The conservative movement has found itself in a season of confusion in recent weeks. Former friends quarrel, familiar institutions are in turmoil, and some voices, both new and old, on the right have begun to wonder aloud whether the United States should still stand with Israel. 

That question deserves a resolute answer, and the answer is this: for our security, for democracy in the Middle East and for the very destiny of our nation, America must stand with Israel.

Americans should always be open to debate how we spend our money abroad and whether our foreign policy truly serves national interest. The rising generation in particular demands rigorous answers beyond empty platitudes.  

But lately, it seems that something deeper, something darker, has driven those questions. After decades of conflict in the Middle East, some are tempted to embrace isolationism, to treat moral clarity as naïveté, and to spurn our allies as unwanted burdens under the strain of massive national debt. For others, it is nothing more than antisemitism.  

The acceptance of antisemitic voices on the left and the right, from the halls of Congress to social media, represents a vile and dangerous trend in American politics, and it must be forcefully opposed wherever it appears. There is no place in the conservative movement for antisemitism.

For nearly 80 years, the bond between the United States and Israel has been more than a diplomatic arrangement. It has been a covenant of free peoples who share the same ideals: faith in God, belief in human dignity and gratitude for the blessings of liberty. Israel’s survival has never depended on our charity; it has depended on our partnership, and that partnership has made America safer and paid dividends. 

Centuries before the founding of modern Israel, our Founding Fathers championed the return of the Jewish people to Israel and made special provision for the Jewish faith in America. George Washington assured Jewish Americans that the fledgling United States ‘gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.’ John Adams supported ‘the Jews again in Judea’ as ‘an independent nation.’ Elias Boudinot, the president of the American Revolution’s Congress, boldly suggested that ‘God has raised up these United States… for the very purpose of… bringing his beloved people to their own land.’ Even the famously thrifty Benjamin Franklin once opened his coffers to help a local Philadelphia synagogue weather financial difficulty.  

But the case for Israel is far more than historic.

Today, Israel stands as an oasis of democracy in a Middle East where dozens of its neighbors are Islamic states or still practice monarchy. It is a cruel irony that, in a world of 46 majority-Muslim nations, the presence of a single majority-Jewish nation is seen by many of Israel’s neighbors as one too many. Thirty-one countries still refuse to recognize Israel on their maps. Some of those would love nothing less than to see Israel wiped off the map altogether. And yet Israel persists.  

Thanks to Israel’s courage and the decisive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States, we no longer live under a nuclear sword of Damocles wielded by a regime that chants ‘Death to America.’ From the Stuxnet cyber operation that crippled Iran’s enrichment program, to Israel’s assistance with U.S. airstrikes, and to many heroic covert operations, Israel has repeatedly helped delay Tehran’s progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons. Those actions protected not only Jerusalem and Tel Aviv – they protected Washington, New York and every American city within reach of Iran’s hatred. 

That may not matter much to a segment of the New Right that confuses isolation for safety. But the rest of us know better. We understand what it would mean if the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism ever possessed nuclear weapons.  When Israel takes the fight to Iran’s terror network proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Revolutionary Guard, it is not merely doing our bidding; it is doing what conscience and common sense require. It stands between civilization and chaos. Israel’s cause is our cause.  

When Israel succeeds, as it did in 2024 by decapitating Hezbollah’s leadership in a precision pager-bombing campaign, America is safer. The practical case for our alliance is clear.

Centuries before the founding of modern Israel, our Founding Fathers championed the return of the Jewish people to Israel and made special provision for the Jewish faith in America.

But the heart of American support is still a matter of shared values and faith. We stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny. Israel must be empowered to finish the fight against those who would harm her, terrorists who hide behind women, children, hospitals and holy places as they launch rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Peace and justice, within Gaza and without, require that Hamas be destroyed. 

