Russia said on Friday it used its new hypersonic Oreshnik missile in an attack against Ukraine, according to reports.

The Kremlin said that the strike was carried out in response to what it said was an attempted Ukrainian drone strike on one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residences, something Kyiv has denied, according to Reuters. 

The outlet noted that Ukraine and the U.S. have cast doubt on Russia’s claims about the alleged attempted attack on Putin’s residence on Dec. 29, the report said. Ukraine called it ‘an absurd lie,’ while President Donald Trump also doubted the veracity of the claim, saying he did not believe the strike occurred and that ‘something’ unrelated happened nearby.

This is the second time Russia has used the intermediate-range Oreshnik, which Putin has said is impossible to intercept because of its velocity, Reuters reported.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that the strike targeted critical infrastructure in Ukraine, according to Reuters, which added that Russia said the attack also used attack drones and high-precision long-range land and sea-based weapons.

While Moscow did not say where the missile hit, Russian media and military bloggers said it targeted an underground natural gas storage facility in Ukraine’s western Leviv region, CBS News reported. Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadoviy said the attack hit critical infrastructure but did not give details, the outlet added.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the attack on social media, saying that the aftermath was ‘still being dealt with.’

‘Twenty residential buildings alone were damaged. Recovery operations after the strikes also continue in the Lviv region and other regions of our country. Unfortunately, as of now, it is known that four people have been killed in the capital alone. Among them is an ambulance crew member. My condolences to their families and loved ones,’ Zelenskyy wrote.

The Ukrainian leader said the attack involved 242 drones, 13 ballistic missiles, one Oreshnik missile and 22 cruise missiles. Zelenskyy added that the ballistic missiles were aimed at energy facilities and civilian infrastructure as the people of Ukraine faced ‘a significant cold spell.’ He said the attack was ‘aimed precisely against the normal life of ordinary people.’ However, he assured that Ukraine was working to restore heating and electricity.

Zelenskyy claimed that in addition to the civilian infrastructure, a building of the Embassy of Qatar was damaged in the attack.

‘A clear reaction from the world is needed. Above all from the United States, whose signals Russia truly pays attention to. Russia must receive signals that it is its obligation to focus on diplomacy, and must feel consequences every time it again focuses on killings and the destruction of infrastructure,’ Zelenskyy added.

A spokesperson for the State Department told Fox News Digital that the U.S. remains committed to ending the war through diplomatic means, emphasizing that it is the only path toward a durable peace. The spokesperson underscored Trump’s desire to end the war that is approaching its fourth year.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are the central and most popular members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, but they have something else in common: All three are harsh former critics of their current boss.

Much has been made, especially on the left, of past statements by this big three in the Cabinet, Vance calling Trump Hitler, Rubio’s bruising 2016 primary attacks on the president’s hand size and pretty much everything former Democrat RFK Jr ever said prior to endorsing Trump in 2024.

To Democrats, of course, this about face to Orange Man Good from all three, and others in the White House orbit, means that these men have abandoned their principles and are bootlicking for their own power. But in fact, something much more amazing is happening.

Trump’s first term was often mired in internal debate and friction from a Cabinet that at times seemed more interested in being a guardrail to Trump’s supposed impulsiveness than stewards of his agenda.

Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and National Security Adviser John Bolton, for example, were, in Trump’s administration and to this day, deeply critical of his approach to governing, which hurt the White House’s effectiveness.

This time around, in Trump 2.0, his Cabinet, which has remained all but unchanged for a year now, is not trying to hem him in, but rather to make his vision for a better America a reality, regardless of any past tensions they may have had with the boss.

This tells us a couple of things. First, it showsTrump has pretty thick skin at the end of the day. Barring the kind of complete betrayals we have seen from figures like Pence and Esper, the president is showing his ability to let bygones be bygones.

Second, it demonstrates that Vance, Rubio, and Bobby, not to mention former Democrat and current National Security Adviser Tulsi Gabbard, have found that when you honestly and openly work with Trump, and get to know him, your opinion of him can change.

