The government shutdown is poised to enter a third week, and Democrats still appear to be struggling in the search for a cohesive messaging strategy.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., received a barrage of GOP-led attacks on Thursday after he told Punchbowl News, ‘Every day gets better for us’ in reference to the shutdown dragging on.

Meanwhile, House Democrats’ group selfie taken on Sept. 29, just before the shutdown, received criticism from both sides of the aisle. Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who’s become a fierce critic of the GOP since leaving office, wrote on X, ‘These selfie things need to stop guys. Honestly, the democrats were great at social media but social media moved on from them. The kitschy, goofy ‘choose your fighter’ type stuff needs to stop.’

Democrats have been fighting to center the discussion on healthcare, and their argument that any deal to reopen the federal government must at least include an extension of COVID-19 pandemic-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this year.

And while polls show that Americans overwhelmingly do support extending the subsidies, surveys taken of the government shutdown have been more mixed, with a significant number of Americans blaming both parties.

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday showed 67% of Americans believe Republicans deserve ‘a fair amount or a great deal of blame’ for the shutdown, compared to 63% for Democrats.

A New York Times/Siena poll taken on the eve of the shutdown showed that Democrats had a similarly thin edge over the GOP in the shutdown fight, but that 65% of people did not believe Democrats should shut down the government if their demands were not met.

‘Democrats keep choosing the wrong fights, including the shutdown fight. At best, the shutdown will give them a political draw where the public will blame both parties,’ Julian Epstein, a former Democratic staffer for the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital.

‘But they will not get a game change out of this conflict, and the risk for them is the longer it goes on, the public will see it’s the Democrats who are narcissistically voting to shut down the government after losing the election.’

During an appearance on ‘Real Time With Bill Maher’ earlier this month, CNN political commentator and former Obama administration appointee Van Jones said Democrats ‘do the wrong thing at the wrong time for the right reason.’

Jones said he was in favor of extending the Obamacare subsidies but argued that it may have been folly for his party to pick that fight over the shutdown before people even got notice of their premiums potentially rising.

‘I get it, the base is upset … ’Please do something, do anything,’ but the ‘something’ probably shouldn’t be throwing a bunch of people out of work in the federal government and crushing the American government’s ability to function right before the pain was about to start,’ he said.

And it’s not yet clear if Democrats have an agreed-upon roadmap for how to navigate the shutdown yet.

Late last week, just before Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced that the House would be out of session for another week while Republicans’ funding bill stalled in the Senate, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., unequivocally told Fox News Digital that ‘yes,’ he would call all House Democrats back to Washington to draw a contrast between the two sides.

He walked that back somewhat on Monday, however. When asked by Fox News Digital if he would still call the full caucus back, Jeffries said, ‘We have a caucus meeting at 6 p.m. today. We’ll have a House Democratic Caucus leadership meeting, that’s the full leadership, tomorrow. And I expect a strong presence of House Democrats throughout here in Washington.’

What he did not specify, however, was that the 6 p.m. caucus meeting was virtual.

At another press conference this week, Jeffries called a one-year Obamacare subsidy extension compromise bill ‘laughable’ despite it getting support from 11 members of his own Democratic caucus.

He walked those comments back again, ‘If anything is presented to us, of course, the caucus will consider it in good faith.’

But Republicans have also garnered their share of public criticism for shutdown messaging as well.

President Donald Trump’s aggressive rhetoric on federal employee layoffs put congressional Republicans in a difficult position earlier this month, though Trump has since softened his language and not yet carried out those firings.

The White House’s depiction of Jeffries in a sombrero on multiple occasions has also been panned as racist by critics.

Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist and founder of campaign consulting firm Authentic, said Democrats were doing the right thing in focusing on health care while criticizing Republicans’ messaging.

‘I think that focusing on the health care subsidies, which are undeniably popular, has been a really smart thing for Democrats to do,’ Nellis told Fox News Digital.

‘I think that the Republicans have played right into their worst tendencies on this, which is, much of their messaging is aggressively online-focused. The sombrero stuff is mildly funny. But then they went all in on it, and they don’t have a good answer to the health care subsidies.’

Nellis also argued that Republicans’ touting of a ‘landslide’ electoral victory has set them up for a larger share of the blame.

