• Americans face potential tax bill changes as Trump's 2017 tax package is set to expire this year.
• The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered rates and shifted brackets for filers.
• Republicans plan to prioritize tax policy, aiming to extend cuts and reduce other taxes.

Americans could see their tax bill change next year as a legislative battle looms.

Many provisions from President-elect Donald Trump's major tax package from his first term, 2017's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, are set to expire this year. The legislation lowered tax rates for many Americans and shifted tax brackets. For many everyday Americans, TCJA's expiration would mean the possibility of a larger tax bill — the Tax Foundation estimates that 62% of filers would see a tax increase should TCJA expire.

With the GOP controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, however, it's likely that the bulk of the law will be extended.

"President Trump is committed to lowering the tax burden on the American people who elected him in November with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Wealthy Again," Karoline Leavitt, a Trump-Vance transition spokeswoman, said in a statement to Business Insider. "The Trump Administration will be dedicated to ensuring that American workers keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets while growing the strongest and most resilient economy the world has ever seen."

To determine the potential tax impacts for Americans, we used the Tax Foundation's projections of what tax rates and brackets would be for single filers in 2026 under a TCJA extension and under a TCJA expiration scenario.

TCJA also impacts the deductions that filers can claim on their taxes, but, since those are often determined on an individual basis based on varying circumstances — such as having a child or business — they are not included in these calculations, which cover taxable income after any such deductions and adjustments.

Higher earners would end up with the biggest tax increases if TCJA expires. For instance, an American with $1 million of taxable income would see their tax burden grow by over $12,000 should TCJA provisions expire.

But the tax bills of Americans in the middle income band would see the highest percent increase should TCJA expire. For instance, a filer with $50,000 of taxable income would see their tax burden increase by nearly 20%; comparatively, a filer making $700,000 would see their tax burden grow by just around 2%.

Of course, this doesn't tell the whole tax story. Measures like the Child Tax Credit were expanded under TCJA, meaning that, should the bill expire, parents would owe more or get a smaller refund.

The TCJA also capped how much filers could deduct for paying hefty local taxes. For Americans in high-tax areas, which includes states like New York and New Jersey, the State and Local Tax deduction cap expiring could mean a bigger break on their taxes.

"The change in the tax brackets is only a small part of the story of the TCJA," Ernie Tedeschi, Yale Budget Lab's director of economics, told BI. "Most of the story is actually in the law's changes to deductions, exemptions, and credits."

Republicans are already lining up to tackle tax policy as one of their major priorities once they hold their House, Senate, and White House trifecta. The GOP may go even further than merely extending the TCJA's cuts through proposals from Trump to nix taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security.

But slim Republican congressional majorities will likely mean that any tax changes could be contentious, although Republicans are gearing up for the fight. Rep. Jason Smith, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in his weekly report that he's been working closely with Trump on a bill.

"Passing one big, beautiful bill is the best way to ensure as much as possible of President Trump's agenda is enacted," Smith said. "In one fell swoop, we can secure the border, unleash American energy, and deliver tax relief to workers, families, farmers, and small businesses. These are the policies the American people are demanding. Now it's up to Congress to deliver."

Are you concerned about your tax bill changing, or did it change in the wake of 2017? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

• Some companies are calling employees back to the office and hiring for in-person roles.
• But many Americans continue to work at least part of the week from home.
• Some workers could retain their flexible work arrangements but struggle to find a new remote role.

Americans who want to keep their work-from-home arrangements may need to cling to their current jobs.

Corporate giants like Amazon, AT&T, and JPMorgan have notified employees they must return to the office five days a week this year. This comes as the share of remote and hybrid postings on job platforms has ticked down in recent years — which has made landing one of these roles more difficult.

As of November, the share of remote and hybrid job postings on Indeed had declined to 7.8% from over 10% in 2022. On LinkedIn, the share of remote or hybrid postings had declined to roughly 21% as of December, down from 26% two years prior.

But remote and hybrid work hasn't faded away. In December, roughly 23% of US workers worked from home at least part of the time, up from about 19% two years prior, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Meanwhile, about 10% worked completely from home.

"We keep hearing stories that 'work-from-home is over,' and while yes it is true for some firms, others must be doing the reverse," Nicholas Bloom, a Stanford University economist and cofounder of the remote work research website WFH Research, told Business Insider. Bloom's research shows that the share of paid full days worked from home in the US has been fairly steady over the past two years — fluctuating between roughly 25% and 30%.

