House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, will not seek re-election in 2026.

The senior Republican lawmaker will have finished serving a decade in Congress when he leaves at the end of next year.

‘I have a firm conviction, much like our founders did, that public service is a lifetime commitment, but public office is and should be a temporary stint in stewardship, not a career,’ Arrington said.

And the conservative Texan told Fox News Digital he felt he was leaving on a high note, having played a key role in crafting President Donald Trump’s big, beautiful bill.

‘It was a very unique, generational impact opportunity, to be almost ten years into this and to have the budget chairmanship, and to lead the charge to successfully pass that and to help this president fulfill his mandate from the people,’ Arrington said. ‘It just seems like a good and right place to leave it.’

He cited multiple legislative items across his tenure as Budget Committee chair when asked what he took pride in, but added, ‘It’s more of changing the narrative and the culture in Congress and in my party that I’m most proud of.’

‘I’m from a rural district and I can tell you, raising the profile among urban and suburban members as to the unique challenges of rural America and the unique contributions of rural America — like food security and energy independence and how much the nation depends on these plow boys and cowboys in rural areas — that’s another thing I’m proud of,’ he said.

Arrington said he had faith Republicans in Washington would pick up his mantle of fiscal hawkishness, or as he’s often called it, ‘reversing the curse’ of public debt.

‘The president’s committed to it, he talks about it all the time. He’s actually doing something about it with very difficult decisions, not politically popular decisions. This is all about political will,’ Arrington said. ‘Trump’s doing it. Mike Johnson is committed to it… And we have a growing number of fiscal hawks who are absolutely dogged on this issue.’

But he said he would continue to push for further fiscal reforms for his remaining year on Capitol Hill, including another budget reconciliation bill to follow up on the big, beautiful bill.

‘I don’t know where the Senate Republicans are. I don’t know where the president is and can’t speak for the White House. But the House is at the ready,’ Arrington said. ‘It’s been our most consequential tool to support the president and the strength of the country, and I don’t see any reason we wouldn’t utilize it to its fullest extent.’

The West Texas Republican said he had not given much thought to what he would do next but said he wanted to ‘remain in the fight,’ adding he would seek a ‘new leadership challenge’ that ‘allows me to make the biggest difference on as many people as I can.’

‘And then I would say…I am looking forward to quality time with my wife and kids and focusing on my leadership and service, not in the people’s house, but in my own house,’ Arrington said.

He said he hoped to ‘make a difference’ in the lives of his two young sons and daughter.

Arrington’s Lubbock-anchored district leans heavily Republican, meaning it’s unlikely to flip to blue in the 2026 midterms.

And come the end of his time next year, the conservative lawmaker said he would leave with no regrets.

‘I’m thankful that God called me and gave me the grace to succeed and to achieve the things that we’ve achieved,’ Arrington said.

‘His grace looks like the members of Congress that I’ve been doing battle with, my budget hawks who I’ve been in the trenches with, my constituents who I run into in the grocery store, who want to pray with me right there in the aisle while I’m checking out. The grace of God looks like my wife being both mom and dad about two-thirds of the time, because I’m in Washington doing battle for the country.’

He finished, ‘Did I make my share of mistakes? You bet. Did I learn along the way? You bet I did. But we left [the country] better than we found it, and it gives me great satisfaction.’

Critics once called it isolationist. But national security experts now say Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ strategy is proving to be something else entirely — a hard-nosed policy of deterrence built on strong alliances, especially with Israel.

Fred Fleitz, vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security and former chief of staff at the National Security Council, told Fox News Digital that ‘The America First approach to U.S. national security means a strong national security policy, a decisive president, keeping our nation out of unnecessary wars, having members of alliances carry their own weight, but it also means standing strongly with Israel and fighting antisemitism.’

He said supporting Israel is not about sentiment. ‘Standing with Israel is in our strategic interest,’ he said. ‘Israel is dealing with enemies in the region that the U.S. would have to deal with if it were not there. So it’s in our strategic interest.’

Israel as America’s forward defense

Mike Makovsky, CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), said Israel effectively absorbs threats that would otherwise demand U.S. military action. ‘Historically, there are about three reasons why we have interests in the region,’ he said. ‘One is Israel. Two is oil. And three is Islamic extremism — terrorism, Shia and Sunni.’

Makovsky said it is ironic that the America First debate has resurfaced ‘only a few months after Israel smoked America’s Mideast enemies.’ He pointed to Iran’s nuclear advances and the role of its proxies. ‘They’re building ballistic missiles… They could reach the eastern seaboard of the United States,’ he said. ‘You marry missiles with nukes that could hit the U.S. — you’ve got the North Koreans on the West Coast; do you really want Iran that could hit the East Coast?’

According to Makovsky, Israel’s campaign against those threats shows the alliance’s strategic value. ‘What did the Israelis just do? They took care of it. The United States came in with the B-2 at the very end… but it was Israel that did all that work,’ he said.

He added that Israel ‘pretty much finished off Hamas,’ weakened Hezbollah — ‘which has hundreds of American soldiers’ blood on their hands’ — and continues to confront the Houthis to ‘ensure freedom of navigation.’ That, he argued, is deterrence in action: ‘As long as we support Israel, we give them some help, we give them the weapons they need, they’re really doing our work.’

Countering Iran and its allies

Fleitz called Iran ‘the biggest threat,’ encompassing ‘Iran and Iran’s proxies in the region. This includes Hamas, Hezbollah in Syria, Iran-backed militias in Iraq, and then Iran itself, with its nuclear weapons program and its sponsorship of terror.’

He said Israel’s actions have ‘destroyed Hamas proxies and significantly weakened Iran,’ adding that ‘we joined Israel in June in taking on Iran’s nuclear program, which was a threat to global security.’

Both analysts framed Iran as part of a wider axis of power alongside Russia and China, each exploiting Middle East instability to undermine U.S. influence — by fueling proxy wars, spiking energy prices, and threatening trade routes through the Gulf and the Red Sea. Fleitz said Trump’s willingness to act decisively ‘to attack Iran’s nuclear program’ exemplified using strength to prevent costlier wars later.

Energy and economic security

Both agree that energy policy is where America First becomes measurable. Fleitz said that ‘energy independence is a very important part of President Trump’s America First policy to free Americans from high energy bills.’ At the same time, he noted, energy diplomacy abroad reinforces economic security at home. ‘By pushing the Saudis — and the Saudis, I think, are happy to help us with this — to produce more oil, it may actually help us end the war in Ukraine,’ he said.

Makovsky made a similar case for regional stability: ‘The biggest threat to the Gulf Arab oil exporters … is Iran,’ he said. Without Israel’s containment of Tehran, ‘Iran would have taken over the Middle East, most likely. And if you care about oil prices, that’s not too good.’

Both experts said that when Israel shoulders the burden of defending energy corridors and trade routes, Americans save in both dollars and deployments.

Avoiding unnecessary wars

Fleitz said Trump’s doctrine is about selective force, not retreat. ‘He wants to keep our country out of new and unnecessary wars, but he will use military force prudently to defend our national security,’ he said. ‘He is going to avoid sending American troops into certain situations and using military force. But that doesn’t mean he won’t do these things when it is in U.S. strategic interests.’

He pointed out U.S. personnel who are currently stationed in Israel but ‘they’re not going to Gaza’ and ‘will not be engaging in combat operations against Hamas.’ Their mission, he said, fits the model of minimal footprint, maximum leverage.

Credibility and global deterrence

Makovsky warned that abandoning Israel would erode America’s credibility worldwide. He recalled what a senior Arab leader once told him: ‘If America doesn’t help Israel attack the nuclear facilities of Iran, it will be one of the great catastrophes.’

‘That’s because everybody in the Mideast, everyone in Asia, knows that the U.S.–Israel relationship is one of the closest in the world,’ Makovsky said. ‘If we don’t help Israel, it undercuts our credibility. The Chinese and the Russians and the North Koreans know that if we’re not going to support Israel, we’re not going to help other allies … and it would make us more vulnerable to the Chinese without a doubt.’

Peace through strength

Fleitz said Trump’s ’20-point peace plan’ for Gaza exemplifies the America First balance between toughness and diplomacy. ‘It achieved its two primary objectives, getting all the living hostages out of Israel and enacting a ceasefire,’ he said, acknowledging that ‘the ceasefire is fairly shaky.’ The next step, he added, is ‘an international stabilization force’ — a complex process still under negotiation.

For both experts, the takeaway is the same: America First doesn’t mean isolation. It means strategic partnerships that keep U.S. troops out of long wars while preserving American dominance.

The House of Representatives appears to be on a glide path to ending the longest government shutdown in history, with lawmakers racing back to Capitol Hill after six weeks out of session.

The House Rules Committee will meet to consider the Senate’s amended federal funding plan sometime after 5 p.m. Tuesday, two sources told Fox News Digital.

In other words, the 42-day shutdown — which has led to thousands of air travel delays, left millions of people who rely on federal benefits in limbo, and forced thousands of federal workers either off the job or to work without pay — could come to an end before the end of this week.

The House Rules Committee is the final hurdle for most legislation before it sees House-wide votes. Lawmakers on the key panel vote to advance a bill while setting terms for its consideration, like possible amendment votes and timing for debate.

The funding bill at hand is expected to advance through the committee on party lines. Democrats on the panel are likely to oppose the measure in line with House Democratic leaders, while Republicans have signaled no meaningful opposition.

Reps. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and Ralph Norman, R-S.C., the two Republicans on the committee who have most often opposed GOP leaders’ legislation for not being conservative enough, both suggested they would be supportive of the funding measure.

Roy told Fox News Digital on Monday night that he would vote ‘yes’ on the bill on the House floor, meaning he would likely not oppose it in the House Rules Committee.

The Texas Republican is currently running to be attorney general of the Lone Star State.

Norman told Fox News Digital via text message Tuesday morning, when asked about both his Rules Committee and House floor votes, ‘My support is based on READING the FINE PRINT as it relates to the 3 bills especially VERIFYING the top line spending limits as we previously passed.’

‘If ‘THE FINE PRINT MATCHES’ what’s being reported, I will be a yes,’ Norman said.

The South Carolina Republican, who is running for governor, was referring to three full-year spending bills that are part of the latest bipartisan compromise passed by the Senate on Monday night.

Terms of the deal include a new extension of fiscal year (FY) 2025 federal funding levels through Jan. 30, in order to give congressional negotiators more time to strike a longer-term deal on FY 2026 spending.

It would also give lawmakers some headway with that mission, advancing legislation to fund the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration; the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction; and the legislative branch.

They are three of 12 individual bills that are meant to make up Congress’ annual appropriations, paired into a vehicle called a ‘minibus.’

In a victory for Democrats, the deal would also reverse federal layoffs conducted by the Trump administration in October, with those workers getting paid for the time they were off.

It also guarantees Senate Democrats a vote on legislation extending Obamacare subsidies that were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are set to expire at the end of this year.

Extending the enhanced subsidies for Obamacare, also known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), was a key ask for Democrats in the weekslong standoff.

No such guarantee was made in the House, however, so Democrats effectively folded on their key demand in order to end the shutdown — a move that infuriated progressives and left-wing caucus leaders in Congress.

The full House is expected to take up the measure sometime after 4 p.m. on Wednesday, according to a notice sent to lawmakers.

There will first be a ‘rule vote’ for the bill where lawmakers are expected to green-light debate on the House floor, followed by a vote on the measure itself sometime Wednesday evening.

House schedules for both Tuesday and Wednesday were left intentionally fluid to allow for lawmakers to return to Washington amid nationwide flight delays and cancellations, mostly imposed by the shutdown.

The House was last in session on Sept. 19, when lawmakers passed legislation to keep the government funded through Nov. 21.

It passed with support from one House Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, and opposition from two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Victoria Spartz, R-Ind.

No further House Republicans have signaled public opposition to the new measure so far.

Frustration is boiling over among Democratic ranks against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., after walking away from the longest government shutdown on record largely empty-handed.

Some argue that Schumer squandered key leverage and failed to steer his caucus through the chaos to victory. 

‘I think that people did what they could to get us out of the shutdown, but what has worked in the past isn’t working now,’ Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said. ‘And so, we need to meet the moment, and we’re not doing that.’

Slotkin, like others in the Senate Democratic caucus, ‘wanted something deliverable on the price of healthcare.’ The core of their shutdown strategy was to force Republicans and President Donald Trump to make a deal on expiring Obamacare subsidies, but that didn’t happen. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., argued that getting rid of Schumer would be difficult. 

‘Chuck Schumer is part of the establishment,’ Sanders told MSNBC. ‘You can argue, and I can make the case, that Chuck Schumer has done a lot of bad things, but getting rid of him — who’s going to replace him?’

Other Democrats weren’t so resigned.

Graham Platner, a Democratic Senate candidate running to replace Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, placed the collapse of Senate Democrats’ unified front squarely on leadership. 

‘The Democratic Party at the leadership level has become entirely feckless,’ Platner said in a video posted by Our Revolution, a political action organization started as an offshoot of Sanders’ presidential campaign. 

‘What happened last night is a failure of leadership in the most clear terms,’ he said after the Senate passed the bipartisan deal Monday, sending it to the House. ‘Sen. Schumer is the minority leader. It is his job to make sure his caucus is voting along the lines of what’s going to be good for the people of the United States. He could not maintain that.’ 

Schumer and congressional Democrats walked away from the shutdown stalemate in the Senate largely empty-handed, save for some victories on ensuring furloughed federal workers would receive back pay, the reversals of firings made by the Trump administration during the shutdown and future protections for workers.  

Still, they fell far short of their goal to extend the expiring subsidies, which are set to sunset at the end of this year. 

Those subsidies, initially passed as an emergency response to COVID-19 in 2021, were always supposed to be temporary. But Democrats fear that their sudden expiration could leave millions of policyholders with substantially higher premiums overnight if allowed to expire.

But as mounting pressure grew — and no sign of Republicans wavering on the subsidies — eight Democrats voted to put the government on the path to reopening. 

To some onlookers, Schumer had held the party line for as long as possible.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., one of the eight Democrats who voted with Republicans to reopen the government, said she respected Schumer’s leadership.

‘He’s done a good job,’ Masto said. ‘He kept us in the loop and was open to our conversations.’

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., argued that the problem wasn’t Schumer, it was his colleagues. 

‘Sen. Schumer didn’t want this to be the outcome, and I pressed hard for it not to end like this,’ Murphy said. ‘He didn’t succeed, let’s not sugarcoat that. But the problem is, the problem exists, inside the caucus. The caucus has to solve it.’

Republicans, however, spent much of the shutdown arguing that Schumer had waged the shutdown to appease his base — a base that had wanted to see some sort of resistance to Trump.

‘This is how it always would end,’ Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said on Monday evening. ‘Chuck Schumer has a political problem. He’s afraid of being primaried from the left. And so, the Democrats inflicted this shutdown on the American people in order to prove to their radical left-wing base that they hate Donald Trump.’

‘I think a lot of Americans have suffered as a result of this political stunt,’ Cruz added.

On the other hand, many Democrats made it clear they believed Schumer had failed to effectively mount resistance to Trump’s agenda on healthcare.

CNN data analyst Harry Enten compiled polls dating back to 1985 comparing the popularity of Democratic leaders among Democratic voters. Schumer, he found, was the least popular of them all. 

‘Chuck Schumer — his days are over. If he cannot keep his caucus together, he needs to go,’ Sunny Hostin, a co-host of ‘The View,’ told audiences on Monday.

‘Chuck Schumer has not met this moment, and Senate Democrats would be wise to move on from his leadership,’ Rep. Mike Levin, D-Calif., said.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom summed up his thoughts in a one-word post to X. 

‘Pathetic,’ Newsom said.

Senators believe that after reaching a deal to end the longest shutdown on record, they won’t be in the same position early next year.

The bipartisan package that advanced from the Senate late Monday night would, if passed by the House this week, reopen the government until Jan. 30. Lawmakers believe that extension would give them enough time to fund the government the old-fashioned way, making another shutdown a moot point.

But that all depends on whether they can complete work on spending bills, find agreement with the House, and get them on President Donald Trump’s desk before the new deadline.

There’s also the possibility that if the guarantee for a vote on expiring Obamacare subsidies does not go how Senate Democrats want, that could significantly hamper Congress’ ability to avert yet another shutdown.

‘We’ll take them one day at a time,’ Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said. ‘Obviously, it’s another deadline we have to deal with. But the immediate objective is to get the government open and enable those conversations to commence.’

‘There are Democrats and Republicans who are both interested in trying to do something in the healthcare space,’ he continued. ‘And clearly, there is a need. I mean, there is an affordability issue on healthcare that has to be addressed, and the current trajectory we’re on isn’t a sustainable path.’

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told Fox News Digital that Democrats needed to be united in their demand that ‘Republicans be held to their promise of having a vote on the healthcare subsidies in December.’

Thune reiterated his guarantee on Sunday and teed up the second week of December as the deadline for getting a Democratic proposal to the floor.

‘The future is unpredictable, but we need to continue our fight unequivocally, unyieldingly, for affordable healthcare insurance through extending the subsidies and other measures under the [Affordable Care Act],’ Blumenthal said. ‘Republicans have a reflexive obsession with repealing or destroying the ACA.’

The hope is that funding the government with appropriations bills will be the key to preventing another shutdown.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, said that she anticipated Thune to tee up a new package of spending bills, this one combining the defense, labor, transportation and housing bills into one chunk.

‘The more appropriations bills that we’re able to pass, the better off we’re going to be, the better off the American people will be served,’ she said.

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, was unsure if lawmakers would be in the same spot again come January.

But he believed that the desire to move forward with spending bills, spurred largely by the bipartisan deal struck to reopen the government, was a good start.

‘It makes it a whole lot easier not to have a shutdown again,’ he said.

Despite the rancor and frustration from the Democratic side of the aisle over the collapse of their healthcare demand, they also want to pass bipartisan funding bills, largely in a bid to push back against cuts made by the Trump administration.

However, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., predicted that it would be quite difficult to pass a long-term bipartisan budget.

‘We cannot sign on to a long-term budget that does nothing on healthcare and has nothing to stop the destruction of our democracy,’ he said. ‘You know, there are no real protections in the short-term spending bill against Trump’s illegality.’

For now, some see the January deadline as ‘light years away,’ like Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., while others aren’t ready to make a prediction about what comes next.

‘Just one step at a time,’ Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., told Fox News Digital.

Tensions flared at a House hearing to advance legislation aimed at ending the government shutdown on Tuesday night, with two senior lawmakers on opposite sides of the aisle trading barbs over the fallout.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., clashed with Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee repeatedly at the outset of the hearing. Cole accused Democrats of derailing the federal government, while McGovern railed against the GOP’s refusal to attach provisions extending expiring enhanced Obamacare subsidies to its funding bill.

‘This is the stuff you said you would never do. ‘We would never shut down the government. We would never do this.’ That’s exactly what you’ve done,’ House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said a short while later. ‘You’re putting thousands of people out of work.’

McGovern, who said emphatically that his constituents were ‘getting screwed,’ said, ‘You tried over 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act,’ Obamacare’s formal name.

He said he was getting calls from constituents who were ‘out of their minds’ trying to figure out how to pay for healthcare without the subsidies.’

‘Well the most immediate crisis in my district are the thousands of workers that you and your colleagues have put out of work, that aren’t getting a paycheck,’ Cole said.

‘They’re the ones that keep the airplanes flying. They’re the ones that do the national weather center. They’re wondering why they’re not getting paid.’

McGovern shot back, ‘You get no calls about healthcare?’

‘We could have had these debates, we could have had these arguments. Why are they being held hostage?’ Cole continued.

‘The healthcare issue you’re talking about is a subsidy you passed on your own, you said it was COVID-related…The most immediate crisis in my district, you’ve created. My people aren’t getting paid thanks to you and your colleagues.’

McGovern, who tried to interject multiple times, said, ‘So nobody in your district is complaining about healthcare?’

Cole conceded, ‘People complain everywhere about everything, but you asked me what the most important calls I get —’

McGovern cut him off with, ‘—We have a chance to do something about this.’

‘— is, ‘Why am I not getting paid? Why am I being forcibly furloughed?’’ Cole continued.

‘We have a chance to do something to help millions of people afford their health insurance. And what you’re all telling me is you’re not interested,’ McGovern said.

House Rules Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., was ignored as she banged her gavel multiple times in an attempt to call order.

Cole, meanwhile, said the subsidies ‘have nothing to do with the work of my committee.’

‘But you’re willing to hijack my committee,’ he continued, before McGovern cut him off again, accusing Republicans of voting to ‘cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires’ in the GOP’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ earlier this year.

‘But you could not extend these for people?’ McGovern asked.

The House Rules Committee is the final hurdle for most legislation before it sees House-wide votes. Lawmakers on the key panel vote to advance a bill while setting terms for its consideration, like possible amendment votes and timing for debate.

The funding bill at hand is expected to advance through the committee on party lines. Democrats on the panel are likely to oppose the measure in line with House Democratic leaders, while Republicans have signaled no meaningful opposition.

The vast majority of House Democrats have threatened to oppose the bill over its exclusion of the enhanced Obamacare credits, despite the legislation netting support from eight members of their own party in the Senate.

Republican leaders have signaled a willingness to discuss reforms to the system, which they have criticized as flawed. However, they’ve rejected any notion of pairing a healthcare extension with a federal funding bill that is otherwise largely free of partisan policy riders.