Democratic Gov. Tim Walz announced on Monday he is scrapping his re-election campaign for another term amid a massive fraud scandal in the state, but Republican lawmakers in Minnesota are calling the move an empty one. 

‘Don’t mistake Gov. Walz’s retirement for accountability,’ Minnesota state Sen. Mark Koran said in a statement to Fox News Digital after Walz’s Monday announcement. 

‘It’s an attempt to avoid it. Republicans will keep holding ALL elected Democrats accountable for Minnesota’s fraud mess, spending every dollar of the $18 billion surplus, and raising taxes by $10 billion.’

Accountability for Walz, according to several Republican lawmakers, involves him resigning as governor, which many have called for in recent months. 

‘The Governor is taking the easy way out, but it’s not good enough,’ state Sen. Michael Holmstrom said in a statement. ‘Minnesotans deserve and demand an IMMEDIATE resignation.’

‘Governor Walz couldn’t take the FRAUD heat so he’s getting out of the kitchen, but I’m going to keep holding ALL Democrats accountable for Minnesota’s fraud mess, blowing through the entire $18 billion surplus, raising taxes by $10 billion, and making life less affordable for all Minnesotans while rejecting Republican efforts to stop fraud. I’ll keep exposing these failures and holding Democrats accountable for what they’ve done to Minnesotans.’

Walz launched his bid for a third four-year term as Minnesota governor in September, but in recent weeks has been facing a barrage of incoming political fire from President Donald Trump and Republicans, and some Democrats, over the large-scale theft in a state that has long prided itself on good governance.

More than 90 people — most from Minnesota’s large Somali community — have been charged since 2022 in what has been described as the nation’s largest COVID-era scheme. How much money has been stolen through alleged money laundering operations involving fraudulent meal and housing programs, daycare centers, and Medicaid services is still being tabulated. But the U.S. attorney in Minnesota said the scope of the fraud could exceed $1 billion and rise to as high as $9 billion.

GOP state Sen. Rich Draheim accused Walz in a statement of simply ‘passing the buck’ with his ‘retirement’ announcement while ‘blaming Republicans for his failures.’

Minnesota Republican Sen. Andrew Lang echoed the messaging from his state party in a statement concluding that ‘retirement isn’t accountability.’

‘It’s him trying to wipe his hands clean of the fraud mess. But ALL elected Democrats own this. They fought Republican efforts to stop the fraud, failed to hold Walz’s agencies accountable, and let Minnesotans’ tax dollars get siphoned off by fraudsters.’

Walz met Sunday with Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota to discuss his decision to drop his re-election bid, a source familiar confirmed to Fox News’ Alexis McAdams.

Word of their meeting comes amid speculation that Klobuchar, a former Hennepin County attorney who’s been elected and re-elected four times to the U.S. Senate, may now run to succeed Walz.

‘Make no mistake, I don’t want Tim Walz to be our governor,’ Minnesota Republican state Sen. Andrew Mathews said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘But rather than swapping Democrat governor candidates, I want to FIX the damage Gov. Walz has done: Blew through an $18 billion surplus, Raised taxes by $10 billion, Oversaw one of the largest fraud scandals in the country, Left Minnesota for months chasing a failed VP bid, Now decides to leave office.’

‘This isn’t accountability. It’s avoiding it.’

Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

Following the dramatic capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the United States is now positioned to exert significant influence over the future of the world’s largest oil reserves.

What President Donald Trump does next could reshape Venezuela’s energy industry, alter global oil flows and redefine the balance of influence among major powers long invested in the country’s crude.

Here are three key takeaways:

1. Venezuela holds massive oil reserves, but production remains severely constrained

Venezuela, a country almost twice the size of California, sits atop extraordinary wealth. 

With more than 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Venezuela holds more crude than established energy heavyweights like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait. The Latin American country’s reserves are nearly quadruple those of the United States.

Once a major oil producer, the country pumped about 3.5 million barrels a day in the late 1990s. Since then, its oil industry has sharply deteriorated, with production falling to roughly 800,000 barrels a day, according to energy analytics firm Kpler.

A key reason: much of Venezuela’s oil is difficult and expensive to extract.

The country’s reserves are dominated by heavy and extra-heavy crude, which is costly to extract and relies on specialized equipment and refining capacity that have deteriorated after years of underinvestment, U.S. sanctions and political instability.

Similar dynamics have unfolded in countries such as Iran and Libya, where turmoil, financial distress and crumbling infrastructure have kept vast reserves locked underground.

As a result, scaling operations back up would require significant time, capital and technical expertise, with any production increase likely to be gradual rather than immediate.

2. Political risk remains a major concern for American energy companies

Decades of political instability, shifting regulations and U.S. sanctions have made Venezuela a high-risk environment for long-term investment. 

That risk dates back to the mid-2000s, when then-President Hugo Chávez reshaped Venezuela’s relationship with international energy companies by tightening state control over the oil industry.

Between 2004 and 2007, Chávez forced foreign companies to renegotiate their contracts with the government. The new terms sharply reduced the role and profits of private firms while strengthening Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).

The move drove some of the world’s largest oil companies out of the country.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips exited Venezuela in 2007 and later filed claims against the government in international arbitration courts. Those courts ultimately ruled in favor of the companies, ordering Venezuela to pay ConocoPhillips more than $10 billion and ExxonMobil more than $1 billion. The cash-strapped country has paid only a fraction of those awards.

That history looms over Trump’s latest proposal.

Trump said on Saturday he would seek to revive the once-prominent commodity by mobilizing investment from major U.S. energy companies.

‘We are going to have our very large United States oil companies go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure and start making money for the country,’ Trump said during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago. 

It remains unclear whether U.S. energy companies are prepared to do so. American firms have yet to say whether they plan to return to Venezuela to resurrect an oil industry hollowed out by years of neglect.

Chevron, the only U.S. oil titan operating in Venezuela, said in a statement to Fox News Digital that it was following ‘relevant laws and regulations.’

‘Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets,’ a Chevron spokesperson added.

ConocoPhillips wrote in a statement to Fox News Digital that it is monitoring the developments in Venezuela as well as the ‘potential implications for global energy supply and stability.’ 

‘It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,’ a spokesperson for ConocoPhillips added.

ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

3. The push reflects a broader effort to leverage energy for geopolitical influence

As U.S. and European companies withdrew from Venezuela, Russia, China and Iran expanded their footprint in the country’s energy sector, using financing, fuel shipments and technical support to maintain influence.

That shift has also reshaped how Venezuelan oil is traded. Sanctions have fueled the rise of so-called ‘ghost ships,’ nondescript oil tankers that disable tracking systems to quietly move Venezuelan crude to foreign buyers outside traditional markets. The opaque trade has reduced transparency in global oil flows while helping Caracas sustain exports despite financial isolation.

For the Trump administration, the outcome has underscored an uncomfortable trade-off: restricting access to U.S. markets can limit revenue for sanctioned governments, but it can also push them deeper into the orbit of strategic rivals, turning energy policy into a front line of geopolitical competition.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have unveiled a new spending bill totaling at least $174 billion that could get a vote in the House of Representatives as early as this week.

It’s a significant step toward avoiding another government shutdown come Jan. 30, the deadline congressional leaders set after ending the recent 43-day shutdown — the longest in U.S. history — in November.

The legislation released on Monday is a package of three of the 12 annual spending bills that Congress is charged with passing: commerce, justice, science and related agencies; energy and water development and related agencies; and interior, environment and related agencies.

Senior Republicans and Democrats both signaled support for the bill, which was expected after it was created as the result of bipartisan discussions between the Senate and House Appropriations Committees.

‘This bipartisan, bicameral package reflects steady progress toward completing FY26 funding responsibly. It invests in priorities crucial to the American people: making our communities safer, supporting affordable and reliable energy, and responsibly managing vital resources,’ House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said in a statement. ‘It also delivers critical community projects nationwide, along with investments in water infrastructure, ports, and flood control that protect localities and keep commerce moving.’

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the panel, said the bill ‘is a forceful rejection of draconian cuts to public services proposed by the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress’ that is free of what she called ‘Republican poison pill’ provisions.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said its release is a step toward avoiding a ‘bloated omnibus bill’ and would ‘spend less than another continuing resolution’ in an apparent bid to ease conservative fiscal hawks’ concerns.

Two of those fiscal hawks, Reps. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and Ralph Norman, R-S.C., sit on the House Rules Committee, the panel that acts as the final gatekeeper before most legislation gets a House-wide vote. It’s not immediately clear whether they will support the bill.

In a sign of potential support from conservatives, however, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., told Fox News Digital of the legislation, ‘We are still going through this minibus — but it appears to be in line with keeping this year’s discretionary spending below last year’s level — which is a good first step to actually lowering spending next year to control our runaway federal debt.’

The House Rules Committee is meeting to advance the legislation on Tuesday evening, with a final vote likely on Thursday. A subsequent procedural vote in the House, called a ‘rule vote,’ will need support from nearly all GOP lawmakers in order to advance.

The largest chunk of funding is aimed at the Commerce and Justice Departments, as well as related agencies. It provides roughly $78 billion in funding for NASA, the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons, among other areas.

Coming in second is the energy funding bill, which would devote just over $58 billion in funding largely to the Department of Energy. Notably, the bill beefs up nuclear defense and energy production funding, allocating roughly $25 billion to the National Nuclear Security Administration. A large chunk of that funding would be directed toward nuclear weapons activities and stockpile modernization. 

Rounding out the trio is the interior funding bill, which would provide over $38 billion in funding spread across the Interior Department, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Forest Service and other related agencies.

Notably, the package includes just over $3 billion in ‘Community Project Funding,’ also known as earmarks, which lawmakers request for specific initiatives on their home turf. 

While the last shutdown originated in the Senate, it appears that Senate Democrats are willing to play nice with Republicans ahead of the deadline.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said ahead of Congress’ holiday break that Democrats’ goal was to complete the remaining slate of funding bills by the Jan. 30 deadline and noted that ‘we want to get through the process.’

Given that the latest package is a bicameral, bipartisan product, Senate Democrats are likely to support it. 

Advancing the package in the Senate would go a long way toward funding the government but still falls short of the entire list of a dozen bills needed to fund the government. And there are still some more difficult spending bills lurking in the background, like defense, which Democrats rejected during the shutdown. 

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, touted in a statement that the funding package put Congress back into the driver’s seat of funding the government, taking the keys from President Donald Trump and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought.

‘Importantly, passing these bills will help ensure that Congress, not President Trump and Russ Vought, decides how taxpayer dollars are spent — by once again providing hundreds of detailed spending directives and reasserting congressional control over these incredibly important spending decisions,’ Murray said.

If the legislation passes both the House and Senate, Congress will have advanced six of its 12 spending bills. It’s worth noting that another shutdown would only affect the agencies and offices left unfunded at the time of its beginning.

While many Democrats erupted at President Donald Trump’s decision to arrest Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro on drug trafficking and terrorism charges, one particular prior taunt from former President Joe Biden resurfaced Sunday and promptly got ratioed.

Responding to an Axios report on June 21, 2020, that Trump would consider meeting with Maduro after the despot ignored the disputed election versus opposition leader Juan Guaidó, Biden said, ‘Trump talks tough on Venezuela, but admires thugs and dictators like Nicolás Maduro.’

‘As President, I will stand with the Venezuelan people and for democracy,’ Biden added.

Soon after the weekend operation at Miraflores – the Venezuelan dictator’s official residence – conservatives and at least one left-leaning political activist highlighted how, in the words of several civilian respondents, the comment ‘aged like milk.’

‘Whoops,’ remarked Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., who is also running for the Yellowhammer State’s governorship this year.

‘And now, every Democrat is denouncing an operation to execute a federal warrant while we slept,’ Tuberville said.

The Auburn football legend went on to claim Biden’s comment showed ‘Democrats have no principles [and] it’s about whatever way the left wind is blowing to gain power.’

‘Yesterday’s margaritas with Kilmar Abrego Garcia is today’s Maduro,’ he said. ‘They’ll support a drug-trafficking dictator because this was another Trump win. Guaranteed.’

The Trump campaign arm’s ‘Rapid Response 47’ X account also re-upped Biden’s message, responding with a photograph of Maduro blindfolded on a U.S. government aircraft following his capture.

‘A tweet that did not age well,’ added Fox News host and former Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany.

‘Has anyone called to see if Joe is still sleeping?’ remarked Pennsylvania state Rep. Aaron Bernstine, who represents Butler County, where Trump was nearly assassinated in 2024.

One respondent on X replied with a clip of Earl Sinclair from the 1990s ABC sitcom, ‘Dinosaurs,’ expressing surprise and dropping a glass.

‘This aged well,’ Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said of Biden’s comment.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., added in a statement on social media that Trump ‘doesn’t just talk tough, he is tough.’

