As Japan marks the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings, the mayor of Nagasaki is warning that the world could see the same kind of devastating attack again.

Approximately 2,600 people, including representatives from 90 countries, attended the memorial event on Saturday at Nagasaki Peace Park, according to the Associated Press. At 11:02 a.m., the exact time the bomb exploded over the city, the attendees held a moment of silence. Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki, whose parents survived the 1945 attack, addressed the crowd and called for global action against nuclear weapons.

‘Conflicts around the world are intensifying in a vicious cycle of confrontation and fragmentation,’ Suzuki told a crowd on Saturday, according to a translation by The Mainichi. ‘If we continue on this trajectory, we will end up thrusting ourselves into a nuclear war. This existential crisis of humanity has become imminent to each and every one of us living on Earth.’

Mayors for Peace, which brings together mayors and city leaders from across the globe, is holding its 11th General Conference in Nagasaki this weekend as the city mourns the tragic day. The organization’s aim is to abolish nuclear weapons, a point Suzuki emphasized in his remarks.

‘In order to make Nagasaki the last atomic bombing site, it is essential to show a specific course of action for achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons. Procrastination can no longer be tolerated,’ Suzuki said, according to The Mainichi. 

The mayor also noted that the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) ‘will represent a crucial moment capable of swaying the fate of humanity.’

Every five years, world leaders meet to review the provisions of the NPT, which was opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force in 1970, 25 years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan three days apart. The first was dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and the second was dropped on Nagasaki three days later, on Aug. 9. The bombs decimated both cities, leading to Japan’s surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, and later the end of World War II.

A bomb nicknamed ‘Little Boy,’ weighing approximately 9,000 pounds and producing an explosive force equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT, detonated 1,800 feet over Hiroshima, causing massive devastation. ‘Fat Man,’ the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, weighed 10,000 pounds and detonated at approximately the same altitude as ‘Little Boy.’

‘I would like to express my deepest condolences for the lives claimed by the atomic bombings, and to all of the victims of war,’ Suzuki said, according to The Mainichi. ‘In marking 80 years from the atomic bombing, Nagasaki has resolved to continue our duty to relay, both inside Japan and overseas, the memories of the bombing, which are a common heritage to all humanity and should be passed down for generations throughout the world.’

He concluded with a declaration, which was also translated by The Mainichi: ‘I hereby declare that in order to make Nagasaki the last atomic bombing site now and forever, we will go hand-in-hand with global citizens and devote our utmost efforts towards the abolition of nuclear weapons and the realization of everlasting world peace.’

Why did the Sydney Sweeney ad for American Eagle become such a national sensation that has lasted multiple weeks? 

What made this story unique is that it wasn’t the outrage that prolonged the story but the reaction to that outrage. It represented a win for normalcy after many years of abnormal hysteria. 

Sydney Sweeney has great jeans, proclaims the American Eagle ad released toward the end of July. The ad has been called racist, sexist and more. The controversy ostensibly stems from a pun. The accusation that the play on words, that Sweeney actually has good genes, means celebrating eugenics. 

In one video, Sweeney says, ‘Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue.’

Thousands of internet commenters weighed in angrily about the ad, both because of the pun and because they didn’t approve of Sweeney’s classic American blonde hair, blue eyed beauty. Vanity Fair called the ad a ‘very, very bad idea.’ Megan Graham at the Wall Street Journal called the ad ‘male-geared’ and quoted TikTok users who used the term ‘male gaze,’ a silly film term that alleges women are often portrayed only for the consumption of a male audience.

The New York Times took issue with Sweeney doing so many ads for different brands. ‘Why does an actress who has two Emmy Award nominations and has been featured in a number of films and TV shows — including the hit rom-com ‘Anyone But You,’ which brought in over $200 million worldwide — need to lend her face to so many brands?’ they wondered while closely inspecting her bank account.

The Sweeney ad didn’t just show a beautiful girl in tight jeans. It represented a shift in culture, the left felt it and it made them angry. But the real test of that shift is what came next. Nothing. 

It’s one thing for a brand to make what used to be considered a fairly safe ad featuring a pretty girl wearing the clothes in a provocative fashion. It’s another for that brand to stand by it amid backlash. American Eagle put out a short statement noting ‘it’s always been about the jeans.’ What would have been a groveling apology just a few years ago was suddenly a terse comment telling people, essentially, to get over it.

