Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that he had ‘proudly ended’ the Women, Peace and Security program at the Pentagon on Tuesday, a program signed into law by President Donald Trump in his first term. 

‘WPS is yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden initiative that overburdens our commanders and troops – distracting from our core task: WAR-FIGHTING,’ Hegseth wrote in a post on X. 

‘WPS is a UNITED NATIONS program pushed by feminists and left-wing activists. Politicians fawn over it; troops HATE it.’

Hegseth said the department would comply with the minimum requirements of the program dictated by law and lobby to fully end it in the next budget. ‘GOOD RIDDANCE WPS!’ he added.

But the message raised eyebrows as much of the rest of Trump’s administration has supported the WPS programs. 

Trump signed the WPS Act into law in 2017 and released a WPS strategy in 2019.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem penned the 2017 Women, Peace and Security Act as a House member from South Dakota alongside Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). Secretary of State Marco Rubio co-sponsored the legislation when he was in the Senate, and national security advisor Mike Waltz was a founding member of the WPS congressional caucus when he was in the House.

 ‘The WPS Strategy recognizes the diverse roles women play as agents of change in preventing and resolving conflict, countering terrorism and violent extremism, and building post conflict peace and stability,’ the strategy read. 

Hegseth later clarified that he meant the Biden administration had ‘ruined’ WPS. 

‘The woke & weak Biden Administration distorted & weaponized the straight-forward & security-focused WPS initiative launched in 2017. So—yes—we are ending the ‘woke divisive/social justice/Biden (WPS) initiative,’ he added in a follow-up post on X. ‘Biden ruined EVERYTHING, including ‘Women, Peace & Security.”

The White House could not be reached for comment on whether it still supported the program. 

‘The WPS Strategy seeks to increase women’s meaningful leadership in political and civic life by helping to ensure they are empowered to lead and contribute, equipped with the necessary skills and support to succeed, and supported to participate through access to opportunities and resources,’ the Trump-era strategy read.

It guided WPS plans at the Defense, State and Homeland Security departments as well as USAID. 

‘Around the world, conflict and disasters adversely and disproportionately affect women and girls, yet women remain under-represented in efforts to prevent and resolve conflict, and in post-conflict peacebuilding or recovery efforts. Research has shown that peace negotiations are more likely to succeed, and result in lasting stability, when women participate,’ the document went on. 

Trump promoted the program on his ‘Women for Trump’ accomplishments page of his campaign website. 

The Women, Peace and Security Act originated with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000, and the U.S. became the first country to adopt a whole-of-government approach to undertaking the WPS agenda in 2019.

Rubio touted the legislation as recently as this month.

‘President Trump also signed the Women, Peace, and Security Act, a bill that I was very proud to have been a co-sponsor of when I was in the Senate, and it was the first comprehensive law passed in any country in the world – the first law passed by any country anywhere in the world — focused on protecting women and promoting their participation in society,’ he said at a Women of Courage awards ceremony on April 1. 

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said her department has a ‘massive plan’ for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program reforms, as the Trump administration continues to make spending cuts throughout the federal government.

The USDA recently announced that they will be pushing for additional safeguards to ensure illegal immigrants are not illegally getting on food stamps, Fox News Digital reported, but there are other changes expected to be made.

‘The Biden administration increased that program through some discretionary spending by almost 40%,’ Rollins told Fox News Digital in an interview on Friday.

Spending on the food stamps program soared from $63 billion in 2019 and to $123 billion as of 2023, which is still high despite pandemic-related changes, according to the Cato Institute.

‘You’ll be seeing a big announcement in the coming weeks on this. Another step, another five steps, another 10 steps toward more accountability, toward more intentionality, and toward a much more efficient and effective government program,’ she continued.

The Republican Cabinet secretary quelled fears about whether cutting spending will impact Americans who rely on SNAP to put food on the table, saying that the reforms will help put a renewed emphasis on the mission of the social service.

‘This administration will not let any child go hungry. So as we make these reforms and as we cancel future contracts that we don’t believe were within the original intent or mission of the program, or the USDA, or the government, you’re going to hear the Democrats and the left basically start, you know, yelping about how we hate children and old people and we’re stealing the food out of their mouths. That could not be further from the truth,’ Rollins said.

She also anticipates that certain health-based reforms will be made for the program administered by state governments. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. backs not allowing soda to be bought with food stamps, according to Scripps News, and Rollins has also backed efforts by states like Arkansas to limit the purchase of candy and soda with SNAP.