‘When you create the conditions where you talked about the mandate that you have and the government shuts down on your watch, you’re responsible for the government shutdown,’ he said.

Still, he said he would grade Democrats with a ‘B, B minus’ on their messaging, adding that it’s ‘not perfect.’

‘Maybe the answer is … Republicans are losing the shutdown fight, rather than Democrats are winning it,’ Nellis said. ‘But I mean, I just think we’ve got a lot more right than a lot more wrong, which is the first time you can say that in quite a while.’

The sudden announcement that Israel and Hamas had agreed to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire Wednesday night reignited a once-far-fetched question in world politics: could President Donald Trump win the Nobel Peace Prize?

If the ceasefire holds, it would signify a landmark achievement months in the making for a president who has branded himself a global peacemaker. Trump has long insisted he deserves the prize but doubts the committee would ever give it to him.

‘I’m not politicking for it,’ Trump said when asked about the prospect during the Aug. 8 signing of a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan at the White House. ‘I have a lot of people that are.’

Indeed, many have nominated him — often with public fanfare.

Nominations and deadlines

The deadline for this year’s nominations was January 31. Some proposals for Trump came in before then, but many arrived after the cutoff date. If he does not win when the prize is announced Friday, he could be considered again next year.

Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., said she nominated Trump, along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, for their work on the 2020 Abraham Accords between Israel and Arab states.

According to the Nobel Committee, 338 candidates were nominated this year — 244 individuals and 94 organizations.

Global push for Trump’s nomination

International support for Trump’s candidacy has come from a range of leaders. On June 20, Pakistani officials said they would recommend him for ‘decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership’ during a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between India and Pakistan.

A trio of Republican lawmakers nominated him after the Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, though that has not yet produced a ceasefire in Ukraine. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., quipped that he would be ‘the Democrat leading’ the charge for Trump to win if he could broker peace in that conflict as well.

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., nominated Trump in June following the Israel-Iran ceasefire agreement. Netanyahu said he submitted his own nomination in July, while Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet announced their nominations after separate U.S.-brokered peace agreements in their regions.

According to Oddspedia, Trump currently leads betting markets for the prize, followed by Sudan’s emergency response rooms and Russian opposition figure Yulia Navalnaya, widow of the late Alexei Navalny. Other contenders — such as Greta Thunberg, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the International Criminal Court — represent causes often at odds with Trump’s policies.

Trump: ‘The people know’

Trump has expressed little faith that the Nobel Committee will recognize him, despite his flurry of diplomatic initiatives.

‘No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do — including Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be,’ he wrote on Truth Social in June. ‘But the people know, and that’s all that matters to me.’

Inside the Nobel Committee

The Oslo-based Norwegian Nobel Committee is made up of five members appointed by Norway’s parliament to uphold Alfred Nobel’s will, awarding the prize to whoever has done ‘the most or the best work for fraternity between nations.’

The current committee includes Jørgen Watne Frydnes, secretary general of the Utøya Foundation; Asle Toje, a foreign-policy scholar linked to the right-leaning Progress Party; Anne Enger, a former Centre Party leader; Kristin Clemet, head of Civita, a center-right think tank that promotes free-market and democratic values; and Gry Larsen, secretary general of CARE Norway.

The panel’s composition suggests long odds for Trump. With most members rooted in Norway’s center-left and centrist traditions — and only Toje aligned with the right-leaning Progress Party — the committee tends to favor humanitarian, consensus-driven peace efforts over Trump’s deal-oriented diplomacy. It is generally seen as cautious and establishment-leaning, unlikely to reward his unconventional style even amid short-term progress in Gaza.

The Obama precedent

The Nobel Committee last faced this level of scrutiny when it awarded President Barack Obama the Peace Prize just nine months into his first term in 2009, citing his promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and a ‘new climate’ in international relations.

Obama was deeply popular in Europe at the time, but by the end of his presidency U.S.-Russia relations had sunk to a post-Cold War low, and American forces were still fighting in Afghanistan and Syria — a reminder that the Nobel Peace Prize can be as politically fraught as it is symbolic.

‘Trump derangement syndrome’ has spiraled to pathological levels, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during the White House’s monthly Cabinet meeting Thursday, pointing to a recent trend of pregnant moms protesting President Donald Trump by taking Tylenol — despite warnings the medicine could be tied to autism. 

