President Trump told Brian Glenn of the conservative Real America’s Voice that he didn’t want to answer his question because it was ‘off-topic’ as he stood there with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders.

Then he proceeded to answer it at great length.

The idea, it turns out, began with Vladimir Putin, who has a bit of experience at keeping himself in power, which isn’t all that hard if you’re a dictator.

My source? Donald Trump.

He said Putin told him that ‘it’s impossible to have mail-in voting and have honest elections,’ in an interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity. He said Putin told him he won the 2020 election ‘by so much,’ as Trump has long claimed, ‘and you lost it because of mail-in voting. It was a rigged election.’

Music to the president’s ears.

So Trump was ready when a friendly reporter asked the question.

‘Mail-in ballots are corrupt,’ he declared. ‘Mail-in ballots, you can never have a real democracy with mail-in ballots, and we as a Republican Party are going to do everything possible that we get rid of mail-in ballots. We’re going to start with an executive order that’s being written right now by the best lawyers in the country to end mail-in ballots because they’re corrupt.’

He was just warming up.

And, you know, that we’re the only country in the world, I believe I may be wrong, but just about the only country in the world that uses [mail-in ballots] because of what’s happened, massive fraud all over the place. The other thing we want, change of the machines. For all of the money they spend, it’s approximately 10 times more expensive than paper ballots. And paper ballots are very sophisticated with the watermark paper and everything else, we would get secure elections. We get much faster results, the machines, I mean, they say we’re going to have the results in two weeks with paper ballots. You have the results that night. Most people almost have, but most people in many countries use paper ballots. It’s the most secure form.’

A little fact-checking is in order.

As Axios points out, many countries around the world have some form of mail-in voting. And millions of Americans who live overseas, such as military families, are eligible for mailing in their ballots.

Trump actually doesn’t have the power to do this. While he says the states are an ‘agent’ of the feds, the Constitution says the mechanics of holding elections ‘shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.’ But Congress can change those requirements. Could the president get this through the narrow majorities in both chambers?

‘It’s a fraud,’ Trump said, adding: ‘It’s time that the Republicans get tough and stop it because the Democrats want it, it’s the only way they can get elected.’

Trump even invoked Jimmy Carter. In 2004, a commission set up by the former president and ex-Reagan aide James Baker III concluded that ‘absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.’

In 2020, Trump went all-out in favor of mail-in ballots, arguing that they would help Republicans. Of course, he may just have been trying to make the best of the tools already in place. No party believes in unilateral disarmament.

But his enthusiasm for mail-in ballots in that election stands in stark contrast to his current stance that they are corrupt and should be banned.

Trump wound up telling Brian Glenn, who is dating Marjorie Taylor Greene, ‘I’m glad you asked that question.’

The president doesn’t let himself be tied down by the rules of consistency that most conventional politicians have to obey. Until last Friday, he was insisting on a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine as a precondition for any peace agreement. After the Alaska summit, he dropped the cease-fire idea that Zelensky had been demanding, given that his country is being bombarded every day, with significant civilian casualties, and adopted the Putin stance of allowing the war to continue to further freeze his military gains in the crucial Donbas region.

But that flexibility – what critics call flip-flopping – has put the president in the position where he has a shot at hammering out a peace agreement, though major obstacles remain.

So I expect we’ll hear a lot more about how mail-in ballots are horrible and evil in the coming months, though whether he can get his Hill allies to go along is very much an open question. 

Russia launched its largest attack of the month against Ukraine while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with U.S. President Donald Trump and European leaders at the White House.

The attack also comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with Trump in Alaska last Friday, during which Putin refused an immediate ceasefire and demanded that Ukraine give up its eastern Donetsk region in exchange for an end to the conflict that began with a February 2022 invasion by Moscow. Trump later said he had spoken on the phone with Putin about arrangements for a meeting between the Russian president and Zelenskyy.