Trump’s team of former rivals has also been so effective because Trump’s only firm ideological position is America first, and under this rubric, Vance’s economic protectionism, Rubio’s foreign adventurism and RFK Jr’s Make America Healthy Again agenda all have a welcome home at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Much of this is down to Trump’s unique ability to put common sense above political orthodoxy. For example, Democrats were stunned this week when the White House announced it wanted to bar large corporations from purchasing single family homes, something they themselves have called for.

Both from my own private conversations with members of the Trump administration and through their public remarks, what becomes clear is that, in the starkest possible reversal of the first term, today’s Cabinet is a well-oiled and utterly unified team.

The knock on the president, especially from conservative Never Trumpers, some of whom haunted his first White House, is that he has no principles. But the positive way to frame this is that he is flexible and open to new ideas.

The biggest question today in American politics is what the Republican Party will look like on Jan. 21, 2029, when Trump’s political career moves from the headlines to the history books. The answers sit in his Cabinet.

Trump took a lot of guff this past year for allegedly filling his White House with nothing but loyalists. Well, first of all, what do you want in the Cabinet, unloyalists? But second, these are not toadies, they are accomplished former foes who Trump has given the room and authority to execute pro American policies.

Maybe that really is the thread that pulls together Trump’s tight team, the idea of making America and Americans pro America again, to restore the bold idea that America is not a declining power, but rather that it can do great things both at home and around the globe.

While the bookmaking sharps have their money on Vance as the 2028 candidate most likely to emerge from Trump’s cabinet, whomever it is will almost certainly run not just as an individual, but as the man or woman who can continue to lead the all-star team that the president has assembled.

There is an old saw in Washington that personnel is policy, and that is a lesson Trump learned the hard way in his first term. But often times, the hard way is the best way to learn. And a year in, it is clear that President Trump has indeed learned well from his past mistakes.

The dramatic capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has handed President Donald Trump a rare strategic opening — one that could reshape Venezuela’s crippled oil industry, redirect global crude flows and weaken the foothold that rivals like Russia, China and Iran have built in the Western Hemisphere.

But unlocking the world’s largest oil reserves won’t be easy. Years of political turmoil, sanctions and infrastructure collapse mean U.S. energy companies face steep risks — and any production rebound would take time, capital and sustained political stability.

Now, Trump and energy CEOs must address three key challenges in order to seize opportunities. 

1. Venezuela holds massive oil reserves, but production remains severely constrained

Venezuela, a country almost twice the size of California, sits atop extraordinary wealth. 

With more than 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Venezuela holds more crude than established energy heavyweights like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait. The Latin American country’s reserves are nearly quadruple those of the United States.

Once a major oil producer, the country pumped about 3.5 million barrels a day in the late 1990s. Since then, its oil industry has sharply deteriorated, with production falling to roughly 800,000 barrels a day, according to energy analytics firm Kpler.

A key reason: much of Venezuela’s oil is difficult and expensive to extract.

The country’s reserves are dominated by heavy and extra-heavy crude, which is costly to extract and relies on specialized equipment and refining capacity that have deteriorated after years of underinvestment, U.S. sanctions and political instability.

Similar dynamics have unfolded in countries such as Iran and Libya, where turmoil, financial distress and crumbling infrastructure have kept vast reserves locked underground.

As a result, scaling operations back up would require significant time, capital and technical expertise, with any production increase likely to be gradual rather than immediate.

2. Political risk remains a major concern for American energy companies

Decades of political instability, shifting regulations and U.S. sanctions have made Venezuela a high-risk environment for long-term investment. 

That risk dates back to the mid-2000s, when then-President Hugo Chávez reshaped Venezuela’s relationship with international energy companies by tightening state control over the oil industry.

Between 2004 and 2007, Chávez forced foreign companies to renegotiate their contracts with the government. The new terms sharply reduced the role and profits of private firms while strengthening Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).

The move drove some of the world’s largest oil companies out of the country.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips exited Venezuela in 2007 and later filed claims against the government in international arbitration courts. Those courts ultimately ruled in favor of the companies, ordering Venezuela to pay ConocoPhillips more than $10 billion and ExxonMobil more than $1 billion. The cash-strapped country has paid only a fraction of those awards.

That history looms over Trump’s latest proposal.

Trump said on Saturday he would seek to revive the once-prominent commodity by mobilizing investment from major U.S. energy companies.

