The end of the shutdown delivered something rare in Washington: a second chance to get healthcare right. As part of the agreement to reopen the government, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., committed to holding a vote in December on extending the enhanced premium tax credits in the individual market. That creates an opportunity to avoid steep premium hikes and to begin building a system that works better for patients. 

For Democrats who voted to end the shutdown, the incentives are straightforward. They want to show that their compromise leads to real relief for families facing higher premiums. They will look for a deal that solves the problem in front of them, but they will back away if Republicans turn the bill into another fight over repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The task now is to fix what is broken, not revisit old conflicts. 

This moment also gives Republicans a chance to show they can govern. Healthcare costs are a major driver of the affordability crisis facing families. They reduce take-home pay, increase the price of goods and services, and push both households and governments deeper into debt. Employers, who carry most of the cost of coverage for people under 65, feel the pressure directly, and workers feel it in their wages. 

President Donald Trump has already outlined an important principle: instead of routing federal subsidies through insurance companies, direct that support to individuals so they can choose the care and coverage that work best for them. Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott has made a similar argument, calling on Republicans to fix Obamacare. Combined with growing bipartisan support for price transparency, these ideas point toward a practical strategy that empowers patients and employers and encourages a more competitive market.

Today’s system moves in the other direction. Prices are hidden, administrative layers keep expanding and incentives are misaligned in ways that guarantee prices will rise year after year. These problems are especially severe in the individual market, which has fewer participants, a less healthy risk pool and limited plan competition. Making this market functional again requires more enrollment, more choices and more transparency. 

The December vote is the right moment to begin that shift. A package that addresses the immediate subsidy issue and lays the groundwork for long-term reform is both achievable and necessary. There are practical solutions already developed by center-right institutions such as the America First Policy Institute, the Paragon Institute, leaders in Congress and Trump’s policy proposals. 

The first step is a responsible phase-out of the enhanced premium tax credits through 2026. This avoids an abrupt cutoff and gives the rest of the reforms time to take effect.

Second, Congress should adopt a proposal from the Paragon Institute to restore and reform the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments in Obamacare, giving qualifying enrollees the option to receive their CSR subsidies directly into a health savings account (HSA). This one change addresses several problems at once. 

It lowers premiums and reduces federal costs. When CSR payments were halted in 2017, insurers responded by sharply raising premiums on silver plans, a practice known as ‘silver loading.’ Because premium tax credits are tied to the price of silver plans, this increased federal spending. A 2018 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that restoring CSR funding would reduce the federal deficit by about $30 billion over a decade. Providing the funding is less expensive than continuing the current workaround. 

It also creates the budget space needed to phase out the enhanced premium tax credits in a responsible way. The savings could be used to fund the phase-out or to provide more generous HSA contributions from the CSRs to strengthen support for lower-income Americans. 

Most importantly, it empowers patients. According to Paragon, the typical annual HSA contribution for someone receiving CSR assistance would be about $2,000. That is meaningful support that families can control directly. If they remain healthy, unused dollars stay in the account and continue to grow. If they get sick, they can use the funds for out-of-pocket costs. Because the money belongs to them, they have a clear incentive to compare prices and choose high-value care, which encourages greater competition among providers.

Next, Congress should strengthen the individual market’s risk pool by expanding affordable choices. That means allowing any health plan approved by the state insurance commissioner to be included in the exchanges, expanding access to copper plans, adjusting age-rating rules so younger people pay less, and modernizing individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs) so more small businesses can offer coverage. Practical changes, such as letting employees choose between an ICHRA and a traditional group plan, allowing workers to contribute pretax dollars to close premium gaps and removing unnecessary COBRA requirements, would make ICHRAs more attractive.  

The first step is a responsible phase-out of the enhanced premium tax credits through 2026. This avoids an abrupt cutoff and gives the rest of the reforms time to take effect.

Finally, these reforms should be paired with the bipartisan Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, sponsored by Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall and Colorado Democrat Sen. John Hickenlooper. The bill would strengthen enforcement of price transparency rules so small businesses, self-funded employers and new purchasing groups can contract directly with providers and transparent pharmacies. This would reduce costs, remove middle men, and increase competition.

This is a moment for practical governing. The shutdown deal did not only reopen the government. It opened a door. If Republicans take this opportunity, they can solve a real problem for millions of Americans and begin a long-overdue transition to a health system that puts patients, not bureaucracies, in charge. 

December’s vote could be the start of that transition. It should be. 

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

A local Namibian politician named Adolf Hitler Uunona is widely expected to retain his council seat in the country’s latest round of regional elections, drawing international attention for a name he says carries no ideological meaning.

A longtime member of Namibia’s ruling SWAPO party, he is running again in the Ompundja constituency in the northern Oshana region. 

While final tallies have not yet been released, several international outlets report he is projected to win by a wide margin, consistent with previous elections. SWAPO, which has governed Namibia since independence in 1990, has shifted from its socialist liberation roots toward a more centrist, market-oriented governing approach.

His German dictator-linked name — ‘Adolf Hitler’ — was given to him by his father, he told the German outlet Bild, who he claimed did not understand the historical weight the name carried.

‘It was a perfectly normal name for me when I was a kid,’ Uunona told Bild. ‘It wasn’t until I grew older that I realized this man wanted to subjugate the whole world and killed millions of Jews.’

He said his childhood name reflected no political intent and stressed that he has never held extremist beliefs. 

‘The fact I have this name does not mean I want to conquer Oshana,’ he said, adding in earlier interviews he generally goes by Adolf Uunona in daily life.

Namibia was a German colony from 1884 to 1915, and Germanic names and place names remain common in some communities. Historians note that this legacy sometimes results in unusual or jarring combinations by modern standards, though they carry no inherent ideological meaning.

According to official information from the Oshana regional government, the Ompundja constituency has 4,659 inhabitants, 19 administrative centers and covers 466 square kilometers.

A federal court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump and his former lawyer, Alina Habba, are still on the hook for a $1 million penalty for filing a ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, former FBI director James Comey and others.

The ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals relates to a now-dismissed lawsuit filed by Trump relating to Russian collusion claims. Trump was first ordered to pay the $1 million in the case in 2023, but he and Habba appealed the ruling.

In addition to Clinton and Comey, their lawsuit also named Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and many more.

Trump and Habba, who now serves as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, will be forced to pay approximately $938,000 — split between the dozens of individuals named in the lawsuit.

In the original lawsuit, Trump accused the high-profile figures of conspiring to tank his successful 2016 presidential campaign.

‘Here we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose,’ wrote Judge Donald Middlebrooks in his 2023 ruling, which was upheld Wednesday.

‘Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer,’ he added.

Two defendants in the case also claimed that Trump’s appeal itself was frivolous and sought additional sanctions for it, but the court disagreed.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment, but they did not immediately respond.

Wednesday’s ruling comes just days after a separate federal court dismissed false statements charges leveled against Comey. Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the charges were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney. That U.S. attorney is Lindsay Halligan, who Trump appointed to the position just weeks prior.

Currie, a Clinton appointee based in South Carolina, was brought in from out of state to preside over proceedings about the question of Halligan’s authority because it presented a conflict for the Virginia judges. Comey’s and James’ challenges to Halligan’s appointment were consolidated because of their similarity.

Read the full document below (App users click here)

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued an order dismissing the 2020 election interference case against President Donald Trump and his co-defendants after the state of Georgia had moved to drop the matter.

‘The State having moved for an entry of nolle prosequi for all remaining defendants, the Court grants the motion,’ the order declares. ‘This case is hereby dismissed in its entirety.’

Trump’s lead Georgia defense counsel Steve Sadow described the case as ‘lawfare.’

‘The political persecution of President Trump by disqualified DA Fani Willis is finally over. This case should never have been brought. A fair and impartial prosecutor has put an end to this lawfare,’ Sadow said in the statement.

Peter J. Skandalakis, who took over prosecution after Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from handling it, filed a motion to dismiss the case earlier Wednesday in order to ‘serve the interests of justice and promote judicial finality.’

‘This entire case, from the initiation of the District Attorney’s investigation in 2021 to the present, is without precedent,’ noted Skandalakis. ‘In my professional judgment, the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to ten years.’

The Georgia case yielded the iconic 2023 mugshot of then-candidate Trump.

‘Never before, and hopefully never again, will our country face circumstances such as these. The case is now nearly five years removed from President Trump’s phone call with the Secretary of State, and two years have passed since the Grand Jury returned charges against President Trump and the eighteen other defendants,’ Skandalakis noted. ‘There is no realistic prospect that a sitting President will be compelled to appear in Georgia to stand trial on the allegations in this indictment. Donald J. Trump’s current term as President of the United States of America does not expire until January 20, 2029; by that point, eight years will have elapsed since the phone call at issue.’

The prosecutor explained why the other defendants in the criminal case would not be tried separately. 

‘Severing President Trump from the remaining defendants and conducting separate trials, while simultaneously waiting for the conclusion of his term and addressing all of the aforementioned legal issues, would be both illogical and unduly burdensome and costly for the State and for Fulton County,’ Skandalakis wrote. ‘The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia lacks the resources to conduct multiple trials in this matter.’

Fox News’ Samantha Daigle and David Lewkowict contributed to this report

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would not invite South Africa to the 2026 G-20 summit in Florida, citing alleged ‘horrific human rights abuses.’

‘To put it more bluntly, they are killing white people and randomly allowing their farms to be taken from them,’ Trump alleged in a Truth Social post. ‘At my direction, South Africa will NOT be receiving an invitation to the 2026 G-20, which will be hosted in the Great City of Miami, Florida next year,’ he added.

The Embassy of South Africa did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Clayson Monyela, head of diplomacy for the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, dismissed the notion that South Africa could be shut out.

‘South Africa is a founding member of the G-20. We don’t get invited to G-20 meetings and leaders summit. Those are gatherings of members. If other members allow this then the G-20 will die,’ Monyela told Fox News Digital.

‘Other countries have already told us that they too will boycott the U.S. G-20 if South Africa is excluded,’ Monyela added.

If carried out, the move would break with more than two decades of precedent and mark the first time a member has been formally excluded from the gathering of the world’s major economies.

The G-20, which brings together major advanced and emerging economies and accounts for roughly 80% of global GDP and two-thirds of the world’s population, has historically operated on the principle of inclusion.

That tradition already was strained after the U.S. boycott of the 2025 meeting held in Johannesburg earlier in November.

The Trump administration argued that the country’s government had failed to address violence and discrimination it claimed was occurring in rural farming communities. Additionally, the U.S. objected to the meeting’s focus on climate and development issues rather than core economic priorities.

The boycott marked a notable break from past U.S. engagement, leaving the world’s largest economy missing from a key forum for global economic policymaking.

Trump also said in the same Truth Social post that he would halt U.S. payments to South Africa.

‘South Africa has demonstrated to the world they are not a country worthy of membership anywhere and we are going to stop all payments and subsidies to them, effective immediately,’ Trump wrote.

The White House and State Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for further details.

It remains unclear how the move will affect the country’s standing within the G-20 or broader U.S.–South Africa relations ahead of the 2026 summit in Florida.

Relations between Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa have steadily deteriorated in recent months.

In February, Trump suspended U.S. aid to South Africa, alleging discrimination against White farmers. Tensions escalated again in March when the State Department expelled the South African ambassador, labeling him ‘persona non grata.’

In May, the two leaders clashed in the Oval Office when Trump pressed Ramaphosa over allegations that White Afrikaners were being targeted and killed in South Africa. 

Ramaphosa pushed back, telling Trump he had seen no evidence to support those claims.

Paul Tilsley contributed to this report from Johannesburg, South Africa.