Bloom and other economists told BI that the divide between remote/hybrid job postings and work-from-home rates suggests that some employers could be prioritizing in-person hires while letting some of their existing employees continue working more flexibly. They said this strategy could allow companies to boost their in-office attendance without drawing the ire of employees who've grown used to a remote or hybrid arrangement.

"We know that companies frequently make exceptions to return-to-office mandates for employees to avoid losing them, so policy changes might affect new hires more than incumbent employees," Julia Pollak, chief economist at ZipRecruiter, told BI.

This approach would allow workers to retain their flexible work arrangements — but make it more difficult for them to snag a remote or hybrid role at another company, Kory Kantenga, head of economics, Americas, at LinkedIn's Economic Graph Research Institute told BI.

"If you already have a job and you are grandfathered into this flexible work, you're maintaining it in a lot of cases," Kantenga said. "Companies are using those new positions to roll that flexible work back a little bit, but they're not necessarily rolling it back for the workers who already have it."

Why remote work could stick around

Even if more businesses prioritize in-person hiring, it could take a while for work-from-home rates to fall significantly, said Lisa Simon, chief economist at Revelio Labs. That's because hiring, layoffs, and quits have slowed, which means that "very few people have actually changed jobs in the last two years" and businesses haven't added many new workers who would be subject to recent RTO mandates, Simon told BI.

However, the modest share of available remote/hybrid jobs could be somewhat misleading. Simon said that a slowdown in hiring for white-collar roles — where flexible working arrangements are more common — could be pushing down remote/hybrid job postings.

Additionally, Bloom said some companies might not want to commit to a flexible working arrangement in the job posting, but could ultimately allow the employee to work from home at least some of the time.

"They don't want to repeat the 2021 mistake of promising generous work-from-home only to have to painfully reverse this later," he said. Bloom added that for some roles — like university professors — working from home on days when they don't have classes is a norm of the job. However, a job posting might not classify this position as remote or hybrid.

Pollak said remote/hybrid roles are generally underrepresented in job postings because they tend to have lower turnover than the typical in-person job.

"A hotel may replace its entire staff of janitors three times a year, but only replace its remote customer support staff every two years," she said.

Has your employer asked you to work from the office more days a week? Reach out to this reporter at [email protected].

• Justin Baldoni sued the New York Times for its story about Blake Lively's complaint against him.
• He alleges that the paper took his publicists' quotes out of context and omitted an emoji.
• Experts say emojis can change the meaning of a statement, and that Baldoni might have a point.

As the legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni ramps up, one of the most contested points may involve an emoji.

In his lawsuit against the New York Times, Baldoni said the paper failed to include an upside-down smile emoji — which is used to convey sarcasm or silliness — in a quote, effectively changing the meaning.

The Times quoted Jennifer Abel, one of his publicists, as saying "Wow. You really outdid yourself with this piece" to Melissa Nathan, a crisis management expert. Read at face value, it would appear that Abel is congratulating Nathan for contributing to a Daily Mail story critical of Lively.

However, Baldoni said that the upside-down emoji at the end indicated that Abel was being sarcastic and therefore changed the meaning of the text.

He raises an interesting question about modern communication, Dr. Monica Riordan, a computer-mediated communication professor at Chatham University, told Business Insider.

"I would argue that the inclusion of that emoji is actually very important," Riordan said. "You can't just remove an emoji from a message and indicate that the message contains the same meaning."

Others disagree, arguing that the emoji omission won't be enough to help Baldoni's case.

Emojis make up for a lack of body language

Emojis originated in Japan in the late '90s as a set of pixelated images created for an early mobile internet platform. By 2011, Apple introduced an emoji keyboard on iPhones and has regularly replenished it with new ones.

As communication has become more reliant on digital media, from texting close friends to messaging online dates, emojis have become crucial for filling in the blanks for what we don't see.

"Emojis have similar functions to body language and spoken interaction in the digital space," Vyvyan Evans, a linguist and author of "The Emoji Code," told BI. As with IRL body language, he said emojis are often used to establish tone.

Evans compared the upside-down smiley emoji to rolling one's eyes or shrugging in real life. Because tone of voice and facial expressions can drastically change the meaning of a phrase, emojis can, too.

"If an emoji is removed, it's not just that it impacts the tone, it's changing the meaning in a substantive way," he said.

Emojis are more complicated than tone of voice

Unlike smiling or frowning, which have more universally agreed-upon meanings, emojis are more up to interpretation, Riordan said. How people use emojis can differ by generation, for example.

It gets even thornier when analyzing a relationship between two people who may have their own shared language. It's common to develop some norms around emoji use that maybe people outside that relationship might not actually understand or may misinterpret," she said.

Not everyone uses the upside-down emoji the same way — some mean it to be ironic, others to denote frustration or painful acceptance.

It makes analyzing emojis in texts all the more challenging. Riordan said there are "perils" to wading through so many layers of communication to analyze a person's intent. It gets even hazier when the emoji is cut from a quote.

It likely won't be enough to help Baldoni's case

Sean Andrade, a Los Angeles lawyer who's represented plaintiffs in libel cases, previously told BI that the Times removing context such as emojis would be "a little unethical." Still, he believes it won't be enough to disprove that Baldoni's team engaged in a smear campaign against Lively.

Riordan said Baldoni can make an argument for the emoji changing the meaning of the message, but would likely "have a difficult time proving intent." Not everyone views emojis as necessary to quote.

However the case pans out, Evans said it brings up an important point for journalists: it can be "very dangerous" from an ethical and legal standpoint to omit emojis that could dramatically change the interpretation of a quote.

"The communicative intent is what is important," he said. "Without the other relevant elements, you're changing that and misreporting," whether a journalist means to or not.

• Startup CTO Arun Prasad Jaganathan has been in the US for almost 14 years, mainly on an H-1B Visa.
• He said the application process isn't easy and companies don't sponsor applicants to fill spaces.
• The system has flaws, but there are misconceptions about H-1B employees contributing to the economy.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with
Arun Prasad Jaganathan, CTO of workforce platform Jugl. He is from Coimbatore, India, and now lives in Prosper, Texas. His identity, work experience, and visa status have been verified by Business Insider. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

I have been in the US for almost 14 years. I built most of my career here. I have my family here. I have my home here. So it would be tough for me to shift back to India and build something from there.

I wanted to come to the US to experience the technology innovation firsthand. The US adapts technology faster than anywhere in the world.

I completed my computer science and engineering degree in India and got an offshore position at global tech services company Cognizant. Eventually, they wanted me to come to New York because they felt like my presence in the US would help them build a better product and train them to scale their processes. So I came in on an L-1B visa, which is for an intra-company transfer to help on a project. Then, I applied for the H-1B Visa.

H-1B is mainly for high-skilled workers. It helped me gain more product and business knowledge because it gave me first-hand experience working with US businesses.

I'm in the process of acquiring permanent residency now, but the H1-B visa has helped me grow from my role at Cognizant to lead and architect at nThrive to managing advanced technology projects at KPMG. Now, I am leading technology and product for the startup Jugl.

It's not easy to get

To get the H-1B Visa, I needed to show a lot of documentation, including my degree, résumé, and job offer. I also needed a very good support letter from the client my company served, arguing the need for me to be placed in that location. The first time, I also had to go for an interview with a US Citizenship and Immigration Services officer once the documents were submitted.

Every three years, you have to go through the same process. If there was no premium processing, which costs more, it took around three to six months to get my renewal. With premium processing, it takes about two weeks.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services scrutinizes every application. Companies don't hire H1-B talent just to fill spaces. They are very cautious about whom they sponsor for H-1B and they make sure that it's the top talent.

There are also regular audits from USCIS. They come and visit the companies and interview them. They audit employees. They ask questions to make sure they are placed in the same roles that they were submitted in the application.

The system has flaws — but there are misconceptions

The H-1B Visa system isn't perfect. However, I would not agree with the misconception I've heard that the H-1B visa is causing job losses. Any process will have loopholes, and they're working toward fixing them, but how fast they are going to do it is a question of the administration and other government functions.

Another argument is that H-1B employees don't contribute to the economy because they don't pay taxes. H-1 B employees pay taxes and insurance, have 401Ks and IRAs, and contribute back to the economy because they buy homes and cars and invest here in the US. I have a home, wife, and kids. I trained people already in the US. I helped them gain knowledge, build teams, develop products, and grow companies.

USCIS is making adjustments. The lottery system is little bit more difficult now because it's not just about skill level, it's more about luck. Now, because there is a lottery system, people with better skills might be frustrated.