‘Does Joe Biden have anything to say now?’ she asked, as other critics cited a second Biden comment from that timeframe wherein the Delaware Democrat called Maduro a dictator and criticized his ‘human rights violations and extrajudicial killings.’

‘Wait. You mean ‘Don’t’ diplomacy didn’t get it done?’ remarked former NYPD inspector Paul Mauro, who is also a Fox News contributor.

Mauro had referenced Biden’s widely circulated response to an inquiry about what his message to Iran would be to prevent them from intervening in Israel. ‘Don’t,’ Biden replied before leaving the stage where he was speaking at MS-NOW host Al Sharpton’s National Action Network.

In 2022, Biden climate envoy John Kerry – a former Massachusetts senator – was videotaped shaking hands and smiling in brief conversation with Maduro at the United Nations’ climate change summit that year in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

When pressed on the surprisingly jovial greeting, Kerry spokesman Ned Price said the Venezuelan leader had ‘interrupted what was an ongoing meeting at COP27’ and called the exchange ‘very much an unplanned interaction.’

Other critics pointed out that former President Barack Obama established the first bounty on Maduro’s head in 2015 via executive order, which was increased by the Biden administration, then doubled to $50 million by Trump more recently.

‘Joe Biden hated Maduro just as much. He just wasn’t bold enough to get him,’ said Ja’Mal Green, a former Chicago mayoral candidate and community activist who previously aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., but appeared to sour on some of the far-left’s policies under current Mayor Brandon Johnson and now identifies as ‘politically independent.’

‘All [Biden] did was impose sanctions and never get the money owed. Democrats have to stop.’

‘Under Biden, he watched as Maduro slaughtered and oppressed the people of Venezuela. He watched as Maduro lost the election but still declared himself the winner. He then just allowed millions of Venezuelans to come to America to claim refuge, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars,’ said Green, who has also criticized Johnson over Chicago’s response to the illegal immigration crisis.

‘Under Trump, Maduro FAFO. He swooped in and took him out of the country altogether,’ Green said.

‘Regardless of our disagreements, sometimes diplomacy doesn’t work, and we must use aggression to free a nation. Trump freed Venezuelans today and I hope one day they can go home to a stable country.’

Green referenced recent nationwide protests against Trump and said the craziest part of ‘socialist[s] crying about Trump taking Maduro [was] saying it’s because he wanted a regime change. Maduro didn’t win the election. He’s only there because he took over the country. I thought y’all didn’t want kings.’

Fox News Digital reached out to representatives for Biden for comment.

President Donald Trump was photographed with a signed ‘Make Iran Great Again’ hat alongside Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., as nationwide demonstrations in Iran continued against the regime’s political and economic corruption.

In a photo posted Monday morning on Graham’s X account, the senator could be seen flashing a thumbs up next to Trump as the president holds the black hat emblazoned with his signature.

‘Another great day with @POTUS who has brought America back, stronger than ever, at home and abroad,’ Graham wrote. ‘God bless our Commander in Chief and all of the brave men and women who serve under him.’

‘I’m proud to be an American,’ the post continued. ‘God bless and protect the brave people of Iran who are standing up to tyranny.’

Demonstrations have spread to more than 220 locations across 26 of Iran’s 31 provinces, the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reported early Monday. At least 20 people have been killed, the group said, and more than 990 have been arrested.

What began as protests over economic hardship quickly escalated, with demonstrators chanting anti-government slogans.

Iran’s collapsing currency has fueled a deepening economic crisis. Prices for staples such as meat and rice have surged, while the country grapples with inflation of around 40%.

In December, the government introduced a new pricing tier for its heavily subsidized gasoline, raising the cost of some of the world’s cheapest fuel and adding to public anger. Tehran has signaled that further increases may follow, with officials now set to review fuel prices every three months.

The protests have continued even after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday said that ‘rioters must be put in their place.’

Khamenei’s branding of the pro-democracy activists as ‘rioters’ came a day after Trump’s unprecedented message of solidarity with the demonstrators.

Fox News Digital’s Benjamin Weinthal and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Cuba acknowledged that 32 of its citizens — described by the government as members of the island’s armed forces and intelligence services — were killed during the U.S. operation that seized Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in Caracas, declaring two days of national mourning in their honor.

Havana did not specify where the personnel were stationed during the raid. But their deaths have renewed scrutiny of years of reporting and international investigations documenting Cuba’s deep and covert involvement inside Venezuela’s military and intelligence structures.

Jorge Jraissati, a Venezuelan political analyst, said Cuba’s intelligence role was critical to the consolidation of power first under Hugo Chávez and later under Maduro. ‘Experts usually link Cuba as the most important intelligence provider of Venezuela. This includes issues like running elections, building diplomatic leverage with other countries and keeping the security forces in check, among others,’ he told Fox News Digital.

Jraissati said any transition in Venezuela ‘would require the American government, in partnership with the Venezuelan people, to work together on minimizing the Cubans’ influence over Venezuela’s state apparatus and society at large.’

A Reuters investigation published in August 2019 found that two confidential agreements signed in 2008 granted Cuba sweeping access to Venezuela’s armed forces and intelligence services. Under those agreements, Cuban officials were authorized to train Venezuelan troops, restructure intelligence agencies and help build an internal surveillance system focused on monitoring Venezuela’s own military, according to the report.

Those arrangements played a central role in transforming Venezuela’s military counterintelligence agency — the General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence (DGCIM) — into a force designed to detect dissent, instill fear within the ranks and ensure loyalty to the government, the investigation found.

The findings were later echoed by the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela, which said it reviewed a 2008 memorandum of understanding between Cuba and Venezuela. The U.N. mission reported that the agreement provided for Cuban advisory oversight in the restructuring of Venezuelan military intelligence, including the creation of new agencies, training of counterintelligence officers and assistance with surveillance and infiltration techniques.

Former Venezuelan officials cited by Havana Times and El Toque have described Cuban advisers embedded across some of the country’s most sensitive institutions, including the civilian intelligence service SEBIN, DGCIM, the defense ministry, ports and airports and Venezuela’s national identification system.

Human rights organizations and international investigators say those structures were central to the government’s response to mass protests in 2014 and 2017, when Venezuelan security forces carried out widespread arrests and deadly crackdowns on demonstrators.

The U.N. fact-finding mission documented patterns of extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detention and torture, and reported that Cuban advisers helped train Venezuelan personnel in methods used to track, interrogate and repress political opponents.

Experts say Cuba’s admission that its military and intelligence personnel were killed during a U.S. operation inside Venezuela has sharpened focus on the alliance’s true depth, turning years of documentation into an immediate geopolitical issue.

Democrats’ anger over President Donald Trump’s weekend operation in Venezuela is now turning into demands for his impeachment by some members of the party’s leftmost flank.

Several progressives have now called for proceedings against Trump after the administration carried out strikes in Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. 

‘Many Americans woke up to a sick sense of déjà vu. Under the guise of liberty, an administration of warmongers has lied to justify an invasion and is dragging us into an illegal, endless war so they can extract resources and expand their wealth,’ Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., a member of the House’s ‘Squad,’ posted on X over the weekend.

‘We must pass Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s War Powers Resolution that asserts Congress’ authorities, and Trump must be impeached.’

Ramirez was referring to a resolution led by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., aimed at blocking Trump from carrying out military action against Venezuela.

Meanwhile, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who is facing a primary challenge from his left, criticized Trump for bypassing Congress to launch what he called a ‘war’ with Venezuela, and he argued the administration failed to give lawmakers ‘any satisfactory explanation.’

‘This violation of the United States Constitution is an impeachable offense,’ Goldman said in a statement. ‘I urge my Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives to finally join Democrats in reasserting congressional authority by holding this president accountable for this gross violation of the Constitution.’

Rep. April McClain Delaney, D-Md., did not mention Trump by name, but she posted on X, ‘Let’s be clear, invading and running another country without a congressional declaration of war is an impeachable offense. Whether it makes sense to pursue impeachment as the best strategy to end this lawlessness is a tactical judgment that our Caucus needs to seriously deliberate.’

And Golden State gubernatorial hopeful Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., did not rule out supporting Trump’s impeachment when asked at a press conference in California, according to local outlet Pleasanton Weekly.

Progressive House candidates also spoke up, including Kat Abughazaleh, who is running for an open seat in Illinois.

‘I demand that Congress exercise its power, halt this conflict, and impeach this war criminal president,’ Abughazaleh posted on the Bluesky app.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for a response.

Republicans and Democrats have, for the most part, been sharply divided in their responses to the operation in Venezuela.

Democrats have accused Trump of running afoul of U.S. laws to launch an illegal invasion of a sovereign country.

Republicans, meanwhile, have defended it as a successful move to take out a dictator and longtime hostile actor to the U.S. and in the region as a whole.

Top GOP lawmakers have also argued there was no need to notify Congress prior to what they called a law enforcement action rather than a military operation.

President Donald Trump on Sunday issued warnings about Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s political future and renewed threats to annex Greenland.

Trump, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, was initially responding to questions about a U.S. military operation in Caracas that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, as well as the future of Venezuela, when he shifted his focus to another South American country.

‘Columbia’s very sick too, run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States. And he’s not going to be doing it very long. Let me tell you,’ Trump said.

When pressed by a reporter to clarify his remarks, Trump claimed that Petro has ‘cocaine mills and cocaine factories.’

‘So there will be an operation by the U.S. in Colombia?’ the reporter asked.

‘It sounds good to me,’ Trump responded.

His attention then turned to Greenland, where he once again expressed an interest in acquiring the Danish territory.

‘We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,’ Trump said.

‘We need Greenland from a national security situation. It’s so strategic,’ he added.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen sharply rebuked Trump’s comments, urging him to cease what she described as baseless threats against a close ally.

‘The Kingdom of Denmark – and thus Greenland – is part of NATO and is thus covered by the alliance’s security guarantee. We already have a defense agreement between the Kingdom and the USA today, which gives the USA wide access to Greenland. And we have invested significantly on the part of the Kingdom in the security of the Arctic,’ said Frederiksen in a press release.

‘I would therefore strongly urge that the U.S. stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and people who have said very clearly that they are not for sale,’ Frederiksen added.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, and Denmark’s Ambassador to the United States Jesper Møller Sørensen all voiced strong support for Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland after Trump’s comment, stressing that Greenland’s future should be determined by Greenland and Denmark alone.

Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen condemned Trump’s remarks as deeply ‘disrespectful’ in a statement posted on Facebook.

‘Our country is not an object of superpower rhetoric. We are a people. A land. And democracy. This has to be respected. Especially by close and loyal friends,’ Nielsen wrote in part.

‘Threats, pressure and talk of annexation do not belong anywhere between friends,’ he added. ‘That’s not how you talk to a people who have repeatedly shown responsibility, stability and loyalty. This is enough.’

For three years, the Washington foreign policy establishment has insisted that there is only one acceptable outcome in Ukraine: total victory over Russia achieved through relentless military aid, indefinite financial support and escalation readiness regardless of the risks. But strategy and morality are not always the same thing — and real leadership demands confronting reality as it exists, not as we wish it to be.

I write this not as an academic or pundit, but as someone who worked at the center of this conflict. As U.S. ambassador to the European Union during the first Trump administration, President Donald Trump tasked me with bringing Europe into alignment — truly into alignment — behind Ukraine. 

That meant ending the EU’s habitual double-game: proclaiming solidarity with Kyiv while enriching Moscow through energy purchases and dragging its feet on serious sanctions. I saw firsthand how Europe’s hesitation and transactional approach sent Moscow exactly the wrong message. It told President Vladimir Putin the West was divided, unserious and ultimately unwilling to sacrifice comfort for principle. That perception was part of his calculus.

The uncomfortable truth is that the United States is closer to strategic exhaustion than our rhetoric admits. Europe’s defense industries remain underbuilt. American stockpiles are finite. And while Russia has paid a staggering price, it has not collapsed, surrendered or reversed course. Worse, every escalation increases the probability of something unthinkable: a desperate Kremlin resorting to tactical nuclear weapons. That would not be ‘just another step’ on the escalatory ladder; it would fundamentally shatter global stability.

Against that background, the Trump administration’s instinct to seek a quasi-business resolution is not weakness. It is classic realpolitik — recognition that the job of American leadership is to maximize U.S. security, economic leverage and strategic flexibility while minimizing existential risk.

Business leaders know what Washington too often does not: the perfect deal rarely exists. The question is not whether we can achieve a morally pure resolution; it is whether we can lock in outcomes that are measurably better for American interests — and for Ukraine — than a perpetual, bleeding stalemate.

A negotiated settlement, backed by enforceable conditions and leverage, could do precisely that.

First, a settlement can provide Ukraine with a bespoke security guarantee — credible enough to deter renewed aggression but structured to avoid NATO Article 5 entanglement. This isn’t a vague promise; it is a contract with clear performance terms. The U.S. guarantee would stand as long as Russia adheres to its commitments. But if Russia violates the agreement, the snapback provisions would trigger instantly — not months later, not after diplomatic waffling — immediately unlocking full-scale U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine, including offensive weapons, advanced air defense, training and intelligence integration.

Just as important, the consequences of Russian cheating would be explicit, not theoretical.

If Moscow breaks the deal, the United States would reserve the option to openly back Ukraine in retaking every inch of territory — up to and including restoration to its pre-2014 borders. Moscow would know this going in. Deterrence works best when penalties are unmistakable.

And crucially, this would all be public. No more pretending, hedging or quiet back-channel shipments. The world — and Russia — would know that renewed aggression automatically and lawfully unleashes overwhelming Western support, with the U.S. leading confidently and unapologetically. That clarity is a deterrent in itself.

Equally important, this structure protects U.S. sovereignty in the agreement. If Ukraine violates its obligations, the American guarantee becomes void at our sole discretion. Not a bureaucratic process. Not a committee vote. The United States decides. That means Ukraine has every incentive to maintain discipline and treat the arrangement not as a blank check, but as a powerful partnership grounded in responsibility.

Second, a negotiated deal can generate tangible U.S. economic advantage. Ukraine holds minerals and rare earths essential to American industry, national security and technological supremacy. China knows this. Russia knows this. Only Washington’s old guard pretends resource control is not strategic policy. A structured agreement ensuring privileged U.S. access strengthens manufacturing, energy resilience, and economic security.

Third, a settlement can wedge open the relationship between Moscow and Beijing. Right now, the war has pushed Russia completely into China’s arms. That alignment is bad for the United States and for global balance. A disciplined settlement begins unwinding that dependency. America doesn’t need friendship with Moscow; it needs leverage over it. Realpolitik is about advantage, not affection.

Fourth, a deal can compartmentalize strategic theaters. If Russia insists on regional influence, the U.S. can demand reciprocal space in our hemisphere — particularly in Venezuela, narcotics interdiction, and energy-linked criminal networks — reducing adversarial reach in the Americas.

Critics will scream ‘Munich.’ They always do. But Adolf Hitler was leading a rising ideological empire bent on global conquest. Russia is a demographically and economically declining power seeking regional positioning. Brutal, yes — but not irrational. Mature powers negotiate with rivals when negotiations produce superior outcomes.

Others claim any deal rewards aggression. That assumes deterrence is binary — victory or failure. In reality, deterrence is layered.

A settlement that leaves Russia bloodied, sanctioned, strategically constrained and facing automatic, overwhelming Western military escalation — potentially including U.S. support for Ukraine restoring its 2013 borders — if it cheats is not a reward. It is a warning carved into treaty stone.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian and financial realities matter. Endless war means endless dead Ukrainians, shattered cities and endless U.S. taxpayer exposure with no defined victory condition. That may thrill think tanks that never fight wars, but it is not serious governance.

Most importantly, a business-style settlement introduces accountability — currently absent from Washington’s ‘as long as it takes’ mantra. Under a structured deal, compliance is measurable. Triggers are automatic. Support is not improvised — it is guaranteed. Enforcement is not theoretical — it is built in. And unlike today, America would no longer need to whisper its involvement. It would act openly, decisively and with treaty authority.

The alternative? A forever war with rising nuclear risk, continued strategic drift, and deepening alignment between Russia and China. That is not strategy. It is inertia dressed as courage.

Realpolitik does not abandon values. It protects them intelligently. A disciplined, enforceable settlement — with clear snapback provisions benefiting both the U.S. and Ukraine; explicit authority to openly arm Ukraine and potentially support full territorial restoration if Russia cheats; and a guarantee revocable at America’s sole discretion if Ukraine violates terms — is not capitulation.

It is strategic control.

In geopolitics, as in business, the strongest player is not the one who insists on endless confrontation. It is the one who knows when to fight — and when to close the deal.

Tensions between Israel and Turkey are rising amid competing visions for Gaza’s reconstruction and widening strategic friction in Syria, even as both countries remain embedded in a U.S.-led diplomatic framework following the ceasefire with Hamas.

Israel has made clear it will not allow Turkish armed forces to operate inside Gaza, viewing Ankara as a destabilizing actor despite its public efforts to present itself as a reconstruction partner. Turkish sources told Fox News Digital that Ankara does not seek to deploy troops in Gaza, instead focusing on humanitarian aid, infrastructure projects and political influence. 

Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, said Israel views Turkey as a strategic threat rather than a neutral actor. 

‘From Israel’s point of view, Turkey is the arsonist behaving like the firefighter in Gaza,’ Diker told Fox News Digital. ‘If Turkey is allowed to enter Gaza with several thousand armed men, you can guarantee that this Muslim Brotherhood country will destabilize Gaza and dismantle the very 20-point plan that President Trump has bet the farm on.’

Diker said President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions extend beyond Gaza, pointing to Turkey’s military presence in northwestern Syria and what he described as Ankara’s long-standing role enabling radical Islamist groups inside the country.

In Trump’s remarks at Mar-a-Lago on Monday at his press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he repeatedly praised Erdogan and downplayed concerns about a possible Israel-Turkey confrontation.

‘I know President Erdogan very well… he’s a very good friend of mine,’ Trump said. ‘Bibi respects him… They’re not going to have a problem. Nothing’s going to happen.’ Netanyahu smiled and didn’t comment.

At the same time, Trump aligned himself publicly with Netanyahu on Gaza’s future, issuing his strongest statement yet that Hamas must disarm.

‘They made an agreement that they were going to disarm,’ Trump said. ‘If they’re not going to disarm, those same countries will go and wipe out Hamas.’

According to Diker, the president is deliberately managing tensions with Ankara by keeping Erdogan inside the diplomatic framework rather than confronting him publicly.

‘President Trump is very, very good at keeping adversaries close, together with allies,’ Diker said. ‘That’s why he keeps saying that he likes Erdogan. He wants to keep Erdogan in the party. He wants to keep him close.’

Diker said Trump understands his own leverage in the region and believes he can coalesce Arab and Muslim states when it serves U.S. and Israeli interests, citing coordination during the first phase of the hostage deal.

Diker said Netanyahu is now walking a narrow line, trying not to undermine the framework Trump has built while ensuring Israel’s security red lines are maintained.

‘Israel will not allow Turkish Armed Forces in Gaza. It’s not going to happen,’ Diker said, adding that Israel may still be forced into limited compromises to preserve Trump’s broader support, particularly on Iran.

Beyond Gaza, Israel sees Turkey’s role in Syria as a growing point of friction. Ankara maintains influence across large swaths of northern Syria, while Israel has continued air operations aimed at Iranian targets.

Sinan Ciddi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warned in an analysis that Turkey views Israel-aligned regional cooperation as a direct challenge to its ambitions.

Ciddi cited a trilateral summit between Israel, Greece and Cyprus in Jerusalem as a flashpoint, arguing it signaled resistance to Turkey’s ‘Blue Homeland’ doctrine and broader maritime claims in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Following the summit, pro-Erdogan media outlets described Israel as a major threat, while Turkey increased military activity that alarmed U.S. allies, including airspace violations near Greece and reported efforts to expand radar coverage in Syria that could hinder Israeli operations against Iran.

Diker said Israel’s recognition of Somaliland adds another layer to the rivalry, particularly in the Red Sea region. ‘The Turks are working in Somalia. They are also working to control and influence what happens in the Red Sea region,’ Diker said. ‘Which is why Somaliland’s development is very, very important.’

He argued that the move gives Israel a strategic foothold along a vital maritime corridor.

‘Israel then has a strategic base, a forward base in Somaliland on the Red Sea,’ Diker said. ‘Very, very important, because it checkmates Turkey.’

Diker said the move was viewed in Ankara as a direct challenge to Turkish ambitions in the Horn of Africa, adding that the Trump administration had ‘expressed its understanding’ of Israel’s decision.

Despite Erdogan’s harsh rhetoric toward Israel and vocal support for the Palestinian cause, Turkish diplomatic sources say Ankara is acting pragmatically. While Turkey sees financial and political opportunity in Gaza’s reconstruction, those sources say Erdogan is aware there is little domestic appetite for sending Turkish troops into the enclave.

That gap between rhetoric and policy, analysts say, is likely to persist. As Diker put it, Trump is trying to keep the diplomatic structure intact while Israel works to contain what it sees as Turkey’s expanding regional footprint. ‘Trump does not want to topple the apple cart,’ Diker said. ‘He wants to try to keep everyone together so that they can move to stage two of the 20-point plan in Gaza.’