‘What we are doing is ensuring those hungry people actually get the food that they need. And of course, the layer on that is the [Make America Healthy Again] movement, hopefully more nutritious food than we’ve been able to serve before,’ the secretary added.

I’m so proud of President Trump and his just resolute conviction in working to make America great again and across every single government agency, and I think this food stamp piece is a really big part of it,’ she added.

Over 42 million Americans use SNAP benefits monthly as of 2023, according to USDA’s Economic Research Service data.

Congressional Republicans are working on a multitrillion-dollar bill advancing President Donald Trump’s agenda – and it could include a modest tax hike on wealthy Americans, one of the House GOP’s tax writers said.

‘There’s potentially some talk about a tax hike on wealthier Americans. I think our goal in this committee, and the president’s goal, has been to provide tax relief for the working and middle class,’ Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

‘We have to find a way to pay for that, so we’ll have to see how this all shakes out.’

A senior House GOP aide who spoke with Fox News Digital also alluded to possible tax hikes on the table.

‘The reason we are in the majority and have the ability to do this entire process is because of working-class voters, not the wealthiest Americans,’ they said. ‘I believe our tax package will reflect that reality.’

Malliotakis sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the most critical panels in the budget reconciliation process.

Reconciliation lowers the Senate’s passage threshold from 60 to 51, making it possible for the party that controls both chambers of Congress and the White House to pass massive policy overhauls while sidelining the opposition, in this case Democrats.

The process traditionally begins in the House, where seven committees are preparing to meet in the next two weeks to hash out policies under their relevant jurisdictions. Those will then be slotted into a larger budget framework, which is then considered by the House Budget Committee before a chamber-wide vote.

The Ways and Means Committee is responsible for the tax portion, a key priority for Trump. 

The president wants Republicans to extend his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) while also providing for a slate of new tax policies like eliminating duties on tips, overtime pay and Social Security checks for retirees.

Republicans are currently studying avenues to pay for those priorities.

Malliotakis signaled a corporate tax rate increase was likely off the table, but she’s among several Republican lawmakers who said they would be open to a small tax hike on the wealthy to pay for Trump’s middle- and working-class priorities.

‘Personally, I think that that should be on the table if we’re not going to make spending cuts. But I hope we make spending cuts,’ House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., told Fox News Digital.

But others said they were opposed.

‘I don’t think we have a revenue problem. I don’t think we should be looking for places to add revenue. I think we have a spending problem. Congress spends way too much money, too large of a portion of our GDP. We need to find ways of cutting spending,’ Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., said.

It’s not immediately clear what shape such a tax hike could take. Republicans have discussed potential proposals, including raising the top tax bracket by roughly 1% after it was lowered by about 2% in TCJA. Another proposal would create a new tax bracket for millionaires, potentially of up to 40%.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., would not share any details of the forthcoming plan when asked about a possible tax hike.

‘There’s a lot of things that I’ve been reading in the press that have not been accurate, but I’m not going to say whether it’s accurate or not, and they’ll see the bill whenever we deliver it right before markup,’ Smith told Fox News Digital.

‘But what I will say is, is that we will have a tax bill that is pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family, pro-small business, and pro-workers. And Republicans believe in making sure that Americans keep more of their hard-earned dollars, and you’ll see a tax package that does that.’

He said Americans would likely get to see that plan in a matter of ‘days, not months.’

When reached for comment on a possible tax hike, a senior White House official told Fox News Digital, ‘The President is reviewing a wide range of tax cut proposals for inclusion in the reconciliation bill. He is most focused on tax policy that will help create more good paying jobs in America and delivering the major tax cuts he campaigned on for working and middle class Americans.’

Fox News Digital’s Deirdre Heavey contributed to this report

One hundred days into his new administration, President Donald Trump has reset negotiations with allies and foes across the globe, and experts say one is certain: it is all transactional. 

Gone are the days when the U.S. could be drawn to throw its force around the world solely in the name of defending or spreading democracy. Global leaders are learning to speak a new language with U.S. leadership, one that is less about ideology and more about how their interests benefit U.S. interests. 

‘There is a lot more transactional engagement rather than I think we’re ideological-based, policy decisions that were sort of the hallmark of the Biden administration,’ said Gregg Roman, executive director of the Middle East Forum. 

Here is a round-up of how Trump has changed U.S. foreign policy since taking office: 

Negotiating a deal to avert a nuclear Iran 

Former President Joe Biden toyed with reviving a nuclear deal with Iran and criticized Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but his administration made little progress toward serious negotiations. 

Trump has now expressed interest in a new nuclear deal. He told Israel the U.S. would not come to their aid in attacking Iran until diplomatic negotiations played out. 

