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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate change

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

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

Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

Migration

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

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

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

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

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

Palestinian statehood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The broader UN message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia called reports of the incursions ‘groundless accusations.’ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘A year,’ Routh told her in response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House of Representatives censured the late Roderick Butler, R-Tenn., in 1870 for taking a bribe for a military academy appointment. 

The House also censured late Rep. Thomas Blanton, D-Texas, in 1921 for inserting a document into the Congressional Record which contained obscene language.

And late Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., faced censure in 1983 for having sex with a 17-year-old page. 

Those are three of the 28 Members ever censured by the House.

 Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., did not become the 29th Member slapped with censure recently.

That’s probably because Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., was one of four Republicans who joined Democrats to block a censure of Omar. And in so doing, Mills may very well have prevented himself from becoming the 30th House Member to be censured.

Censure is the second-highest form of discipline in the House. It falls between a reprimand and expulsion. Censure is more than a regular foul in a soccer game. Kind of like a yellow card, which serves as a caution. But it’s not a red card, either, which triggers ejection.

That said, censure has become a ‘thing’ in recent years on Capitol Hill. If the House were to ever consider censuring any Member, such an inquest would go behind closed doors with the Ethics Committee. An inquiry may take months.

No more. ‘Snap’ censures are now fashionable in the House of Representatives.

Here’s how it works:

Someone thinks someone says a colleague says something outrageous. So they just prep a censure measure, go over the head of the Congressional leadership by making their resolution privileged (meaning the House must consider it within two days) and, if the House votes in favor of your gambit, that Member is censured.

Done.

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., crafted a resolution to censure Omar and strip the Minnesota Democrat from her committee assignments. Mace accused Omar of using inflammatory rhetoric in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

During an appearance on the news outlet Zeteo, Omar claimed ‘there is nothing more effed up, than to completely pretend that his words and actions have not been recorded and in existence for the last decade or so.’ Mace’s resolution quoted from a profane social media video not produced by Omar — but reposted by her — which fired invective at Kirk.

Mace’s maneuver came as leaders from both sides tried to urge calm at the Capitol amid the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

‘Every leader has an obligation to lower the temperature right now,’ said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif. ‘I disagree with the retweet of one of our one of our colleagues.’

Aguilar said that Mace’s resolution to sanction Omar was not ‘helpful.’

‘Every member of Congress, and certainly the President of the United States, have a responsibility to take the temperature down,’ said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. ‘Nancy Mace wants to lecture Ilhan Omar and Democrats about civility? Are you kidding me? It’s not a serious effort. It’s an effort to drive donors into her gubernatorial campaign.’

For his part, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., didn’t try to sidetrack Mace. He declared that ‘Members have a prerogative to file privileged motions.’ 

‘What she did was outrageous and dangerous. And there has to be accountability in the House for these kinds of activities,’ said Johnson. ‘I don’t understand why she uses that kind of language.’

Mace and Omar wound up tangling over the censure resolution on X. 

‘One-way ticket to Somalia with your name on it, Ilhan Omar,’ posted Mace.

‘I am going soon, so please drop off the tickets on your way to your office. I am next door,’ retorted Omar. 

The Minnesota Democrat added that Mace was either not ‘well or smart.’ She added ‘you belong in rehab, not Congress.’

Democrats defended Omar.

‘When we are all trying to take the political temperature down, when we are all trying to work to be able to approach our differences with humanity and stand out against political violence, this is the wrong move,’ said House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass.

But lawmakers from both sides are growing weary of the censure trap.

‘Every time a Republican in this House is offended, they pile on censure resolution,’ said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. ‘I’m not here to be fighting over whatever people’s schoolyard thing is for the day.’ 

‘It’s escalation,’ said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., of Mace’s maneuver. ‘You’ve got to remember, we’re going to be in the minority someday. We’ll be on the receiving end of this.’

Bacon added that Congress is now ‘better at shaming people versus legislating.’

Ultimately, the House never took a direct vote on sanctioning Omar. Democrats instead moved to ‘table’ or kill the resolution. That blocked an actual up/down vote on disciplining Omar. The House then voted 214-213 in favor of tabling Mace’s measure. All 210 Democrats who cast ballots voted to table. But four Republicans joined Democrats: Reps. Mike Flood, R-Neb., Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and Mills.

A ballot by Mills against tabling would have reversed the final tally to 214-213. That means the House would have proceeded immediately to the actual vote to censure Omar. But Mills’ vote with the Democrats froze Mace’s effort.

It’s unclear if Mills based his decision on self-preservation. But had the House censured Omar, it would have undoubtedly triggered a resolution by Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, to sanction Mills.

Casar’s resolution accused Mills of assault – which Casar denies. It also alleged that Mills improperly received the Bronze Star when he served in the Army. But once the House diffused the Omar measure, Casar withdrew his plan for Mills.

Flood explained his vote to table.

‘I’m going to vote in ways that support the Ethics Committee,’ said Flood. ‘If we were to pursue a censure action against this Representative, that should be referred to the Ethics Committee. It should be investigated. There should be due process. There should be a back and forth before you issue a censure.’

Mace excoriated her Republican colleagues who voted to table.

‘They didn’t stand with Charlie Kirk. They didn’t stand with the millions of Americans mourning his death. They stood with the one who mocked his legacy. They showed us exactly who they are. And we won’t forget,’ said Mace in a statement.

But censure is now en vogue.

The House censured no members between Studds in 1983 and late Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. in 2010. But five Members have felt the weight of censure since 2021.

The House voted to censure Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., for posting a cartoon video depicting him killing Ocasio-Cortez.

Republicans then began returning the favor.

The House voted to censure former Rep. and now Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for how he handled the Russiagate investigation. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., faced censure for her comments after Hamas attacked Israel. The House censured former Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., for pulling a false fire alarm. And the House voted earlier this year to censure Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, for heckling President Trump during his State of the Union speech. 

Members have embraced censure lately. Those censured have characterized it as a ‘badge of honor.’ They’ve fundraised off censure. Their colleagues have even engineered a pep rally in the well of the chamber to drown out the House Speaker when he issues the censure.

This probably won’t be the House’s last dalliance into the realm of censure.

‘It just seems like every week or so we want to censure somebody for something,’ lamented Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Tex., who is no fan of Omar. ‘A lot of people say a lot of stupid stuff around here.’ 

This is Congress. So you can bet that someone will say some ‘stupid stuff’ soon. And unless lawmakers can restore some calm, there will be another effort to censure someone else any day now.

In the end, Disney and ABC had absolutely no choice but to rehire Jimmy Kimmel.

The reason the late-night host is returning to the air tonight is that this whole thing has been an utter PR debacle for ABC, and more personally for Disney chief Bob Iger, who even got whacked by his predecessor as CEO, Michael Eisner, accusing him of bowing to ‘out-of-control intimidation.’

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb in saying that Iger’s reputation is shattered forever.

The company became the poster child as a high-profile opponent of free speech — a deadly label for a news organization like ABC.

So the ‘indefinite’ suspension is over.

I could sniff that things were moving in this direction when I learned the two sides were talking. And when Disney asked Kimmel for a second meeting the other day, I knew the only question was which day he’d be back.

Let’s revisit the dumb and inaccurate comment that got Kimmel in trouble. And remember, like Stephen Colbert, he is so vociferously anti-Trump that he surrendered half his audience:

‘We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.’  

First, it was beyond tone-deaf, with feelings rubbed so raw over Charlie Kirk’s assassination. And the killer is not ‘MAGA,’ just another crazed lunatic who said he was acting out of ‘hatred’ for Kirk, but also sympathetic to gays and transgender people like his roommate and romantic partner.

At the same time, there was pressure from the FCC, with Chairman Brendan Carr blundering by saying he would act on Kimmel if ABC didn’t. Even Carr’s allies, like Ted Cruz, said he sounded like a mob boss by declaring ‘we can do it the easy way or the hard way.’

Nice little network you got here – be a shame if anything happened to it. Carr walked it back the next day.

What Kimmel said wasn’t the worst thing ever uttered on the air, and maybe in a month it would have passed unnoticed. But not so soon after the targeted assassination.

With that kind of blatant government pressure, ABC caved and took Kimmel off the air as he was about to tape last Wednesday’s show – and was said to be preparing an even tougher monologue about the Kirk killer. Again, he failed to read the electronic room.

It was downhill from there.

For anyone who believes in free speech – and that includes some Democrats who don’t agree with Kirk on just about anything–Disney and ABC were now the enemy.

Howard Stern, Kimmel’s closest friend – their families vacation together – said yesterday he had canceled his Disney+ subscription, as did Robin Quivers. After conferring with Kimmel, he said on his first live show since the suspension:

‘When the government says, ‘I’m not pleased with you, so we’re going to orchestrate a way to silence you,’ it’s the wrong direction for our country. It isn’t good.’

Stern called the suspension ‘horrible’ and ‘outrageous’ for such a ‘big talent… You can’t support this kind of a move. I don’t care whether you like Jimmy or not. It’s about freedom of speech. If ABC wanted to fire Jimmy because they didn’t like him, or he had low ratings — they didn’t want to fire him. They’re being pressured by the United States government. We can’t have that, not if we’re going to have a democracy.’