‘The level of Trump derangement syndrome has now left political landscapes, and it is now a pathology,’ Kennedy said. ‘That a mother could overwhelm millions of years of maternal instinct to put her baby at risk.’ 

Kennedy explained to his colleagues and the media that he watched a video of a pregnant Columbia medical professor ingesting Tylenol on TikTok to protest Trump ahead of the meeting, and was startled that any mom would willingly ingest the over-the-counter pain medication following reports it’s allegedly tied to skyrocketing autism trends. 

‘Any mother who is taking this up during pregnancy just to get back into Donald Trump is doing something that is, it is pathological,’ he said. ‘And we’re seeing that across the board.’ 

Trump announced in September while flanked by U.S. health leaders that Tylenol taken during pregnancy ‘can be associated with a very increased risk of autism.’ 

Kennedy said during the same event that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are ‘turning over every stone to identify the ideology of the autism epidemic and how patients and parents can prevent and reverse this alarming trend.’

‘We have broken down the traditional silos that have long separated these agencies, and we have fast-tracked research and guidance,’ said Kennedy. ‘Historically, NIH has focused on almost solely on politically safe and entirely fruitless research about the genetic drivers of autism. And that would be like studying the genetic drivers of lung cancer without looking at cigarettes, and that’s what NIH has been doing for 20 years.’

Tylenol manufacturer Kenvue said it strongly disagreed with the administration’s assessment in comment to Fox Digital in September. 

‘We believe independent, sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen does not cause autism,’ a company spokesperson said at the time. ‘We strongly disagree with any suggestion otherwise and are deeply concerned with the health risk this poses for expecting mothers.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Kenvue Thursday afternoon for additional comment on Kennedy’s and Trump’s most recent Tylenol remarks but did not immediately receive a reply.

Following the September announcement, liberal pregnant moms began filming themselves taking Tylenol and posting the videos to X and TikTok as a way to protest Trump. Critics have balked at the claims that the common over-the-counter pain medicine is tied to autism. 

‘It is so suggestive that anybody who takes this stuff during pregnancy, unless they have to, is irresponsible,’ Kennedy continued Thursday.

Kennedy told Trump that, back in 1970, researchers in Wisconsin determined that roughly one in 20,000 eight-year-olds in the state had autism before skyrocketing in the following decades. Kennedy called the increasing autism rates a ‘national security issue.’ 

‘Now, it’s 1 in 12 for boys, 1 in 18, 19 for girls. So obviously there’s something, there’s something that’s artificially, I think, (inducing) something,’ Trump added. 

Kennedy continued that there are a handful of studies pointing to Tylenol’s alleged links to autism, including among male babies who are circumcised. 

‘There’s two studies that show children who are circumcised early have double the rate of autism,’ he said. ‘It’s highly likely it’s because they’re given Tylenol.’ 

Trump added that ‘there’s a tremendous amount of proof’ surrounding the claims linking Tylenol to autism, and remarked that he has discussed the increasing autism rate with Kennedy going back 20 years. 

‘I’ve studied this a long time ago,’ Trump said, noting he himself is not a doctor. ‘You know, I met Bobby in my office 20 years ago. We were talking about the same thing 20 years ago. And, I was a real estate developer, it bothered me that it seemed to be getting worse. But it’s so bad now when you hear these numbers, it’s not even really sustainable.’

Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy contributed to this report. 

Consumers’ Research, a leading nonprofit dedicated to consumer information and taking on woke corporations, launched a new campaign Thursday targeting insurance giant Chubb Limited and its CEO Evan Greenberg, alleging ‘deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).’

The campaign, which is facing pushback from a Chubb official and a pair of renowned China hawks accusing the nonprofit of misrepresenting Greenberg’s view, is part of a seven-figure initiative titled ‘China Chubb.’ The campaign accuses the insurance company and its chief executive of ‘cozying up to the CCP’ and ‘using their market power and resources to push a woke, political agenda on the American people.’

The effort falls under Consumers’ Research’s Consumers First Initiative, aimed at exposing companies the group claims put politics ahead of consumers. Chubb’s business reaches across 54 countries, including China, territories, all 50 states and employs over 40,000 people worldwide.

Consumers’ Research says the campaign will include a national 30-second television advertisement titled ‘China Chubb,’ which will begin airing across the country following the launch. 

The campaign also features a new website, ChinaChubb.com, a mobile billboard that will circulate throughout Washington, D.C., including Capitol Hill and Chubb’s Washington office, as well as a targeted digital push with sponsored content on social media platforms and online news outlets.

The ad campaign received a sharp rebuke from a Chubb spokesperson, who called it ‘completely dishonest’ in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

‘Evan has called out China’s authoritarian approach and predatory practices. He has repeatedly called for the U.S. to stand up and defend its interests,’ the spokesperson said. 

Robert O’Brien, former National Security Adviser to President Donald Trump, also pushed back on the ad in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

‘I’ve worked with Evan Greenberg for several years now on American relations with China,’ O’Brien said. ‘In my dealings with Evan, he has been a proponent of U.S. interests in the region. Through its operations in China, his company has contributed to shrinking the U.S. trade deficit.’

However, a Fox News Digital review found that Greenberg has personal and professional entanglements with the CCP, including meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping and offering public statements praising the CCP’s global vision.

Earlier this year, Greenberg reportedly attended China’s prestigious China Development Forum alongside executives like Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman and Mastercard’s Michael Miebach. The annual forum, which includes delegates from all over the world, also includes access to dozens of top CCP officials, according to a list of delegates released earlier this year.

During this same week, Greenberg was pictured in a press release posted by the Chinese government showing him shaking hands with Wang Yi, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, a top CCP position. The press release paraphrased Greenberg saying, ‘U.S.-China relationship is the most significant bilateral relationship in the world.’

In 2024, Greenberg was photographed not only shaking hands with Xi in Beijing as Chair of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, but was also offering glowing remarks about China’s ‘resilience and vitality.’ 

‘China’s exceptional economic growth and transformation over the past decades speak to its strong resilience and vitality,’ Greenberg said.

In November 2023, he introduced Xi at a San Francisco event.

‘Like many others in this room, I believe that a strong and prosperous China that supports and invests in the international system can be a force for good in the world,’ Greenberg said at that event. 

‘We are gathered today to gain insight from President Xi into his vision for the future of his country, and of the relationship between the United States and China. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in warmly welcoming President Xi Jinping.’

That same month, Evan Greenberg was elected Board Chair of the National Committee on
U.S.-China Relations after having been ‘an exemplary’ board member and officer of the National Committee and ‘supporting the Committee’s mission.’ The National Committee on U.S.-China Relations sold $40,000 tickets to Americans and American businesses to sit at Xi Jinping’s table during the welcome banquet in San Francisco featuring several other senior CCP officials and guests, which got slammed in a scathing letter from the House Select Committee on the CCP.

In 2022, Xi sent personal greetings to a gala honoring Greenberg. Meanwhile, Greenberg sits on the advisory board of Tsinghua University School of Economics & Management, an institution tied directly to China’s national security and defense apparatus. That university operates under a wing of the Chinese government known for defense tech development — a connection that would likely raise red flags for any U.S. executive overseeing sensitive insurance data.

Greenberg is not the only prominent American business leader serving on that board, a group that includes Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein, and Apple CEO Tim Cook. 

Greenberg has also called on the U.S. to ‘tone down rhetoric around Taiwan’ and slamming efforts to contain the CCP as ‘self-isolating’ and doomed to fail. In shareholder letters, he’s warned against treating U.S.-China competition as a ‘new cold war,’ and labeled some American trade protections as ‘wrongheaded’ and ‘unwise.’

Greenberg has acknowledged the complicated nature of the Taiwan situation, however.

‘Taiwan presents the most proximate risk of conflict for the U.S.-China relationship,’ he said in 2022. ‘Beijing has made its ambition clear that it wants to pull Taiwan into its orbit and, increasingly, is matching resources to its ambitions. Washington is improving coordination with allies to collectively deter China from using force, while at the same time supporting Taiwan’s efforts to improve its self-defense.’

Also in 2022, Chubb secured Chinese government approval to acquire majority control of Huatai Insurance Group, a Chinese firm with over $10 billion in assets. That stake has since grown to 85.5%. Meanwhile, Greenberg’s father, Hank Greenberg, orchestrated business deals and meetings with CCP officials, including a Xi-endorsed event ahead of a key U.S.-China summit.

That same year, Greenberg’s father led a group of executives meeting with Chinese officials ahead of Xi’s summit with President Biden in Bali. A think tank affiliated with China’s foreign ministry
organized the Chinese delegation.

Additionally, a company owned by Greenberg’s father, C.V. Starr, owns over 90% of a Chinese insurer formerly known as Dazhong. 

Greenberg has not exclusively been complimentary of China and has voiced concerns and critiques about China, saying last year, ‘China has undermined its appeal in many parts of the region through its revanchist efforts to demand acquiescence to its territorial claims and mismanagement of its own economy.’

‘Beijing’s dimming domestic performance is reducing its appeal, and its bullying behavior is driving many countries closer to the United States.’

A 2022 Chubb annual report states that the U.S. is seeking an Indo-Pacific regions that ‘remains free from Chinese hegemony.’ The insurance company’s 2023 annual report was also critical of China saying, ‘China is viewed both as important and as a source of anxiety for many countries around the world. China is a revisionist and revanchist power that is pursuing a large-scale expansion in military capabilities.’

Fox News contributor and China expert Michael Pillsbury told Fox News Digital that Greenberg has been playing a role communicating with China to benefit the Trump administration.

‘Over the last few months before China accepted President Trump’s request to meet with Xi Jinping, Evan Greenberg played a backstage role to get American complaints by bringing together American CEOs to meet Xi Jinping,’ Pillsbury said. 

‘Learning how badly American companies have been treated helps President Trump because he is determined to end outrageous mistreatment of American companies. White House friends of mine tell me Evan Greenberg developed a list of grievances of how badly treated our companies are in China. One CEO even used the term China ‘gangsterizes our companies.’’

Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild told Fox News Digital that Chubb’s leadership has ignored clear national security warnings about China.

‘Despite growing warnings from U.S. intelligence about the risks posed by the Chinese Communist Party, Chubb has invested billions of dollars in Chinese companies and Greenberg continues to treat Chinese President Xi Jinping as a partner and friend, even meeting personally with Xi Jinping and publicly introducing him as a force for good,’ Hild said.

‘As the saying goes, your friends show who you really are and Greenberg’s actions have made it clear he is all in on the CCP. Our campaign exposes the uncomfortable truth: when American corporations cozy up to Communist dictators and push woke policies at home, they betray not just their country, but their customers,’ he added.

When President Donald Trump and Finnish President Alexander Stubb sealed their latest trade agreement on Thursday, it wasn’t just a handshake for 11 rugged ships. 

It was another sign of a friendship that’s quickly turning into strategy.

Where other European leaders have tried to win Trump’s respect through policy and persuasion, Stubb chose the fairway. In March, the Finnish president — once a national golf team player — turned up at Mar-a-Lago not with briefing notes, but with clubs, challenging Trump to a round and earning something rarer than a trade deal: rapport.

Presentation matters to Trump, and Stubb — 6-foot-3, fit and sharply dressed in a double-breasted coat — seemed to meet the moment. When the two last met at the White House in August, Trump told him he ‘looked better than ever’ and introduced him as ‘a young, powerful man.’

That personal chemistry, maintained through frequent text exchanges, has quietly opened doors for the Finnish president, a longtime marathoner and triathlete with a competitive streak. What’s more, it’s translating into real policy — from defense contracts to Arctic cooperation — elevating the once-quiet Nordic nation to new prominence in Washington.

It’s an unlikely rise for a country better known for saunas and serenity than for summits. Stubb hails from a nation of 5.6 million that routinely tops the world’s happiness index, where forests blanket nearly 75% of the land and lakes glint by the hundreds of thousands.

Finland — slightly smaller than the state of Montana and wedged between Sweden and Russia — has long had its security outlook shaped by geography, a position that now places it on the front line of NATO and Arctic strategy.

The trade deal signed Thursday, for 11 ships valued at roughly $6.1 billion, is the latest sign of how that alignment is taking shape. Under the deal Trump approved, three of the ships will be built by Davie in Galveston, Texas, and four by Bollinger Shipyards in Houma, Louisiana, a setup that aligns with his ‘Made in America’ credo and emphasis on creating U.S. jobs, injecting billions of dollars into the maritime industrial base.

And when it comes to icebreakers, Helsinki is firmly in its element: Finnish companies design roughly 80% of the world’s fleet.

Finland’s expertise has made it more than just a supplier. It’s turned Helsinki into a trusted player in Trump’s Arctic strategy, a region increasingly defined by military competition with Russia and China, melting sea routes and access to critical minerals.

That partnership cuts both ways. For Finland, the agreement deepens defense cooperation with the U.S. and elevates it from NATO newcomer to strategic partner, a bridge linking Washington to the fast-changing Arctic frontier.

‘We are very pleased with the fact that we have so much training going on with American soldiers right now. They are getting experience from our Arctic conditions, and we are integrating our militaries together,’ Stubb said during a meeting in the Oval Office Thursday. 

For now, Stubb’s rapport with Trump has turned the fairway into a diplomatic fast track. Whether that personal chemistry endures amid shifting politics remains to be seen, but, for Finland, the gains are already tangible. 

Stubb has learned what some other global counterparts haven’t. With Trump, a well-timed drive can travel farther than any policy memo. And, so far, that lesson is paying off for both men.

The Senate advanced its version of a colossal package to authorize funding for the Pentagon on Thursday in the midst of the ongoing government shutdown.

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which had been gathering dust as lawmakers worked to break through holds on the bill for over a month, advanced in the upper chamber on a bipartisan vote. The legislation would authorize roughly $925 billion in defense spending.

However, successful advancement of the bill after a marathon Senate vote on amendments came as the government entered Day 9 of the government shutdown with no clear end in sight. Lawmakers in the upper chamber aren’t expected to return until Tuesday, all but guaranteeing that military service members won’t get their paychecks next week. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., formally announced the breakthrough on the Senate floor after Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., teased a possible vote Thursday morning. Wicker noted that in a particularly partisan moment in the upper chamber, the NDAA was able to sail through committee earlier this year on a near unanimous vote.

‘In this time, when we can’t seem to muster up a 60-vote majority to keep us in business as a federal government, we were able to pass the National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 26-to-1,’ Wicker said.

Lawmakers were finally able to move on the legislative package after Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., dropped his hold on the measure.

Gallego had called for a vote on his amendment that would have prevented Ashli Babbitt, who was killed during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, from receiving military funeral honors. The Air Force extended an offer for military funeral honors for Babbitt in August.

Senators charged through over a dozen partisan amendments and a massive batch of roughly 50 add-ons to the legislative package before moving the bill. The House passed its own version last month.

Among the failed amendments was one from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., which would have blocked money to retrofit a Boeing 747 that President Donald Trump accepted from the Qatari government earlier this year.  

Another, from Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., would have prevented Trump and governors around the country from signing off on sending the National Guard from one state to another if a governor or mayor rejected the move. 

One successful amendment, from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., would repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force for Iraq, which, at the time, authorized President George W. Bush to use the U.S. military as he deemed ‘to be necessary and appropriate’ in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.

It would also repeal a similar resolution passed in 1991 during the Gulf War. The House’s version of the bill included repeals of both authorizations, too. 

However, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., had vowed to block the package Thursday afternoon in an effort to ‘secure a hearing to investigate this gross abuse of our military’ in response to Trump sending the National Guard to Chicago and other cities across the country.

But she backed off her threat after Wicker promised a hearing on the matter ‘in the coming weeks.’

‘I look forward to asking tough questions of the Trump administration about their unconstitutional National Guard deployments to American cities against state and local officials’ objections,’ she said in a statement. 

The Nobel Committee awarded this year’s peace prize to Maria Corina Machado amid calls for President Donald Trump to receive the award in the wake of his brokering a historic deal between Israel and Hamas. 

Machado, a Venezuelan opposition leader, was described as a ‘brave and committed champion of peace’ by Joergen Watne Frydnes, chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

‘She is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy,’ Frydnes said.

Trump has received several high-profile nominations since returning to office. However, the committee’s deadline for nominations was Jan. 31, meaning he could be eligible for next year’s prize.

During a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump was asked about the Nobel Peace Prize, but did not comment on the award in his response. Instead, he focused on the possibility of addressing Israel’s Knesset.

Earlier this week, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, a group representing the families of hostages and terror victims formed after Oct. 7, appealed to the committee on Trump’s behalf.

‘In this past year, no leader or organization has contributed more to peace around the world than President Trump. While many have spoken eloquently about peace, he has achieved it. While others have offered empty promises, he has delivered tangible results that have saved countless lives,’ the forum wrote in a letter to the committee dated Oct. 6.

‘He has not merely spoken of peace — he has delivered it,’ the forum added.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Trump in July during a visit to Washington, D.C., that he had nominated the president for the Nobel Peace Prize. Netanyahu handed the letter he sent the committee to Trump when he told him the news.

‘The president has already realized great opportunities. He forged the Abraham Accords. He’s forging peace, as we speak, in one country and one region after the other,’ Netanyahu said. ‘So, I want to present to you, Mr. President, the letter I sent to the Nobel Prize committee. It’s nominating you for the peace prize, which is well-deserved.’

Weeks prior to that meeting, the U.S. and Israel carried out major operations that destroyed Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, as both countries warned a nuclear Tehran would be a threat to the world.

Trump was nominated for the award in the past but was not selected. Notably, U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., nominated Trump for the prize in 2020 when he brokered the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and Arab nations.

Had he won, Trump would have become the fifth U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Previous laureates include former President Barack Obama, former President Jimmy Carter, former President Woodrow Wilson and former President Theodore Roosevelt.

Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner and Caitlin McFall contributed to this report.

Nothing woke America up to the realities of gender ideology quicker than the photo of Riley Gaines standing next to her National Championship opponent, a 6’1′ male towering over her with his broad shoulders and smoldering grin. You felt it in your bones – this isn’t right. 

The moment sparked a nationwide campaign to try and convince everyday Americans that this feeling was not just instinct; it was internalized bigotry and evidence that there was noble, progressive work still to do. Only one problem. It was all a lie. And recent admissions show that not even the top Democratic leaders believed what they were selling.  

Just five years ago, I was a freshman in college, testifying in my dorm room about a bill that stated men cannot compete on women’s sports teams. ‘Politics are crazy,’ I thought, ‘Why do I even need to testify on something so obvious?’ 

I quickly learned of my own naivety when the bill did not pass in my very conservative state. ‘This isn’t a real issue,’ they insisted while I, a female athlete who had previously competed against a man, sat in front of them. There was clearly much more to this problem than I realized.

When the spotlight on the issue grew, it was somehow immediately deemed partisan. The issue was linked to the Democrats’ pro-LGBTQIA+ position, which they had insisted was the civil rights issue of our time, and now it was squarely at odds with something plainly unjust. But they were in too deep. 

At every turn, those who tried to find solutions to the problem of men in women’s sports, including traditionally far-left organizations like Women’s Liberation Front, found themselves up against the powerful political operatives of the Democratic Party. Though the ties between LGB and T were fading, the radical left insisted that to be pro-gay or pro-woman, you had to also stand for men in women’s sports. Democrats obliged.

In some ways, this makes sense. If the Democrats acknowledge that sex exists in sports, then what does this mean to other parts of their agenda that rely on sex-denying ideology? The crusade to abolish sex is one that spans decades, and they are not about to budge now. So, they doubled down, even redefining ‘sex’ as ‘gender identity’ wherever they could, including in landmark pro-woman legislation like Title IX, and they continued to label anything contrary as ‘extreme’ through the 2024 election. 

Concerned Women for America LAC exit polling suggests this issue played an outsized role in the election, and the Democrats paid the price with a resounding loss in both chambers of the federal government and the White House. Voters did not buy the lie that their concerns were merely internalized bigotry. And at least some Democrats are finally ready to face the music and speak more openly about it.

The Democrats’ highest-ranking figure has finally addressed one of the biggest political flops of modern history, and while her confession is unsurprising, it should shake the party to its core. 

In her recently released book about her presidential candidacy, former Vice President Kamala Harris admits that she, too, shares concerns: ‘I agree with the concerns expressed by parents and players that we have to take into account biological factors such as muscle mass and unfair student athletic advantage when we determine who plays on which teams, especially in contact sports.’ 

But she added, ‘There was no way I was going to go against my very nature and turn on transgender people.’

And there it is. Tension unmasked. When reality collides with allegiance, the Democrats choose allegiance.

The highest leaders of the party know they were ignoring the real, reasonable and consequential concerns of millions of women. Abandoning women and their safety was a calculation worth making in their eyes. 

Harris is not alone. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has publicly admitted that this is ‘an issue of fairness – it’s deeply unfair.’ Yet, his state is one of the worst offenders of women’s rights in this area.

On this Worldwide X/X Day (Real Women’s Day), the good news is that some party members are choosing reality and abandoning ship. Just a few weeks ago, 10 House Democrats voted, for the first time, for a National Defense Authorization Act amendment that would keep men from competing on women’s athletic teams at service academies. Just a few months ago, most of these same members refused to vote for a bill with similar protections. 

As we hope this issue joins the parade of failed civil rights attacks of times gone by, voters and candidates alike should heed the warning. Never stand for a lie. Truth is our only sure foundation. Policy must be based on reality.

We know wrong when we see it. It is instinctive, and often clearly on display, like that photo of Riley Gaines’ medal being given to a male.

President Donald Trump turned heads when he signed a recent executive order promising to defend the state of Qatar from attack and – in so doing – protect U.S. interests. The language of the order is clear: if Qatar is attacked, ‘the United States shall take all lawful and appropriate measures – including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military.’

This move comes after Israel, another close American ally, hit Qatar with airstrikes targeting Hamas officials. Some people who don’t understand the full context of the president’s Middle East peace strategy have questioned this order, even though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has since apologized for the strikes and promised no further action in Qatar.

The truth is that Trump’s executive order is yet another example of his abiding commitment to protecting American interests in the Middle East. During his first term, he declared that ‘The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.’ 

The Biden administration rewarded Qatar’s support during its withdrawal from Afghanistan by designating the nation a major non-NATO ally in 2022. We are in a new strategic calculus surrounding Qatar, and this is the context in which Trump has taken such a bold move.

President Trump is interpreting the strategic moment unlike any United States president before him. The Qatar announcement puts all parties in the region on notice: Israel conducted military strikes against Doha. It won’t do that again any time soon. Iran struck Qatar. It will think long and hard about doing anything close. The Saudis have paired up with the Pakistanis for mutual defense. Trump has done a checkmate. The political office of Hamas in Qatar is just less relevant now. 

Trump is forcing peace by clarifying options and the game for long-standing divisions from the Levant to the Gulf. This is bringing the broader Middle East closer to peace than it has been in years.

Who else could staunchly support Israel’s right to defend itself from Hamas and Iran’s nuclear program while simultaneously being tough on Netanyahu to actively pursue peace? There’s a tremendous amount of nuance in this approach.

Here is the president’s goal: A durable peace deal, not just between Israel and Hamas, but one that brings all parties in the Middle East to the table. This is why the United States has been so involved in brokering a deal in the Middle East and has relied on the positive relationships that Trump has built through trade and diplomacy.

America has been clear that there is some room for negotiation, but some things won’t change. Primary among them is that Hamas must disarm. This is a prerequisite to any lasting peace and Trump knows it. That’s why the 20-part plan is take it or leave it on the condition of disarmament.

Further evidence of the genius of this approach is the broad support the plan has received from disparate countries, both in the Middle East and in Europe. It has garnered support from countries that are both for and against Palestinian statehood. The plan has served as a unifying beacon to a region (and a world) that has long wanted peace but has never had a leader courageous and tenacious enough to make that dream a reality.

Another outcome of this broad support is the true isolation of Hamas. They’re the only ones who are for their continued militarization. In effect, by their protracted resistance to peace, they have alienated almost everyone who may be sympathetic to some of their nonviolent goals. That puts Hamas under enormous pressure – pressure that is both intentional and calculated to move the Middle East toward lasting peace.

All this comes while Trump has doubled down on American and European support of Ukraine to find a way to speed up the end of Europe’s horrible war, yet another example of the administration keeping promises made during the presidential campaign. The approach should sound familiar. 

The president provided Russia with every opportunity to end the conflict peacefully. Despite that effort, Moscow refused and has continued its aggression toward Ukraine. Now, as a last resort — just like the situation with Iran’s nuclear program – the United States is providing additional support to its allies, all in service of the ultimate goal, which has always been and will always be lasting peace, not just for the Middle East, but for the world. Trump is determined to be the peace strategist.