Author

admin

Browsing

President Donald Trump has drawn his line. Now the clock is running.

After publicly giving Iran roughly 10 days to 15 days to reach a nuclear agreement, Trump used his State of the Union address to make clear the deadline is backed by force. 

‘I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror … to have a nuclear weapon,’ he told lawmakers Tuesday night.

The president first outlined the short timeline Feb. 19, saying the world would know within ‘probably 10 days’ whether Tehran was prepared to strike what he called a meaningful deal. 

‘I would think that would be enough time — 10, 15 days, pretty much maximum,’ Trump said, warning that absent an agreement, ‘it’s going to be unfortunate for them.’

On Tuesday, he reinforced the pressure from the House chamber, telling Congress negotiations are underway, but Iran has not met his core condition. 

‘We are in negotiations with them,’ Trump said. ‘They want to make a deal, but we haven’t heard those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.”

He also pointed back to the 2025 U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, describing Operation Midnight Hammer as having ‘obliterated Iran’s nuclear weapons program.’ 

After that operation, he said, Tehran was warned ‘to make no future attempts to rebuild its weapons program,’ adding that Iran is now ‘starting it all over again.’

The combination of a defined diplomatic window and a public reminder of U.S. military action marks a sharper phase in the standoff, as talks in Geneva unfold under mounting pressure.

Trump has not detailed what specific action would follow if Iran refuses his terms. But he told reporters in mid-February that if a meaningful agreement does not materialize, ‘bad things will happen,’ and acknowledged he is considering further steps.

With the State of the Union complete and the president’s timeline already in motion, the coming days are likely to determine whether the administration secures a nuclear concession — or shifts toward a more confrontational path in the Middle East.

The diplomatic ultimatum is underscored by the largest assembly of U.S. naval power in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

The world’s most advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, arrived at Souda Bay, Crete, Monday. The Ford joined the USS Abraham Lincoln, which has been conducting 24-hour flight operations in the Arabian Sea since late January.

Between the two strike groups, the U.S. now commands a fleet of 14 major warships, including nine Arleigh Burke-class destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Meanwhile 12 U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighters touched down at Ovda Airbase in southern Israel. 

As national security analyst Joe Funderburke noted in the Small Wars Journal, ‘The F-22 is not a simple show-of-force aircraft. It is designed to suppress enemy air defenses and protect penetrating strike platforms like the B-2 Spirit bomber, the same combination used to devastate Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz nine months ago.’

The president’s reminder of Operation Midnight Hammer — which utilized B-2 bombers to drop 30,000-pound ‘bunker buster’ munitions — serves as the tactical blueprint for what follows the current deadline. 

While the 2025 operation was a ‘surgical’ surprise strike, the current buildup suggests a far broader mission set, potentially due to Iran’s threat of an aggressive response. 

Iran’s response to Operation Midnight Hammer was measured and the U.S. had warning. This time, Iran has vowed a more forceful response and says any U.S. troops operating in the Middle East could be open targets. 

Amid his sharper diplomatic timeline, Trump also asserted that Iranian authorities had killed some 32,000 protesters in weeks of demonstrations that began in early January — a number far above independent estimates and Tehran’s own death toll. 

‘Just over the last couple of months with the protests, they’ve killed at least, it looks like, 32,000 protesters — 32,000 protesters in their own country,’ the president said. ‘They shot them and hung them.’ 

Administration officials have signaled that any agreement would require Iran to halt all uranium enrichment and provide verifiable guarantees that its program cannot be reconstituted — terms Iran repeatedly has objected to.

Both Washington and Iran appear to believe the other is bluffing. 

Trump has framed the timeline as a final opportunity for diplomacy backed by overwhelming force. Iranian leaders, meanwhile, have publicly dismissed U.S. threats and warned that any strike would trigger retaliation against American forces and regional allies.

Still, U.S. negotiators will meet with Iranian envoys once again in Geneva Thursday.

Related Article

Trump gives Iran 10-day ultimatum, but experts signal talks may be buying time for strike
Trump gives Iran 10-day ultimatum, but experts signal talks may be buying time for strike

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Republican and Independent voters reacted favorably when President Donald Trump brought up how his administration has cracked down on drug cartels and fentanyl, but Democrats appeared less motivated by Trump’s aggressive foreign policy stance. 

‘For years, large swaths of territory in our region, including large parts of Mexico, really large parts of Mexico, have been controlled by murderous drug cartels. That’s why I designated these cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, and I declared illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction,’ Trump said to applause as he turned to look at Republicans. 

Per a panel assembled by polling group Maslansky & Partners of 29 Democrats, 30 Independents, and 40 Republicans, which tracked their real-time reactions during Trump’s SOTU address, Democrats appeared to go slightly below baseline when Trump began touting his aggressive stance towards cartels in Central and South America, specifically his administration’s bombing campaign against them which has included attacks in the open ocean off the South American coastline and in the eastern Pacific.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Independents showed a much stronger favorable reaction to the president’s remarks about the actions his administration has taken against drug cartels and illegal fentanyl. 

During his address, Trump also highlighted the U.S.’s help in capturing drug kingpin ‘El Mencho’ earlier this month in Mexico. Ruben ‘Nemesio’ Oseguera Cervantes, known as ‘El Mencho,’ the leader of the CJNG, was killed Sunday in a Mexican military operation in Tapalpa, Mexico, authorities said. Though the operation was carried out by Mexican forces, the United States laid the groundwork, making El Mencho’s fall possible.

On President Donald Trump’s first day in office, he signed an executive order directing the State Department to designate several cartels and international criminal groups ‘foreign terrorist organizations’ (FTOs), a designation unlocking military-grade surveillance and ‘material support’ prosecutions. Though lesser known than MS-13 or Tren de Aragua, CJNG was one of the groups designated an FTO by the administration.

Shortly after Trump’s executive order, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a policy memorandum to all Department of Justice employees, announcing a ‘fundamental change in mindset and approach’ to cartels and transnational criminal organizations to a policy of ‘total elimination.’

The Trump administration has engaged in an aggressive bombing campaign against cartel boats throughout both 2025 and 2026. The U.S. has also conducted non-lethal maritime drug interdiction efforts as well.

In early 2026, Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro was captured by U.S. forces and extradited to New York on drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges, with Trump accusing him at the time of being a ‘kingpin of a vast criminal network.’

The recent violence and capture of El Mencho this month has led American tourists to be trapped in Mexico. According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the State Department has been taking ‘hundreds of calls a day’ providing Americans with travel support and advice.

‘We are unaware of any reports of any Americans being hurt, kidnapped, or killed, and the Mexican drug cartels know not to lay a finger on a single American or they will pay severe consequences under this president – and they already are,’ Leavitt told Fox News. 

Fox News Digital’s Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.

Related Article

Trump gets high marks from Republicans when ticking off economic accomplishments
Trump gets high marks from Republicans when ticking off economic accomplishments

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to be deposed by the House Oversight Committee late Thursday morning, as lawmakers continue to investigate the federal government’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s case.

The deposition is expected to begin at 11 a.m. ET in Chappaqua, N.Y., Fox News Digital was told. The Clintons have owned a home in the affluent New York City suburb since 1999 and have primarily lived there since former President Bill Clinton left office.

And while closed-door depositions normally just require a committee staff presence in most cases, a source familiar with planning told Fox News Digital that House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., will be there in person.

At least 10 House Republicans on the committee will also attend, the source said.

Hillary Clinton will be deposed on Thursday, while Bill Clinton’s deposition is scheduled for Friday. Both interviews will be closed to the press, but they will be transcribed and videotaped.

Comer told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that the former first couple’s testimony ‘is critical to understanding Epstein and [Ghislaine Maxwell’s] sex trafficking network and the ways they sought to curry favor and influence to shield themselves from scrutiny.’

‘Their testimony may also inform how Congress can strengthen laws to better combat human trafficking. Our goal for this investigation is straightforward: We seek to deliver transparency and accountability for the American people and survivors,’ Comer said.

The Clintons’ testimony comes after months of back-and-forth with the committee on the circumstances and conditions of the interviews.

They are two of several people and entities whom Comer subpoenaed for information on Epstein back in August.

Their attorneys initially pushed back on the subpoenas, calling them legally invalid and a violation of the separation of powers, but House Republicans responded by pressing forward with resolutions to hold both Clintons in contempt of Congress.

The lawyers finally agreed to Comer’s terms just days before a full House vote was expected to move forward.

But not all members of the committee are satisfied with how the situation is playing out.

‘I don’t know why the heck we didn’t bring them here. If you or I got in trouble, guess what? We’d be here, or we’d be in chains, and they’d be dragging us in. Having them up in Chappaqua to me is an insult to the public,’ Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told reporters on Wednesday. ‘I realize they got to cut a deal, but it’s not a deal I would have cut.’

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters, ‘We have a good group going up to New York.’

‘I think that anyone that has information about Jeffrey Epstein or spent any time with him, I think it’s important to ask questions. I mean, personally, I think one of the things that we’ve been hearing a lot about lately is whether Jeffrey Epstein had any sort of foreign ties, whether there were any sort of…wealth of foreign governments,’ Garcia said.

But both sides have largely accused the other of politicizing the probe. Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to create a narrative that persecutes figures on the left while attempting to clear President Donald Trump, and Republicans are arguing that Democrats are using the investigation to purposefully target the sitting commander-in-chief.

Neither Clinton has been accused of any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, nor has Trump.

But both Trump and Clinton have appeared numerous times in the Epstein files released so far and are known to have had relationships with the late pedophile before his federal investigations.

Related Article

Reporter
Reporter’s Notebook: Clintons call for open Epstein files hearing after months of defying subpoenas

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A Senate Democrat is demanding that the Trump administration refund billions in tariff revenue to Americans following last week’s Supreme Court decision, according to a letter first obtained by Fox News Digital.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., wrote in a letter to President Donald Trump charging that he was concerned over the White House’s ‘lack of action’ to issue refunds to families and small businesses impacted by tariffs.

His appeal to the president comes after the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision last week that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law undergirding his sweeping duties, ‘does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.’

‘The invalidation of these IEEPA tariffs is a chance to make American families and small businesses whole — not to retain unlawfully collected funds or enable additional corporate profit,’ Gallego wrote.

Gallego’s letter comes as Congress wrestles with its next move on tariffs and as Trump has vowed to sidestep lawmakers in his quest to continue levying duties on other countries.

Some Republicans want to see Trump’s tariffs considered through budget reconciliation — the same party-line move used to pass his ‘big, beautiful bill’ last year — to meet the deliberative parameters established in the court’s decision.

Others think Trump doesn’t need to come to Congress. The president already moved to reinstate 10% tariffs that are set to last for 150 days and will require lawmakers to weigh in on continuing them.

Several congressional Democrats want to see the administration tender full refunds from the billions raked in under Trump’s tariffs — 25 Senate Democrats back a newly introduced bill led by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to refund all duties with interest.

And Gallego specifically wants guardrails to ensure that money ends up in the hands of families and small businesses.

‘Absent action from this administration, over $100 billion in tariff revenue collected under those unlawful tariffs will not make it into the hands of American families and small businesses but instead will remain either in government coffers or in corporate accounts,’ Gallego wrote.

Since the start of the current fiscal year in October, Trump’s IEEPA tariffs are estimated to have generated roughly $155 billion, according to data from the Treasury Department.

He also raised concerns about large corporations taking advantage of the ‘chaotic and expansive nature of the IEEPA tariffs’ to crank up prices on products in response to the duties.

Gallego included several requests of the administration in his letter to be met no later than March 4, including whether the administration will issue tariff refunds, who will be eligible, how much revenue has been collected as of Feb. 20 and whether corporations will be required to disclose tariff costs passed on to consumers, among several others.

He also warned that corporations, armed with the financial firepower to hire ‘high-priced lawyers and lobbyists,’ would have a leg up on Americans without the same means.

‘Without your administration providing a structured process to determine how refunds should be distributed, American families and small businesses will once again be left behind,’ Gallego wrote.

Related Article

Democrats cheer Supreme Court move blocking Trump tariffs — despite past support for trade duties
Democrats cheer Supreme Court move blocking Trump tariffs — despite past support for trade duties

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

January saw Americans grow markedly more pessimistic about the economy. The Conference Board reported that its Consumer Confidence Index fell almost ten points in one month, reaching its lowest level since 2014. Consumers reported worsening views of current market conditions, as well as a sharp reduction in expectations regarding job prospects and income for the upcoming months. 

Upon initial review, this pessimism appears hard to square with recent headlines. Employers seem to be adding jobs; measured output has not fallen; consumers in the aggregate are still spending more in nominal terms than they were last year. This has led commentators to label this drop in confidence merely a perception problem. 

Market participants, however, do not react to abstract aggregates. They are responding to what they are directly experiencing: rising prices, tighter budgets, and uncertainty about future opportunities and job prospects. This is not the result of some vague uneasiness. Rather, it captures concrete concerns that broad economic averages often smooth over. 

Yes, the index regarding current conditions fell, and fell sharply. According to the Conference Board, the share of respondents who said jobs are “plentiful” fell to 23.9 percent, while the share saying jobs are “hard to get” rose to 20.8 percent. These data do not come from individuals attempting to judge macroeconomic trends. Rather, they were evaluations of lived labor-market constraints. Even if employment totals remain positive in the aggregate, such a tallying cannot capture changes in perceived difficulty in finding or changing jobs. People do not consult nationwide aggregates when considering whether it is easy or difficult to find jobs. Almost no one searches for “a US job,” but for specific jobs in specific locations requiring specific skill sets.

A teacher searches for openings in a particular district. A laid-off marketing analyst seeks firms hiring in his specialty. The welder wants fabrication work within driving distance. No individual experiences the labor market in aggregates, but through concrete localized opportunities. An economy can add jobs on paper while many struggle to find positions suited to their skills and geography. This reality does not make their pessimism purely emotional. 

Perhaps the more striking deterioration was in expectations. Consumers’ outlook for income, business conditions, and employment over the coming six months deteriorated to levels typically associated with an impending recession. More specifically, the Expectations Index dropped to 65.1, well below the 80 that often signals an upcoming downturn. Only about 15 percent of respondents expect business conditions to improve. These expectations will obviously shape household decisions about major purchases, savings, and career moves. 

Moreover, the decline was not contained to certain socio-economic demographics. Reuters reports that sentiments fell across income and age groups, including higher-income households that typically are a little more optimistic than other groups during moderate economic stress. This hints that the collapse is not merely the result of lower-income hardship but a more generalized perception that economic conditions are less favorable. 

This is further illustrated by the qualitative responses in the survey. Consumers cited high prices — namely, necessities like groceries and gasoline — as persistent concerns. As noted by Peter Earle, consumer goods like coffee, eggs, and chicken are still priced well above pre-COVID levels. Even a three-percent reduction in gasoline prices in the last year is outweighed by the 21 percent increase since 2019. 

Mentions in survey responses of trade policy, tariffs, and political uncertainty rose as well, as did labor-market insecurity and health-related costs. Manufacturing employment continues to fall in this tariff era, shedding roughly 70,000 jobs after tariffs were raised from about 2.4 percent to around 10 percent. Even if these jobs are offset by job gains in some other sector elsewhere, displaced workers still have reason to be less confident about their own prospects. 

These concerns reflect specific and notable pressures on households’ budgets and long-term planning. 

Here enters one of the major issues of the aggregates. Measures like GDP, average wages, and employment totals merely summarize overall activity, obviously. What they fail to capture are economic realities like distribution and sustainability — and whether growth positively impacts a household’s ability to plan for the future. Nominal consumption can rise as real purchasing power stagnates; employment can grow as job mobility declines. Aggregate output can increase while economic freedom and flexibility decrease. When we understand this, then divergences between consumer confidence and aggregate economic indicators become more intelligible. 

Even assuming aggregate statistics are well-suited to measure motion in an economy (a point not necessarily granted, but simply set aside for the sake of this article), they cannot measure coordination or economic viability. They tell us how much supposed economic activity is occurring, but not whether such activity reflects consumer preferences, actual economic realities, or even economic resilience. Consumer confidence, while also an aggregate of sorts, seeks to provide a general judgment about opportunity, security, and constraint. When assessments of conditions and expectations simultaneously deteriorate, that hints at a more fundamental issue than mood swings by consumers. 

To be clear, consumer confidence is not a comprehensive measure of economic health. Survey responses reflect personal experience and expectations, which can be incomplete or mistaken, but still have relevant impact because individuals act upon those attitudes. But the primary trap here is the treatment of low confidence as simply irrational pessimism. When consumers consistently report anxiety about the job market, income, and future conditions, they are not necessarily misunderstanding the economy. Instead, they may be pointing to specific structural pressures aggregates cannot detect. Rising costs, reduced labor mobility, and policy uncertainty all weigh heavily on confidence while remaining somewhat invisible to headline economic data. 

So, we return to the central question: when consumer confidence collapses amid positive economic aggregates, which one is lying? Perhaps neither, but they are both needed if we wish to understand the state of the economy. Aggregate statistics are intended to measure total activity. So be it. But total activity is not the end-all, be-all of economic health. Consumer confidence seeks to reveal whether such activity is translating into security, flexibility, and confidence about the future. 

If economic growth increasingly takes the form of superficial statistical expansion rather than authentic improvements in economic coordination, then falling confidence is not a puzzle, nor something to ignore. It is, instead, a warning that the economy is possibly wasting resources in the name of increasing numbers. This, of course, completely inverts the entire purpose of the economy — the proper coordination of scarce resources in accordance with people’s needs.

Free-market capitalism still delivers the goods. But its political coalition is fracturing — and that should worry anyone who cares about prosperity and freedom.

Recent Gallup polling on Americans’ views of capitalism and socialism shows that just 54 percent now view capitalism favorably, the lowest Gallup has recorded. Views of socialism remain much lower at 39 percent, but the direction matters. Support for capitalism has fallen notably over time, especially among independents and younger Americans.

The partisan breakdown is even more revealing. Republicans remain strongly pro-capitalist, though support has softened slightly. Independents now only narrowly favor capitalism. And among Democrats, fewer than half view capitalism positively, while nearly two-thirds view socialism favorably. As earlier Gallup polling on capitalism and socialism shows, this pattern has been developing for years.

Here’s the hard truth: those of us who defend free-market capitalism are unlikely to persuade most Democrats anytime soon. The data confirm it. Democrats often like the outcomes of capitalism — jobs, innovation, higher living standards — but reject the label, associating it with inequality or corporate power.

That alone wouldn’t be alarming. Political disagreement is normal. What is alarming is where capitalism is losing ground next.

A System of Liberty, Not Privilege

True capitalism is grounded in private property, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, and the rule of law. It treats individuals as decision-makers in their own lives — not subjects of top-down control. It decentralizes power, rewards value creation, and invites experimentation, allowing people to say “yes” to opportunity without asking permission from bureaucrats or politicians.

This idea is old — and proven. Adam Smith’s explanation of voluntary exchange captured it 250 years ago in The Wealth of Nations: “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or baker that we get our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” In a system of voluntary exchange, people seeking to serve themselves must first serve others. Prices convey information, profits signal value creation, and losses expose waste — the core of the price mechanism in a free-market economy.

The process isn’t perfect, but it’s far superior to the alternatives. As Milton Friedman argued in his critique of big government, markets work because they respect people’s ability to decide, adapt, and improve through cooperation — not central command.

The Real Warning in the Gallup Data

The most troubling signal in the Gallup polling isn’t Democratic skepticism. It’s the erosion among independents and younger Americans — groups that historically decide elections and shape long-term political trends.

Independents still lean pro-capitalist, but their support has fallen. Younger Americans overwhelmingly support small business and free enterprise, yet are increasingly ambivalent toward “capitalism” as a system. That suggests confusion, not rejection.

Even more concerning is what’s happening on the right.

A growing faction of Republicans — often labeled “national conservatives” or “populists” — is openly abandoning free-market principles in favor of state-directed outcomes. They argue for industrial policy, trade protectionism, expanded subsidies, and heavier regulation, all justified as necessary to achieve cultural, national, or political goals.

This matters because it breaks the traditional coalition that defended markets across parties.

When Both Sides Drift Toward Bigger Government

Gallup’s data show Americans are overwhelmingly positive toward small business (95 percent) and free enterprise (81 percent), while holding deeply negative views of big business. That gap tells us people still believe in markets — but not in a system that feels rigged and political.

The left responds by calling for more government control. Some on the right now respond by calling for different forms of government control. The mechanism is the same.

Whether it’s progressive redistribution or nationalist industrial policy, the solution offered is top-down power — politicians picking outcomes, overriding prices, and directing capital. History shows this doesn’t fix capitalism’s problems; it replaces markets with politics.

As the fallacy of corporate subsidies makes clear, once the government starts steering the economy, competition weakens, insiders win, and ordinary people lose. Bigger government doesn’t become more precise — it becomes more entrenched — regardless of which party is in charge.

Capitalism’s Problem Is Not About Performance

The Gallup results don’t show a rejection of capitalism’s benefits. They show a rejection of cronyism mislabeled as capitalism. Americans like choice, competition, small businesses, innovation, and opportunity — all products of free-market capitalism.

What they don’t like are bailouts, favoritism, barriers to entry, and rules that protect the powerful — outcomes caused by policy distortions, not markets. Policies such as occupational licensing that create barriers to opportunity or housing restrictions raise costs and block entry, especially for younger Americans. When those failures are blamed on “capitalism,” skepticism grows.

This is why the fight matters most outside the Democratic base. If independents, young people, and market-friendly conservatives drift toward bigger government — just with different slogans — the long-run prospects for freedom dim.

The Moral Case — and the Evidence

Beyond efficiency, capitalism rests on a moral foundation. Markets respect individuals’ dignity to pursue their own conception of the good life. They reward service, not status. They generate progress through experimentation and feedback. And they decentralize power, protecting against tyranny.

The evidence is overwhelming. In 1820, more than 90 percent of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, that figure is under 10 percent, as shown by data on extreme poverty over time. Life expectancy has doubled. Child mortality has collapsed. Access to goods and services, once considered luxuries, has become common.

What drove this transformation? Not redistribution or industrial planning. It was the spread of market institutions: open trade, secure property rights, sound money, and the freedom to invest and innovate. The comparisons are instructive — East v. West Germany, North v. South Korea, Venezuela v. Chile. Where markets are embraced, prosperity follows. Where they’re suppressed, poverty and repression prevail.

Reclaiming Capitalism

The polling tells us the challenge ahead is not convincing Democrats who already favor more government. It is rebuilding confidence among the persuadable middle and preventing the right from abandoning markets in favor of control.

The path forward isn’t to redefine capitalism, but to reclaim it: restore sound money, limit government favoritism, secure property rights, open competition, and remove barriers that trap workers and families. And we must explain — not just defend — why free-market capitalism remains the best path to prosperity.

Public skepticism is rising, yet the moral and empirical case for capitalism has never been stronger.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said Thursday that his country could ‘completely destroy’ South Korea if it feels threatened, escalating rhetoric while ruling out renewed talks.

Speaking at North Korea’s week-long Ninth Congress of the ruling Workers’ Party in Pyongyang, Kim labeled South Korea the ‘most hostile enemy’ and said ‘the conciliatory attitude that South Korea’s current government advocates on the surface is clumsily deceptive and crude,’ according to state media Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

Kim said North Korea ‘can initiate arbitrary action’ if South Korea engages in ‘obnoxious behavior’ directed at his country, dismissing recent efforts by Seoul to improve relations.

‘South Korea’s complete collapse cannot be ruled out,’ Kim said, according to KCNA.

During the congress, Kim outlined sweeping five-year policy goals centered on expanding North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. The country is believed to possess around 50 warheads and enough fissile material to produce up to 40 more, according to an estimate last year from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The North Korean leader said the country’s ‘international status has risen extraordinarily.’

‘It is our party’s firm will to further expand and strengthen our national nuclear power, and thoroughly exercise its status as a nuclear state,’ Kim said, according to KCNA. ‘We will focus on projects to increase the number of nuclear weapons and expand nuclear operational means.’

Kim laid out plans for North Korea to develop more advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of underwater launches, along with artificial intelligence-driven weapons systems and unmanned drones, KCNA reported.

Kim, who met with President Donald Trump three times during Trump’s first term, signaled he may be open to future negotiations with Washington but placed responsibility squarely on the United States.

‘Whether it’s peaceful coexistence or permanent confrontation, we are ready for either, and the choice is not ours to make,’ he said.

Kim said that if the U.S ‘withdraws its policy of confrontation’ with North Korea and acknowledges the country’s ‘current status,’ there would be ‘no reason why we cannot get along well with the U.S.’

Following the congress, Kim’s teenage daughter attended a military parade in Pyongyang on Wednesday, according to KCNA. Ju Ae, believed to be 13 or 14, was photographed standing beside her father and senior military leaders.

Her appearance comes after South Korean media reported that Kim recently gave her a leadership role in the regime’s powerful ‘Missile Administration,’ which oversees Pyongyang’s nuclear forces.

Fox News Digital’s Emma Bussey, along with Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related Article

Trump says he
Trump says he’d be willing to extend Asia trip to meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Precious metals are recovering their safe-haven demand appeal this week.

Gold, silver and platinum are up this week, all still down from the all-time highs recorded in January. Escalating geopolitical tensions and US trade policy shifts are once again at center stage in this sector of the commodities market.

Let’s take a look at what’s got the precious metals moving over the past week.

Gold price

After dropping as low as US$4,400 per ounce on February 2, this past week gold has taken another run well above the key psychological US$5,000 mark; albeit still hundreds of dollars away from its record high of close to US$5,600 reached on January 28.

After trading in a tight range of US$4,985 to US$5,000 for much of Thursday (February 19), the price of gold managed to rise as high as US$5,107 on Friday. That upward climb continued on Monday (February 23) to an intraday high of US$5,248 — a level gold hasn’t seen in a month.

The yellow metal lost that steam by Tuesday’s close with the precious metal trading back down at US$5,143. By Wednesday morning, gold was once again making a run at the US$5,200 level to reach an intraday high of US$5,217.58 at 9:10 a.m. PST. However, it couldn’t hang on for long, sinking back down to US$5,166.25 as of 1:40pm PST on profit-taking and a stronger dollar.

Gold price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.

Gold price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.

Here are the primary drivers for gold this past week:

      • Dips this week were brought on by slight downward pressure due to profit-taking and a stronger US dollar.

      In other gold news, JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM) raised its gold forecast to US$6,300 by the end of 2026, citing a ‘reserve currency paradigm shift’ as countries diversify away from the dollar, and ‘significant investor diversification’.

      Looking at major events in the gold mining sector, Kinross Gold’s (TSX:K,NYSE:KGC) Great Bear development in the Red Lake district of Ontario, Canada, has been designated for a reduced permitting timeline under the provincial government’s One Project, One Process (1P1P) framework. 1P1P is a streamlined approval system aimed at reducing government review times by 50 percent. The high-grade, combined open-pit and underground operation is expected to produce more than 500,000 ounces of gold annually during its peak years.

      Silver price

      The price of silver is still well below its all-time high of more than US$120 per ounce it reached on January 29, 2026. For the most part, the white metal continued to track the same trends as gold this week.

      Like gold, silver traded sideways Thursday (February 19) in the US$77.50 to US$78.50 range, and then surged the following day to an intraday high of US$84.61.

      For most of Monday (February 23), silver continued higher but at a much slower pace, to reach as high as US$88.96. Tuesday brought another day of tight trading in the US$86.70 to US$88.10; however, by Wednesday morning the silver price had managed to break through the US$90 level on the same safe-haven demand forces pushing gold prices higher this week.

      The price of silver hit an intraday high of US$91.15 at 11:55am PST before sliding back down below US$89 in the afternoon session.

      Silver price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.

      Silver price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.

      Silver may still not be back into the triple digits, but its showing strong support despite a slump in artificial intelligence (AI) tech stocks. Silver, the most electrically and thermally conductive metal on the planet, is considered a key material for AI tech, particularly in data centers and high-performance computing. Silver is also in a structural supply deficit which continues to provide upward pressure on silver prices

      In silver mining news, Lundin Gold (TSX:LUG,OTCQX:LUGDF) announced a US$670 million silver stream deal with LunR Royalties (TSXV:LUNR) on its Fruta del Norte mine.

      Platinum price

      Platinum continues to be one of the top performing metals, reaching a 12-year high in recent weeks. This past week it has gained more than 8 percent. Sideways trading on Thursday (February 19) turned into an upward climb on Friday with prices for platinum rising from a low of US$2,060.10 to a high of US$2,117.40 per ounce.

      The first few days of this new week were marked by volatility with wider price swings. The platinum price reached a three week high of US$2,226.30 in late day trading Tuesday. The jump was driven by a combination of geopolitical tensions, trade uncertainty, and structural supply constraints.

      Platinum continued its ascent in overnight trading, reaching as high as US$2,360.50 in early morning trading, and managed to finish off the day just below the US$2,300 level.

      Platinum price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.

      Platinum price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.

      Platinum prices are benefitting from renewed tariff jitters, geopolitical safe-haven demand, and persistent supply tightness from major producer South Africa.

      The emerging hydrogen economy is also adding to demand for the metal on top of robust demand from the auto sector. Consumers are shifting back toward internal combustion engine and diesel vehicles as hurdles to EV adoption remain challenging. This is highly supportive of demand for platinum as its primary use is in automotive catalysts.

      On the supply side, global platinum reserves remain critically low, especially as the world’s biggest producer South Africa continues to be plagued by power shortages and operational disruptions.

      In platinum mining news, Valterra Platinum declared a dividend of 45 rand a share for a total 2025 payout of 12 billion rand (US$757 million) after its net income more than doubled to 15.4 billion rand. Bloomberg reported that the size of the dividend “smashed analyst expectations as earnings jumped last year on soaring metals prices”.

      Palladium price

      Palladium has been the black sheep of the precious metals family for the past few years, remaining well below its March 2022 all-time record of US$3,440.76 per ounce.

      On Thursday (February 19), unlike its sister metals, palladium rallied 4.8 percent to an intraday high of US$1,767.50. The metal closed out last week with another nearly 3.9 percent gain to US$1,836.

      On Monday, palladium lost some of that ground to close out the day at US$1,820. After dipping to a low of US$1,763 in early morning trading on Tuesday, the price of the metal regained those losses and more by the end of the trading day reaching as high as US$1,843.

      Wednesday (February 25) morning brought a spike in palladium prices to US$1,935 as the metal went along for the same ride as platinum, before falling back to the US$1,860 level in afternoon trading.

      Palladium  price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.

      Palladium price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.

      As is the case with platinum, demand for palladium is getting support from the auto sector. Rising prices for platinum are leading automakers to make the swap to palladium.

      The US Department of Commerce’s preliminary statement of support for anti-dumping duties of approximately 133 percent on unwrought Russian palladium imports is still shaping the outlook for palladium on the supply side. This follows a petition from Sibanye-Stillwater (NYSE:SBSW) over allegations that Russian metal is being sold in the US at less than fair value. A final decision is expected in the case by June of this year.

      Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistilli, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

      This post appeared first on investingnews.com

      Dubbed a “central bottleneck of the electrified future,” copper demand is expected to far exceed supply. A recent outlook from S&P Global projects the market could face a shortfall of up to 10 million metric tons by 2040.

      Against this backdrop, Domestic Metals (TSXV:DMCU) offers a timely opportunity for investors. Listed on TSX Venture Exchange, OTCQB and Frankfurt Stock Exchange, the company is advancing its flagship Smart Creek Project in Montana, targeting discovery of a porphyry system and a carbonate replacement deposit (CRD).

      Map of Domestic Metals Smart Creek lands, showing claims, private land, roads, and location in Montana.

      Smart Creek’s potential is further bolstered by its proximity to significant discoveries like Ivanhoe Electric’s (NYSEAmerican:IE,TSX:IE) Hog Heaven project, which announced the intersection of a porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum system within a large, deep anomaly.

      Company Highlights

      • Exceptional Surface Grades: The 2025 field campaign returned high-grade samples, highlighted by 102 g/t gold, 23.1 percent copper, and 3,810 g/t silver.
      • World-Class Team: Dr. Peter Megaw, a globally recognized authority on Carbonate Replacement Deposits (CRDs) and discoverer of MAG Silver’s Juanicipio, has joined the team to guide exploration, together with President & CEO Gordon Neal who has had a successful track record building MAG Silver and New Pacific Metals
      • Mining-Friendly Jurisdiction: Operations are focused in Montana, USA, a mining-friendly state ranked 6th in 2024 by the Fraser Institute for investment attractiveness, with a legacy of massive production at the nearby Butte Mine.

      This Domestic Metals profile is part of a paid investor education campaign.*

      Click here to connect with Domestic Metals (TSXV:DMCU) to receive an Investor Presentation

      This post appeared first on investingnews.com

      Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin were involved in a heated back and forth during a Senate hearing Tuesday that sparked immediate reactions across social media.

      ‘Everybody we bring up here, you guys chastised for trying to make changes,’ Mullin said during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing Wednesday. The committee was discussing issues with Obamacare during a hearing on the nomination of Casey Means as U.S. surgeon general.

      ‘God forbid we change and try to fix our broken system,’ Mullin continued. ‘Anyway, I ranted too long.’

      As Mullin was attempting to return to the topic, he was cut off by Sanders, who said, ‘Yes, you did.’

      Mullin responded, ‘I’m sorry. I didn’t ask your opinion on that, and if I cared about your opinion I would ask you. But I don’t care about your opinion. You’re part of the system. You’re part of the problem. You’ve been sitting here longer than I’ve even been alive. This is your problem. You should have fixed this a long time ago. You’ve been railing on it for so long. What have you been doing?’

      Sanders responded by sarcastically saying, ‘I decided not to run for surgeon general, You’re the nominee I’ve decided.’

      ‘That is definitely something we would never accept,’ Mullin said before moving on.

      The exchange was quickly picked up by conservatives on social media, including from ‘Charlie Kirk Show’ executive producer Andrew Kolvet, who wrote in a post on X that ‘things did not end well for the octogenarian socialist’ after he took a ‘cheap shot’ at Mullin. 

      ‘That’s what his commie supporters can’t figure out,’ comedian Tim Young posted on X. ‘Bernie has been in office so long that he should have solved their problems by now.’

      ‘Finally,’ journalist Anna Matson posted on X. ‘Someone put Bernie Sanders in his place. He’s all talk and no action. He’s been in office longer than I’ve been alive and he has nothing to show for it.’

      ‘Swamp being DRAINED,’ political and sports commentator Dan Dakich posted on X.

      ‘HOLY SMOKES,’ conservative journalist Eric Daughterty posted on X. ‘Sen. Markwayne Mullin just PUMMELED Bernie Sanders to his FACE.’

      Senate clashes involving Sanders and Mullin have been increasingly common in recent years, including a viral moment in 2023 when Mullin and Teamsters President Sean O’Brien almost came to blows during an exchange Sanders was in the middle of. 

      In December, the two clashed on the Senate floor, also over Obamacare, in an exchange that Mullin posted on X in which he referred to Sanders as ‘The Grinch’ and said the Vermont senator ‘blocked our bipartisan bill, the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act, to give kids fighting cancer more treatment options.’

      Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Mullin and Sanders for comment.

      Related Article

      Medical watchdog challenges key study used to justify DEI health policies:
      Medical watchdog challenges key study used to justify DEI health policies: ‘Scientifically unsound’

      This post appeared first on FOX NEWS