‘We are going to have our very large United States oil companies go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure and start making money for the country,’ Trump said during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago. 

It remains unclear whether U.S. energy companies are prepared to do so. American firms have yet to say whether they plan to return to Venezuela to resurrect an oil industry hollowed out by years of neglect.

Chevron, the only U.S. oil titan operating in Venezuela, said in a statement to Fox News Digital that it was following ‘relevant laws and regulations.’

‘Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets,’ a Chevron spokesperson added.

ConocoPhillips wrote in a statement to Fox News Digital that it is monitoring the developments in Venezuela as well as the ‘potential implications for global energy supply and stability.’ 

‘It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,’ a spokesperson for ConocoPhillips added.

ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

3. The push reflects a broader effort to leverage energy for geopolitical influence

As U.S. and European companies withdrew from Venezuela, Russia, China and Iran expanded their footprint in the country’s energy sector, using financing, fuel shipments and technical support to maintain influence.

That shift has also reshaped how Venezuelan oil is traded. Sanctions have fueled the rise of so-called ‘ghost ships,’ nondescript oil tankers that disable tracking systems to quietly move Venezuelan crude to foreign buyers outside traditional markets. The opaque trade has reduced transparency in global oil flows while helping Caracas sustain exports despite financial isolation.

For the Trump administration, the outcome has underscored an uncomfortable trade-off: restricting access to U.S. markets can limit revenue for sanctioned governments, but it can also push them deeper into the orbit of strategic rivals, turning energy policy into a front line of geopolitical competition.

The entire Senate GOP demanded that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz provide a paper trail on the state’s role in the Minnesota fraud scandal, cranking up the scrutiny in Washington, D.C. in the process. 

In a letter led by Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Republicans reiterated that Congress controls the flow of taxpayer dollars that are alleged to be used in the unfurling scandal, where federal prosecutors estimate that up to $9 billion was stolen through a network of fraudulent fronts posing as daycare centers, food programs and health clinics.

‘The state’s apparent negligent management of federal funds raises significant concerns about the adequacy of the state’s oversight, verification, and compliance systems for safeguarding taxpayer dollars intended to support vulnerable children and working families,’ they wrote. ‘Unfortunately, these latest reports appear to reflect only the tip of the iceberg.’

They support the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) move earlier this week to freeze funding to several childcare grant programs in the state, including the Child Care and Development Fund, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Services Block Grant programs.

Cassidy, who chairs the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, called on Walz to provide receipts on several issues and warned that failure to do so could lead to even more streams of federal money flowing to Minnesota drying up. 

In the letter, backed by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., lawmakers demanded that Walz clarify how the state was complying with federally directed audits and what verification requirements the state has ‘adopted or plans to implement in the near term to support proof of legitimate use of federal child care payments.’ 

They also called for a detailed outline of several issues, like how often the state conducted on-site monitoring, inspections or investigative visits to childcare facilities that received federal dollars, and specifically wanted examples of any information uncovered on fake children, false attendance records, over-billing, ineligible enrollments and shell or fake business structures. 

Lawmakers also demanded to know how many investigations the state has conducted into the matter since 2018, any oversight actions the state has taken, and why the Walz administration has, so far, not complied with a slate of recommendations from a DHS Office of Inspector General report that included action to recover overpayments, strengthen attendance monitoring at childcare facilities and implement real-time electronic attendance reporting.

Cassidy and Senate Republicans gave Walz until Jan. 22 to comply with their slate of requests. 

‘The Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse,’ they wrote. ‘And the United States Senate is exercising its duty to ensure proper stewardship of federal taxpayer dollars for child care programs, and we take this responsibility very seriously.’

A Senate Republican intends to block President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) nominees until Secretary Kristi Noem appears on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters that he was putting holds on future nominees for the agency because Noem had not yet committed to appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

‘My chairman has made two requests in this Congress to have the Homeland Security Secretary [Kristi Noem] come before the committee, and they have yet to confirm that they’re coming,’ Tillis said. ‘That is unacceptable, and so I am putting a hold on anything related to Homeland Security measures until we get an agreement and a scheduled time to come for committee at the least.’

