Politics
After Nudge From Trump, Senate Sets Fast Pace in Confirming His Ambassadors
Late last month, President Trump began grumbling — first quietly and privately, then publicly — that the Senate was moving too slowly to confirm his picks to fill highly sought ambassadorships around the world.
Mere weeks later, Senate Republicans have vastly stepped up their pace in approving his nominees, installing nearly a dozen mostly wealthy loyalists as envoys to key countries and moving more quickly than other presidents have in the past few decades.
The flurry of confirmations — 10 in Mr. Trump’s first 100 days in office — has already outpaced his most recent predecessors and that of his first term, and it comes as the president and his team have undertaken a broader effort to reshape the State Department and U.S. diplomacy. Unlike some of his cabinet nominees, most have sailed through with unanimous Republican support and at least some backing from Democrats.
That was the case on Tuesday, when the Senate voted 67 to 29 to confirm David Perdue, the former senator from Georgia and businessman, to be the U.S. ambassador to China.
His approval did not come as a surprise. Mr. Perdue maintains close relationships with many of his former colleagues and at his hearing earlier this month, he was spared critical questions on topics such as his past criticism of across-the-board tariffs or when he boasted about frequently moving American jobs overseas during his time as a business executive.
Instead, Mr. Perdue said he would dutifully carry out the president’s agenda and, like other Trump appointees to serve as top diplomats around the globe, affirmed his commitment to project an “America First” agenda while stationed abroad.
“President Trump’s America First strategy is not isolation, it’s just the reverse,” Mr. Perdue said during his hearing in early April, arguing that an intense focus on strengthening domestic manufacturing would enhance the partnership between the world’s two largest economies. “America will be a stronger ally and partner by rebuilding our strategic supply chains at home and with our friends.”
Waiting in the wings are dozens more ambassadorial nominations that the White House has sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, setting the stage for what the Trump administration hopes will be a rapid transformation at the top of U.S. diplomatic ranks abroad.
Most of those confirmed so far or in line to be are extremely wealthy and politically or personally connected to Mr. Trump, such as Thomas Barrack, a billionaire private equity investor who has known Mr. Trump for decades and who was confirmed late Wednesday to serve as ambassador to Turkey. The Senate also worked late Wednesday evening, voting by an overwhelming margin to confirm Tilman Fertitta, the Texas billionaire owner of the Houston Rockets N.B.A. team, as the next U.S. ambassador to Italy.
The unusually speedy action by the Senate, usually known for its slow-moving deliberation, is a point of pride for Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader.
“We’re going to continue to confirm the president’s ambassadors as expeditiously as possible,” Mr. Thune said from the Senate floor on Monday morning as he unveiled the slate of votes to confirm several overseas posts.
Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, who leads the foreign affairs panel, said in a statement that the Senate was moving “at a record pace” to confirm Mr. Trump’s ambassadors.
The momentum began to shift after Mr. Trump expressed frustration in late March over the slow pace at which his nominees for ambassadorships were being confirmed. During a meeting at the White House with a number of unconfirmed nominees, Mr. Trump criticized the delay, prompting Senate Republicans to prioritize his ambassadorial picks over other confirmations.
“We’re being delayed as much as possible by Democrats,” Mr. Trump said during the meeting.
Although Democrats do not have enough seats to derail any of Mr. Trump’s nominees, some have sought to obstruct the process by placing holds on nominations and requiring that each post be considered and voted on individually. The move prompted Mr. Trump to lash out, accusing Senate Democrats of jeopardizing national security.
“A process that should take a matter of minutes is forced into taking months,” Mr. Trump wrote in a social media post late last month, adding that it was “so hard to watch as Highly Qualified and Respected Ambassadors, who we desperately need representing our Country in Faraway Lands, are purposefully meant to wait.”
Critics of Mr. Trump’s picks, however, argue that many are unqualified for the roles. Among them is Senator Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont, who has spent much of the year drawing large crowds at his “Fight the Oligarchy” tour. He pointed to the appointments of wealthy donors and billionaires as evidence of systemic corruption.
“This is just one more indication of the corruption of our campaign finance system: Billionaires not only buy elections and presidencies, they buy top jobs in the White House and important ambassadorships representing our country around the world,” he said in a statement.
Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, has taken the lead in opposing State Department nominees and said he would seek procedural ways to delay each pick from moving forward, but Republicans have trudged ahead through the lengthy process anyway.
And other Democrats are not inclined to try to stand in the way. Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, has broken with her party more than any other member of the caucus in supporting Mr. Trump’s ambassadorial picks.
Out of the 10 confirmed, she has backed eight. Two of those times she was the only Democrat supporting the nominee, though she was never the deciding vote. In an interview, she said she did not see supporting Mr. Trump’s nominees as tantamount to backing his efforts to upend American foreign policy.
“I don’t see trying to put ambassadors in positions as an effort to reshape diplomacy,” Ms. Shaheen said ahead of her vote in support of Mr. Perdue. “It is in America’s interest to have ambassadors on the ground who can defend American interests in countries around the world,” she said, adding that she had been disappointed that during the Biden administration, Senate Republicans had held up many appointments.
When asked about the approach of her Democratic colleagues who have sought to block nominations, she simply said: “Well, you have to talk to them about their views.”
Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, a member of the foreign affairs committee who regularly meets with ambassadors, said that Mr. Trump’s picks to serve as top diplomats were not as concerning to him as other foreign policy changes Mr. Trump had instituted.
“I think the biggest impact on our standing in the world has been the crushing of U.S.A.I.D., the almost complete elimination of the significance and power of our foreign aid programs,” Mr. Coons said on Tuesday, moments before voting to confirm Mr. Perdue. “So they can prioritize confirming a few ambassadors, but it won’t change the very negative impact on our standing in the world of his recent making.”
By John Ismay, Gilad Thaler, Nikolay Nikolov, Rafaela Balster, Stephanie Swart and Whitney Shefte
June 19, 2026
Politics
Reporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
They didn’t know what to do.
Just before 4 a.m. ET on Wednesday, President Trump blindsided everyone in the U.S. Senate. In a post on Truth Social, the president declared he was “cancelling the Senate hearing” for his Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton. Moreover, the President said he would withhold Clayton’s nomination from “going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney.”
If confirmed, Clayton would vacate his post as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That’s the slot for which the President is nominating McDonald.
TRUMP SAYS SENATE HEARING ON DNI NOMINEE IS CANCELED UNTIL US ATTORNEY REPLACEMENT CONFIRMED
Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, speaks next to Jessica S. Tisch, New York Police Department commissioner, during a press conference at NYPD headquarters following the arrest of suspects charged with igniting IEDs near Gracie Mansion, the home of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in New York City on March 9, 2026. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)
So what would happen with the hearing?
Lawmakers and aides scrambled as they woke to the news Wednesday morning. After all, Trump is the president. He doesn’t have the authority to cancel a Senate hearing.
“Yeah. I don’t think that’s his call,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the Intelligence Committee.
One senior source told Fox News they presumed that Clayton’s confirmation hearing would forge ahead. Another told Fox the fate of the hearing was “undetermined.”
On one hand, lawmakers and aides had to first digest what was happening. Was the President withdrawing Clayton’s nomination? Was he saying he just wasn’t allowing Clayton to testify? Did the head of the executive branch really believe he could bigfoot a congressional hearing? Or was this the president flexing his political muscle, testing Senate Republicans to see how compliant they might be with his intimation — and potentially cancel the hearing on their own?
So was Clayton’s hearing on or off?
“Are we going to have an Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing today?” yours truly asked panel Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he slid behind a backdoor to a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Silence from Cotton.
SCOOP: TOP GOP SEN. COTTON TO MEET WITH EMBATTLED TRUMP DEFENSE NOMINEE AS DOUBTS SWIRL
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arrives for a vote in the U.S. Capitol on April 30, 2025, stating the war with Iran will continue for weeks as the U.S. limits their offensive capabilities. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“Do you know the answer?” I followed up.
“Do you think the President overstepped his bounds, saying he was canceling the hearing?” I continued.
By that point, Cotton was well behind the doorway and it closed.
“I have never seen anything quite like this,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the longest-serving members on the Intelligence Committee in Senate history. “Everybody else is going to have to keep guessing for a while.”
It was Washington whiplash.
“Things change around here pretty quick, Chad,” quipped Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
But a bit later, Cotton finally weighed-in when he posted on X that the hearing would proceed. The Arkansas Republican then materialized again in the hallway, heading for an elevator bank.
“To be clear, you will proceed with the hearing and you expect Jay Clayton to be there despite what the President said?” I asked.
A steel-faced Cotton stared straight ahead at the green elevator door.
“Chad, you have our statement,” said a terse Cotton.
But an hour later, Cotton ditched the hearing after the President blocked Clayton from testifying.
“It’s regrettable that the President has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” said Cotton in a new statement on X. “While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”
The stunning reversal left everyone trying to grasp what happened. And what might be next.
SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a morning work meeting to “revive balanced, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all” in the presence of the G7 countries, partner countries, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, as part of the G7 summit, in Evian, eastern France, on June 17, 2026. (Ludovic MARIN / AFP via Getty Images)
“I am not sure whether Jay Clayton has simply been postponed or withdrawn,” mused Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “I wonder whether Jay Clayton knows whether he has been postponed or withdrawn.”
Democrats and Republicans brokered a fragile agreement weeks ago to renew FISA Section 702. The intelligence community argues that program is the powerful tool in the American arsenal to track and combat potential terrorism. Congress repeatedly punted a full renewal for months.
But with both bodies on the precipice of reauthorizing the program, President Trump announced he would install housing czar Bill Pulte as interim DNI. Democrats balked at Pulte, noting he had no intelligence experience. Plus, they viewed him as a political hack who would run roughshod over America’s intelligence apparatus.
So Democrats pulled their support from the FISA compromise.
Most Republicans weren’t exactly enamored with Pulte, either. And those worried about the nation’s security pushed to block Pulte from entering the DNI’s office. That’s why Cotton scheduled Clayton’s confirmation hearing so quickly. It was thought that the Senate might be able to pivot after the hearing and confirm Clayton on the floor late this week or early next.
Rapid confirmation of Clayton was essential. Such a scenario would unlock Democrats’ votes to reauthorize FISA Section 702 after the program’s congressional blessing expired a week ago.
That was the plan. At least until the president initiated the firestorm over Clayton’s confirmation hearing this week.
“Another Trump victory gets upended by an impulse,” vented Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “It’s frustrating.”
WHY TRUMP PICKED BILL PULTE TO LEAD US INTELLIGENCE AS CRITICS QUESTION HIS QUALIFICATIONS
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., spoke to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on April 1, 2025, before the weekly Republican Senate policy luncheon. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
But wait. There’s more.
President Trump inserted another chestnut — or hot potato — into his pre-dawn Truth Social screed. Especially if you thought the president was going to make it easy for Congress to hastily re-up FISA as soon as the Senate confirmed Clayton.
“To add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said.
He added that his plan was for Pulte to “remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence” and declared that “Republicans fell into a trap.”
The SAVE America Act is the touchstone of President Trump’s 2026 legislative agenda. It requires proof of citizenship to vote. However, the bill has never garnered even 50 yeas in the Senate on two previous test votes.
“We’ve got to pass the SAVE America Act and conditioning passage of FISA on the prior passage of SAVE America would be a great thing,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Other Senate Republicans were more realistic, based on the legislative history of the SAVE America Act.
“You can’t always get what you want,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “I mean, I want a Porsche for my birthday. I’m not going to get it.”
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said a classified briefing reinforced his view that Iran’s leaders would use a nuclear weapon if they obtained one during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C. (Elizabeth Frantz / Reuters)
Democrats seethed about national security as Republicans squirmed.
“We had a path forward as of yesterday (on FISA) and today we don’t,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. “This has become a complete debacle and now it’s up to the White House to figure out a path forward here.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
No one knows what’s next for Clayton. Or McDonald. Or FISA. And there’s high skepticism anything happens on the SAVE America Act. So it’s all in a cryogenic Congressional freeze.
Regardless, Clayton’s confirmation hearing never happened. Such hearings are the responsibility of the legislative branch. But by the end of the day, there was no question who canceled it.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled for gun rights and against drug laws on Thursday, striking down part of a federal law that made it a crime for an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug like marijuana to own firearms.
All nine justices agreed the law was too broad and overly harsh.
They left open the possibility that “addicts” and “unusually dangerous” people who were impaired by drugs could be denied guns.
The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the prosecution of Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.
Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and any other person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
In defense of the law, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that “habitual” drug users were akin to “habitual drunkards” in early American history, and could therefore be denied the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But that historical argument fell flat, including with the court’s conservatives.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is a skeptic of laws that give prosecutors broad and unchecked power.
“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote in U.S. vs. Hemani. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”
The government’s view “suggests that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”
And a conviction can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.
“The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”
Some defenders of gun regulation opposed the ruling.
“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hemani,” said Janet Carter, managing director of 2nd Amendment litigation at Everytown Law. “That said, the court has stressed that its decision is limited — rightly recognizing that drugs and guns can make for a dangerous mix, and leaving open the possibility of prosecuting someone with proof that their drug use renders their gun possession dangerous to themselves or others.”
Two years ago, Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was charged and convicted under the gun law for making a false statement when he applied for a gun permit. He denied being a drug user at a time when prosecutors said he was addicted to crack cocaine.
Then-President Biden gave him a full pardon in December 2024.
Hemani was investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorists but was not charged with such a crime.
In 2020, he and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem [Suleimani], an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.
The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home. Agents found a Glock 9-millimeter pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.
When questioned, Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.
A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.
But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said that “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.
“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” the solicitor general said.
But the justices affirmed the 5th Circuit’s decision.
Still pending before the court is a 2nd Amendment challenge to new laws in Hawaii and California that would prohibit carrying guns into private businesses unless the owner or manager had given their express approval.
Gun rights advocates said such laws, if enforced, are intended to deny their rights to carry concealed weapons when they leave home. The case is Wolford vs. Lopez.
The justices will issue decisions next week on Tuesday and Thursday.
-
Movie Reviews7 minutes agoThe Beautifully Handcrafted Rose of Nevada Is a Ghost Story Like No Other
-
World17 minutes agoOn the South Lawn, a UFC fighter’s victory frames an unusual White House scene
-
Politics29 minutes agoVideo: Demining the Strait of Hormuz
-
Health44 minutes agoVideo: Wii Bowling Takes Over Tulsa Retirement Homes
-
Lifestyle59 minutes ago
This Pride month, teen flicks are recasting familiar tropes with a queer sensibility
-
Technology1 hour agoNASA selects Eric Schmidt’s rocket company for a 2028 mission to Mars
-
World1 hour agoBritish Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces potential leadership challenge from newly-elected Andy Burnham
-
Politics1 hour agoReporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