Ukraine’s air force said Russia launched 270 drones and 10 missiles into Ukraine on Monday night and into Tuesday, but that 230 drones and six missiles were intercepted or suppressed. The air force reported that 40 drones and four missiles struck across 16 locations, and debris was said to have fallen on three sites.

‘While hard work to advance peace was underway in Washington, D.C. … Moscow continued to do the opposite of peace: more strikes and destruction,’ Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha wrote on X. ‘This once again demonstrates how critical it is to end the killing, achieve a lasting peace, and ensure robust security guarantees.’

Energy infrastructure in the central Poltava region was a target of the strikes, according to Ukraine’s Energy Ministry. The casualty figures were not immediately released by officials.

‘As a result of the attack, large-scale fires broke out,’ the ministry said in a statement.

Oil refining and gas facilities were attacked, the ministry added, saying the strikes were the latest ‘systematic terrorist attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, which is a direct violation of international humanitarian law.’

The attack was the largest since Russia launched 309 drones and eight missiles into Ukraine on July 31, according to the air force.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said its forces shot down 23 Ukrainian drones on Monday night and into Tuesday morning.

Both sides have been targeting infrastructure, including oil facilities.

Zelenskyy had criticized Moscow for earlier strikes on Monday ahead of his meeting at the White House in which at least 14 people were killed and dozens more were injured.

‘The Russian war machine continues to destroy lives despite everything. Putin will commit demonstrative killings to maintain pressure on Ukraine and Europe, as well as to humiliate diplomatic efforts. That is precisely why we are seeking assistance to put an end to the killings,’ he wrote Monday morning on X.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett knows how to command an audience. 

This was crystallized Monday night at the Swissotel in Chicago, where she spoke for just three minutes to several hundred judges and legal professionals gathered for the Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference.

Her remarks, though short, were optimistic and warm. She urged the courts to keep their sense of ‘camaraderie and professionalism’ despite inevitable, sharp disagreements. This, she said, is ‘what enables the judicial system to work well.’ 

Barrett smiled fondly as she remembered her time on the 7th Circuit, where she served for several years prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court. She introduced the next speaker, who took the stage to another standing ovation.

And just as quickly as she entered the packed ballroom, she was gone.

As the youngest justice on the bench, Barrett’s ideology over her nearly five-term tenure on the Supreme Court has been the subject of furious speculation, and at times, just plain fury. 

Conservatives have panned her record as more moderate than that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she once clerked. Liberals have been incensed by her reluctance to side more consistently with the court’s left-leaning justices on abortion, federal powers and other seminal cases.

Barrett’s voting record is more moderate than Scalia’s, according to a June New York Times data analysis that found she plays an ‘increasingly central role’ on the court.

Barrett used her time on Monday to implore the group of judges to maintain a sense of grace, decorum, and respect for colleagues, despite the inevitable, heated disagreements that will occur.

The warm, if somewhat lofty, sense of idealism on display is one that is expected to be echoed further in her forthcoming memoir, ‘Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution,’ slated for publication next month. 

The theme of Monday’s remarks, to the extent there was one, stressed working toward common goals, accepting ideological differences and embracing disagreement while keeping a broader perspective — a point echoed by Barrett and earlier speakers, who cited David Brooks repeatedly in praising purpose-driven public service.

The upside of so many hours spent in disagreement, Barrett said, is learning how to strike that balance.

‘We know how to argue well,’ she said. ‘We also know how to argue without letting it consume relationships.’

This has been especially true during Trump’s second term, as the Supreme Court presided over a record blitz of emergency appeals and orders filed by the administration and other aggrieved parties in response to the hundreds of executive orders signed in his first months in office.

The high court has ruled in Trump’s favor in the majority of emergency applications, allowing the administration to proceed with its ban on transgender service members in the military, its termination of millions of dollars in Education Department grants and its firing of probationary employees across the federal government, among many other actions.