Howard has an awful lot of followers on Sirius XM that would take their cue from him. 

Some 400 celebrities signed an ACLU letter calling this ‘a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation.’ These include Jennifer Aniston, Jason Bateman, Robert De Niro, Jane Fonda, Selena Gomez, Tom Hanks, Olivia Rodrigo, Ben Stiller, Jamie Lee Curtis, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Keaton, Regina King, Diego Luna, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Natalie Portman, Maya Rudolph, Martin Short and Kerry Washington.

This is the kind of thing that Hollywood really cares about, the bold-faced names.

Kimmel is said to be concerned about the jobs of dozens of producers, staff members and contractors who would lose their livelihoods if the show was deep-sixed.

Disney made a point of saying in its statement that Kimmel was suspended because ‘we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive.’ But ‘thoughtful’ conversations led to Jimmy’s return.

Whether you like Kimmel or not, no company can withstand that kind of pressure, even if it goes against the wishes of Donald Trump, who celebrated the suspension.

Now here’s the challenge Kimmel and Disney/ABC faced.

The suits had already been urging Kimmel to tone down the attacks against Trump. But Kimmel, who has hosted the program since 2003, and parlayed that into Oscars-hosting gigs, has always insisted on his independence. He’s arguably the most famous face at the network.

I played a small role in this last year by asking Trump about Kimmel after the Oscars, and the candidate slammed him, escalating their feud. Jimmy even took a swipe at me (horrors).

So perhaps with a wink and a nod, Kimmel has now agreed to tone things down a tad and the brass has agreed to let him basically say what’s on his mind.

Jimmy Kimmel is the only clear winner in this.

Everyone else – Disney, Bob Iger, Brendan Carr, ABC – is unmistakably a loser and will forever be branded, fairly or otherwise, as cowardly opponents of free speech.

And hey, ratings for tonight’s show should be through the roof. 

President Donald Trump will highlight the ‘return of American strength’ in his second administration during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday, while delivering ‘blunt’ and ‘tough talk’ about the ‘failures of globalism,’ a White House official told Fox News Digital.

The president is scheduled to deliver his first address of his second administration at the UN General Assembly in New York City Tuesday just before 10 a.m.

A White House official gave Fox News Digital an exclusive preview of the president’s address.

‘President Trump has effectively restored American strength on the world stage,’ a White House official told Fox News Digital. ‘His historic speech at the United Nations General Assembly will highlight his success in delivering peace on a scale that no other president has accomplished, while simultaneously speaking bluntly about how globalist ideologies risk destroying successful nations around the world.’

The president is expected to highlight his successful efforts to negotiate peace around the world—specifically, Armenia and Azerbaijan; Thailand and Cambodia; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; among others.

The president is also expected to highlight his strikes against narcoterrorists from Venezuela.

Earlier this month, a U.S. military strike blew apart a Venezuelan drug boat in the southern Caribbean, leaving nearly a dozen suspected Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists dead. And last week, the president announced that the U.S. military had carried out its second kinetic strike on Venezuelan drug trafficking cartels.

Also last week, the president announced that he ordered a lethal strike on a vessel allegedly linked to a designated terrorist organization conducting narcotrafficking in the U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility. That strike left three narcoterrorists dead.

‘Intelligence confirmed the vessel was trafficking illicit narcotics, and was transiting along a known narcotrafficking passage en route to poison Americans,’ Trump posted to his Truth Social announcing the strike.

The president is also expected to highlight his ‘Operation Midnight Hammer,’ which marked the largest B-2 operational strike in history and represented the United States’ move to deliver a decisive blow against Iran’s nuclear program back in June.

Trump’s historic precision strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites hit their targets and ‘destroyed’ and ‘badly damaged’ the facilities’ critical infrastructure—an assessment agreed upon by Iran’s Foreign Ministry, Israel, and the United States.

Trump is also set to detail his work to ‘deliver historic peace deals in decades-long conflicts,’ the official told Fox News Digital.

Meanwhile, the president’s speech will also feature ‘some blunt, tough talk about the failures of globalism.’

‘This will include the global migration regime, energy and climate, and how these ideologies pushed by globalists are on the verge of destroying successful nations,’ a White House official told Fox News Digital.

The president is also expected to discuss America’s position as a ‘defender of western civilization.’

‘As the president delivers peace in major conflicts around the world, what has the United Nations been doing?’ the official said.

After his speech at the United Nations, the president is expected to have meetings with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres; Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy; the president of Argentina, Javier Milei; and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

The president is also scheduled to have a multilateral meeting with leaders from Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia.