U.S. taxpayers are footing nearly $250 million a year in SNAP benefits spent on fast-food meals across just nine states, most of which are blue states, according to Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst.

Nine states, including Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia — all of which are Democrat-run states except for Virginia — are opted into a SNAP program called the Restaurant Meals Program (RMP), which has spent nearly $250 million a year on hot meals, including fast-food, Ernst’s office found. 

The modern day Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was established in 1964 under the Food Stamps Act to provide basic food needs such as meats and fruits and vegetables to financially vulnerable Americans. Hot foods or foods ready for immediate consumption were not eligible for purchase under the program as its main mission was to provide staple foods to be prepared at home. 

A 1977 loophole, however, allowed states to opt into a program called the Restaurant Meals Program, which was established to allow homeless individuals who do not have a kitchen to purchase prepared meals using SNAP benefits, according to Ernst’s office. The eligibility for the program expanded in the following years to include disabled individuals, the elderly and their spouses, according to the office. 

Nine states are opted into the program, which requires participating restaurants to sign an agreement with the state that is then authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the SNAP program writ large. Restaurants that participate in the program were historically a small group but have since expanded, most notably in California in the Biden era, Ernst’s office said. 

California expanded its program statewide, for example, in 2021 that allowed restaurants to accept CalFresh benefits via SNAP at a swath of top fast-food chains stretching from McDonald’s to Domino’s Pizza to Jack in the Box. 

Ernst’s office found that from June 2023 to May 2025, more than $475 million in taxpayer dollars funded Restaurant Meals Program meals at fast-food establishments. During that same time period, $524 million in taxpayer funds were spent through the Restaurant Meals Program overall, meaning California accounted for more than 90% of the nation’s total Restaurant Meals Program funds from June 2023 to May 2025, according to the office. 

‘The ‘N’ in SNAP stands for nutrition not nuggets with a side of fries,’ Ernst told Fox News Digital. ‘I wish I was McRibbing you but $250 million per year at the drive-through is no joke and a serious waste of tax dollars. I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it.’

The data found that between June 2023 and May 2025 $41.4 million funds went through Restaurant Meals Program in Arizona, $3.6 million in New York, $1.3 million in Michigan, $995,900 in Rhode Island, $649,000 in Massachusetts, $479,000 in Illinois, $308,500 in Virginia and $8,600 in Maryland. 

Ernst’s introduced legislation Thursday, dubbed the McSCUSE ME Act, to rein in the scope of the Restaurant Meals Program. Specifically, the bill would continue allowing homeless, elderly and disabled individuals to continue using the program, but ending spousal eligibility. 

The legislation also would reel in which vendors are able to participate in the program, specifically restricting fast-food vendors in favor of grocery stores that have hot bars to better ensure availability of healthy prepared food options. The legislation would also require states to produce public annual reports showing how many vendors participate in the Restaurant Meals Program, the number of participating beneficiaries and total costs for the program, Fox News Digital learned. 

The report and legislation comes after the U.S. government just emerged from the longest government shutdown in history, at 43 days, that included putting the food assistance program under heightened scrutiny over fraud and concern as recipients saw disruptions to their access. 

Upon the reopening of the government, the Trump administration is requiring all SNAP beneficiaries to reapply for the program in an effort to prevent fraud. 

Federal spending on SNAP overall climbed to record highs under the Biden administration, Fox News Digital previously reported, at $128 billion in 2021 and $127 billion in 2022 during the pandemic. By the Biden administration’s final year, SNAP cost $99.8 billion.

Fox News Digital’s Amanda Macias contributed to this report.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is demanding specifics from a group of congressional Democrats who urged military service members to ‘refuse illegal orders.’

Graham sent letters to a cohort of congressional Democrats, all with backgrounds in the military or intelligence community, featured in a now-viral video where they urge service members to refuse illegal orders.

The six lawmakers featured in the video were Sens. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., along with Reps. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H.; Jason Crow, D-Colo.; Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa.

They reiterated the lines, ‘You can refuse illegal orders,’ or ‘You must refuse illegal orders,’ as they went on to charge that service members do not have to carry out orders from higher-ups that they believe violate the Constitution.

Notably, none of the lawmakers dove into which orders they believed were illegal in the video.

Graham, who served three decades in the Air Force and worked as an Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG), wrote in six letters to each of the lawmakers that he took ‘the issue of unlawful orders very seriously.’

‘I cannot find a single example of an illegal order during this administration, but as a Member of Congress, I believe you owe it to the country to be specific as to which orders you believe are unlawful,’ Graham said.

‘However, to say that I am disturbed by your video encouraging service members and Intelligence Community professionals to refuse ‘unlawful orders’ is an understatement,’ he continued. ‘In that regard, could you please provide clarity on what orders, issued by President Trump or those in his chain of command, you consider illegal?’

The video, and Graham’s letters, come on the heels of rising questions among lawmakers about the legality of President Donald Trump’s authorization of strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, and in the wake of the administration’s deployment of the National Guard to blue cities across the country.

Members of the military have an obligation to follow lawful orders from their superiors, but they can ignore orders deemed illegal, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice — the standardized military justice system enacted in 1951.

When asked to get into specifics, Slotkin’s office pointed Fox News Digital to an interview the senator had with TMZ, where she explained that the video was made in response to service members ‘reaching out to us saying, ‘I don’t know what to do if the commander in chief orders me to do something that is illegal.’’

Slotkin, who was a CIA officer, said service members aren’t ‘trained in police techniques. They’re not trained in arresting, detaining American citizens, crowd control, raids on homes, and they were worried that they could be asked to do those things, that protests could get bad in a place like Chicago, and they could be asked to do these things.’

Fox News Digital reached out for comment from Kelly, Crow, Houlahan, Goodlander and Deluzio but did not immediately hear back.

President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance were not invited to the funeral for former Vice President Dick Cheney, Fox News has confirmed.

Cheney’s funeral is scheduled for mid-morning on Thursday at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. It is traditional for sitting U.S. presidents to attend funerals for past presidents and vice presidents, but Trump has had a uniquely poor relationship with Cheney’s family in recent years. News of the president’s exclusion was first reported by Axios.

Cheney’s daughter, former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., helped lead the House investigation into Trump’s role in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Both Liz and her father endorsed former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign.

The elder Cheney, who went from the plains of Casper, Wyoming, to a decades-long public career as a Republican congressman, Defense secretary, White House chief of staff and one of the most powerful American vice presidents ever, died at age 84 earlier this month.

‘Richard B. Cheney, the 46th Vice President of the United States, died last night, November 3, 2025. He was 84 years old. His beloved wife of 61 years, Lynne, his daughters, Liz and Mary, and other family members were with him as he passed,’ his family said in a statement obtained by Fox News. ‘The former Vice President died due to complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease.’

‘For decades, Dick Cheney served our nation, including as White House Chief of Staff, Wyoming’s Congressman, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President of the United States,’ the statement continued.

‘Dick Cheney was a great and good man who taught his children and grandchildren to love our country, and to live lives of courage, honor, love, kindness, and fly fishing,’ his family said. ‘We are grateful beyond measure for all Dick Cheney did for our country. And we are blessed beyond measure to have loved and been loved by this noble giant of a man.’

Cheney had a long history of cardiac problems, including five heart attacks. He received a heart transplant on March 24, 2012, at a Virginia hospital after nearly 21 months on a waiting list.

Cheney, who served as vice president for two terms under President George W. Bush, was one of the most powerful and controversial men ever to hold that position. He was a driving force behind America’s ‘war on terror,’ including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Fox News’ Michael Dorgan contributed to this report.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin — who clapped back after House Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett said that he and others had taken money from someone by the name of Jeffrey Epstein — took to social media again after Crockett defended her comments and claimed that she was not seeking to ‘mislead’ anyone.

Zeldin began his Wednesday post on X with an exploding head emoji and then declared, ‘When you find yourself in a hole, it’s best to stop digging.’

‘The public FEC report Crockett referenced on the House floor very clearly states that the Jeffrey Epstein who donated to my past campaign was a physician, and the donation date was well AFTER the [drum emoji] other [drum emoji] Jeffrey [drum emoji] Epstein [drum emoji] WAS [drum emoji] ALREADY [drum emoji] DEAD!!!’ he exclaimed.

The dust-up originated because Crockett, during remarks on Tuesday, listed figures and entities she said had taken money from ‘somebody’ with the name Jeffrey Epstein. Noting that she had her ‘team dig in very quickly,’ she ran through the following list: ‘Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldin, George Bush, WinRed, McCain-Palin, Rick Lazio.’

Zeldin fired back on X, pointing out that the donation was not from the notorious Jeffrey Epstein, but from a completely different individual.

‘Yes Crockett, a physician named Dr. Jeffrey Epstein (who is a totally different person than the other Jeffrey Epstein) donated to a prior campaign of mine,’ Zeldin wrote. ‘NO [clap emoji] FREAKIN [clap emoji] RELATION [clap emoji] YOU [clap emoji] GENIUS!!!’

Meghan McCain, who is the daughter of the late Republican senator and 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, also fired back at Crockett.

‘My Dad has been dead 7 years @RepJasmine. He never met Jeffrey Epstein, let alone took money from him. The Jeffrey Epstein you are referencing is an entirely different human being. Do you have mashed potatoes for brains, you absolute joke?!’ she wrote in a Wednesday post on X.

When CNN’s Kaitlan Collins confronted Crockett on Wednesday about Zeldin’s Tuesday post that pushed back against the notion that he had accepted a donation from the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the Texas Democrat said that she ‘never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein.’ 

‘Unlike Republicans, I at least don’t go out and just tell lies,’ she later said.

‘So, number one, I made sure that I was clear that it was a Jeffrey Epstein, but I never said that it was specifically that Jeffrey Epstein,’ Crockett said later during the interview.

President Donald Trump loves a deal and few partners have proven more willing or more powerful than Saudi Arabia.

This week, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman pledged to channel $1 trillion in investments from the oil-rich kingdom into the U.S. 

Trump embraced the announcement as validation of his close ties with Riyadh and proof that international money is eager to flow back into the U.S. economy. Yet beneath the impressive headline figure lies a familiar reality: much of the promised investment exists only on paper, and experts caution that the actual cash flow could take years to materialize.

‘The term investment implies long-term capital, but in this case it really means purchases like aircraft, tanks, even computer chips,’ said Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. ‘And those figures, $600 billion, a trillion, who really knows how accurate they are, or over what time frame?’

‘Perhaps the real story is that Saudi finances are in bad shape,’ added Henderson, who specializes in the Gulf region and energy policy. ‘Oil prices are too low, they need about $100 a barrel, and extravagant spending on prestige projects like The Line and NEOM are being scaled back.’

The Line is a proposed 105-mile car-free city and NEOM is a $500 billion futuristic mega-development on the Red Sea. Both are part of the crown prince’s ‘Vision 2030’ plan to diversify the kingdom’s economy beyond oil.

Others note that Saudi Arabia’s short-term fiscal strains don’t necessarily preclude large-scale investments over time.

‘It’s perfectly within the realm of possibilities that Saudi Arabia could make a $1 trillion investment into the United States over many years,’ explained E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, citing the kingdom’s vast oil wealth and long-term economic ambitions.

Antoni noted that much depends on how such an investment ultimately takes shape. For now, the White House has offered few details about what exactly the Saudi funds would be directed toward or when they might arrive.

‘What does it look like in practice? It could take a whole host of different forms,’ he said. ‘We don’t know yet if this is going to look like an investment in infrastructure and even if it is, in what industry?’

He pointed to petrochemicals as one possible fit but said other sectors could also attract Saudi money.

‘In terms of beneficiaries, clearly you have the American taxpayer, who’s going to benefit from a larger economy,’ Antoni continued. ‘That broadens the tax base and reduces the overall tax burden on each individual. So that’s very, very positive.’

He added that while such deals can stimulate confidence and markets in the short term, their most meaningful returns often unfold over years, well beyond a single presidential term.

‘Most of what President Donald Trump has done is to accrue benefits that will not appear until after he has already left office,’ Antoni told Fox News Digital. 

‘That’s not to say there are no initial gains, there clearly are. Every time another company announces more investment in the United States, it helps buoy the stock market, because equity prices are ultimately based on future earnings and those earnings rise when there’s additional investment coming.’

For now, the pledge bolsters Trump’s economic narrative but also sets up a long-term test of U.S.–Saudi relations, one whose true impact may not be clear for years.