But he made clear that the blockade was not in response to the death of Renee Nicole Goode, whose fatal shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent on Wednesday sparked protests.

‘The only thing that moves through Homeland Security where I will consider an exception would be having anything to do with the disaster response,’ he said.

His holds come after Grassley sent two separate invites for Noem to appear before the committee, one in June and the other in September.

It also comes on the heels of Senate Republicans touting their blistering pace to confirm several hundred of Trump’s picks.

Still, the move to block Trump’s DHS picks is another instance of Tillis pushing back against the administration. Tillis announced last year that he would not support Trump’s crowning legislative achievement of his second term, the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ over issues with cuts to Medicaid.

He also announced that he would not seek re-election shortly after and has since on occasion broken ranks with Republicans to push back on the president’s agenda.

Most recently, he pushed back on recent rumblings from the White House and administration officials that military force was not off the table to advance Trump’s desire to control Greenland.

‘I’m sick of stupid,’ Tillis said on the Senate floor earlier this week. ‘I want good advice for this president, because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what’s going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he’s doing, and the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.’

Still, Tillis voted against a related resolution on Thursday to curtail Trump’s future usage of the military in Venezuela, which ultimately advanced with the aid of five Senate Republicans. 

DHS did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

The U.S. seizure of the tanker formerly known as Bella I marks a rare escalation in sanctions enforcement against Russia’s so-called ‘dark fleet,’ but experts say the move is unlikely to trigger a broader confrontation with Moscow, at least in the near term.

Analysts largely agree that the interdiction — one of the most direct U.S. actions against a vessel Russia claims was operating under its flag — comes at a moment when the Kremlin has limited appetite for escalation outside Europe and is focused primarily on its war against neighboring Ukraine.

‘This is unique,’ said Brent Sadler, senior research fellow at the Washington conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. 

The U.S. rarely boards foreign-flagged vessels on the high seas unless the ship’s nationality is in doubt, which he said was the case here due to rapid reflagging and a pattern of sanctions violations.

Peter Rough, a senior fellow and director of the Center on Europe and Eurasia at the Hudson Institute think tank, said that the seizure of the tanker reinforces the message that the U.S. is aiming to ‘call the shots in its own backyard.’ Meanwhile, he said that Russia is bogged down fighting its war against Ukraine, meaning it will be challenging for it to engage in a significant way in Latin America. 

Likewise, Russia is also attempting to curry favor with the Trump administration for a favorable outcome in a peace deal ending the conflict with Ukraine, he said. 

‘The Donroe Doctrine,’ as President Donald Trump has called it, fashions the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning against European expansion into Latin America after himself. 

The empty vessel was seized in international waters during an operation overseen by U.S. European Command. The Wall Street Journal reported that Russia dispatched a submarine to escort the tanker after the U.S. attempted to seize it off Venezuela, heightening the risk of a naval standoff between two nuclear-armed states.

Russia has operated a so-called ‘shadow fleet’ of oil tankers for years to evade sanctions imposed after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Wednesday’s seizure marks one of the most direct U.S. enforcement actions to date against a vessel tied to that network.

‘There’s really not a whole lot of cards the Russians have to play at this point,’ Sadler said, anticipating a muted response. 

Rough also noted that similar actions like the one on Wednesday have not triggered major escalation previously. In October, French authorities boarded and detained a Russia-linked tanker suspected of being part of the shadow fleet off the coast of France without sparking a new crisis. 

In that instance, the tanker was not a Russian-flagged vessel. 

‘The upshot is that in light of the administration’s determination to dictate terms on Venezuela-related issues like this and Putin’s desire to work with Trump on what matters most to the Kremlin — Ukraine — I’m inclined to say that Moscow’s response will consist mostly of protesting this action and lodging political and legal complaints,’ Rough said in an email to Fox News Digital. ‘I don’t think it will lead to a full-blown political crisis in U.S.-Russian relations.’

John Hardie, deputy director of the Russia program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, also predicted the seizure of the Bella I tanker wouldn’t dramatically impact relations between Washington and Moscow. 

‘I suspect Moscow reacted the way it did because it worries about a precedent that could lead to U.S. interdiction of tankers moving Russian oil,’ Hardie said. ‘That said, I don’t think the Bella incident alone will have significant impact on relations between the Trump administration and Moscow or the peace talks.’

Russia has accused U.S. naval forces of illegally boarding the vessel — which had been reflagged as the Merinera under temporary Russian authorization Dec. 24 — arguing the action violated international maritime law. U.S. officials have not publicly detailed the legal justification for the seizure.

While Moscow’s response has so far been limited to diplomatic and legal objections, the incident has drawn attention because of how unusual the operation was. 

Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic & International Studies’ defense and security department, said that there are hundreds of sanctioned oil ships in the sea — with at least 100 of them belonging to Russia. If the U.S. started targeting more tankers, that would have a ‘huge’ impact on countries like Russia and Iran, he said. 

‘The one tanker will be an annoyance to Russia, and they’ll complain,’ Cancian told Fox News Digital Wednesday. ‘I think the bigger issue is whether we or other countries, start going after other tankers with sanctioned oil.’ 

President Donald Trump announced in an early Friday morning Truth Social post that he has ‘cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks’ against Venezuela in light of the ‘cooperation’ between the foreign nation and the U.S.

‘Venezuela is releasing large numbers of political prisoners as a sign of ‘Seeking Peace.’ This is a very important and smart gesture. The U.S.A. and Venezuela are working well together, especially as it pertains to rebuilding, in a much bigger, better, and more modern form, their oil and gas infrastructure. Because of this cooperation, I have cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks, which looks like it will not be needed, however, all ships will stay in place for safety and security purposes,’ Trump said in the post.

He noted that he will meet with ‘BIG OIL’ figures at the White House on Friday.

‘At least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL, all of whom I will be meeting with today at The White House. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’ he declared in the post.

The president’s comments come after he unilaterally ordered an attack against Venezuela last week in which U.S. forces successfully captured Nicolás Maduro.

Trump noted in a Wednesay Truth Social post, ‘I have just been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing ONLY American Made Products, with the money they receive from our new Oil Deal. These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela’s Electric Grid and Energy Facilities.’

‘In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner – A wise choice, and a very good thing for the people of Venezuela, and the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’ he added.

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ ‘Hannity,’ Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

‘Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,’ Trump said.

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated ‘doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country’ to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had ‘nothing to do with my decision’ about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

The House of Representatives passed a bill to revive and extend COVID-19 pandemic-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies in a major victory for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Seventeen House Republicans broke ranks with GOP leaders to support the legislation after Democrats were successful in forcing a vote via a mechanism called a privileged resolution. The bill passed 230-196.

A discharge petition is a mechanism for getting legislation considered on the House floor even if the majority’s leadership is opposed to it, provided the petition gets a majority of House lawmakers’ signatures.

Jeffries filed a discharge petition late last year, which was then signed by four House Republicans — helping it clinch the critical majority threshold.

Five more House Republicans joined Democrats in a vote Wednesday evening to advance the legislation for final consideration Thursday.

The 17 Republicans who voted for the legislation were Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.; Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa.; Ryan Mackenzie, R-Pa.; Mike Carey, R-Ohio; Monica De La Cruz, R-Texas; Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.; Will Hurd, R-Colo.; Dave Joyce, R-Ohio; Tom Kean Jr., R-N.J., Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., Max Miller, R-Ohio; Zach Nunn, R-Iowa; Maria Salazar, R-Fla.; Dave Valadao, R-Calif.; Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis.; and Rob Wittman, R-Va.

It underscores the perilously slim margins Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is governing with.

House Republicans hold just a two-vote majority with full attendance on both sides, numbers that could easily shift when lawmakers are absent for personal or health reasons.

As Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., put to reporters on Wednesday morning, ‘We are one flu season away from losing the majority.’

The successful vote on Thursday is a blow for Johnson, who argued for weeks that the majority of House Republicans were opposed to extending the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax subsidies.

But a significant number of GOP moderates were frustrated that their party leaders in the House and Senate had done little to avert a price hike for millions of Americans’ insurance premiums. 

A Democrat-controlled Congress voted twice, in 2020 and in 2021, to enhance Obamacare subsidies to give more people access to federal healthcare during the pandemic.

