Denmark on Monday ramped up its military presence in Greenland, deploying extra troops to the strategic Arctic territory amid escalating tensions with President Donald Trump.

Local Danish broadcaster TV 2 said the Danish Armed Forces confirmed a new contingent of troops, described as ‘a substantial contribution,’ were arriving at Greenland’s main international airport Monday night.

Maj. Gen. Søren Andersen, head of Denmark’s Arctic Command, said about 100 Danish soldiers have already arrived in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, with others later deployed to Kangerlussuaq in western Greenland.

The new military move comes in the wake of comments made by Trump over the region’s strategic and military importance. 

In a Truth Social post Jan. 18, Trump warned that Denmark had failed to secure Greenland against foreign threats.

‘NATO has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland,’’ Trump wrote. 

‘Unfortunately, Denmark has been unable to do anything about it. Now it is time, and it will be done!!!’ he said.

On Monday, a text message exchange between Trump and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre over Greenland and the Nobel Peace Prize was released in a statement.

‘Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway?’ Trump said before adding that there were ‘no written documents; it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also,’ he said in part of the exchange.

‘I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT,’ he added.

Before now, according to Reuters, Andersen had said that Danish troop deployment was driven by broader security concerns, not by Trump’s statements.

Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen also said that Denmark has begun increasing its military footprint in and around Greenland in cooperation with its NATO allies and as part of efforts to strengthen Arctic defense, Reuters reported.

Danish forces already stationed in Greenland could remain for a year or more, with additional rotations planned in the coming years.

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Jan. 15 the presence of European troops would not affect Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland.

‘I don’t think troops from Europe impact the president’s decision-making process, nor does it impact his goal of the acquisition of Greenland at all,’ she told reporters.

The additional Danish troop deployment also came following Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would impose a 10% import tax starting in February on goods from countries that have supported Denmark and Greenland, including Norway.

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

Iran’s internet blackout has hardened into a permanent system of digital repression, with the regime treating citizens’ access to the outside world as an ‘existential threat,’ according to digital rights monitors.

Internet monitoring group NetBlocks reported Monday that Iran’s connectivity landscape had shifted dramatically as the country entered its 22nd day of unrest, following several days of almost total nationwide internet shutdown.

‘On the twenty-second day, after several days of an almost complete internet shutdown, reports emerged of limited and unstable internet connectivity in some parts of the country,’ NetBlocks reported.

‘Indications are that we’re seeing a move toward a kind of ‘filternet plus’ censorship scheme in Iran,’ NetBlocks CEO Alp Toker told Fox News Digital before pointing to ‘a rapid decline into a darker kind of digital darkness.’

‘The key difference from the pre-protest filternet arrangement is that, while internet platforms were extensively censored before, the regime is selectively whitelisting only a handful of services it deems critical for business needs.

‘Even this selective access is sporadic, which means the censorship is likely still in the test phase,’ he added. ‘In practice though, ordinary users remain offline.’

Toker described how the digital darkness ‘is in fact getting darker because the information controls are getting tighter.’

‘Where international links were tolerated as a window to trade, the regime is approaching each of these as potential threats,’ he said before adding that the regime ‘sees its own citizens’ ability to communicate with the rest of the world as an existential threat because the people are disaffected.’

According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) at least 2,571 people were killed as of Monday, with additional deaths reported but not yet fully verified amid the communications blackout.

The internet blackout began Jan. 8 amid escalating demonstrations since Dec. 28, as authorities sought to prevent protesters from organizing, sharing videos of crackdowns and communicating with the outside world.

Since then, connectivity has remained inconsistent, with frequent outages and throttling even when partial access is restored.

Iran International reported the blackout was expected to last until at least late March, with IranWire saying government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani told media activists that access to international online services would not be restored before Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, on March 20.

‘Having internet access was always a window to the outside and a lifeline for many Iranians,’ Toker added. ‘It allowed for personal expression and culture that is banned by the regime.’

‘These online freedoms can be as simple as online gaming, watching foreign movies or women’s ability to participate equally in spaces that would otherwise be barred by the Islamic Republic,’ he added.

‘With the internet blackout continuing, the curtain has been drawn on that window,’ Toker said. ‘This is angering many Iranians, particularly Gen Z, who stand to lose a part of their identity.’

The blackout has also coincided with cyber incidents targeting Iran’s state infrastructure.

