A viral story from a man claiming to have witnessed the U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro states that the U.S. used sonic weapons during the mission to incapacitate opposing forces.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared the eyewitness interview on X, encouraging her followers to read the statement. The witness in the interview claims to be a guard who was serving at the Caracas military base where the U.S. captured Maduro.

‘We were on guard, but suddenly all our radar systems shut down without any explanation,’ the witness said. ‘The next thing we saw were drones, a lot of drones, flying over our positions. We didn’t know how to react.’

The witness then described watching roughly 20 U.S. soldiers deploy out of roughly eight helicopters over the base.

‘They were technologically very advanced,’ the guard said. ‘They didn’t look like anything we’ve fought against before.’

‘We were hundreds, but we had no chance,’ he said. ‘They were shooting with such precision and speed; it felt like each soldier was firing 300 rounds per minute.’

The witness then describes the U.S. deploying some sort of sonic weapon against Venezuelan forces.

‘At one point, they launched something; I don’t know how to describe it,’ he said. ‘It was like a very intense sound wave. Suddenly I felt like my head was exploding from the inside.’

‘We all started bleeding from the nose,’ he added. ‘Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, unable to move. We couldn’t even stand up after that sonic weapon — or whatever it was.’

‘Those twenty men, without a single casualty, killed hundreds of us,’ the witness claimed. ‘We had no way to compete with their technology, with their weapons. I swear, I’ve never seen anything like it.’

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital when asked whether Leavitt’s sharing of the post constituted confirmation of its veracity. The Pentagon also did not immediately respond when asked if the U.S. deployed sonic or energy weapons in Venezuela.

The Trump administration’s renewed interest in tapping Venezuela’s mineral reserves could carry with it ‘serious risk,’ an expert on illicit economies has warned in the wake of the capture of Nicolás Maduro.

A day after the U.S. military captured Maduro in Caracas, Trump administration officials highlighted their interest in the country’s critical mineral potential.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Jan. 4, ‘You have steel, you have minerals, all the critical minerals. They have a great mining history that’s gone rusty,’ he said aboard Air Force One alongside President Donald Trump.

Lutnick also said that Trump ‘is going to fix it and bring it back – for the Venezuelans.’

‘Venezuela’s gold, critical mineral and rare earth potential is substantial, which makes mining resources very much on the menu for Trump,’ Bram Ebus told Fox News Digital.

‘But this illicit economy involves extreme violence,’ he said, before describing abuses that include forced labor, criminal control of mining zones and punishments such as ‘hands being cut off for theft.’

Ebus cautioned that without strict safeguards, transparency and security, Trump’s efforts to tap Venezuela’s mineral wealth could entangle the U.S. in criminal networks.

‘The sector is already dominated by transnational crime syndicates, deeply implicated in human rights abuses, and intertwined with Chinese corporate interests,’ Ebus, the founder of Amazon Underworld, a research collective covering organized crime, said. ‘If corporations or foreign private security firms were to become directly involved in mining in Venezuela’s Amazon region, the situation could deteriorate rapidly and violently.’

Despite the renewed focus on oil and mineral wealth, ‘when it comes to mining, the situation is more complex than oil,’ Ebus added. ‘The illicit extraction of gold, tungsten, tantalum, and rare earth elements is largely controlled by Colombian guerrilla organizations, often working in collaboration with corrupt Venezuelan state security forces. Much of this output currently ends up in China.’

Ebus also described dire conditions inside mining zones. ‘Mining districts are effectively run by criminal governance,’ he explained. ‘Armed groups decide who can enter or leave an area, tax legal and illegal economic activity, and enforce their own form of justice.’ He also described how ‘punishments for breaking rules can include expulsion, beatings, torture or death.’

‘We have documented summary executions, decapitations, and severe physical mutilation, such as hands being cut off for theft,’ he added. ‘Sexual exploitation, forced labor, and torture are widespread with crimes not limited to non-state actors.’ 

He also noted that ‘Venezuelan state forces, including the army, National Guard, and intelligence services are deeply involved and work in direct collaboration with organized crime groups.’