As Trump’s team met with Iranian counterparts in Oman this weekend for a second round of nuclear talks, he issued another threat: if negotiations whither away, the U.S. would not be dragged by Israel into war with Iran but will be ‘leading the pack.’ 

Taking Yemen’s Houthis head-on

An offensive campaign against Yemen’s Houthi terrorists launched six weeks ago has struck more than 800 targets and cost nearly $1 billion – a sharp departure from the tit-for-tat retaliatory strikes seen under the Biden administration, when Houthis attacked U.S. naval ships and Western commercial vessels.

‘Biden pursued a policy of retaliatory strikes: If you hit us, we’ll hit you,’ said Roman. ‘What Trump is trying to do is what I call a salting the earth strategy. If you dare challenge American military supremacy or the ability for us to conduct free trade to the bottom of or through the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Yemen, Red Sea, Suez … We will attempt to end your ability to wage war on the United States in its interests.’

From funding Ukraine ‘as long as it takes’ to demanding a negotiated settlement 

While Biden had promised the U.S. would stand by Ukraine ‘as long as it takes’ in the war against Russia, Trump expressed a desire to see the war come to an end, promising that he could end the war on ‘day one’ of his presidency.

One hundred days in, the war is not over. Negotiations are ongoing, and Trump has jumped between sounding off in frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

As Putin continues to strike even civilian regions of Ukraine, Trump questioned on Saturday whether the Russian leader truly wants peace or is ‘tapping me along.’ 

He again questioned whether he would need to slap ‘secondary sanctions’ on nations that do business with Russia to starve its war coffers. 

On Monday, Russia offered a three-day ceasefire from May 8-10, but the White House was not satisfied. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump wants a ‘permanent ceasefire.’ 

Trump met face-to-face with Zelenskyy in Rome on Saturday, the first time since their infamous Oval Office spat in February, after slamming Zelenskyy’s latest rejection of his peace proposal, one that would have formally ceded Crimea to the Russians.

Strategic takeover: New pushes for Greenland, Panama

The Monroe Doctrine is back, analysts say, and Trump wants both Greenland and the Panama Canal under U.S. control.

The proposals drew shock across the world, but at least in Panama, Trump’s bold words prompted a proposal to offer the U.S. ‘first and free’ passage for its warships, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier this month. It also spurred the proposed sale of two ports of entry from Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison to U.S.-based BlackRock, though that deal has been delayed by Chinese regulatory and political scrutiny. 

Efforts to attain Greenland have proved less successful. Tough talk against Denmark and its ownership of Greenland has ratcheted up tensions with the NATO ally and Greenland’s leadership has expressed little interest in becoming a part of the U.S. 

However, Trump has called out the threat of Russia and China’s increasing arctic military capabilities – the shortest range for a missile to travel from Russia to the U.S. would be over the icy island’s territory. Trump is also interested in the rare earth mining potential of the massive swath of land. 

Allies step up for their own defense 

Trump’s threats to pull out of the NATO alliance – or refuse to come to the defense of allies that do not contribute enough military spending – has left nations across the world planning for the contingency that they may have to defend themselves without U.S. aid. 

The European Union announced a plan for its nations to spend $840 billion to ‘re-arm Europe’ after Trump halted all aid to Ukraine in March. 

Countries like Spain, Belgium and Sweden have all announced plans this year to increase defense spending to meet NATO’s 2% target, while eastern European states near Russia’s border, including Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland, have announced plans to increase defense spending to around 5%. 

Punishing China for unfair trade practices

Concern over China’s hegemonic ambitions bridges the partisan divide, but the Biden White House never considered such drastic measures as 145% tariffs. 

Trump has said the goal of the tariffs is to both bring back US manufacturing after decades of offshore production and punish China for intellectual property theft, a massive trade imbalance, and fentanyl flowing from China to the U.S. A free trade push in the early 2000s had wrongly assumed liberal trade policies would bring democratic values and free markets into Chinese borders, his supporters argue. 

Trump has insisted that President Xi Jinping wants to cut a deal to lower the soaring tariffs, even as China has rejected the prospect of talks. 

It is unclear what sort of realistic concessions the U.S. could get out of a deal, perhaps promises to buy more American-made agricultural products, fuel or other specialty goods. 

For now, steep tariffs remain, and China is choking off U.S. supply of critical minerals, which could spell deep trouble for everyday electronics, electric vehicles and defense equipment.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers.

The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of ‘lying’ in their assertions before the high court.

Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state.

The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school’s stance.

Counsel ‘should be more careful with their words,’ Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning.

‘OK well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect,’ Blatt responded.

Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. ‘Ms. Blatt,’ Gorsuch told her, ‘I confess I’m still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied.’

‘OK,’ she fired back. ‘Let’s pull it up. In oral arguments…’

Gorsuch cut in, telling her, ‘I think we’re going to have to, here. And I’d ask you to reconsider that phrase.’

‘You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying–’ Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject.

‘Ms. Blatt, if I might finish,’ Gorsuch said, before continuing: ‘But lying is another matter.’

He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again.

‘I’m not finished,’ Gorsuch told her, raising his voice.

‘Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt,’ he then told her of the lying accusation.

‘Fine, I withdraw,’ she shot back.

Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling.

The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, ‘I’ve never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry.’

A leaked budget proposal sent on April 10 from the White House Office of Management and Budget to the U.S. State Department highlighted the Trump administration’s posture toward Afghan allies, particularly those awaiting transportation to the U.S. through the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts (CARE) as part of Enduring Welcome.

The OMB budget proposes ceasing additional funds to CARE and using the program’s $600 million balance ‘for the orderly shutdown of the CARE program by end of [fiscal year] 2025.’

The National Security Council and State Department did not answer Fox News Digital’s questions about whether these funds would be used to transport additional Afghans in the Special Immigrant Visa and the suspended U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) pipelines to the U.S., or simply to disassemble processing platforms in the Philippines, Qatar and Albania. 

But a State Department spokesperson did tell Fox News Digital, ‘The Department is actively considering the future of our Afghan relocation program and the Office of the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts (CARE).  At this time, no final decisions have been made. CARE continues to provide support to Afghan allies and partners previously relocated to our overseas case processing platforms.’

Veteran experts told Fox News Digital that the shutdown of CARE would be a problem for America’s reputation and for the allies who believed in U.S. promises of safety.

U.S. Navy veteran Shawn VanDiver, founder and president of the #AfghanEvac, told Fox News Digital that Operation Enduring Welcome is ‘the safest, most secure legal immigration pathway our country has ever seen’ and allows well-vetted Afghans ‘to show up in our communities and start businesses and become job creators… in a time when we have a labor shortage.’

VanDiver noted areas where Trump could improve on the Biden administration operation, which was carried out ‘so slowly that people have been left behind in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in 90 countries around the world… for three and a half years.’ Particularly in Pakistan, the Biden administration promised the Pakistani government ‘that it would process Afghans quickly,’ VanDiver said. ‘We haven’t been keeping up our end of the deal; 10,000 people are stuck in Pakistan right now because President Biden couldn’t house them fast enough.’

VanDiver emphasized that ‘President Trump has an opportunity to be a hero to veterans and our wartime allies, and demonstrate that when the United States makes a deal, it keeps its promise.’

In an open letter sent on April 23 to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and national security advisor Michael Waltz, #AfghanEvac states that ‘over 250,000 Afghans remain in the relocation pipelines.’

Andrew Sullivan, executive director of the nonprofit No One Left Behind, told Fox News Digital that his organization supported congressional authorization in 2024 for the three-year appointment of a Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts, which had ‘wide bipartisan’ and ‘wide bicameral support.’ 

‘Our belief is that Congress spoke for a reason and CARE should exist,’ Sullivan said. ‘We have a moral obligation and a national security imperative to ensure that we’re continuing the facilitation of movement and safe refuge for our wartime allies.’ 

Ending Operation Enduring Welcome and the CARE program ‘just spits in the face of veterans like myself, who’ve been working to try and keep our promise to the Afghans who fought with us for 20 years,’ Sullivan said. 

In addition to two Iraq deployments, Sullivan deployed to Zabul, Afghanistan, as a U.S. Army infantry company commander in 2013. In February, he ‘deployed forward’ with No One Left Behind to processing platforms in Tirana, Albania, and Doha, Qatar, after a Jan. 20 executive order reassessing foreign funding, thus ending government-funded flights for SIV applicants. 

Thanks to ‘robust American support that comes from across the political spectrum,’ No One Left Behind received sufficient donations to fund travel for more than 1,000 Afghans.

‘In Albania, I met someone that had been paralyzed by the Taliban after being shot twice,’ Sullivan said. ‘I met someone that had been tortured and shackled, hands and ankles together, for over a week before his release was secured by village elders.’ Both individuals were moved from Afghanistan in December 2024, which Sullivan says proves Afghans are still ‘facing brutality, absolutely facing death, if they remain in the clutches of the Taliban.’

Sullivan says that ‘those same things could happen’ to tens of thousands of Afghans left behind by the Biden administration. This includes ‘10,000 principal [SIV] applicants and their families,’ who, according to State Department quarterly reports, have already received Chief of Mission approval, the SIV program’s first hurdle.

With no word about the fate of allies, many worry about Taliban retribution. So do numerous Afghans in the U.S. who learned in April that their parole has been revoked or their temporary protected status (TPS) was terminated by Secretary Noem. Questions sent to the Homeland Security were not immediately returned.

Bill Roggio, editor of the Long War Journal and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital that sending allies to Afghanistan ‘would be a death sentence for many.’ 

‘The Taliban have demonstrated that they have – and continue to – ruthlessly hunted down Afghans who worked with the U.S. and former Afghan government,’ Roggio said. ‘Thousands have been murdered or tortured. The Taliban cannot be trusted in any way, shape or form. Their past actions, such as openly flaunting the failed Doha agreement and allowing al Qaeda safe have, or refusing to negotiate with the now defunct Afghan government, demonstrate this.’

Gov. J.B. Pritzker, D-Ill., reignited speculation about his 2028 presidential ambitions this weekend, but his call for ‘mass protests’ dominated headlines as Republicans accused him of ‘inciting violence.’

Speaking at the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s annual fundraising gala this weekend, Pritzker became the first potential Democratic candidate to visit New Hampshire, or any early primary state, since Democrats’ big November losses. 

‘Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now. These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soapbox and then punish them at the ballot box,’ Prtizker said, triggering outrage among President Donald Trump’s supporters. 

‘His comments, if nothing else, could be construed as inciting violence,’ Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor, told reporters outside the White House on Monday. 

Pritzker told the first-in-the-nation primary crowd this weekend, ‘It’s time to fight everywhere and all at once,’ in a comment that seemed to refer to political action, like protesting, voting and challenging the Trump administration in the courts. Pritzker later clarified to reporters he was referring to political action, but Trump’s base wasn’t so convinced. 

‘Are you trying to inspire a 3rd assassination attempt on my dad? Two wasn’t enough for you?’ Donald Trump Jr. asked on X. 

Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa., said Pritzker’s comments are the latest demonstration that Democrats are ‘out of touch’ with American voters. 

‘One of the biggest successes of President Trump’s first 100 days has been securing our southern border and keeping Americans safe. Democrats drumming up ‘mass protests’ opposing this obvious success story shows just how out of touch they are with everyday Americans,’ McCormick said on X. 

‘…and Pritzker cannot know a moment of a presidency. He is only the last Democrat to fuel the rage in calling ‘for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption,” Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley said, arguing that Democrats have consistently called for ‘mass protests’ since Trump returned to the Oval Office in January. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., made headlines earlier this year when he called for Democrats to ‘fight’ Trump’s agenda ‘in the streets.’

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., joked on X that Illinois Republicans are welcome in Missouri: ‘We welcome the Republican refugees from the Land of Lincoln suffering under the tyranny of the Pritzker regime to the free state of Missouri!’

And the Illinois Republican Party chimed in as well, slamming Pritzker’s presidential ambitions and what the party chair described as a politically divisive speech. 

‘JB Pritzker’s ego-driven obsession with becoming president is putting Illinois, and Republicans across the country, at risk. His inflammatory and dangerous speech is focused on further dividing our country and I hope to see Illinois Democrats condemn his call for violence,’ Illinois Republican Party Chair Kathy Salvi said in a statement. 

Salvi said it’s ‘clear that Pritzker’s only priority is what’s best for him and his presidential bid,’ and his trip to New Hampshire is ‘further proof that he’s already left Illinois behind.’

Trips to New Hampshire, which, for over a century, has held the first primary in the race for the White House, are seen as an early indicator of a politician’s interest in running for president in the next election.

The billionaire Democrat has emerged during the president’s first 100 days as one of the most vocal critics of Trump’s executive actions, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts, and the administration’s policies, including immigration reform and federal funding. 

Pritzker’s comments are the latest in a long-standing feud between the two politicians. Trump often evoked Pritzker’s name on the campaign trail as an example of the downfall of Democratic-run states. 

‘Sloppy J.B. Pritzker… has presided over the destruction and disintegration of Illinois at levels never seen before in any State,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social last year. ‘Crime is rampant and people are, sadly, fleeing Illinois. Unless a change is made at the Governor’s level, Illinois can never be Great Again!’

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

Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.