One of the top comments on their Instagram page noted ‘It’s giving ‘I’m sorry you feel that way” which is another way of saying it’s a non-apology. That’s exactly right. American Eagle isn’t sorry and they shouldn’t be. Sweeney hasn’t commented publicly about the non-controversy at all.

Sweeney has been the center of dumb internet storms before and it’s possible she learned some lessons. Three years ago, Sweeney posted photos from her mom’s 60th birthday and, in the blurry background of some of the photos, red hats in the style of the Trump campaign’s MAGA hats are visible. Her brother pointed out that the hats actually read ‘Make Sixty Great Again,’ which did little to assuage the mob. 

At first, Sweeney tried to brush it off, posting on her then-Twitter account that ‘An innocent celebration for my moms milestone 60th birthday has turned into an absurd political statement, which was not the intention. Please stop making assumptions.’

But it was 2022 and the mob had total control over the narrative. A year later, in an interview with Variety, Sweeney somewhat capitulated and noted, ‘The people in the pictures weren’t even my family.’ In that same interview, Variety described her bikini photo shoot with them as channeling ‘a ’90s-throwback magazine queen.’ Somehow she wasn’t catering to the male gaze then.

In the parsing of the American Eagle story, some outlets have pointed out that Sweeney posted a Black Lives Matters post in 2020, which feels particularly Soviet. Does this person really believe? Is their zeal real? Is she for us or against us? Then the news broke that Sweeney had registered as a Republican.

A few days ago, the president gave new life to the story when he was asked about it. President Donald Trump responded, ‘You’d be surprised at how many people are Republicans. That’s what I wouldn’t have known. But I’m glad you told me that. If Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican, I think her ad is fantastic!’ The truth is, the ad is fantastic whether she’s a Republican or not. 

The larger win here is for giving people what they want. American Eagle wasn’t making a political statement, it was making a marketing one. Pretty girls wear our clothing and you should too. In May, American Eagle was forced to downgrade their outlook for the year after lackluster sales. Since the controversy, their stock price is up. 

If it’s true that they have good jeans, their growth will continue. They’ve done a service for the American people by standing their ground and focusing on their product.

On July 15, President Trump nominated my friend and former Gorsuch clerk colleague Eric Tung to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. If confirmed, Tung will succeed Judge Sandra Ikuta, who recently assumed senior status after a distinguished tenure. Judge Ikuta leaves behind a strong legacy, one Tung is more than equipped to uphold and extend.

Tung’s credentials are exceptional. He earned a philosophy degree from Yale in 2006 and graduated with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School in 2010. While there, he served as managing editor of the University of Chicago Law Review, one of the most rigorous legal journals in the country.

Following law school, Tung clerked for two of the most respected jurists in America: then-Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. These clerkships are offered only to the legal elite. Even among that group, Tung stood out.

Although President Trump made inroads during his first term in balancing out the nation’s most liberal federal appeals court outside of Washington, D.C., of the 29 active judges, 16 were Democratic nominees. Tung replacing Ikuta won’t change that balance, but it will ensure the vacated seat remains in the hands of a strong constitutionalist.

Tung’s brilliance, ethics, and temperament have earned him bipartisan respect. A letter supporting his nomination was signed by fellow Supreme Court clerks from across the ideological spectrum, from Justice Ginsburg’s to Justice Thomas’. That level of cross-aisle support is rare and speaks volumes.

One signer, Danielle Sassoon, a former federal prosecutor who has publicly disagreed with the Trump administration, went out of her way to endorse Tung. Her support underscores how widely admired he is for his intellect and integrity, regardless of politics.

Ultimately, what really matters is Tung’s record, and it’s unimpeachable. He is a brilliant legal mind, a fair-minded jurist, and a committed constitutionalist.

Tung’s experience goes far beyond the top of the legal profession. He served in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy, where he helped vet judicial nominees, giving him a firsthand look at what makes a good judge. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, he prosecuted serious criminal cases, gaining invaluable courtroom experience. Now a partner at Jones Day, Tung handles complex appellate and trial work at a national level.

Although President Trump made inroads during his first term in balancing out the nation’s most liberal federal appeals court outside of Washington, D.C., of the 29 active judges, 16 were Democratic nominees. Tung replacing Ikuta won’t change that balance, but it will ensure the vacated seat remains in the hands of a strong constitutionalist.