As previously reported by Fox News Digital, anti-regime activists hacked Iran’s national broadcaster, briefly interrupting state television to air protest messages and calls from Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah and a prominent opposition figure.

‘We aren’t able to see the specific hack here,’ Toker explained. ‘The lack of up-to-date security is an issue for Iran.’

‘It is caused directly by the country’s digital isolation,’ he said. ‘Iran’s internet systems are outdated, and security tools aren’t available due to internet restrictions.’

Toker added that embargoes force widespread use of pirated software, which often contains hidden vulnerabilities that can be exploited to breach critical networks.

He said cyber warfare played a major role during the June 2025 clashes between Israel and Iran, prompting the blackout as a defensive measure against digital attacks. Israel, he noted, also restricted parts of its own network at the time.

‘In 2026, we haven’t seen the same focus on cyber incidents, but it’s clear there’s an ongoing battle between state actors as well as individual hackers,’ Toker said.

President Donald Trump has spent the bulk of his second White House term testing the limits of his Article II authorities, both at home and abroad – a defining constitutional fight that legal experts expect to continue to play out in the federal courts for the foreseeable future.

These actions have included the U.S. capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, who was deposed during a U.S. military raid in Caracas earlier this month, and Trump’s continued fight to deploy National Guard troops in Democrat-led localities, despite the stated objections of state and local leaders.

The moves have drawn reactions ranging from praise to sharp criticism, while raising fresh legal questions about how far a sitting president can go in wielding power at home and abroad.

Legal experts told Fox News Digital in a series of interviews that they do not expect Trump’s executive powers to be curtailed, at least not significantly or immediately, by the federal courts in the near-term.

Despite near-certain challenges from Maduro – who would likely argue any U.S. arrest in Venezuela is illegal, echoing Manuel Noriega’s failed strategy decades ago – experts say Trump’s Justice Department would have little trouble citing court precedent and prior Office of Legal Counsel guidance to justify his arrest and removal.

U.S. presidents have long enjoyed a wider degree of authority on foreign affairs issues – including acting unilaterally to order extraterritorial arrests. Like other U.S. presidents, Trump can cite guidance published in the late 1980s to argue Maduro’s arrest was made within the ‘national interest’ or to protect U.S. persons and property.

Even if an arrest were viewed as infringing on another country’s sovereignty, experts say Trump could cite ample court precedent and longstanding Office of Legal Counsel and Justice Department guidance to argue the action was legally sound.

A 1989 memo authored by then-U.S. Assistant Attorney General Bill Barr has surfaced repeatedly as one of the strongest arguments Trump could cite to justify Maduro’s capture. That OLC memo states that ‘the president, pursuant to his inherent constitutional authority, can authorize enforcement actions independent of any statutory grant of power.’ It also authorizes FBI agents to effectuate arrests ordered by the president under the ‘Take Care’ clause of the U.S. Constitution, and says the authority to order extraterritorial arrests applies even if it impinges ‘on the sovereignty of other countries.’

Importantly, federal courts have read these powers to apply even in instances where Congress has not expressly granted statutory authorization to intervene.

‘When federal interests are at stake, the president, under Article II, has the power to protect them,’ Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

That’s because Article II, at its core, is ‘the power for a U.S. president to protect [its] people,’ Blackman said. 

‘The reason why we detained Maduro was to effectuate an arrest. DOJ personnel and FBI agents were there to arrest him and read him his rights. And the reason why we used 150 aircraft, and all the other military equipment, was to protect the people who were going to arrest Maduro,’ he added. ‘It was a law enforcement operation, but [with] military backing to protect them – so Article II does factor in here, indirectly.’ 

Though Trump himself has not cited a legal justification for the invasion, senior administration officials have, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who described Maduro’s arrest respectively, as a mission to indict two ‘fugitives of justice,’ and as a ‘joint military and law enforcement raid.’

In Minnesota, next steps for Trump are a bit more fraught. 

Trump’s National Guard deployment efforts were stymied by the Supreme Court in December, after the high court halted Trump’s National Guard deployments under Title 10. 

Trump had deployed the federalized troops to Illinois and Oregon last year to protect ICE personnel. But the high court issued an interim order rejecting Trump’s bid, noting that under Title 10, the administration could not federalize the National Guard until it first showed they tried to authorize the regular military to enforce the laws but could not do so. 

Some court watchers have noted that the ruling essentially closes off alternatives for Trump to act.

Instead, Trump could opt to enact his Article II ‘protective powers’ domestically via a more sweeping and extreme alternative.

This includes the use of the Insurrection Act to call up active-duty U.S. troops and order them deployed to Minnesota and elsewhere. 

The Insurrection Act is a broad tool that gives presidents the authority to deploy military forces in the U.S. when ‘unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion’ make it ‘impracticable to enforce the laws.’ 

Critics note it is a powerful, far-reaching statute that could grant Trump an expansive set of powers to act domestically in ways that are not reviewable by Congress or by the courts.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former U.S. Assistant Attorney General, noted this possibility in a recent chat with former White House counsel Robert Bauer. By ‘closing off this other statute,’ he said, the Supreme Court ‘may have, some argue, driven the president in the direction of the Insurrection Act because this other source of authority was not available.’

Trump allies, for their part, have argued that the president has few other options at his disposal in the wake of the Supreme Court’s interim ruling.

Chad Wolf, the America First Policy Institute’s chair of homeland security and immigration, told Fox News Digital last week that Trump could have ‘little choice’ but to invoke the Insurrection Act.  

‘If the situation on the ground in Minneapolis continues to grow violent, with ICE officers being targeted and injured as well as other violent acts … Trump will have little choice,’ he said. 

Experts are split on to what degree there is a through-line between the two issues.

Blackman, the South Texas College of Law professor, said the ‘point of connection’ in Trump’s actions is the presidential ‘power of protection’ under Article II, which he said applies both abroad and at home. ‘The president can protect his law enforcement domestically, and he can protect his law enforcement abroad, both under Article II.’

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump warned that he no longer feels obligated to think ‘purely of peace’ as he argued the United States must have ‘complete and total control’ of Greenland.

In a text exchange with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, Trump wrote: ‘Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.’

‘Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also,’ he wrote. 

‘I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States,’ Trump wrote. ‘The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT.’

Støre confirmed the text message, first reported by PBS, to Fox News. 

The White House could not be reached to weigh in on the exchange. 

‘Norway’s position on Greenland is clear. Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and Norway fully supports the Kingdom of Denmark on this matter,’ the prime minister said in a statement. ‘We also support that NATO in a responsible way is taking steps to strengthen security and stability in the Arctic. As regards the Nobel Peace Prize, I have clearly explained, including to President Trump what is well known, the prize is awarded by an independent Nobel Committee and not the Norwegian Government.’ 

In a prior message to the U.S. president, Støre, on behalf of himself and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, had conveyed opposition to Trump’s proposed tariff increases on Norway, Finland and other countries and requested a phone conversation to de-escalate. 

The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, but she offered the prize to Trump in a White House meeting Thursday. 

The prize is awarded by the Nobel Committee, which is made up of members appointed by the Norwegian parliament and intended to operate independently. 

After Machado handed over her award to Trump, the Nobel Committee released a statement saying: ‘A laureate cannot share the prize with others, nor transfer it once it has been announced. A Nobel Peace Prize can also never be revoked. The decision is final and applies for all time.’

Trump on Saturday said he would impose an additional 10% tariff on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland, starting Feb. 1, increasing to 25% on June 1, until an agreement is reached for the purchase of Greenland.

Members of the European Union debated the prospect of retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. in Brussels Sunday, but diplomats insisted on the need to seek de-escalation measures with the U.S. first. 

The president has not ruled out the use of force to take the icy, 836,000 square mile island. 

Trump and his advisors have pointed to Greenland’s position between North America and Europe as critical to U.S. missile defense, early-warning systems and Arctic surveillance. The island sits along key air and sea routes that U.S. military planners view as increasingly important as melting ice opens new shipping lanes and expands the theater of great-power competition.

The administration has also warned that China and Russia have sought to expand their influence in the Arctic through infrastructure investments, scientific outposts and military activity, raising concerns that Greenland could become a foothold for adversaries if the U.S. does not take a more assertive role.

Greenland’s government and Denmark, which retains sovereignty over the territory, have rejected any suggestion of U.S. control, though the U.S. already maintains a military presence there through Pituffik Space Base, a key hub for missile warning and space surveillance.

Fox News’ Madeleine Rivera and Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report.

The latest bipartisan campaign to rein in President Donald Trump’s war authority in Venezuela may have failed, but the lawmaker behind the push has no intention of stopping his pursuit.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., plans to continue his goal of corralling Trump’s policing power across the globe, and believes that he can find support among Republicans to pass a war powers resolution out of the Senate.

‘The other thing we’re going to do is this: We’re going to be filing a whole lot more war powers resolutions,’ Kaine said after the unsuccessful vote to advance his resolution.

He argued that this resolution, though unable to make it out of the Senate this time, was similar to a war powers resolution he filed shortly after the strike ordered by Trump in 2020 that killed Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani.

The resolution garnered eight Republican votes in a GOP-controlled Senate at the time.

‘When you do it, and you get Republican votes, it sends a message to the White House,’ he said.

Kaine and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who co-sponsored the latest war powers resolution, previously suggested that later attempts to rein in Trump’s war authorities could be focused on Greenland, Iran and Cuba.

Kaine’s optimism comes from the successful vote to curtail Trump’s war powers in Venezuela earlier this month, where five Senate Republicans splintered from their colleagues to advance a resolution that would have required the president to confer with Congress before future military action in the region.

Still, that same cohort was unable to survive a pressure campaign from Senate Republican leadership, Trump and administration officials.

The two lawmakers who reversed their position, Sens. Todd Young, R-Ind., and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., did so because of guarantees from the administration, chiefly Secretary of State Marco Rubio, that no boots would be on the ground in Venezuela.

Young received the assurance from Rubio in a letter the day of the vote, when he said that should Trump ‘determine that he intends to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities in major military operations in Venezuela, he would seek congressional authorization in advance (circumstances permitting).’

Kaine said that while the outcome was disappointing, and Trump and Senate Republican leadership engaged in a ‘full-court press unlike any I’ve seen in 13 years here’ to stop the resolution from succeeding, the cracks in the foundation were still there. And Kaine believed they were ripe to fracture even further.

‘The way cracks grow is through pressure and the pressure campaign that I sort of decided to launch by use of these privileged motions. I’m going to file every one I can to challenge emergencies, to challenge unlawful wars, to seek human rights reports, arms transfers if they’re wrong,’ he said.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, and other Democratic senators have spearheaded an investigation into the role major U.S. banks will play in assisting the Trump administration sell Venezuelan oil.  

The inquiry comes after President Donald Trump announced that Venezuela’s interim government would hand over up to 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S. and that the oil would be sold ‘immediately.’ 

While Trump has said that he would control the proceeds of the sale, the Department of Energy also announced Jan. 7 that this would require ‘key banks to execute and provide financial support for these sales’ and that proceeds would remain housed at ‘U.S. controlled accounts at globally recognized banks.’ 

Likewise, Trump signed an executive order Jan. 9 ‘declaring a national emergency to safeguard Venezuelan oil revenue held in U.S. Treasury accounts from attachment or judicial process, ensuring these funds are preserved to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives.’

As a result, the lawmakers have raised concerns because the Trump administration did not share any details regarding which financial institutions would be involved — prompting concerns from them about transparency regarding the destination of the funds.

It ‘appears that at least a portion of the oil proceeds will be held in the U.S. Treasury despite being the sovereign property of another country,’ the lawmakers wrote. ‘It is unclear whether and to what extent the Administration still plans to direct some proceeds of oil sales into accounts held at banks in the private sector.’  

‘Given that rapidly evolving situation and the Administration’s failure to provide clarity on its plans for Venezuela’s oil and the funds raised from oil sales, we write to you to seek answers to the following questions,’ the lawmakers wrote. 

As a result, the lawmakers requested that the banks provide details on whether the Trump administration contacted them about becoming involved in the sale of Venezuelan oil or handling the proceeds of such sales, if they were solicited to provide financial or other kinds of support for the oil sales, if they are holding or plan to hold proceeds from Venezuelan oil sales in U.S.-controlled accounts, and all communications between the banks and administration officials regarding Venezuelan oil and military operations there.

The letters were sent to financial institutions including the Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, UBS and others. 

Bank of America and Goldman Sachs declined to provide comment to Fox News Digital, and UBS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

The lawmakers are requesting answers from the bank by the end of January, and are also requesting the banks provide updates regarding their communication with the Trump administration on a monthly basis.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Trump announced on Jan. 3 that he had authorized strikes in Venezuela and that the U.S. had captured its dictator, Nicolás Maduro. He then said that the U.S. would ‘run’ Venezuela until a peaceful transition could occur. 

The Trump administration extended invitations to Russia and Belarus to join a proposed Gaza ‘Board of Peace,’ officials in both countries said Monday. 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow that Russian President Vladimir Putin is reviewing the invitation.

‘President Putin has indeed received an offer through diplomatic channels to join this Board of Peace. We are currently studying all the details of this proposal,’ Peskov said, according to Russian state media outlet TASS. ‘We hope to contact the U.S. side to clarify all the details.’

Belarus’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs also confirmed receiving an invitation, saying in a post on X that President Donald Trump sent Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko a letter proposing the country become a founding member of the ‘Board of Peace.’

‘We are ready to take part in the activities of the Board of Peace, taking into account and hoping that this organization will expand its scope and authority far beyond the mandate proposed in the initiative,’ the ministry said.

Other countries over the weekend, including Argentina, Jordan, Canada, India, Egypt, Hungary and Vietnam, announced they too had received invitations from the White House.

Neither the State Department nor the White House immediately responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment about a full tally of all countries invited.

The White House released a statement on Friday outlining the next phase of Trump’s Gaza peace plan, naming senior international figures to oversee governance, reconstruction and long-term development of the enclave.

‘The Board of Peace will play an essential role in fulfilling all 20 points of the President’s plan, providing strategic oversight, mobilizing international resources, and ensuring accountability as Gaza transitions from conflict to peace and development,’ the statement said in part.

Trump will chair the board and be joined by a group of senior political, diplomatic and business figures, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and billionaire Marc Rowan, among others.

The Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump’s proposed Gaza peace board would require countries seeking a permanent seat to pay a $1 billion fee, according to a draft charter circulated to prospective members.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said on X that the composition of a separate ‘Gaza Executive Board,’ which names Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi as appointed members, was not coordinated with Israel and ‘runs contrary to its policy.’

The Syrian army’s rapid-fire conquest of important areas and towns previously controlled by the U.S.-allied Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), culminated on Sunday in a fragile ceasefire agreement with a stern warning from a powerful U.S. Senator and experts about the reported crimes of forces controlled by President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Jim Risch, R-Idaho., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox News Digital, ‘The Syrian government’s decree to respect Kurdish rights is a good sign, but the conduct of its forces on the ground must match. Division and violence in Syria between U.S. partners only benefit bad actors like ISIS and Iran who exploit Syria to use as a breeding ground for international terrorism, including against the U.S. I welcome the announcement of a ceasefire and will be watching its implementation closely.’

Al-Sharaa, a former U.S.-designated terrorist who was a member of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, greenlighted an incursion into territory ruled peacefully by the SDF for over a decade.

Amid Risch’s warning, reports coming out of Syria claim skirmishes between the Syrian army and SDF are continuing. 

The news organization, Kurdistan 24, showed alleged footage of al-Sharaa’s forces releasing Islamic State prisoners. According to the report, ‘The Syrian Arab Army releases ISIS prisoners in al-Tabqah city.’ 

The footage has been widely posted on social media. Fox News Digital could not independently verify the video.

The State Department referred Fox News Digital to an X post from the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, who also serves as the Special Envoy for Syria. Barrack wrote on X about the deal between SDF General Mazloum Abdi and al-Sharra.

‘Two great Syrian leaders, driven by the shared vision of liberating their country and people from tyranny, have now come together to forge a brighter future for all Syrians. This agreement and ceasefire represent a pivotal inflection point, where former adversaries embrace partnership over division.’

Barrack added, ‘President al-Sharaa has affirmed that the Kurds are an integral part of Syria, and the United States looks forward to the seamless integration of our historic partner in the fight against ISIS with the Global Coalition’s newest member, as we press forward in the enduring battle against terrorism.’

However, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) commander Sipan Hamo — a Syrian organization that is part of the SDF — said on the Saturday meeting between U.S. envoy Tom Barrack and Kurdish officials produced no roadmap to a ceasefire. He denied Syria’s Kurds wanted to secede or create an independent state and said their future was in Syria.

‘Our greatest hope is that there will be a tangible outcome, especially from the coalition and the United States, meaning that they will intervene more forcefully in the existing problems than what they are currently doing,’ Hamo said.

The head of the main Kurdish forces told Reuters that the U.S. should intervene more forcefully to end a Syrian offensive that has gained key territory from Kurdish fighters in recent days.

Government troops launched an offensive on Saturday into territory run for the last decade by semi-autonomous Kurdish authorities in the northeast of Syria, capturing towns on both sides of the Euphrates River and the country’s largest oil and gas field, officials and security sources said.

But given Kurdish ‘concerns about the changes taking place,’ the U.S. should offer assurances of protection to them.

Hamo said that, ‘In the current situation and the chaos we are living in, the only ones who can offer guarantees are the United States or the coalition,’ he added in a rare interview from Hasakeh province, which is still under Kurdish control.

‘We believe that the responsibility for everything currently happening inside Syria lies with the Western countries, and especially the United States of America,’ he said.

‘Of course, we consider Israel a powerful state in the region with its own agenda. We hope that the same stance taken by other countries in the region towards certain minorities in Syria will be extended to the Kurds as well,’ Hamo said.

Asked if he was referring to Israel’s stance towards the Druze minority last summer — when Israel carried out air strikes on the defense ministry, near the presidential palace in Damascus and on Syrian troops advancing on Druze cities, Hamo said, ‘of course.’

Mutlu Civiroglu, a Kurdish affairs analyst, told Fox News Digital that, ‘President Trump has spoken about giving Syria and all its peoples a fresh opportunity to turn a new page. Yet, Ahmed al Sharaa’s actions appear to move against that intention, and many Kurds believe he is abusing the political space that was meant to support stability rather than deepen tensions. ‘

Civiroglu added that ‘I don’t think the U.S. is abandoning the Kurds, but President Trump’s good intention is being abused by Sharaa. Lawmakers in Washington have also expressed unease about the interim Syrian government’s treatment of minorities, which reflects broader questions about its commitment to inclusive governance.’

Civiroglu posted footage on his popular X account of al-Sharaa supporters toppling ‘a statue of a female Kurdish fighter after interim Syrian government forces seized Tabqa from the SDF. Kurdish fighters backed by the United States had liberated the town from ISIS in May 2017.’

Civiroglu said, ‘al-Sharaa’s confrontations with Kurdish forces, following earlier pressure on Alawite and Druze areas, reinforce doubts about the interim government’s legitimacy and its ability to represent Syria’s diverse population.

‘The International community must remember that the Kurdish people have long fought alongside the United States, France and the West in the campaign against ISIS, and many are watching closely to see how these partners interpret the latest escalation,’ he said.

Max Abrahms, a leading expert on counter-terrorism and a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Fox News Digital, ‘The YPG and then SDF were America’s primary counterterrorism forces against Islamic State in Syria during the war. Unlike the so-called ‘rebels,’ our Kurdish warrior friends exhibited both capability and moderation. It’s not surprising that the jihadists, upon taking power in Damascus, would turn their guns on the Kurdish forces. Of course, we need to stand with them.’

The bipartisan push for sanctions against Russia has, for several months, ebbed and flowed on waves of speculation about whether legislation would actually get a vote.

A signal or suggestion of support from President Donald Trump would often push the bill from Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., closer to fruition, only to be swept back into churning, murky waters with no clear path on when or if the package would make its way to the president’s desk.

Now, Trump has given Graham the ‘greenlight’ to move ahead with his long-simmering sanctions package as peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine continue to simmer in the background.

Graham told Fox News Digital that this time around, he believed the bill would actually get a shot.

‘It’s never going back on the shelf because President Trump believes he needs it,’ Graham said. ‘I think he needs it.’

But it has been over a week since Graham announced the president backed the package, and so far, it has yet to make it to the floor in the upper chamber. Lawmakers are also out this week and are set to return to Washington, D.C., next week with the primary objective of preventing a partial government shutdown.

Still, the bipartisan duo has been tweaking the legislation over the last several months, but the core objective would be to slap eye-popping tariffs onto countries buying energy products from Moscow.

The intent is to cripple Russia’s war machine by imposing duties on oil, gas, uranium and other exports, largely purchased by China and India, which account for nearly three-quarters of Moscow’s energy business.

The package has been on the back burner as the Trump administration works to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. The latest iteration of that agreement generally included provisions that would have required Ukraine to give up territory to Russia, a non-starter for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Trump told Reuters during an interview published last week that it was Zelenskyy holding up negotiations toward a peace deal and contended that Russian President Vladimir Putin was ‘ready to make a deal,’ while Ukraine was ‘less ready to make a deal.’

While the package hasn’t dislodged itself onto the floor in the upper chamber, a White House official confirmed to Fox News Digital that Trump supports the legislation.

But one issue that threatens to trip up the process once more is where the package actually starts in Congress.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., doubled down on his position that any Russia sanctions package, despite being labored on in the Senate for several months, should start in the House, given the budgetary impact it could have.

That would require buy-in from House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to either replicate Graham and Blumenthal’s proposal, or craft their own. Then it would need to hit the House floor, which could take longer than lawmakers in the upper chamber are willing to wait.

On whether Johnson said he would put it on the floor, Thune said, ‘He hasn’t.’

‘But my guess is that if it’s something that, you know, the White House — it’s important to them, it’s a priority, particularly dealing with Russia and Ukraine, I would assume that they would try and do that,’ he said.

That’s where there’s a disconnect.

Johnson supports Russia sanctions but has said on multiple occasions that he believes a sanctions bill should originate in the Senate.

He has argued that starting the legislation in the House would drastically slow down its progress, given the numerous committees any package would have to pass through before ever hitting the floor for a vote.

Graham believed that the ‘sense of urgency now is the greatest it’s been’ and noted that he has told Thune that he wants the legislation to start in the Senate, where it has over 80 co-sponsors.

‘This is where the idea came from, get a big bipartisan vote and try to get President Trump to use these tools coming from the Congress so we can end this bloodbath,’ Graham said.

‘Now, in a normal world it would, but I just think the momentum is in the Senate,’ he continued. ‘We can take a shell — It’s not that hard. I mean, I’ve been working my a– [off] on this thing for over a year, or whatever how long it’s been.’

Blumenthal told Fox News Digital that he had been speaking with his colleagues in the lower chamber and added that there’s ‘no reason’ that the package should get bogged down or tripped up in the House.

Blumenthal and Graham view their sanctions push as providing Trump with another weapon to force Putin to the negotiating table.

He argued that ‘security is the linchpin here, but forcing Putin to come to the table also involves economic pressure, and ultimately, we want peace, and that will involve both economic and military security.’

‘I feel very, very encouraged, because I think that a lot is coming together,’ Blumenthal said.

Donald Trump made ‘you’re fired’ a national catchphrase from his TV show ‘The Apprentice.’ Now the power of the president to unilaterally decide who can continue to serve in key government positions will be tested Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court, in another major case over leadership removals from independent agencies.

At the center of the latest constitutional showdown is Lisa Cook, who serves precariously on the Federal Reserve’s powerful Board of Governors.

Trump claims broad authority to force Cook from her leadership position on the central bank, free from judicial review, with his administration alleging she committed private mortgage fraud.

Oral arguments will be conducted by the nine justices, who will hear separately from lawyers representing Cook and the Justice Department.

As the elected head of the government, Trump believes federal law allows him unqualified discretion to fire ‘for cause’ any officer on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). 

But Cook will tell the court the Federal Reserve was created by Congress in 1913 as a wholly independent entity, to insulate it from political influence, and from any one president ‘stacking the deck’ with their own nominees.

She claims to be a political pawn in Trump’s very public efforts to dictate the Federal Reserve’s economic policies, by exploiting what she calls ‘manufactured charges’ of wrongdoing.

This appeal comes as Trump’s feud with the Fed has expanded, after its chairman, Jerome Powell, disclosed recently the agency was subpoenaed by the Justice Department for allegations he lied to Congress about a controversial multimillion-dollar renovation of the agency’s headquarters.

The high court will have at least four opportunities this term to define the limits of Trump’s aggressive view of his authority, including import tariffs and birthright citizenship.

‘A big fraction of the Supreme Court’s docket will present the question, can President Trump do: fill in the blank? And that could be imposed tariffs. Fire board members. Remove illegal aliens,’ said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department attorney and leading appellate attorney. ‘Trump is pushing at every limit and the Supreme Court this term is going to be telling us whether he’s exceeded those limits. That is, I think, going to the story of so much of what the Supreme Court is deciding this term.’   

The Issues

The conservative court has allowed much of President Trump’s challenged executive actions to be enforced at least temporarily – and will now decide whether the Fed’s special mandate statutorily protects its governing members from getting ousted.

The justices last month heard arguments in a separate case, on Trump’s efforts to remove Democrat-appointed Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which like the Fed is a congressionally created independent, multi-member regulatory agency.

The 6-3 conservative majority in that petition appeared ready to rule for the president when it involves semi-autonomous agencies like the FTC.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor at argument accused the administration of trying to ‘destroy the structure of government.’

But Justice Neil Gorsuch countered that when it comes to agencies like the FTC, ‘there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.’

Both Slaughter and Cook were named to their current staggered terms by former President Joe Biden, but Slaughter and another Democratic-appointed member are now not allowed to continue serving while their lawsuits are decided.

In the Cook case, lower courts ruled she did not receive due process when the president tried to fire her.

The current posture of the case is whether Trump can remove Cook — at least temporarily — while the dispute continues to play out on the merits. The ‘for cause’ removal restriction’s constitutionality is not directly before the justices.

A federal judge had issued a preliminary injunction against the administration, which then sought relief from the Supreme Court on the limited enforcement issue.

The nine-member bench now has the option of ruling narrowly on the injunction question — which would throw the case back to the district court. Or the high court could go ahead and decide the larger constitutional matters.

One key argument topic could center on whether the Federal Reserve has some administrative nexus to the executive branch, which could put it at least under limited Trump control.

Though its leaders are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the seven-member board is considered an independent government agency, since its monetary policy decisions do not need presidential or legislative approval. But the agency does provide Congress with regular reports on its work.

It also does not receive any federal funding, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

Under law, the Federal Reserve’s leadership has a three-fold mandate: ‘maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.’

The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are not part of the federal government, but set up like private corporations, and regionally located across the country.

The justices, in an unsigned order in a separate case in 2025, had suggested the Fed operates differently from other independent federal boards, since it is not funded by Congress through normal appropriations, but uses interest on securities the bank owns and acquired through open market operations.

‘The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,’ said the Supreme Court in May 2025.

After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve hands the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.

Federal feud

Trump repeatedly has blasted Powell and the Federal Reserve over reluctance to lower benchmark interest rates as aggressively as the president wants, in a fundamental disagreement over prudent ways to stimulate the national economy.

Like Cook, Powell in an extraordinary video statement Sunday accused the president of investigating him as ‘pretexts’ for ‘political pressure or intimidation.’

‘The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,’ he said.

Trump on Tuesday called Powell ‘either incompetent or crooked.’

Powell’s term as chairman ends in May, but he has the option of remaining on the Board for another two years. Trump has been conducting a very transparent interview campaign with candidates for Powell’s successor to lead the central bank.

The high court will try to cast all the Washington drama aside and focus on what shapes up as a major test of executive and judicial power.

The Federal Reserve Act (FRA) says the president can only remove members of the Fed board and FOMC ‘for cause.’ The exact parameters of that standard were not spelled out in the original law, and never fully tested in the courts.

Cook — appointed for a 14-year term by Biden in 2023 — will remain on the job at least until the court decides the current legal questions.

No president has fired a sitting Fed governor in the law’s 112-year history.

‘Put simply, the president may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself— and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,’ said Solicitor General D. John Sauer in the administration’s appeal.

The Justice Department will argue that removal protection power is discretionary and unenforceable.

But Cook’s lawyers counter, ‘Granting that relief would dramatically alter the status quo, ignore centuries of history, and transform the Federal Reserve into a body subservient to the President’s will.’

The court’s decision to take up the case comes months after U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a preliminary injunction last month blocking Trump from firing Cook from the Fed while the case continued to play out in court.’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 in September 2025 to deny Trump’s request for intervention, prompting the administration to make its case to the Supreme Court for emergency review.

The Stakes

The Supreme Court update comes as Trump has for months pressured the Federal Reserve to slash interest rates, in a bid to help spur the nation’s economic growth.

But his attempt to fire Cook for alleged mortgage fraud violations, which she has denied, has teed up a first-of-its-kind judicial clash that could have profound impacts on the Fed itself, and the Supreme Court’s review authority.

She strongly denies accusations of falsely claiming two homes in Georgia and Michigan as her primary residence to secure better mortgage terms. She has not been charged with any crime.

Cook’s legal team — featuring prominent conservative attorney and former Justice Scalia law clerk Paul Clement — sued Trump in late August 2025 for his attempt to fire her, arguing it violated her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the FRA.

She has not been charged with any criminal act.

The next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting is scheduled for Jan. 27–28, with an expected interest rate decision. Both Powell and Cook are each set to participate.

Financial markets, private banks, businesses and investors will be closely watching what the Supreme Court does in the Federal Reserve dispute, and a separate pending appeal over Trump’s sweeping reciprocal global tariffs.

A written ruling in that import tax case, which was argued by the justices in November, could come at any time.

The Fed case is Trump v. Cook (25a312). A decision there could come relatively quickly within weeks, or potentially as late as June or early July.