Pakistan’s defense minister declared an ‘open war’ with Afghanistan on Friday after the two sides exchanged heavy fire along their shared border on Thursday, according to multiple reports.

Defense Minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif said in a post on X that Pakistan had hoped the Taliban would bring stability after NATO’s withdrawal, but instead accused the group of turning Afghanistan ‘into a colony of India’ and ‘exporting terrorism.’

‘Our patience has now run out. Now it is open war between us,’ he said.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.

Related Article

Thailand launches airstrikes along Cambodia border as tensions escalate

Afghanistan and Pakistan exchanged significant cross-border fire Thursday in an escalation of hostilities along their shared border, according to multiple reports.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.

Related Article

Thailand launches airstrikes along Cambodia border as tensions escalate

A Senate Republican warned Thursday that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s primary focus is shedding American blood as U.S.-Iran relations continue to simmer. 

‘The ayatollah not only thinks that I’m going to hell because I don’t agree with his religion — he wants to kill me,’ Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

‘He wants to kill Americans and the Israelis and anybody who does not believe in his jihad and drink our blood out of a boot,’ Kennedy continued. ‘And he’s acted on that, and that’s not acceptable.’

Kennedy’s message comes as tensions with Iran are escalating. At the core of the issue is Iran’s capability and Khamenei’s desire to build a nuclear weapon.

President Donald Trump gave the country’s leadership roughly 10 to 15 days to reach a nuclear agreement and warned that the inability to strike a deal could lead to U.S. military action in the region.

He renewed that edict during his State of the Union address earlier this week.

‘I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror … to have a nuclear weapon,’ Trump said.

Kennedy cautioned that if the Trump administration were to broker a deal, it would need to have guardrails.

‘If we make a deal with Iran, let’s make sure we have a protocol to enforce it because, in my experience in watching the Ayatollah through the years, I wouldn’t trust this man if he was three days dead,’ he said.

Lawmakers are wrestling with the exact nature of what a strike could look like and whether Congress should weigh in before Trump makes a decision.

Senators Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., expect that their Iran war powers resolution will hit the Senate floor next week, which would curb Trump’s ability to strike the country without Congress’ approval.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the most important aspect of the Iran negotiations was ‘to prevent them from having nuclear capability.’

‘But there are also other threats that they represent in the region, and we have a big presence in that region, as you know. So, I think they’re looking at and working through what the options might be,’ Thune said. 

‘In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change.’

Related Article

US positions aircraft carriers, strike platforms across Middle East as Iran talks shift to Oman

Denmark will head to the polls on March 24 after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called a snap parliamentary election, a move widely viewed as an attempt to consolidate rising public support tied to her handling of tensions with President Donald Trump over Greenland.

Frederiksen announced the early vote on Wednesday, arguing that Denmark needs political clarity at a time of mounting geopolitical pressure. According to Reuters, she said the country faces ‘a serious foreign policy situation,’ and that voters should have a say in how Denmark navigates it.

Her center-left Social Democratic government has seen a lift in opinion polls in recent weeks after taking a firm stance that Greenland is not for sale and that Danish sovereignty is non-negotiable. 

The dispute with Washington has reshaped the domestic political conversation, pushing Arctic security and national sovereignty to the forefront of Danish politics.

Frederiksen, who has led Denmark since mid-2019, has spent much of the past year managing the fallout from Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland, the vast Arctic island that is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Tensions escalated sharply last month when Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on Denmark and several other European Union countries.

Trump has argued that the United States needs control of the North Atlantic island for national security reasons, citing increased activity by Russia and China in the Arctic. The region has grown in strategic importance as melting ice opens shipping routes and access to natural resources, intensifying competition among major powers.

The standoff appeared to ease after Trump announced that a framework agreement to strengthen Arctic security had been reached following talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. After that announcement, U.S., Danish and Greenlandic officials began technical discussions on implementing the arrangement, focusing on security coordination rather than any change in sovereignty.

Throughout the crisis, Frederiksen and other senior Danish officials repeatedly emphasized that Greenland’s status is not up for negotiation. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference earlier in February, Frederiksen cautioned that she did not believe the crisis had fully passed and suggested Washington could still harbor ambitions to annex the island.

According to The Guardian, Danish commentators have described the prime minister’s polling boost as a ‘Greenland bounce,’ reflecting growing domestic approval of her firm posture toward Washington.