In the last couple of years, many people were applying through different companies for a higher chance of getting picked in the H-1B lottery. USCIS understood this was happening, so they updated their system.

There is still room for improvement. For example, USCIS increased wages H-1B employees have to make and also increased sponsorship fees. The downside to it is companies have less incentive to hire.

With the startup I work for now, if we cannot find the talent we are looking for in the US, we have to hire H-1B candidates. But at the early stages of startup, it is a higher cost for us to hire H-1B workers. The H-1B process involves paying the attorney and legal fees as overhead, in addition to the high salary we need to pay compared to local talent.

Now other countries are catching up, like China and India. If H-1B is becoming tougher for workers they're going to open startups where they can build those products. Or, multinational corporates are going to open centers in locations where they can find people like in India, Mexico, Canada, and many other places.

• Hotmail is a Microsoft-owned email platform that surged to popularity over two decades ago.
• Microsoft ultimately folded Hotmail into its broader software suite known as Microsoft Outlook.
• You can still create a Hotmail.com email address, but through Outlook.

A generation ago, AOL, Ask Jeeves, GeoCities, and Hotmail were all the rage. Surprisingly, of those 1990s vintage platforms, only AOL still exists in anything like its original form. Ask Jeeves is now Ask.com, and GeoCities is simply gone.

As for Hotmail, it's still around, but not in the same form as you remember it. Hotmail is now part of Microsoft Outlook, an email, calendar, contact, and scheduling software suite favored by many businesses. And while you can still get and use a Hotmail email address, don't bother trying to do so at Hotmail.com — you'll just be redirected to Outlook, which was once part of Microsoft Office, now known as Microsoft 365.

When was Hotmail launched and what were its early days like?

Hotmail was first launched in the summer of 1996, and it was bought by Microsoft the following year, as the company coasted on the success of its massively popular Windows operating system. Microsoft ultimately rebranded Hotmail as MSN Hotmail, though that name was rarely used by the public.

Despite being one of the most popular email platforms of the late 1990s and early 2000s, Hotmail was also plagued by problems.

In 1999, for example, it came out that any account could be logged into using the word "eh" as the password, prompting a hurried security fix. And then, two years later, hackers found an easy way to extract email from another user's account by creating a URL that included that account's email address.

Still, Hotmail remained popular throughout the first decade of the 21st century, though in the 2010s, Microsoft would merge Hotmail into its new program, Microsoft Outlook.

What happened to Hotmail?

In 2013, Microsoft rolled Hotmail into Outlook and sunset the original email service. But despite being officially discontinued, Hotmail did not in fact go away. You can still use your Hotmail email address and in fact you can log into Outlook with it. You can also log into Outlook with a Live or MSN email address, or of course with an Outlook email.

As of now, Outlook seems like it will not be going anywhere any time soon, so don't worry about yet another change coming. While not as venerable as, say, Microsoft Word, it is a core platform of the company.

Can you still get a Hotmail address?

Yes, you can still get a Hotmail email address, but you will have to access it through the Outlook platform. When signing up, you can choose a Hotmail.com address as your email domain.

How can I access my old Hotmail account?

To recover an old Hotmail account, go to Microsoft's account recovery page, then follow the prompts on screen, which will have you enter an old email account to be recovered as well as a current account to which to send the information.

Keep in mind that if your Hotmail account was totally inactive for more than two years it may have been permanently deleted.

• The LA wildfires could cost between $250 and $275 billion in damages while displacing thousands.
• High property values in areas like the Pacific Palisades are contributing to the massive cost.
• Governments, insurers, and residents face long-term financial burdens from the disaster.

The damage and economic cost estimates for the wildfires in Los Angeles are in the hundreds of billions, a bill that will be split among local and federal governments, insurers, and residents.

As of January 14, LA authorities reported that 24 people have died and over 12,300 structures have been destroyed. Meanwhile, more than 40,000 acres have burned, displacing residents and leveling entire neighborhoods. High winds expected this week have firefighters racing to contain the blazes.

And, as the damage increases, so does the price tag.

A new estimate by weather data platform AccuWeather puts the total cost between $250 and $275 billion and calls the damage "catastrophic." The full cost of the wildfires won't be clear until long after the smoke clears, and expensive rebuilding efforts could take years.

The wildfire cost will likely be calculated through direct and indirect damages

Since 1980, more than 400 weather and climate events in the US have exceeded $1 billion in damages when adjusted for inflation, per the National Centers for Environmental Information.

