A conservative climate policy group is urging House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to subpoena records from the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project as part of an ongoing probe into the influence of climate advocacy groups in climate policy litigation. 

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, a conservative pro-U.S. energy production policy group, wrote a letter to Jordan last week pointing to evidence from a Sept. 12 Multnomah County v. ExxonMobil et al. court filing that he says suggests ‘covert coordination and judicial manipulation.’

‘This new evidence raises serious red flags about the credibility of both the so-called science being used in climate lawsuits and the judicial training programs behind the bench,’ Isaac told Fox News Digital. 

According to Isaac’s letter to Jordan, the court filing submitted by Chevron Corporation earlier this month reveals that ‘one of the plaintiffs’ lead attorneys, Roger Worthington, had undisclosed involvement in at least two so-called scientific studies that the county is presenting as independent, peer-reviewed evidence.’

One of those studies ‘acknowledged funding from the Climate Judiciary Project in a draft version, but that disclosure was inexplicably removed from the final publication,’ Isaac said in the letter. 

Earlier drafts of the study, labeled ‘DO NOT DISTRIBUTE,’ were found on Worthington’s law firm website, the letter revealed. 

According to the American Energy Institute, the study seeks to ‘attribute global economic losses from climate change to specific oil companies.’ The website also included a ‘pre-publication draft of a CJP judicial training module’ with internal editorial comments, according to the letter. 

Isaac told Jordan this mark-up raises ‘serious questions about how and why a plaintiffs’ attorney had early access to, and possibly editorial influence over, materials being presented to state and federal judges as ‘neutral’ science.’

Another module was designed to ‘educate’ participant judges on how to apply ‘attribution science’ in the courtroom, according to Isaac. 

Attribution science seeks to measure how much human-caused climate change is responsible for certain extreme weather events, per Science News Explores’ definition. 

‘The Environmental Law Institute has claimed neutrality, yet documents suggest coordination with plaintiffs’ counsel who stand to profit from the outcomes,’ Isaac told Fox News Digital. ‘If the same lawyers suing energy companies are shaping the studies and educating the judges, that is not justice; it is manipulation. Congress is right to dig deeper, and the American Energy Institute is proud to support that effort.’ 

Isaac is requesting that Jordan formally request ‘communications, draft documents, funding agreements, and internal editorial notes related to the scientific studies and CJP curriculum.’

While commending Jordan’s leadership, Isaac said, ‘Judges and the public deserve to know whether the courtroom is being quietly shaped by coordinated climate advocacy posing as neutral expertise.’

Isaac said the Environmental Law Institute and Worthington should answer several questions about their involvement in the studies, including the ‘judicial education module on attribution science.’

‘Does ELI regularly seek input from plaintiffs’ attorneys on its judicial education modules?’ Isaac questioned. 

‘ELI did not fund the Nature study, and the Climate Judiciary Project has not coordinated with Mr. Worthington,’ Environmental Law Institute spokesman Nick Collins told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

‘CJP does not participate in or provide support for litigation,’ Collins added. ‘Rather, CJP provides evidence-based continuing education to judges about climate science and how it arises in the law. Our curriculum is fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards.’

When 23 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter last month to Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin calling on him to cancel funding to the Environmental Law Institute, Collins told Fox News Digital that the Climate Judiciary Project’s projects are far from ‘radical.’

‘The programs in which the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) participates are no different than other judicial education programs, providing evidence-based training on legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily choose to attend,’ Collins said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Jordan and Worthington for comment on the letter but did not immediately hear back. 

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this story. 

President Trump just fired a top federal prosecutor because he failed to bring charges against two despised opponents, New York Attorney General Letitia James and ex-FBI chief James Comey.

The ouster of Erik Siebert, U.S. attorney for Virginia’s Eastern District — and Trump’s own appointee — came after he couldn’t find sufficient evidence to charge James with mortgage fraud.

The president blamed the firing on Siebert having been put forward by two Democratic senators – hardly a secret – under the archaic ‘blue slip’ requirement that should be abolished.

‘Yeah, I want him out,’ Trump said after ABC broke the story. Tish James is ‘very guilty of something.’

What’s more, ‘he didn’t quit, I fired him!’

It’s a blip of a story, compared to Trump and his team naming a special prosecutor to again investigate Russiagate allegations from 2016; dropping corruption charges against New York’s Mayor Eric Adams, and suspending security clearances for the law firm that Robert Mueller left four years ago (later blocked by a judge).

The larger point is that perhaps we’ve become inured to the serious spectacle of a president not just interfering with the Justice Department but literally dictating who should be charged and who should be protected.

Trump told Pam Bondi over the weekend, ‘They impeached me twice, and indicted me (five times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!’ 

He said he believes James, Comey and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff are ‘all guilty as hell’ but that nothing is being done.

As someone who used to roam the halls of the Justice Department — and covered three independent counsels involving Ronald Reagan’s AG, Ed Meese — I am acutely aware of the ethical boundaries. 

After the Watergate scandal, which included Attorney General John Mitchell going to prison, led to reforms, the idea of a wall between the White House and DOJ was further cemented. 

Joe Biden saw any involvement in criminal probes as radioactive, and no evidence of his tampering has surfaced (though he did pardon a bunch of allies, including his son).

There was a huge uproar back when Bill Clinton had a chance tarmac meeting with his AG, Loretta Lynch, while his wife was under investigation over her private email server. She said they talked about grandchildren and travel. A CBS reporter called the meeting ‘absolutely shocking.’ 

But you don’t have to rely on unnamed sources to learn about Trump giving his attorney general marching orders. He broadcasts it, even boasts about it.

Of course, Trump stretching his executive powers goes well beyond DOJ. There are his funding freezes against universities, dispatching of the National Guard in D.C. and elsewhere, and attempting to fire members of supposedly independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve.

The escalation against the media has been nothing short of stunning. Trump cheered ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel against the backdrop of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatening to take action against its local licenses. ‘We can do this the easy way or the hard way,’ he said, prompting some conservatives to say he sounded like a mafioso.

Trump won a $16 million settlement from ABC over George Stephanopoulos saying Trump had been held liable for ‘rape,’ not sexual abuse. He also won $16 million from CBS over the biased editing of a ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris. 

It just so happens that Nexstar, which preempted Kimmel and owns many CBS affiliates, needs administration approval to take over Tegna, another media conglomerate.

Trump filed suit against the Wall Street Journal for reporting he’d sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a silhouette of a naked woman–and when that surfaced with what closely resembled his signature, continued to deny he had done it.

And then there is his $15 billion suit against the New York Times, which a judge threw out after just four days for its ‘inexcusable’ breaking of the rules in a filing filled with ‘vituperation.’ It’s a strange suit because it wasn’t triggered by any particular story, just a general charge that the Times campaign coverage was illegal, including a Harris endorsement that ran on the front page.

Even the largest corporations have to spend big bucks to defend such suits, which is sort of the point.

But nothing is as sensitive and powerful as law enforcement, whose officials can shield allies and prosecute opponents.

The president’s position is that DOJ was weaponized against him during the Biden administration, and therefore he’s entitled to payback.

The latest news just broke. The Justice Department was investigating border czar Tom Homan for allegedly offering to help win federal contracts to businessmen — who were actually undercover FBI agents — in exchange for $50,000.

But as MSNBC reports, Trump’s DOJ dropped the case after he took office.
Since the hidden-camera encounter took place before Trump was elected, when Homan was a private citizen, I could argue he was just doing what hundreds of lobbyists do. Except for one nagging detail — Homan took the 50K in cash, in a Cava fast-food bag. No paper trail.

And yet Pam Bondi’s department gave him a pass.

Prosecutors in every administration must make difficult judgment calls about whether they have enough evidence to convict, especially against government officials or high-profile figures. 

And next time there’s a Democrat in the White House, what’s to stop that person from playing the same kind of hardball, saying their party was entitled to payback? The cycles could be endless.

As for now, it would be easier to have confidence in these prosecution decisions if the president wasn’t openly calling the shots. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer met with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and Commerce Minister Li Chenggang in Madrid last week. They announced a ‘framework agreement’ over TikTok, the Chinese-owned app used by millions of Americans. 

But the story isn’t only about TikTok. It’s also about how America uses TikTok as a lever – and why that lever is more necessary than ever.

TikTok is an important issue in and of itself: control over data, algorithmic influence, foreign ownership – all of which are critical for national security. In addition, however, TikTok is a tool the U.S. can and should use in ongoing trade engagement, as well as to counter China’s growing leverage in rare earths, critical minerals and semiconductors.

When I served in President Donald Trump’s first administration (‘Trump 45’), the core issues we confronted included a massive trade imbalance, intellectual property theft, cyber-theft and China’s Belt and Road infrastructure expansion. These were predatory practices in trade, tech and finance. Today, in ‘Trump 47,’ the battlefront has broadened – but one thing that hasn’t changed is the psychological warfare the Chinese employ any time negotiations are underway.

I was at the center of one of the most dramatic examples of this during Trump 45… 

After an exhausting month of prep work, I boarded my flight to Beijing in March 2018 with wary optimism. I had worked intensively leading up to this trip, drafting a comprehensive framework document outlining a new trade deal with China, a proposal that would overhaul virtually every aspect of the U.S.-China economic relationship.

We’d sent the proposal to our Chinese counterparts several days earlier, and now our high-level trade delegation was en route to Beijing to negotiate the largest change to trade relations in at least 10 years. The cast of characters illustrates just how significant this trade deal could be. It included Secretary Steven Mnuchin (head of the delegation), Under Secretary David Malpass and me (Treasury), Secretary Wilbur Ross (Commerce), U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and several of his deputies, NEC Director Larry Kudlow, Under Secretary Ted McKinney (Agriculture), and Peter Navarro (special assistant to the president and director of trade and manufacturing policy).

We arrived at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing with about an hour to review our plans one more time before we had to depart for Diaoyutai – the state guest house where Mao and every leader since has entertained foreign dignitaries. But there was a surprise waiting for us at our embassy:a brand-new proposal, drafted by the Chinese, which they were putting forth at the eleventh hour, and which we had never seen. It was about 15 pages long – and completely in Chinese!

I was one of the few people in the room who could read it. After a quick scan, I told the group: ‘This is wholly unacceptable. This document doesn’t say anything – they’re just messing with us.’ A heated debate ensued over how to respond, and how the Chinese were likely to react. But there was no time to reach a consensus; it was time to leave for Diaoyutai.

There was a mass exit from the secure room where we met at the embassy, and, almost like a well-choreographed ballet with a hundred moving parts, we all shuffled to our designated cars. As Secretary Mnuchin stepped into the limousine to take us to the meeting, Malpass insisted that I ride with the secretary and pushed me into the seat next to Mnuchin, saying, ‘We need to know exactly what this says – can you translate it on the way?’

As we sped through the streets of Beijing, I sat in the back seat, literally shvitzing as a technical term in Chinese got the better of me, and furiously translated as I read out loud, in English, what the Chinese had dropped in our laps.

Even as we climbed the stairs into the building and entered the meeting room, none of us was quite sure how Mnuchin was going to handle this hot potato. After Vice Premier Liu He’s flowing stream of diplomatic pleasantries welcoming us to China, the secretary calmly stated in response, ‘We received your draft. Thanks for sending it over – but we’re going to use our draft for today.’ It wasn’t the preamble they expected. But it was entirely consistent with the new tone that President Trump had set from the day he took office.

Today, China has moved from using tariffs and IP theft to controlling choke points – especially in rare earth elements, critical minerals, semiconductors and advanced manufacturing capacity. The numbers are clear indicators of China’s leverage. 

China accounts for about 70 % of global rare earth mining and about 90 % of the world’s rare earth refining and separation capacity. In 2023, China controlled 61 % of global mining of rare earth magnet elements and 92 % of refining capacity for those magnets. 

On semiconductors: while U.S. companies remain strong in chip design and advanced R&D, China’s share of the semiconductor industry’s value-added has surged (from about 8 % in 2001 to over 30 % by 2016), and China is pushing aggressively to become self-sufficient in mature node production.

These are not passive metrics. They are active levers China already uses in the trade negotiations through export restrictions, licensing controls or by threatening disruptions. For example, in April 2025 China – clearly in response to President Trump’s bold tariff moves – added export licenses and restrictions for seven heavy rare earth elements, including dysprosium, terbium, samarium, plus rare earth magnets—materials critical to EV motors, wind turbines, electronics and defense systems.

The challenges faced in Trump’s first term have only evolved – not eased. The trade deficit is large, IP and tech theft are growing more dangerous, predatory development finance practices continue and China’s leverage in rare earths, semiconductors and control over supply chains threatens global development and American autonomy.

TikTok is a headline issue impacting critical issues of data, influence and national security. But it is also an essential lever to counter the new pressure points China is pressing. Madrid and Friday’s Trump–Xi call offer a chance to reshape this broader contest. 

As I demonstrate in ‘A Seat at the Table,’ President Trump’s strategy and policies during his first administration allowed us to exert maximum pressure on our counterparts and to stay the course with firm negotiating positions and clear red lines. Last week’s dialogues demonstrate that Trump will continue to insist on substance over symbolism, an approach critical to our national interest. 

When President Donald Trump took the stage at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the teleprompter didn’t work. But no matter — he was about to deliver a series of points he knew well, and one that shattered the typical U.N. script.

At times, world leaders shifted uncomfortably in their seats, particularly when he charged that the U.N. had failed to help the U.S. end wars and joked that all he ever got from the institution was being stuck on an escalator and a broken teleprompter. Yet in his trademark style, Trump also drew laughter from the room, managing to be both affable and scolding at the same time.

‘What is the purpose of the United Nations?’ Trump asked, after recounting how he — not the U.N. — had ended seven wars. 

From there, he launched into a wide-ranging address that touched on every one of the U.N.’s modern priorities — climate change, Ukraine, refugee resettlement and Palestinian statehood—and rejected each of them outright, unsettling many in attendance.

Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže told Fox News Digital world leaders took note of Trump’s blunt style and sweeping agenda. She emphasized that his remarks spanned ‘a whole set of international issues,’ from Ukraine to Gaza. She highlighted his criticism of Russia, saying it was clear he wanted the war to end and was openly disappointed in President Vladimir Putin.

Former U.S. diplomat Hugh Dugan noted that while Trump hammered the U.N., he did not press the case for reform as forcefully as expected. 

‘As for U.N. reform and criticizing and guiding it through financial crises and endemic dysfunctionality, surprisingly he left a vacuum instead of a narrative,’ Dugan said. ‘He neither validated nor criticized the U.N. as expected, except pointing out the obvious views of its administrative and diplomatic passivity shared widely.’

Climate change

For the U.N., climate change is an existential threat requiring global action. Trump mocked the entire concept as ‘the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,’ deriding green energy as ‘all bankrupt’ and declaring the carbon footprint ‘a hoax.’ Dismissing decades of climate change work at the U.N., he said: ‘No more global warming, no more global cooling, whatever the hell happens, it’s climate change.’

Braže noted that European nations still see the U.N. as the central forum for tackling global problems, even if reforms are overdue. ‘We might differ in our opinion where we still think the U.N. is a valuable organization and the U.N. charter is a basis of [the] international system,’ she said, adding: ‘Of course it needs change… stepping up efficiencies.’

Ukraine

Trump and the international body are largely aligned on wanting the war in Ukraine to come to an end, but Trump criticized its European members sharply for continued reliance on Russian oil.

Trump argued the war ‘would never have started if I were president’ and accused NATO allies of hypocrisy and said some NATO allies were ‘funding the war against themselves’ by buying Russian oil.

‘They’re buying oil and gas from Russia while they’re fighting Russia. It’s embarrassing to them… they have to immediately, immediately cease all energy purchases from Russia.’

He threatened tariffs unless Europe cut off energy purchases from Moscow, but blamed India and China as the ‘primary funders of the war’ through Russian fuel purchases. The president also once again promised a ‘very strong round of powerful tariffs’ if Russia refuses peace.

Braže said Latvia welcomed Trump’s commitment to ending the war, even as she underscored Europe’s reliance on the U.N. system. ‘He also explained, of course, his efforts to achieve peace in various regions which we welcome,’ she said.

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna echoed Trump’s point that Russia’s war effort is not unstoppable. ‘As for the president’s speech, it was good to hear that Trump is dedicated to peace in Ukraine, and he also hinted that Russia is defeatable. We believe that as well,’ Tsahkna said. ‘Estonia has long said that Russia’s energy exports are its main source of revenue, and the engine behind its war in Ukraine. That’s why we must do more to cut off this funding.’

Migration

Where the U.N. sees migration as a shared humanitarian challenge, Trump painted it as an ‘invasion.’ He accused the U.N. of bankrolling illegal immigration into the U.S., citing U.N. cash and food assistance for migrants, and warned that uncontrolled migration was ‘ruining’ Europe.

‘The U.N. is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them,’ Trump said. ‘Your countries are being ruined. Europe is in serious trouble. They’ve been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody’s ever seen before.’

He claimed migrants in London want to impose ‘Sharia law.’

‘I look at London where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor. And it’s been so changed, so changed. Now they want to go to Sharia law, but you’re in a different country. You can’t do that.’

Braže said the Baltic States share skepticism about uncontrolled migration, rooted in their history under Soviet rule. ‘In some European countries, political correctness overcame the need to limit immigration. For us in the Baltics, immigration has always been something that we are quite skeptical about,’ she said. ‘That is due to the fact when the Soviet Union occupied us for 50 years we were not able to define our own rules… so today we are very clear that our borders are our borders, we control them.’

Palestinian statehood

While the U.N. pushes for recognition of Palestinian statehood as part of a two-state solution, Trump blasted such efforts as ‘a reward for Hamas.’ He argued it would encourage terrorism and instead demanded the immediate release of Israeli hostages — and made calls for peace. 

Dugan said the White House calculated carefully how to handle the Palestinian issue. ‘He denied added publicity for the Palestinian statehood matter, while robbing his critics of a snarky quotable they depend upon. His team would say that they opted not to throw more gas on that fire, I suppose.’

‘We have to stop the war in Gaza immediately. We have to immediately negotiate peace,’ Trump said.

But French President Emmanuel Macron said that if Trump really wants peace, he has to put pressure on Israel to end the war. 

‘There is one person who can do something about it, and that is the U.S. president. And the reason he can do more than us, is because we do not supply weapons that allow the war in Gaza to be waged. We do not supply equipment that allows war to be waged in Gaza. The United States of America does,’ Macron told France’s BFM TV after the speech. 

Macron went on: ‘I see an American president who is involved, who reiterated this morning from the podium: ‘I want peace. I have resolved seven conflicts’, who wants the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize is only possible if you stop this conflict.’

Behnam Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said Trump’s handling of Iran, where the president touted the U.S.’s offensive strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, in particular stood out. ‘The calmness and even casualness with which President Trump spoke about the elimination of the Islamic Republic’s military leaders at the UNGA today shows an understanding and willingness to embrace America’s superpower status against its adversaries not often seen,’ Taleblu said.

The broader UN message

Beyond individual issues, Trump’s message was that the U.N. itself was failing. He ridiculed its reliance on ‘strongly worded letters’ and its expensive renovation projects, portraying the body as corrupt and ineffective.

‘I’ve attended UNGA a few times. Never have I heard a speech like this. Trump was right on one thing: the UN is paralyzed,’ Tobias Ellwood, a former British member of Parliament, shared on X. But he warned major conflict is ‘likely to follow’ if the UN dissolves like the League of Nations did.

But Dugan suggested Trump stopped short of offering a roadmap. ‘He went to tier-2 topics (immigration and green energy) because they are tier-1 with MAGA,’ he said. ‘Given the teleprompter and the escalator, he seems resigned to the fact that the place is not teachable when it comes to organization turnaround — certainly not while [Secretary General Antonio] Guterres continues.’

Trump launched a review of the U.N. six months ago, and Dugan said he’d hoped to hear more about its findings in the speech. It’s ‘not evident’ that the review was ‘deep, good or even completed.’ 

Looking ahead, Dugan warned that Trump’s silence on deeper U.N. reform left space for rivals. ‘Next: let’s see if China is editing its speech now to swoop down to fill the missing narrative vacuum,’ he said.

Behnam Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said Trump was also making a point about the U.N.’s lack of engagement. ‘The President also foot-stomped the fact that he has received relative silence from the U.N. system and its leaders in the face of numerous ceasefires and deconfliction agreements he helped broker in warzones around the world. For an organization aimed at stemming or resolving conflict, the silence is deafening.’

As world leaders gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, French President Emmanuel Macron is seizing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to stake out global leadership — and, critics argue, to position himself as a counterweight to President Donald Trump.

Renewing his call for recognition of a Palestinian state, Macron has also put forward a proposal for a multinational force to take over from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) ‘the day after’ the Gaza war, according to The Times of Israel. 

For Macron, the United Nations General Assembly is a stage to project France as an alternative power. ‘Macron’s policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict reflects his broader ambitions on France’s foreign policy, that is, the idea that the country, as a middle European power, can offer an alternative to the U.S.-China competition,’ Jean-Loup Samaan, a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute, told Fox News Digital. ‘In this specific case, Macron believes that his push for a Palestinian state will increase French credibility in the Arab world and the so-called ‘Global South.’’

‘We have to recognize the legitimate right of Palestinian people to have a state,’ Macron said in an interview broadcast Thursday on Israel’s Channel 12. ‘If you don’t give a political perspective, in fact, you just put them in the hands of those who are just proposing a security approach, an aggressive approach.’ He went further, denouncing Israel’s ground offensive in Gaza City as ‘absolutely unacceptable’ and ‘a huge mistake.’

The comments infuriated both Israel and the United States, which argue that recognition emboldens extremists and rewards Hamas, the group responsible for the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.

Macron, however, insists recognition is the only way forward, reviving the long-stalled two-state solution. More than 145 countries already recognize Palestine, and European allies, including the U.K., Canada, Australia, Portugal, Malta, Belgium, and Luxembourg, are expected to follow France’s lead in the coming days.

Yet analysts warn Macron’s track record suggests otherwise. ‘If you want to know how UN-sponsored peacekeepers do with terrorist groups in the region, we have a 20-year case study in UNIFIL, which enabled rather than denied Hezbollah the ability to grow into a massive military threat,’ Richard Goldberg, senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital.

‘Macron is certainly driven by his beleaguered domestic political situation and the large French Muslim population, but in his own mind he’s also been down this road in Lebanon, where France has historic equities. The record is pretty clear: Macron has never delivered on anything; security improvements have only come through U.S. pressure and Israeli military might,’ Goldberg said.

Just days before Macron’s push, Trump met with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jared Kushner to discuss Gaza’s future — and is set to hold a meeting tomorrow with Arab leaders on ‘the day after,’ sources confirm to Fox News Digital. The overlap has fueled speculation that Macron is maneuvering to outshine Trump and claim the mantle of statesman-in-chief.

Goldberg added bluntly: ‘He may perceive himself that way, but I don’t think many in Washington spend a lot of time thinking about him.’

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, called Macron’s maneuvering ‘a blatant power-grab.’ She told Fox News Digital: ‘The fact is that would-be Emperor Macron has no clothes. The promise he is waving around of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ ‘promise’ to soon hold elections and abandon dictatorship and terror screams ‘scam.’’

‘At home, foreign policy topics are not driving the current political troubles, which are primarily focused on France’s need to reduce its fiscal deficit,’ Samaan noted. ‘I think Macron’s initiative on Palestine has more to do with his personal aspirations in terms of legacy. He’ll leave office in 2027.’

The proposed Gaza force, modeled on UNIFIL in Lebanon where France has long played a role, would demand French resources and likely face opposition in parliament from both the far left and far right, and without U.S. endorsement, Israeli buy-in, or domestic consensus in France, the initiative could stall before it begins.

Ryan Routh, the man accused of attempting to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at his Florida golf course last year, said he would not take the stand in his own criminal case on Monday — the strongest sign yet that the defense is preparing to rest its case and kick the trial into its final phase before jury deliberation.

Routh, 59, has been representing himself in the federal criminal trial. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and possession of a firearm, among other crimes. If convicted, he could face life in prison. 

He previously floated the possibility that he could testify on his own behalf — a risky strategy that would have waived his Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, and opened him up to cross-examination by federal prosecutors.

Judge Aileen Cannon pressed Routh repeatedly Monday morning on whether he’d had enough time to consider his decision or wanted to consult standby counsel. He said he was sure. Prosecutors then asked for the lunch hour to decide if they would call rebuttal witnesses.

If none are called, the defense is expected to rest within hours, clearing the way for closing arguments and jury deliberations.

Routh opened his defense Monday with Michael McClay, a gun specialist and his only expert witness, followed by testimony from a family friend and a former colleague.

McClay, an expert in sniper firearms and tactics with an extensive career in military and law enforcement, confirmed at the outset of Routh’s questioning that he was subpoenaed to testify, and did not want to appear on Routh’s behalf.

Routh spent most of the time questioning McClay about the operability scope of the rifle in question, including trying to cast doubt on the likelihood that the SKS rifle in question could not hit a target 375 yards away.

McClay, in response, said it depended on the skill of the shooter — but confirmed that the rifle was capable of hitting a target from that distance.

During cross-examination, the prosecution asked McClay about the likelihood of the rifle inflicting damage on a person if it was shot at that distance and hit an intended target. McClay said yes, the person would be hurt. Routh asked in McClay’s view whether he believed that a cowardly sniper would have an exit strategy if their plan failed, to which McClay said, ‘in all his missions, there was some way to escape.’

Routh’s witness list was sparse compared to the dozens of witnesses introduced by prosecutors, including forensics experts, FBI agents, and Secret Service agents over the course of a two-week period.

By contrast, Routh’s list included McClay, family friend Atwill Milsun, and a former colleague, Marshall Hinshaw.

The other witnesses spoke briefly and did not present much in the way of new or relevant information, as was expected, given their personal ties to the defendant.

Routh was also not expected to present any evidence on his own behalf. 

His earlier submissions to the court were deemed to be inadmissible. Prosecutors said the exhibits include books that were authored by Routh, handwritten drawings, and Eagle Scout awards from his childhood.

Last week, Cannon said that she would keep the exhibits on the docket and would give Routh the ability to challenge the court’s ruling, should he choose to do so.

Routh’s attempt to defend himself in his own criminal trial, using scant evidence and a thin list of witnesses, starkly contrasts with the prosecution, which spent nearly two weeks carefully and extemporaneously making its case against Routh to a jury in Fort Pierce, Florida.

In that span, jurors heard from 38 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of exhibits — text messages, call logs, bank records, and cellphone data — linking Routh to the alleged gun purchase and placing him near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach in the weeks before the attempted assassination.

Prosecutors also presented extensive digital and forensic evidence. FBI officials testified last week that Routh’s DNA was found on the rifle scope grip, a glove, a bungee cord, and a bag recovered from the ‘sniper’s nest’ near the sixth hole, where he allegedly waited at least 12 hours for the president’s arrival.

Before resting its case Friday, the government’s final witness, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Kimberly McGreevy, walked the jury through extensive cellphone data, license plate records, surveillance footage, and other information prosecutors alleged tied Routh to Trump’s movements in the weeks before the alleged attempt.

NEW YORK, NY – New U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz warned Monday the U.S. and its allies will defend ‘every inch’ of NATO territory after Russian fighter jets violated Estonian airspace.

‘The United States stands by our NATO allies in the face of these airspace violations, and I want to take this first opportunity to repeat and to emphasize the United States and our allies will defend every inch of NATO territory,’ Waltz said during opening remarks of the United Nations General Assembly high-level week. ‘Russia must urgently stop dangerous behavior.’

The warning marked one of Waltz’s first public statements since winning Senate confirmation Friday. It came days after three Russian MiG-31 jets flew deep into Estonian airspace — the closest such incursion to the Baltic nation’s Parliament building in years — raising fears Moscow is testing NATO’s resolve.

Estonia’s Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna revealed Monday morning that the jets were armed. The jets were in Estonian airspace for 12 minutes.

Tsahkna noted that Russia remains a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council even as it continues its war on Ukraine and now pushes into NATO territory.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that an armed attack against one or more NATO members in Europe or North America is considered an attack against them all. In practice, this means that if any member nation is attacked, the others are committed to take action.

Waltz, a former House member from Florida, served as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor until May. His confirmation to the U.N. was held up in the Senate until last week, when a 47-43 vote confirmed him as U.S. permanent representative to the U.N. Security Council.

A separate vote to confirm him as U.S. representative to the General Assembly did not come up — it’s unclear whether that will have any effect on his participation at UNGA. 

The Estonia incursion followed an incident where at least 19 Russian drones entered Poland’s airspace just one week after Polish President Karol Nawrocki met with President Donald Trump at the White House. Last week, Romania reported a Shahed drone of Russian origin was found in its territory. 

Russia called reports of the incursions ‘groundless accusations.’ 

‘There is no proof except the Russophobic hysteria coming from Tallinn,’ said Dmitry Polyansky, Russia’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the U.N., referring to Estonia’s capital. 

‘There was a time when Europe was associated with the renaissance, enlightenment cutting edge of philosophy, culture and science. Yet today unfortunately all of that is gone and it’s gone for good,’ the representative went on.

Polyansky claimed the ‘only ideology’ of European states is ‘primitive hatred’ for Russia. 

‘Any events are immediately interpreted through an anti-Russian prism,’ he said. ‘The idea that war with Russia is unavoidable is being frantically pounded into the heads of the European populace.’

On Monday, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting on the jet incursions into Estonia at Tallinn’s request. 

‘Russia’s reckless actions represent not only a breach of international law, but also a destabilizing escalation that brings the entire region closer to conflict than at any time in recent years,’ Tsahkna said. 

‘Such a provocation is profoundly disrespectful towards the collective and tireless efforts of the international community to bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war and to restore peace and stability in accordance with international law.’

The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump’s decision to fire a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, sending yet another signal that the high court intends to revisit a 90-year-old court precedent about executive firing power.

The temporary decision to maintain Biden-appointed commissioner Rebecca Slaughter’s termination was issued 6-3 along ideological lines. The Supreme Court set oral arguments in the case for December.

Trump’s decision to fire Slaughter and another Democrat-appointed commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, faced legal challenges because it stood in tension with the FTC Act, which says commissioners should only be fired from their seven-year tenures for cause, such as malfeasance.

Trump fired Slaughter and Bedoya shortly after he took office without citing a cause other than the president’s broad constitutional authority over the executive branch. Bedoya resigned, but Slaughter vowed to fight her firing in court and see the case through to its conclusion.

A lower court initially sided with Slaughter and reinstated her, but she has since been fired and re-hired several times as her case made its way to the Supreme Court. The decision on Monday came after the Trump administration asked the high court on an emergency basis to temporarily pause the lower court’s decision to reinstate Slaughter ahead of deciding on the merits of the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep Slaughter’s firing intact means she will remain sidelined from the FTC until after the high court hears arguments about the case in December.

Slaughter had argued to the Supreme Court that siding with Trump, even on an interim basis, disturbed the precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States, which deemed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC commissioner unlawful.

Legal experts have speculated that the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court is interested in narrowing or reversing Humphrey’s Executor, which could carry broad implications about a president’s ability to fire members of independent agencies.

The three liberal justices dissented and would have denied Trump’s stay request. Writing for the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan speculated that the court’s majority may be ‘raring’ to reverse Humphrey’s Executor but that it should not make hasty decisions that contravene that precedent until such a reversal happens.

‘Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,’ Kagan wrote. ‘Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.’

Fox News Digital reached out to a representative for Slaughter for comment.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Ryan Routh, the man accused of attempting to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at his Florida golf course last year, said he would not take the stand in his own criminal case on Monday — the strongest sign yet that the defense is preparing to rest its case and kick the trial into its final phase before jury deliberation.

Routh, 59, has been representing himself in the federal criminal trial. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and possession of a firearm, among other crimes. If convicted, he could face life in prison. 

He previously floated the possibility that he could testify on his own behalf — a risky strategy that would have waived his Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, and opened him up to cross-examination by federal prosecutors.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon asked Routh repeatedly Monday morning whether he’d had enough time to consider his decision not to testify, and whether he wanted to consult standby counsel. He said he was sure. Prosecutors then asked for the lunch hour to decide if they would call rebuttal witnesses.

If none are called, the defense is expected to rest within hours, clearing the way for closing arguments and jury deliberations.

Routh opened his defense Monday with testimony from Michael McClay, a gun specialist and his only expert witness; followed by a family friend, Atwill Milsun, and a former colleague, Marshall Hinshaw.

McClay, an expert in sniper firearms and tactics with an extensive career in military and law enforcement, confirmed at the outset of Routh’s questioning that he was subpoenaed to testify, and did not want to appear on Routh’s behalf.

Routh spent most of the time questioning McClay about the operability scope of the rifle in question, including trying to cast doubt on the likelihood that the SKS rifle in question could not hit a target 375 yards away.

McClay said that it depended on the skill of the shooter — but confirmed that the rifle was capable of hitting a target from that distance.

During cross-examination, prosecutors asked McClay about whether the rifle could inflict damage to someone at that distance, which McClay confirmed it could.

Routh’s questions for McClay were buffeted by long pauses and sighs from Routh, who at one point, mused aloud: ‘I have to order my questions, or I will get confused.’

Routh’s witness list was sparse compared to the dozens of witnesses introduced by prosecutors, including forensics experts, FBI agents, and Secret Service agents over the course of a two-week period.

Instead, he used his two character witnesses to bolster his own attempts to cast himself as a person of ‘peacefulness, gentleness, and non-violence.’

Before his former colleague, Marshall Hinshaw, took the stand, Cannon reiterated to Routh the risks of introducing character witnesses, noting that personal relationships can leave such witnesses exposed to tough cross-examinations. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley told Judge Cannon in response that they planned to limit such questions.

The bulk of the questions Routh asked his witnesses focused closely on his reputation and engagement within the community. ‘You were very well-liked,’ Hinshaw told Routh, adding that he would ‘not expect’ Routh to harm anyone.

Asked whether he could have run for city council, Hinshaw responded, ‘absolutely.’

Certain questions, including about Routh’s ex-wife, prompted Cannon to interject several times, noting that they were far beyond the scope of the case. 

His family friend, Atwill Milsun, echoed that Routh is not a violent person. ‘You’ve always been a jolly person,’ he told Routh, who he said offered ‘everything he had’ to the local community. 

Still, Routh’s absence of counsel was starkly on display. His questions prompted visible frustration from Cannon, who at times had to stop the proceedings and instruct the jury to disregard questions or statements from Routh.

At times, his questions veered into deeply unconventional territory, leaving Cannon seemingly at a loss for words.

At one point, Routh asked Milsun whether he had ‘ever met Tony Hawk.’ Milsun responded, ‘yes,’ though not because of Routh. 

Routh then asked, ‘Would you be willing to go with me to Taiwan to host an international music festival?’ prompting Cannon to cut Routh off from his questions completely.  

‘I’ve given you a great deal of latitude, [but] this must cease,’ she told him.

On a cross-examination, prosecutors asked Milsun if he was aware that Routh ran over an employee with his truck. Milsun responded that he had not been aware of this. 

Both witnesses acknowledged during cross-examinations they had not spoken to Routh for years.

Routh was also not expected to present any evidence on his own behalf. He suggested, at one point, the idea that had a ‘new flashlight item’ to submit, though it is unclear what, exactly, he was referring to. 

Cannon told him that he would need to ‘lay a proper foundation’ before submitting any evidence. Asked whether the flashlight had an exhibit number, Routh told her, ‘It’s a brand new item we just created.’

Cannon told him to defer the matter to standby counsel and return to questioning his witness. 

His earlier submissions to the court were deemed to be inadmissible evidence. Prosecutors noted the exhibits in question include books that were authored by Routh, as well as handwritten drawings and Eagle Scout awards from his childhood. Cannon previously said she would keep the exhibits on the docket to give Routh the ability to challenge the court’s ruling, if he felt the need to do so.

Routh’s attempt to defend himself in his own criminal trial, using scant evidence and a thin list of witnesses, starkly contrasts with the prosecution, which spent nearly two weeks carefully and extemporaneously making its case against Routh to a jury in Fort Pierce, Florida.

In that span, jurors heard from 38 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of exhibits — text messages, call logs, bank records, and cellphone data — linking Routh to the alleged gun purchase and placing him near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach in the weeks before the attempted assassination.

Prosecutors also presented extensive digital and forensic evidence. FBI officials testified last week that Routh’s DNA was found on the rifle scope grip, a glove, a bungee cord, and a bag recovered from the ‘sniper’s nest’ near the sixth hole, where he allegedly waited at least 12 hours for the president’s arrival.

Before resting its case Friday, the government’s final witness, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Kimberly McGreevy, walked the jury through extensive cellphone data, license plate records, surveillance footage, and other information prosecutors alleged tied Routh to Trump’s movements in the weeks before the alleged attempt.

Cannon, despite her visible frustration, seemed to hope Routh would take the opportunity to testify on his own behalf.

‘Have you had enough time to decide?’ she pressed him at one point during the day. 

‘A year,’ Routh told her in response.

After the defense rests, both sides will present their closing arguments to the jury before they deliberate on the verdict. Closing arguments are expected Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest. 

The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump’s decision to fire a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, sending yet another signal that the high court intends to revisit a 90-year-old court precedent about executive firing power.

The temporary decision to maintain Biden-appointed Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter’s termination was issued 6-3 along ideological lines. The Supreme Court set oral arguments in the case for December.

Trump’s decision to fire Slaughter and another Democrat-appointed commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, faced legal challenges because it stood in tension with the FTC Act, which says commissioners should only be fired from their seven-year tenures for cause, such as malfeasance.

Trump fired Slaughter and Bedoya shortly after he took office without citing a cause other than the president’s broad constitutional authority over the executive branch. Bedoya resigned, but Slaughter vowed to fight her firing in court and see the case through to its conclusion.

A lower court initially sided with Slaughter and reinstated her, but she has since been fired and rehired several times as her case made its way to the Supreme Court. Monday’s decision came after the Trump administration asked the high court on an emergency basis to temporarily pause Slaughter’s reinstatement while it considers the merits of the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep Slaughter’s firing intact means she will remain sidelined from the FTC until after the high court hears arguments about the case in December.

The case raises a pivotal question of whether Trump has the ability to fire members of independent agencies as the president pushes for a more unified executive branch. Independent agencies, such as the FTC, various labor boards and the Securities and Exchange Commission, have long been insulated by law from at-will firings.

Slaughter had argued to the Supreme Court that siding with Trump, even on an interim basis, directly flew in the face of the precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States, which deemed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC commissioner unlawful.

Legal experts have speculated that the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court is interested in narrowing or reversing Humphrey’s Executor, which could carry broader implications about a president’s ability to fire members of certain independent agencies.

The three liberal justices dissented and would have denied Trump’s stay request. Writing for the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan speculated that the court’s majority may be ‘raring’ to reverse Humphrey’s Executor. She said, though, that it should not make decisions on the shadow docket that contravene that precedent and instead wait until such a reversal happens.

‘Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,’ Kagan wrote. ‘Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.’

Fox News Digital reached out to a representative for Slaughter for comment.