Author

admin

Browsing

Erik Prince, founder of the controversial security contractor formerly known as Blackwater, joined in law enforcement operations on Saturday in Guayaquil, one of Ecuador’s most violent cities, according to local officials.

The operations saw 10 houses raided and 40 people detained, Ecuador’s Interior Minister John Reimberg said.

“Since early this morning, the security block together with the American Erik Prince, a security expert, and the Ministers of Defense, Gian Carlo Loffredo and the Minister of the Interior, John Reimberg, were deployed in territory in Guayaquil, especially in the suburbs, attacking criminals and outlining strategies to strengthen the great actions of our law enforcement forces in the field of operations,” Ecuador’s Defense Ministry posted on X Saturday morning.

Prince also said in a video posted by Ecuador’s Defense Ministry that he was in the country “providing the law enforcement and the military the tools and the tactics to effectively combat the narco-gangs.”

The aim, Prince continued, is to “put the narcos on their back heels and make them truly afraid of being caught.”

His visit to the South American nation comes weeks after Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa announced a “strategic alliance” with Prince to fight organized crime.

‘A historic chapter for security’ in Ecuador

Ecuador’s Defense Ministry called Prince’s participation on Saturday a “historic chapter for security” for the nation.

The country’s Defense Minister Gian Carlo Loffredo said Prince and his team are currently providing training and advice to Ecuador’s security forces – but added that their scope of action could be expanded. “They may not be limited to just those actions,” Loffredo said.

Prince has been in the country for a “few days,” and work is ongoing to develop a new plan to combat Ecuador’s gangs, he also said.

In recent years, Ecuador – which is sandwiched between Colombia and Peru, top producers of cocaine – has become caught up in the drug trade and the violence that always follows it. Its efficient transport and export system has been used by cartels to move and ship their goods overseas — the bricks of cocaine hidden in boxes of bananas and other goods that then head to the United States, Europe and the rest of the world.

Noboa’s efforts however will be heavily dependent on next week’s presidential runoff vote. He’s set off to face leftist candidate Luisa Gonzalez, who has positioned herself as equally tough on crime but opposes the presence of any foreign force in the country.

In the same video posted by the defense ministry, Prince called on Ecuadorians to vote for Noboa, warning that otherwise Ecuador risked “looking just like Venezuela, a narco-state with massive drug processing with all the criminality and socialism and despair that comes with that.”

“I hope Ecuador chooses law and order and we are here to help to combat the gangs and to provide the tools for the government to restore law and order, peace and prosperity,” he added.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Millennials will soon have their first video-gamer saint when Carlo Acutis is canonized later this month, but auctioning off relics purported to be tied to “God’s influencer” online is a no-go, according to an Italian archbishop.

The statement comes after an anonymous vendor tried to sell strands of Acutis’ hair online. Bids reached $2,200 before the lot was removed after Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino – who leads the diocese of Assisi where Acutis’ body is being kept and where the supposed relics were being auctioned off – called the police.

Relics, from strands of hair to bone fragments, have long been important devotional items for the Catholic faithful, and the Church encourages praying in front of relics of saints and saints-to-be, but canon law prohibits their sale, according to Sorrentino.

They can be given away by their owner or by bishops, while significant relics, such as hearts and organs, cannot be given away without permission from the Vatican. But this can never be for financial compensation, Sorrentino said in a video posted on the diocese website.

“After we verified the auction on the internet, we decided to file a complaint. What can the idol of money lead to… I fear that Satan has a hand in it,” he said.

Sorrentino filed a complaint with the police in Perugia, which is investigating the sale of the purported relics. “We have asked for their seizure,” Sorrentino said on the diocese website. “We do not know whether the relics are real or false, but even if it were all invented, if there was deception, we would be in the presence of not only a scam, but also an insult to religious sentiment.”

“The business of relics trading is prevalent, Sorrentino added. “On the internet there is a market of relics that concern various saints, such as our Francis (of Assisi), with a price list. Something (that is) impossible to accept,” he said.

Acutis, who died of leukemia in 2006 at the age of 15, is widely recognized as a model of Christian life for young believers and who Sorrentino said will be a sort of “patron saint of the internet” once he is canonized.

That ceremony will take place in St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City on April 27.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

The Canadian government is warning citizens visiting the United States that US border officials have the authority to search travelers’ electronic devices – including phones, laptops, and tablets – without providing a reason.

In a revised travel advisory posted online, it urges Canadians to “expect scrutiny” when crossing the border and warns that refusing to comply involves risks including device seizure, travel delays, or the denial of entry for non-US citizens.

Under US law, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents may demand passwords to unlock devices during inspections. Travelers who refuse the demand risk having their electronics confiscated and may face long delays.