The Los Angeles wildfires could be among the most expensive on record. The total cost of a disaster is calculated from both direct and indirect losses, said Jeff Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University.

AccuWeather's estimate accounts for direct costs like rebuilding, relocation, cleanup costs, and emergency shelter expenses. It also factors in indirect costs: healthcare bills for people who were injured or exposed to wildfire smoke, lost wages and housing displacement for employees, along with hits to the local job market, business scene, and tourism industry.

Part of the reason that the LA fires are so costly is because of the area's high property values, Schlegelmilch said. The severely impacted Pacific Palisades neighborhood, for example, is home to several celebrities and has an average home value of $3.5 million.

Beyond direct damages and lost economic opportunity, there are costs that are difficult to quantify. Many LA residents are facing the costs of short or long-term displacement, along with emotional or physical trauma.

A combination of governments, insurance companies, and LA residents could pay the bill

In the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster, local and federal governments pick up some of the tab.

The Federal Emergency Response Agency (FEMA) provides a variety of aid like supplying hazard mitigation, clearing debris, and financing emergency shelters, along with offering monetary support to some displaced residents. The federal government often signs off on block grants — money that is directed from national to local governments for a specific purpose, like disaster relief — but it could take months or years for that money to become accessible to local communities.

State and LA-county leaders, the Small Business Administration, and philanthropic groups will also likely shoulder some rebuilding costs for homes and businesses.

President Joe Biden said the federal government will cover 100% of fire response costs and provide a one-time $770 stimulus check for those impacted: "I told the governor and local officials, spare no expense," he said on January 9. Congress has not yet reached an agreement on an aid package, and it's not clear what President-elect Donald Trump's plan will be for disaster relief in California.

Still, most government response programs are not built to provide long-term aid.

"FEMA is not designed to make you whole again," Schlegelmilch said. "It's not designed to completely pay for the cost of rebuilding a new house."

Private and state insurers will be responsible for covering much — but not all — of the property damage for their customers, he added.

However, not all homeowners are insured. Companies like State Farm and Farmers have recently cut or restricted coverage in areas they deem "uninsurable" due to high and rising disaster risks, leaving thousands of LA-area households uninsured or forced to enroll in FAIR, the state's insurer of last resort. This means some residents can expect significant out-of-pocket costs to repair their homes.

Schlegelmilch added that LA residents will feel wildfire impacts in other parts of the economy too.

The cost of construction will likely increase as local residents and businesses look to rebuild, he said. Schlegelmilch expects that the price of hiring contractors, plumbers, electricians, and other specialists will increase with steep demand.

Consumer prices in the LA-area for things like rent, lumber, and building materials may also spike because of price gouging, increased demand, or damaged supply, Schlegelmilch said. He said taxes likely won't change in the short-term, but the overall cost of living in the area could become more expensive with time.

Past natural disaster response shows what LA might expect

Previous devastating natural disasters give a clue into how wildfire costs could be handled in LA.

Following 2012's Hurricane Sandy in New York, Congress provided around $20 billion adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars to affected areas through a Community Development Block Grant. That represents a share of the storm's inflation-adjusted $88.5 billion cost, per the National Centers for Environmental Information. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused $201.3 billion in inflation-adjusted damages, which was partially covered by federal emergency response and recovery grants.

Schlegelmilch said that a key challenge with disaster relief in cases like Sandy and Katrina is that aid can be distributed inequitably between high and lower-income areas because wealthier areas often have stronger insurance and access to resources. He cautions that the same could happen in California.

"Those that are the most vulnerable before often see that vulnerability grow," Schlegelmilch said," adding "a lot of times we see this along racial lines, along socio-economic lines, and we see communities decades later still struggling to recover when the downtown areas are nice and new and everyone says it's back to normal."

Looking forward, Schlegelmilch said that disaster preparedness policies could help alleviate losses and keep residents safe. He said this could look like building with flame-retardant materials, widening roads that allow for emergency vehicles to easily pass through when necessary, and planting less flammable vegetation in dry areas.

"There's actually quite a bit that can be redone in the rebuilding process that can help lower the risk into the future," he said. "There are costs associated with it, and in the short-run, it may be more expensive. But, in the long run, it's a lot less expensive."

Have you experienced steep out-of-pocket or insurance costs due to a natural disaster? Are you open to sharing your experience with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].