Even so, it is Barrett who has emerged as the most-talked-about justice on the high court this term, confounding and frustrating observers as they tried and failed to predict how she would vote.

She’s been hailed as the ‘most interesting justice on the bench,’ a ‘trailblazer,’ and an iconoclast, among other things. 

But on Monday, she stressed that the commonalities among judges, both for the 7th Circuit and beyond, are far greater than what issues divide them. 

As for her own work, Barrett offered few details — her remarks began and ended in less time than it takes to microwave a burrito.

It’s unclear if, or to what extent, Barrett’s schedule may have changed at the eleventh hour — a reflection of the many demands placed on sitting Supreme Court justices, whose schedules are often subject to change or cancellation at a moment’s notice.

The 7th Circuit did not immediately respond to Fox News’s questions as to what, if anything, had changed on Barrett’s end. 

Questions swirled as she exited. Had she planned longer remarks? Was the agenda misread? Or is she saving details for her memoir and looming book tour, as one reporter suggested?

Her appearance, full of irony, left observers with more questions than answers. Whether she addresses them in the weeks ahead remains to be seen.

Sen. Adam Schiff launched a legal defense fund as the California Democrat faces a federal investigation for alleged mortgage fraud and President Donald Trump repeatedly condemns him for years of allegedly promoting the ‘Russiagate’ hoax, according to a report published Tuesday. 

‘It’s clear that Donald Trump and his MAGA allies will continue weaponizing the justice process to attack Senator Schiff for holding this corrupt administration accountable,’ a spokeswoman for Schiff told the New York Times. ‘This fund will ensure he can fight back against these baseless smears while continuing to do his job.’

The legal fund, dubbed ‘Senator Schiff Legal Defense Fund,’ was filed with the Internal Revenue Service Thursday, according to the New York Times. 

Trump and Schiff have long been political foes, stretching back to the president’s first administration, when Schiff — who was serving in the U.S. House at the time — oversaw the first impeachment trial against Trump in 2020 for alleged abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and for repeatedly promoting the narrative that Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russia. 

‘Russia, Russia, Russia. Totally phony, created by Adam Schiff, Shifty Schiff, and Hillary Clinton and the whole group of them,’ Trump said from the Kennedy Center Wednesday. 

Trump was referring to recently declassified documents alleging the Obama administration ‘manufactured and politicized intelligence’ to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, despite information from the intelligence community stating otherwise. 

‘It made it very dangerous for our country because I was unable to really deal with Russia the way we should have been,’ Trump continued from the Kennedy Center, referring to Attorney General Pam Bondi. ‘And I’m looking at Pam because I hope something’s going to be done about it.’ 

Schiff also came under fire earlier in August when documents released to Congress by FBI Director Kash Patel reported that a Democratic whistleblower who worked for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee for more than 10 years told the FBI in 2017 that Schiff allegedly approved leaking classified information on Trump that ‘would be used to indict President TRUMP.’

Schiff notably served on the Jan. 6 committee, which investigated the day in January 2021 when Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol, and was among lawmakers who were granted preemptive pardons on President Joe Biden’s final day in office in 2025. 

Schiff, however, had publicly condemned the prospect of Biden doling out preemptive pardons as ‘unnecessary’ and setting a bad precedent. 

‘First, those of us on the committee are very proud of the work we did. We were doing vital quintessential oversight of a violent attack on the Capitol,’ Schiff said during a media interview in December 2024. ‘So I think it’s unnecessary.’

‘But second, the precedent of giving blanket pardons, preemptive blanket pardons on the way out of an administration, I think is a precedent we don’t want to set,’ he added.

The California Democrat also is facing a federal investigation for mortgage fraud, Fox Digital previously reported. Schiff has denied any wrongdoing, claiming the matter is a ‘baseless attempt at political retribution.’

The U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice in May claiming that in ‘multiple instances,’ Schiff allegedly ‘falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, impacting payments from 2003-2019 for a Potomac, Maryland-based property.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Schiff’s office and the White House for comment on the legal fund but did not immediately receive replies. 

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard on Tuesday announced her office had stripped security clearances from 37 current and former intelligence officials, accusing them of politicizing and manipulating intelligence.

A DNI memo sent out on Monday included the names of officials who worked at the CIA, NSA, State Department and National Security Council, including former Obama DNI James Clapper, who Gabbard claimed told officials to ‘compromise’ normal procedures to rush a 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment related to Russia’s influence in the 2016 election.

‘Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right,’ Gabbard wrote in an X post. ‘Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the interests of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.’

Notable officials on the list include Brett M. Holmgren, former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research; Richard H. Ledgett, former NSA Deputy Director; Stephanie O’Sullivan, former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence; and Luke R. Hartig, former Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council.

Also included was Yael Eisenstat, a former CIA officer and White House advisor known for her involvement in the Facebook election integrity operation.

Gabbard said the decision was made at President Donald Trump’s direction.

‘Our Intelligence Community must be committed to upholding the values and principles enshrined in the US Constitution and maintain a laser-like focus on our mission of ensuring the safety, security and freedom of the American people,’ Gabbard wrote on X.

The memo noted the revocation was effective immediately, and the officials’ access to classified systems, facilities, materials and information would be terminated.

The officials’ contracts or employment with the government are to be terminated and credentials surrendered to security officers, according to the memo.

Israel took out a terrorist during an airstrike earlier this month who was involved in the abduction of an Israeli man on Oct. 7, 2023, authorities said Tuesday. 

The strike, which occurred in Gaza on Aug. 10, killed Jihad Kamal Salem Najjar, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, announced. 

‘A small part of my closure happened today. Thank you to the IDF, the Shin Bet, and everyone who took part in the elimination of one of the terrorists who kidnapped me on October 7,’ Yarden Bibas said in a statement provided by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum. ‘Thanks to you, he will not be able to harm anyone else.

‘Please take care of yourselves, heroes. I am waiting for full closure with the return of my friends David and Ariel, and the remaining 48 hostages,’ he added. 

Najjar was involved in the invasion of the Kibbutz Nir Oz, one of the hardest hit during the deadly Oct. 7 attacks, where Bibas was kidnapped. Bibas’ family was kidnapped separately and was eventually murdered while in captivity. 

He spent 480 days as a hostage before he was released in January. His wife, Shiri, and their two young children, Ariel and Kfir, were killed before their bodies were returned to Israel. 

While in captivity, Bibas was forced to make a hostage film in which he was seen breaking down as Hamas claimed his wife and children had been killed. 

Hamas often uses hostage videos as part of what the IDF calls ‘psychological terror.’

Upon his release, Bibas’ family said that ‘a quarter of our heart has returned to us after 15 long months. … Yarden has returned home, but the home remains incomplete.’

In the aftermath of Hamas’ attack, the Bibas family became a symbol of the terror group’s cruelty. Video footage of Shiri Bibas holding her two red-headed children in her arms went viral across the globe. 

In April, Israel said it had killed Mohammed Hassan Mohammed Awad, a senior commander in the Palestinian Mujahideen terrorist organization and who helped lead ‘several’ attacks on the Nir Oz kibbutz.

The U.S. isn’t interested in open-ended funding for Ukraine amid ongoing peace talks to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, according to the White House. 

President Donald Trump, who ruled out sending U.S. troops on the ground to support Ukraine, is very ‘sensitive to the needs of the American taxpayer,’ according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. 

‘He made it very clear that we’re not going to continue writing blank checks to fund a war very far away, which is why he came up with a very creative solution to have NATO purchase American weaponry, because it is the best in the world, and then to backfill the needs of the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian people in their military,’ Leavitt told reporters Tuesday. 

‘So that’s the solution the president has come up with. We’ll continue to see that forward,’ Leavitt said. ‘As for any additional sales, I’ll have to refer you to the Department of Defense.’ 

Congress has passed several pieces of legislation to support Ukraine, totaling at least $175 billion in spending to aid it since February 2022, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Meanwhile, Trump approved a deal in July allowing European allies to purchase U.S. weapons, like Patriot missile defense systems, for Ukraine. 

The Trump administration’s defense budget proposal did not allocate any funding to purchase weapons for Ukraine, nor did the House defense appropriations bill passed in July. Even so, the Senate’s version of the measure that the upper chamber is slated to consider later in 2025 includes $800 million toward the program.

Leavitt’s comments echo ones made by Vice President JD Vance, who said Aug. 10 following meetings with European officials in the U.K. that he communicated to European leaders that the U.S. is ‘done with the funding of the Ukraine war business,’ and that European allies must take one greater responsibility in ending the conflict.

‘What we said to Europeans is simply, first of all, this is in your neck of the woods, this is in your back door,’ Vance said in an interview with Fox News. ‘You guys have got to step up and take a bigger role in this thing, and if you care so much about this conflict you should be willing to play a more direct and a more substantial way in funding this war yourself.’ 

On Monday, Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders at the White House, where they discussed various security measures to prevent Russian aggression against Ukraine again. However, Trump said Tuesday that sending U.S. troops to Ukraine to beef up security in the region was off the table. 

‘The president has definitively stated, U.S. boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine, but we can certainly help in the coordination and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies,’ Leavitt said. ‘The president understands security guarantees are crucially important to ensure a lasting peace, and he has directed his national security team to coordinate with our friends in Europe, and also to continue to cooperate and discuss these matters with Ukraine and Russia as well.’ 

After Monday’s White House meetings between President Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, the question remains: is Russian President Vladimir Putin prepared to sit down face-to-face with the Ukrainian leader — and on what terms?

Trump said he had personally called Putin to begin arranging a meeting. The Kremlin, by contrast, offered a more ambiguous response, acknowledging the idea had surfaced but refusing to confirm whether Moscow would accept.

For Putin, any such encounter would carry more weight as theater than diplomacy. ‘Putin would not like to meet Zelensky because he does not even recognize Ukrainian sovereignty,’ Ivana Stradner, Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital. ‘The only way that he can be in the room with Zelensky is if Trump facilitates, because Putin wants to show that Russia is equal to the United States… We are giving him that pleasure to feed his population about so-called Russian greatness.’

Ambassador Kurt Volker, who served as U.S. envoy to Ukraine in the first Trump administration, agreed that the Kremlin is unlikely to budge without concessions. ‘Putin is unlikely to accept such a meeting if his pre-conditions are not met,’ he said.

Those conditions are formidable. The Kremlin has already rejected NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine, while Zelenskyy and European leaders have ruled out surrendering territory. Stradner warned that Putin’s strategy is to test the West’s resolve. ‘Eventually, Putin would challenge Western soldiers on the ground,’ Stradner said. ‘I doubt, as things are today, that any of the Western nations, except maybe the Baltic States or Poland, would be willing to send their kids to die for Ukraine. And Putin knows this.’

The Russian leader, she added, has been emboldened by weak Western responses in the past. She pointed to the 2023 clashes in Kosovo, when ethnic Serbians attacked NATO peacekeepers, injuring 90. ‘What did NATO do? Nothing,’ Stradner said. ‘That was round one. And round two is on the horizon.’

Volker, however, struck a more pragmatic tone. He noted that while Putin may posture at the negotiating table, Russia is grappling with battlefield supply line disruptions and a faltering economy. ‘The real issue will be what happens to Russian supply lines, increasingly targeted by Ukraine, and the Russian economy, which is faltering,’ Volker said. ‘I still expect Putin to go along with a ceasefire in place by the end of the year.’

The White House has tried to box Putin in, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt insisting Tuesday that ‘he has’ agreed to the meeting. ‘Both leaders have expressed a willingness to sit down with each other,’ she said. Still, analysts caution that Moscow’s word is far from binding.

Russia’s foreign minister signaled that a summit was not impossible, but hedged that ‘any contacts involving top officials should be prepared very carefully.’ He also reiterated longstanding Kremlin demands that Kyiv roll back laws Moscow claims limit the rights of Russian speakers.

Maria Snegovaya, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said a meeting would mark a shift but not a breakthrough. ‘So far there’s no clarity, at least in the public space, that the Kremlin is serious about meeting,’ she told Fox News Digital. ‘Even if it still would not necessarily get us closer to an actual agreement, it would signal some willingness toward not trying to avoid provoking or annoying President Trump.’

Snegovaya added that Putin’s calculus is rooted in caution. ‘For over 25 years of his rule, Putin generally avoids attacking a stronger side. He usually goes after the weaker party… Georgia, Syria, Chechnya. I think he would be cautious about going after the will of the European allies, especially if a strong retaliation is promised.’

Putin’s ‘fear’ of Trump may be the last lifeline to end the war, according to Stradner. 

‘He does not trust Europe, he does not respect Europe. When it comes to the US, he despises the United States, but he fears Trump, because Trump is an unpredictable leader, and that’s that’s a nightmare for Putin.’

House GOP allies of President Donald Trump are nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize amid his ongoing efforts to stop the war between Russia and Ukraine.

Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., is spearheading a letter to the Nobel Committee on Tuesday alongside Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind. 

Their nomination hails Trump as a peacemaker on several fronts, the most recent being his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and subsequent meeting with European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

‘We respectfully submit this nomination of President Donald J. Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of his concrete contributions to international fraternity, his leadership in reducing conflict and the risk of war, and his commitment to fostering dialogue as a path toward reconciliation,’ Ogles and Stutzman wrote. 

‘His decisive leadership in securing landmark diplomatic agreements, de-escalating global conflicts, and actively pursuing peaceful resolutions to some of the world’s most entrenched disputes has led and continues to lead to a more peaceful world.’

Trump met with Putin in Alaska on Friday, the first time the Russian Federation leader spoke face-to-face with a U.S. president since the pair previously sat down together during Trump’s first term. Both sides described the meeting in positive terms.

It was followed by an extraordinary gathering at the White House on Monday with Zelenskyy and other leaders, where Trump pledged Ukraine would have ‘a lot of help’ for security, while specifying that Europe would be Kyiv’s ‘first line of defense.’

Trump said on Truth Social later that he spoke with Putin at the conclusion of that meeting and ‘began arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy.’

House Republicans’ nominating letter noted Trump’s move in ‘hosting a high-stakes summit with President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on August 15, 2025, focused on establishing a path towards a Ukraine ceasefire, prisoner exchanges, humanitarian corridors, and future security arrangements—a significant step in reopening direct, constructive dialogue.’

It also lauded him for ‘hosting a meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and numerous other European leaders on August 18, 2025, to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine and facilitating a discussion between Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin to bring about a just and lasting peace in the region.’

Russia invaded Ukraine in a bid to take over the ex-Soviet territory-turned-sovereign state in February 2022. 

Both countries have been locked in a bloody war that has taken thousands of lives, including heavy civilian casualties in Ukraine from Russia’s attacks on non-military targets.

Trump has argued multiple times that Moscow would not have invaded if he were president at the time.

Putin, along similar but not identical lines, said Friday that he believed there would have been no war if Trump was president at the time.

In addition to dealing with his efforts to resolve the Eastern European conflict, Ogles and Stutzman’s letter also lauded Trump for brokering a historic peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, ‘engaging directly with regional leaders on the Gaza conflict,’ along with peace agreements struck during his first term, such as the Abraham Accords.

‘Because of President Trump’s leadership, more people are alive today, and there are fewer wars in the world than before,’ Ogles told Fox News Digital.

‘He is a champion of America First statesmanship, proving that strength and prudence—not globalism—are the keys to lasting U.S. foreign policy. No other world leader can claim to have halted wars and begun resolving centuries-old disputes.’

Stutzman, calling Trump ‘the president of peace,’ added, ‘There is no one on the planet more deserving of this year’s Nobel Prize and multiple world leaders have recognized that.’

One Senate Republican has crafted a blueprint for how conservatives can take on Democrats in the courts and win.

Before he was in Washington, D.C., Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo. served as Missouri’s attorney general during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. And during that time, he filed lawsuit after lawsuit challenging the Biden administration, Dr. Anthony Fauci and even going so far as to sue China.

And more often than not, be it through uncovering discrepancies during the discovery process or winning multibillion-dollar settlements, Schmitt was mostly successful in challenging Democratic ‘lawfare.’

‘The fact of the matter is, what our fights were, were about restoring individual liberty and pulling back the expanse of government,’ Schmitt told Fox News Digital in an interview. ‘What the Left is trying to do now with their lawfare machine was, number one, they’re trying to put their opponents in jail, but then also to defend the expanse of government, to defend the administrative state. And I think if we have the right arguments, we can win.’

Schmitt detailed how to secure those winning arguments through his own experiences in his latest book ‘The Last Line of Defense: How to Beat the Left in Court.’

He described the book as ‘a field manual from the front lines of the battles that were fought against the left-wing law machine.’ Indeed, Schmitt outlined a guide for attorneys general across the country to take on challenges at all levels, from local to federal.

‘Our playbook really is… really in response to what their playbook was, to create a manufactured emergency, a real or manufactured emergency, to aggregate power, to exercise it in ways that never were imagined to other folks who disagree and silence dissent,’ Schmitt said. ‘That’s what they were really trying to do.’

In some cases, he went beyond the country’s borders and sued a foreign country, as Schmitt did to China. He argued in the book that the Chinese Communist Party had withheld information on the COVID-19 virus, and was actively hoarding high-quality personal protective equipment (PPE) while producing and selling lower-quality PPE for the rest of the world. That case resulted in an eventual $24 billion judgment earlier this year.

From there, Schmitt challenged former President Joe Biden’s student loan debt cancellation plan by focusing his case on a local student loan servicing company, a plan that was ultimately blocked by the Supreme Court just months into Schmitt’s first year as a lawmaker in 2023.

Through it all, the pandemic was the ‘inflection point,’ Schmitt said, and his biggest target became Fauci.

He got an opportunity to depose Fauci, who served as the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and medical advisor to Biden, as part of his lawsuit taking on censorship and suppression by social media platforms like Facebook.

‘He wanted to silence anybody who talked about it being a lab leak,’ Schmitt said. ‘Which, of course, we know is that’s exactly what it was now. It wasn’t some bat mating with a penguin, you know, this was actually in the Wuhan Institute of Virology is where this thing came from.’

Schmitt, who is a fan of both Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Justice Antonin Scalia — particularly Scalia’s usage of originalism, or interpreting the Constitution as it was written rather than as a living document — noted in the book that there has been a ‘complete shift’ in the courts.

In particular, conservative-leaning justices have the majority on the Supreme Court, and courts across the country are being filled, albeit slowly, with President Donald Trump’s picks.

When asked if he was at all concerned about partisan politicking coming to the bench, Schmitt countered that courts are returning to a legal system that had been ‘disrupted by the progressive era, beginning with Woodrow Wilson and the rise of the administrative state, FDR, who threatened to pack the court.’

‘The Constitution means exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less, just like our laws,’ he said. ‘They mean what they say, nothing more, nothing less.’ 

‘I don’t want a judge to necessarily agree with my politics,’ he continued. ‘I just want a judge to adhere to the Constitution.’