The advisory recommends placing devices in airplane mode before crossing to prevent unintended downloads of remote files, which could complicate screenings.

The move follows recent incidents involving such searches. Last month, Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese assistant professor and physician at Brown University, was deported to Lebanon after US agents at Boston Logan International Airport discovered deleted photos of the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on her phone.

“In explaining why these multiple photos were deleted by her one to two days before she arrived at Logan Airport, Dr. Alawieh stated that she did not want to give authorities the perception that she supports Hezbollah and the Ayatollah politically or militarily,” the filing reads, per WCVB.

While US authorities maintain that device searches are critical for national security, civil liberties groups have long criticized the practice as invasive.

The US Supreme Court has upheld the authority of border agents to conduct warrantless device searches, citing the “border search exception” to the Fourth Amendment.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

The dramatic arrest of the Philippines’ controversial former president in March sent shock waves through much of the world – and cast a renewed spotlight on the other leaders wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who was whisked off to the Netherlands to answer for alleged crimes against humanity, had long been under scrutiny over a brutal anti-drugs crackdown. But even after years of on-and-off investigations, during which Duterte taunted the court and told it to “hurry up,” his detention came as a surprise to many experts.

“We have had other high-ranking individuals brought before the court,” including several former presidents of African nations, said Leila Sadat, professor of international criminal law at the Washington University School of Law and the former special adviser on crimes against humanity to the ICC prosecutor.

But in many of those cases, the prosecuted leaders were either summoned to court or arrested after a warrant was publicly issued – a stark contrast to Duterte’s case, where the warrant was issued secretly and the former leader swiftly apprehended within several head-spinning hours.

“It’s the first time we’ve seen this at the ICC,” Sadat said – though similar cases have been seen in other international tribunals, she added.

Duterte, now 80, oversaw a ferocious crackdown on alleged drug pushers in the Philippines that killed more than 6,000 people, based on police data. Independent monitors believe the number of extrajudicial killings could be much higher.

His arrest is significant, partly because it could set a precedent for future trials of other leaders wanted by the court, however unlikely, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

That’s not to say their turn could be imminent, far from it – many political factors can make it extremely difficult to execute an arrest warrant.

Case in point: Netanyahu on Sunday was wrapping up a visit to Hungary, in defiance of the ICC warrant. As a signatory to the Rome Statute, Hungary is obligated to arrest anyone wanted by the ICC. Instead, its Prime Minister Viktor Orban welcomed Netanyahu with open arms, and Budapest announced it would begin the process of leaving the court.

But Duterte’s case has shown that arrest is possible – especially once a leader is out of office – and that the threat against those wanted leaders is not only theoretical.

“The precedent set here – maybe not now, but in future generations – will allow us to visualize what justice looks like for the highest-ranking leaders of countries that commit these kinds of crimes,” said Gregory Gordon, a professor of international criminal law at the Peking University School of Transnational Law in Shenzhen, China.

“There’s always that initial breakthrough that has to happen.”

Putin and the Ukraine war

Located in The Hague in the Netherlands, the ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression against the territory of its member states, of which there are 125.

The court cannot carry out arrests on its own and relies on the cooperation of national governments to execute warrants – which often rests on domestic politics and political will.

ICC member countries include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil and all other members of the European Union – at least until Hungary makes its promised exit.

In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin and Russian official Maria Lvova-Belova over an alleged scheme to deport Ukrainian children to Russia.

The charges were the first to be formally lodged by the ICC against Russian officials since the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in 2022.

Russia – like the United States, Israel, China and Ukraine – is not a member of the ICC. The court does not have its own police force and does not conduct trials in absentia – and therefore the likelihood of any Russian official appearing before it is very low, analysts said.

Any charged Russian officials would either have to be handed over by Moscow, or arrested outside of Russia, said Sadat, the Washington University professor.

“The warrant against Vladimir Putin himself is obviously the most challenging because he’s a head of state in power, and he’s not going to leave Russia unless he’s pretty sure he’s going to have immunity wherever he goes,” she said. “But his choices are now restricted, and he’s been labeled, for better or worse, a war criminal.”

Gordon agreed, saying the chances of Putin being arrested are slim, given his “firm grip on power” and layers of protection – unless Russia’s domestic political situation changes enough to leave him vulnerable. After all, it was a dramatic change in the Philippines’ domestic politics that ultimately did for Duterte.

Even when Putin leaves Russia, many countries are unwilling to arrest him. Last year, the Russian leader traveled to Mongolia without facing any repercussions – despite the East Asian country being a member of the ICC.

“Obviously the pressure on a small country like Mongolia is pretty substantial,” Sadat said.

But she pointed to other times the warrant had seemed to restrict Putin’s movements; in 2023, the Russian leader attended a BRICS summit in ICC signatory South Africa via video call, sparing the host country a potential diplomatic quandary.

“I think the warrants themselves are powerful. At the same time, we do have to see a significant number of warrants actually get executed, or the warrants become sort of symbols of a court that can’t arrest its accused,” she said.

“That’s why (Duterte’s arrest) is a really exciting moment for the court, because it shows it can engage in interstate cooperation.”

Netanyahu, Hamas and the Gaza war

The ICC issued its warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024 – also seeking the arrest of former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.

A senior Hamas official is also wanted by the ICC on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel. Other leaders of the militant group sought by the court for prosecution were killed by Israel.

The historic warrants made Netanyahu the first Israeli leader summoned by an international court for alleged actions against Palestinians in the more than seven-decade-long Arab-Israeli conflict.

The warrants were also denounced across the Israeli political spectrum as unconscionable, with Netanyahu’s own office labeling the move “antisemitic.” Several Israeli allies – including the United States – strongly criticized the ICC warrant.

Israel is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction, nor does it honor international warrants issued by the court, and likely wouldn’t turn over Israeli citizens for prosecution. In addition, the ICC only steps in when a country’s own government is unwilling or unable to prosecute cases.

But unlike Russia, it is a functioning democracy, with a long history of peaceful transitions between elected governments. That makes Netanyahu’s future political security more tenuous than Putin’s, and more comparable to the Duterte situation, where a shift in government once the Philippine leader was out of office ultimately led to his downfall.

The Israeli prime minister is already contending with a number of domestic legal troubles unrelated to the Gaza war, including a long-running corruption trial.

Israel is also deeply politically divided, with many citizens furious at the Netanyahu government and his far-right cabinet allies.

According to Gordon, it is at least “conceivable” that Netanyahu could one day face arrest in Israel for alleged crimes related to Israel’s actions in Gaza – though that still doesn’t mean the ICC warrant would be enforced.

Then there’s the fact that several powerful nations have opted not to enforce the ICC’s warrants while others have openly rejected them – further undermining the court’s authority.

France, for instance, had fervently supported the ICC’s warrant for Putin – but it shifted its stance after the court sought Netanyahu’s arrest, arguing that as Israel was not an ICC member, its prime minister should be immune from prosecution. Other European nations have also indicated they would be unwilling to enforce the Israeli warrants.

But critics say the responses suggest two sets of rules: one for the West’s traditional allies, and another for its foes.

The trouble with international prosecutions

The ICC has a long list of outstanding arrest warrants, including for former dictator Omar al-Bashir, who ruled Sudan for three decades before being deposed in 2019. Currently imprisoned in Sudan, Bashir faces charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

A disproportionate number of ICC prosecutions have been against African leaders, warlords and militia members – including former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and the East African country’s current leader William Ruto, whose case was abandoned by the court partly due to “witness interference and political meddling.”

The ICC’s past focus on Africa is partly rooted in its constitution, said Sadat in Washington. The court can only exercise jurisdiction in crimes committed on or after its creation on July 1, 2002. At the time, major wars that killed millions were raging across Africa, from Darfur to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Additionally, many African nations self-referred their cases to the ICC, Sadat added – meaning they asked the international court to investigate and granted it jurisdiction.

“With time, the prosecutor’s office started staffing up, developing more expertise, taking on additional situations … now the court is moving into other situations,” Sadat said.

But, she added, it’s difficult to prosecute alleged crimes while conflicts are ongoing and those accused remain in positions of power.

For years, the ICC has faced criticism for slow trials and its low conviction rate. From 60 arrest warrants issued since the court was created, 31 suspects remain at large. Only 11 defendants have ever been convicted – all African war criminals.

Sadat pointed to Syria, saying that for years, the ICC couldn’t “figure out a way to get jurisdiction” to investigate alleged war crimes during the country’s civil war – until former dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime was toppled in December. Since then, the new interim government has invited the court to visit the country and collect the evidence needed for prosecution.

The Philippines is another prime example of how ICC cases often become stuck until some political upheaval changes the game, said Gordon, the law professor.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. had previously said the Southeast Asian country would not engage with the ICC, only for Manila to reverse its stance this week following the collapse of an alliance between the Marcos political dynasty and Duterte’s clan.

Some might argue “that this is just about politics, and that the only time the ICC will ever be able to engage in the justice process is if political processes are aligned in certain ways – and it’s just a matter of luck, not justice,” Gordon said.

Duterte’s arrest could establish a foundation for “combating the culture of impunity and assuring accountability for state leaders who commit international crimes,” Gordon said.

“That makes people in the future more comfortable with the idea that it can be done.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

For weeks, US airstrikes have pounded Houthi targets in Yemen, hitting oil refineries, airports and missile sites, with President Trump vowing to use “overwhelming force” until the US achieves its goal of stopping the Houthis from targeting shipping in the Red Sea.

The Houthis began the campaign in solidarity with Palestinians when Israel went to war in Gaza in October 2023. The group has carried out more than 100 attacks and have sunk two vessels. The result: 70% of merchant shipping that once transited the Red Sea now takes the long route around southern Africa.

The US says the campaign is working. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said that multiple Houthi leaders had been killed.

But every round of strikes provokes more defiance.

The Houthis are what one veteran Yemen-watcher calls the honey badgers of resistance, referring to the belligerent mammal known for its fearless attitude toward predators. Bitten by a cobra, they get up minutes later and attack the snake.

While as many as 80 Houthi military officers may have been killed, according to analysts, the senior echelon of its military and political leadership appears intact. So are at least some of its missile-launching sites. Since mid-March, the Houthis have launched a dozen ballistic missiles at Israel, and barrages of drones and missiles at US navy ships. While none caused major damage, the threat remains.

“We are burning through readiness — munitions, fuel, deployment time,” said one official.

Far from being cowed, the Houthis have threatened to extend their range of targets to the UAE, which backs the rival government to the Houthis in Yemen’s Civil War. Similarly, Saudi officials say the Kingdom’s air defenses are on high alert.

“The dozens of airstrikes on Yemen will not deter the Yemeni Armed Forces from fulfilling their religious, moral, and humanitarian duties,” said a Houthi spokesman earlier this week.

There’s no doubt that the US campaign has degraded the Houthis’ capabilities. Michael Knights, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, says he suspects the Houthis “have lost a lot of drone manufacturing capability, and there does seem to be more effective interdiction of resupply shipments coming via the sea and via Oman. So the Houthis are not comfortable.”

But history shows that the Houthis have an extraordinarily high tolerance for pain. And the Trump administration’s determination to eradicate the threat they pose may ultimately require a ground offensive.

“The Houthis are just inured to being at war with a first world military,” Knights says.“They’re ideological, but they’re also very tough tribal fighters from northern Yemen.”

The Houthis’ ability to survive is helped by an elaborate smuggling network that brings in missile parts and other equipment. Last year, hidden among cargo on one intercepted ship, air frames and fins for artillery rockets, small turbojet engines and hydrogen fuel cells were discovered, according to an investigation by Conflict Armament Research (CAR).

Such equipment could enable Houthi UAVs to carry larger payloads and to travel for far longer periods. That would “greatly extend the potential threat posed by the Houthis,” CAR reported.

The Houthis survived several offensives during the long presidency of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, then a Saudi offensive ten years ago, followed by more recent Israeli, UK and US airstrikes.

Ahmed Nagi, a senior analyst on Yemen at the International Crisis Group, says Israel and western powers lack a deep understanding of the Houthis. “Their opaque leadership and internal structure have created persistent gaps in intelligence.”

Another Yemen expert, Elisabeth Kendall, questions the endgame of the US campaign. “The Houthis have been bombed tens of thousands of times over the past decade and remain undeterred. So one is left thinking that the bombing is largely performative: let’s show the world – we’ll do it because we can.”

“They are an extremely aggressive movement. The best way to end them permanently is to overthrow them, remove them from the capital, remove them from the Red Sea coast.”

Regional diplomatic sources, as well as analysts, say that ultimately only a ground offensive can dislodge the Houthis, who currently control the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, its major port, Hodeidah, and much of northern Yemen.

Ahmed Nagi, a senior analyst on Yemen at the International Crisis Group, says the US is wrong to believe that airstrikes can compel the Houthis to back down. “This approach failed under the Biden administration and is unlikely to succeed under the Trump administration.”

“Their logic is shaped by years of war; they see resilience as a form of strength and are driven to prove they are not easily deterred.”

“The only times I’ve ever seen the Houthis go to the negotiating table or compromise has been when they’ve been threatened with the realistic prospect of defeat on the ground: territorial loss, loss of control of populations and loss of access to the Red Sea coastline,” said Knights.

That briefly happened in 2017 when forces backed by the United Arab Emirates threatened Houthi access to the Red Sea, critical for the Houthis’ revenue and military supplies.

The Houthis, if anything, may actually be relishing US strikes. They are a “direct answer to the Houthi prayers to have a war with the US,” said Farea Al-Muslimi, a Yemeni research fellow at Chatham House. The group “wants to drag the US into a larger regional escalation.”

A ground offensive

The Houthis are fighting for control of Yemen against the internationally recognized government that controls part of the south and is supported mainly by the UAE. The unanswered question is whether forces loyal to that government can take the fight to the Houthis. “They’re already trained and equipped,” says Knights. But there are doubts about their unity.

Analysts do not expect the US to put any troops on the ground, beyond a handful of special forces to help direct airstrikes. The US would perhaps provide [Yemeni forces] “with a bit of logistics, certain key munitions,” Knights says.

The UAE would be “quietly supportive” as it has long supplied the Aden-based government, he adds.

The Saudi perspective is less clear. Knights believes Riyadh is apprehensive about the Houthis retaliating with long-range drones and missiles against its infrastructure. But the US has accelerated deliveries of anti-missile defenses to Saudi Arabia in recent months.

The US will have to say to Riyadh: “We are going to protect you in the same way that we protected Israel in 2024 from the two rounds of Iranian strikes,” says Knights.

Regional diplomatic sources say preparations are underway for a ground operation that would be launched from the south and east, as well as along the coast. A coordinated offensive could also involve Saudi and US naval support in an attempt to retake the port of Hodeidah.

From day one, President Trump and other US officials have linked the campaign against the Houthis to Iran. Trump said he would hold Iran responsible for “every shot” fired by Houthi rebels and it would face “dire” consequences for any attacks by the Yemeni militants.

So far it hasn’t, and it’s unclear whether Tehran can simply order the Houthis to stop firing. While very much part of Iran’s axis of resistance, the Houthis retain considerable autonomy.

Trump continues to warn Iran that it will face a massive bombing campaign if it doesn’t do a deal to limit its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. For the administration, the Houthi campaign and the “maximum pressure” campaign on Tehran are two sides of the same coin.

The Iranians are treading carefully, offering moral support to their ally in Yemen. Former Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezaee hailed “the barefooted resistance forces of Yemen, who will bring advanced American warships to their knees.”

But the Iranian leadership does not want to be seen providing further military support for the Houthis right now as it tries to work out Trump’s mixture of small carrot and large stick.

The US appears ready to expand its campaign. B-2 bombers and KC-135 refuelling planes have arrived on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. That may presage strikes on hardened targets in Yemen but may equally be a signal to Iran.

The next few weeks may be a crucial test of the honey badgers’ resilience.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard my friend and colleague Calley Means, co-founder of TrueMed and an adviser to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy, being booed, laughed at and shouted down at the Politico Health Care Summit this week. 

Apparently, that room full of health care lobbyists and partisan critics didn’t want to hear the truth: American health policy in its current form is an absolute and utter failure. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the largest health bureaucracy in the world, needs an overhaul and it needs to happen fast. 

The backlash Calley encountered Wednesday came just 24 hours after HHS began laying off 10,000 federal employees — including entrenched officials from agencies like the FDA, NIH, and CMS, who have presided over a stunning collapse in American health. 

Shortly after Secretary Kennedy’s announcement of the restructuring, the former FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf went on his LinkedIn page and stated ‘The FDA as we’ve known it is finished.’ 

Thank goodness it’s finished. 

Decades of ineffectiveness have allowed our food and chemical corporations to inundate our food system with novel chemicals without third-party oversight or necessary safety studies.  

Decades of outdated regulatory actions have let American companies poison us with ingredients they don’t use in other countries — like artificial food dyes that are linked to hyperactivity in children and cancer in animal studies. 

Decades of poor nutritional standards have allowed infant formulas with the first ingredient — ‘corn syrup solids’ — a form of added refined sugar — to be given to newborn babies.

If our health authorities worked, we wouldn’t be the sickest developed country on Earth. We wouldn’t have exploding rates of obesity, infertility, and depression. The facts speak louder than the boos.

We need a total overhaul in how our regulatory bodies operate. We need to replace old thinking. We need new personnel who aren’t riddled with conflicts of interest. We need gold-star science that will get to the root cause of why we are in this predicament and how to solve it. 

Our government has miserably failed to protect human health and there are countless examples of that — but now with President Donald Trump and Secretary Kennedy’s bold vision to reverse chronic disease, we have a turning point in history that we’ve never had before.  

What Calley said at the summit wasn’t complicated: the people who helped create this crisis shouldn’t be the ones running the response. And yet, when he pointed out that America has ‘the sickest children in the developed world’ — and that laughing off reform in the face of that reality is disgraceful — the room turned hostile. 

He argued that Secretary Kennedy is doing exactly what voters — particularly MAHA moms like me — asked for: removing entrenched bureaucrats who labeled independent experts as quacks, punished dissent, and brushed aside soaring chronic disease rates– ignoring the fact that food is medicine. To do otherwise, as Calley put it, is ‘to tell the MAHA moms that their votes and voices are not legitimate.’ 

People voted for change. Not for minor tweaks — for structural disruption. And that’s why the MAHA moms are done being laughed at. I understand the outrage. But I also understand what’s at stake. 

If our health authorities worked, we wouldn’t be the sickest developed country on Earth. We wouldn’t have exploding rates of obesity, infertility, and depression. The facts speak louder than the boos.

And let’s be clear: this isn’t the first time reform has made the elite uncomfortable. Calley is a warrior like I’ve never seen before. He is doing what real reformers always do — facing down institutions that protect themselves at all costs. And he has an army of MAHA moms behind him. 

I’m one of them. As a longtime food activist and founder of the Food Babe movement, I’ve spent over a decade challenging the very same health establishment now being reformed. I’ve spoken directly with the MAHA moms in and and outside the White House driving this effort — women who’ve watched their kids suffer from chronic illness, only to be gaslit by the very agencies meant to protect them. 

These aren’t fringe voices. They’re citizens demanding accountability, transparency, and a return to common sense in public health. I’m proud to stand with them. 

I’ve traveled all over the country with Calley, in a grassroots effort to fix what the food industry has done to us — testifying in various states that are looking to reform antiquated policies that allow harmful chemicals in our food and keep Americans sick. 

This moment isn’t about optics. It’s about outcomes — whether American children are healthier in five years. Whether families feel seen and served by public health institutions. Whether the government finally begins to prioritize prevention over pharmaceutical profits. 

Calley should not apologize for prioritizing America’s health over bureaucratic egos. He shouldn’t back down because insiders are uncomfortable. He is part of a team building a leaner, more transparent and reputable HHS. And if telling that truth gets him booed again, I have a feeling he’ll take the mic every time. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

In a week that saw French right-wing leader Marine Le Pen banned from running for office, the South Korean Constitutional Court’s ouster of President Yoon Suk Yeol from office on Friday has critics looking towards Beijing’s hand in efforts to remove the leader from power.

‘Yoon’s foreign and security policies stand in stark contrast to the pro-China figures long supported and controlled by the [Chinese Communist Party (CCP)],’ Anna Mahjar-Barducci, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) project director, told Fox News Digital. She explained that those policies ‘posed a threat to Beijing’s long-term strategy of cultivating a pro-China faction in South Korea,’

Mahjar-Barducci claimed the CCP has used ‘overt economic cooperation, political donations, covert benefit transfers and even illegal sexual bribery’ to cultivate ‘certain South Korean political figures over time, aiming to undermine the U.S.-South Korea alliance, weaken South Korea’s strategic independence and expand its regional influence at the expense of the U.S.’ 

Mahjar-Barducci also claimed that one Korean activist who spoke to her on Friday told her that election fraud in South Korea had been organized in cooperation with China, whose government had unduly influenced the past two general elections. 

The Associated Press reported on Friday that supporters of the ousted president were enraged by the decision. Kim Min-seon, a Yoon supporter, is quoted as saying it was the only way to deal with liberals blocking Yoon’s efforts to fight Pyongyang and Beijing’s campaigns to threaten South Korea’s democracy through cyberattacks, disinformation and technology theft — something denied by the opposition party. 

Yoon had long provoked the ire of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un over his plans to increase his country’s nuclear capacity. The former South Korean leader sought increased cooperation with the U.S. as a deterrent to the North Korean threat.

A spokesman from the Chinese embassy in Washington D.C. did not answer Fox News Digital questions on allegations the country interferes in Seoul’s politics. Questions sent to the South Korean embassy were not returned. 

Mahjar-Barducci also explained that given the ‘intensive coverage by Beijing’s media’ of Yoon’s dismissal, the CCP is ‘brimming with pride’ and ‘extremely pleased’ with the turn of events. Beijing ‘has already taken down two pro-American South Korean presidents, Park Geun-hye and Yoon Suk Yeol, which shows just how deep Beijing’s infiltration and influence in South Korea are,’ she said.

‘South Korea needs to be the strongest ally, along with Japan, of America,’ Mahjar-Barducci continued. But Beijing is poising itself to ‘win over this important strategic area,’ which the U.S. ‘cannot afford to lose.’

Mahjar-Barducci said Yoon’s removal is part of a ‘pattern… all over the world’ of right-wing candidates being forbidden from seeking election, including Romanian right-wing presidential frontrunner Călin Georgescu and French right-wing politician Le Pen. ‘The judiciary has been weaponized once again,’ she explained.

The CCP’s hand in South Korea comes at a time when Beijing is holding large-scale military drills around Taiwan, with 19 vessels from the Chinese navy being spotted in the waters surrounding Taiwan between Monday and Tuesday morning. Mahjar-Barducci said that while Beijing has attempted to make such drills ‘a new normal,’ it has also warned that the ‘drills could unexpectedly turn into a real war.’

South Korea will hold elections for a new president in two months. Fox News Digital has reported that surveys show liberal opposition Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung is ‘an early favorite’ for the position.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Let us be honest: When most people hear ‘tariffs,’ they think about price hikes and trade wars. But the Trump administration’s latest tariff rollout is not merely a knee-jerk protectionist move—it is part of a far broader strategy.

What is actually in play here is a high-stakes effort to build up leverage and resources to manage America’s debt, reset its industrial base, and renegotiate its standing in the global order.

And it all begins with a problem most people have not been told enough about.

In 2025, the U.S. government must refinance $9.2 trillion in maturing debt. Some $6.5 trillion of that comes due by June. That is not a typo—that is a debt wall the size of a small continent.

Now, here is the math: According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, each basis-point (one one-hundredth of a percent) drop in interest rates saves the government roughly $1 billion per year. Since the announcement of tariffs on April 2, 10-year Treasury yields have fallen from 4.2 percent to 3.9 percent—a 30 basis point drop. If that holds, it translates to $30 billion in savings.

So, keeping yields low is not just sound policy—it is a fiscal necessity.

But we are in a difficult environment. Inflation has not fully cooled, and the Federal Reserve remains wary of cutting rates too quickly. So the question becomes: How does one bring yields down without the Fed’s help?

Here is where the strategy becomes interesting.

By introducing sweeping tariffs, the administration is creating precisely the kind of economic uncertainty that drives investors toward safer assets such as long-term U.S. Treasuries. When markets are spooked, capital exits risk and equity assets (as we see with the stock market collapse) and piles into safe assets, primarily the 10-year U.S. treasury bond. That demand pushes yields lower.

It is a counter-intuitive move, but a calculated one. Some have called it a ‘detox’ for the overheated financial system. And it appears to be working.

However, even cheaper debt does not solve everything. The deficit remains massive—and that is where spending cuts come in.

Backed by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Elon Musk, the administration is reportedly targeting $4 billion in daily spending cuts. If their recommendations translate to cuts and get ratified by Congress, that could amount to a trillion dollars off the deficit by late 2025.

At this point, we have two pillars: lower borrowing costs and tighter spending. But there remains a third—and arguably most important—pillar: growth.

Tariffs serve as the ignition switch. By making imports more expensive, they create space for American producers to step back in. The objective is not to punish trade partners—it is to make domestic industry viable again, even if only long enough to rebuild critical capacity.

Yes, prices will rise. But the administration is fully aware of that. In fact, it is front-loading the pain now, hoping to deliver visible job growth and factory activity before the November 2026 midterm elections.

In the meantime, tariffs themselves will generate revenue—an estimated $700 billion or more in the first year. That creates more fiscal room for the administration to enable tax cuts and keep spending on Social Security, Medicaid and other programs.

Where the picture becomes even more interesting is on the geopolitical front.

These tariffs do not exist in a vacuum. They are being deployed alongside a deliberate reshaping of global alliances. The U.S. is quietly distancing itself from NATO, recalibrating ties with Europe, and opening previously frozen diplomatic channels with the Gulf nations and Russia.

Why? Because the post-Cold War trade order no longer serves U.S. interests. It enabled deficits, offshoring, and strategic dependency. Now, tariffs become leverage. Allies who align with U.S. priorities receive relief; others face higher costs.

China, naturally, is the central player. For years, economists have argued that its artificially weak currency and industrial overcapacity have distorted global trade. Tariffs are one way to force a reckoning—and potentially, a revaluation of the yuan.

Other countries will not be spared. Europe could be asked for terms on Ukraine. India may be pressured for deep tariff cuts. Canada and Mexico will likely face demands related to fentanyl and border enforcement.

This is not random. It is trade policy as a means to force countries to the negotiating table.

Domestically, the political logic is equally clear. The sectors most likely to benefit—steel, automobiles, textiles—are concentrated in battleground states. The administration is betting that visible wins in those regions will outweigh short-term pain in sectors dependent on cheap imports.

There are serious risks here. If inflation returns or if the reshoring bet fails, the blowback could be severe. But make no mistake: This is not improvisation. It is disruption by design.

Whether one agrees with it or not, this is one of the most ambitious fiscal and industrial resets in a generation.

The only question that remains is—will it work?

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump marked the week by unveiling an unprecedented wave of tariffs on imports to the U.S., aligning with his long-held position that other countries have taken advantage of the U.S. in trade. 

Trump disclosed the historic tariffs in a ceremony at the White House’s Rose Garden for a ‘Make America Wealthy Again’ event, asserting these new duties would generate new jobs for U.S. workers. 

‘For nations that treat us badly, we will calculate the combined rate of all their tariffs, nonmonetary barriers and other forms of cheating,’ Trump said Wednesday.

‘And because we are being very kind, we will charge them approximately half of what they are and have been charging us,’ he said. ‘So, the tariffs will be not a full reciprocal. I could have done that. Yes. But it would have been tough for a lot of countries.’

The tariff plan establishes a baseline tax of 10% on all imports to the U.S., along with customized tariffs for countries that place higher tariffs on American goods. The baseline tariffs of 10% will take effect Saturday, while the others will take effect Wednesday. 

The Trump administration previously imposed a 25% tariff on imported vehicles, up to 25% tariffs on certain goods from Mexico and Canada and a 20% tariff on shipments from China. The tariffs already imposed on Canada and Mexico remain unaffected, but the new tariffs on China will be added on top of the previous duties on Beijing, according to the White House. 

The tariffs have faced backlash from both parties in Congress, and allies, including Canada and Australia. A bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation Friday called the Trade Review Act of 2025 that would require the executive branch to provide Congress a 48-hour notice before imposing tariffs. Likewise, the measure would permit tariffs to expire after 60 days, unless Congress moves to approve a joint resolution codifying the duties. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged countries against imposing retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. in response. 

‘My advice to every country right now: Do not retaliate,’ Bessent said in an interview Wednesday with Fox News. ‘If you retaliate, there will be escalation.’

Here’s what also happened this week: 

National Security Council firings 

Trumpalso disclosed that several members of the National Security Council, headed by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, were fired Thursday. Trump said the firings affected a small number of employees, and he still had a high level of confidence in his national security team. 

‘Always, we’re going to let go of people we don’t like or people we don’t think can do the job or people who may have loyalties to somebody else,’ Trump told reporters on Air Force One when asked about media reports on the firings.

The firings come amid scrutiny over Waltz’s use of a Signal group chat to discuss strikes in Yemen after a journalist was accidentally added to the group. 

Waltz created the group chat that included White House leaders like Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The chat also included Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg.

The White House said classified information was not shared via the encrypted messaging service. However, The Atlantic published the full exchange of messages March 26. The messages included certain attack details, including specific aircraft and times of the strikes. 

Still, the White House has defended Waltz and said the White House is no longer looking into the incident. 

‘As the president has made it very clear, Mike Waltz continues to be an important part of his national security team,’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday. ‘And this case has been closed here at the White House as far as we are concerned.’

Musk’s DOGE status 

The White House confirmed that SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk would depart his position spearheading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) later this spring in response to reports from Politico that Trump was disclosing to those close to him that Musk would ‘step back’ from his role with DOGE in the forthcoming weeks. 

‘This ‘scoop’ is garbage,’ Leavitt posted on X Wednesday. ‘Elon Musk and President Trump have both *publicly* stated that Elon will depart from public service as a special government employee when his incredible work at DOGE is complete.’

Musk is a ‘special government employee.’ The executive or legislative branches are permitted to take on temporary employees to address short-term projects for up to 130 days in a single 365-day period. For Musk, that period of time will expire at the end of May.

Musk and Trump have previously said they anticipate Musk will complete the work necessary for DOGE within that window of time. 

Fox News’ Emma Colton contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A cohort of Democratic representatives and senators are proposing legislation aimed at stalling President Donald Trump’s efforts to relocate federal agencies outside of Washington, D.C., something the president has taken steps to start doing. 

Guidance issued in February from the Trump administration instructed federal agencies to submit any proposed relocation of agency bureaus and offices by April 14, instructions that were tied to the president’s broader efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government. 

The pair of companion bills from Democrats in the House and Senate seeks to require agencies to conduct and share a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis with Congress and the public prior to any relocations.

‘Everyone standing here, every one of my colleagues, wants to get rid of fraud, waste and abuse… but that rhetoric [from the administration] is a cover for an agenda that is perverse and contrary to the interests of the United States of America,’ Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said during a press conference held at the Capitol announcing the new legislative effort.

‘All of this is targeted at depleting the federal workforce and nullifying the government of the United States,’ Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., added. ‘That is the philosophy that is driving this entire thing.’ 

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen previously introduced ‘The COST of Relocations Act’ in 2020, and again in 2023.

‘We hoped [the bill] wouldn’t be necessary again, but it is,’ Van Hollen stated at the press conference. ‘It’s necessary in order to stop Donald Trump and Elon Musk from wasting American taxpayer dollars by sabotaging services that the American public depends on.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS