Former special counsel Jack Smith used a closed-door deposition with House Republicans last month to defend his investigations into Donald Trump’s alleged effort to subvert the 2020 presidential election and his alleged retention of certain classified documents, using the hours-long testimony to forcefully dispute the notion that his team had acted politically, and citing what he described as ample evidence to support the indictments that had been levied against Trump. 

‘I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,’ Smith told members of the House Judiciary Committee in the Dec. 17 interview.

The interview was Smith’s first time appearing before Congress since he left his role as special counsel in 2024. And while much of the information was not new, the exchange was punctuated by sharp exchanges with Republicans on the panel, both on the strength of the case, and on his own actions taken during the course of the probe — most recently, on the tolling records his team sought from a handful of Republican lawmakers over the course of the investigation. Republicans have assailed the records as being at odds with the speech or debate clause of the Constitution.  

‘I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,’ Smith told the committee. ‘We took actions based on what the facts, and the law required — the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.’

Republicans on the panel ultimately opted to publish the redacted transcript on New Year’s Eve, a decision that may have helped dull the impact of any news the 255-page document may have generated amid the broader hustle and bustle of the holiday season.

Here are some of the biggest moments and notable exchanges from the eight-hour hearing. 

New political tensions 

Smith was tapped by former Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to investigate the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump’s keeping of allegedly classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach after leaving office in 2020. Smith had brought charges against Trump in both cases.

The charges were dropped after Trump’s election, in keeping with a longstanding Justice Department policy that discourages investigating sitting presidents for federal criminal charges, and Smith resigned from his role shortly after.

If nothing else, Smith’s Dec. 17 testimony underscored just how much has changed since Trump’s reelection in 2024. 

Trump, for his part, has used his first year back in office to follow through on his promises to go after his perceived political ‘enemies,’ including by revoking security clearances of many individuals, including employees of a D.C.-based law firm that represents Smith, and taking other punitive measures to punish or fire FBI agents involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, investigation.

During his testimony last month, Smith fiercely disputed the notion that Trump’s remarks about the 2020 election results would be protected by the First Amendment. 

‘Absololutely not,’ he said in response to a lawyer for Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee.

The lawyer then ticked through a ‘long list of disputed elections’ in U.S. history and former presidents who have spoken out about ‘what they believed to be fraud,’ or other issues regarding election integrity. ‘I think you would agree that those types of statements are sort of at the core of the First Amendment rights of a presidential candidate, right?’

‘There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case,’ Smith said immediately. 

‘Powerful’ evidence

Smith told members that the special counsel ultimately gathered evidence against Trump that was, in his view, sufficient to secure a conviction.

‘He made false statements to state legislatures, to his supporters in all sorts of contexts and was aware in the days leading up to Jan. 6th that his supporters were angry when he invited them, and then he directed them to the Capitol,’ Smith said of Trump’ actions in the run-up to Jan. 6. 

‘Now, once they were at the Capitol and once the attack on the Capitol happened, he refused to stop it. He instead issued a tweet that, without question in my mind, endangered the life of his own vice president,’ Smith added. ‘And when the violence was going on, he had to be pushed repeatedly by his staff members to do anything to quell it.’

Other possible co-conspirators had not been charged, as Smith noted at one point during the interview. 

But Smith said in the testimony that his team had developed ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ that Trump ‘engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.’

They’d also developed what he described as ‘powerful evidence’ that Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after leaving office in January 2021 at his private Mar-a-Lago residence, and was obstructing the government’s efforts to recover the records.

Smith’s team had not determined how to proceed for possible ‘co-conspirators’

Smith said that, when the special counsel wound down in the wake of the 2024 elections, his team had not determined whether to charge the key Trump allies who may or may not have acted as co-conspirators, including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and John Eastman.

‘As we stated in the final report, we analyzed the evidence against different co-conspirators,’ Smith said. Smith reiterated his allegation that Trump was ‘the most culpable’ and ‘most responsible’ person for the alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election results. 

He said the special counsel had ‘determined that we did have evidence to charge people at a certain point in time.’ 

But at the time the investigation was wound down, they had not made ‘final determinations about that at the time that President Trump won reelection, meaning that our office was going to be closed down.’

He lamented the ousting of DOJ, FBI officials 

Smith used his opening remarks to lament the ousting of FBI agents and Justice Department officials involved in the Jan. 6 investigations.

‘I am both saddened and angered that President Trump has sought revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff simply for doing their jobs and for having worked on those cases,’ Smith said.

His remarks came after the FBI in recent months ousted a handful of personnel involved in the Jan. 6 investigations, an effort individuals familiar with the action described to Fox News at the time as an act of ‘retaliation.’

