Several provisions in the Senate GOP’s version of President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ have run afoul of Senate rules and must be stripped if Republicans want to pass the package without the help of Democrats.

The bill is undergoing what’s called a ‘Byrd Bath,’ when the parliamentarian meticulously combs through each section of the mammoth bill to determine whether policies comport with the Senate’s Byrd Rule.

The point of the budget reconciliation process is to skirt the Senate filibuster and pass a massive, partisan legislative package. But if provisions are left in that fail the test, Senate Republicans will have to meet the typical 60-vote threshold. Provisions that don’t pass muster can still be appealed, however.

Senate Democrats vowed to use the Byrd Bath as a cudgel against the Senate GOP to inflict as much pain as possible and slow momentum as Republicans rush to put the colossal bill on Trump’s desk by July 4. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., could also overrule the parliamentarian but has remained adamant he would not attempt such a move. 

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough scrutinized three chunks of the megabill from the Senate Banking, Environment and Public Works and Armed Services committees and found numerous policies that failed to meet the Byrd Rule’s requirements.

Among those was a provision that would have eliminated funding for a target of the GOP’s since its inception in 2008, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which would have effectively eliminated the agency. Doing so also would have slashed $6.4 billion in spending.

Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott, R-S.C., said in a statement he would ‘remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee’s provisions.’

Attempts to put guardrails on the $150 billion in Defense Department funding baked into the package also failed to pass muster. The language would have required that Pentagon officials outline how the money would be spent by a certain deadline or see the funding reduced.

Other provisions on the chopping block include language that cut $300 million from the Financial Research Fund and cut jobs and move the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board under the umbrella of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would have saved roughly $773 million.

An attempt to change the pay schedule for Federal Reserve employees was also nixed, which would have saved about $1.4 billion.

Environmental standards and regulations set by the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act were also determined to have run afoul of the Byrd Rule, including a repeal of tailpipe emissions standards for vehicles with a model year of 2027 and later. 

Recent arrests of Chinese nationals at the University of Michigan have resurrected concerns about CCP-owned farmland and property in the United States, particularly in Michigan, and caused some to draw parallels with the current conflict between Iran and Israel. 

Earlier this month, two Chinese nationals were charged with allegedly smuggling a ‘dangerous biological pathogen’ into the U.S. to study at the University of Michigan in an incident that FBI Director Kash Patel described as a ‘sobering reminder that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to deploy operatives and researchers to infiltrate our institutions and target our food supply, an act that could cripple our economy and endanger American lives.’

Later, a third Chinese national with connections to the university was arrested, renewing questions about China’s efforts to infiltrate and influence various sectors in the United States, including buying up farmland, which has been a growing concern nationwide.

A 2023 report from the United States Department of Agriculture found that ‘foreign persons held an interest in nearly 45 million acres of U.S. agricultural land,’ which represents 3.5% of all privately held agricultural land and 2% of all land in the country.

While China is not at the top of the list of countries in that report, the arrests in Michigan have prompted calls from Congress to ensure that the CCP, viewed by many as the nation’s top geopolitical adversary, is not buying up farmland in the United States.

Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts exclusively told Fox News Digital this week that China has been aggressively buying American agriculture, ‘which is why we need to have a heightened sense of vigilance around protecting our homeland.’

Ricketts, along with Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, introduced the bipartisan Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure (AFIDA) Improvements Act that seeks to implement recommendations published by the Government Accountability Office in January 2024, which found the AFIDA was ill-equipped to combat foreign ownership of American agricultural land. 

‘China’s land purchases aren’t just about acreage—they’re about access,’ Michigan GOP Rep. John Moolenaar, chairman of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the CCP, told Fox News Digital. 

‘Even small parcels near military bases or critical infrastructure pose serious national security risks. In my home state, we’ve seen concerning cases like Gotion’s site near Camp Grayling. We need full transparency into who’s buying land and where—because the Chinese Communist Party shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind shell companies to gain a foothold in our country.’

China’s encroachment into Michigan’s agriculture was enough of a concern for Republican state Rep. Gina Johnsen to introduce legislation earlier this year banning foreign adversaries from buying up farmland.

‘Our state’s agricultural industry is a pillar of our economy. My community is an agricultural community,’ Johnsen said. Our farms provide food security, jobs, and economic stability for countless residents. However, there is growing concern about losing our farmland to countries of concern.’ 

Additionally, Chinese farmland has become a topic of conversation in the wake of revelations that Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear capabilities was aided by years of covert planning, surveillance and infiltration by Israeli intelligence. 

