A bipartisan pair of senators are calling on Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth to hand over copies of the orders issued to strike boats in the Caribbean allegedly carrying narco-terrorists.

Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Roger Wicker, R-Miss., released two letters they sent to Hegseth in recent weeks in response to the repeated strikes on suspected drug boats.

The first letter, which was issued on Sept. 23, explained the legal requirements for congressional oversight over the military’s executed orders, including that congressional defense committees must be provided copies of the orders within 15 days of being issued.

‘Unfortunately, the Department has not complied with this requirement,’ the letter reads.

The second letter, issued on Oct. 6, seeks a written opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) on the domestic or international legal basis for conducting the strikes and related operations.

Reports indicate that the OLC produced a legal opinion justifying the strikes, which numerous lawmakers have been demanding in recent weeks.

The senators’ letter also asked for a complete list ‘of all designated terrorist organizations and drug trafficking organizations with whom the President has determined the United States is in a non-international armed conflict and against whom lethal military force may be used.’

‘To date, these documents have not been submitted,’ Reed’s office said in a news release on Friday.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have urged the Trump administration to release information related to the strikes.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized the administration on Thursday after it excluded Democrats from briefings on the strikes, a move he called ‘indefensible and dangerous.’

On Wednesday, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also penned a letter demanding to review the legal justification behind the series of boat strikes they say appear to violate several laws.

‘Drug trafficking is a terrible crime that has had devastating impacts on American families and communities and should be prosecuted. Nonetheless, the President’s actions to hold alleged drug traffickers accountable must still conform with the law,’ the letter states.

The strikes have also garnered scrutiny from Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who raised concerns about killing people without due process and the possibility of killing innocent people.

Paul has cited Coast Guard statistics that show a significant percentage of boats boarded for suspicion of drug trafficking are innocent.

The senator has also argued that if the administration plans to engage in a war with Venezuela after it has targeted boats it claims are transporting drugs for the Venezuela-linked Tren de Aragua gang, it must seek a declaration of war from Congress.

In the House, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has made similar statements.

A report published on Friday suggested the U.S. military was planning to strike military installations in Venezuela, but President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the report was inaccurate.

This comes as Hegseth announced the U.S. military on Wednesday struck another boat carrying alleged narco-terrorists. The strikes were carried out in the Eastern Pacific region at the direction of Trump, killing four men on board.

That was the 14th strike on suspected drug boats since September. A total of 61 people have reportedly been killed while three survived, including at least two who were later repatriated to their home countries.

The Pentagon has refused to release the identities of those killed or evidence that drugs were on board.

Israel said the remains of three people returned by Hamas on Friday did not match any of the deceased hostages. 

Following forensic testing, Israeli officials said it was concluded that the remains do not belong to the 11 deceased hostages still being held in Gaza, Fox News has learned.

‘The remains we received are not our hostages,’ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office told The Associated Press following the examination of the remains. However, neither Netanyahu’s office nor any other Israeli authorities confirmed the identities of the remains to the AP. It is still unclear who these people were and why they were given to Israel.

Since the U.S.-brokered ceasefire, which began earlier this month, Hamas has returned the remains of 17 hostages. With those already handed over, there have been instances in which Israel has claimed that Hamas returned remains that did not match the remaining deceased hostages. Hamas previously returned additional remains belonging to Ofir Tzarfati, whose body was first recovered in 2023.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) made clear its role in the transfer of hostages’ remains. In a statement, the ICRC said that it ‘does not take part in locating the remains.’

‘In accordance with international humanitarian law, it is the responsibility of the parties to search for, collect, and return the dead,’ the ICRC said.

On Thursday, Israel received the remains of Amiram Cooper and Sahar Baruch, leaving 11 deceased hostages in the Gaza Strip, including U.S. citizens Itay Chen and Omer Neutra.

Israeli intelligence suggests Cooper was alive when he was taken from his home in Kibbutz Nir Oz during the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said that it estimates Cooper was killed in February 2024. He was 84 years old. Cooper leaves behind a wife, four children and 11 grandchildren.

