Author

admin

Browsing

First, they fired the people who look after the nuclear bombs, then had to hurriedly find where they went and hire them back.

They got rid of the government agricultural workers responsible for fighting bird flu — which has sent the cost of America’s breakfast soaring.

Then, amid rising public concern that an Ebola outbreak in Africa could leapfrog to the US, Elon Musk took his chainsaw to the most prominent US experts on the disease.

“We won’t be perfect. But when we make mistake, we will fix it very quickly,” later backtracked Musk, who is running President Donald Trump’s effort to eviscerate the federal government.

“With USAID, one of the things we accidentally canceled very briefly was Ebola, Ebola prevention. I think we all want Ebola prevention. So, we restored the Ebola prevention immediately,” he said.

This haphazard nihilism is symptomatic of Musk’s approach with the de-facto Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): destroy first, ask questions later.

Claims that DOGE has already saved tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer cash are dubious — despite evidence trumpeted by conservative media of frivolous spending. Trump’s claim, for instance, that the now expunged US Agency for International Development spent $100 million on condoms for Hamas is absurdly untrue.

The president’s voters will shed few tears for federal workers kicked out of their jobs with little notice and less compensation. Tearful USAID workers had only 15 minutes to clear their desks on Thursday. But then, as with much of the Trump agenda, the cruelty is the point.

There’s nothing wrong with curtailing bloated government. When the public thinks its cash is being wasted, governance loses legitimacy.

But screw-ups by Musk and his DOGE boys are revealing one key truth — they have no clue how government works. Conservatives might view the federal government as the home of liberal elites. But it pays out pensions, administers health care for seniors and the poor, and keeps keeps planes in the sky. Every state capital has a big federal building — and it’s now dawning on some of Trump’s cheerleaders that hundreds of thousand of government jobs exist outside the Beltway.

A backlash is building as GOP lawmakers get upbraided by constituents back home.

“Things are happening so fast and furiously,” Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis said. “We need to take a step back and make sure that we’re doing things in a way that we are rooting out the waste, the fraud and the abuse and the mismanagement, making programs efficient but not resulting in unintended consequences.”

That’s not Musk’s way. He’s treating the government to the kind of creative destruction — with the emphasis on destruction — that rocked his tech businesses, rocket ship company and social network X.

If this carries on, Trump may pay a price for giving the world’s richest man almost limited government power, come the midterm elections next year.

Even when government is working, financed and fully staffed, things can go badly wrong — the botched response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the comically mismanaged Obamacare website come to mind.

But when the government is being deliberately desecrated, disasters are all but guaranteed.

Thousands of lives at stake

The obliteration of USAID has had a devastating impact on global public health programs like PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program initiated by President George W. Bush that has saved millions of lives and was one of the most successful US foreign policy programs in decades. The Trump administration insists that it has offered waivers for life-saving treatments. But reports on the ground suggest that cash often isn’t getting through to clinics.

This doesn’t just affect HIV/AIDS patients whose US-provided anti-retroviral drugs keep the disease not just from worsening, but from spreading to new victims. It also risks dismantling the early warning health systems that stop outbreaks becoming epidemics.

Meanwhile wanted to find out whether an emergency operation like the one mounted by the Obama administration that successfully put down a 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa would be possible after Musk’s carnage.

Here’s what Dr. Yukari Manabe, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, who is also a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, told us.

“There have been some restrictions on travel for people that would normally respond (to outbreaks). So, I think that there are going to be difficulties sending the number of people in addition, people who might normally have dealt with viral hemorrhagic fever outbreaks may not be able to do that. They’ve either been fired or they are not around to do that,” Manabe said.

Without the same support, vital health services USAID built could crumble, she said. “Having people from whom you can bounce ideas off, I think, are very important, and having people who have helped build that capacity.

“They’ve trained people on the ground to be able to do this as well,” Manabe said. “So, countries in the West African Ebola outbreak who had had PEPFAR as part of the programming that they had within their countries, in general, did better in terms of the number of cases that they had.”

What to look for next week

Trump will take his latest victory lap on Tuesday night with a prime time, televised address to Congress. A man who loves adulation will get plenty from Republican lawmakers who control both chambers. It will be another moment of vindication for a president whose followers smashed their way into the very House of Representatives chamber from where he’ll speak, on January 6, 2021.

Trump’s message will be simple: He’s saving America.

But the GOP euphoria will be tempered by the reality that the president’s agenda hangs on the miniscule Republican majority in the House of Representatives. New York Rep. Elise Stefanik hasn’t yet taken up her post as the new US ambassador to the United Nations because House Speaker Mike Johnson can’t afford to lose her vote.

It’s one thing for Trump to fire off executive orders, to trample US treaties, to call for the annexation of Canada and to threaten to invade Greenland and Panama. True, lasting, political change requires Congress to act. If he wants his huge tax cut and to fund his mass deportation plan, Trump must inspire unity among his political troops.