Frederiksen’s decision to call early elections appears aimed at converting that surge into a renewed mandate. Denmark’s next general election had not been scheduled until later this year, but the prime minister argued that the current security climate justifies seeking fresh voter backing.

Greenland, home to roughly 56,000 people, has long been strategically significant due to its location between North America and Europe. The United States maintains a military presence there at Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base. Any suggestion of U.S. acquisition has historically been sensitive in both Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

Euronews reported that Frederiksen’s government has stressed cooperation with allies while firmly rejecting any negotiations over Greenland’s sovereignty. European leaders have signaled support for Denmark, reinforcing the view that Arctic stability is increasingly central to NATO and EU planning.

Opposition parties have criticized the timing of the snap election, arguing that Frederiksen is seeking political advantage during a moment of heightened nationalism. Others, however, have largely backed the government’s line on Greenland, suggesting that the sovereignty issue may transcend traditional party divides.

The March 24 vote will determine whether Frederiksen can strengthen her coalition or whether voters will shift the parliamentary balance. It will also serve as a broader test of how Danes believe their country should manage its relationship with Washington as Arctic security becomes a defining issue of global competition.

Related Article

Trump tells Davos US alone can secure Greenland, insists he won’t ‘use force’

A resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., aimed at curbing President Donald Trump’s war powers in Iran is getting the blessing of the House of Representatives’ top Democrat.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., released a statement alongside other Democratic leaders Thursday announcing that they will force a vote on Massie’s resolution next week.

‘As soon as Congress reconvenes next week, we will compel a vote of the full House of Representatives on the bipartisan Khanna-Massie War Powers resolution,’ the joint statement read.

‘This legislation would require the President to come to Congress to make the case for using military force against Iran. The Iranian regime is brutal and destabilizing, seen most recently in the killing of thousands of protesters. However, undertaking a war of choice in the Middle East, without a full understanding of all the attendant risks to our servicemembers and to escalation, is reckless.’

Jeffries and other top Democrats argued that any military force against Iran would be illegal without approval from Capitol Hill.

‘We maintain that any such action would be unconstitutional without consultation with and authorization from Congress. Next week, every Member will have the opportunity to go on the record as to whether they support military action against Iran absent Congressional approval,’ they said.

Massie cited Congress’ war powers in the Constitution in unveiling the legislation earlier this month alongside Khanna.

‘Congress must vote on war according to our Constitution,’ he posted on X. ‘[Khanna] and I will be forcing that vote to happen in the House as soon as possible. I will vote to put America first, which means voting against more war in the Middle East.’

There are multiple mechanisms for forcing a vote over the will of House leadership. But the quickest route is called a ‘privileged resolution,’ which mandates that a specific piece of legislation is considered by the full chamber within two legislative days of its introduction.

Before a vote on the measure itself, however, House GOP leaders can call for a preliminary vote to ‘table’ the legislation or refer it to the relevant committee, both ways of effectively killing those resolutions. 

It’s considered easier for lawmakers in the majority party to vote to kill resolutions on that procedural vote before they have to take a vote on the bill itself.

Privileged resolutions, which are traditionally seldom used, have gained popularity in recent years as Republicans grapple with a razor-thin House majority.

In this case, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., can only afford one GOP defection if all Democrats vote to proceed with blocking Trump’s war powers. 

Because Massie is already likely to vote with the minority party, all remaining Republicans in the chamber must vote in lockstep to block the resolution.

Related Article

Kaine wants to rein in Trump’s war powers, but never did the same for Biden, Obama

Talks between Iran and the U.S. wrapped up in Geneva Thursday as officials cited ‘significant progress’ and announced a next meeting set for Vienna within days.

Yet despite senior U.S. officials describing the third round as ‘positive,’ per Axios, Iranian state television also reported that Tehran will continue enriching uranium and rejected proposals to transfer it abroad.

According to The Associated Press , the reports claimed Iran would also push for the lifting of international sanctions — signaling it is not prepared to meet President Donald Trump’s demands.

The negotiations were carried out primarily indirectly, with Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi relaying messages between the two sides.

In a post on X, al-Busaidi confirmed that the round had concluded and said discussions would resume soon.

‘We have finished the day after significant progress in the negotiation between the United States and Iran,’ he said on X.

‘We will resume soon after consultation in the respective capitals. Discussions on a technical level will take place next week in Vienna. I am grateful to all concerned for their efforts: the negotiators, the IAEA, and our hosts, the Swiss government,’ al-Busaidi said.

There was no immediate public statement from U.S. or Iranian officials after the session.

Trump’s special Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, attended the three-hour negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi was also involved, with Iranian officials presenting a draft proposal for a potential nuclear agreement with the U.S., which has key demands.

Iran insists it has the right to enrich uranium and has appeared to refuse to negotiate over other issues, including its long-range missile program and support for armed groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Trump, meanwhile, insists on a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program. In his State of the Union address Feb. 24, the president said he prefers a diplomatic solution.

‘My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy, but one thing is certain: I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon,’ the president said. ‘Can’t let that happen.’

As the Geneva talks unfolded Thursday, Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also wrote on X that if the main U.S. concern is preventing a nuclear weapon, that stance ‘aligns’ with Khamenei’s fatwa and Iran’s defensive doctrine.

He added that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has ‘sufficient support and authority’ to come to a final agreement in the talks.

The development came as the U.S. continues assembling military assets, including a fleet of aircraft and warships in the Middle East.

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

Related Article

Witkoff warns Iran is ‘a week away’ from ‘bomb-making material’ as Trump weighs action

Vice President JD Vance said Thursday that the Democrats’ behavior during the State of the Union address this week ‘showed us that we cannot give power back to congressional Democrats’ in the midterm elections this November. 

Vance, speaking during a visit to a machining facility in Plover, Wis., made the remark before ripping Democrats for not standing up Tuesday in support of Dalila Coleman, a young child who survived after an illegal immigrant from India allegedly struck the car she was in on a highway in San Bernardino County, California, in June 2024. 

‘I want to talk about the stakes coming up in November, because it feels like this election in November is very far away. But if anything, the State of the Union should have showed us that we cannot give power back to congressional Democrats,’ Vance said. 

‘Now, I am fundamentally an optimist about this country. I believe most people, most human beings, most American citizens, whether they got a D next to their name or an R next to the name or they have no political affiliation, they’re good people. They love our country. They want our country to thrive and prosper. But I got to tell you, after the State of the Union, I’m not so sure that is true of the congressional Democrats that we saw at the State of the Union address,’ Vance continued.

‘For example, you have this beautiful little girl. She had such a sweet moment with her dad. You may have remembered, she was probably six years old. She had been assaulted by an illegal immigrant. She had had a very bad, I think, medical prognosis. But it turned out that she was okay. This 6-year-old girl, hurt by a human being who never should have been in this country in the first place, who was led into this country by Joe Biden, the Democrats,’ Vance said. 

‘And she’s hugging her dad, and she’s so excited. And you can tell, and I think everybody’s heart feels very, you know, you get that warm and fuzzy feeling. And then I look over at the congressional Democrats, and they’re just scowling. They cannot clap their hands for a 6-year-old who survived an attack from an illegal alien. What is that?’ the vice president added. ‘What kind of a person can’t stand up and cheer for an innocent young girl who’s doing well, who’s showing the entire country strength and resilience?’ 

The person driving the 18-wheeler that allegedly struck Coleman was identified as Partap Singh, who was charged with three counts of vehicular homicide and immigration-related charges. 

‘I think when that little girl was standing up hugging and kissing her dad, that those Democrats, there was at least a part of them, the human part and their soul that wanted to stand up and cheer for that little girl. And all of them sat on their hands. And you have to ask yourself, why is that?’ Vance also said.

‘And the answer is because they know they don’t answer to you, they answer to somebody else. They answer to people who have corrupted this country,’ he concluded. ‘They answer to the people who open the border. They answer the people who got rich off of illegal immigrant labor. We want you guys to get rich off of the labor of American citizens. We want American workers to get rich for working hard, not illegal aliens. And that, to me, is the fundamental difference between congressional leadership and congressional Democrats and the congressional Republicans under the leadership of this president.’ 

Fox News Digital’s Adam Sabes contributed to this report. 

Related Article

Leavitt says Democrats ‘fell right into’ Trump’s State of the Union ‘trap’

China is expanding a network of space facilities across Latin America that could strengthen Beijing’s military surveillance and war-fighting capabilities in the Western Hemisphere, according to a new report. 

A new report from the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party identifies at least 11 PRC-linked ground stations, radio telescopes and satellite ranging sites in Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile and Brazil — installations the panel says may have dual-use military applications.

The report calls on the Trump administration to ‘halt the expansion’ of Chinese space infrastructure in the region and ‘ultimately seek to roll back and eliminate’ PRC space capabilities in the hemisphere that threaten U.S. interests.

According to the findings, the analysis relies on open-source reporting, satellite imagery and Chinese planning documents that elevate space cooperation as a pillar of Beijing’s relations with Latin America. Lawmakers argue China’s military-civil fusion strategy makes it difficult to separate academic or commercial space cooperation from potential military applications.

‘Beijing uses space infrastructure in Latin America to collect adversary intelligence and strengthen the PLA’s future warfighting capabilities,’ the report states.

Lawmakers also raised concerns about oversight at certain sites, noting that in at least one case host-nation inspection rights appear limited. The report emphasizes that ‘host nations retain both the right and responsibility to verify that facilities advertised as civilian are not being used for military or intelligence purposes inconsistent with their national laws.’

One of the most closely watched sites is a Chinese-operated deep space station in Argentina’s Neuquén province, established under a 50-year lease agreement signed in 2015. The facility, which includes a 35-meter antenna used for satellite tracking and deep space missions, has been described by Beijing as a civilian research installation supporting lunar and space exploration programs.

However, the House report notes that the station is operated by an entity linked to China’s satellite launch and tracking network and raises concerns about transparency and oversight. In previous reporting, questions have surfaced about the extent to which Argentine officials have inspection access to the site, fueling debate over sovereignty and foreign control of strategic infrastructure.

The Argentina embassy could not immediately be reached for comment. 

Lawmakers argue that facilities like the one in Neuquén illustrate the broader concern that ostensibly civilian space cooperation can be integrated into China’s military-civil fusion framework, potentially supporting the People’s Liberation Army’s global space architecture.

The Pentagon declined to comment on the specifics of the committee’s findings but said it ‘continuously monitors developments that could affect the security environment, including space-related infrastructure and capabilities.’ 

A Defense Department spokesperson added that the department remains ‘attentive to activities that could impact stability, transparency, or the long-term security interests of the United States and our partners in the Western Hemisphere.’

The Department of War’s 2025 annual report to Congress on China’s military developments similarly notes that Beijing ‘has the largest space infrastructure footprint outside of mainland China in Latin America and the Caribbean,’ and assesses that expanding its regional space presence ‘almost certainly provides China with enhanced space domain surveillance capabilities, including against U.S. military space assets, throughout the hemisphere.’ 

The same report states that China’s growing space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities have ‘dramatically increased its ability to monitor, track, and target U.S. and allied forces both terrestrially and on orbit.’ 

The House panel also points to Chile, where a proposed expansion of a Chinese space-related project was put on hold following engagement from the Trump administration, according to sources familiar with the project. Lawmakers view the pause as evidence that diplomatic pressure can influence host governments weighing cooperation with Beijing.

The report further urges federal agencies to review existing cooperation agreements in the region. Lawmakers recommend that NASA examine any partnerships with countries hosting Chinese-operated space facilities to ensure compliance with the Wolf Amendment, a federal law that restricts bilateral space cooperation with China and Chinese-owned entities.

The panel argues that even multilateral arrangements could warrant scrutiny if they indirectly benefit PRC-linked infrastructure and calls on Congress to clarify that such agreements should not be structured in a way that circumvents existing prohibitions.

Related Article

CHAD WOLF: Space isn’t just the final frontier, it’s the ‘ultimate high ground’

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is accusing the GOP-led House Oversight Committee of using her to ‘distract’ from President Donald Trump during her high-stakes testimony in Congress’ Jeffrey Epstein probe.

‘A committee endeavoring to stop human trafficking would seek to understand what specific steps are needed to fix a system that allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes in 2008,’ she is telling the panel, according to her opening remarks.

‘But that’s not happening. Instead, you have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump’s actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers.’

Clinton is telling lawmakers, ‘As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities.’

‘I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that,’ her remarks state.

‘Like every decent person, I have been horrified by what we have learned about their crimes. It’s unfathomable that Mr. Epstein initially got a slap on the wrist in 2008, which allowed him to continue his predatory practices for another decade.’

The House Oversight Committee’s deposition is officially kicking off on Thursday morning after months of back-and-forth.

