‘Donor may still be alive’: How organ donation groups allegedly exploit grieving families to cash in on billions



Every day, roughly 30 Americans die awaiting organ transplants, while an estimated 28,000 available organs annually are never transplanted due to inefficiencies in the donor system. Compounding this tragedy, some reports indicate that grieving families, expecting to save lives, can be misled into donating their loved ones' tissues for use in research and cosmetic surgeries — a multibillion-dollar industry.

With over 100,000 patients on the organ waiting list, the nation's 55 organ procurement organizations are tasked with contacting the families of the dying and recently deceased to inquire about lifesaving organ donations. Yet behind this noble mission lies a shadowy process that raises serious questions about transparency and consent practices.

‘Families believe their consent allows for transplant of their loved [ones'] organs, which, if the death has occurred, cannot happen.’

Persistent lack of transparency

Issues within the organ procurement and transplantation industry have persisted for decades, according to studies and reports.

In 2001, the federal Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General advised tissue banks to provide families with written material detailing how donated tissue may be used.

However, several surveys from 2010 to 2015 consistently found that most families were unaware that tissue could be sold for profit or used for cosmetic purposes. One study found that out of 1,000 families surveyed, only three received written materials explaining the donation process. Another study reported that 70% of families polled stated they would object to their loved ones' tissues going to for-profit businesses, yet fewer than 20% knew this could happen.

Dr. Laura Siminoff, a professor at Temple University's College of Public Health, has conducted several studies over the years concerning organ and tissue donation, including the two previously mentioned.

Siminoff told Blaze News, "The complexity emerges from the highly emotional and stressful environment in which these conversations take place. Patients are in an intensive care setting, which is often noisy and confusing. OPO staff who are charged with having complex donation discussions with families need to bring a high level of emotional sensitivity and the ability to convey complicated information so that families can make informed and authentic decisions."

A Department of Health and Human Services report noted that "families are asked to give their consent at a point in time when they are extremely vulnerable," adding that they are often asked to provide consent over the phone instead of in person.

RELATED: Hospital responds to claim Vance's young relative was denied heart transplant over vaccination status

  Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

After-death process

When an individual passes away in a health care institution that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, the care facility is required to notify its local OPO.

Each OPO acts as a federal contractor responsible for procuring organs in its designated area. OPOs operate effectively as monopolies because they do not face competition from other organizations.

Even if the patient was not registered as an organ donor, the patient's next of kin can still authorize donation on his or her behalf.

In addition to organs, the OPO may also pursue consent for tissue donation, which includes cornea, skin, bone, veins, connective tissue, and other materials.

If approved, the OPO will harvest the tissue and give it to a tissue bank. Tissue banks, which can be for-profit businesses, may then sell that material back to biomedical researchers, pharmaceutical companies, research centers, and even plastic surgeons.

While organ transplants are nearly always lifesaving, tissue transplants can be used for elective life-enhancing, research, or cosmetic purposes.

Ethical concerns in donation practices

While OPOs are intended to facilitate lifesaving organ donations, their practices have raised ethical concerns about transparency and profiteering.

The Indiana Funeral Directors Association provided a document to Congress to inform lawmakers about oversight and regulation gaps within OPO processes.

The association, which is openly supportive of organ and tissue donations, explained that "families are often caught off guard or surprised by the barrage of phone calls from donor networks just moments after their loved ones die seeking approval for tissue donation."

‘It's misleading. OPOs hide the realities of what is really happening — and who is making money — off the backs of vulnerable donor patients.’

Most disturbingly, the IFDA stated that families are misled to believe the donation will save lives because OPOs neglect to distinguish between organ transplants and tissue donations.

"In order for organs to be transplanted, the person dying must be kept alive. Tissue donation is done after the death occurs," the IFDA explained. "Families believe their consent allows for transplant of their loved [ones'] organs, which, if the death has occurred, cannot happen."

The Association of Organ Procurement Organizations confirmed that for organ donation viability, a donor "patient must die in a hospital while on a ventilator" and meet other "specific medical criteria."

Andy Clayton, the executive director of the IFDA, told Blaze News that "families have articulated to us they don't understand it."

"They're thinking [they donated] organs, when in fact, all it was was tissue. And that tissue was harvested, then sold," Clayton said. "The ones that have talked to me, and I share with them the facts, are very alarmed that that wasn't disclosed to them."

"We are not against donation," Clayton continued. "We would certainly applaud a family that decides to donate organs or tissue, as long as they're informed and they know the truth."

Further, the IFDA's one-pager to lawmakers emphasized the "lucrative business" of tissue procurement, highlighting the 2023 revenue for several locally operating OPOs, with one exceeding $100 million.

Some assessments indicate that tissue can be priced up to $500 per gram. With an estimated 2.5 million tissue grafts performed each year, the global tissue banking market is projected to reach $5.17 billion by 2030.

The AOPO argued that there are circumstances in which tissue donation can be lifesaving or life-transforming, including "skin grafts to treat burn victims, heart valves to save infants born with heart defects, and musculoskeletal tissues to restore mobility for injured patients."

"A single tissue donor has the potential to heal or improve the lives of up to 75 people," the association noted.

"Dealing with the passing of a loved one is tragic," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told Blaze News. "While organ procurement organizations are well-intentioned, fielding calls from them about relinquishing parts of your loved one's body within days after death can feel off-putting or even predatory. Despite the difficulty in subject matter, more transparency is needed for families going through a loss when it comes to tissues and organs being removed from a loved one at the end of life."

RELATED: Organ donation overhaul promises to save lives

  Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Regulatory gaps and informed consent

HHS' Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Health Resources and Services Administration provide broad oversight of OPOs, including the safety and quality of tissue used in transplantation, as well as the performance standards to qualify for taxpayer reimbursement funding.

While federal law, § 486.342, requires OPOs to have a written protocol to inform donor families about the donation process, including a list of the organs and tissues that will be recovered and the "most likely uses" for those donations, some argue that families still lack informed consent.

‘It's just a corrupt industry overseeing itself, which is to say, covering up patient harms and backroom deals.’

Greg Segal, the founder and CEO of Organize, told Blaze News that donor families are unaware of how often tissue donations are used for cosmetic testing by for-profit businesses or other purposes that are not explicitly disclosed to them.

"It's misleading. OPOs hide the realities of what is really happening — and who is making money — off the backs of vulnerable donor patients," he stated.

Organ transplant information must be reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which is operated under contract with HHS, and the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit organization, has historically managed this contract. Yet there is no similar mandatory universal tracking system for tissue, only a voluntary accreditation through the American Association of Tissue Banks.

Segal explained that the AATB has been allowed to act as a "quasi-regulator" for the tissue industry.

"It's just a corrupt industry overseeing itself, which is to say, covering up patient harms and backroom deals," he explained. "Why would the American Association of Tissue Banks, populated and funded by tissue banks and taxpayer-funded organ contractors, be doing real investigations into who is misleading families and then hold themselves accountable?"

Furthermore, UNOS provides OPOs with a framework that determines who on the donation list will be provided with the next available organ, based on need and other factors. Yet no similar framework exists for tissue operations, allowing OPOs to use their discretion to determine who receives donations.

"If I'm running an OPO and I'm recovering $25 million worth of tissue this year, and there is no transparency, there's no accountability, and there's no algorithmic framework for where I'm supposed to give it, I can decide where I want to give it. OPO executives basically just ask themselves, 'Who's going to offer me a really nice consulting deal? Which tissue bank is going to put me on the board and then pay me for my board service?'" Segal explained.

The lack of mandatory oversight has led to concerns about conflicts of interest within the tissue industry. For instance, some OPO executives sit on the boards of the AATB and the OPTN, as well as the boards of tissue processing companies.

Segal stated that some OPOs have "massive investments in the tissue banks."

"Executives don't have to disclose to the government or to the public if they have personal financial interests, whether that be equity or stock or so-called 'consulting agreements,'" Segal continued. "There's a lot of money that changes hands, which is why both the Senate Finance Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee are investigating self-dealing."

Even the AATB admits that while it follows "U.S. antitrust laws closely," its role "focuses exclusively on quality and safety rather than business practices."

"AATB works to promote the safety, quality, and availability of donated human tissue, not to oversee business operations or financial models," the nonprofit told Blaze News.

Though it is a lucrative industry, the AOPO insisted that OPOs do not sell tissue. However, it noted that they can receive "reimbursements" for procuring tissues.

The AOPO told Blaze News, "It is important to understand that OPOs do not sell tissues. Instead, specialized organizations that prepare donated tissues into grafts for clinical use may reimburse OPOs for the recovery services provided, similar to how hospitals are reimbursed for providing care. These reimbursements support donation-related operations."

When asked how OPOs profit from tissue harvesting, Segal explained, "OPOs harvest tissue from dead people — many of whom had no idea what they were really consenting to — and then the OPOs give that tissue to a processor, which, in return, gives them money. You can decide what you want to call it, but I'd say it's a sale."

Financial incentives and profiteering

The profitability of tissue sales has reportedly exacerbated issues within the lifesaving organ donation system, prompting some OPOs to run their own tissue bank businesses.

Some critics claim that the current system effectively incentivizes OPOs to prioritize staffing their tissue recovery operations over their organ transplant teams. A 2020 report from the Bridgespan Group found that "OPOs have greater financial incentives to focus more on tissue recovery compared to their incentives to recover lifesaving organs."

To improve the metrics of organs procured per donor, some OPOs may opt not to obtain organs from single-organ donors. This decision further worsens the shortage of available organs, according to a 2020 letter from the House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy.

‘There's never been any accountability for OPOs. More than 95% of Americans support organ donation; that actually polls higher than puppies and ice cream.’

In 2013, even the AOPO admitted that the "current system has created a disincentive for OPOs to pursue organ recovery when there may be a lower yield of organs transplanted per donor."

The AOPO told the White House Office of Management and Budget, "If an OPO is in jeopardy of decertification ... the OPO is incentivized (for fear of being decertified) to not pursue or even evaluate the potential for donation of these types of donors," referring to "marginal organ donors that generally yield fewer organs (or no organs)."

"This practice results in fewer organs being transplanted and more lives lost," the AOPO wrote at the time.

in 2019, HHS proposed a rule it believed would result in an additional 5,000 to 10,000 lifesaving transplants each year by pushing all OPOs to reach compliance with the minimum performance standards

During a September congressional hearing, Segal contended that there should be enough available organs — with the exception of kidneys — for every individual in need of a transplant but that inefficiencies in procurement have prevented this.

OPOs are not required to meet donation and transplantation target rates to remain on hospitals' mandatory notification lists. Remaining on those lists also helps an OPO fuel its potential tissue procurement business, since it is already the hospital's first point of contact for organ recovery.

RELATED: HHS surmounts obstacles set by Democrat-appointed judges, gives thousands of bureaucrats the boot

  Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Pushing for systemic overhaul

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing in September in which several witnesses — Dr. Seth Karp, surgeon in chief of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Dr. Robert Cannon, associate professor of surgery and surgical director for liver transplant at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Dr. Jesse Roach, senior vice president of government relations for the National Kidney Foundation; and Segal — testified that OPOs lack enforceable regulations.

Segal exposed "widespread abuse" allegations within the organ donation industry, which he argued have hindered the exposure of corruption and inefficiencies.

Segal stated, "There's never been any accountability for OPOs. More than 95% of Americans support organ donation; that actually polls higher than puppies and ice cream. And yet the OPTN's own research has found that OPOs only recover organs from one out of five potential donors. They are monopolies, and they've never had any enforceable regulations, and their performance has greatly suffered."

Some of Segal's concerns were far more troubling than donor family consent issues. Segal stated that he was aware of allegations of "harvesting of organs from patients who whistleblowers believe would otherwise have survived" and "unsafe patient care, including the hastening of death with fentanyl and the falsification of medical records."

Cannon corroborated many of Segal's assertions.

Cannon told lawmakers, "OPOs also lack sufficient oversight and accountability with regard to organ allocation, sometimes resulting in actions that are abusive and harmful to patients."

"I have had an OPO administrator recommend I proceed with organ procurement in the face of concerns a donor may still be alive," he continued. "I have seen a 21-year-old patient dying from liver failure have an ideal donor organ taken away from her by an OPO that was unwilling to provide one additional hour for a plane to be mobilized. Our complaint in this instance went unanswered. Unfortunately, stories such as these are not isolated instances."

To fix the broken organ procurement and donation system, Cannon told lawmakers to "tear it down to the studs and rebuild it."

‘At least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time organ procurement was initiated — raising serious ethical and legal questions.’

The witnesses advocated for terminating the current cost-reimbursement structure of OPOs, which allow the organizations to be fully reimbursed for all expenses related to organ donations. The federal government largely moved away from this model within the health care system because it has been proven to produce poor outcomes and is vulnerable to potential abuses.

The Organ Donation and Transplantation Alliance's website warns that cost-based reimbursement comes with a "financial risk" of "over-reporting as well as under-reporting organ acquisition costs claimed for Medicare reimbursement."

"Prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits noted that transplant centers stated they lacked awareness and understanding of Medicare requirements or had inadvertently claimed non-allowable costs on the Medicare Cost Report," the alliance noted.

Segal claimed that OPOs are not just combining organ and tissue donation when seeking consent from donor families, but they also label various expenses as "organ and tissue"-related items to receive CMS reimbursements, which should cover only organ operations. This allows OPOs to "subsidize all the costs related to tissue," he said.

The AOPO, which represents 47 federally designated nonprofit OPOs, insisted that organ and tissue donation are "entirely separate clinical processes" that "never compete with each other," adding that "accusations that they do contradict yearly government data, which demonstrates a 14-year increase in organ donation and transplantation rates. OPOs strive to save lives by recovering every viable organ, irrespective of financial models."

Recent investigations and HHS reforms

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce held another hearing on July 22 regarding the organ procurement and transplant system, during which lawmakers questioned witnesses from HRSA, UNOS, and the OPTN. Lawmakers also heard from Barry Massa, the chief executive officer of the Network of Hope, an OPO.

The hearing mainly focused on a disturbing incident that took place in 2021 involving a Kentucky man named Anthony Thomas Hoover. He was set to undergo surgery for organ retrieval when the surgeon discovered that he was still alive, despite having been previously declared dead. The OPO assigned to the case, which later merged with the Network of Hope, faced accusations of attempting to proceed with the organ procurement process despite clear signs of life.

The surgery to remove Hoover's organs was terminated, and he survived. NPR reported in 2024 that he was still alive three years after the incident.

Massa maintained that the correct process was followed in the Hoover case, though he admitted that there were "a lot of unique things that could have been done better."

Trump's HHS has signaled that it plans to hold OPOs responsible. On July 21, the agency stated HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has threatened to shut down "deficient" OPOs.

HHS reported that HRSA examined 351 cases in which organ donation was authorized but not performed, noting that nearly 30% "showed concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation."

"At least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time organ procurement was initiated — raising serious ethical and legal questions," HHS wrote.

HRSA also instructed the OPTN to reopen the Hoover case, which was closed without any action under the former Biden administration.

‘I’m kind of thinking, “Well, we need to publicize it, but we kind of don't want to publicize it because then we'd hurt the number of people that are actually going to donate their organs.” So this is a problem.’

During July's committee hearing, Raymond Lynch with HRSA, who noted no OPO has ever previously lost its certification, confirmed that the agency has additional open investigations into the industry.

Blaze News asked HHS how it will ensure that OPOs provide clear information to donor families.

An HHS spokesperson stated that the department "is committed to ensuring that organ procurement organizations provide grieving families with clear, compassionate information while prioritizing lifesaving organ donation."

"Through HRSA-led reforms, including standardized communication training, outcome-based performance metrics, transparent public reporting, and stronger oversight, HHS is holding OPOs accountable to uphold the highest standards of ethics, transparency, and patient-centered care," HHS stated. "Through the Organ Transplantation Affinity Group, HHS supports standardized communication training — emphasizing trauma-informed care, cultural sensitivity, and family experience — backed by national experts."

The agency also stated that recent CMS and HRSA reforms will evaluate OPOs "based on actual organ donation and transplant rates (not organizational activity or self-reported data), with benchmarks and underperformance triggering reevaluation or decertification."

RELATED: Trump’s DOJ unleashes largest health care fraud bust ever, protecting taxpayer dollars

  Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Industry's response

When asked for comment, the AOPO and AATB expressed concerns that reporting these allegations, which they insisted were false, could have life-and-death consequences by deterring people from donating organs.

The AOPO claimed that the IFDA's letter to Congress contained "demonstrably false statements" and dismissed the cited studies as "over a decade old." The AATB similarly claimed that the studies were "not only outdated but also inaccurate."

"Today, thousands of people are removing themselves from U.S. organ donation registries, and that is directly tied to the spread of myths and accusations like the ones in the IFDA letter. This has a human cost: Less donors means that more patients who need lifesaving transplants must continue to wait and possibly die in the interim," the AOPO told Blaze News.

Both the AOPO and the AATB insisted that donor families are encouraged to ask questions about the donation process and place limits on their loved ones' donations.

During September's congressional hearing, then-Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) summed it up this way after listening to the witnesses' troubling concerns about the organ and tissue procurement industry: "I'm kind of thinking, 'Well, we need to publicize it, but we kind of don't want to publicize it because then we'd hurt the number of people that are actually going to donate their organs.' So this is a problem."

Critics of the existing organ donation framework make it clear that they endorse donation and are not aiming to discourage Americans from registering as donors. However, they argue that the fear among the industry that negative publicity might shrink the donor pool does not excuse organizations from necessary oversight. Instead, heightened scrutiny and transparency could optimize procurement processes, ultimately fostering greater efficiency and saving more lives by breaking free from the inefficiencies of the current monopolistic, self-policing structure.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Rep. Mills’ risky road trip through Syria raises eyebrows



There's more news on embattled Republican Rep. Cory Mills of Florida.

Blaze News can confirm that back in April on a joint trip with Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), Mills made the highly unusual move of taking a private car from Damascus, Syria, to Beirut, Lebanon. Depending upon conditions and the number of checkpoint stops, that drive could take anywhere from 2.5 to four hours through territory that is dangerous and hostile to Americans.

Furthermore, according to an intelligence source from the region, Hezbollah controls much of the borderlands in both Syria and Lebanon, and Mills would have needed an authorized "pass" from the militant group to cross the border.

For some reason, Mills, a sitting US congressman, chose to drive through a region and across a border largely controlled by Hezbollah with no security detail.

Independent journalist Roger Sollenberger also reported that Mills requested to meet with Syrian President Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa in private and spent 90 minutes alone with al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan al-Shaibani. The men discussed a range of "sensitive" topics, including "U.S.-Syria relations, humanitarian concerns, and regional stability," according to a screenshot of part of Mills' travel filing.

In 2013, the U.S. designated al-Sharaa a global terrorist for his association with the rebel group al-Nusra. The State Department revoked the terrorist designation against al-Nusra earlier this month.

Kyle Shideler, the director and senior analyst for homeland security and counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy, described Mills' private meeting with al-Sharaa as "worrisome," claiming that the mere "appearance of impropriety ... could be exploited by foreign adversaries."

"Generally speaking, U.S. officials should just not be meeting alone with foreign dignitaries or leaders," Shideler told Blaze News. "Even phone calls with foreign leaders include staffers and translators to help brief and keep the meeting on topic and in line with official U.S. policy. Even professional U.S. diplomats who actually have the responsibility to have such meetings don’t hold them alone but bring witnesses."

Though Stutzman and Mills traveled to Damascus together on a joint itinerary, Stutzman did not participate in the private meeting with al-Sharaa and al-Shaibani. Stutzman also did not join Mills in the private car ride. In fact, screenshots of travel filings indicate that Stutzman flew from Damascus to Istanbul, Turkey, the day before Mills' road trip.

RELATED: Cory Mills leaps into another scandal — this time with a 5-figure price tag and eviction notice

  Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Blaze News has confirmed that neither Mills nor Stutzman received dignitary protection details from the State Department or Capitol Police for their official trip. Their only security came from Syria.

Yet for some reason, Mills, a sitting U.S. congressman, chose to drive through a region and across a border largely controlled by Hezbollah with no security detail.

The purpose of Mills' side trip to Lebanon is unclear. A spokesperson for Mills did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Congress to codify DOGE cuts while conservatives lead the charge



The House is set to vote on the first rescissions package on Thursday, which would codify $9.4 billion worth of spending cuts.

Although certain provisions have become controversial to Democrats and some moderate Republicans, conservatives in the House have championed the Department of Government Efficiency cuts. This specific package would cut $1.1 billion in foreign aid, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, and it would kneecap biased media platforms like PBS and NPR that have been publicly funded through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

While $9.4 billion is just a drop in the bucket, conservative lawmakers told Blaze News this is just the first step toward "restoring sanity to Washington's reckless spending culture."

Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told Blaze News that he was confident the DOGE cuts will pass and indicated that he would send more to Capitol Hill if it proved to be an effective tool to rein in spending.

'This rescissions package is just the tip of the iceberg.'

RELATED: Democrats vote overwhelmingly to allow illegal aliens to continue voting in key district

  Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

“H.R. 4 is a strong first step toward restoring sanity to Washington’s reckless spending culture,” Republican Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina told Blaze News. “It eliminates $9.4 billion in bloated foreign aid programs and taxpayer-funded liberal media like NPR and PBS. These are the kinds of cuts the American people expect from a Republican majority that promised fiscal responsibility.”

“The House Freedom Caucus fully supports this package and the broader effort to cut waste, fraud, and abuse in Washington," Norman added. "And this is just the start.”

The House first passed a rule Wednesday night in a 213-207 vote that allows it to proceed with the vote on the rescissions package Thursday. The rule also implemented changes to the "big, beautiful bill," which prompted a "no" vote from Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

Despite this, Massie maintained that his opposition was to the changes to reconciliation and that he plans to vote in favor of the DOGE cuts.

RELATED: White House works to send DOGE cuts package to Congress

  Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Massie has bucked his party on multiple key votes this Congress, but even he joined the House Freedom Caucus and other conservatives in backing the DOGE cuts.

"We have always known there is waste in government, and this rescissions package is just the tip of the iceberg,” Republican Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana told Blaze News. “I stand with HFC in urging Speaker Johnson to get the cuts to the House floor, then to the president’s desk as quickly as possible. Americans do not want their tax dollars spent on woke programs overseas or at home and it is about time they got their money back!”

"The duty of Congress is to represent The People, and today the House Freedom Caucus will do exactly that — by voting in support of the rescissions package," Republican Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania told Blaze News. "This will codify the massively popular cuts in waste, fraud, and abuse rampant across the federal government, enacts my No Propaganda bill to defund NPR and PBS, and finally topples USAID — the golden goose of the globalist left. Let’s get this across the finish line once and for all.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump pledges to lift 'brutal and crippling' sanctions on Syria, pushes for Middle East peace talks



President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he will be lifting sanctions on Syria as he kicks off his tour in the Middle East.

After the fall of the Assad regime in December, Syria's new leaders, like President Ahmed al-Sharaa, hoped America would loosen its grip and lift the sanctions. After Trump announced the sanctions would be lifted, he met with al-Sharaa and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, with President Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey joining them over the phone.

RELATED: Biblical warnings fulfilled: The rising persecution of Christians foreshadows global instability

'When Syria is contemplating its future under new leadership, we should want a seat at the table.'

  Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

During the meeting, Trump urged the leaders to sign onto the Abraham Accords with Israel in an attempt to inch toward peace in the Middle East. Trump also insisted they tell foreign terrorists to leave Syria, to deport Palestinian terrorists, to assist the United States and prevent the resurgence of ISIS, and to take responsibility for the ISIS detention centers in northeastern Syria.

RELATED: Trump rips into reporter for implying Qatar gift is a bribe: 'You should be embarrassed asking that question!'

"Syria, they've had their share of travesty, war, killing in many years," Trump said. "That's why my administration has taken the first steps toward restoring normal relations between the United States and Syria for the first time in more than a decade."

  Photo by Amadeusz Mikolaj Swierk/Anadolu via Getty Images

"The sanctions were brutal and crippling and served as an important, really an important function, nevertheless, at the time," Trump added. "But now it's their time to shine. So I say, 'Good luck, Syria.' Show us something very special."

 RELATED: GOP Rep. Cory Mills explains why he was married by a radical Islamic cleric

The United States has designated Syria as a terrorist state for decades. But under the new leadership, some lawmakers like Republican Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana said Syria is potentially shaping up to become a key ally.

  Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

“When Syria is contemplating its future under new leadership, we should want a seat at the table," Stutzman, who met with al-Sharaa in April, told Blaze News. "President al-Sharaa has welcomed the West, allowed women into his Cabinet, and even recognized Israel as a sovereign nation."

"President Trump should be meeting with him not only to help Syria be prosperous, but also to weaken the influence of Russia and China and create another ally and trade partner in the region," Stutzman added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Speaker Johnson pulls off another legislative miracle, this time with budget



The House narrowly passed the Senate's budget blueprint on Thursday, notching another win for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

The vote was initially set to take place Wednesday night but was later postponed by Johnson after it became clear there wasn't enough support from fiscal conservatives to pass the budget. Ultimately, the blueprint passed in a 216-214 vote, with Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Victoria Spartz of Indiana voting against it.

"If you were trying to hasten financial collapse of our country and bribe voters to go along with it, the strategy wouldn’t look much different than what Congress is doing today," Massie said. "The big beautiful bill cuts taxes while keeping spending on an increasingly unsustainable trajectory."

The House and Senate have already passed their own blueprints that included $1.5 trillion and $4 billion in cuts, respectively. With the House taking up the Senate's budget proposal, lawmakers have had difficulty reconciling the vast spending gap.

'Our ambition in the Senate is we are aligned in the House in terms of savings. We're certainly gonna do everything we can to be as aggressive as possible.'

Despite the backing of President Donald Trump's administration, fiscal conservatives disapproved of the Senate's budget, arguing that the proposed $4 billion in cuts are just a drop in the bucket in addressing the national debt. On the Senate side, lawmakers are insisting that their blueprint will give them enough wiggle room and that they are ultimately aiming to implement more aggressive cuts beyond their $4 billion target.

If the House's ambitious blueprint with $1.5 trillion in cuts were passed, committees would likely be unable to meet the required cuts, which would kill the reconciliation process altogether. Simply put, the Senate doesn't have the same appetite for cuts that the House Freedom Caucus and other fiscal conservatives do.

Nevertheless, some holdouts warmed up to the budget blueprint after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) held a joint press conference with Johnson Thursday morning.

"Our ambition in the Senate is we are aligned in the House in terms of savings," Thune said. "We're certainly gonna do everything we can to be as aggressive as possible.”

"[This is] the first time publicly, the Senate leader has come out and actually said that we’re in the same ballpark with the House and Senate reductions," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) said Thursday. "Obviously we were happy with the House spending reduction because we all voted for it, so I think that’s a step in a positive direction.”

Other Republicans like Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, who were initially undecided, came around to supporting the budget after meeting with Johnson.

"I voted to pass the Trump-endorsed budget resolution before the House today so Congress can unlock the reconciliation process, which will grow the economy, increase American energy production, secure our border, and decrease spending to the same levels that House Republicans passed six weeks ago," Stutzman told Blaze News. "It is time American citizens and fixing our national debt take priority over wasteful, unnecessary spending.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!