Publicity stunt saw actors Adam Scott, Britt Lower, Zach Cherry and Patricia Arquette perform from inside a glass tank situated in the middle of the New York City station

De Niro has appeared on ‘The Graham Norton Show’ several times

‘Kids don’t understand how epic this photo is’ wrote fans

A polar vortex that has hit much of the U.S. in a blow to the manatee population

High winds and severely dry conditions have created a ‘particularly dangerous situation’

Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is bracing himself for the hot seat as he prepares to sit through the often-arduous confirmation hearing process on Wednesday with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as he vies to lead the State Department under the next Trump administration. 

Though Rubio is not expected to get off easy in front of the panel of his colleagues posed to pressure him on everything ranging from the war in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East and a trade war with China, which Trump has threatened to drastically increase, he is expected to pass through more smoothly than other candidates Trump has slated for his Cabinet.

In an excerpt of Rubio's remarks obtained by Fox News Digital ahead of his address to the Senate body, he highlights the security threats that have emerged following the end of the Cold War and the belief that democracy could succeed across the globe and international free trade was the way of the future.

"While America far too often continued to prioritize the ‘global order’ above our core national interests, other nations continued to act the way countries always have and always will, in what they perceive to be in their best interest," the remarks read. "And instead of folding into the post-Cold War global order, they have manipulated it to serve their interest at the expense of ours."

"The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us," he added. 

Senate Democrat Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois already threw his support behind his Republican peer and on Monday said, "Sen. Rubio and I share many similar views on foreign policy and, as a result, have worked closely together in the Senate to move forward with legislation regarding human rights around the world."

SENATE DEMOCRATIC WHIP DECLARES SUPPORT FOR RUBIO CONFIRMATION: 'MANY SIMILAR VIEWS ON FOREIGN POLICY'

"I believe Senator Rubio has a thorough understanding of the United States’ role on an international scale, has served with honor on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and is a good choice to lead the State Department. I plan to vote yes on his nomination when it comes before the Senate," Durbin said in a statement after a meeting in which they discussed security issues involving Russia’s threat in the Baltic Sea and the NATO alliance. 

Trump announced his nomination of Rubio for the top diplomatic job in November, which the senior member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said was not only a "tremendous honor" but a "tremendous responsibility."

"The job of the secretary of state is to execute on the foreign policy set by the elected president of the United States. And I hope to have the opportunity to do it, if my current colleagues here in the U.S. Senate confirm me so," he told reporters on the Hill. 

But Rubio's commitment to execute the wishes of the executive office could also prove to be his most difficult hurdle, not only during Senate questioning but also in taking up the job should he be approved by the upper chamber. 

Trump has repeatedly made clear he expects unwavering loyalty from Cabinet members, advisers in the White House and even military leaders, and reports this week suggest the incoming administration may be planning on clearing house in the National Security Council to ensure the president is only surrounded by those who support his agenda, according to an Associated Press report. 

While Rubio and Trump see eye-to-eye on issues like U.S. support for Israel, remaining tough on China and opposing dictatorial powers in Latin America – all of which are unlikely to garner much opposition from Democrats in the Senate – there are issues that could prove tricky for the three-term senator to navigate.

TRUMP NOMINEE PETE HEGSETH FENDS OFF DEMOCRATIC ATTACKS AT FIERY CONFIRMATION HEARING

Rubio and Trump have a history of exchanging barbs, particularly during the 2016 presidential race.

The duo have long patched up their hostilities in large part because Rubio has more closely aligned himself behind Trump, a move that has meant he is no novice when it comes to walking the political tightrope between appeasing Trump and pursing issues important to him.

This balancing act became evident on the campaign trail when Rubio was asked about controversial comments made by the Trump camp when it came to U.S. support for Ukraine and how to end the now three-year war.

"I’m not on Russia’s side, but unfortunately the reality of it is that the way the war in Ukraine is going to end is with a negotiated settlement," Rubio said in a September interview with NBC’s "Meet the Press." 

Rubio dodged questions on whether he backed comments made by Vice President-elect JD Vance when he suggested Ukraine cede land to Russia and agree to a demilitarized zone along the current front lines.

Instead, he said, "I would be comfortable with a deal that ends these hostilities and that, I think, is favorable to Ukraine, meaning that they have their own sovereignty, that they don’t become a satellite state or a puppet state."