Code-named ‘Am Kelavi’ (Rising Lion), the preemptive operation was the product of unprecedented coordination between the Israeli air force, the Military Intelligence Directorate, the Mossad and the country’s defense industries. For years, they worked ‘shoulder to shoulder’ to gather the intelligence files needed to eliminate Iran’s most sensitive military and nuclear assets.

As part of that operation, Israel was able to establish a drone base inside Iran, where Mossad operatives retrieved them from hiding spots to use against Iranian sites. 

Bryan Cunningham, president of Liberty Defense and former CIA intelligence officer, told Fox News Digital that the Israeli operation is a ‘wake-up call’ for the United States about what a foreign adversary like China could potentially carry out in the United States.

‘As an intelligence officer, part of me says, I wish that the sources and methods of building these drone factories inside the target countries hadn’t been revealed,’ Cunningham said. ‘But on the other hand, it does serve as a wake-up call, hopefully for our policymakers, and it also ties in, and if I were the administration, I would make this tie in immediately and loudly with the Trump administration’s border strategy.’

Cunningham continued, ‘Our borders are where you’re most likely to actually intercept these kinds of toxins, explosives, flares, 3D-printed weapons, ceramic weapons, whatever it is. So if it were me and I were the Secretary of Homeland Security, I would be tying this all together. You know, it is important to get people out of the country that have committed violent or other serious crimes in the country, but it’s also really important to prevent people like these guys from bringing in those kinds of materials.’

The FBI is increasing its surveillance of Iranian-backed operatives inside the United States as Trump weighs strikes, a senior law enforcement official told Fox News on Friday. 

Fox News Digital’s Deirdre Heavey, Lucas Tomlinson and Efrat Lachter contributed to this report.

As tensions between Israel and Iran escalate, the airwaves are full of alarmist commentary. Military analysts and political leaders alike are warning that Tehran is ‘on the brink’ of possessing a nuclear weapon. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt even claimed, ‘Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon … and it would take a couple weeks to complete the production of that weapon.’ This is not just a misstatement. It is misinformation—and it risks pushing the United States into a hasty and unjustified war.

The reality is far more complex. Enriched uranium—even at weapons-grade levels—is only one component of a long, technically demanding process required to create a functional nuclear bomb. Understanding why this alarmism is premature requires a clear breakdown of what’s actually involved in building such a device.

According to U.S. experts and declassified intelligence assessments, a nuclear weapon requires at least the following elements:

1. Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU): Iran would need U-235 enriched to 90%, but that alone is insufficient.
2. Precision Shaping: The uranium must be machined into a flawless sphere, requiring high-end metallurgy and computing.
3. Explosive Lenses: Carefully placed charges must detonate simultaneously to compress the core—a method called implosion.
4. Trigger Mechanisms: These detonators must be precisely synchronized; even a microsecond delay renders the weapon ineffective.
5. Reflectors and Tampers: Elements like beryllium are required to maintain compression and sustain the chain reaction.
6. Weaponization: The bomb must be ruggedized into a functional assembly, including casing and electronics that can survive delivery.
7. Delivery Systems: The weapon must be fitted onto a missile, aircraft, or another platform capable of reaching its target.

In addition to enriched uranium and implosion mechanisms, a functional nuclear weapon requires several other complex components that Iran has not demonstrably mastered. These include a neutron initiator to trigger the chain reaction, precision fusing and arming systems, and reentry vehicle technology if the weapon is to be missile-delivered. A credible nuclear arsenal also demands sub-critical testing infrastructure to validate design functionality and safety protocols to control explosive yield. These technical requirements involve advanced engineering, testing, and materials—none of which are confirmed to exist in Iran’s program today.

Each of these steps represents a serious technological challenge. While Iran has demonstrated enrichment capabilities, there is no credible open-source evidence that it has mastered the other essential components. The most difficult hurdle—weaponization—remains the most classified and technically advanced part of the entire process.

Yet Israel’s recent week of strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities—including the deeply buried Fordow enrichment site near Qom—were reportedly driven by fears that Iran had crossed the 90% enrichment threshold. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Iran now possesses enough enriched uranium for ‘nine nuclear weapons’ and the IDF’s Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir warned of an ‘immediate operational necessity’ as Iran had ‘reached the point of no return.’ However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and U.S. intelligence assessments have not publicly corroborated any progress toward assembling a usable bomb.