Ebus described how Colombia’s largest guerrilla organizations, including the ELN and factions such as the Segunda Marquetalia, along with Venezuelan organized crime groups operating locally – or ‘sistemas’ – dominate illegal mining operations, noting that ‘there are at least five major ‘sindicatos’ operating across Bolívar state alone.’

‘Together, all these actors make up the core criminal panorama of Venezuela’s mining sector,’ Ebus added.

In 2016, Maduro established the Orinoco Mining Arc, a 111,843-square-kilometer zone rich in gold, diamonds, coltan and other minerals.

The area has since become synonymous with illicit mining and corrupt officials.

In 2019, the U.S. sanctioned Venezuelan gold exports with at least 86% of the country’s gold reportedly being produced illegally and often controlled by criminal gangs.

However, from a U.S. perspective, Ebus said, the objective behind critical minerals could be limiting China’s access.

‘With gold prices expected to peak around 2026, access to gold represents a major benefit for national economies and government investment stability,’ he said. ‘Beyond gold, controlling critical mineral supply chains offers enormous geopolitical leverage for the U.S., especially if it allows it to deny access to China.’

Iran is not merely experiencing another wave of street protests. It is facing a crisis that strikes at the core of the Islamic Republic—and, for the first time in years, places the regime’s survival in real doubt.

Across Iran, demonstrations sparked by economic collapse and corruption have rapidly transformed into direct challenges to clerical rule. Security forces have responded with live fire, mass arrests, and communications blackouts. International reporting cites hundreds of people killed and thousands detained. Internet shutdowns point to a regime determined to suppress not only dissent, but proof of it.

Iran has behaved this way before. What has changed is the strategic environment—and the growing sense among Iranians that the system itself is failing.

Still, one must be clear-eyed: Iran’s leaders will not go quietly. They do not see themselves as ordinary autocrats clinging to power. In their own theology, they see themselves as executing Allah’s will.

A Regime That Sees Repression as Divine Duty

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has framed its authority through velayat-e faqih—the rule of the Islamic jurist. Under this doctrine, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not simply a political figure. He is the guardian of an Islamic revolution believed to be divinely sanctioned.

That theological worldview directly shapes how the regime responds to dissent. When Iranian security forces fire into crowds, the regime does not see itself as suppressing political opposition; it sees itself as crushing heresy, sedition, and rebellion against God’s order. Protesters are routinely labeled ‘corrupt on earth,’ a Quranic phrase historically used to justify severe punishment.

Public condemnation and moral appeals alone will not move Tehran. Its rulers believe endurance, sacrifice, and violence are virtues—especially when used to preserve the revolution.

Even regimes driven by religious certainty can collapse once their power structures fracture.

Why this moment differs from 2009—or 2022

Iran has seen mass protests before. In 2009, the Green Movement threatened the regime after a disputed election. In 2022, nationwide protests erupted following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman who died in morality-police custody after being detained for allegedly violating Iran’s hijab rules. Each time, the regime survived.

Several factors suggest this moment is different.

First, the economy is far worse. Iran faces sustained currency devaluation, unemployment, and inflation that has crushed the middle class and hollowed out state legitimacy. That pressure is compounded by a deepening water crisis that has crippled agriculture, strained urban life, and fueled unrest in multiple provinces. Economic despair is no longer peripheral; it now sits at the center.

Beyond economics, Iran’s external deterrence has eroded. The war with Israel in 2025 inflicted real damage. Senior Iranian commanders were killed. Air defenses were penetrated. Missile and drone infrastructure was disrupted. Iran’s aura of invulnerability—carefully cultivated over decades—was badly shaken.

At the same time, Iran’s proxy network is under strain. Hamas has been devastated. Hezbollah has suffered significant losses and now faces domestic pressure in Lebanon. The Houthis remain disruptive but isolated. Tehran’s so-called ‘axis of resistance’ looks less like an unstoppable force and more like a series of costly liabilities.