In the end, Americans have always supported Israel because the very existence of this enduring nation bears witness to God’s faithfulness. And the support of millions of Americans throughout the generations has been built upon the ancient words recorded in Genesis where God promises to ‘bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse, and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’

For 250 years, America has been blessed like no other country in history. As we prepare to celebrate our blessings as a nation, I believe we must never forsake that promise or our cherished ally. If the world knows nothing else, let the world know this: America stands with Israel. 

A U.S. citizen jailed in Saudi Arabia for criticizing the royal family online was freed Wednesday by Saudi authorities, ending a four-year ordeal in the country, according to media reports.

Saad Almadi’s release came just a day after President Donald Trump met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Washington, D.C., per the New York Post.

Almadi, 75, a retired engineer and U.S. resident since 1976, was detained in 2021 during a family visit to Riyadh and later sentenced to more than 19 years in prison on terrorism charges tied to a series of posts online.

The charges were reduced to cyber crimes, and although he was released from prison in 2023, Almadi was held in the country under an exit ban which prevented him from going back home to the U.S.

The Almadi family issued a statement Wednesday celebrating the good news and thanking Trump.

‘Our family is overjoyed that, after four long years, our father, Saad Almadi, is finally on his way home to the United States!’ they said.

‘This day would not have been possible without President Donald Trump and the tireless efforts of his administration. We are deeply grateful to Dr. Sebastian Gorka and the team at the National Security Council, as well as everyone at the State Department.’

A third portion of the statement expressed appreciation to others who had supported the case over the years.

‘We extend our thanks to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh for keeping our father safe, and to the nonprofit organizations and members of Congress who fought for his freedom,’ the statement read.

Almadi’s case also drew attention from human rights groups and U.S. lawmakers after he was accused of terrorism over 14 social media posts.

One suggested that a street in Washington be renamed after Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018.

U.S. pressure to lift Almadi’s exit ban had also intensified since Trump’s May visit to Saudi Arabia.

The president’s national security advisor, Sebastian Gorka, also met with Almadi’s son at the White House.

The Foley Foundation, which advocates for Americans detained overseas, praised the news Wednesday, saying it was ‘so excited’ the family’s fight had finally succeeded.

Per reports, Almadi was flying to the U.S. from Riyadh on Wednesday, according to his family, after Trump and the crown prince set foot on stage at a forum in Washington.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Sebastian Gorka, the Department of State and The White House for comment.

A House Freedom Caucus-led bid to strip a member of the House Democratic Caucus of her role on a high-profile committee after her ties to Jeffrey Epstein were revealed earlier this month failed on Tuesday night.

Lawmakers voted against censuring Del. Stacey Plaskett, D-V.I., the Virgin Islands’ nonvoting delegate in the House of Representatives, over newly surfaced text messages between her and Epstein that were exchanged during the February 2019 congressional testimony of Michael Cohen.

The censure had also included language to remove Plaskett from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which oversees entities like the FBI and CIA and regularly receives classified briefings on matters of national security.

Three Republicans joined Democrats to kill the measure, while three more Republicans voted ‘present.’ It ultimately failed in a 209-214 vote.

The three Republicans who voted against censuring Plaskett were Reps. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, Don Bacon, R-Neb., and Dave Joyce, R-Ohio.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., voted ‘present’ along with Reps. Dan Meuser, R-Pa., and Jay Obernolte, R-Calif.

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., who introduced the resolution, said during debate on the measure on Tuesday, ‘The House of Representatives has a responsibility and a duty to protect the integrity of this institution. And what we learn from the documents released by Jeffrey Epstein’s estate is nothing short of alarming.’

‘Those documents show that Delegate Stacey Plaskett, a sitting member of Congress, coordinated her questioning during an Oversight — an official Oversight hearing, with a man who was a convicted sex offender, a man whose crimes against minors shocked this entire nation.’

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who led Democrats’ rebuttal against the resolution, called the measure ‘one more pathetic effort to distract and divert attention from the fact that the president’s name appeared more than a thousand times already in the small fraction of material released on Epstein.’

He also repeatedly referred to Epstein as Plaskett’s ‘constituent’ over his primary residence having been in the Virgin Islands.