The Fordow facility, often portrayed as a doomsday site, is not a weapons lab. It is an enrichment plant—too deep to strike easily, but also too constrained to test, assemble, or launch a nuclear weapon. That fact alone should prompt the question: Why strike now?

Netanyahu’s warnings are not new. In 2012, he told NBC’s Meet the Press that Iran would have enough material for a bomb in ‘six or seven months,’ urging the U.S. to draw a ‘red line’ before it was ‘too late.’ The dire prediction never materialized. No bomb was built. No red line crossed. The episode offers a lesson in how worst-case scenarios, not verified facts, can drive the conversation.

Before the United States commits to military action, President Trump—and the American people—deserve clear answers: Does Iran possess the necessary components, the design knowledge, and the capacity to assemble and deliver a functioning weapon? Or are we risking war based on fear and incomplete intelligence?

We have been here before. In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. That war cost thousands of lives, almost three trillion dollars to the present, destabilized a region, and damaged U.S. credibility for decades. To repeat such a mistake would be strategic malpractice of the highest order.

None of this downplays the threat Iran poses. The regime’s support for proxy militias, its ballistic missile program, and its pattern of obstructing IAEA inspections are deeply troubling. But deterrence and diplomacy—not preemptive war—must be the first response. The United States retains a full suite of tools: cyber operations, regional missile defense, economic sanctions, and multilateral diplomacy. Military action should remain the final option—not the opening move.

As Australian novelist Kate Forsyth reminds us: ‘War is an unpredictable beast. Once unleashed, it runs like a rabid dog, ravening friend or foe alike.’ Let us not unleash that beast over uranium that is dangerous—but not yet detonatable.

President Trump, Congress, and our intelligence community must deliver a full, honest accounting. What does the United States know—not suspect—about Iran’s nuclear readiness? What pieces are still missing? What tools short of war can ensure they stay missing?

These are the questions that must be answered before another missile is fired. Panic is not a policy. Precision is.

Amid a week of daily attacks between Middle Eastern juggernauts Israel and Iran, President Donald Trump has repeatedly drilled home a key point.

‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON,’ the president wrote on social media.

And speaking with reporters in the Oval Office at the White House, Trump highlighted, ‘I’ve been saying for 20 years, maybe longer, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.’

It’s a stance U.S. presidents have taken for a couple of decades. And it appears most Americans agree with Trump and his presidential predecessors when it comes to the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of registered voters questioned in a new Fox News national survey said they think Iran poses a real security threat to the U.S. That’s a 13-point boost since Fox News last asked the question six years ago.

And the poll, conducted June 13-16, indicates wide support across the partisan spectrum. Majorities of Republicans (82%), Democrats (69%) and Independents (62%) agreed that Iran poses a threat.

The survey also showed that 78% of those questioned said they were very or extremely concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb. And eight in 10 said what happens in the Middle East does matter in the U.S.

Daron Shaw, a veteran GOP pollster and the Republican partner on the Fox News poll, said that ‘the increased sense that Iran constitutes a threat is real, but it also reflects the unique timing and circumstances surrounding this poll.’

‘The poll was in the field as images of Iranian missiles falling on Tel Aviv dominated television and the internet — the immediacy and clarity of the conflict undoubtedly contributes to how voters gauge what is at risk,’ noted Shaw, who is also a politics professor and chair at the University of Texas.

There was a similar response regarding the threat from Iran in a Ronald Reagan Institute national survey conducted earlier this month, before Israel’s initial attack last week sparked the daily bombardments by both nations.

Eighty-four percent of those questioned in the poll, which was shared first with Fox News, said preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons matters to U.S. security and prosperity. 

Trump is weighing whether the U.S. should join Israel in striking Iran to cripple its nuclear program and prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

‘President Trump doesn’t often get a political softball sent his way. His decision to support Israel’s attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran and the prospective decision to deal a limited but decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions by striking the Fordow facility can prove to be political mana from heaven,’ veteran political scientist Wayne Lesperance said. 

Lesperance, president of New England College, noted that ‘If the President makes the case clearly and firmly to the American people, polling data suggests he would enjoy support from his own party, Democrats and Independents. What’s more, Trump’s decision and subsequent action would crowd out any of the issues or coverage like immigration, the budget, or tariffs in the near term. Politically, a decision to act against Iran is smart politics.’

But Lesperance cautioned that ‘this all assumes that the attacks are successful. It also assumes Americans are tolerant of the repercussions of backlash over the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.’

Fox News’ Dana Blanton and Victoria Balara contributed to this report.