Those subsidies were only extended through 2025, however.

The vast majority of Republicans believe the subsidies are a COVID-era relic of a long-broken federal healthcare system. Conservatives argued that the relatively small percentage of Americans who rely on Obamacare meant that an extension would do little to ease rising health costs that people across the country are experiencing.

But a core group of moderates has been arguing that a failure to extend a reformed version of them would force millions of Americans to grapple with skyrocketing healthcare costs this year.

Those moderates were also frustrated with Jeffries for not working with Republicans on a bipartisan solution to the subsidies but felt they were left with little choice but to support Democrats’ bid in the end.

House Republicans passed a healthcare bill in mid-December aimed at lowering those costs for a broader swath of Americans, but that legislation has not been taken up in the Senate.

There’s also little chance the three-year extension will pass the upper chamber, however. Similar legislation led by Senate Democrats failed to reach the necessary 60-vote threshold to advance in December.

The House of Representatives has passed a federal funding package totaling nearly $180 billion, putting Congress one modest step closer to averting a government shutdown at the end of this month.

The legislation accounts for just over $174 billion aimed at partially or fully funding the departments of Commerce, Justice, Interior and Energy, including laying out the budget for NASA, the FBI and federal nuclear energy projects.

Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly supported the final package of three bills, which passed by a 397-28 vote. Twenty-two Republicans and six Democrats voted against the bill.

It comes after the bills ran into opposition from conservative Republicans on Wednesday.

Members of the House Freedom Caucus and others on the GOP’s right flank were incensed in particular by the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations bill, which they felt rank-and-file lawmakers did not get proper input on putting together.

It’s one of 12 annual appropriations bills that Congress is tasked with passing each fiscal year. Congressional leaders who negotiated the legislation along bipartisan lines originally included it in a three-bill ‘minibus’ that, when passed in the House and Senate, would mean half of those dozen bills are finished.

Conservatives also threatened to kill the bill during a procedural vote on Wednesday afternoon over the inclusion of a community funding project requested by ‘Squad’ member Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

The bill would have given $1,031,000 to Generation Hope’s Justice Empowerment Initiative, which ‘helps justice-involved Minneapolis residents break the cycle through job training and support,’ according to a description of the funding request.

But conservatives argued that the funding was just another vehicle allowing Minnesota’s Somali community to fraudulently take taxpayer funds at a time when the state is grappling with a massive fraud scandal enveloping its public service programs.

‘Fraud is running RAMPANT in Minnesota under the failed leadership of Tim Walz. Democrats want to use earmarks to funnel another $1 MILLION to a Somali-led so-called ‘Justice Empowerment Initiative’ that ABUSES taxpayer dollars,’ Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said on X.

Community project funding, also known as an ‘earmark,’ is a request that specific lawmakers make that allows their districts to directly benefit from Congress’ federal funding bills.

‘Earmarks, the currency of corruption, they’re coming back in full force in these products. And I just don’t support it,’ Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, told reporters Wednesday morning.

He was among the conservatives who Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., negotiated with on the House floor for nearly half an hour as the minibus was in danger of failing during a procedural vote to allow for it to be debated.

In the end, House GOP leaders agreed to hold a separate vote on the CJS spending bill while also removing Omar’s earmark, which was also supported by Minnesota’s two Democrat senators.

‘Chalk one up for the good guys. Proud to work the last two days to stop the outrageous Ilhan Omar $1 million Somali earmark. Much more to do,’ Roy posted on X.

The CJS bill was first voted on, followed by the remaining two as a pair, and then a final vote on combining them before sending them to the Senate.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., told Fox News Digital he still anticipated ‘a number of’ his members will still vote against that bill specifically.

The legislation passed along bipartisan lines Thursday, with top House Appropriations Committee Democrat Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., celebrating that the bill was free of GOP ‘poison pills’ earlier this week.

Its funding levels are above what was originally requested by President Donald Trump but below the threshold extending former President Joe Biden’s fiscal year 2024 spending levels via another continuing resolution would have brought.

The White House has also issued a statement of support for the minibus, which will be combined back into one bill before being sent to the Senate.

Congress has until the end of Jan. 30 to find a solution on the remaining six appropriations bills to avert another shutdown.