President Donald Trump spent the first year of his second White House term signing a torrent of executive orders aimed at delivering on several major policy priorities, including slashing federal agency budgets and staffing, implementing a hard-line immigration crackdown and invoking emergency authority to impose steep tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.

The pace of Trump’s executive actions has far outstripped that of his predecessors, allowing the administration to move quickly on campaign promises. But the blitz has also triggered a wave of lawsuits seeking to block or pause many of the orders, setting up a high-stakes confrontation over the limits of presidential power under Article II and when courts can — or should — intervene.

Lawsuits have challenged Trump’s most sweeping and consequential executive orders, ranging from a ban on birthright citizenship and transgender service members in the military to the legality of sweeping, DOGE-led government cuts and the president’s ability to ‘federalize’ and deploy thousands of National Guard troops.

Many of those questions remain unresolved. Only a few legal fights tied to Trump’s second-term agenda have reached final resolution, a point legal experts say is critical as the administration presses forward with its broader agenda.

Trump allies have argued the president is merely exercising his powers as commander in chief. 

Critics counter that the flurry of early executive actions warrants an additional level of legal scrutiny, and judges have raced to review a crushing wave of cases and lawsuits filed in response.

WINS:

Limits on nationwide injunctions

In June 2025, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, a closely watched case centered on the power of district courts to issue so-called universal or nationwide injunctions blocking a president’s executive orders. 

Though the case ostensibly focused on birthright citizenship, arguments narrowly focused on the authority of lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and did not wade into the legality of Trump’s order, which served as the legal pretext for the case. The decision had sweeping national implications, ultimately affecting the more than 310 federal lawsuits that had been filed at the time challenging Trump’s orders signed in his second presidential term.

Justices on the high court ultimately sided with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who had argued to the court that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, telling justices that the injunctions ‘transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,’ and ‘create a host of practical problems.’

The Supreme Court largely agreed. Justices ruled that plaintiffs seeking nationwide relief must file their lawsuits as class action challenges. This prompted a flurry of action from plaintiffs in the weeks and months that followed as they raced to amend and refile relevant complaints to lower courts.

Firing independent agency heads 

The Supreme Court also signaled openness to expanding presidential authority over independent agencies.

Earlier in 2025, the justices granted Trump’s request to pause lower-court orders reinstating two Democratic appointees — National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, two Democrat appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration. It also suggested the Supreme Court is poised to pare back a 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that prohibits certain heads of multi-member, congressionally created federal regulatory agencies from being fired without cause.

It is not the only issue in which the justices appeared inclined to side with Trump administration officials and either overturn or pare back Humphrey’s protections.

In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a similar case centered on Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. Justices seemed likely to allow the firing to proceed and to weaken Humphrey’s protections for similarly situated federal employees, though the extent that justices will move to dilute an already watered-down court ruling remains unclear.

The high court will also review another case centered on Trump’s ability to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook early in 2026.

LOSSES:

Tariffs 

While it’s rarely helpful to speculate on how the Supreme Court might rule on a certain case, court watchers and legal experts overwhelmingly reached a similar consensus after listening to oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump, the case centered on Trump’s use of an emergency wartime law to enact his sweeping tariff plan. 

At issue in the case is Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his steep 10% tariffs on most imports. The IEEPA law gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. But it’s unclear if such conditions exist, as voiced by liberal and conservative justices in their review of the case earlier in 2025.

Several justices also noted that the statute does not explicitly reference tariffs or taxes, a point that loomed large during oral arguments.

A ruling against the administration would deliver a major blow to Trump’s signature economic policy. 

Court watchers and legal experts said after arguments that a Trump administration win could be more difficult than expected, though each cautioned it is hard to draw conclusions from roughly two hours of oral arguments, a fraction of the total time justices spend reviewing a case.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, said in a blog post that the justices ‘were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers.’

‘However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration,’ Turley added.

Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the CATO Institute, told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement that members of the court seemed uncomfortable with expanding presidential power over tariffs.

‘Most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch ‘discovering’ new powers in old statutes,’ Skorup said.

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court has agreed to review Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, one of the most legally consequential actions of his second term.

At issue is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to most children born to illegal immigrant parents or parents with temporary legal status, a sweeping change critics say would upend roughly 150 years of constitutional precedent.