Rubio also backed Trump after concern mounted over the now-president-elect’s position on NATO when he said he would encourage any nation, including Russia, to "do whatever the hell they want" to any NATO nation not fulfilling their defense spending commitments.

"Donald Trump is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations," Rubio told CNN’s Jake Tapper in February. "He doesn’t talk like a traditional politician, and we’ve already been through this. You would think people would’ve figured it out by now."

That said, Rubio in 2019 also helped reintroduce bipartisan legislation that would prohibit any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without Senate approval, a move that Trump threatened during his first term and which remained a top concern that was echoed by Trump's former NSC adviser, John Bolton, during the latest presidential race. 

Rubio’s unwavering outward loyalty to the incoming president could be tested if he is questioned about the president-elect’s expansionist rhetoric, like acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal through the use of the U.S. military. 

Fox News Digital could not reach Rubio’s office for comment on where he stands on U.S. intervention in Greenland, which is technically under the protection of NATO so long as it remains a territory of Denmark, as well as the Panama Canal, which the U.S. gave back to Panama in 1999 but which Trump has accused China of taking over.

FIRST ON FOX: A Democrat senator admitted Tuesday that he would support Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's confirmation again if the vote was held today despite Austin's many controversial actions and repeatedly grilling Trump's SecDef nominee Pete Hegseth over his qualifications earlier in the day.

"Would you vote for Lloyd Austin if there were a vote on him today?" Fox News Digital asked Blumenthal on Tuesday. 

"I would support General Austin as Secretary of Defense," Blumenthal responded. "I did when he was nominated. I would support Secretary Mattis that was nominated by President Trump during his first term. I would not support this nominee because [Hegseth] lacks the financial management skills, the character and confidence, as well as the moral compass."

During the hearing, Blumenthal told Hegseth, "I don't believe that you can tell this committee, or the people of America that you are qualified to lead them. I would support you as the spokesperson for the Pentagon. I don't dispute your communication skills, but I believe that we are entitled to the facts here."

TRUMP TEAM FIRES BACK AFTER DEM SENATOR DECLARES 'THE FIGHT IS JUST BEGINNING'

Austin has been widely criticized by conservatives, as well as some Democrats, for presiding over the chaotic and deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan as well as several other perceived missteps during his tenure, including a situation where he was forced to directly apologize to President Biden for not informing him that he was hospitalized. 

"Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin oversaw the catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal, let the Chinese make rapid advancements to catch up to our defense capabilities, went MIA for days leaving the Pentagon without a leader, prioritized DEI policies over defense needs, and allowed Biden’s policy of appeasement," GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X on Tuesday. "We need a DECISIVE leader who can focus the Department of Defense on its mission of protecting America. We need Pete Hegseth."

Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., an Army veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, unsuccessfully handed Austin articles of impeachment in 2023, blaming him for a "25,000-plus recruitment shortage" and saying there were "8,400 people who were unconstitutionally purged from the military … you've got pronouns and DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] being taught at our military academies when we need to be focusing on what the next threat is and how we mitigate it."

"Not only do I believe that you should have resigned ... I myself perceive this as a dereliction of duty, and I take that very seriously," Mills told Austin during the hearing before recounting what he believed were Austin's failures during the Afghanistan withdrawal. "Political optics was placed above the true military strategy, where we should have held Bagram Air Base, held the detention center … not shut down and entrap Americans by taking over HKIA (Hamid Karazai International Airport), the commercial airspace and abandoning thousands of Americans."

BIDEN'S 'POLITICAL' AFGHANISTAN STRATEGY GUTTED US CREDIBILITY, ARMY VET CONGRESSMAN SAYS AS HEARINGS BEGIN

Conservatives on social media also brought up a controversy from 2010 when Blumenthal was first running for Senate, where he suggested on multiple occasions he had served in Vietnam when he had not. Blumenthal, who received several draft deferments before serving in the Marine Corps. Reserve,  ultimately acknowledged that he had "misspoken" about his record but described those instances as few and far between.

"Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal, who lied about serving in Vietnam to get elected, berating combat vet Pete Hegseth is a bit hard to take," Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich posted on X on Tuesday.

"Reminder: Sen. Blumenthal lied for his entire adult life about fighting in a war that he did not," Fox News contributor Guy Benson posted on X. 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Sen. Blumenthal made the case that Tuesday’s hearing was about Hegseth’s record and not his. 