Most importantly, the regime’s coercive apparatus is under stress. And this is where the future of Iran will be decided.

Watch the IRGC and the Basij—the outcome may hinge on their choices

No institutions matter more right now than the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its paramilitary arm, the Basij.

Often described as the regime’s ‘eyes and ears,’ the Basij are not a conventional military force but a nationwide population-control and internal surveillance network. Embedded in neighborhoods, universities, factories, and mosques, they monitor dissent, identify protest organizers, and move quickly to intimidate or detain them—often before demonstrations can spread. 

During past unrest, including the 2009 Green Movement and the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests, Basij units played a central role in suppressing resistance through beatings, arrests, and close coordination with IRGC security forces. Their value to the regime lies not in battlefield strength, but in omnipresence and ideological loyalty.

Their mission is to control dissent at the local level—before it becomes national. As long as the Basij remain loyal and effective in towns, neighborhoods, and campuses, the regime can contain unrest. If they hesitate, defect, or stand aside, Tehran’s grip weakens rapidly.

The Basij are the real instrument of population control. If the regime is forced to deploy the IRGC widely for internal order, it signals that local control has failed—and that the system is under far greater strain.

The Trump administration should be careful not to hand Tehran the propaganda victory it wants. Loud declarations about regime change from Washington risk delegitimizing Iranian voices. Support the people. Isolate the killers. Let the regime own its crimes.

The IRGC, by contrast, controls the military and functions as an economic empire. Beyond internal security, the IRGC also shapes Iran’s foreign policy—overseeing missile forces, regional proxies, and external operations. It exists to defend the revolution abroad, while the Basij exists to control society at home.

Over the past three decades, the IRGC has embedded itself in Iran’s most important industries—energy, construction, telecommunications, transportation, ports, and black-market finance. Entire sectors of the Iranian economy now depend on IRGC-controlled firms and foundations.

This creates a decisive tension. On one hand, the IRGC has every reason to defend the regime that enriched it. On the other, prolonged instability, sanctions, and economic collapse threaten the very assets the Guards control. At some point, self-preservation may begin to compete with ideological loyalty.

That is why Iran’s future may depend less on what protesters do in the streets—and more on whom the IRGC ultimately chooses to back.

Three outcomes appear plausible.

The first is repression. The Basij could maintain local control while the IRGC backs the Supreme Leader, allowing the regime to crush dissent, and impose order through overwhelming force. This would preserve the Islamic Republic, but at the cost of deeper isolation and long-term decay.

The second is continuity without clerical dominance. A ‘soft coup’ could sideline aging clerics in favor of a military-nationalist leadership that preserves core power structures while shedding the regime’s most unpopular religious figures. The system would remain authoritarian—but altered.

The third is fracture. If parts of the Basij splinter or stand aside—and the IRGC hesitates to intervene broadly—the regime’s internal control could unravel quickly. This is the least likely outcome, but the most transformative—and the one most favorable to long-term regional stability.

Revolutions tend to succeed not because crowds grow larger, but because security forces eventually stop obeying orders.

America’s strategic objective: clarity without ownership

The United States must be disciplined about its goal.

America should not seek to ‘run Iran,’ redraw its culture, or impose a leader. That approach has failed elsewhere. But neither should Washington pretend neutrality between an abusive theocracy and a population demanding dignity.

Our strategy is clear:

Prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

End Iran’s export of terrorism and proxy war.

Push Iran toward regional stability rather than disruption.

Encourage a government that derives legitimacy from its people, not coercion.

Achieving that outcome requires pressure without provocation.

What the Trump administration and allies should do now

First, expose repression relentlessly. Iran’s internet blackouts are a weapon. The U.S. and allies should support every lawful means of keeping Iranians connected and atrocities visible.

Second, target the regime’s enforcers—not the public. Sanctions should focus on specific IRGC units, Basij commanders, judges, and security officials responsible for killings and mass arrests. Collective punishment only strengthens regime propaganda.

Third, signal consequences—and off-ramps. Those ordering violence must know they will be held accountable. Those who refuse unlawful orders should know the world is watching—and remembering.

Fourth, deter external escalation. Tehran may try to unify the nation through confrontation abroad. Strong regional missile defense, maritime security, and allied coordination reduce the regime’s ability to change the subject with war.

Finally, do not hand Tehran the propaganda victory it wants. Loud declarations about regime change from Washington risk delegitimizing Iranian voices. Support the people. Isolate the killers. Let the regime own its crimes.

The bottom line

Iran’s rulers believe they are carrying out divine will. That makes them dangerous—and stubborn. But it does not make them immortal.

Every revolutionary regime eventually faces a moment when fear stops working, money runs out, and loyalty fractures. Iran may be approaching that moment now.

The outcome will not be decided by speeches in Washington, but by choices in Tehran—especially inside the IRGC.

If the Guards conclude their future lies with the people rather than the clerics, Iran could finally turn a page. If they do not, repression will prevail—for a time.

America’s task is not to force history, but to shape the conditions under which it unfolds—with care, strategy, and moral clarity.

Because when the Islamic Republic finally faces its reckoning, the world must be ready—not to occupy Iran, but to ensure that what replaces the tyranny is not simply the same regime in a different uniform.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Sunday spoke out against President Donald Trump’s threats to bomb Iran, warning that such an attack may backfire as the U.S. government monitors the Middle Eastern country’s response to widespread protests.

During an appearance on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ Paul said he is unsure that striking Iran ‘will have the effect that is intended.’

‘I don’t think I have ever heard a president say they may take military action to protect protesters,’ Paul said. ‘Certainly, with Soleimani, when the Trump administration hit him, there were massive protests against America. But they are shouting ‘death to the Ayatollah.”

‘We wish them the best,’ he added. ‘We wish freedom and liberation the best across the world, but I don’t think it’s the job of the American government to be involved with every freedom movement around the world.’

Paul also stressed concern about how the Trump administration would distinguish Iranian protesters from law enforcement if the president were to seek military action.

‘How do you drop a bomb in the middle of a crowd or a protest and protect the people there?’ Paul asked.

The Republican lawmaker also warned that attacking Iran may unintentionally rally protesters behind the Ayatollah.

‘If you bomb the government, do you then rally people to their flag who are upset with the Ayatollah, but then say, ‘Well, gosh, we can’t have a foreign government invading or bombing our country?” Paul said.

‘It tends to have people rally to the cause,’ he continued. ‘So, I think the protests are directed at the Ayatollah, justifiably so.’

Paul added: ‘The best way is to encourage them and say that, of course, we would recognize a government that is a freedom-loving government that allows free elections, but bombing is not the answer.’

The liberty-minded senator also affirmed that presidents cannot strike other countries without the approval of Congress.

‘There is this sticking point of the Constitution that we won’t let presidents bomb countries just when they feel like it,’ Paul emphasized. ‘They’re supposed to ask the people, through the Congress, for permission.’

Protests erupted in Iran in recent weeks over the country’s economic free fall, and many have begun to demand total regime change as the demonstrations continue.

Thousands have been arrested, according to reports. Agencies have been unable to confirm the total death toll because of an internet blackout as the country’s leaders seek to quell the dissent, but The Associated Press reported that more than 500 were killed.

Trump warned Iranian leaders on Friday that they ‘better not start shooting, because we’ll start shooting, too.’

‘Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help!!!’ Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.

Paul has opposed Trump in various instances in recent months when it has come to military strikes, including against Iran and Venezuela.

He helped the Senate advance a resolution last week that would limit Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks against Venezuela after the U.S. military’s recent move to strike the country and capture its president, Nicolás Maduro, which the Kentucky Republican said amounts to war.

‘I think bombing a capital and removing the head of state is, by all definitions, war,’ Paul told reporters before the vote last week. ‘Does this mean we have carte blanche that the president can make the decision any time, anywhere, to invade a foreign country and remove people that we’ve accused of a crime?’

Paul has also criticized the administration’s military strikes on boats near Venezuela it accuses, without evidence, of carrying narco-terrorists, raising concerns about killing people without due process and the possibility of killing innocent people. The senator previously cited Coast Guard statistics that show a significant percentage of boats boarded on suspicion of drug trafficking are innocent.

The dramatic capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has handed President Donald Trump a rare strategic opening — one that could reshape Venezuela’s crippled oil industry, redirect global crude flows and weaken the foothold that rivals like Russia, China and Iran have built in the Western Hemisphere.

But unlocking the world’s largest oil reserves won’t be easy. Years of political turmoil, sanctions and infrastructure collapse mean U.S. energy companies face steep risks — and any production rebound would take time, capital and sustained political stability.

Now, Trump and energy CEOs must address three key challenges in order to seize opportunities. 

1. Venezuela holds massive oil reserves, but production remains severely constrained

Venezuela, a country almost twice the size of California, sits atop extraordinary wealth. 

With more than 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Venezuela holds more crude than established energy heavyweights like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait. The Latin American country’s reserves are nearly quadruple those of the United States.

Once a major oil producer, the country pumped about 3.5 million barrels a day in the late 1990s. Since then, its oil industry has sharply deteriorated, with production falling to roughly 800,000 barrels a day, according to energy analytics firm Kpler.

A key reason: much of Venezuela’s oil is difficult and expensive to extract.

The country’s reserves are dominated by heavy and extra-heavy crude, which is costly to extract and relies on specialized equipment and refining capacity that have deteriorated after years of underinvestment, U.S. sanctions and political instability.

Similar dynamics have unfolded in countries such as Iran and Libya, where turmoil, financial distress and crumbling infrastructure have kept vast reserves locked underground.

As a result, scaling operations back up would require significant time, capital and technical expertise, with any production increase likely to be gradual rather than immediate.

2. Political risk remains a major concern for American energy companies

Decades of political instability, shifting regulations and U.S. sanctions have made Venezuela a high-risk environment for long-term investment. 

That risk dates back to the mid-2000s, when then-President Hugo Chávez reshaped Venezuela’s relationship with international energy companies by tightening state control over the oil industry.

Between 2004 and 2007, Chávez forced foreign companies to renegotiate their contracts with the government. The new terms sharply reduced the role and profits of private firms while strengthening Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).

The move drove some of the world’s largest oil companies out of the country.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips exited Venezuela in 2007 and later filed claims against the government in international arbitration courts. Those courts ultimately ruled in favor of the companies, ordering Venezuela to pay ConocoPhillips more than $10 billion and ExxonMobil more than $1 billion. The cash-strapped country has paid only a fraction of those awards.

That history looms over Trump’s latest proposal.

Trump said on Saturday he would seek to revive the once-prominent commodity by mobilizing investment from major U.S. energy companies.

‘We are going to have our very large United States oil companies go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure and start making money for the country,’ Trump said during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago. 

It remains unclear whether U.S. energy companies are prepared to do so. American firms have yet to say whether they plan to return to Venezuela to resurrect an oil industry hollowed out by years of neglect.

Chevron, the only U.S. oil titan operating in Venezuela, said in a statement to Fox News Digital that it was following ‘relevant laws and regulations.’

‘Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets,’ a Chevron spokesperson added.

ConocoPhillips wrote in a statement to Fox News Digital that it is monitoring the developments in Venezuela as well as the ‘potential implications for global energy supply and stability.’ 

‘It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,’ a spokesperson for ConocoPhillips added.

ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

3. The push reflects a broader effort to leverage energy for geopolitical influence

As U.S. and European companies withdrew from Venezuela, Russia, China and Iran expanded their footprint in the country’s energy sector, using financing, fuel shipments and technical support to maintain influence.

That shift has also reshaped how Venezuelan oil is traded. Sanctions have fueled the rise of so-called ‘ghost ships,’ nondescript oil tankers that disable tracking systems to quietly move Venezuelan crude to foreign buyers outside traditional markets. The opaque trade has reduced transparency in global oil flows while helping Caracas sustain exports despite financial isolation.

For the Trump administration, the outcome has underscored an uncomfortable trade-off: restricting access to U.S. markets can limit revenue for sanctioned governments, but it can also push them deeper into the orbit of strategic rivals, turning energy policy into a front line of geopolitical competition.

Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are the central and most popular members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, but they have something else in common: All three are harsh former critics of their current boss.

Much has been made, especially on the left, of past statements by this big three in the Cabinet, Vance calling Trump Hitler, Rubio’s bruising 2016 primary attacks on the president’s hand size and pretty much everything former Democrat RFK Jr ever said prior to endorsing Trump in 2024.

To Democrats, of course, this about face to Orange Man Good from all three, and others in the White House orbit, means that these men have abandoned their principles and are bootlicking for their own power. But in fact, something much more amazing is happening.

Trump’s first term was often mired in internal debate and friction from a Cabinet that at times seemed more interested in being a guardrail to Trump’s supposed impulsiveness than stewards of his agenda.

Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and National Security Adviser John Bolton, for example, were, in Trump’s administration and to this day, deeply critical of his approach to governing, which hurt the White House’s effectiveness.

This time around, in Trump 2.0, his Cabinet, which has remained all but unchanged for a year now, is not trying to hem him in, but rather to make his vision for a better America a reality, regardless of any past tensions they may have had with the boss.

This tells us a couple of things. First, it showsTrump has pretty thick skin at the end of the day. Barring the kind of complete betrayals we have seen from figures like Pence and Esper, the president is showing his ability to let bygones be bygones.

Second, it demonstrates that Vance, Rubio, and Bobby, not to mention former Democrat and current National Security Adviser Tulsi Gabbard, have found that when you honestly and openly work with Trump, and get to know him, your opinion of him can change.

Trump’s team of former rivals has also been so effective because Trump’s only firm ideological position is America first, and under this rubric, Vance’s economic protectionism, Rubio’s foreign adventurism and RFK Jr’s Make America Healthy Again agenda all have a welcome home at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Much of this is down to Trump’s unique ability to put common sense above political orthodoxy. For example, Democrats were stunned this week when the White House announced it wanted to bar large corporations from purchasing single family homes, something they themselves have called for.

Both from my own private conversations with members of the Trump administration and through their public remarks, what becomes clear is that, in the starkest possible reversal of the first term, today’s Cabinet is a well-oiled and utterly unified team.

The knock on the president, especially from conservative Never Trumpers, some of whom haunted his first White House, is that he has no principles. But the positive way to frame this is that he is flexible and open to new ideas.

The biggest question today in American politics is what the Republican Party will look like on Jan. 21, 2029, when Trump’s political career moves from the headlines to the history books. The answers sit in his Cabinet.

Trump took a lot of guff this past year for allegedly filling his White House with nothing but loyalists. Well, first of all, what do you want in the Cabinet, unloyalists? But second, these are not toadies, they are accomplished former foes who Trump has given the room and authority to execute pro American policies.

Maybe that really is the thread that pulls together Trump’s tight team, the idea of making America and Americans pro America again, to restore the bold idea that America is not a declining power, but rather that it can do great things both at home and around the globe.

While the bookmaking sharps have their money on Vance as the 2028 candidate most likely to emerge from Trump’s cabinet, whomever it is will almost certainly run not just as an individual, but as the man or woman who can continue to lead the all-star team that the president has assembled.

There is an old saw in Washington that personnel is policy, and that is a lesson Trump learned the hard way in his first term. But often times, the hard way is the best way to learn. And a year in, it is clear that President Trump has indeed learned well from his past mistakes.

Russia said on Friday it used its new hypersonic Oreshnik missile in an attack against Ukraine, according to reports.

The Kremlin said that the strike was carried out in response to what it said was an attempted Ukrainian drone strike on one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residences, something Kyiv has denied, according to Reuters. 

The outlet noted that Ukraine and the U.S. have cast doubt on Russia’s claims about the alleged attempted attack on Putin’s residence on Dec. 29, the report said. Ukraine called it ‘an absurd lie,’ while President Donald Trump also doubted the veracity of the claim, saying he did not believe the strike occurred and that ‘something’ unrelated happened nearby.

This is the second time Russia has used the intermediate-range Oreshnik, which Putin has said is impossible to intercept because of its velocity, Reuters reported.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that the strike targeted critical infrastructure in Ukraine, according to Reuters, which added that Russia said the attack also used attack drones and high-precision long-range land and sea-based weapons.

While Moscow did not say where the missile hit, Russian media and military bloggers said it targeted an underground natural gas storage facility in Ukraine’s western Leviv region, CBS News reported. Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadoviy said the attack hit critical infrastructure but did not give details, the outlet added.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the attack on social media, saying that the aftermath was ‘still being dealt with.’

‘Twenty residential buildings alone were damaged. Recovery operations after the strikes also continue in the Lviv region and other regions of our country. Unfortunately, as of now, it is known that four people have been killed in the capital alone. Among them is an ambulance crew member. My condolences to their families and loved ones,’ Zelenskyy wrote.

The Ukrainian leader said the attack involved 242 drones, 13 ballistic missiles, one Oreshnik missile and 22 cruise missiles. Zelenskyy added that the ballistic missiles were aimed at energy facilities and civilian infrastructure as the people of Ukraine faced ‘a significant cold spell.’ He said the attack was ‘aimed precisely against the normal life of ordinary people.’ However, he assured that Ukraine was working to restore heating and electricity.

Zelenskyy claimed that in addition to the civilian infrastructure, a building of the Embassy of Qatar was damaged in the attack.

‘A clear reaction from the world is needed. Above all from the United States, whose signals Russia truly pays attention to. Russia must receive signals that it is its obligation to focus on diplomacy, and must feel consequences every time it again focuses on killings and the destruction of infrastructure,’ Zelenskyy added.

A spokesperson for the State Department told Fox News Digital that the U.S. remains committed to ending the war through diplomatic means, emphasizing that it is the only path toward a durable peace. The spokesperson underscored Trump’s desire to end the war that is approaching its fourth year.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

A bipartisan cohort of senators is nearing a final plan to tackle rising healthcare costs, but the issue of more-stringent restrictions preventing taxpayer-funded abortions remains a major hurdle in the way to sealing the deal.

The working group, led by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, has held several meetings since dueling, partisan proposals to either extend or replace expired enhanced Obamacare premium subsidies failed late last year.

Now, they’re on the verge of unveiling their plan and have started sharing what exactly the rough framework would look like. But while selling the bones of the latest idea to tackle healthcare will be one thing, overcoming the issue of taxpayer-funded abortions will be another.

The Hyde Amendment, which dictates that taxpayer dollars can’t fund abortions, has proven a sticking point on both sides of the aisle. Senate Republicans argue that Obamacare doesn’t completely follow the law, while Senate Democrats contend that no modifications need to be made to the longstanding statute.

‘There’s no disagreement that there should not be federal funding for abortion,’ Moreno said. ‘Nobody on either side is wanting to relitigate that question. So we’re past that mountain. The next mountain is a dispute as to whether that is actually happening today through [Obamacare].’

‘A group of people, very good people, say that it is happening, and there’s a group of other people who have good people, too, that say it’s not happening,’ he continued. ‘So we have to resolve that.’

That wrinkle, in particular, was further amplified by President Donald Trump, who earlier this week urged that House Republicans ‘have to be a little flexible’ when it comes to the Hyde Amendment. That edict was met with backlash from Senate Republicans, who argued there was no room for flexibility on the issue. 

Moreno didn’t say whether the current plan addressed the Hyde issue, but he laid out what the skeletal framework that senators have built would look like.

It would play out over two years and act as more of a temporary fix than a permanent bridge, which Moreno noted would be crucial in selling the plan to his Republican colleagues.

‘That’s a key thing that I got to convince my colleagues to understand, who hate Obamacare, they hate the policy, and say, ‘Let’s take two years to actually deliver for the American people truly affordable healthcare and solve this problem for the people who are going to suffer as a result of not having these enhanced premium tax credits,’’ Moreno said. ‘They didn’t cause the problem, politicians caused that problem.’

Up front, their plan would extend the subsidies for two years and prolong the open enrollment period for the Obamacare marketplace until March 1.

During the first year, an income cap would be added, which was blown away when the subsidies were enhanced under former President Joe Biden, at 700% of the federal poverty level. There would also be a requirement of either a $5 or $60 minimum premium payment as a fraud prevention method. That would be coupled with a $100,000 fine for insurance companies that are ‘deliberately causing fraud, and signing [someone] up without their consent.’

In the second year, people would have a choice to either stick with the subsidies or switch their coverage plan in favor of a health savings account (HSA) — a key demand from Republicans and Trump.

Their plan would also reinstate cost-sharing reduction payments, ‘which, according to [Congressional Budget Office], would reduce premiums for everybody on the exchange by 11%,’ Moreno said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is demanding answers on the process of how the FBI determines code names for its investigations, after receiving records that show agents ‘renaming’ the Arctic Frost investigation into President Donald Trump, with the senator calling the move ‘anything but random.’ 

Grassley penned a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel raising questions on the process, after Patel’s team transmitted records the committee requested pertaining to the FBI’s Arctic Frost probe into Trump and the 2020 election.

Documents revealed that the investigation was first named Hyperbolic Frost and later changed to Arctic Frost.

‘In response to our document requests, your agencies produced a document that shows that edits were made to an early version of a draft Arctic Frost opening document,’ Grassley wrote. ‘This document has several handwritten edits, including the crossing out of the initial name of the investigation, ‘Hyperbolic Frost,’’ and renaming it ‘Arctic Frost.’’

Grassley said the document ‘calls into question the accuracy of the testimony’ former FBI Director James Comey gave to him during a May 3, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

‘At this hearing, I asked ‘Was the Clinton investigation named Operation Midyear because it needed to be finished before the Democratic National Convention? If so, why the artificial deadline? If not, why was that the name?’ Grassley shared.

Grassley was referring to ‘Midyear Exam,’ which was the FBI’s code name for the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

Comey replied: ‘Certainly not because it had to be finished by a particular date.’

‘There’s an art and a science to how we come up with code names for cases,’ Comey said at the time. ‘They assure me it’s done randomly. Sometimes I see ones that make me smile, so I’m not sure.’

Comey added: ‘But I can assure you that it was called Midyear Exam, was the name of the case. I can assure you the name was not selected for any nefarious purpose or because of any timing on the investigation.’

But Grassley said ‘the renaming of the Trump investigation from Hyperbolic Frost to Arctic Frost via handwritten notes is clearly anything but random.’

Sources believe the investigation’s title could hint at the probe’s intended target: Trump. 

Sources say ‘Arctic Frost’ is also the name of a variety of orange tree. Opponents of the president have mocked him and called him an ‘orange man.’ 

Grassley is asking that Bondi and Patel ‘produce all records relating to the naming of Operation Midyear Exam including former Director Comey’s emails.’

The records produced by the FBI this week also show handwritten notes discussing the subjects of the Arctic Frost investigation.

‘Subjects of the investigation include members of Donald J. Trump for President, INC., both identified and yet to be identified,’ the document reads.

Beside that paragraph is a handwritten note reading: ‘Add DJT.’

Grassley, along with Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., have been investigating the origins of the Arctic Frost probe since July 2022.

The senators have made whistleblower records public that they say ‘have exposed how partisan FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors opened, approved, and advanced the investigation against President Trump and expanded its scope to other Republican groups and individuals.’

‘The recent records produced by the FBI contain even more damning evidence of the Biden administration’s unapologetic abuse of power during the Arctic Frost investigation,’ Johnson, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital. ‘The American people deserve to know the full extend of Jack Smith’s massive partisan dragnet, which targeted law-abiding U.S. citizens.’ 

He added: ‘Chairman Grassley and I will continue to fight to ensure that the complete truth is revealed.’