The order immediately sparked a flurry of lawsuits in 2025 filed by dozens of U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups. Opponents have also argued that the effort is an unconstitutional and ‘unprecedented’ one that would threaten some 150,000 children in the U.S. born annually to parents of noncitizens and an estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 who are living with an illegal immigrant parent, according to data from the Pew Research Center. 

To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, though multiple district courts have blocked the order from taking force.

While it’s unclear how the high court might rule, the lower court rulings suggest the Trump administration might face a steep uphill battle in arguing the case before the Supreme Court in early 2026.

The court said in early December it will hold oral arguments in the case in 2026, between February and April, with a ruling expected by the end of June. 

President Donald Trump warned early Friday that the U.S. would intervene if Iran started killing protesters. 

Writing on Truth Social, the president said if Iran shoots and ‘violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue.’ 

‘We are locked and loaded and ready to go,’ Trump said. 

Trump’s warning comes as demonstrations triggered by Iran’s deteriorating economy expand beyond the capital and raise concerns about a potential heavy-handed crackdown by security forces. At least seven people — including protesters and members of Iran’s security services — have been reported killed during clashes, according to international reporting.

Some of the most severe violence has been reported in western Iran, where videos circulating online appeared to show fires burning in streets and the sound of gunfire during nighttime protests. 

The unrest marks Iran’s most significant protests since 2022, when the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in police custody sparked nationwide demonstrations. Officials say the current protests have not yet reached the same scale or intensity, but they have spread to multiple regions and include chants directed at Iran’s theocratic leadership.

Iran’s civilian government under reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian has signaled a willingness to engage with protesters, but the administration faces limited options as the country’s economy continues to deteriorate. Iran’s currency has sharply depreciated, with roughly 1.4 million rials now required to buy a single U.S. dollar, intensifying public anger and eroding confidence in the government.

State television reported the arrests of several people accused of exploiting the unrest, including individuals it described as monarchists and others allegedly linked to Europe-based groups. Authorities also claimed security forces seized smuggled weapons during related operations, though details remain limited.

The demonstrations come amid heightened regional tensions following a 12-day conflict with Israel in June, during which the United States bombed Iranian nuclear sites. Iranian officials have since said the country is no longer enriching uranium, attempting to signal openness to renewed negotiations over its nuclear program to ease sanctions.

However, talks have yet to resume, as both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have warned Tehran against reconstituting its nuclear capabilities — adding further pressure on Iran’s leadership as protests continue.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

‘What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.’ That question, posed by Juliet in Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ seems to now occupy much of Washington. At a Christmas party with many media from Washington, the question was put to me more succinctly and repeatedly as ‘can they do that?’ The ‘that’ was the renaming of the Kennedy Center as the Trump-Kennedy Center. Soon, courts may have to face this quintessentially Shakespearean question, ‘for never was a story of more woe.’ 

Around Christmas, Ohio Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, an ex-officio member of the board, announced her lawsuit over the name change.  

As a threshold matter, I will address the legal rather than policy basis for the change. Many of us chafed at the renaming of the center, which was a memorial to an assassinated president. However, what people want to know is whether the change can be challenged. The answer is yes, but it will not necessarily be easy or certain in its outcome. 

The center was originally built as the National Cultural Center in a 1958 law. It was renamed the John F. Kennedy Center by an act of Congress in 1964 as a living memorial.

The key issue is how that designation was made. It was contained in a statute passed by Congress. Titled John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 20 U.S.C. 3, states that ‘no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.’ 

There are exceptions in sections 2 and 3 of the provision: 

‘(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to—

(A) any plaque acknowledging a gift from a foreign country; 

(B) any plaque on a theater chair or a theater box acknowledging the gift of such chair or box; and 

(C) any inscription on the marble walls in the north or south galleries, the Hall of States, or the Hall of Nations acknowledging a major contribution; …

(3) For purposes of this subsection, testimonials and benefit performances shall not be construed to be memorials.’ 

The language supports a congressional intent to insulate the memorial from any changes or dilutions. The specificity of the exceptions to plaques for donors suggests that other major changes, such as a name change, are barred under federal law. Moreover, the center is named by an act of Congress. It is hard to find any authority of the board that would undo or delegate that power. 

There is a legitimate question whether a name change is an ‘additional memorial or plaque,’ but it would seem to be so. If a simple plaque to donors had to be expressly exempted, giant letters dedicating the center to an additional person would seem to fall within the congressional intent.