Thousands of FBI personnel in February were forced to fill out a sprawling questionnaire asking employees detailed questions about any role they may have played in the investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riots — ranging from whether they had testified in any criminal trials to when they last participated in investigation-related activity.

Smith’s team didn’t tell the courts that subpoenaed phone records belonged to lawmakers

Smith was grilled during the deposition about the highly scrutinized subpoenas his team issued to phone companies for data belonging to House and Senate lawmakers as part of his investigation, saying they aligned with the Justice Department’s policy at the time.

Smith said the Public Integrity Section signed off on the subpoenas, a point corroborated by records previously released by Grassley’s office. 

Those records also showed that the Public Integrity Section told prosecutors to be wary of concerns lawmakers could raise about the Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which gives Congress members added protections.

The subpoenas to the phone companies were accompanied by gag orders blocking the lawmakers from learning about the existence of the subpoenas for at least one year. Smith said the D.C. federal court, which authorized the gag orders, would not have been aware that they applied to Congress members.’I don’t think we identified that, because I don’t think that was Department policy at the time,’ Smith said.

Asked during the deposition about who should be held accountable for lawmakers who felt that the seizure of a narrow set of their phone data was a constitutional violation, Smith said Trump should be held accountable.

‘These records are people, in the case of the Senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings,’ Smith said.

‘He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic Senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic Senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them, that’s — that lies with Donald Trump,’ he said.

A super PAC aligned with President Donald Trump has nearly $300 million in its war chest heading into the 2026 midterms, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Thursday.

MAGA Inc. reported $294 million in cash on hand in its latest campaign finance disclosure, which the super PAC said will be used to support candidates aligned with the president’s agenda.

‘Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, MAGA Inc will have the resources to help candidates who support President Trump’s America First agenda of securing our border, keeping our streets safe, supercharging our economy, and making life more affordable for all Americans,’ a MAGA Inc. spokesperson said in a statement, according to the New York Post.

The super PAC raised $102 million in the second half of 2025, including 25 donations of at least $1 million.

The largest contribution came from OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman, who donated $25 million in September.

Brockman said in a post on X this week that he had become more politically active in 2025, including through political contributions that reflect ‘support for policies that advance American innovation and constructive dialogue between government and the technology sector.’

The fundraising haul came even though Trump is not on the ballot this year, underscoring the super PAC’s focus on supporting Republicans in upcoming races.

MAGA Inc. did not play a significant role in the 2022 midterms, opting instead to save its money for Trump’s 2024 campaign.

The super PAC spent $456 million supporting Trump’s bid to return to the White House, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit organization that tracks campaign finance data.

MAGA Inc. launched ads in November backing Republican candidate Matt Van Epps, who was endorsed by Trump and went on to defeat Democrat Aftyn Behn in a Tennessee congressional race.

Elon Musk, the billionaire technology entrepreneur and chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla, has signaled an openness to supporting Republican candidates in the midterms.

‘America is toast if the radical left wins,’ he posted on X on Thursday. ‘They will open the floodgates to illegal immigration and fraud.’

Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

The Venezuelan dictator captured by the Trump administration worked as a bus driver and union organizer before his ascent through the South American country’s political system, where he ultimately became a wanted man by the U.S. with a $50 million reward for information leading to his arrest. 

Nicolás Maduro was ‘captured and flown out of the country’ early Saturday following a ‘large-scale strike’ by the U.S. military, according to President Donald Trump. 

The actions mark a stunning fall for Maduro, who was serving his third term as president of Venezuela. He led an administration that grappled with economic challenges, mass protests, disputed election results and allegations of narco-trafficking. 

Maduro was born in Venezuela’s capital of Caracas on Nov. 23, 1962. As a young man, he was sent to communist Cuba in 1986 for a year of ideological instruction — his only studies after high school.

Upon returning home, Maduro found work as a bus driver and union organizer. He embraced the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez after the then-army paratrooper in 1992 staged a failed coup against an unpopular austerity government. Around the same time, he met his longtime partner, Cilia Flores, a lawyer for the jailed leader. 

After Chávez was freed and elected president in 1998, Maduro, a young lawmaker, helped push his agenda of redistributing the OPEC nation’s oil wealth and political power. 

In 2000, Maduro was elected to Venezuela’s National Assembly. He later became the president of the National Assembly in 2005.

Then in 2006, Chávez appointed Maduro as Venezuela’s foreign minister. Six years later, Maduro was appointed as Venezuela’s vice president. 

When Maduro took power in 2013 following his mentor’s death from cancer, he struggled to bring order to the grief-stricken nation. Without ‘El Comandante’ in charge, the economy entered a death spiral — shrinking 71% from 2012 to 2020, with inflation topping 130,000% — and opponents and rivals inside the government saw an opportunity. 

Less than a year into Maduro’s presidency, hardliner opponents launched demonstrations demanding his exit.

Leaning heavily on Venezuela’s security forces, Maduro crushed the protests. However, with supermarket shelves empty amid widespread shortages, they resumed with more intensity three years later, leaving more than 100 people dead. In 2018, the International Criminal Court initiated a criminal investigation into possible crimes against humanity. 

The crackdown continued into the 2018 presidential race, which the opposition boycotted when several of its leaders were barred from running. Dozens of countries led by the U.S. condemned Maduro’s first re-election as illegitimate and recognized Juan Guaidó, the head of the National Assembly, as Venezuela’s elected leader. 

‘Since 2019, more than 50 countries, including the United States, have refused to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s head of state,’ the State Department said in a profile of Maduro on its website.

‘Maduro helped manage and ultimately lead the Cartel of the Suns, a Venezuelan drug-trafficking organization comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials. As he gained power in Venezuela, Maduro participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization,’ it added.  

‘Maduro negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed the Cartel of the Suns to provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated with narcotics traffickers in Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cartel of the Suns,’ the State Department continued. 

‘In March 2020, Maduro was charged in the Southern District of New York for narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices,’ it also said.

Maduro was re-elected again in 2024 in another disputed election. 

‘Given the overwhelming evidence, it is clear to the United States and, most importantly, to the Venezuelan people that Edmundo González Urrutia won the most votes in Venezuela’s July 28 presidential election,’ then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at the time. 

Maduro then delivered a fiery inauguration speech in January 2025, likening himself to a biblical David fighting Goliath and accusing his opponents and their supporters in the U.S. of trying to turn his inauguration into a ‘world war.’ 

He said his enemies’ failure to block his inauguration to a third six-year term was ‘a great victory’ for Venezuela’s peace and national sovereignty. 

‘I have not been made president by the government of the United States, nor by the pro-imperialist governments of Latin America,’ he said, after being draped with a sash in the red, yellow and blue of Venezuela’s flag. ‘I come from the people, I am of the people, and my power emanates from history and from the people. And to the people, I owe my whole life, body and soul.’ 

Months later, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest.

‘Maduro uses foreign terrorist organizations like TdA (Tren de Aragua), Sinaloa and Cartel of the Suns (Cartel de Soles) to bring deadly violence to our country,’ Bondi said in a video message in August 2025. ‘He is one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world and a threat to our national security.’ 

Fox News’ Michael Sinkewicz, Lucas Y. Tomlinson, Louis Casiano and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Republican Rep. Wesley Hunt of Texas is calling for the complete and permanent abolition of diversity, equity and inclusion ideology, noting that he only wants to be judged based on his ‘character,’ ‘competence’ and ‘results.’

‘DEI should be abolished, permanently. I never want to be chosen, promoted, or rewarded because of how I look. I want to earn every opportunity on merit, through hard work, grit, discipline, and determination,’ the Army veteran declared in a post on X.

‘Equality means equal standards, not engineered outcomes. The dignity of achievement comes from effort, not entitlement. Judge me by my character, my competence, and my results. Anything less is an insult to everyone striving to be their best,’ he added.

Billionaire business tycoon Elon Musk heartily endorsed the lawmaker’s comments.

‘And this is how anyone of honor should be!’ Musk wrote when sharing Hunt’s post on X.

Hunt has previously expressed his disdain for DEI.

‘DEI should be DOA,’ he wrote in a May 2025 post on X. ‘America was built on merit, grit, determination, and hard work—not skin color, quotas, or political games. The promise of this nation is simple: we rise by the strength of our character, not the shade of our skin. I’ve lived by that truth—and it drives the left absolutely insane.’ 

The lawmaker, who has served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2023, is running for U.S. Senate, challenging incumbent Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who is up for re-election this year. Lone Star State Attorney General Ken Paxton is also aiming to unseat Cornyn in the Republican U.S. Senate primary.

As 2025 ends, tensions between China and Taiwan are higher — and more overt — than at any point in recent years, fueled by expanded U.S. military support for Taipei, increasingly bold warnings from regional allies, and Chinese military drills that look less like symbolism and more like rehearsal.

Beijing has spent the year steadily increasing pressure on Taiwan through large-scale military exercises, air and naval incursions, and pointed political messaging, while Washington and its allies have responded with sharper deterrence signals that China now openly labels as interference.

The result is a more volatile status quo — one where the risk of miscalculation has grown, even as most analysts stop short of predicting an imminent Chinese invasion.

A year of escalating pressure

China capped off 2025 with what it described as its largest Taiwan-focused military exercises to date, launching expansive drills in December that included live-fire elements and simulated island encirclement operations.

The exercises followed a familiar pattern seen throughout the year: People’s Liberation Army aircraft and ships operating closer to Taiwan with greater frequency, reinforcing Beijing’s claim of sovereignty while testing Taipei’s response capacity.

Unlike earlier shows of force, the late-year drills were widely interpreted as practice for coercive scenarios short of outright war — particularly a blockade or quarantine designed to strangle Taiwan economically and politically without triggering immediate global conflict.

Chinese officials explicitly tied the escalation to Washington’s actions, pointing to a massive U.S. arms package approved in December — valued at roughly $11 billion and described as one of the largest such sales to Taiwan in years — as proof of what Beijing calls ‘foreign interference.’

Chinese officials have been unusually blunt in their response.

‘Any external forces that attempt to intervene in the Taiwan issue or interfere in China’s internal affairs will surely smash their heads bloody against the iron walls of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army,’ China’s Taiwan Affairs Office said in a Monday statement. 

The arms package continued the U.S. push to strengthen Taiwan’s asymmetric defenses, including missiles, drones and systems designed to complicate a Chinese assault rather than match Beijing weapon-for-weapon.

Taipei welcomed the support but remained cautious in its public response, emphasizing restraint while warning that Chinese military pressure has become routine rather than exceptional.

Japan steps into the frame

One of the most consequential shifts in 2025 came not from Washington or Taipei, Taiwan, but from Tokyo.

In November, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made unusually direct remarks linking a potential Taiwan contingency to Japan’s own security, suggesting that an attack on Taiwan could trigger collective self-defense considerations under Japanese law.

The comments marked one of the clearest acknowledgments yet from a sitting Japanese leader that a Taiwan conflict would not remain a bilateral issue between Beijing and Taipei.

China reacted angrily, accusing Japan of abandoning its post-war restraint and aligning itself with U.S. efforts to contain Beijing. The rhetoric underscored a growing Chinese concern: that any move on Taiwan would draw in a widening coalition of U.S. allies.

That concern has also been reinforced by U.S. treaty commitments to the Philippines, where Chinese and Philippine vessels clashed repeatedly in the South China Sea throughout the year, raising fears of a multifront crisis.

Washington’s deterrence gamble

For the United States, 2025 was defined by a balancing act — reinforcing Taiwan without triggering the very conflict Washington seeks to prevent.

In addition to the December arms package, U.S. officials repeatedly reaffirmed that peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait are vital U.S. interests, while avoiding any explicit shift away from long-standing strategic ambiguity.

The Pentagon’s annual report on China, released late in 2025, reiterated that U.S. defense assessments see the Chinese military developing capabilities that could enable it to fight and win a war over Taiwan by 2027 — a benchmark that has increasingly shaped U.S. and allied planning.

U.S. officials, however, have also cautioned that military readiness does not equal intent, warning against treating exercises or procurement timelines as a countdown clock to war.

Is an invasion coming?

The question hanging over the region — and Washington — is whether China is moving closer to launching a full-scale invasion of Taiwan.

The evidence cuts both ways.

On one hand, the scale and sophistication of Chinese military activity around Taiwan has grown noticeably, with drills emphasizing joint operations, rapid mobilization and isolation of the island. Beijing’s rhetoric has also hardened, portraying reunification as increasingly urgent and framing U.S. involvement as an existential threat.

On the other hand, an amphibious invasion of Taiwan would be among the most complex military operations in modern history, carrying enormous political, economic and military risks for China — whose armed forces have not fought a major war since its 1979 invasion of Vietnam.

Many defense analysts argue that Beijing has strong incentives to continue applying pressure through gray-zone tactics — cyber operations, economic coercion, legal warfare and military intimidation — rather than crossing the threshold into open war.

The December drills reinforced that view, highlighting blockade-style scenarios that could test Taiwan and its partners without immediately triggering a shooting war.

The road ahead

As 2026 approaches, the Taiwan Strait remains a flashpoint where deterrence and coercion are colliding more frequently and more visibly.

The most widely held assessment among U.S. and regional officials is that while the risk of conflict is rising — particularly as China approaches its 2027 military readiness goals — an invasion is not yet the most likely near-term outcome.

Instead, the danger lies in sustained pressure, miscalculation and crisis escalation, especially as more actors — from Japan to the Philippines — become directly implicated in the Taiwan equation.

For now, 2025 ends with no shots fired across the Taiwan Strait — but with fewer illusions about how close the region may be to its most serious test in decades.

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.