Despite this impeccable record, Tung’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was marred by partisan theatrics. Several Democrat senators ignored his qualifications and fixated instead on social media posts I had written. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., quoted part of an old post of mine and demanded Tung ‘condemn’ it. Tung, noting the canons of judicial ethics, rightly declined to weigh in, clarifying that my opinions are not necessarily his.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., followed suit, hitting Tung over a post where I had labeled certain Democrats ‘evil Marxists.’ Booker then attempted to cast himself as a model of bipartisan civility, citing his friendship with Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., conveniently omitting that he once claimed supporters of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court were ‘complicit in evil.’ Again, Tung refused to be drawn into political grandstanding, displaying the restraint and poise we should expect from a federal judge.

This guilt-by-association line of attack is dishonest and irrelevant. Tung’s record speaks for itself. Rather than engage with his legal merits, some senators tried to hijack yet another Judiciary Committee  hearing to score cheap political points. Tung never took the bait.

His nomination also highlights the double standard in how judicial diversity is treated. As the son of Chinese immigrants and a fluent Mandarin speaker, one would think Democrats would celebrate Tung at least for their sacred metrics of representation and diversity on the federal bench. But because he’s a conservative, his background is downplayed, or even used against him. The selective celebration of diversity and identity politics in judicial nominations is glaring.

Ultimately, what really matters is Tung’s record, and it’s unimpeachable. He is a brilliant legal mind, a fair-minded jurist, and a committed constitutionalist. His combination of courtroom experience, academic rigor, and ethical clarity makes him an ideal appellate judge.

The Senate should rise above political posturing and confirm Eric Tung without delay. His confirmation will not only fortify the Ninth Circuit, but strengthen the rule of law nationwide. President Trump’s reshaping of the federal judiciary with principled, constitutionalist judges will take a significant step forward with Tung’s appointment.

Eric Tung is exactly the kind of judge Americans want: sharp, steady, and scrupulously fair. The Senate must act upon its return and confirm him in September.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project.

Republican senators offered a range of responses when pressed on how the Trump administration has been handling the Epstein files controversy, with some calling it a distraction and others arguing the American people are ‘entitled’ to answers.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the ‘first phase’ of declassified files related to Jeffrey Epstein Feb. 27, noting the move was following through on President Donald Trump’s commitment to ‘lifting the veil’ on Epstein and his co-conspirator’s actions. Bondi also said the same month she was in possession of an Epstein ‘client list.’

However, the February declassification contained mostly information and files that had already been publicly available, and the Justice Department subsequently indicated that no ‘client list’ exists. Since then, a series of events, including a clash between FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino and Attorney General Bondi, have led to mounting pressure on the Trump administration to release more files. 

‘This is factual. Epstein trafficked a lot of young women, some of whom were minors. The American people are entitled to know who — if anyone — he trafficked these young women to, besides himself, and why they weren’t prosecuted,’ John Kennedy, R-La., said. 

‘Now that’s a very simple question that’s at the bottom of all of this. The Department of Justice is going to have to answer that question to the satisfaction of the American people.’

Kennedy’s call for transparency comes after the president described the Epstein situation as a ‘hoax’ while blasting Democrats and other ‘weaklings’ who continue to buy into it. 

‘Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bull—-,’ hook, line, and sinker,’ Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform last month amid mounting reports of internal division within the administration over its handling of the Epstein case 

When asked about how the Trump administration was handling the Epstein furor, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said he thought the situation was being used by Democrats to create a ‘distraction’ from the ongoing investigations into former President Biden and others, like the probe related to Biden’s use of an autopen tool to sign important documents and the investigation into whether Obama-era officials manufactured evidence to accuse Trump of Russian collusion.

‘Look what’s being investigated right now through the Biden administration. … So, what are they going to talk about now?’ Mullin asked. ‘This is nothing but a distraction from the actual facts that is coming out about the Biden administration. Of course, the Democrats say, ‘Well, we’re just about transparency.’ Well, where was the transparency the last four years?’

Democrats have suggested Trump could be implicated in the files, but Mullin said that if such a circumstance were true, the information would have been leaked by the Biden administration. 

Mullin’s counterpart in the Senate, Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford took more of a middle ground in his response about how the administration has been handling the Epstein files.