Still, the Trump administration could quote the servant Sampson from ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and tell a court to ‘take it in what sense thou wilt,’ but the statute does not expressly say that name changes are a memorial. 

Challengers could argue that, under the board’s interpretation, any memorial established by Congress, from the Lincoln Memorial to the Kennedy Presidential Library, could be renamed or hyphenated.  

If a court agrees that the statute reflects a clear congressional intent to bar any change to the memorial, the question is how it can be challenged.

In any legal challenge, the advantage would likely rest with the challengers if they can meet the standing requirements.

Kerry Kennedy, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and sister of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced that, ‘Three years and one month from today, I’m going to grab a pickax and pull those letters off that building, but I’m going to need help holding the ladder. Are you in? Applying for my carpenter’s card today, so it’ll be a union job!!!’ 

I would not recommend that approach. Most attorneys strive to keep their clients from falling from great heights.  

The question is, who has standing to challenge the change. Are Kennedy family members injured in a concrete way to satisfy standing? Associational standing from historical preservation groups can be tricky. However, some may soon test those waters. 

The most obvious way to address the issue is for Congress to be heard. It can either ratify the board decision, or it could expressly declare the change to be invalid and clarify that ‘additional memorial’ encompasses any name change. Either resolution may prove difficult with the heavily divided Congress. Soon a judge may join Romeo in his lament: ‘O, teach me how I should forget to think!’

In any legal challenge, the advantage would likely rest with the challengers if they can meet the standing requirements. Otherwise, the name could remain by default … or until another administration decides to make another change to the center previously known as the Kennedy Center. 

Of course, today Juliet might resolve the naming problem in a similar fashion with a hyphenated marital name of Juliet Capulet-Montague, though it clearly would have gone over as poorly as the Trump-Kennedy name. It clearly does not smell as sweet to many.

I expect both court and congressional action to follow. Absent a quick resolution by Congress (which seems unlikely), this could result in years of litigation. 

However, both sides might be wise to heed Shakespeare’s warning in another play that, ‘where two raging fires meet together, they do consume the thing that feeds their fury.’ 

January 2026 marks one year into President Donald Trump’s second term, and there can be no honest conversation without acknowledging that he is one of the most consequential presidents in American history. Love him or loathe him, Trump remains the fixed star around which our politics has revolved for the better part of a decade. Every debate, whether on leadership, law, legacy or lack thereof, turns on the outsized presence of one man. His shadow looms across every institution sacred to America, from colleges to the church to the Capitol, forcing each to declare with whom it stands and why. 

Trump has not simply challenged institutions; he has recharted their course. He has created a political environment where presence, leverage and speed prevail — conditions future leaders will inherit whether they admire his legacy or admonish it. What matters now is not merely what Trump disrupted, but what he set in motion. Among other things, Trump reminds us how quickly and how personally a single executive can impact law, markets and society, for better or worse. 

Long after the rallies fade and the indictments recede, Trump’s imprint will continue to shape American life. A remade Supreme Court of hand-picked justices has altered constitutional doctrine for generations to come. Capital markets have come to treat presidential volatility as a warning sign and tradable risk. Tariffs, trade and industrial policy have been recast as blunt instruments of executive will, designed to serve voters as much as economists. Even the once-fringe world of digital assets and crypto has been reframed from libertarian experiment to strategic asset class challenging sovereignty, regulation and power. 

In many other ways, Trump has altered expectations as much as outcomes. He mandated institutions to move faster and challenged political actors to think bigger. That inheritance will not be easily unwound. History’s students of power understand that consequence is measured not only by outcomes, but by what follows, and few made that point more clearly than Henry Kissinger. ‘Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.’

More than anyone else, Trump recognizes that power today flows not only from institutions but from attention. From the time he entered the arena, Trump has perfected one principle: never surrender the stage. Pundits once mocked his early bid for office as self-promotion. It became a populist revolt instead. His blunt voice pierces decades of polite debate. While Washington was accustomed to civility, his words are often raw, sometimes reckless, but always real. Trump’s mastery of attention strains conventional guardrails and has exposed institutional rot long ignored. He leverages disruption to push the boundaries of trust and normalize chaos, conflict and controversy. 

The Trump presidency breaks precedent almost daily — so often it is futile to flag and hard to keep score. He confronts China’s mercantilism with tariffs when others fear retaliation. He moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, upending decades of diplomatic orthodoxy. He stepped across the DMZ to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and rolled out the red carpet for Russian President Vladimir Putin. He bombs Venezuelan speed boats presumed to carry contraband and dares the reigning despot to respond, let alone retaliate. And he brusquely deports the undocumented with steely bravado. All of which would have been derided or thought folly not long ago, but now is political reality.  

Supporters see courage; opponents see chaos. Two things can be true. Trump leads by instinct, improvising his own score to the established symphony of power. Policy wonks measure process; his allies measure presence. Rallies replaced town halls. Tweets replaced press conferences. Identity replaced ideology. To millions who felt unseen, he proved they exist. He showed up, stood up and spoke up in a way American presidents never have, and may never again.

Every scandal was forecast as fatal. None has been. Each prosecution, revelation and rebuke only deepened the myth. His mug shot became merchandise, his trials became theater, his adversaries became amplifiers. History honors endurance as much as elegance, if not more. Trump embodies that fact. Cast down, counted out and condemned by critics, his ascendance reflects the character of a long ignored American electorate — disruptive, defiant, determined to be seen.  

Grave legal and ethical questions have dogged the president to be sure. But the paradox persists: efforts to diminish Trump through lawfare have mostly enlarged and emboldened him politically and prompted questions as to whether prosecution has advanced justice or accelerated division. 

Washington still misunderstands the Trump phenomenon. He thrives on friction, force and fear. Attention is both fuel and fortress. While pundits count approval ratings, he commandeers airtime. Flooding the zone is more than a football play; it is a governing philosophy for Trump, who understands that in today’s politics, silence equals extinction. The simple act of tagging opponents with amusingly accurate nicknames bespeaks both instinct and popular appeal; at the same time brilliant and brutal.

Populism in America is cyclical. President Andrew Jackson fought banks; politician William Jennings Bryan fought barons; Louisiana Gov. and then Sen. Huey Long fought inequality; Trump fights systems of every stripe. His crusade is part grievance and part gospel, speaking to a republic that distrusts its own elite institutions and their caretakers. Trump excels at stretching politics into follow-through performance. After all, who else would dare prepend his name to the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts and the U.S. Institute of Peace in real time. 

Foreign-policy mandarins dismiss his unorthodox diplomacy, yet the Abraham Accords reordered alliances few believed possible. Energy independence became a reality under his watch. Europe, once warned about Russian gas dependency, now concedes he was right. NATO member states shoulder greater — though not altogether equitable — burdens. Even critics grudgingly credit him for forcing movement on issues long considered intractable, thus the Nobel nominations. 

American politics has long relished showmanship and public performance, from Jefferson’s pamphlets to Lincoln’s debates. Trump is the latest iteration of that tradition, and the most complete legacy of the social media age. He channels a culture that values performance as proof of conviction. As such, he reflects some of our own national contradictions: moral yet mercenary, religious yet rebellious, democratic yet drawn to dominance.

Scholars will debate Trump’s impact for decades, but his ubiquity is unquestionable. He imbues every poll, every platform, every party calculus. Democrats campaign against him; Republicans campaign around him. He remains bolder and busier than ever. Trump did not just reform the GOP; he broke the mold and recast it as Trump, MAGA and America First. 

Every scandal was forecast as fatal. None has been. Each prosecution, revelation and rebuke only deepened the myth. His mug shot became merchandise, his trials became theater, his adversaries became amplifiers.

Trump’s evangelical supporters remind us that the great men of old were seldom polished and never perfect. Moses killed, yet led his people to freedom. David sinned, yet ruled with vision. Paul persecuted, yet became the greatest apostle. Scripture teaches that imperfection often precedes purpose, and greatness is rarely graceful. The Christian faithful rely on these proverbial lessons when explaining their loyal and unapologetic allegiance to such a coarse Christian. Unlike Elijah, it will be impossible to take up his mantle.

While canonizing Trump would be a stretch, dismissing him would be dishonest. From TV ownership to tariffs to trade and beyond, Trump compels America to confront convention and contradiction at the same time. He challenges America’s heritage of confidence and doubt, conviction and compassion, strength and restraint. And challenges us to rethink long-held axioms. 

Sports analysts often speak of exceptionally gifted athletes as ‘generational talent’ — those who have the extraordinary ability to change the game. That is Trump.

For those hoping to walk in his shoes, there is no blueprint for replication. He ushered in a unique political reality that history must acknowledge even if it cannot be repeated. As the most consequential political figure of this century thus far, Donald Trump offers history a compelling study in transformational leadership. He is implacable, irreplaceable and impossible to ignore. There has never been, nor will there ever be, another like him. 

Foremost and finally, Trump embodies a new political maxim for today’s America. If you dare to lead, you do not have to be perfect, but you must be present. 

With margins tight in both chambers, control of Congress in 2026 is expected to hinge on a small group of competitive Senate contests and House districts sensitive to national trends. As America plunges into a new year, here are the races that are most likely to define the midterm races.

Senate majority-making or majority-breaking races to watch

Senate Republicans are looking to maintain their razor-thin majority after flipping the upper chamber in 2024. There are 33 seats in-cycle in the forthcoming midterms, which often act as a check on an incumbent president’s performance.

The GOP is hoping to replicate the Election Day successes that helped preserve its majority at the midpoint of President Donald Trump’s first term, entering 2026 with what many analysts consider a favorable map.

Georgia

 Georgia is the top prize of Senate Republicans and their campaign arm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). Incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., is vulnerable in his first attempt at re-election to the Senate and will be met with the full weight of the NRSC’s campaign war chest. 

Before the general election, Republicans will first have to let the dust settle on a bloody, four-way primary fight among Reps. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., Mike Collins, R-Ga., former University of Tennessee head football coach Derek Dooley and horse trainer Reagan Box. Republicans’ prized candidate, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, opted not to enter the contest, leaving a wide open playing field for the GOP to fight over. 

North Carolina

In the heat of the Senate advancing Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., announced his retirement. What would likely have been a gimme race for the GOP has now turned into a wide open contest for an open seat. 

Democrats believe they can flip the seat for the first time since 2008 and hope that former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper will carry them to victory and provide a crucial win to tip the balance of power. Republicans scored their preferred candidate, too, in former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley. He will have a primary challenge though from Michele Morrow. 

Michigan

 Similar to North Carolina, Democrats lost their incumbent Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., to retirement. Both parties are now gunning for the open seat, but Democrats’ have a tangled primary to survive first before their true candidate emerges. 

Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and physician Abdul El-Sayed, are all in on the Democratic side, while Trump and Republicans have coalesced behind former Rep. Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost to Sen. Elissa Slotkin last year. 

Maine

 Incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is Senate Democrats’ top target in the midterms. Collins, who is looking to score a sixth term in the Senate, could face a formidable opponent in the general election with the full backing of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., or an upstart progressive candidate that’s looking to throw a wrench into Democrats’ plans. 

There are several local candidates that have jumped in on both sides of the race, but the main contenders are Collins, popular Democratic Gov. Janet Mills and oyster farmer Graham Platner, who has rubbed shoulders with progressive heavyweights Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. 

Ohio

 Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio, who was appointed to replace Vice President JD Vance earlier this year, will look to finish out the remaining two years of his predecessor’s term. But he’ll face a tough opponent in former Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who narrowly lost last year.  

Schumer and Democrats scored their best chance at picking up a seat in Ohio, again trying to turn the state purple after Brown’s loss to Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio. And there will be eye-popping amounts of money thrown at this contest. 

New Hampshire

 Democrats took yet another hit from the retirement train when Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., announced she’d leave Congress at the end of her term. That has opened up the field to several familiar Republican names jumping into the contest in the hopes of turning part of the Granite State red. 

Republicans have two prime candidates, former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., and former Rep. Scott Brown, R-Mass., who also served as an ambassador for Trump, to pick from. Meanwhile, Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., is the likely heir apparent on the Democratic side. 

House races that will decide the majority

Control of the House is likely to hinge on fewer than two dozen districts nationwide, as both parties focus their resources on a small set of competitive seats that could decide the chamber. The battlegrounds span suburbs, rural communities and diverse metro areas, underscoring how varied the path to a majority has become.

Colorado’s 8th District, Northern Denver suburbs and Greeley

 With GOP Rep. Gabe Evans defending the seat, Colorado’s 8th District remains one of the most competitive House districts in the country. Drawn as a true swing seat after redistricting, it has flipped parties in back-to-back cycles and is often decided by slim margins.

Whether Latino and working-class voters break decisively toward one party and whether the race is decided by a narrow margin. A comfortable win here typically signals momentum heading into other battleground House races.

Iowa’s 1st District, Eastern Iowa

With a history of close results, Iowa’s 1st District is once again a top battleground as Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks seeks re-election.

The district spans college towns, rural counties and small manufacturing hubs, creating an electorate that frequently splits its ticket. Even as Iowa trends red at the presidential level, the seat continues to hover in toss-up territory and is often among the last House races decided on election night.

New Jersey’s 7th District, North Jersey suburbs

Held by GOP Rep. Tom Kean Jr., New Jersey’s 7th is a high-income, college-educated suburban district that has repeatedly swung with the national political climate and historically punished incumbents during unfavorable cycles.

Whether suburban voters continue drifting away from Republicans or stabilize in a midterm environment. A shift here would offer an early read on how educated suburbs are responding to the party in power.

New York’s 17th District, Hudson Valley and NYC’s northern suburbs

New York’s 17th District, which previously backed former President Joe Biden, is represented by GOP Rep. Mike Lawler and is expected to play an outsized role in determining House control.

Whether Democrats can effectively harness heavy national spending and messaging in a district expected to draw intense attention.

Pennsylvania’s 7th District, Lehigh Valley and Allentown

Held by Republican Rep. Chris Mackenzie, Pennsylvania’s 7th is a true purple district in a must-win swing state. This area is made up of a politically diverse electorate that has previously mirrored statewide results.

Economic pressures and immigration debates are expected to shape how working-class and Latino voters approach the race.

California’s 22nd District, Central Valley

California’s 22nd, represented by GOP Rep. David Valadao, has remained a perennial battleground for more than a decade, shaped by its agricultural economy and a large Latino electorate sensitive to turnout swings.

Whether Democrats can boost turnout enough to flip the seat, and whether Central Valley races help offset Republican gains elsewhere in the country.

Escalating claims by Russia that Ukraine tried to hit a residence used by President Vladimir Putin with drones have been dismissed by a top military drone expert, who called the alleged attack ‘hard to fathom’ and tactically implausible.

Cameron Chell’s comments came as Moscow doubled down on accusations Kyiv has flatly denied, with the drone industry leader arguing the alleged strike announced Monday runs counter to Ukraine’s drone tactics.

Chell, the CEO and co-founder of Draganfly, a drone manufacturer that supplies to the U.S. Department of Defense and allied militaries, including Ukraine, said Russia’s claims lack credibility.

‘What really makes things usually very signature about Ukraine is that they are always incredibly clever about how they use drones,’ Chell told Fox News Digital.

‘They are clever from a cost perspective — let’s call it an efficiency perspective — but also very clever in their tactics,’ he added.

‘I find it hard to fathom that this drone attack even happened on Putin’s residence or that it was something that Ukraine orchestrated for a number of reasons,’ Chell said.

‘Based on the description of the alleged attack over the top of Putin’s residence, the drones would not have been launched from a very long distance away,’ he said.

‘This would have avoided up to 1000 km of air defense systems and then likely attacking one of the most heavily fortified air defense networks surrounding Putin’s Valdai residence.

‘The cost benefit analysis, not to mention the political analysis, also does not make sense,’ he added.

Chell’s comments came as Russia doubled down Tuesday on accusations that Ukraine attempted to strike a presidential palace in the Novgorod region using drones, allegedly to disrupt peace efforts.

Kyiv dismissed the allegation, with the timing also raising questions given the upbeat tone of a recent meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Florida.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed late Monday that 91 drones were intercepted en route to Putin’s residence on the shores of Lake Valdai.

His statement appeared to contradict earlier Defense Ministry tallies, which said 89 drones were shot down over eight regions, including 18 over Novgorod, later adding another 23.

Only after Lavrov spoke did the ministry allege that 49 drones intercepted over Bryansk, nearly 300 miles away, were also targeting Valdai.

Asked about wreckage, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was ‘a matter for our military,’ while calling Zelenskyy’s denial and Western skepticism ‘completely insane.’

Peskov said Russia’s diplomatic stance would be toughened, and Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin vowed there could be ‘no forgiveness’ for Zelenskyy.

Chell said the story simply does not add up. ‘To attack Putin’s residence in the manner described would require much more sophisticated tactics than simply sending long-range, relatively slow-moving drones,’ he said.

Chell also noted that this was a night operation and therefore, it generally rules out accurate visual mapping navigation. 

‘Since the description of the attack also does not lend itself to the use of fiber optic communication, which requires a relatively close range launch point, these drones would likely have had to rely on GPS navigation,’ he explained.

‘This would easily have been thwarted in this area and the Ukrainians would have known this,’ Chell said.

Politically, Chell argued, Ukraine has nothing to gain. ‘They’re bold, but right in the middle of peace talks — when they need Trump on side — it makes no sense,’ he said. ‘Ukraine is just politically too smart to have done that.’

Zelenskyy on Monday also called the claim a complete fabrication, accusing Moscow of laying the groundwork for further attacks. 

Lavrov warned of retaliation but said Russia would continue talks with Washington.

Trump also said he learned of the alleged attack directly from Putin and was ‘very angry about it.’ Asked whether there was evidence, Trump replied, ‘We’ll find out.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Kremlin for comment.

Officials with the Attorney General’s Office said Wednesday they are working relentlessly over the holidays to review and redact troves of documents in the Epstein files, prior to their mandated public release.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche released a statement on X noting Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers from Main Justice, FBI, SDFL and SDNY are ‘working around the clock’ through Christmas and New Years to review documents, ensuring sensitive victim information is redacted from the impending release.

‘It truly is an all-hands-on-deck approach and we’re asking as many lawyers as possible to commit their time to review the documents that remain,’ Blanche wrote in the post. ‘Required redactions to protect victims take time but they will not stop these materials from being released.’

Blanche’s update comes amid recent threats of legal action after the department missed the Epstein Files Transparency Act’s Dec. 19 deadline to publish all of its documents related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

He previously argued there was ‘well-settled law’ supporting the missed deadline, as other legal requirements in the bill must be met prior to release, including redacting victim-identifying information.

‘The Attorney General’s and this Administration’s goal is simple: transparency and protecting victims,’ Blanche wrote Wednesday.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed Nov. 19 by President Donald Trump, required the DOJ to withhold information that could identify potential victims or compromise ongoing investigations or litigation.

It also allowed officials to exclude material deemed sensitive to national defense or foreign policy.

While it remains unclear how many files still need to be reviewed, the DOJ last week confirmed the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York recently submitted more than 1 million additional pages of potentially responsive documents related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking cases.

Officials said the ‘mass volume’ of material could take weeks to examine, further delaying their release, which was promised by Blanche on a ‘rolling basis,’ Fox News Digital previously reported.

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump claimed that California and Minnesota are both rife with fraud, slamming the two states and their respective governors as ‘Crooked.’

‘There is more FRAUD in California than there is in Minnesota, if that is even possible. When you add in Election Fraud, then they are tied for first. Two Crooked Governors, two Crooked States!’ the president asserted in the post on Wednesday, referring to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

Trump also slammed Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.

‘Much of the Minnesota Fraud, up to 90%, is caused by people that came into our Country, illegally, from Somalia. ‘Congresswoman’ Omar, an ungrateful loser who only complains and never contributes, is one of the many scammers. Did she really marry her brother? Lowlifes like this can only be a liability to our Country’s greatness. Send them back from where they came, Somalia, perhaps the worst, and most corrupt, country on earth. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!’ he declared.

Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Omar, Newsom and Walz to request comment but did not immediately hear back.

The president’s comments come in the wake of reporting alleging massive fraud in Minnesota.

‘We have frozen all child care payments to the state of Minnesota,’ Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services and acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Jim O’Neill declared in a Tuesday post on X. 

‘You have probably read the serious allegations that the state of Minnesota has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to fraudulent daycares across Minnesota over the past decade,’ he noted. ‘I have activated our defend the spend system for all ACF payments. Starting today, all ACF payments across America will require a justification and a receipt or photo evidence before we send money to a state.’ 

Walz responded to the move by blasting Trump.

‘This is Trump’s long game. We’ve spent years cracking down on fraudsters. It’s a serious issue — but this has been his plan all along. He’s politicizing the issue to defund programs that help Minnesotans,’ Walz asserted in a post on Tuesday to his official governor’s X account.

In a follow-up post Wednesday to his personal account, Walz declared, ‘While Minnesota has been combating fraud, the President has been letting fraudsters out of jail. Trump’s using an issue he doesn’t give a damn about as an excuse to hurt working Minnesotans.’

Momentum on a 20-point peace plan to end the war between Russia and Ukraine is faltering after President Vladimir Putin accused Kyiv of targeting a residence linked to him, a claim Moscow says leaves little room for compromise at the negotiating table.

The accusation comes as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been pressing a 20-point peace proposal as a counteroffer to a 28-point framework floated by the Trump administration before Thanksgiving. Zelenskyy was expected to present the plan directly to President Donald Trump during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, part of what he described as ‘some of the most active diplomatic days of the year.’

Russia claims Ukraine launched a large-scale drone attack early Monday against a presidential residence in the Novgorod region, involving 91 long-range drones that were intercepted by Russian air defenses.

Russia’s defense ministry released footage of a masked soldier standing next to drone wreckage it said was recovered from the attack, claiming the drone carried a high-explosive warhead ‘filled with a large number of striking elements’ intended to hit civilian targets.

The Kremlin has described the site as a presidential residence in the Novgorod region, one of several state-owned properties associated with Putin, though it has not said he was present at the time.

Kremlin officials quickly branded the incident ‘terrorist’ activity, warning it would force Russia to harden its negotiating position. 

‘This terrorist action is aimed at collapsing the negotiation process,’ Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters Tuesday. ‘The diplomatic consequence will be to toughen the negotiating position of the Russian Federation.’

Zelenskyy’s proposal calls for Western-backed security guarantees resembling NATO’s Article 5, a halt in fighting along current battle lines in contested regions, and the creation of demilitarized zones overseen by international forces — provisions Moscow has long opposed. The Ukrainian plan also rejects formal recognition of Russian control over occupied territory, a key point of divergence from the U.S. framework.

Ukraine has flatly denied responsibility for the alleged attack. Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said Russia has offered no evidence ‘because there’s none,’ accusing Moscow of leaning on a familiar strategy. 

‘Russia has a long record of false claims — it’s their signature tactic,’ Sybiha said in a post to the social platform X.

Zelenskyy told reporters that Ukraine had discussed the allegation with U.S. officials. ‘They’ve talked through the details. And we understand that it’s fake. And thanks to their technical opportunities, they can verify that it’s fake,’ he said.

Ukrainian officials argue the allegation fits a broader Kremlin playbook: using unproven claims to justify escalation or deflect blame as diplomacy intensifies. Kyiv has warned Moscow may be using the episode to lay the groundwork for new strikes, including against government buildings in the Ukrainian capital, while portraying Russia as the aggrieved party in peace talks.

The dispute has also drawn in Trump, who met with Zelenskyy in Florida Friday and later spoke by phone with Putin. Putin raised the alleged incident during their call.

‘I was very angry about it,’ Trump told reporters, adding that the U.S. was still working to determine what actually happened. ‘We’ll find out,’ he said.

Matthew Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, said on Fox Business that Washington is investigating Russia’s claim. 

‘It’s unclear whether it actually happened,’ Whitaker said. ‘We’re going to get to the bottom of the intelligence.’

Russian President Vladimir Putin used his New Year’s address to deliver a blunt message to the West and to his own troops: Russia is not backing down in Ukraine.

As 2026 arrived in Russia’s far eastern regions, Putin vowed victory in the nearly four-year war, praising Russian soldiers and framing the conflict as a fight for the nation’s survival — even as the United States ramps up diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the bloodshed.

‘We believe in you and our victory,’ Putin said in remarks broadcast nationwide and released by the Kremlin on Wednesday. Addressing troops directly, he congratulated ‘all our soldiers and commanders’ and pledged continued support for what Moscow calls its ‘special military operation.’

Putin cast the war as a struggle for Russia’s homeland, ‘truth and justice,’ signaling determination to press ahead despite mounting losses and international pressure.

In a separate message, ex-President Dmitry Medvedev — Putin’s security council deputy — said of victory in Ukraine: ‘I sincerely believe that it is near.’ Echoing Putin, he spoke of ‘our great and invincible Russia.’

The defiant tone comes as the war approaches grim milestones. On Jan. 12, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will surpass the 1,418 days the Soviet Union fought Nazi Germany in Europe during World War II. On Feb. 24, the conflict will enter its fourth year. Western estimates place the number of killed and wounded at more than 1 million — a figure the Kremlin disputes.

Putin’s rhetoric stood in sharp contrast to renewed diplomatic activity led by Washington.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with U.S. President Donald Trump at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Sunday, as the White House explores possible paths to end Europe’s largest land war since World War II.

After the meeting, Trump said Ukraine and Russia were ‘closer than ever’ to peace, while acknowledging that major obstacles — particularly territorial disputes — remain unresolved. Reuters separately reported that Trump and Zelenskyy discussed potential U.S. troop involvement as part of broader security guarantees, though no decisions were announced.

Reuters contributed to this report.