Keep an eye on which Supreme Court justices show up. Their attendance at such events is always politically charged — even though they’re usually stone faced and sit out standing ovations.

The high court will have the critical final say on the legality of many of Trump’s power grabs and will define the destiny of his presidency and the Constitution. That means even a stray smile from one of the arch conservatives on the bench that implies favor for Trump’s political cause could ignite a political furor.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

In January 1988, one of Taiwan’s most senior nuclear engineers defected to the United States after passing crucial intelligence on a top-secret program that would alter the course of Taiwan’s history.

Colonel Chang Hsien-yi was a leading figure in Taiwan’s nuclear weapons project, a closely guarded secret between the 1960s and ‘80s, as Taipei raced to develop its first nuclear bomb to keep pace with China.

He was also a CIA informant.

Chang exposed Taiwan’s secret nuclear program to the United States, its closest ally, passing intelligence that ultimately led the US to pressure Taiwan into shutting down the program – which proliferation experts say was near completion.

“I decided to provide information to the CIA because I think it was good for the people of Taiwan,” said the 81-year-old. “Yes, there was political struggle between China and Taiwan, but developing any kind of deadly weapon was nonsense to me.”

Chang’s story bears similarities with that of Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower who famously exposed his country’s clandestine nuclear program to the world. But while Vanunu went public with his country’s progress, Chang’s whistle-blowing was done in secret and without any fanfare.

Taiwan’s nuclear ambitions

In 1964, just 15 years after the Chinese civil war ended with communist victory, leaving Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists controlling only Taiwan, Beijing successfully tested a nuclear weapon – deeply unsettling the government in Taipei which feared it could one day be used against the island.

Two years later, Chiang launched a clandestine project to lay the technical groundwork for nuclear weapons development over the next seven years. The Chungshan Science Research Institute ran the project under the Defense Ministry, and it was there that Chang began working as an army captain a year later.

He was picked for advanced nuclear training, which would involve stints in the US. After studying physics and nuclear science in Taiwan, he attended Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

Despite Taipei’s official statements that its nuclear research was only for peaceful purposes, Chang said students sent to the US were all aware of their true mission: learning skills for weapons development.

“We know precisely – even though it’s not in the written statement – we know what we are going to do, what kind of area we should concentrate on,” Chang said.

“We were kind of excited and trying to get the job done,” he added. “All we did was focusing on the area they assigned us, we put all our efforts to do it, to learn as much as possible.”

While he was at Oak Ridge, Chang recalled, the CIA already had an interest in him.

“In 1969 or 1970, I remembered receiving a phone call,” he said. The caller said he was “with a company and they are interested in the nuclear power business… they offered to take me out for lunch.”

“At that time, I said I had no interest because I had a mission-oriented assignment. But I was not aware he was from the CIA; I only knew that after quite a few years.”

American suspicions

In 1977, a year after attaining a PhD in nuclear engineering from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Chang returned to Taiwan. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel and spearheaded the development of computer codes for simulating nuclear explosions at the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research (INER), a national laboratory that covertly advanced weapons development under civilian pretenses.

Taiwanese leaders faced a delicate balancing act: the United States strongly opposed new nuclear weapons programs anywhere in the world, and Taipei could not afford to alienate its most crucial ally. The US has long relied on nuclear deterrence as part of its broader strategy to counter China’s stockpiling of nuclear warheads. But, under a policy of nonproliferation, it opposes any country newly developing nuclear weapons.

Back then, Taiwan was not the wealthy and vibrant democracy it is today. It was a developing economy under the autocratic rule of the Chinese Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang. That regime continued to hold a seat at the United Nations until 1971, and maintained formal diplomatic relations with the United States until 1979.

To minimize the risk of its nuclear ambitions being exposed, the island only sought to secretly establish the capability to produce nukes quickly at any time, but not build a stockpile.

“Taiwan’s cover stories were unbelievably good,” said David Albright, a nuclear proliferation expert and author of “Taiwan’s Former Nuclear Weapons Program: Nuclear Weapons On-Demand.”

“They always emphasized that the research was only for civil purposes… (US) officials didn’t know how to breach this cover story.”

But the risk of a cross-strait nuclear conflagration weighed on Chang. Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who assumed power in 1978, warned that if Taiwan acquired nuclear weapons, China would respond with force.

“I think they’re quite serious,” Chang added. “I believed in that.”

“I didn’t want to have any conflict in any way with mainland China,” he said. “Using any kind of deadly chemical or nuclear weapons… it’s nonsense to me. I believe we are all Chinese and that doesn’t make sense.”

So when CIA agents approached Chang again during a trip to the United States in 1980, he agreed to speak.

“They said, ‘We know you, and we’re interested in you,’ and we had a conversation,” Chang said, adding that the Americans put him through a “very thorough” lie-detector test to ensure he was not a double agent. He assisted the CIA with some ad hoc tasks before becoming an informant in 1984.

For the next four years a CIA case officer, identified only as “Mark,” met with Chang every few months at safehouses around Taipei, including a condo near Shilin Night Market – one of the island’s most famous street food destinations.

In those meetings, the CIA asked him to corroborate intelligence, share information about recent projects at INER, and take photos of sensitive documents.

“All those conversations were quite professional. He would take a pencil and notebook to write down my answers,” Chang said. “He kept saying that they will try their best to keep me and my family safe.”

The Chernobyl disaster in 1986, a catastrophic nuclear accident in Ukraine that exposed hundreds of thousands of people to harmful radiation, solidified Chang’s conviction that halting Taiwan’s nuclear weapons program was imperative.

That same year, Vanunu publicly exposed details of Israel’s clandestine nuclear program, handing what he new to the British media and causing an international sensation. He was later kidnapped by Mossad agents, returned to Israel and prosecuted, spending years in prison.

A new chapter of life

Chang’s life – and those of his wife and three children – took a dramatic turn in January 1988, when the CIA exfiltrated them to the US.

By then, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had amassed sufficient evidence and seized the opportunity created by the death of President Chiang Ching-kuo – Chiang Kai-shek’s son – to pressure his reformist successor Lee Teng-hui into cooperation.

Albright, the expert and author, said Chang was the most crucial informant in arming Washington to shut down the Taiwanese program.

“The United States had been in a cat-and-mouse game with Taiwan over its nuclear program for years,” he said. “Chang really made sure the US had heavy evidence that Taiwan couldn’t deny… and directly confront the Taiwanese.”

In the months after Chang’s departure, the US sent specialists to dismantle a plutonium separation plant – a facility designed to extract nuclear materials for weapons production. The team also oversaw the removal of heavy water, a substance used as a coolant in nuclear reactors, and irradiated fuel, nuclear fuel that can be reprocessed to extract materials for nuclear weapons.

Hero or traitor?

To date, Chang’s decision to work with the CIA has remained controversial in Taiwan, which in the intervening years has continued its massive industrial and economic expansion, becoming a full democracy in the 1990s.

But cross-strait hostilities persist. Taipei has come under growing military pressure from China, which now has the world’s largest military and is becoming more assertive in its territorial claims over Taiwan. The Chinese communist Party has vowed to take Taiwan by force if needed, despite having never controlled it.

Beijing dwarves Taiwan’s military, spending about 13 times more on defense. Some have argued that if Taiwan had successfully acquired nuclear weapons it could have served as an ultimate deterrent – paralleling Ukraine, where Russia might not have invaded if Kyiv had retained its Soviet era nuclear arsenal instead of giving it up.

Some Taiwanese have criticized Chang, saying he overstepped by deciding unilaterally that the island is better off without a nuclear deterrent.

“I believe he is a traitor,” said Alexander Huang, an associate professor in strategic studies at Tamkang University, because the weapons “would be seen as a useful tool in bargaining for a better diplomatic result” with Beijing.

But Su Tzu-yun, a director of Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, said the lack of a nuclear option has not overly affected Taiwan’s modern defense capabilities, because precision ammunition can be used to achieve similar objectives to those of tactical nuclear weapons.

“The Taiwanese government back then thought that if China landed in Taiwan, it could use tactical nuclear weapons to eliminate the landing troops,” he said. “But in their absence, we can also employ precision weapons like missiles to replace them.”

Taiwan buys these weapons from the US, which – despite shutting down the nuclear program – remains its key military partner, supplying ammunition, training, and defense systems.

Besides weaponry, the island has what some consider a more effective deterrent than nuclear bombs. In 1987 – just one year before the nuclear program was shut down – tech entrepreneur Morris Chang founded the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which now produces an estimated 90% of the world’s super-advanced semiconductor chips for tech companies, including Apple and Nvidia.

The island’s integral role in the global semiconductor supply chain, some observers say, would be enough to deter China from launching an invasion, forming what is dubbed its “Silicon Shield.”

Albright, who conducted extensive research into the Taiwanese program, also said its success would not have been beneficial to Taiwan.

“I think [it] would have raised the military risk of a Chinese attack,” he said, while Washington could have also responded by “reducing its security commitment or limiting military aid” once Taiwan’s capabilities were known.

As for Chang Hsien-yi, who became a Christian and enjoyed playing golf outside a part-time role at a nuclear safety consultancy firm, the decision he made four decades ago was correct.

“Maybe that’s good for the Taiwanese people. At least [we] didn’t provoke mainland China in a such way to start an aggressive war against Taiwan,” Chang said.

“I did it with my conscience clear, there is no betrayal – at least not to myself.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet European leaders at a vital summit in London on Sunday, after his extraordinary argument with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office left Western allies reeling and threw the future of the Russia-Ukraine war into deep uncertainty.

King Charles has also accepted an invitation to meet Zelensky on Sunday, the Ukrainian leader said.

Zelensky landed in Britain on Saturday ahead of the talks, which the West hopes will revive momentum towards an acceptable peace deal that had appeared to be slowly building this week, only to come crashing down in a nasty few minutes on Friday.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Zelensky met at Downing Street on Saturday where the two men signed an agreement to accelerate $2.8 billion worth of loans to Ukraine. The first tranche of funding is expected to be disbursed next week, according to the UK government.

But the leaders at Sunday’s summit – which includes presidents and prime ministers from across Europe, convened by Starmer – will have a difficult challenge ahead of them.

“It’s crucial for us to have President Trump’s support,” Zelensky said in a series of posts on X on Saturday morning. “He wants to end the war, but no one wants peace more than we do.”

“We’ve been fighting for three years, and Ukrainian people need to know that America is on our side,” he said.

The spectacle of the American president and vice president berating the leader of a war-torn ally stunned Europe and would have delighted the Kremlin. It added intensity to Sunday’s summit, which had initially sought to build on the progress achieved during a similar meeting in Paris last weekend.

Trump and JD Vance accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for American military support, for “gambling with the lives of millions of people,” and risking “World War III” by fighting Russia’s invading army in his country.

The scenes were Europe’s worst nightmare. One day before the shouting match, a chummy Starmer managed to get Trump to walk back previous false remarks that Zelensky was a “dictator,” voice his “respect” for Ukraine’s leader and even raise the possibility that Ukraine would claw back occupied territory from Russia in a ceasefire deal. All of those comments were notable reversals from Trump, and seemed to set the table well for Zelensky’s trip.

Now Europe is starting from square one again.

“Three years on from Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, we are at a turning point. Today I will reaffirm my unwavering support for Ukraine and double down on my commitment to provide capacity, training and aid to Ukraine, putting it in the strongest possible position,” Starmer said in a statement ahead of the London summit.

“In partnership with our allies, we must intensify our preparations for the European element of security guarantees, alongside continued discussions with the United States,” he said. “Now is the time for us to unite in order to guarantee the best outcome for Ukraine, protect European security, and secure our collective future.”

The summit will have three goals, Downing Street said: Ukraine’s short-term needs, securing a “lasting deal” to end the conflict, and “planning for strong security guarantees.”

As European leaders rushed to reaffirm their support for Zelensky on Friday evening, Starmer was noticeably silent. A few hours later, we learned why: Downing Street said he had spoken to Trump and Zelensky following their heated encounter. “He retains his unwavering support for Ukraine and is playing his part to find a path forward to a lasting peace, based on sovereignty and security for Ukraine,” Starmer’s spokesperson said.

The role of interlocutor between the Europe and the White House is one Starmer is taking seriously, even – perhaps especially – when it seems futile. It is one he will hope can reap rewards this weekend, but an increasing sense of desperation is setting in.

Yaroslav Zhelezniak, a Ukrainian member of parliament, wrote on Telegram ahead of the meetings in London: “If you thought the situation would somehow miraculously improve today… don’t count on it.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Israel said Sunday it has stopped the entry of all humanitarian aid into Gaza following the expiry of phase one of the ceasefire deal and Hamas’ refusal of a US-backed extension.

The first phase of the ceasefire in Gaza, under which dozens of Israeli hostages and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and detainees were freed since mid-January, reached its expiration date on Saturday.

Hamas has insisted on advancing to the second stage, accusing Israel of “ongoing manipulation” with its proposed extension to cover the Islamic holy month of Ramadan and the Jewish holiday of Passover. That extension had been proposed by US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff.

Israel’s Prime Minister’s Office said Sunday: “With the completion of Phase A of the hostage deal, and in light of Hamas’ refusal to accept the Witkoff framework for continuing the talks — which Israel had agreed to — Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu has decided that as of this morning, all entry of goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip will be stopped.

“Israel will not allow a ceasefire without the release of our hostages. If Hamas continues its refusal, there will be additional consequences.”

Hamas leader Mahmoud Mardawi said in a statement Sunday that “the only path to regional stability and the return of the prisoners is the full implementation of the agreement, starting with the second phase.”

Hamas wants the second phase to include negotiations for a permanent ceasefire, a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, the enclave’s reconstruction, “and then the release of prisoners as part of an agreed-upon deal,” Mardawi said.

“This is what we insist on, and we will not back down from it,” he added.

The Israelis want phase one to continue – the exchange of hostages, alive and deceased, in return for the continued release of Palestinian prisoners and detainees, and the flow of higher volumes of aid into Gaza. There are thought to be 24 Israeli hostages still alive in Gaza.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Vice President JD Vance defended President Donald Trump and his administration’s foreign policy agenda Friday during a tense exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — inserting himself into a spotlight rarely seen by vice presidents. 

Trump and Vance sparred in the Oval Office Friday with Zelenskyy amid negotiations to end the war in Ukraine — an exchange that ultimately prompted Trump to announce an end to peace negotiations and request that the Ukrainian leader leave the White House. 

A source familiar with the meeting told Fox News Digital that there was no expectation of the meeting leading to a combative exchange, and that Trump and Vance were both caught off guard by Zelenskyy’s behavior. 

While vice presidents traditionally remain in the wings while the president takes center stage, Friday’s encounter with Zelenskyy exposed the weight Vance carries directing and advancing the Trump administration’s America First agenda — both at home and abroad. 

Edward-Isaac Dovere, a senior CNN reporter, said the moment may have amounted to one of the most significant for the vice presidency, just behind Vice President Dick Cheney’s efforts backing the U.S. to invade Iraq. 

‘Possible that JD Vance today had the most significant 90 seconds of his vice presidency, and the biggest impact any VP other than Cheney has had on shifting American foreign policy in the way he changed the trajectory of the conversation in the Oval Office today,’ Dovere said in a Friday post on X. 

The Oval Office encounter with Zelenskyy also comes on the heels of Vance’s Feb. 14 appearance at the Munich Security Conference — an event that left a lasting impression on European nations and their relationships with the U.S. 

Specifically, Vance said Russia and China don’t pose as great a threat to European nations as the ‘threat from within,’ in reference to issues like censorship and illegal immigration. 

‘To many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation, who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion or, God forbid, vote a different way, or even worse, win an election,’ Vance said. 

The remarks prompted backlash from European leaders, including German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who said he interpreted the remarks as a comparison to ‘conditions in parts of Europe with those in authoritarian regimes.’ 

Tensions escalated in the Oval Office Friday after Zelenskyy pushed back on Vance’s statements that the path forward was through diplomacy, asserting that Russian President Vladimir Putin has broken other agreements in the past. 

‘What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?’ Zelenskyy said. ‘What do you mean?’

In response, Vance said, ‘I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country.’

‘Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media,’ Vance told Zelenskyy. ‘Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for bringing it, to bring it into this country.’

Zelenskyy then asked Vance if he’d ever visited Ukraine, prompting Vance to question again if Zelenskyy disagreed that Ukraine has had challenges recruiting new troops. 

‘And do you think that it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?’ Vance said. 

Zelenskyy replied that everyone faces challenges during wartime, and that although an ocean protected the U.S. from Russia, he cautioned that the U.S. would feel the threat eventually. 

‘Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel,’ Trump said. ‘We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.

‘You are in no position to dictate that, remember that.’

Vance and Zelenskyy also sparred when Vance asked if Zelenskyy had ever said ‘thank you once this entire meeting,’ prompting Zelenskyy to assert that Vance was speaking ‘loudly.’ 

Trump then snapped at Zelenskyy and warned him that Ukraine was in ‘big trouble.’ 

‘Wait a minute,’ Trump said. ‘No, no, you’ve done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble.’

Zelenskyy visited Washington amid negotiations to end the war in Ukraine and was expected to sign a minerals agreement that would allow the U.S. access to Ukraine’s minerals in exchange for support the U.S. has provided the country since Russia’s invasion in 2022. 

But after the tense exchange in the Oval Office, Trump announced a halt to peace negotiations and said that Zelenskyy could return to the White House when he was ‘ready for Peace.’ Additionally, Zelenskyy left the White House without signing the minerals deal. 

‘I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations,’ Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Friday. ‘I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.’

Zelenskyy also followed up with a social media post on X expressing gratitude to the U.S. for its support. 

‘Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit,’ Zelenskyy said. ‘Thank you @POTUS, Congress, and the American people. Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.’

The exchange prompted mixed reactions from those on Capitol Hill. Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said Zelenskyy should resign, while Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that ‘Trump and Vance are doing Putin’s dirty work.’ 

The Associated Press and Fox News’ Emma Colton contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Democrats and Republicans in Congress are gearing up to blame each other for a potential partial government shutdown next month, even as negotiations to avoid the pitfall continue.

‘The federal government will run out of money on March 14. Republicans, who control Congress and thus decide whether the government shuts down, will bring to the floor tomorrow arguably one of the worst budget bills ever,’ Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, wrote on X recently.

With just over 10 days left in session before the deadline, congressional Republicans are tentatively looking at passing a short-term extension of last year’s federal funding, known as a continuing resolution (CR), while potentially modifying it to account for priorities set by President Donald Trump, Fox News Digital was told.

It could also include extra funding for military readiness to ease defense hawks’ concerns.

Trump himself weighed in on Truth Social on Thursday night: ‘We are working very hard with the House and Senate to pass a clean, temporary government funding Bill (‘CR’) to the end of September. Let’s get it done!’

But Republicans have drawn a red line at Democrats’ demands for added assurances that Trump will not move to unilaterally cut cash flows already appropriated by Congress.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said in a closed-door GOP meeting last week that the Democrats’ price was too high, a lawmaker at the meeting told Fox News Digital.

On Friday, the top two Democratic negotiators released a blistering statement accusing Republicans of ‘walking away from bipartisan negotiations to fund the government — and raising the risk of a shutdown in so doing.’

And Democratic lawmakers for weeks have already been positioning to place the blame on Republicans if no agreement is reached.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., dodged a question from Fox News Digital earlier this week about whether Democratic leaders would encourage their members to reject a funding bill if it did not meet their demands.

‘The appropriations process at this moment is in the hands of [House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.] on behalf of House Democrats,’ he said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote on X this week, ‘Republicans are spending precious time trying to cater to the wishes of Trump’s billionaire buddies INSTEAD OF working to avoid a disastrous government shutdown that would hurt tens of millions of American families. Democrats are fighting for families.’

Since Republicans took back control of the House in 2023, any government funding bill that’s been signed into law has needed Democratic support in both chambers to pass.

But this year, some Democrats are arguing that Republicans will fully own a shutdown, since they now control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

Republicans, however, have accused Democrats of being unreasonable and are readying to blame them if a shutdown occurs. 

‘If that happens, that’s because the Democrats do not want to do the necessary work of getting waste and inefficiency out of our government,’ Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., told Fox News’ Bill Hemmer.

House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., suggested liberals were still playing hardball earlier this week during his weekly press conference.

‘If they are interested in collaborating with us and us putting up votes to fund government, then they have to work with us. If they walk away, that is a signal that they have this on their own… We’re not interested in putting up votes just because,’ he said. 

‘We’re interested in funding a government that protects vulnerable populations, protects our communities, makes investments in our national security and defense. Those are the things that Democrats care about. If Republicans don’t want to partner with us, then, clearly they must have a strategy to fund this on their own, using their own votes.’

Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., said Democrats ‘are at the table negotiating in good faith to fund the government.’

‘But Republicans are the majority in the House and Senate. If they want our votes, they need to work with us,’ she said, warning Republicans not to ‘follow [Elon Musk] toward a shutdown.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

With countless legal challenges to the Trump administration’s federal spending actions, legal experts say plaintiffs in these suits are attempting to block President Donald Trump’s agenda as the courts navigate conceivably new territory. 

‘I think this is a continuation of the warfare that we’ve seen over the past four-plus years during the Biden administration,’ Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. 

The only difference now is that the instigators of the lawfare are outside of government, and they’re trying to use different advocacy groups, different interest groups to try to throw up obstructions to Donald Trump’s actions.’

The Trump administration so far has become the target of more than 90 lawsuits since the start of the president’s second term, many of which are challenging the president’s directives. 

Plaintiffs ranging from blue state attorneys general to advocacy and interest groups are specifically challenging Trump’s federal spending actions, including the administration’s attempt to halt federal funding to various programs and the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) efforts to slash excess government spending.

Smith said he suspects these plaintiffs are attempting to ‘slow down’ the Trump administration’s progress and agenda via these lawsuits ‘even if they know or suspect their lawsuits will ultimately not be successful.’

UC Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo told Fox News Digital that the plaintiffs in the spending cases are showing ‘political weakness’ by seeking judicial recourse rather than going to Congress.

‘I think that what you’re seeing is political weakness, because, if they had popular support, they should go to Congress,’ Yoo said. ‘That’s the branch for which the Founders expected to be responsible in containing or reacting to any expansion of presidential power that went too far.’

Despite the public outcry from conservatives that judges blocking Trump’s federal spending actions are ‘activist judges,’ Yoo said the judges are ‘confused.’

‘There’s a lot of confusion going on in the lower courts,’ he said. ‘I think they misunderstand their proper role.’

Smith said that in the cases at hand, many judges are ‘interposing their own views of what [are] appropriate actions for the executive branch of government,’ saying this is ‘not the proper role of a judge.’ 

‘And yet you see some of these judges who are issuing these TROs, they’re being very aggressive, and they’re impeding on core executive branch functions when it really should be the president and his advisers who get to make important decisions,’ Smith said. 

Smith added he hopes the Supreme Court is ‘taking a skeptical eye towards some of these actions by these judges.’

Both Smith and Yoo said they expect these challenges to eventually make their way up to the Supreme Court, with Smith saying the high court ‘is going to have to confront some questions that it’s been trying to skirt for several years now.’

‘This has to go to the Supreme Court because you’re seeing confusion in the lower courts about what is the proper procedural way to challenge spending freezes,’ Yoo said. 

On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts paused a federal judge’s order that required the Trump administration to pay around $2 billion in foreign aid funds to contractors by midnight. Smith called the move by Roberts ‘actually pretty stunning.’

‘And I think a reasonable interpretation of that would be that the justices, particularly the Chief Justice, is kind of sending a shot across the bow to some of these judges that, ‘Look, if you keep this up, we’re going to step in and intervene,” Smith said. 

Yoo said he expects the Trump administration to ultimately prevail on many of the suits launched against him, saying that ‘he’s really, in many ways, following the decisions of the Roberts Court itself about how far executive power goes.’

‘Now, just because Trump won an election doesn’t mean he gets to do whatever he wants — he has to achieve his mandate through constitutional processes, which I think he’s doing,’ Yoo said. 

‘He’s litigating, he’s appearing at the Supreme Court, so he’s not ignoring the courts. He’s doing what you should do if you’re the president and you have the responsibility to execute the law,’ Yoo continued. 

Fox News Digital’s Bradford Betz contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump believes former President Joe Biden or his son, Hunter Biden, left behind the infamous bag of cocaine at the White House in 2023, the 47th president revealed in a recent interview. 

‘So … who actually left the cocaine in the White House?’ The Spectator’s Ben Domenech asked Trump in an interview at the White House Thursday afternoon. 

‘Well, either Joe or Hunter,’ Trump responded. ‘Could be Joe, too.’ 

The bag of cocaine was discovered July 2, 2023, in a storage locker near the entrance to the White House’s West Wing. The Secret Service discovered the small bag of cocaine and launched an investigation, which turned up inconclusive for a suspect. 

‘That was such a terrible thing because, you know, those bins are very loaded up with … they’re not clean, and they have hundreds and even thousands of fingerprints,’  Trump said of the discovery. ‘And when they went to look at it, it was absolutely stone cold, wiped dry. You know that, right?’

Trump added that the lockers typically are covered with fingerprints, but that the locker containing the bag of cocaine ‘was wiped out with, with the strongest form of alcohol.’

‘By the way, and I have to tell you, I think I’m going to look into that because it was … bad stuff happened there,’ Trump added without elaborating. 

The Biden family, including the former president and his son, Hunter Biden, were not staying at the White House when the cocaine was discovered. Instead, the family was staying at presidential retreat Camp David in Maryland.

Hunter Biden has a long and well-documented history with substance abuse, and he detailed his hourly need for crack cocaine in his 2021 memoir, ‘Beautiful Things.’ He has since gone through recovery efforts and has been sober since 2019, according to sworn testimony in federal court in 2023.

Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was grilled about the cocaine when it was found but stressed the Biden family was not at the White House when it was discovered in a high-traffic area of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 

‘The Biden family was not here,’ Jean-Pierre said during a July 2023 press conference when pressed about the cocaine. 

‘They were not here. They were at Camp David,’ she said. ‘They were not here Friday. They were not here Saturday or Sunday. They were not even here Monday. They came back on Tuesday. So, to ask that question is actually incredibly irresponsible, and I’ll just leave it there.’ 

Shortly after the Secret Service announced it had discovered the cocaine, the agency announced it had closed its investigation and could not determine a suspect.

‘There was no surveillance video footage found that provided investigative leads or any other means for investigators to identify who may have deposited the found substance in this area,’ the Secret Service said in a statement announcing an end to the investigation. 

‘Without physical evidence, the investigation will not be able to single out a person of interest from the hundreds of individuals who passed through the vestibule where the cocaine was discovered.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s office and Hunter Biden’s legal team for comment on Trump’s remarks but did not immediately receive a reply. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Questions surrounding the resignation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sparked on Friday after Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, suggested he may need to step down after a spat erupted between him and President Donald Trump during live coverage.

But that wasn’t the first time the Republican Party has  suggested such a move, and it began earlier this month after Trump pushed the idea following a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Trump first said Ukraine should hold elections after falsely claiming he only enjoyed a 4% approval rating, though under Ukraine’s constitution the country cannot hold elections when Martial Law is in effect during a time of war. 

Zelenskyy, whose approval rating is closer to 63% according to a Reuters report, on Friday once again reiterated he would resign if Kyiv was granted NATO membership. 

Ultimately, he emphasized during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, that just like in the U.S. where ‘Americans vote for American president,’ just as ‘each European country vote for their president,’ the same sovereign right is held in Ukraine – suggesting it is not a negotiating tactic he will allow Trump to use to appeal to Putin. 

But who may be in the running should Zelenskyy ever decide to step down?

Vitali Klitschko

The former boxer-turned politician who has served as the mayor of Kyiv since 2014 with strong support among those living in the capital city, has also proven himself on the international stage.

In a trip to Brussels earlier this month, Klitschko stressed the need to stand behind Zelenskyy as he fielded verbal attacks from the Trump administration while also trying to counter Putin’s war. 

The voice of support for the Ukrainian leaders was particularly noticeable given his previous criticism of Zelenskyy.

During his trip last week, Klitschko reportedly emphasized that an election could ‘destroy the country from within’ while it faces existential threats from the north and on its eastern flank.