Baruch was taken from his home in Kibbutz Be’eri during the massacre. The IDF said that it estimates he was murdered on Dec. 8, 2023, at the age of 25. Baruch leaves behind his parents and two siblings.

In addition to Neutra and Chen, the remaining deceased hostages include Meny Godard, Hadar Goldin, Ran Gvili, Asaf Hamami, Joshua Loitu Mollel, Dror Or, Oz Daniel, Lior Rudaeff and Sudthisak Rinthalak.

Fox News’ Yonat Friling and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The First Amendment won out this week in a court case over a man who repeatedly called for President Donald Trump’s assassination and openly fantasized about his violent demise. 

A jury acquitted the man, Peter Stinson, of one charge of soliciting a crime of violence, raising questions about when speech is protected by the Constitution and when it becomes incriminating.

A former longtime Coast Guard officer, Stinson called for someone to ‘take the shot’ in reference to Trump, according to court papers. ‘Realistically the only solution is violence,’ Stinson wrote.

Stinson said he ‘would twist the knife after sliding it into [Trump’s] fatty flesh’ and that he ‘would be willing to pitch in’ for a hitman contract.

‘He wants us dead. I can say the same thing about him,’ Stinson wrote in another post during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A witness for the defense, Professor Jen Golbeck of the University of Maryland, said people ‘rooting for Trump to die online’ is common.

‘On one hand, I would not encourage anyone to post those thoughts on social media,’ Golbeck said, according to the Washington Post. ‘On the other hand, I can’t count the number of people who I saw post similar things. … It’s a very common sentiment. There’s social media accounts dedicated to tracking whether Trump has died.’

Brennen VanderVeen, program counsel with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that one issue with the charges in Stinson’s case was that it was not clear whom Stinson was soliciting to carry out the crime.

‘Solicitation is when it’s directly tied to the crime. So, if he contacts an actual hit man and tries to arrange some sort of hit contract, that’s solicitation,’ VanderVeen told Fox News Digital. ‘Without more … that probably does not meet the elements of actual solicitation.’

Stinson’s attorneys argued in court documents that their client’s posts were not threats but rather ‘political advocacy that the First Amendment was squarely designed to protect.’

‘They lack the ‘specificity, imminence, and likelihood of producing lawless action’ required to fall outside constitutional protection,’ the attorneys said.

Threats to conservative SCOTUS justices and Obama

The jury acquittal, which was handed down quickly after a two-day trial, came at a time when political violence has taken the spotlight, particularly in the aftermath of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a string of recent violence toward immigration enforcement officers and Republican and Democratic political figures continuously facing threats.

A person convicted of attempting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh had taken concrete steps by searching the internet for mass shootings, discussing killing a Supreme Court justice in internet chats and showing up armed at Kavanaugh’s house in 2022.

A man who participated in the Jan. 6 riot was convicted by a judge in a separate case of firearms charges and making a hoax threat aimed at former President Barack Obama. He was sentenced this week to time served after he livestreamed himself driving around the former president’s neighborhood and saying he was ‘working on a detonator.’ He was found with a machete and illegal weapons.

In a looming constitutional test, another man is facing charges of threatening federal judges by sending hundreds of ominous messages through the Supreme Court website referencing several justices’ graphic murders. He tried to have his case tossed out over First Amendment concerns, but a judge denied the request, saying a jury would need to weigh that argument.

Presidents, senators, House members and other political figures routinely speak about facing a range of threats, whether in public forums or through direct messages.

High court greenlights ‘vituperative’ language

One legal test in these cases came in 1969, when the Supreme Court decided in favor of a protester who allegedly told a group of people while discussing getting drafted for the Vietnam War that if he is given a rifle, the first man he wants to kill is President Lyndon Johnson. His remark was political hyperbole rather than a ‘true threat,’ the high court found.

‘What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,’ the majority wrote. ‘The language of the political arena … is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.’

Stinson was initially charged with two counts of a threat against the president, but the DOJ shifted course and brought the one solicitation charge against him.

Department of Justice lawyers argued that Stinson’s incessant violent comments on X and Bluesky, coupled with self-identifying as an Antifa member, met the charging criteria, but prosecutors failed to convince a jury that the speech was more than bluster.

Kirk spurs examination of ‘hate speech’

In the case of Kirk’s murder, finger-pointing ensued. Republicans blamed inflammatory rhetoric from Kirk’s political opponents for inciting his death.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stirred the conversation by saying in an interview after Kirk’s death that the DOJ would ‘absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.’ Bondi later walked back her comment, saying speech that ‘crosses the line into threats of violence’ is punishable by law.

In cases of inciting violence, according to VanderVeen, speech remains protected because of a lacking nexus between the words and the attack.

‘Incitement is more about the imminence. … How much time would have to pass between that person’s speech and the actual unlawful act of the violence?’ VanderVeen said, noting that inciting violence typically involves addressing a mob.

‘If someone’s saying, ‘Violence is good,’ but there’s no imminent lawless action there, someone else has to say, ‘That guy’s right, that violence is good. I’m going to start doing violence,” VanderVeen said. ‘At that point, that’s on the person doing the violence.’

A handful of judges, some of whom are Supreme Court contenders, will tackle antisemitism at an annual convention this week, joining a rare multi-judge panel in a forum typically reserved for one-person lectures, Fox News Digital has learned. 

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman, who will moderate the discussion among the judicial heavyweights, said the panel is ‘unprecedented’ and a needed change to address what he said was a rise in antisemitism in the aftermath of Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel in 2023. The panel is part of the Federalist Society’s annual National Lawyers Convention.

‘This conversation on faith, understanding, and moral responsibility could not be more timely,’ Altman said. ‘It reflects the importance of the moment, the endurance of Western values, and Judge [Robert] Bork’s abiding belief in moral clarity and in the strength that comes from open dialogue.’

The judges who will participate in the discussion include seven Trump appointees, including Altman, one appointee of former President George Bush, and a justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

They include Judge Amul Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, who was floated in Bloomberg Law as a good successor to Justice Clarence Thomas, in part because he would be the first Asian American justice, a ‘positive’ when weighing replacing the second-ever Black justice.

Two others, Judge David Stras and Raymond Gruender, both of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, were on Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist during the president’s first term. Judge Martha Pacold of the Northern District of Illinois appeared on another one of Trump’s shortlists in 2020.

The Federalist Society event has for years been named after the late Bork, who, incidentally, once helped break a law firm’s avoidance of hiring Jewish lawyers, according to Senate testimony by his peers in 1987. 

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Altman, a vocal Jewish judge who is based in the Southern District of Florida, said he has also arranged numerous trips for federal judges of varying faiths to visit Israel after the Oct. 7 attack.

He said that although his personal conversations about Israel had largely been centered on campuses, ‘it became clear’ to him that the judiciary needed to chime in because heated discourse surrounding the topic involved legal questions.

The deadly attack in Israel reignited conflict in Gaza and led to nationwide anti-Israel protests, especially on U.S. college campuses. Protesters claimed Israel was killing thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza indiscriminately, while the Israeli government said it gave fair warning about its offensive and that its targets were Hamas terrorists.

‘Those claims, is Israel violating the laws of war? Is it an apartheid state? Does it occupy land that doesn’t belong to it?’ Altman said. ‘Those are just legal questions with legal answers, and I thought, who better than federal judges to understand what the applicable legal rule is, to adduce and find out what the relevant facts are, and then to apply the facts to the law and issue a judgment, than a federal judge.’

Some of the judges who will participate on the panel have been on Altman’s Israel trips.

The Federalist Society indicated that the judges plan to speak about their personal experiences talking with people of other faiths about anti-Jewish sentiments. They also plan to address First Amendment concerns surrounding antisemitism.

The discussion comes as the Trump administration has aggressively targeted noncitizens for speech that it has claimed in court is at odds with its national security posture because it is too critical of Israel and potentially supportive of Hamas.

Free speech proponents have warned that offensive and politically charged speech is protected under the Constitution. In the case of Mahmoud Khalil, which has become a flashpoint in these discussions, the courts have been examining the extent to which noncitizens enjoy First Amendment protections.

Altman said he has observed a one-sidedness in the opposite direction on campuses and that pro-Israel expression has been suppressed. Just this year, New York University canceled Jewish legal scholar Ilya Shaprio’s talk there because of what it said were security risks from protesters.

‘I was shocked, honestly, to discover that so many young people in our country, especially on our college campuses, had a totally incorrect view about the one Jewish state in the world and its role in the Middle East and its history and how it came to be, and it also became clear that the sort of debate that was taking place on campus wasn’t really a debate, because only one side of the story was being told,’ Altman said.

President Trump announced Friday that he is designating Nigeria as a ‘country of particular concern,’ citing the widespread killings of Christians in the West African country.

‘Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria,’ Trump posted to Truth Social. ‘Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter. I am hereby making Nigeria a ‘COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR CONCERN’ — But that is the least of it.’

The President emphasized that action must be taken when people are persecuted for their faith.

Trump said he has directed Rep. Riley Moore, R-W. Va., Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., and members of the House Appropriations Committee to investigate the situation and report their findings to him.

‘The United States cannot stand by while such atrocities are happening in Nigeria, and numerous other Countries,’ Trump said. ‘We stand ready, willing, and able to save our Great Christian population around the World!’

The situation for Christians in Nigeria has reached an alarming level. Entire villages have been burned to the ground, worshipers killed during Sunday services, and thousands displaced by Islamist groups sweeping through the country’s northern and central regions.

In June, militants attacked the village of a bishop, just days after he testified before Congress about Christian persecution, leaving more than twenty people dead. Similar assaults in Plateau and Benue states have killed hundreds this year alone, with survivors describing how gunmen shouted, ‘Allahu Akbar’ as they torched churches and homes.

According to the international watchdog group Open Doors, nearly 70% of all Christians killed for their faith worldwide last year were in Nigeria. The group warns that Boko Haram, Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and Fulani militant herders are responsible for most of the bloodshed, often targeting Christian farmers in the country’s Middle Belt. Rights organizations estimate that thousands of believers are murdered every year, while countless others are forced to flee.

Mark Walker, President Trump’s ambassador-designate for International Religious Freedom, told Fox News Digital that the United States must do what it can to pressure Nigeria’s government to act.

‘Even being conservative, it’s probably 4,000 to 8,000 Christians killed annually,’ Walker said. ‘This has been going on for years — from ISWAP to Islamist Fulani ethnic militias — and the Nigerian government has to be much more proactive.’

Walker, a former pastor and Republican congressman from North Carolina, said that although he has not yet been confirmed, he already works with church networks across Africa to help keep missionaries and local believers safe.

‘This isn’t about appropriations or politics — this is about human life. We’re talking about boys and girls, about women being kidnapped and horrific things happening. All of us should raise our voices.’

He added that he plans to work closely with Marco Rubio to strengthen U.S. advocacy once confirmed. ‘Fortunately, we have a Secretary of State who has been one of the stronger voices,’ Walker said. ‘He’s already put out statements and is very in tune with what’s going on. I look forward to advising him when it comes to countries of particular concern.’

The White House has also acknowledged a surge in anti-Christian violence across sub-Saharan Africa, where jihadist movements are exploiting political instability and porous borders. Both Pope Leo and the U.S. State Department have condemned recent massacres in Nigeria, warning that the crisis risks spreading beyond the country’s borders.

Walker added ‘The United States should always stand up for freedom of religion, and that starts with speaking the truth about what’s happening.’

While humanitarian groups continue to raise alarms, Nigerian officials deny that Christians are being systematically targeted. Information Minister Mohammed Idris recently told Fox News Digital that claims of mass persecution are ‘very misleading,’ rejecting U.S. reports that tens of thousands have been killed.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, recently told Fox News Digital that ‘since 2009, over 50,000 Christians in Nigeria have been massacred,’ and ‘over 20,000 churches and Christian schools have been destroyed.’ He called the violence ‘a crisis of religious genocide’ and urged tougher U.S. action.

Presidential spokesperson Bayo Onanuga dismissed the criticism, telling Nigeria’s Daily Post, ‘Christians are not targeted. We have religious harmony in our country.’

Despite the political debate, the facts on the ground remain grim. Christian villages are still under attack, churches continue to burn, and millions live in fear. Western governments have issued statements but taken little tangible action to halt the killings or support survivors, said a priest from Plateau State and added, ‘When the world stays silent, the killers return.’

Fox News’ Paul Tilsley contributed to this report.

Speaker Mike Johnson is hiking pressure on Senate Democrats by keeping the House out of session for a sixth straight week.

The ongoing government shutdown is the second-longest in history and less than a week out from shattering another record, with the 2018-2019 shutdown lasting nearly 35 days.

Senate Democrats have shot down the GOP’s short-term federal funding plan 13 times, and while some glimmers of hope for compromise are beginning to show, leaders on both sides of the aisle have not signaled any wiggle room from their positions.

Meanwhile, funding for critical programs that millions of American families rely on is expected to run dry this weekend, with the Senate leaving Washington until Monday after failing to pass the funding bill yet again.

Federal dollars for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are expected to run dry starting Saturday, meaning some 42 million Americans who depend on food stamps may begin to see their benefits temporarily disappear.

Funding for the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), which provides support for pregnant mothers and children under age 5, is also in danger of running dry even despite the Trump administration moving funding around to accommodate it earlier this month.

The Head Start program, which funds childcare for low-income families with young children, is also likely to run out of money this weekend.

Republicans’ measure, called a continuing resolution (CR), is a mostly flat seven-week extension of current federal funding levels. It also includes $88 million in security funding for lawmakers, the White House and the judicial branch — which has bipartisan support.

But Democrats in the House and Senate were infuriated by being sidelined in federal funding talks. 

They have been pushing for an extension of Obamacare subsidies enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those enhancements would expire by the end of 2025 without congressional action.

Republican leaders have signaled openness to discussions about reforming and enhancing those healthcare credits but are rejecting Democrats’ demand to include them in the CR.

Democrats have been hoping that the looming open enrollment start date, also coming Saturday, could pressure Republicans into making concessions. 

Johnson has kept the House out of session since passing the bill on Sept. 19. Democrats have criticized the move almost daily, accusing the GOP leader of keeping Republicans ‘on vacation’ while the government is shut down.

But Johnson has maintained that the House cannot resume its work until Democrats end the shutdown. He’s instead directed Republicans to remain in their districts to communicate the effects of the shutdown and help their constituents better navigate it.

The vast majority of House Republicans have remained united on the strategy, but cracks have started to show as the shutdown drags on.

Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., and Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, all heaped doubt on the plan with varying degrees of frustration during a House GOP lawmaker-only call on Tuesday, Fox News Digital was told.

Greene and Kiley have been making their criticisms of Johnson’s strategy clear for weeks, but Crenshaw appears to be the newest GOP lawmaker to express doubts.

‘I’m no longer convinced that staying out of session has benefits that outweigh the costs,’ Crenshaw said, Fox News Digital was told.

A new report revealed that five foreign charities have donated just shy of $2 billion into various American nonprofits and policy advocacy groups focused on climate change and political activism.

Americans for Public Trust released a detailed, 31-page report with receipts tracking money from foreign charities to U.S. groups. It notes that while contributing directly to political candidates is not permitted under federal law, election-related activities like ‘get-out-and-vote’ campaigns, some lobbying efforts, issue advertising and other politically-charged activities, are in play for foreign dollars.

‘There’s not a question about where it’s going and where it is coming from,’ Americans for Public Trust executive director Caitlin Sutherland told Fox News Digital. ‘We know that it’s foreign money coming into our U.S. policy fights, climate litigation, research, protests, lobbying, you name it.’

‘Foreign money is coming in, and it’s trying to erode our democracy,’ Sutherland added.

The groups that contributed to the near $2 billion in foreign money include the Quadrature Climate Foundation (U.K.), the KR Foundation (Denmark), the Oak Foundation (Switzerland), the Laudes Foundation (Switzerland/Netherlands), and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (U.K.).

The most sizable, the Quadrature Climate Foundation, has awarded roughly $520 million to 41 U.S. groups since 2020, according to the report.

‘The most surprising place that the foreign money has ended up is into a group called the Environmental Law Institute [ELI],’ Sutherland explained to Fox News Digital. ‘They are well known for running a group called the Climate Judiciary Project. They work to educate judges on climate litigation.’

‘So the fact that a group that is so-called educating judges on climate is the beneficiary of foreign money is a huge problem,’ Sutherland added.

ELI received a grant of $650,000 from the Oak Foundation, based out of Switzerland, in separate grants since 2018.

‘The Environmental Law Institute received a $300,000 grant from the Oak Foundation in 2018 to support the drafting of a toolkit for sustainable small-scale fisheries,’ ELI spokesperson Nick Collins told Fox News Digital. ‘Building on successful examples from around the world, the toolkit offers guidance on how to strengthen small scale fisheries through law.’

‘ELI is an independent, nonpartisan organization, and any grant funding we receive is contingent on protecting this independence,’ Collins continued. ‘No funder dictates our work, and our grants are administered in compliance with IRS rules and regulations.’

The Environmental Law Institute has also received federal grants from the U.S. government in the past, most recently under the Biden administration’s EPA and State Department in 2022.

In August of this year, 23 state attorneys general sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin that called for the halting of federal funding.

Zeldin and President Donald Trump’s EPA subsequently axed funding to ELI.

Fox News Digital reached out to ELI for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

‘We were also able to trace that $1.6 million in foreign money has come from the Oak Foundation into a group called Community Change,’ Sutherland continued. ‘They are the front group that has led the charge against Trump’s crackdown on crime. So again, we’re seeing where foreign money coming in to protest, litigation, training is ending up.’

According to the report, $1.6 million from the Oak Foundation has been funneled into Community Change, the organization recognized as the ‘fiscal sponsor’ behind Free DC, which was responsible for the anti-Trump protests in Washington D.C.

Fox News Digital sent inquiries to the various foreign charities about the potential reasoning behind funneling money into American organizations that lobby and campaign for specific policy issues, but did not receive responses.

Sutherland surmised that, based on the report, implementing an extreme European agenda into the U.S. is the most likely driving factor for the multi-billion dollar grants and donations.

‘It seems clear to me that this foreign money is coming into the United States because they want to implement their extremist European vision for America,’ Sutherland concluded. ‘A lot of these groups want to ban gas stoves, very, very extremist positions. And it seems to me that when you take a look at the money, they just want to have a more extreme United States that is radicalized and further left than what we want.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the Quadrature Climate Foundation, the KR Foundation, the Oak Foundation, the Laudes Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, and Community Change, but did not receive responses by the time of publication.

Preston Mizell is a writer with Fox News Digital covering breaking news. Story tips can be sent to Preston.Mizell@fox.com and on X @MizellPreston

When President Donald Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, the two leaders talked about trade and drug trafficking — but avoided the one issue that could most likely draw their nations into war: Taiwan.

Both sides have reasons to keep tensions low. Trump’s administration is seeking Chinese cooperation on border enforcement and drug trafficking, while Xi faces growing economic pressures at home. Yet even as diplomacy aims for calm, U.S. defense planners have long prepared for potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific.

Tensions have only deepened in recent years. Washington has approved high-profile arms sales to Taiwan, U.S. lawmakers such as then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have made high-profile visits, and former President Joe Biden repeatedly pledged to defend the island — only for aides to later clarify that the United States still adheres to its long-standing ‘One China’ policy.

Meanwhile, China has dramatically increased military pressure on Taiwan through large-scale drills that simulate a blockade and invasion. The People’s Liberation Army now conducts near-constant air and naval operations encircling the island — exercises that have become larger, more complex, and more frequent. What once served as symbolic shows of force now resemble rehearsals for cutting off Taiwan’s access to the outside world.

The silence from Trump and Xi contrasted sharply with the noise of those military preparations on both sides of the Pacific.

Taiwan watchers have been left guessing about just how much the United States would come to the island’s defense if China invaded — an intentional policy known as strategic ambiguity that Trump has taken to a new level.

The president earlier this month predicted optimistically that China would not invade Taiwan.

‘I think we’ll be just fine with China. China doesn’t want to do that,’ he said. ‘As it pertains to Taiwan — and that doesn’t mean it’s not the apple of his eye, because probably it is — but I don’t see anything happening.’

Compared with other conflict zones, Trump has said little about the prospect of war in the Indo-Pacific, leaving allies and adversaries alike uncertain about how far he would go to defend Taiwan.

Some analysts who favor strong U.S. support for Taiwan were relieved the issue didn’t surface, given concerns Trump might trade the island’s interests for economic concessions — such as looser Chinese mineral export restrictions, larger agricultural purchases or cooperation on curbing the precursor chemicals fueling America’s fentanyl crisis.

‘I think it’s a good thing that Taiwan didn’t come up,’ said Raymond Kuo, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. ‘There’s been a lot of concern in Taiwan, especially recently, that it would be sold out for some kind of U.S.–China grand bargain.’

Matthew Kroenig, vice president of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said he viewed the omission as ‘neutral,’ though he would have preferred the president restate the ‘One China’ policy while warning Beijing to ‘knock off its almost daily military coercion and gray-zone activities against Taiwan.’

Kuo noted that Taiwan has sharply increased its defense spending as tensions rise, boosting its budget by roughly 75% in the past two years and now allocating a greater share of government funds to defense than the U.S. does proportionally. Still, he warned that production delays in U.S. weapons deliveries — including a backlog that exceeded $20 billion at the start of this year — could weaken Taiwan’s ability to keep pace with China’s military modernization.

Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, said she wasn’t surprised Taiwan stayed off the formal agenda. ‘There were so many trade issues that were really top of mind for both sides,’ she said. ‘Concerns about a ‘grand bargain’ over Taiwan always seemed far-fetched.’

But Kavanagh cautioned that the United States and China cannot indefinitely avoid the subject. ‘Things have escalated significantly in recent years, and the long-time understandings around the ‘One China’ policy and strategic ambiguity have started to erode,’ she said. ‘It’s important for both sides to reaffirm their commitment to peaceful means of resolving their differences.’

She added that the military balance in the region has shifted ‘rather quickly in China’s favor,’ making U.S. deterrence less credible if tensions continue to climb. ‘The time to pivot to Asia has probably passed,’ Kavanagh said, suggesting Washington must now focus on managing competition rather than reversing it.

Inside Trump’s administration, analysts say those competing instincts are visible. ‘There are really two China policies,’ Kroenig said. ‘The trade folks are looking for deals, while the defense and national-security professionals are focused on the China threat — especially the threat to Taiwan.’ That divide mirrors Washington’s broader struggle to reconcile economic engagement with military deterrence.

Kroenig added that Trump’s unpredictability may itself be part of his deterrent strategy. ‘It keeps our adversaries guessing and worried,’ he said. ‘It may be unlikely that China would attack Taiwan under his watch.’

Still, Trump’s meeting with Xi offered little clarity on where the president ultimately stands on Taiwan — or how he would respond if Beijing tested the limits of U.S. commitment to the island’s security. For now, both leaders appear content to keep the most volatile issue in their relationship unspoken. The quiet may help avert confrontation in the short term — but it leaves one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints lingering just beneath the surface.

The White House pushed back on media reports suggesting that President Donald Trump’s administration had identified, and was imminently poised to strike, military targets within Venezuela. 

Although Trump has signaled for weeks he’s prepared to launch land operations against Venezuela, the White House cast doubt on the new media reports.

‘Unnamed sources don’t know what they’re talking about,’ White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in a Friday statement to Fox News Digital. ‘Any announcements regarding Venezuela policy would come directly from the President.’

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the Trump administration had identified military targets within Venezuela that are being used to transport drugs, although the news outlet said that Trump hadn’t formalized a decision on whether he would launch land strikes against these targets.

Trump told reporters Friday on Air Force One a decision hadn’t been made about whether he would strike military targets within Venezuela, Bloomberg News reported. 

Additionally, the Miami Herald reported Friday that the administration had decided to conduct strikes against these military installations within Venezuela that could come ‘in a matter of days or even hours.’

Both the Journal and the Miami Herald cited anonymous sources familiar with the plans. 

The Herald reported that the pending strikes were part of a larger effort the Trump administration is initiating to crack down on the Cartel de los Soles, which Attorney General Pam Bondi has said Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro heads up.

The Trump administration does not recognize Maduro as a legitimate head of state, and the administration beefed up the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, claiming he is ‘one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.’

Meanwhile, the U.S. military has ramped up its attacks against alleged drug boats in Latin America — totaling at least 14 strikes since the beginning of September. Additionally, Trump has instructed the U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, to head to the region.

Brent Sadler, a senior fellow for naval warfare and advanced technology at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, said that the carrier’s presence means Trump has additional resources to conduct more strikes against cartels. Meanwhile, Trump has routinely said for weeks he may move ahead with land operations against Venezuela next, in addition to his sea strikes.

‘The Ford’s arrival in SOUTHCOM area is not unprecedented but given the ongoing attacks on Cartel boats significant. I see this move as intended to deter Venezuela from escalating the crisis and providing the President extra options should he want to increase the attacks on the Cartels,’ Sadler said in an email to Fox News Digital Monday. ‘That said, I would anticipate the Ford’s air wing being very active in air surveillance and defense.’

After news broke that the Ford would head to the region, Maduro accused Trump of ‘fabricating a new eternal war.’

‘They promised they would never again get involved in a war, and they are fabricating a war,’ Maduro said in a national broadcast on Friday.

Even so, not all lawmakers are on board with Trump’s strikes in Latin America. Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced a war powers resolution in October to bar U.S. armed forces from engaging in ‘hostilities’ against Venezuela.

‘The Trump administration has made it clear they may launch military action inside Venezuela’s borders and won’t stop at boat strikes in the Caribbean,’ Schiff said in an Oct. 17 statement.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Department of War and has not yet received a response. 

This is a breaking news story and will be updated. 

Former Vice President Kamala Harris advocated for decreasing the minimum voting age to 16.

In an interview posted on ‘The Diary Of A CEO’ YouTube channel, Harris declared that she thought ‘we should reduce voting age to 16.’

‘I’ll tell you why. So, Gen Z, they’re age about 13 through 27, they’ve only known the climate crisis,’ she said.

‘If they’re in high school or college, especially in college, it is very likely that whatever they’ve chosen as their major for study may not result in an affordable wage. They’ve coined the term climate anxiety…’ she said.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis responded to Harris’ comments by rejecting her proposal.

‘No. Also, suffering from ‘climate anxiety’ is not exactly an argument *for* lowering the voting age,’ he asserted in a post on X.

While Harris wants to let younger Americans vote, she has previously advocated for raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21 years old.

‘We can’t fail the American people on gun violence anymore. It’s time for the Senate to do something. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Raise the age to purchase guns from 18 to 21. Strengthen background checks. Let’s get this done,’ a 2022 post on the ‘Vice President Kamala Harris Archived’ X account reads.