Two months after ending her White House bid, Nikki Haley will huddle early next week with some of the top donors to her Republican presidential campaign, sources confirmed to Fox News. 

The former two-term South Carolina governor who later served as U.N. ambassador in former President Trump’s administration will use the two-day gathering Monday and Tuesday in Charleston, South Carolina, to thank her major contributors.

But a source in Haley’s orbit says the former presidential candidate isn’t expected to encourage donors to contribute to Trump’s general election campaign and that no endorsement of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee is pending.

The news was first reported Thursday by the Wall Street Journal.

Haley launched her presidential campaign in February 2023, becoming the first major candidate to challenge Trump, who had announced his candidacy three months earlier. And she was the final rival to Trump, battling the former president in a two-candidate showdown from the New Hampshire primary in late January through Super Tuesday in early March.

Haley announced she was suspending her White House campaign March 6, the day after Trump swept 14 of 15 GOP nominating contests on Super Tuesday.

However, Haley made it clear when she exited the Republican presidential nomination race she intends to keep speaking out.

‘While I will no longer be a candidate, I will not stop using my voice for the things I believe in,’ she emphasized as she spoke at her presidential campaign headquarters on Daniel Island in her hometown of Charleston.

To date, Haley has declined to endorse Trump.

‘It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond it who did not support him. And I hope he does that,’ Haley said in March, as she pointed to those who supported her during her White House run.

Haley has not spoken with Trump since exiting the race, the source in her orbit confirmed to Fox News.

Some top members of Haley’s campaign, including some from the fundraising team, are expected to attend next week’s gathering. Haley and groups aligned with her campaign hauled in over $160 million from nearly 300,000 donors. 

In a sign of potential trouble for Trump in his general election rematch with President Biden later this year, Haley continues to grab votes in the Republican primaries even though she’s long gone from the presidential nomination race.

Haley won nearly 22% of the vote in Tuesday’s GOP presidential primary in Indiana, which was open to not only Republicans but also independents and Democrats.

Last month, Haley joined the Washington, D.C.-based Hudson Institute, a research organization focused on foreign and domestic policy, national security, economics and international relations.

‘Nikki is a proven, effective leader on both foreign and domestic policy,’ Hudson President and CEO John P. Walters said in an announcement. ‘In an era of worldwide political upheaval, she has remained a steadfast defender of freedom and an effective advocate for American security and prosperity. We are honored to have her join the Hudson team.’

During her White House bid, Haley advocated a muscular U.S. foreign policy to deal with global hot spots such as the war between Russia and Ukraine and the fighting between Israel and Hamas, often offering a stark contrast with Trump’s America First agenda of keeping the nation out of international entanglements.

Haley traded fire over America’s overseas role with rival Vivek Ramaswamy, an advocate of Trump’s America First philosophy, during the GOP presidential primary debates.

A shipment of two types of precision bombs to Israel remains in limbo after being paused by the U.S. in opposition to Israeli forces’ operation in Rafah.

The shipment contains 1,800 2,000-pound bombs, and 1,700 500-pound bombs the Biden administration has said may be used in Rafah.

Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder confirmed the shipment of bombs was paused, though the future of the shipment remains undetermined.

‘We’ve not made a final determination on how to proceed with this shipment,’ Ryder said.

A U.S. official said in a statement to Fox News Digital on Wednesday that the U.S. position has been that Israel should not launch a major ground operation in Rafah, where over a million people are currently sheltering.

‘We have been engaging in a dialogue with Israel in our Strategic Consultative Group format on how they will meet the humanitarian needs of civilians in Rafah, and how to operate differently against Hamas there than they have elsewhere in Gaza,’ the official continued. ‘Those discussions are ongoing and have not fully addressed our concerns. As Israeli leaders seemed to approach a decision point on such an operation, we began to carefully review proposed transfers of particular weapons to Israel that might be used in Rafah. This began in April.’

Following this review, the U.S. decided last week to pause shipment of the bombs, according to the official, who said the administration is ‘especially focused’ on the end-use of the 2,000-pound bombs and ‘the impact they could have in dense urban settings as we have seen in other parts of Gaza.’

The official also emphasized that these shipments do not have anything to do with the Israel supplemental appropriations passed last month.

The statement from the U.S. official comes after two Israeli officials told Axios that U.S.-manufactured ammunition to Israel was paused last week for the first time since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack against the Jewish state.

On Tuesday, the Israel Defense Forces announced that it had gained operational control of the Gazan side of the Rafah Crossing after troops began a ‘precise counterterrorism operation’ in eastern Rafah aimed at killing Hamas terrorists and dismantling ‘Hamas terrorist infrastructure within specific areas of eastern Rafah.’

Fox News Digital’s Landon Mion contributed to this report.

Republican Congressman Darrell Issa told Fox News Digital it would be a ‘huge help’ if President Biden disavowed and rejected donations from progressive groups that are fueling the anti-Israel protests nationwide, while also explaining that the tepid response from Democrats shows the rise of anti-Semitism within the party.

If the president would come out, whether it’s George Soros or a host of other supporters and be honest and say that, you know, not only would he send the money back but he wants them to stop funding people who support violence it would be a huge help,’ Issa said. ‘I don’t expect him to do it.’

The anti-Israel protests have been organized by groups fueled by progressive donors, including George Soros, some of whom have also donated to the Democratic Party and Biden, Fox News Digital reported last month.

Soros recently gave $250,000 to help Biden win re-election and Politico reported earlier this month that some major Biden donors have also funded groups associated with the college protests. 

Issa told Fox News Digital that the response to the protest from Democrats has been an example that anti-Semitism has found a home within the party. 

The growth of The Squad and people who think the same and are willing to talk the same, or at least support them has certainly caused people to realize that the party of the Democrats of Robert F Kennedy, John Kennedy and for that matter of Steny Hoyer is gone,’ Issa told Fox News Digital this week.  

‘They’re no longer willing to stand up for Israel or against anti-Semitism and it’s now coming home to be seen in these incredible amounts of votes where they won’t support Israel.’

Issa told Fox News Digital he is ‘deeply disappointed’ by President Biden’s response to the anti-Israel protests on college campuses nationwide and explained that the president’s desire to ‘placate’ both sides is an indicator that anti-Semitism has been festering in the Democratic Party for years. 

I think President Biden is trying to placate both sides, tell both sides that he’s in the middle,’ Issa said. ‘He’s managed to upset the Middle Eastern community many of whom wanted decisive action and the Israel and pro-Israel community who see him as hurting the effort to bring to an end, if you will, Hamas and their allies.’

‘I’m really sad because, historically, they’ve enjoyed both Arab and Israeli pro-Israel votes, Jewish votes and the Republicans have always been the party that has supported Israel. George W Bush, no stronger friend, President Trump, no stronger friend. You know, president after president promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem. President Trump did it. So, when you really look at it you realize that for a long time we’ve been the pro-Israel party. Only now are people realizing that real anti-Semitism exists in the Democratic Party, and it’s condoned there.’

President Biden waited 9 days before giving on-camera remarks about the anti-Israel violence on campus which Issa said was a key reason why the protests spread the way they did. 

‘President Biden needed to say on day one to all the governors of either party that you act or I will act because, in fact, the civil disobedience that turns into violence is a federal issue,’ Issa said. ‘Had he done that, had he challenged the governors to go in aggressively and quickly, this would be over instead of watching it grow.’

Issa, who was in high school in Ohio during the unrest and shootings at Kent State University in 1970, told Fox News Digital he is concerned that history is repeating itself.

‘As someone who was in high school when Kent State had its riot and not only did they close after May 4th but so did almost every university around the country, I see history repeating itself in a nasty way,’ Issa said. ‘The protests against the Vietnam War were fine, violence wasn’t fine, and they were slow to get past it because many of the professors were on the same side as the students.’

Issa continued, ‘This is the same situation, the anti-Semitism on campus, the elite are part of that. They’ve been teaching it for a long time, and as a result, they have a hard time enforcing. Very few states, even governors have been willing to do what Governor Youngkin in Virginia and others did, which was act quickly and if it didn’t work, act again. In my home state of California, it’s amazing that UCLA was able to build a building faster than anyone in California is allowed to get a permit. They built it out of plywood and everyone watched as they did it and then they finally tried to slow it down or stop it, and it was too late.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response.

The 2020 presidential election was one of the closest and most controversial in American history, and preliminary polling suggests that the 2024 rematch between former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden will likely be just as hotly contested. However, there are two major differences between 2020 and 2024 that could prove to be the deciding factors in the race.  

The first is that 2024 features a relatively popular third-party candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Recent national polls show RFK Jr. could capture as much as 16% of the popular vote. If RFK Jr. were to win 16% of the vote, it would make him, by far, the most successful third-party candidate since Ross Perot in 1992. 

The second important change in the 2024 race is one that has not received nearly as much attention. Following the 2020 Census, the House of Representatives reapportioned congressional seats among the states, a constitutional requirement. Whenever the House of Representatives is reapportioned, the Electoral College is also adjusted. 

Although the changes to the 2024 Electoral College map appear minimal at first glance, they could prove to be pivotal for Trump, who benefited significantly from the adjustments. 

Thirteen states experienced changes to their Electoral College vote count in the recent reapportionment. Seven lost one vote: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Five gained one vote: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon. One state, Texas, gained two votes. 

All told, Republican-leaning states gained two votes in the Electoral College and Democrat-leaning states lost two. But the real impact of the changes is much larger than a four-vote swing. The alterations make it possible for Trump to win the 2024 election with fewer states than what was required in 2020. 

For example, in 2020, had Trump beat Biden in Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia — all states he lost — Trump still would have been one vote shy of the 270 Electoral College vote requirement needed to win the race outright. Under the 2024 adjustments, however, Trump would have 272 votes. 

Similarly, all other states remaining the same, had Trump won Georgia and Pennsylvania in 2020, Biden would still have had enough votes to win the presidency. Under the 2024 vote count, Trump would win with exactly 270 votes under such a scenario. 

These aren’t the only situations in which the 2024 changes to the Electoral College apportionment would have had an impact, either. There are a number of scenarios in which the new Electoral College vote count could have an effect, and all the hypothetical situations I could find showed that Trump, not Biden, would benefit. 

If Trump does win in 2024 and the changes to the Electoral College end up contributing to his success, Democrats will use the situation as an excuse to expand their efforts to replace the Electoral College model with a national popular vote system.  

Sixteen states, all of which typically vote for Democratic presidential candidates, have enacted a law that would automatically grant their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who receives the highest national popular vote count. 

The law, which is part of an interstate compact agreement, does not go into effect until the total Electoral College votes controlled by the states in the agreement reaches 270. At present, the 16 states in the agreement control a combined total of 205 Electoral College votes. 

Under the national popular vote model, the presidential candidate with the most votes would win, regardless of whether the losing candidate is more popular in the vast majority of states. That means that the national popular vote would overrule the will of the voters in those states.  

The national popular vote proposal might be simpler and seem on the surface to be fairer, but it could prove to be disastrous for citizens living in much of the country, including in many ‘blue’ states. 

One of the reasons the Founding Fathers chose the Electoral College model is that they were concerned that a national popular vote would give too much power to the citizens of the largest states.  

Under a national vote system, they reasoned that eventually politicians would neglect the needs of Americans in smaller states and rural regions in favor of urban areas where the most voters live. Since the population density of the United States has skyrocketed since the founding era, the Founders’ concerns are more relevant today than ever before. 

As an illustration, consider that in 2020, 158 million ballots were cast for president. Had a popular vote system been in place in 2020, Trump or Biden could have guaranteed a victory with about 79 million votes. The total ballot count for 10 of the highest populated states — California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia — topped 82 million in 2020. 

That means that under a popular vote system, Trump or Biden could have become president without getting a single vote in 40 of the 50 states. 

A national popular vote model would also expand the impact of third-party candidates, because every vote cast for a third-party candidate would have a direct effect on the national vote count. In an election with one or more popular third-party politicians, a candidate could theoretically win the White House with the support of the citizens of just a handful of states and a fraction of the total vote count. 

These aren’t the only situations in which the 2024 changes to the Electoral College apportionment would have had an impact, either. There are a number of scenarios in which the new Electoral College vote count could have an effect, and all the hypothetical situations I could find showed that Trump, not Biden, would benefit. 

The Electoral College model is far from perfect, but it’s the best of many bad options. The United States is too large geographically and too diverse culturally and ideologically for a national popular vote system.  

Those who say that a position as powerful as president shouldn’t be chosen by a minority of citizens are, in my view, correct. But the problem isn’t in the method of choosing, but rather in the powers granted to the executive branch. The modern presidency has far more authority than the Founders ever dreamed of, and our country is worse off for it. 

Instead of trying to find better ways to elect an all-powerful federal government, Americans should be working to shift decision-making back to states and local governments, where it belongs. That would not only alleviate concerns about the Electoral College, it would also give people the opportunity to live in communities where the laws more closely align with their ideological, cultural, and religious views.