"The people of Connecticut have always been clear about my record of military service, which is why they overwhelmingly elected me three times to the United States Senate," Blumenthal said. "This hearing was about Pete Hegseth’s record of alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and financial mismanagement that showed him to be unqualified and unprepared to command 3.4 million Americans who protect our nation’s security."

Fox News' Michael Lee contributed reporting.

President-elect Donald Trump's selection to be attorney general in his new administration faces the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning at a confirmation hearing. 

Trump tapped former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to lead the Department of Justice (DOJ) in late November after former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., withdrew from consideration. 

The Wednesday hearing begins at 9:30 a.m., and Bondi will be questioned by both Republican and Democrat members of the committee.

'WASTE LESS, SAVE MORE': DOGE CAUCUS MEMBER ROLLS OUT EXPANSIVE BILL PACKAGE AHEAD OF TRUMP INAUGURATION

"I hope that the Democrats give the same … courteous consideration to [her] that Republicans did of [Attorney General Merrick] Garland," Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News Digital ahead of the hearing.

"[A]nd I hope people stay within their timeline, because we've got to move right along," he added.

Members of the committee include Grassley and Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Katie Britt of Alabama and Mike Crapo of Idaho. 

Also on the committee are ranking member Dick Durbin, D-Ill., as well as Democrat Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Chris Coons of Delaware, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Alex Padilla of California, Peter Welch of Vermont and Adam Schiff of California.

Durbin met with Bondi last week but emerged from their discussion with remaining concerns.
"In today’s meeting, I raised concerns with Ms. Bondi regarding her record – one in which she served as a personal attorney to President-elect Trump, was a leader in the effort to overturn the 2020 election, and has echoed the President-elect’s calls for prosecuting his political opponents. In addition, Ms. Bondi has a long track record of opposing fundamental civil rights, including reproductive rights, voting rights, and LGBTQ+ rights," he said in a statement.

SCHUMER GATHERS KEY COMMITTEE DEMS TO TALK LOOMING HEGSETH CONFIRMATION HEARING

"The role of the Attorney General is to oversee an independent Justice Department that upholds the rule of law and is free of undue political influence. Given Ms. Bondi’s responses to my questions, I remain concerned about her ability to serve as an Attorney General who will put her oath to the Constitution ahead of her fealty to Donald Trump," he added.

The ranking member is likely to question Bondi during the hearing on these same subjects. 

On Monday, Durbin outlined several concerns he has with Trump's pick.

"The obvious concern with Ms. Bondi is whether she will follow the bipartisan tradition of the post-Watergate era and oversee an independent Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law. Ms. Bondi is one of four personal lawyers to President-elect Trump who he has already selected for Department of Justice positions. She was a leader in the effort to overturn the 2020 election. She has echoed the President[-elect]’s calls for prosecuting his political opponents, and she has a troubling history of unflinching loyalty to the president-elect," he said in floor remarks.

MEET LEADER JOHN THUNE'S ALL-STAR CABINET AS REPUBLICANS TAKE OVER SENATE MAJORITY

The attorney general hopeful met with Grassley in early December, after which he said in a statement, "Pam Bondi is a well-qualified nominee with an impressive legal career, including eight years as Attorney General of the State of Florida and nearly two decades spent as a prosecutor. Bondi is prepared to refocus the Justice Department (DOJ)’s attention where it ought to be: on enforcing the law and protecting Americans’ safety."

The Judiciary chair promised the committee would "move swiftly to consider her nomination when the 119th Congress convenes in January."

SCHUMER DIRECTS DEMS TO PUT PRESSURE ON TRUMP NOMINEES AHEAD OF CONFIRMATION HEARINGS

Trump praised Bondi in his November announcement, writing in part, "For too long, the partisan Department of Justice has been weaponized against me and other Republicans - Not anymore."

"Pam will refocus the DOJ to its intended purpose of fighting Crime, and Making America Safe Again," he continued. "I have known Pam for many years — She is smart and tough, and is an AMERICA FIRST Fighter, who will do a terrific job as Attorney General!"

Since being picked by Trump, Bondi has received several influential endorsements. Recently, 60 former Democrat and Republican attorneys general urged senators to confirm her in a letter. Further, dozens of former Justice Department officials called on the Judiciary Committee last week encouraging them to confirm Trump's choice.

Louis Chilton selects some of the most egregious pieces of casting in film history