‘No one’s accusing, at this moment, the Clintons of any wrongdoing. They’re going to have due process,’ Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told reporters shortly before it began. ‘But we have a lot of questions, and the purpose of the whole investigation is to try to understand many things about Epstein.’

Hillary Clinton’s deposition comes a day before her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will testify before the panel as well.

‘Today will be a long deposition, I would assume, and tomorrow will be an even longer deposition,’ Comer said.

Both Democrats and Republicans on the committee, as well as the panel’s staff, traveled to the Clintons’ hometown of Chappaqua, New York for the two-day affair.

It’s part of an agreement struck between the GOP-led panel and the former first couple’s lawyers in order for them to appear in person.

Lawmakers on either side will have the opportunity to question Hillary Clinton in addition to their staffs. 

Fox News Digital was told that Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., will be the first lawmaker to question the former first lady and Obama administration official.

Mace was one of four House Republicans who successfully forced a vote late last year on getting the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release files on Epstein, despite pressure from GOP leaders.

The South Carolina Republican, who is running for governor of the Palmetto State, told reporters on Thursday that she would also be questioning Hillary Clinton on Trump Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, among other names that have been mentioned in relation to Epstein.

Comer told reporters she would also be questioned on her ties to Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, pointing out that Maxwell was present at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in 2010, after the first allegations against Epstein surfaced.

He also suggested that Epstein and Maxwell’s ties to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation would also see scrutiny.

‘Again, we’re not accusing Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing. We know that Jeffrey Epstein said many times in emails that he was the first person to raise money for the Clinton initiative, the Clinton Foundation, that he solicited money at some of his properties for the Clinton Foundation,’ Comer said. 

‘Again, that’s not saying anything illegal, but there are a lot of questions pertaining to Secretary Clinton with respect to Epstein and his involvement in the Clinton initiative and her relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell.’

But Clinton’s prepared remarks show her accusing Republicans of going on a ‘fishing expedition’ to find information that is not there.

‘If this committee is serious about learning the truth about Epstein’s trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press giggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement. It would ask him directly, under oath, about the tens of thousands of times who showed up in the Epstein files. If the majority was serious, it would not waste time on fishing expeditions. There is too much that needs to be done,’ her remarks said.

Neither of the Clintons has been accused of wrongdoing related to Epstein, nor has Trump. But both the current and former president’s names appear in the Epstein files numerous times, alongside other well-known figures like Bill Gates and Leslie Wexner.

Related Article

Clintons cave: Comer says Bill and Hillary to testify in Epstein probe

President Donald Trump’s administration is pushing for the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to nix temporary protected status for Syrians.

‘This application marks the third time that the government has been compelled to seek a stay from this Court after lower Courts have baselessly blocked the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determinations regarding Temporary Protected Status (TPS) just before they took effect,’ the filing declares.

The document notes that the high court previously issued stays amid legal wranglings pertaining to the administration’s move to terminate TPS for Venezuela.

‘Both times, this Court’s orders reflected that the government is likely to succeed on the merits of its purely legal arguments—including that 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(5)(A) expressly bars judicial review of direct or indirect challenges to the Secretary’s TPS determinations,’ the filing asserted. ‘And both times, the Court’s orders reflected that the government established irreparable harm and that the balance of the equities weighed in its favor.’

‘The lower courts’ arrogation of core Executive Branch prerogatives irreparably harms the government, and respondents’ alleged harms were inherent in the temporary nature of the program that Congress designed,’ the administration argued.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem moved to terminate TPS for Syria last year.

The notice declared that the termination of TPS for Syria was supposed to take effect ‘at 11:59 p.m., local time, on November 21, 2025.’ 

But the move has been stymied by the courts.

‘As in the two prior TPS applications, this Court should again stay a materially similar order with materially similar flaws. Moreover, given the lower courts’ persistent disregard for this Court’s stay orders, this Court should also grant certiorari before judgment,’ the filing on the administration’s push to terminate TPS for Syria declares.

The filing warned that, ‘Otherwise, lower courts will … continue to impede the termination of temporary protection that the Secretary has deemed contrary to the national interest, tying those decisions up in protracted litigation with no end in sight.’

This is a breaking news article and will be updated.

Related Article

US thwarted near-catastrophic prison break of 6,000 ISIS fighters in Syria