD Vance.

The Constitution blocks Trump from running again. Even if it didn’t, Trump’s diminishing energy levels and judgment make him a lame duck regardless. Case in point, the President of the United States is building himself an assisted-living theme park on the White House grounds while dismissing Americans’ concerns about affordability. This kind of antipopulist record is becoming significant baggage for Vance, making him a target for Republicans as well as Democrats.

For example, it’s hard to imagine anything less populist — or more un-Christian — than partying with billionaires while taking food away from working families. Or forcing middle class Americans to pick up the tab for AI datacenters backed by some of the richest companies in history. 

In the Biden White House, we saw firsthand how damaging it is for the party in power if a majority of Americans rate the economy negatively. Voters’ economic sentiment sets the political tone. 

In November, the party that controls Washington lost elections all over the country. From New Jersey Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger to New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, Democrats ran disciplined, cost-of-living campaigns. That issue has staying power and can unite Democrats with newly persuadable independents and Republicans. It happened again this week, with Republicans barely hanging onto a deep-red Tennessee congressional district.

Sadly, for those of us who can’t afford to ingratiate ourselves the Trump-Vance administration by purchasing Trump’s meme coin or joining Donald Trump Jr.’s ‘Executive Branch’ club, their agenda is sowing seeds for an even weaker economy. 

First, there’s healthcare. Having already made the biggest Medicaid cuts in history, Washington Republicans want to terminate Democratic health care tax credits for working people, making premiums skyrocket for millions and taking coverage from more. 

Second, tens of thousands are losing their jobs to AI – a rapidly accelerating trend. While it’s in America’s interest to lead the world when it comes to AI, the Trump-Vance administration — whose AI czar is himself a corrupt billionaire — is treating millions of Americans’ livelihoods as expendable, failing to equip workers for a successful economic future. By contrast, Democrats like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jake Auchincloss  are working to ensure we win the AI race while fighting to protect blue and white collar workers.

Then there’s energy. After raising electricity bills with the most severe clean energy cuts on record, Republican majorities are helping extremely rich people charge working families for their datacenters’ energy consumption. The Trump-Vance record on monopolistic megamergers will also come back to haunt them.

These realities all trap Vance between a rock and a hard place. Trump demands unquestioning loyalty from subordinates like Vance, but other likely candidates have more autonomy. For example, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, has attacked the White House for high prices.

Greene isn’t alone among Republicans in distancing herself from the administration. When Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust-denying neo-Nazi, said ‘organized Jewry’ was the biggest threat to America, Trump and Vance’s response to Fuentes was pathetically weak. But Texas Senator Ted Cruz, another possible candidate, blasted Fuentes. 

There’s also growing bipartisan opposition to the administration’s warmongering toward Venezuela. Americans don’t want servicemembers risking their lives to distract from a billionaire president’s falling approval ratings.

What has been Vance’s biggest asset with fellow Republicans –his closeness with Trump –could become his rivals’ key to undermining him. Democrats are doing it now. Last month, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a popular swing state Democrat, blasted Vance for taking food away from the hungry while cutting taxes for billionaires. Then he signed a new tax credit for working families into law, delivering $193 million in tax relief for 940,000 Pennsylvanians.

Republicans’ ‘Golden Age’ is turning into a second Gilded Age, where tax breaks for the wealthy are funded by higher costs for everyone else.

Across all political boundaries, Americans want leaders who will actually listen to them.

The Trump administration is being urged to go on offense and make sure the next United Nations chief is aligned with U.S. and Western values and doesn’t kowtow to what critics say is an ever increasingly anti-American institution.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’ tenure is set to end on Dec. 31, 2026. The former socialist prime minister of Portugal’s tenure has been beset with major wars and crises that have led to accusations of bias against him, especially when it comes to Israel. 

Experts agree the Trump administration needs to keep a close handle on who is best to serve the interests of the U.S.

Anne Bayefsky, director, Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust & president, Human Rights Voices, told Fox News Digital, ‘As long as the United States continues to make the mistake of being the largest bankroller of the United Nations, and in keeping U.N. headquarters (some call a fifth column) a stone’s throw from our financial capital, it ought to care deeply about who leads the organization.’

Jonathan Wachtel, a former director of communications and a senior policy advisor at the United States Mission to the United Nations to U.S. ambassadors Nikki Haley and Kelly Craft, said that, ‘Since its inception, the United Nations has been a frontline of the Cold War, and today it is increasingly a frontline of hostility toward the United States.’ 

‘As the Security Council prepares for its mid‑2026 straw polls, we face the stark reality that Russia and China can veto any candidate who reflects our values, even as they work to undermine U.S. foreign policy and erode Western principles. The next secretary‑general must… be a leader with backbone and conviction to champion the ideals on which the U.N. was founded and the United States has long stood — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for as many people as possible,’ he said.

With just over a year to go for the selection process, member states have begun to nominate candidates that best fit their national interests. 

Brett Schaefer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told Fox News Digital that of the candidates named thus far, few would be considered acceptable to the U.S. ‘The announced and rumored candidates… are for the most part either U.N. insiders or on the left side of the political spectrum,’ Schaefer said. ‘It’s hard to say that the U.S. would be willing to support any of them at the current stage.’

As the electioneering gets underway, Hugh Dugan, former National Security Council Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for International Organization Affairs, told Fox News Digital that, ‘After campaigns and a series of straw pulls and eliminations of candidates, members of the Security Council will present the U.N. General Assembly with a preferred candidate for their formal acceptance late next year.’

Dugan said that custom would indicate that the next secretary-general should come from Latin America. He also emphasized that there is an appetite to appoint a woman candidate after 15 years of calls for a female Secretary-General.

‘If they really are to take the helm of a suffering, more or less irrelevant, and unmanageable organization like this, they’re going to have to show up as managers,’ Dugan said.

In the midst of the election’s ‘three-ring circus,’ he said there are six candidates who have officially been named and an additional eight who are considered possible contenders for the role.

Declared Candidates:

Seemingly the most palatable candidate for the U.S. of those declared is the current head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi of Argentina. An Argentine diplomat, Grossi has been dealing with Iran’s ambition to develop nuclear weapons while also working to prevent a nuclear disaster in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Schaefer says that Grossi is ‘probably the most acceptable among the candidates that have been listed so far’ given the ‘great deal of courage’ he has shown in his role at the IAEA.

Others include: Former Bolivian Vice President David Choquehuanca. A member of the Movement for Socialism. Choquehuanca once expressed his disdain for Western thinking after his election as Bolivia’s foreign minister. 

Former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet was the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights between 2018 and 2022. U.N. Watch said that in this role, Bachelet often condemned Israel and the U.S. but ‘turned a blind eye to widespread violations by China, Turkey, North Korea, Cuba, Eritrea,’ and others.

According to Schaefer, it is ‘extraordinarily unlikely that [Bachelet] would receive support from the U.S.’ given her political leanings and her ‘remarkable lack of bravery in the conduct of her position as the high commissioner for human rights.’

Former Vice President of Costa Rica Rebeca Grynspan, who headed the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD.) Grynspan had recommended regulation as a means ‘to address the deepening asymmetries’ of international finance.

Schaefer said Grynspan would not ‘be an ideal candidate from a U.S. perspective,’ as her 30-year U.N. career makes her a ‘consummate insider’ who would likely be unwilling ‘to shake up the system.’

The field is rounded up by two outside candidates, Colombe Cahen-Salvador, a left-wing political activist and co-founder of the Atlas Movement, and Bruno Donat, a joint Mauritius-U.S. citizen and official at U.N. Mine Action Service.

Possible Candidates

Though they have not been officially named by a member state, Dugan listed several other officials that are likely to be nominated in the coming months. Many come from the left of the political aisle, and are unlikely to get the backing of the Trump administration. 

Jacinda Ardern, a former prime minister of New Zealand, who resigned from the role but is considered ‘a global icon of the left.’ Schaefer noted that Ardern’s prior resignation is not ‘a ringing endorsement’ of her capability to take on the demanding role of secretary-general.

Mexico’s former top diplomat, Alicia Bárcena, has 14 years of experience as the head of the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. She is presently the secretary of environment and natural resources. 

Other names include: María Fernanda Espinosa formerly defense and foreign minister of Ecuador, Nigeria’s Amina Mohammed, U.N. deputy secretary‑general, Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund since 2019 of Bulgaria, and former head of the U.N. Development Programme Achim Steiner of Germany.

Bayefsky said that, ‘A long list of anti-American secretaries-general, topped off by the profoundly hostile Antonio Guterres, have done enormous damage to America’s international relations, fueled antisemitism on a global scale, and gravely diminished global peace and security. We take a back seat in this election at our peril.’

The Federal Aviation Administration this week told airlines it will investigate whether they complied with orders from the Trump administration during the record-long government shutdown to cut flights.

The orders came in November after the shutdown had been going for a month and airports were facing shortages of air traffic control workers.

The emergency order affected 40 major airports in the U.S. and fluctuated between cuts of 3% to 6% for each airline before the shutdown ended on Nov. 12.

In a letter sent Monday to U.S. airlines, the FAA warned that they could face $75,000 fines for each flight over the allotted limit during the shutdown.

Airlines have 30 days to prove they complied with the required cuts.

Air traffic controllers, like most other government workers, weren’t paid during the 43-day shutdown, and many missed work, sparking safety concerns.

The FAA lifted the restrictions Nov. 16, four days after the shutdown ended.

Despite the shutdown still being in effect Nov. 14 — when 6% flight cuts were required — only 2% of flights were actually cut, according to Cirium, a flight analytics firm.

The cuts also had a major financial impact on airlines, with Delta reporting that it lost $200 million between Nov. 7 and Nov. 16 when the order was in effect.

More than 10,000 flights were canceled in the U.S. during the nine-day period.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump ordered a sweeping federal review of every childhood vaccine recommendation in the United States Friday, just hours after a CDC advisory committee voted to end its long-standing guidance for infants to receive the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, calling the rule unnecessary for healthy newborns.

‘Today, the CDC Vaccine Committee made a very good decision to END their Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendation for babies, the vast majority of whom are at NO RISK of Hepatitis B, a disease that is mostly transmitted sexually, or through dirty needles,’ Trump wrote.

The president also critiqued what he sees as a vaccine schedule that requires ‘far more than is necessary.’

‘The American Childhood Vaccine Schedule long required 72 ‘jabs,’ for perfectly healthy babies, far more than any other Country in the World, and far more than is necessary,’ the president added. ‘In fact, it is ridiculous! Many parents and scientists have been questioning the efficacy of this ‘schedule,’ as have I!’

Trump announced he signed a memo directing HHS to ‘fast track’ the current American vaccine schedule.

‘I have just signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Health and Human Services to ‘FAST TRACK’ a comprehensive evaluation of Vaccine Schedules from other Countries around the World, and better align the U.S. Vaccine Schedule, so it is finally rooted in the Gold Standard of Science and COMMON SENSE!’ Trump wrote.

Trump closed his message by reiterating his support for his HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., writing, ‘I am fully confident Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the CDC, will get this done, quickly and correctly, for our Nation’s Children.’

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

This is a developing story, check back later for updates.