Texts exchanged during the 2019 hearing, in which Cohen accused President Donald Trump of a scheme to pay off mistresses to hide evidence of extramarital affairs during his 2016 presidential bid, show Epstein taking a heavy interest in Plaskett’s questioning.

Epstein appeared to guide Plaskett’s lines of questioning at times. One text showed him saying, ‘Hes opened the door to questions re who are the other henchmen at trump org.’

Plaskett was shown to respond, ‘Yup. Very aware and waiting my turn.’

Republicans have seized on Plaskett’s messages with Epstein as proof of a double standard by Democrats on the late pedophile financier’s case.

House Democrats have been arguing for transparency in pushing to uncover any potential improper links between Trump and Epstein but have been largely silent on Plaskett in the days since her ties to him surfaced.

Neither Plaskett nor Trump has been accused of any wrongdoing connected to Epstein’s crimes, however.

Raskin accused Republicans on Tuesday of robbing Plaskett of her right to due process.

‘Without even going to the Ethics Committee, much less a court, they want to arraign her on some charges based on a newspaper article, that she did something lawful — however ill-advised — it may have been. She took a phone call from one of her constituents,’ Raskin said.

‘Where is the ethical transgression? Where is the legal transgression? Are you saying anybody on your side of the aisle who had a phone call with Jeffrey Epstein should be censured?’

Plaskett’s texts with Epstein were reported in a number of media outlets, but they were first found in a tranche of documents from Epstein’s estate and handed over to the House Oversight Committee.

‘I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein, who, at the time was my constituent — who was not public knowledge at that time, that he was under federal investigation — and who was sharing information with me,’ she said in her own defense on Tuesday.

Plaskett also pointed out her years of experience as a prosecutor when arguing she was not seeking advice on her line of questioning.

It’s worth noting, however, that while the federal probe into Epstein was not public knowledge, he first faced charges related to the exploitation of underaged girls as early as 2006.

The vote comes after a Democrat-led bid to refer Plaskett’s case to the House Ethics Committee, rather than moving forward with the censure resolution, failed to pass in a narrow 213-214 vote.

The House of Representatives had earlier moved to force the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release all of its unclassified Epstein files in an overwhelming 427-1 vote.

House Republicans are cautiously supportive of a bipartisan bill aimed at forcing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release all its files on Jeffrey Epstein’s case after President Donald Trump gave the bill his stamp of approval on Sunday night.

GOP lawmakers who spoke with Fox News Digital Monday evening said they would vote for the bill and were optimistic their colleagues would as well — though many of them said they still had concerns about how it was written.

It comes after Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who had been against the bill but pushing parallel transparency efforts in Epstein’s case, said he hoped it would undergo material changes when it reached the Senate to give more protection for innocent people whose names may appear in the files against their wishes.

‘I have real concerns about the discharge language in the House draft,’ Johnson said. ‘But I do have some comfort that, I think if and when it’s processed in the Senate, that they’ll be able to correct some of those concerns, if we have the protection of victims and whistleblowers and all the rest.’

The legislation is coming to the House floor on Tuesday afternoon via a mechanism called a discharge petition led by Rep Ro. Khanna, D-Calif., and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. The latter has found himself at odds with both Johnson and Trump on several key issues this year.

A discharge petition allows a bill to get a House-wide vote against leaders’ wishes, provided the petition gets support from most lawmakers in the chamber — which in this case, it did last week.

Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., a Trump ally who is running for governor in Florida, said he would vote for the bill but shared Johnson’s concerns.

‘Number one, Congress has never released criminal files ever in the history of Congress. Two, there are victims, and I know we’re supposed to be trying to do what we can to sanitize their names or cover their names or redact their names, but you know, that doesn’t mean it’s going to be foolproof,’ Donalds said.

‘You could have victims that don’t want to be released, be identified, and then they have to go relive this again. What about those women? What if those women have kids now? What if those women have husbands now and they don’t want to go through this? So I think there’s a reason why political bodies don’t release criminal files.’

Donalds said he would vote to release the files, however, to move past this chapter and help victims get closure.

‘It’s become such a huge distraction here on Capitol Hill. And I do want to see justice for those victims, if they were abused,’ he said.

Republican Study Committee Chairman August Pfluger, R-Fla., said, ‘I’m gonna vote in favor of it, but it’s not perfect, and there’s a lot of things that need to be addressed.’

‘Transparency is key. My district needs transparency. The president has nothing to hide, but things that need to be fixed, have to be fixed in the Senate,’ Pfluger, who pledged to support the bill before Trump’s blessing, said.

Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., said she had similar concerns ‘from the start.’

‘Once it goes to the Senate, if the Senate believes they need to have broader or, you know, bigger protections, then I think that’ll be up to the Senate to decide, but I’m ready to vote this out of the House and send it over to the Senate and get moving on it,’ Houchin said.

A member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., questioned whether such a move by Congress could get in the way of the DOJ’s active probes into Epstein.

‘I have concerns as well. I mean, you have the Department of Justice investigations taking place. Are we inadvertently interfering?’ he posed.

Ogles said, however, that he believed most House Republicans like himself would back the bill.

‘With the president coming out in support of it, I think that sends a clear message that he’s not afraid of what’s in it, the Democrats should be,’ he said.

Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., similarly said he believed Trump’s support alleviated some difficulties for Republicans.

‘I think it releases any angst they might have when we’re voting for it,’ McCormick said. ‘I think most people will vote for it, I don’t think it’s going to be a controversial bill at all.’

Houchin told Fox News Digital, ‘I think he moved the needle tremendously, just to say, you know, let’s have a vote on it and let’s stop talking about it.’

But Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., disagreed that Trump’s support had a significant effect on shifting the tide.

‘I mean, maybe a little bit, but I think people were largely there anyway,’ Fry said. ‘We talked about this on the campaign trail, The guy was a total dirtbag, did unspeakable atrocities on women in our country, and the public wants closure…this has been the most transparent Congress and administration on this subject in the country’s history.’

Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday night, ‘House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax.’

It appeared to lead to Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, who notably said he would oppose the measure on Friday, changing his mind as of Monday night. He told reporters ‘everybody’ would vote in favor of the bill and pointed out, ‘Donald Trump made a decision.’

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., who was leading the Johnson-backed probe into Epstein, appeared similarly resigned on Monday.

‘At this point, I just think the best thing to do — there’s so much media frenzy and curiosity about this, and you know, the survivors act like they want everything to come out. I want everything to come out….any other villains in this, we’ll try to figure out what we can,’ he said.

And Massie told reporters that same evening that he would be open but cautious about any changes to his bill in the Senate.

‘If the Senate wants to improve this bill without limiting the disclosure, that would be fine by me. But if they try to monkey it up, I think those senators are gonna get in front of a freight train and be in a lot of trouble with their supporters,’ he warned.

Massie told Fox News Digital of Johnson’s concerns, ‘He needs to be for it or against it. I think he’s going to vote for it, so he must think there’s more good than bad.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has not yet said what he would do if the bill passed the House on Tuesday.

Americans have delivered the same message in the last two elections: make life affordable again. 

They are tired of working harder for less, while the cost of everything — from housing to education to insurance — keeps rising. The affordability crisis touches every household, and its biggest driver is the one Washington refuses to tackle seriously: healthcare. 

Healthcare now consumes nearly one-fifth of our economy. It is the largest single cost for employers, the fastest-growing burden on families, and the quietest drain on national growth. Every dollar businesses spend on bloated health costs is a dollar not available for higher wages, new jobs or investment. Every dollar families spend on premiums or out-of-pocket costs is a dollar they can’t use for savings, housing or opportunity. Until we fix healthcare, we can’t fix affordability. 

It’s not that Washington ignores healthcare — it’s that it thinks about it too narrowly. Politicians obsess over temporary subsidies, tax credits and program expansions that make insurance more expensive to subsidize but never make care itself more affordable. The current fight over extending COVID-era insurance subsidies is a perfect example. Even supporters of Obamacare now admit that the ‘Affordable’ Care Act turned out to be unaffordable. Their answer is to borrow more money to prop up a system that keeps getting worse. That is not reform — it’s surrender.

There are three truths both parties must face. 

First, the system is already too expensive and locked in a pattern that guarantees it will grow more unaffordable every year. 

Second, 60 years of bureaucratic control — public and private — have utterly failed to contain costs.

Third, we must build a new model that relies on patients, doctors and employers — not massive government and insurance-company bureaucracies — to achieve the change Americans want. 

That model is not theoretical — it already works in the rest of our economy. When people have access to clear prices and quality information before making decisions, competition drives innovation, choice and lower costs. Technology has made this possible in every industry, from travel to retail to manufacturing. If the same principles applied to healthcare, we could unleash that same power to lower costs and improve quality. 

Instead, our opaque, bureaucratic system hides prices and multiplies middlemen. The average family of four now spends roughly $27,000 a year on health insurance — about the cost of a new Chevrolet or Toyota every 12 months. Most families don’t see the full bill because their employer or the government pays much of it, but that just means their wages are smaller. Paying the equivalent of a new car every year just for coverage is why Americans list affordability as their top economic concern.

Worse, nobody knows what anything costs — not patients, not families, not even the self-funded employers who pay the claims for their plan members. Bills arrive months after care, after passing through a maze of third-party administrators, repricers and billing vendors. That secrecy fuels waste, fraud and frustration. It’s estimated that 30% to 50% of all healthcare spending is administrative rather than medical. In short, America’s healthcare system has more middlemen than medicine. 

And who benefits? Powerful interest groups, insurers, consultants and bureaucracies that profit from complexity and confusion. As Tom Cruise shouted in ‘Jerry Maguire’: ‘Show me the money.’ Behind the speeches and lobbyists defending this broken system are people determined to protect their share of a bankrupting status quo. 

Second, 60 years of bureaucratic control — public and private — have utterly failed to contain costs.

Politicians can’t fight every entrenched interest group — but millions of patients and doctors armed with real price and quality information can. Transparency gives power back to those who actually deliver and receive care. When they can see what things cost, they can make smarter choices, reward efficiency and hold wasteful players accountable. Transparency doesn’t just lower prices — it changes who holds the power.

That’s why President Donald Trump’s price-transparency executive order in his first administration was a genuine breakthrough. It required hospitals and insurers to publish negotiated prices and, through the No Surprises Act, directed officials to create Advance Explanations of Benefits (AEOBs) so Americans could know their costs before receiving care. Trump started the transparency revolution. Under the Biden administration, enforcement stalled, and patients never saw the full benefit. 

Now Trump has the chance to finish what he began — and make transparency permanent. 

The administration has the authority to act right now under his ‘radical transparency’ executive order issued earlier this year, the No Surprises Act, and existing Employee Retirement Income Security Act authority. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should immediately issue and enforce AEOB rules. The Department of Labor should guarantee employers access to complete claims and pricing data while protecting patient privacy. If the administration moves quickly, Americans could begin receiving AEOBs in 2026 — and Trump could rightfully claim a historic victory for transparency, competition and higher wages before the midterms. 

Congress should reinforce this effort by passing the bipartisan Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, led by Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall and Colorado Democrat Sen. John Hickenlooper. The bill secures employer access to data and ensures no third-party administrator can hide prices from the people who pay the bills. The executive branch can act today; Congress should make it permanent.

When every patient and employer can see prices, markets will clean out waste on their own. Transparency gives employers the power to negotiate directly with providers and patients the ability to choose wisely. Prices in the open create competition that middlemen can’t survive and costs they can’t hide. The ripple effect — lower costs, higher wages, more investment — will strengthen every part of the economy. 

If America truly wants to make life affordable again, healthcare transparency is where we start.

It’s bold. It’s achievable. And it’s the single biggest step we can take to restore prosperity for working families.   

Disclaimer: Gingrich 360 has consulting clients in the healthcare industry which may be impacted by changes to healthcare laws.