‘The challenge is there are people that are victims that are in it, and there are folks that are not criminals that are in it as well,’ Lankford said. ‘And the challenge the Department of Justice has is you’ve got a girl that was 14, 16 years old and was abused. Well, now she’s, let’s say 26 or 30, married and has children. 

‘Maybe her family knows about this, maybe they don’t. I don’t know the situation, but we gotta figure out a way to be able to protect those folks that are genuine victims on all this as well as getting out as much information as you possibly can.’

For Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the debate about the Epstein files was not something she was interested in talking about when approached by Fox News Digital.

‘I’m going,’ Collins responded when pressed on the matter outside the Capitol complex.

In a sweeping move aimed at rolling back pandemic-era mandates, the Trump administration on Friday directed all federal agencies to erase any records related to employees’ COVID-19 vaccination status, prior mandate noncompliance or exemption requests.

The guidance, issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), was a response to recent litigation and is part of a broader push to reverse what officials have described as ‘harmful pandemic-era policies’ imposed under the Biden administration. 

‘Things got out of hand during the pandemic, and federal workers were fired, punished or sidelined for simply making a personal medical decision,’ OPM Director Scott Kupor said in a statement.That should never have happened. Thanks to President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, we’re making sure the excesses of that era do not have lingering effects on federal workers.’

Former President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14043 in September 2021, directing federal agencies to require COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of federal employment. 

After the controversial demand, numerous lawsuits were filed by federal employees, unions and states alleging the mandate violated constitutional rights and federal labor laws.

A federal appeals court blocked enforcement of the order in 2022m and Biden repealed the mandate in May 2023, prompting OPM officials to issue a memorandum to human resources directors stating that ‘agencies should review their job postings … to ensure that none list compliance with the now revoked Executive Order 14043 as a qualification requirement.’ 

The memo also reminded agencies that the executive order could no longer be enforced.

In a memo to heads and acting heads of departments and agencies Friday, Kupor announced that, effective immediately, agencies are barred from using a person’s vaccine history or exemption requests in any employment-related decision, including hiring, promotion, discipline or termination. 

Unless an employee affirmatively opts out within 90 days, all vaccine-related information must be permanently removed from both physical and electronic personnel files.

Agencies must certify compliance with the memo by Sept. 8, according to the memo.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 Friday that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg cannot move forward with possible contempt proceedings against the Trump administration.

The case involves the administration’s alleged violation of an emergency court order blocking the administration from using a 1798 law to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador — the latest in an evolving, high-stakes court clash that has played out for months in various courts. 

Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, two Trump appointees on the majority-Democrat bench, sided with the Trump administration Friday in blocking Boasberg’s contempt motion from moving forward. 

Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented. 

The 2-1 ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the full court to be heard en banc, where the Democrat-majority bench is seen as more favorable to the plaintiffs, or directly to the Supreme Court for review.

‘The district court here was placed in an enormously difficult position,’ Katsas said Friday, writing for the majority.

‘Faced with an emergency situation, it had to digest and rule upon novel and complex issues within a matter of hours. In that context, the court quite understandably issued a written order that contained some ambiguity.’

Katsas noted that the appellate court ruling does not center on the lawfulness of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act removals in March, when administration officials invoked the 1798 immigration law to send more than 250 Venezuelan nationals to CECOT, the maximum-security prison in El Salvador.

‘Nor may we decide whether the government’s aggressive implementation of the presidential proclamation warrants praise or criticism as a policy matter,’ he added. ‘Perhaps it should warrant more careful judicial scrutiny in the future. Perhaps it already has.’

‘Regardless, the government’s initial implementation of the proclamation clearly and indisputably was not criminal.’

The ruling comes months after Boasberg originally found grounds to move on potential contempt proceedings in the case.

It comes as Boasberg has also ordered ongoing status updates on the location and custodial status of the 252 CECOT class migrants, after they were deported last month from El Salvador to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange between the U.S. and Venezuela.

It is unclear how many of those migrants had pending asylum applications in the U.S. or had been granted a ‘withholding of removal’ order blocking their return to their country of origin. 

The long-awaited ruling comes months after Boasberg ruled that the court had found probable cause to move on criminal contempt proceedings after he issued a late-night temporary restraining order on March 15 blocking the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport certain migrants to El Salvador.

Boasberg had also ordered all migrants to be ‘immediately returned’ to U.S. soil, which did not happen. 

Despite the order, hundreds of migrants were deported to the Salvadorian prison, CECOT, in March, where they remained until late last month, when they were sent from the prison in El Salvador to Venezuela, as part of the prisoner exchange. 

Boasbeg ruled in April that there was ‘probable cause’ to move on criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for failing to return the planes to U.S. soil and said the court had determined that the Trump administration demonstrated a ‘willful disregard’ for his order.

The appeals court granted the Trump administration’s request for an emergency stay of the ruling months earlier, prompting questions as to why they did not move more quickly on the motion.

Still, the decision is almost certain to be appealed either to the full circuit court to be heard en banc, or directly to the Supreme Court for review. 

The Trump administration for months has sparred with judges who have blocked the president’s executive orders from taking force.

Boasberg, in particular, has emerged as one of Trump’s biggest public foes. Last month, the court attempted to have him removed from overseeing the case and have it reassigned to another case — a long-shot effort that legal experts and former judges suggested is unlikely to go far.

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.

Amid significant budget cuts, NASA is fast-tracking the development of nuclear reactors on the moon and next-generation space stations with one clear objective: beating U.S. adversaries in the new space race.

Two new memos signed by interim NASA chief and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy outline a bold strategy to secure strategic ground on the moon. The centerpiece of this effort is a lunar nuclear reactor, a renewable and stable power source to support long-term exploration.

‘The goal is to power everything,’ a senior NASA official told Fox News Digital. ‘Our systems, habitats, rovers, robotic equipment, even future mining operations — everything we want to do on the moon depends on this.’

The moon’s environment makes this a necessity. Its month-long day cycle — two weeks of daylight followed by two weeks of darknessc — renders solar power unreliable. A reactor would allow missions to function around the clock.

China and Russia set sights on the moon

NASA officials warn that China and Russia have publicly announced plans for a joint lunar nuclear project by the mid-2030s. If they succeed first, they could establish exclusive control over the moon’s most valuable areas, locations with the most light and access to water and ice.

‘They could set up a ‘keep-out zone’ in the prime locations,’ the NASA official cautioned.

Despite financial constraints, Duffy’s leadership signals a renewed priority to lunar and Martian exploration. 

‘China has already landed on the far side of the moon. We never have,’ the official added. ‘They’re moving on a steady path to dominate this domain.’

New contract structure for nuclear reactor development

The new directive solicits proposals for a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor — enough to power about 80 homes — with a target launch date of 2030. It also requires NASA to appoint a dedicated program leader.

Today, many robotic spacecraft operate at just a few watts, the equivalent of a couple of light bulbs, which severely limits scientific capabilities. While the ISS uses solar panels, that model doesn’t work on the moon or Mars, where sunlight is too weak or unreliable.

Replacing the ISS: Commercial stations on the horizon

The second memo shifts focus to replacing the aging and leaking International Space Station (ISS), which is scheduled to be retired in 2030. Without a successor, China would become the only country with a permanently crewed station in orbit.

NASA now plans to select two commercial partners within six months of issuing new requests for proposals. Under Duffy’s direction, the agency is moving away from traditional fixed-price contracts and will instead use flexible Space Act Agreements, which give companies more freedom in how they build stations while saving time and money.

‘We’re telling companies what we need,’ a senior NASA official said. ‘But we’re not prescribing how they must do it. That flexibility saves us both time and resources.’

NASA wants the new station to be cheaper and easier to maintain than the ISS. Originally, it envisioned a platform that could host two astronauts for six months. But, under the revised plan, the minimum requirement is four astronauts for just one month.

Background: The Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destination program

NASA’s Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destination (CLD) initiative, launched in 2021, was structured in two phases:

• Phase 1: Fund companies — like Blue Origin and Northrop Grumman — to design private space stations.
• Phase 2: Award contracts for building and certifying selected stations.

Duffy’s directive calls for skipping fixed-price contracts in Phase 2 and continuing with Space Act Agreements, in line with tightening budget constraints.

Budget cuts reshape NASA’s future

According to the Trump administration’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal, NASA’s overall budget would drop from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion, a 25% cut. The Science Mission Directorate, which oversees research in planetary science, astrophysics, Earth observation and heliophysics, would face a nearly 50% reduction. However, human spaceflight programs are slated for increased funding.

NASA has also confirmed that nearly 4,000 employees — about 20% of its workforce — have taken voluntary buyouts in recent months.

Despite these setbacks, agency officials remain optimistic. 

‘Multiple companies tell us they can deliver a station within two years,’ one senior official said. ‘Timelines are always challenging, but we believe we can meet these goals — even on a leaner budget.’

While President Donald Trump previously refrained from speaking ill of Russian President Vladimir Putin, those days are over. 

The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine has changed the nature of their dynamic. Although the two appeared to get along, at least publicly, during Trump’s first administration, their relationship has unraveled as the more recent conflict persists. 

In recent weeks, Trump has refused to mince his words when asked about Putin. Trump said during a Cabinet meeting July 8 he was fed up with Putin and said he was eyeing potentially imposing new sanctions on Russia. 

‘We get a lot of bulls— thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,’ Trump said. ‘He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.’ 

John Hardie, Russia program deputy director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Russia started to attract ire from Trump dating back to March after Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire. But Russia has failed to get on board with a ceasefire. 

‘Really, since then, I think Trump has come to view the Russians as the main impediment to a deal,’ Hardie told Fox News Digital Thursday. 

Additionally, Hardie said that Trump has also grown frustrated that Russia will launch drone and missile attacks against Ukraine, even after directly speaking with Putin. 

‘What he’s sort of latched on to are these Russian drone and missile barrages,’ Hardie said. ‘That really seems to resonate with him.’  

Tensions only have continued to escalate between the U.S. and Russia since the July Cabinet meeting. 

Trump announced July 14 that he would sign off on ‘severe tariffs’ against Russia if Moscow failed to agree to a peace deal within 50 days. He then dramatically reduced the deadline to only 10–12 days — which ends Friday. 

The decision to reduce the timeline prompted former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to caution that ‘each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war.’ 

In addition to economic sanctions, Trump responded to Medvedev and issued a rare statement disclosing that two U.S. Navy submarines would be moved in response to escalating threats from Russia. 

‘I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,’ Trump said Aug. 1. 

Trump’s disclosure of the submarine presence puts additional pressure on Russia to come to the negotiating table, according to Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and director of the Hudson Institute think tank’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology.

‘We have used very sparingly submarines to try to influence adversary behavior before, but this is pretty unusual, to do it against a nuclear-powered adversary like Russia in response to a nuclear threat by Russia,’ Clark told Fox News Digital Monday. ‘So I think this is trying to essentially push back on Russia’s frequent and long-standing threats to use nuclear weapons in part of the Ukraine conflict.’

Momentum is picking up on negotiations though, and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin Wednesday. 

Trump said in a post on Truth Social afterward that ‘great progress’ was made during the meeting. And now, Trump and Putin are expected to meet face to face imminently in an attempt to finally advance negotiations to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. 

Still, Hardie said he is skeptical that the meeting between Putin and Trump will result in meaningful progress. 

‘I don’t expect a summit to produce much,’ Hardie said. ‘And I think Putin could try to use the summit to placate Trump and kind of buy more time continues assault on Ukraine, but I think his goal is he’d love to be able to enlist Trump in his effort to impose these harsh terms on Ukraine.’ 

Russia has pushed for concessions in a peace deal that include barring Ukraine from joining NATO, preventing foreign peacekeeper troops from deploying to Ukraine after the conflict, and adjusting some of the borders that previously were Ukraine’s.

It’s unclear if Trump plans to announce any additional economic burdens upon Russia Friday in accordance with the deadline that he imposed demanding that Russia signal willingness to end the conflict. But according to Trump, the ball is in Putin’s court. 

‘It’s going to be up to him,’ Trump told reporters Thursday. ‘We’re going to see what he has to say. It’s going to be up to him. Very disappointed.’

The White House did not disclose any details regarding potential Friday sanctions, but said that Trump wants to meet with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Putin to resolve the conflict. 

‘The Russians expressed their desire to meet with President Trump, and the President is open to this meeting,’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘President Trump would like to meet with both President Putin and President Zelensky because he wants this brutal war to end. The White House is working through the details of these potential meetings and details will be provided at the appropriate time.’

President Donald Trump is preparing to announce new secondary tariffs Friday on nations who conduct trade with Russia amid its deadly war in Ukraine. 

The White House has remained tight-lipped on what those tariffs will look like after the president first said in July they would amount to ‘100%’ tariffs before causing confusion earlier this week when he told reporters he ‘never said a percentage.’

While the specifics of what tax rates nations that trade with Russia could face remain unclear, Trump’s change in posture toward Russian President Vladimir Putin has become increasingly evident. 

‘Trump’s frustrated that the Russians have not taken advantage of his patience and generous offers, but it’s very interesting that even after Trump announced he was moving submarines, and even after he announced the tough tariffs, the Russians still want to talk to him,’ Fred Fleitz, who served as a deputy assistant to Trump and chief of staff of the National Security Council during the president’s first term, told Fox News Digital.

‘Putin does not want to anger Trump,’ he added. ‘Putin never worried about angering Biden, and I think that this shows a degree of respect. 

‘It shows what Trump has achieved by exercising leadership on the global stage. And we’ll see what happens,’ Fleitz said, adding he hoped it was not merely a stalling tactic by Putin.

Trump’s return to the White House brought with it a sense of shock as he appeared to distance Washington from its top allies in Europe in favor of attempting to improve diplomatic relations with Putin, culminating in the infamous Oval Office showdown with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in February. 

While the tussle brought renewed support from his top MAGA base, who favor ending U.S. involvement in foreign wars, it prompted concern among security experts. Ultimately, Trump’s patience with Putin began to shift, with the president consistently expressing his frustration at the Kremlin chief’s continued brutal attacks in Ukraine. 

In mid-July, while sitting next to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump announced Putin had 50 days to enter into a ceasefire or face ‘very severe’ tariffs that would affect Moscow’s top commodity, oil. 

‘Tariffs at about 100%, you’d call them secondary tariffs,’ he had said, indicating that nations that trade with Russia will see 100% tariffs slapped on them when trading with the U.S. 

This would most greatly affect China and India, according to data released by the U.S. government Thursday, which showed both nations account for 46% of all Russian oil purchases in 2025.

But the U.S. is also the No. 1 export market for both China and India, which means higher price tags at the checkout line on their products will make Americans think twice before completing those purchases. 

After ongoing trade negotiations with both nations and Putin’s continued war effort in Ukraine, Trump last week pushed up his deadline to within 10 days of July 29, forcing a new deadline of Friday.

But while his promised tariffs were met with applause by some in the GOP, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. — he, along with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-N.Y., is pushing the charge for 500% sanctions on Russia — other Republican members have not backed the move. 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has been outspoken against not only Trump’s tariffs but the bipartisan sanction push and argued to Fox Business’ Larry Kudlow this week that Trump’s tariffs on allies and foes alike will amount to $2 trillion in taxes for the American consumer.

But Fleitz pushed back on this argument and said he is not convinced that the tariffs will hurt the U.S. or Chinese economy, though Russia and India are likely to feel the pain. 

‘I think they’re going to hurt the Russian and Indian economies,’ he said, noting that India could recover by buying oil elsewhere. Though some reporting has suggested that India may have saved over $30 billion by increasingly turning to Russian oil during 2022-2024 due to Moscow’s price cuts. 

‘It is going to be another factor that’s going to pressure Putin to agree to a ceasefire. I don’t know if that’s going to happen immediately or in a few months, but I think it is going to put real pressure, inflict real pain on Russia,’ Fleitz said. 

Once a staunch Trump ally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R- Ga., took to X this week in response to a post by Trump that he would be enforcing tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil and said, ‘End Indian H1-B visas replacing American jobs instead and stop funding and sending weapons to the Obama/Biden/Neocon Ukraine Russia war.’

Trump’s favorable transition toward Ukraine and European allies has also ruffled some MAGA feathers, though security experts have argued it has given the president better leverage to take on major adversaries like Putin, and by extension, China. 

‘Diplomacy and negotiations are a good thing,’ said Fleitz, who serves as vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security. ‘Peacemaking takes time, and the U.S.-Russia relationship was in a very bad situation when Trump came to office.

‘I think these sanctions will hurt Russia very badly,’ Fleitz continued. ‘The fact that Trump knows that secondary sanctions on India has, at least temporarily, hurt our relationship is really a remarkable sign of how committed Trump is to these sanctions.

‘There’s not going to be exceptions. It’s not going to be some type of soft strategy with all kinds of loopholes,’ he added. ‘I think it shows to Putin how serious Trump is, and it gives Trump leverage to negotiate with Putin.’

Senate Republicans last month were able to advance President Donald Trump’s desire to clawback billions in federal spending, an effort carried to fruition for the first time in nearly three decades by a first-term senator.

While the effort to slash funding to NPR, PBS and foreign aid was born in the White House, it was executed thanks in large part to Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.

Schmitt, who was first elected to the Senate in 2022, has become an envoy of sorts for Trump’s agenda in the upper chamber. He has a strong relationship with the president that dates back to his first campaign, which has developed into a regular invite to join Trump for rounds of golf.

He’s launched probes against former President Joe Biden’s alleged mental decline, helped smooth over concerns during passage of Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ and contends that ‘intuitively’ he understands the president’s America First message. 

And his role in bridging the gap between the White House and the Senate, along with negotiating among his conference to get the $9 billion package across the line, has seen his stock rise immensely within the Senate GOP.

But, in an interview with Fox News Digital, he said his entire goal is to just be helpful.

‘I think I approach it with that kind of humility,’ Schmitt said. ‘But I also, I want to be successful, and I want the agenda to move forward. I think it’s really important. Being on the golf course with President Trump is a great honor, and we have a lot of fun. He’s a very good golfer.’

Schmitt, who previously served as Missouri’s attorney general before launching a bid for the Senate, regularly clashed with the Biden administration and said that his role of rebuking lockdowns, vaccine mandates, censorship and mass migration informed how he currently views legislating.

‘My job was to stand in the gap and fight back, with the hopes that President Trump would return,’ he said.

Trump endorsed Schmitt in 2022, and in return the lawmaker became one of the first senators to back his reelection campaign the following year. That turned into Schmitt becoming a mainstay on the campaign trail, jetting across the country in Trump Force One where ‘Big Macs and double cheeseburgers and quarter pounders with cheese’ flowed.

And when Trump won, Schmitt had the opportunity to leave the Senate and join the administration as attorney general, but he opted to stay in the upper chamber.

Had he jumped ship, Trump’s recissions package may not have been able to pass muster with the Senate GOP, where appropriators raised concerns about the impact that clawing back already agreed-upon spending would have on the government funding process and others raised issues with the funding that was targeted.

‘This wouldn’t have happened without Eric Schmitt,’ Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., told Fox News Digital. 

Britt was part of the same 2022 class of freshman senators as Schmitt, which included other notable Republicans, like Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., and Vice President J.D. Vance.

She said Schmitt’s leadership on the rescissions package, like listening to lawmakers’ concerns and negotiations with Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, to take the lead on the package, led to a final product that could actually pass in the diverse Senate GOP.

Indeed, Schmitt agreed to allow as many amendments to the bill as lawmakers wanted and included his own change to the clawback that would save funding for global AIDS and HIV prevention — a key change that helped bring more Republicans on board.

‘When Eric speaks, people listen,’ Britt said. ‘And he is thoughtful about when he uses his voice, and when he does it most definitely makes an impact.’

Schmitt, however, is more humble in how he views his part in the process.

‘People can label,’ Schmitt said. ‘I don’t get too hung up on any of that. Like for me, honestly, I feel fortunate to be in the position that I’m in. There’s really not a lot of daylight between the President’s agenda and the things that I support.’

Still, he was hopeful that another recissions package would come, describing it as ‘a good exercise for us,’ but noted that the timing for the remaining fiscal year would be tricky given the GOP’s continued push to blast through Democrats’ blockade on nominees and the looming government funding deadline when lawmakers return after Labor Day.

But getting the first one done was key to opening the door for more.

‘I think that was also part of what was on the line,’ he said. ‘When we were, you know, in the middle of the night, trying to make sure we had the votes, was that we have to prove that we have the ability to do it. And once you do it, there’s muscle memory associated with that. There’s a cultural shift in how we view things.’

However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has demanded that Republicans commit to a bipartisan appropriations process and eschew further rescissions packages.

Should another come from the White House in the waning days of this fiscal year, it could spell trouble in Congress’ bid to avert a partial government shutdown by Sept. 30.

‘I really think it would be a bad idea for Republicans to alter our course of action based on what Democrat threats are,’ Schmitt said. ‘At the end of the day, they’re an obstructionist party without a message, without a messenger.’