Ruslan Stefanchuk

Stefanchuk, the chairman of Ukraine’s Parliament, has also reportedly been floated as a potential future contender for the top role in Ukraine. 

Though Stefanchuk is said to be a top ally of Zelenskyy, he has ardently rejected the recent international suggestions  that Ukraine hold elections.

In a Facebook post earlier this month he argued that ‘If there is anyone who needs to be forced into real, free and fair elections, it is [Putin].’

He noted that Ukraine needs ‘bullets, not ballots,’ according to a report by Newsweek. 

Kyrylo Budanov

Head of Ukraine’s GUR military intelligence agency, Budanov, could be another who may be a contender for the top job in Kyiv given.

Budanov, who has not expressed a desire to seek high office according to a Newsweek report, happens to have an even higher trust rating than Zelenskyy among Ukrainians. 

The military intelligence head earlier this month apparently voiced his confidence that Ukraine may finally be able to reach a peace deal after three years of war.

‘I think it is going to happen. There are most of the components for it to happen,’ Budanov reportedly said during a YouTube interview. ‘How long it will be, how effective it will be – [is] another question.’

General Valery Zaluzhny

The former Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Zaluzhny, and presently his country’s ambassador to the U.K. is seen as a popular and credible successor to Zelenskyy if the president were to step aside. 

Zaluzhny and Zelenskyy have had their differences, resulting in the general being dismissed from his military post in 2024. Carnegie Politika blog recently reported that his popularity is strong, with 80% of Ukranians saying they trust him. The publication also noted that a hypothetical second-round runoff between the two resulted in a statistical tie.

Zaluzhny has not said if he would challenge Zelenskyy or if he was even interested in running for the president. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s future as president of Ukraine was cast into doubt by longtime supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and others after the embattled leader got into a nationally televised spat with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office Friday.

Graham’s call wasn’t the first time key Republicans have suggested Zelenskyy might need to step down, or at least stand for re-election. Trump pushed the idea earlier this month following a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Trump first said Ukraine should hold elections after falsely claiming he only enjoyed a 4% approval rating, though under Ukraine’s constitution the country cannot hold elections when Martial Law is in effect during a time of war. 

Zelenskyy, whose approval rating is closer to 63% according to a Reuters report, on Friday once again reiterated he would resign if Kyiv was granted NATO membership. 

Ultimately, he emphasized during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, that just like in the U.S. where ‘Americans vote for American president,’ just as ‘each European country vote for their president,’ the same sovereign right is held in Ukraine – suggesting it is not a negotiating tactic he will allow Trump to use to appeal to Putin. 

But who may be in the running should Zelenskyy ever decide to step down?

Vitali Klitschko

The former boxer-turned politician who has served as the mayor of Kyiv since 2014 with strong support among those living in the capital city, has also proven himself on the international stage.

In a trip to Brussels earlier this month, Klitschko stressed the need to stand behind Zelenskyy as he fielded verbal attacks from the Trump administration while also trying to counter Putin’s war. 

The voice of support for the Ukrainian leaders was particularly noticeable given his previous criticism of Zelenskyy.

During his trip last week, Klitschko reportedly emphasized that an election could ‘destroy the country from within’ while it faces existential threats from the north and on its eastern flank.

Ruslan Stefanchuk

Stefanchuk, the chairman of Ukraine’s Parliament, has also reportedly been floated as a potential future contender for the top role in Ukraine. 

Though Stefanchuk is said to be a top ally of Zelenskyy, he has ardently rejected the recent international suggestions  that Ukraine hold elections.

In a Facebook post earlier this month he argued that ‘If there is anyone who needs to be forced into real, free and fair elections, it is [Putin].’

He noted that Ukraine needs ‘bullets, not ballots,’ according to a report by Newsweek. 

Kyrylo Budanov

Head of Ukraine’s GUR military intelligence agency, Budanov, could be another who may be a contender for the top job in Kyiv given.

Budanov, who has not expressed a desire to seek high office according to a Newsweek report, happens to have an even higher trust rating than Zelenskyy among Ukrainians. 

The military intelligence head earlier this month apparently voiced his confidence that Ukraine may finally be able to reach a peace deal after three years of war.

‘I think it is going to happen. There are most of the components for it to happen,’ Budanov reportedly said during a YouTube interview. ‘How long it will be, how effective it will be – [is] another question.’

General Valery Zaluzhny

The former Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Zaluzhny, and presently his country’s ambassador to the U.K. is seen as a popular and credible successor to Zelenskyy if the president were to step aside. 

Zaluzhny and Zelenskyy have had their differences, resulting in the general being dismissed from his military post in 2024. Carnegie Politika blog recently reported that his popularity is strong, with 80% of Ukranians saying they trust him. The publication also noted that a hypothetical second-round runoff between the two resulted in a statistical tie.

Zaluzhny has not said if he would challenge Zelenskyy or if he was even interested in running for the president. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS