Lawmakers fought over Obamacare subsidies tooth and nail for the latter part of the year, and ultimately, neither side won.

Senate Democrats thrust the government into the longest shutdown in history in an effort to refocus the narrative in Congress on healthcare, and Republicans agreed to talk about it in the open. And both Republicans and Democrats got a shot to advance their own, partisan plans. Both failed.

Now, the subsidies are set to expire on Wednesday, sending price hikes across the desks of tens of millions of Americans that relied on the credits. 

When lawmakers return on the first week of January, healthcare will be front of mind for many in the Senate. But any push to either revive, or completely replace, the subsidies may, for a time, take a backseat to the government funding fight brewing ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline.

When asked if he was disappointed that lawmakers were unable to, at least in the short term, solve the subsidies issue, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was more concerned about people that would experience higher costs. 

‘I think who it’s most disappointing for are the people whose premiums are going to go up by two, three times,’ Hawley said. ‘So, it’s not good.’

Price hikes on premium costs will be variable for the roughly 20 million Americans that rely on them, depending on age, income and other factors. Broadly, a person’s out-of-pocket cost is expected to double with the credit’s lapse, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The nonpartisan healthcare think tank painted a broader picture of the disparate impact on premium cost increases in a report released late last month that, based on myriad factors, including where a person lives, their age range and where they sit above the poverty line, some could see price hikes as high as 361%.

While Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ separate plans failed to advance — despite four Republicans crossing the aisle to support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., plan — lawmakers are working together for a solution.

There are two plans with traction in the House. The GOP’s plan advanced on the floor earlier this month but doesn’t address the issue of the expiring tax credits. Then there is a bipartisan plan that calls for a three-year extension of the subsidies, similar to Senate Democrats’ plan, that is teed up for a vote.

The latter option, and its bipartisan momentum, has some Democrats hopeful that a three-year extension could get a shot in the upper chamber.

‘I’ll also say that the glimmer of hope is if we’re searching for a bipartisan deal that can pass the Congress, we don’t need to search any further than the three-year extension of the subsidies that’s going to pass the House of Representatives,’ Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital. ‘We don’t need a negotiation any further. That bill can pass, if it can provide relief to the taxpayers, and it can pass, then that’s our vehicle.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, has maintained a deeply-rooted position against just a simple extension of the credits.

He argued that a straight-up extension for three years would be ‘a waste of $83 billion,’ and lacks any of the reforms that Republicans desire, like reinstalling an income cap, adding anti-fraud measures, and reaffirming language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘I mean, I think if nothing else, depending on if the House sends something over here, there would be a new vehicle available,’ Thune said. ‘And if there is some bipartisan agreement on a plan, then you know, it’s possible that we could — obviously it’d have to be something that we think the House could pass, and the president would sign.’

‘But I’m not ruling anything out, I guess is what I’m saying,’ he continued. ‘But you know, a three-year extension of a failed program that’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse is not happening.’

Senate Democrats are open to negotiating on a bipartisan plan, something that is already ongoing after Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, held a meeting with lawmakers before leaving Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

But Democrats are also making clear that they don’t want to budge on some of the Republicans’ demands.

‘Let’s put it this way, Republicans are asking to meet with me, and I’m telling them, I’ll listen, you know, I made it clear what I think is the only practical approach, and I’m certainly not going to go along with selling junk insurance,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

President Donald Trump spent much of 2025 attempting what had eluded his predecessors: personally engaging both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an effort to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. From high-profile summits to direct phone calls, the administration pushed for a negotiated settlement even as the fighting ground on and the map changed little.

By year’s end, the outlines of a potential deal were clearer than they had been at any point since Russia’s full-scale invasion, with U.S. and Ukrainian officials coalescing around a revised 20-point framework addressing ceasefire terms, security guarantees and disputed territory. But 2025 also made clear why the war has proven so resistant to resolution: neither battlefield pressure, economic sanctions nor intensified diplomacy were enough to force Moscow or Kyiv into concessions they were unwilling to make.

The Trump administration’s push for a deal

The year began with a high-profile fallout last February between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, when the Ukrainian leader stormed out of the White House after Trump told him he did not have ‘any cards’ to bring to negotiations with Russia.

Frustrated by the pace of talks after promising to end the war on ‘Day One’ of his presidency, Trump initially directed his ire toward Zelenskyy before later conceding that Moscow, not Kyiv, was standing in the way of progress.

‘I thought the Russia-Ukraine war was the easiest to stop but Putin has let me down,’ Trump said in September 2025.

That frustration had already surfaced publicly months earlier as Russian strikes continued despite diplomatic engagement. ‘He talks nice, and then he bombs everybody in the evening,’ Trump said in July.

Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin culminated in a high-profile summit in Alaska in August, though additional meetings were later called off amid a lack of progress toward a deal.

Still, Trump struck a more optimistic tone toward the end of the year. On Sunday, after meeting Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago, the president said the sides were ‘getting a lot closer, maybe very close’ to a peace agreement, while acknowledging that major obstacles remained — including the status of disputed territory such as the Donbas region, which he described as ‘very tough.’

Trump said the meeting followed what he described as a ‘very positive’ phone call with Putin that lasted more than two hours, underscoring the administration’s continued effort to press both sides toward a negotiated end to the war.

Where negotiations stand now

By the end of 2025, the diplomatic track had narrowed around a more defined — but still contested — framework. U.S. officials and Ukrainian negotiators have been working from a revised 20-point proposal that outlines a potential ceasefire, security guarantees for Ukraine, and mechanisms to address disputed territory and demilitarized zones.

Zelenskyy has publicly signaled openness to elements of the framework while insisting that any agreement must include robust, long-term security guarantees to deter future Russian aggression. Ukrainian officials have also made clear that questions surrounding occupied territory, including parts of the Donbas, cannot be resolved solely through ceasefire lines without broader guarantees.

Russia, however, has not agreed to the proposal. Moscow has continued to insist on recognition of its territorial claims and has resisted terms that would constrain its military posture or require meaningful concessions. Russian officials have at times linked their negotiating stance to developments on the battlefield, reinforcing the Kremlin’s view that leverage — not urgency — should dictate the pace of talks.

The result is a negotiation process that is more structured than earlier efforts, but still far from resolution: positions have hardened even as channels remain open, and talks continue alongside ongoing fighting rather than replacing it.

Russia’s territorial pressure — and Ukraine’s limited gains

Even as diplomacy intensified in 2025, the war on the ground remained defined by slow, grinding territorial pressure rather than decisive breakthroughs. Russian forces continued pushing for incremental gains in eastern and southern Ukraine, particularly along axes tied to Moscow’s long-stated objective of consolidating control over territory it claims as Russian.

Russian advances were measured and costly, often unfolding village by village through artillery-heavy assaults and sustained drone use rather than sweeping offensives. While Moscow failed to capture major new cities or trigger a collapse in Ukrainian defenses, it expanded control in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine, maintaining pressure across multiple fronts and keeping territorial questions central to both the fighting and any future negotiations.

Ukraine, for its part, did not mount a large-scale counteroffensive in 2025 comparable to earlier phases of the war. Ukrainian forces achieved localized tactical successes, at times reclaiming small areas or reversing specific Russian advances, but these gains were limited in scope and often temporary. None translated into a sustained territorial breakthrough capable of altering the broader balance of the front.

Instead, Kyiv focused on preventing further losses, reinforcing defensive lines and imposing costs on Russian forces through precision strikes and asymmetric tactics. With decisive territorial gains out of reach, Ukraine expanded attacks against Russian energy infrastructure, targeting refineries, fuel depots and other hubs critical to sustaining Moscow’s war effort — including sites deep inside Russian territory.

Russia, meanwhile, continued its own campaign against Ukraine’s energy grid, striking power and heating infrastructure as part of a broader effort to strain Ukraine’s economy, civilian resilience and air defenses. The result was a widening pattern of horizontal escalation, as both sides sought leverage beyond the front lines without achieving a decisive military outcome.

The result was a battlefield stalemate with movement at the margins: Russia advanced just enough to sustain its territorial claims and domestic narrative, while Ukraine proved capable of blunting assaults and imposing costs but not of reclaiming large swaths of occupied land. The fighting underscored a central reality of 2025 — territory still mattered deeply to both sides, but neither possessed the military leverage needed to force a decisive shift.

That dynamic would increasingly shape the limits of diplomacy. Without a major change on the battlefield, talks could test red lines and clarify positions, but not compel compromise.

Why talks stalled: leverage without decision

For all the diplomatic activity in 2025, negotiations repeatedly ran into the same obstacle: neither Russia nor Ukraine faced the kind of pressure that would force a decisive compromise.

On the battlefield, Russia continued to absorb losses while pressing for incremental territorial gains, reinforcing Moscow’s belief that time remained on its side. Ukrainian forces, though increasingly strained, succeeded in preventing a collapse and in imposing costs through deep strikes and attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure — demonstrating an ability to shape the conflict even without major territorial advances.

Economic pressure also reshaped — but did not determine — Moscow’s calculus. Despite years of Western sanctions, Russia continued financing its war effort in 2025, ramping up defense production and adapting its economy to sustain prolonged conflict. While sanctions constrained growth and access to advanced technology, they raised the long-term costs of the war without producing the immediate pressure needed to force President Vladimir Putin toward concessions.

Those realities defined the limits of U.S. mediation. While the Trump administration pushed both sides to clarify red lines and explore possible frameworks for ending the war, Washington could illuminate choices without dictating outcomes, absent a decisive shift on the ground or a sudden change in Moscow’s calculations.

The result was a year of talks that clarified positions without closing gaps. As long as pressure produced pain without decision, negotiations could narrow options and define boundaries, even if they could not yet bring the conflict to an end.
 

Lawmakers fought over Obamacare subsidies tooth and nail for the latter part of the year, and ultimately, neither side won.

Senate Democrats thrust the government into the longest shutdown in history in an effort to refocus the narrative in Congress on healthcare, and Republicans agreed to talk about it in the open. And both Republicans and Democrats got a shot to advance their own, partisan plans. Both failed.

Now, the subsidies are set to expire on Wednesday, sending price hikes across the desks of tens of millions of Americans that relied on the credits. 

When lawmakers return on the first week of January, healthcare will be front of mind for many in the Senate. But any push to either revive, or completely replace, the subsidies may, for a time, take a backseat to the government funding fight brewing ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline.

When asked if he was disappointed that lawmakers were unable to, at least in the short term, solve the subsidies issue, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was more concerned about people that would experience higher costs. 

‘I think who it’s most disappointing for are the people whose premiums are going to go up by two, three times,’ Hawley said. ‘So, it’s not good.’

Price hikes on premium costs will be variable for the roughly 20 million Americans that rely on them, depending on age, income and other factors. Broadly, a person’s out-of-pocket cost is expected to double with the credit’s lapse, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The nonpartisan healthcare think tank painted a broader picture of the disparate impact on premium cost increases in a report released late last month that, based on myriad factors, including where a person lives, their age range and where they sit above the poverty line, some could see price hikes as high as 361%.

While Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ separate plans failed to advance — despite four Republicans crossing the aisle to support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., plan — lawmakers are working together for a solution.

There are two plans with traction in the House. The GOP’s plan advanced on the floor earlier this month but doesn’t address the issue of the expiring tax credits. Then there is a bipartisan plan that calls for a three-year extension of the subsidies, similar to Senate Democrats’ plan, that is teed up for a vote.

The latter option, and its bipartisan momentum, has some Democrats hopeful that a three-year extension could get a shot in the upper chamber.

‘I’ll also say that the glimmer of hope is if we’re searching for a bipartisan deal that can pass the Congress, we don’t need to search any further than the three-year extension of the subsidies that’s going to pass the House of Representatives,’ Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital. ‘We don’t need a negotiation any further. That bill can pass, if it can provide relief to the taxpayers, and it can pass, then that’s our vehicle.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, has maintained a deeply-rooted position against just a simple extension of the credits.

He argued that a straight-up extension for three years would be ‘a waste of $83 billion,’ and lacks any of the reforms that Republicans desire, like reinstalling an income cap, adding anti-fraud measures, and reaffirming language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘I mean, I think if nothing else, depending on if the House sends something over here, there would be a new vehicle available,’ Thune said. ‘And if there is some bipartisan agreement on a plan, then you know, it’s possible that we could — obviously it’d have to be something that we think the House could pass, and the president would sign.’

‘But I’m not ruling anything out, I guess is what I’m saying,’ he continued. ‘But you know, a three-year extension of a failed program that’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse is not happening.’

Senate Democrats are open to negotiating on a bipartisan plan, something that is already ongoing after Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, held a meeting with lawmakers before leaving Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

But Democrats are also making clear that they don’t want to budge on some of the Republicans’ demands.

‘Let’s put it this way, Republicans are asking to meet with me, and I’m telling them, I’ll listen, you know, I made it clear what I think is the only practical approach, and I’m certainly not going to go along with selling junk insurance,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

North Korea test-fired two strategic cruise missiles as leader Kim Jong Un pledged to continue ‘unlimited’ development of its nuclear stockpile, according to state media. 

The launches involved cruise missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads, according to North Korea’s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

Kim promised to ‘devote all their efforts to the unlimited and sustained development of the state nuclear combat force.’

The weapons flew over the country’s west coast for close to three hours, KCNA said. It did not reveal how far the missiles traveled.

KCNA said the drills were intended to demonstrate the ‘combat readiness of the nuclear deterrence force’ and ensure the country’s ability to carry out what it called a ‘swift and overwhelming retaliatory strike’ in the event of war.

‘The launch drill served as a clear warning to the enemies who are seriously threatening the security environment of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,’ KCNA reported, using the country’s formal name.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said its military detected the launch of multiple cruise missiles around 8 a.m. Sunday from the Sunan area near Pyongyang.

A spokesperson for South Korea’s Defense Ministry said the launches were part of a series of recent military activities by North Korea that ‘undermine peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.’

North Korea has also recently highlighted what it claims is progress on a nuclear-powered submarine program, releasing new images of Kim inspecting construction at a shipyard alongside his daughter.

The Korean Central News Agency said the vessel is an 8,700-ton-class nuclear-propelled submarine that Pyongyang intends to arm with nuclear weapons. Kim has described the project as a key step in modernizing and nuclear-arming North Korea’s navy, though the regime has not provided independent verification of the submarine’s capabilities.

Analysts say North Korea fields multiple types of cruise missiles and has conducted several test launches over the past year, but there is no definitive public estimate of how many the regime possesses.

Outside expert assessments estimate North Korea has assembled roughly 50 nuclear warheads, with enough fissile material to potentially produce between 70 and 90 weapons, though exact figures remain uncertain due to the secrecy surrounding Pyongyang’s program.

President Donald Trump has said he remains open to negotiations with North Korea, but Kim has signaled he would only engage with Washington if denuclearization is removed from the agenda – a stance that underscores the wide gap between the two sides.

Cruise missiles pose a particular challenge for missile defense systems because they fly at lower altitudes and can maneuver in flight, making them harder to detect than ballistic missiles.

North Korea remains under sweeping international sanctions over its nuclear and missile programs, restrictions that Kim has vowed to overcome through weapons development rather than negotiations.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy indicated in a post on X that Ukraine would like to have 30, 40 or even 50 years of security guarantees from the U.S. and that President Donald Trump said the U.S. will consider it.

Zelenskyy met with Trump in Florida on Sunday, as his nation remains locked in a deadly, protracted war against Russia, and the U.S. administration aims to help broker peace.

In a Monday post on X, the president of the embattled Eastern European nation indicated that Trump had ‘confirmed strong security guarantees’ during their meeting.

‘He confirmed the details that had been developed up to this point by our negotiating teams regarding these security guarantees, and he confirmed that they would be put to a vote by the United States Congress. This is a very strong agreement,’ Zelenskyy noted.

During a joint press conference alongside Zelenskyy on Sunday, Trump was asked whether he offered any promises or assurances of security for Ukraine.

‘I did. We wanna work with Europe,’ Trump answered, adding that Europe will ‘take over a big part of it’ but that the U.S. will assist.

Zelenskyy, in another Monday post on X, indicated that Ukraine would like decades of security guarantees from the U.S.

‘In the documents, the guarantees are set for 15 years, with the possibility of extension. I raised this issue with the President. I told him that our war has already been going on for more than a decade, and therefore, we would very much like the guarantees to last longer. We would like to consider the possibility of 30, 40, or 50 years. It would then become a historic decision by President Trump. The President said that the U.S. would consider it,’ the foreign leader noted in the post.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House on Monday for comment, but they did not immediately respond.

Several Republican lawmakers in Minnesota released a statement officially calling on the state’s Democratic governor, Tim Walz, to resign in light of the unfolding fraud scandal that has spiraled during his tenure. 

‘Minnesotans have been watching the fraud crisis get worse and worse for years. It has gone on long enough,’ Minnesota state Senators Bill Lieske and Nathan Wesenberg, along with state Reps. Marj Fogelman, Drew Roach and Mike Wiener, said in a Monday press release.

‘This is not about politics or stunts, and we do not make a call like this lightly. The office of the governor deserves respect, and we have tried to give Gov. Walz time to act.’

The group cites Article 8, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution, which lists serious malfeasance in the performance of official duties, as the reason to recall executive and interior officers, but stopped short of calling for an official recall effort. 

The lawmakers explained that ‘leadership means doing the right thing even when it is difficult, which is why we are calling on Gov. Walz to resign.’

‘We are talking about billions of dollars in fraud that should have gone to vulnerable Minnesotans. The red flags were everywhere. Yet, year after year, the fraud kept growing, and year after year, nothing changed.’

Earlier this month, federal prosecutors revealed that the fraud scandal in Minnesota, primarily found within the state’s Somali community, could cost taxpayers as much as $9 billion dollars. 

The Monday call from Republicans for Walz to resign comes shortly after a viral video by journalist Nick Shirley, seen more than 100 million times on X, highlighting suspected fraudulent daycare locations prompted even more scrutiny on Walz.

Walz’s office pushed back on the criticism shortly after the video went viral.

‘The governor has worked for years to crack down on fraud and ask the state legislature for more authority to take aggressive action,’ a Walz spokesperson said. ‘He has strengthened oversight — including launching investigations into these specific facilities, one of which was already closed.’

The spokesperson added that Walz has ‘hired an outside firm to audit payments to high-risk programs, shut down the Housing Stabilization Services program entirely, announced a new statewide program integrity director, and supported criminal prosecutions.’

Calls for Walz to resign have increased in recent weeks, including from Trump’s Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Fox News Digital first reported earlier this month.

The lawmakers said in their statement that the fraud scandal is the ‘number one’ issue they hear from their constituents, along with questions about why no one in power has been held accountable.

‘What we are seeing from the governor is what nonfeasance looks like,’ the lawmakers wrote. ‘When a governor fails to do what he is required to do, when he watches a crisis spiral out of control and does nothing to stop it, that is nonfeasance. The governor had a duty to oversee his administration and protect these programs. He failed. There needs to be consequences.

‘For the good of the state, Gov. Walz should step aside. Minnesota needs accountability, a reset, and new leadership that can get us back on the right track.’

The U.S. may be signaling an expansion of its Venezuela-focused campaign to include ground operations, based on recent remarks from President Donald Trump.

Speaking Friday with radio host John Catsimitidis, Trump said the U.S. had struck a ‘big facility’ while discussing Washington’s broader effort against Latin American drug trafficking – an apparent reference to a drug production or trafficking site.

‘They have a big plant or a big facility where the ships come from,’ Trump said, without identifying Venezuela as the target. ‘Two nights ago we knocked that out.’

Asked about the comments on Monday, Trump told reporters the strike was ‘along the shore’ but declined to share whether it was conducted by the U.S. military or another entity like the CIA.

‘I don’t want to say that. I know exactly who it was,’ he said. 

‘We hit all the boats, and now we hit the area. It’s the implementation area. That’s where they implement. And that is no longer around,’ the president said during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He added there was a ‘major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs.’

If the facility was indeed on Venezuelan soil, it would mark the first known attack on land since the U.S. began bombing alleged narco-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific waters in early September. 

More than two dozen strikes have killed 105 people so far.

While Venezuela is a known hub for trafficking drugs, such as cocaine that originates in Colombia, it is not a production hot spot. Months ago, Trump authorized the CIA to carry out covert action in Venezuela. 

In recent weeks, Trump has ramped up pressure aimed at pushing leader Nicolás Maduro from power by announcing a blockade of Venezuela and seizing two ships carrying sanctioned oil.

The White House and Pentagon have not publicly confirmed whether any recent strike occurred on Venezuelan soil. Maduro’s government has not publicly acknowledged the attack.

After prior strikes in the counter-drug campaign, the administration has touted success, even posting footage on social media of boats being struck. However, if the action was carried out covertly, it would limit what U.S. officials could share. 

Trump’s comments come amid the largest military buildup in the Caribbean in decades, with some 15,000 troops and the world’s biggest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, stationed in the region. 

Outgoing Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated to the New York Times Magazine that President Donald Trump, lacks ‘faith’ and does not reciprocate loyalty. 

She also said that she disapproves of ‘MAGA Mar-a-Lago sexualization,’ and indicated that she expects the U.S. to engage in ‘more war’ as the president seeks to maintain his grip on power.

Greene, a once ardent Trump supporter who had a dramatic falling out with the GOP juggernaut this year, is dishing out scathing criticism of the president she once lauded.

Here are some takeaways from her comments reported by the New York Times Magazine:

Greene says Trump ‘does not have any faith’

Earlier this year, during remarks at the memorial service for slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump said of Kirk, ‘He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent. And I don’t want the best for them.’

By contrast, Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk announced that she forgave the suspected killer.

 ‘It just shows where his heart is. And that’s the difference, with her having a sincere Christian faith, and proves that he does not have any faith,’ Greene opined, according to the Times.

Greene on ‘MAGA Mar-a-Lago sexualization’

Greene objected to what she referred to as ‘sexualization’ among MAGA women.

‘I never liked the MAGA Mar-a-Lago sexualization. I believe how women in leadership present themselves sends a message to younger women,’ she noted, according to the Times. 

‘I have two daughters, and I’ve always been uncomfortable with how those women puff up their lips and enlarge their breasts. I’ve never spoken about it publicly, but I’ve been planning to,’ she noted.

Greene says Trump lacks loyalty

The New York Times Magazine reported that Greene said regarding loyalty and Trump, that it is ‘a one-way street — and it ends like that whenever it suits him.’

Last month, after President Donald Trump issued posts lambasting Greene on Truth Social, the congresswoman announced that she would resign from office, noting that her last day would be January 5.

Greene suggests ‘more war’ on the horizon

Greene suggested that the U.S. is headed for ‘more war.’

‘In my opinion,’ Greene opined, according to the outlet, ‘we’re going to see more war. Because what do you do when you really lose power, when you become a lame duck? How do you cling to power? You go to war.’

Greene indicates House Speaker Mike Johnson is following orders from the White House

Greene suggested that House Speaker Mike Johnson is just taking orders from the White House.

‘I want you to know that Johnson is not our speaker,’ Greene asserted, according to the Times. ‘He is not our leader. And in the legislative branch — a totally separate body of government — he is literally 100 percent under direct orders from the White House. And many, many Republicans are so furious about that, but they’re cowards.’

White House responds

The White House pushed back against Greene’s comments about Johnson, asserting to Fox News Digital, ‘We have a very collaborative relationship with Speaker Johnson just like we do with Leader Thune, which is why we’ve had so much success this year.’

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle accused Greene of ‘petty bitterness.’

‘President Trump remains the undisputed leader of the greatest and fastest growing political movement in American history — the MAGA movement. On the other hand, Congresswoman Greene is quitting on her constituents in the middle of her term and abandoning the consequential fight we’re in — we don’t have time for her petty bitterness,’ Ingle noted in a statement. 

Department of Justice officials are facing threats of legal action after the department missed the Epstein Files Transparency Act’s stated deadline to publish all its documents related to Jeffrey Epstein – but the law may lean in the DOJ’s favor.

DOJ officials have continued to review and upload the files more than a week after the congressionally mandated Dec. 19 due date, spurring Democrats and some Republicans to call for a range of consequences, from contempt to civil litigation. The DOJ is, however, defending the drawn-out release process, suggesting that rushing to publish piles of unexamined material would also flout the law.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a recent interview on ‘Meet the Press’ there was ‘well-settled law’ that supported the DOJ missing the transparency bill’s deadline because of a need to meet other legal requirements in the bill, like redacting victim-identifying information.

The bill required the DOJ to withhold information about potential victims and material that could jeopardize open investigations or litigation. Officials could also leave out information ‘in the interest of national defense or foreign policy,’ the bill said, while keeping visible any details that could embarrass politically connected people.

Last week, the DOJ revealed that two of its components, the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, had just gathered and submitted more than 1 million additional pages of potentially responsive documents related to Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking cases for review.

The ‘mass volume of material’ could ‘take a few more weeks’ to sift through, the DOJ said in a statement on social media, adding that the department would ‘continue to fully comply with federal law and President Trump’s direction to release the files.’ 

The DOJ’s concerns about page volume and redaction requirements echo those frequently raised in similar litigation surrounding compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests, where courts have stepped in to balance competing interests of parties in the cases rather than attempting to force compliance on an unrealistic timetable.

The conservative legal watchdog Judicial Watch has seen mixed success over the years in bringing FOIA lawsuits, showcasing the court’s role in mediating such disputes.

Judicial Watch brought several lawsuits against the government over Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal, leading a federal judge at one point to allow the conservative watchdog to move forward with questioning Clinton aides as part of a discovery process as it sought records on the matter. The decision was later reversed at the appellate court level.

In a separate case, the appellate court sided with Judicial Watch by reversing a lower court ruling as part of a longstanding legal battle the watchdog waged with the DOJ over obtaining Acting Attorney General Sally Yates’ emails. The D.C. Circuit Court found that the DOJ could not withhold email attachments from Yates’ account and ordered further review on the matter.

In the current controversy over the Epstein files, lawmakers are pressuring the DOJ by threatening a combination of political and legal remedies over the 30-day deadline and over what they view as excessive redactions. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., vowed to bring a resolution up for a vote when the Senate returns from the holidays that would direct the Senate to initiate a lawsuit against the DOJ for failing to comply with the transparency act’s requirements.

‘The law Congress passed is crystal clear: release the Epstein files in full, so Americans can see the truth,’ Schumer said. ‘Instead, the Trump Department of Justice dumped redactions and withheld the evidence — that breaks the law.’

Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who spearheaded the transparency bill, warned that they plan to pursue contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi in light of the DOJ missing the deadline and making perceived over-redactions.

A group of mostly Democratic senators also called on the DOJ inspector general to investigate the department’s compliance with the law.

The DOJ has maintained that releasing unreviewed documents would violate the law, saying last week that it had ‘lawyers working around the clock to review and make the legally required redactions.’

The Trump administration announced a $2 billion pledge for United Nations humanitarian aid Monday and warned agencies must ‘adapt, shrink, or die’ under its overhaul, according to a statement from the Department of State.

The new package comes as the administration reins in traditional foreign assistance and pushes humanitarian organizations to meet stricter standards on efficiency, accountability and oversight.

‘Individual U.N. agencies will need to adapt, shrink, or die,’ the statement said after outlining what it called ‘several key benefits for the United States and American taxpayers.’

‘The United States is pledging an initial $2 billion anchor commitment to fund life-saving assistance activities in dozens of countries,’ the State Department said.

The administration also said that the contribution is expected to shield tens of millions of people from hunger, disease, and the devastation of war in 2026 alone, with a new model significantly reducing costs. 

‘Because of enhanced efficiency and hyper-prioritization on life-saving impacts, this new model is expected to save U.S. taxpayers nearly $1.9 billion compared to outdated grant funding approaches,’ the statement said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the approach is intended to force long-standing reforms across the U.N. system and reduce the U.S. financial burden.

‘This new model will better share the burden of U.N. humanitarian work with other developed countries and will require the U.N. to cut bloat, remove duplication, and commit to powerful new impact, accountability, and oversight mechanisms,’ Rubio said in a post on X.

The pledge is smaller than previous U.S. contributions, which officials said had grown to between $8 billion and $10 billion annually in voluntary humanitarian funding in recent years.

Administration officials said those funding levels were unsustainable and lacked sufficient accountability.

Jeremy Lewin, the State Department’s senior official overseeing foreign assistance, underscored the administration’s position during a press conference in Geneva.

‘The piggy bank is not open to organizations that just want to return to the old system,’ Lewin said in the statement. ‘President Trump has made clear that the system is dead.’

The funding commitment is part of a newly signed Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

The agreement replaces project-by-project grants with consolidated, flexible pooled funding administered at the country or crisis level.

Tom Fletcher, the U.N.’s top humanitarian official and head of OCHA, welcomed the agreement, calling it a major breakthrough. ‘It’s a very significant landmark contribution,’ Fletcher said, according to the Associated Press.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz also said the deal would deliver more focused, results-driven aid aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests, while the State Department warned future funding will depend on continued reforms.