Former Biden White House press secretary Jen Psaki raised alarm recently about an international ‘web’ surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking case, echoing remarks from many Democrats who have seized on the politically expedient topic in the wake of the Department of Justice releasing Epstein’s unclassified case files.

‘It is Trump, yes. … But it is the wealthy, the elites, and basically every faction of the world,’ Psaki, a political analyst for MS Now, said in a video clip. ‘It’s global leaders. It’s people in the business sector. It is people in Hollywood probably, who knows. It is a bunch of people who think that they can get away with anything.’

Democrats have since last year claimed that Epstein’s case has newfound salience because Trump, once among Epstein’s many wealthy friends before Epstein was accused of trafficking underage girls, was, in their view, suspiciously dismissive of the files when he took office.

Republicans have countered, however, that Democrats had full access to the documents for four years under the Biden administration — when Psaki served as the chief White House spokesperson — and neither released them nor uncovered information damaging to Trump. Fox News Digital reached out to Psaki for comment.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital claims of Democratic inconsistency ‘are seriously detached from reality’ and pointed to his own investigations dating back to 2019 into former Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta’s handling of a 2008 plea deal with Epstein.

Raskin argued the Democratic Party has not shifted, but rather that the Trump administration has.

‘Trump abruptly killed the ongoing federal investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators when he took office,’ Raskin said, alleging the administration undertook a ‘massive redaction project’ to hide evidence of Trump’s and others’ ties to Epstein.

The DOJ in January released more than three million pages of files but signaled that another three million were withheld because they contained victim information or were protected by various privileges.

‘Democrats have always fought to support an investigation of Epstein’s co-conspirators,’ Raskin said. ‘We have always been on the side of full transparency and justice for the victims.’

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has made similar remarks, saying, ‘All we want is full transparency, so that the American people can get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.’

The heightened Democratic push for transparency comes after years during which the party showed more intermittent interest in Epstein’s case, which some Democrats have attributed to the sensitivity of seeking information while Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking case was pending and while some of Epstein’s victims were pursuing litigation.

But the Democrats’ new, unified fixation on Epstein has come as Republicans have struggled to manage the issue, which has caused intra-party fractures.

The files became a political thorn for the administration after Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chaotic rollout last year of already-public files by the DOJ, which enraged a faction of Trump’s base who had been expecting new information.

The DOJ said at the time that it would not disclose further files because of court orders and victim privacy and said the department found no information that would warrant bringing charges against anyone else. In a turnabout, however, Bondi ordered a review, at Trump’s direction, of Epstein’s alleged connections to Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton.

The president, who was closely associated with Epstein but was never accused of any crimes related to him, also relented to months-long pressure to sign a transparency bill last year that ordered the DOJ to release all of its Epstein-related records within 30 days. Among the most vocal supporters of the bill was former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., which resulted in her highly public falling out with the president, whom she once fervently supported.

The Epstein saga has also plagued the administration because some of Trump’s allies, now in top roles in the DOJ, once promoted the existence of incriminating, nonpublic Epstein files, including a supposed list of sexual predators who were his clients. FBI Director Kash Patel, for instance, said in 2023 the government was hiding ‘Epstein’s list’ of ‘pedophiles.’ But the DOJ leaders failed to deliver on those claims upon taking office.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., meanwhile, faced accusations from Democrats that he kept the House in recess for about two months in the summer to avoid votes on Epstein transparency legislation. Johnson shot back that Democrats had, in his view, been lax on the Epstein case until Trump took office.

‘We’re not going to allow the Democrats to use this for political cover. They had four years,’ Johnson told reporters at the time. ‘Remember, the Biden administration held the Epstein files for four years and not a single one of these Democrats, or anyone in Congress, made any thought about that at all.’

The House Oversight Committee has also spurred infighting over how Epstein material has been handled, as it has been actively engaged in subpoenaing, reviewing, and releasing large batches of Epstein-related records from both the DOJ and Epstein’s estate.

Committee Republicans have said their Democratic counterparts ‘cherry-picked’ material to release, such as photos featuring Trump and Epstein, and that they ‘keep trying to create a fake hoax by being dishonest, deceptive, and shamelessly deranged.’

Negotiations between the United States and Iran advanced Tuesday toward what Tehran described as the beginning of a potential framework, but sharp public divisions between the two sides underscored how far apart they remain.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the two sides reached a ‘general agreement on a number of guiding principles’ and agreed to begin drafting text for a possible agreement, with plans to exchange drafts and schedule a third round of talks. 

‘Good progress was made compared to the previous meeting,’ he said, adding that while drafting would slow the process, ‘at least the path has started.’

Yet Washington publicly has insisted that any agreement must result in the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program — including its enrichment capacity — along with limits on Tehran’s ballistic missile program and an end to its support for allied militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Those demands go well beyond temporary enrichment pauses or technical adjustments.

Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appeared to push back directly against that premise, signaling a firm ceiling on Iran’s concessions. 

‘The Americans say, ‘Let’s negotiate over your nuclear energy, and the result of the negotiation is supposed to be that you do not have this energy!’’ he wrote on social media as talks were underway. ‘If that’s the case, there is no room for negotiation.’

Khamenei’s remarks suggest that while Iranian negotiators may be discussing limits or interim measures, Iran is unlikely to accept an agreement that eliminates its nuclear program outright — setting up a direct collision with the Trump administration’s insistence on dismantlement.

‘Progress was made, but there are still a lot of details to discuss,’ according to a U.S. official. ‘The Iranians said they would come back in the next two weeks with detailed proposals to address some of the open gaps in our positions.’

President Donald Trump said Monday he would be watching the talks closely.

The mistrust runs deep. 

Iranian officials have pointed to U.S. military strikes on their nuclear facilities in June 2025 as part of the broader backdrop complicating diplomacy, arguing such actions demonstrate Washington’s willingness to use force even as negotiations unfold.

Behind the diplomatic push, the United States has significantly expanded its military footprint in the region. The USS Abraham Lincoln is operating in the Arabian Sea, and F-35 fighter jets from the carrier shot down an Iranian Shahed-139 drone recently after it approached the strike group — a move U.S. officials described as demonstrating low tolerance for provocations.

The USS Gerald R. Ford, the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, is now transiting toward the Middle East. President Trump confirmed the deployment on Feb. 13, saying, ‘In case we don’t make a deal, we’ll need it.’ Reports indicate a third carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush, is being prepared for possible expedited deployment, which would create a rare three-carrier U.S. presence near Iranian waters.

The buildup extends beyond naval forces. A squadron of F-35A Lightning II aircraft landed at RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom earlier in February as a staging point for potential deployment to the Middle East, while satellite imagery shows additional U.S. aircraft — including F-15E Strike Eagles and A-10 Thunderbolts — positioned at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan.

Logistics flights into the region have also surged. 

More than 100 C-17 cargo aircraft have arrived since late January, transporting advanced air defense systems, including Patriot and THAAD batteries, to bases in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, according to defense tracking data.

At the same time, Iran’s leadership has paired diplomatic engagement with forceful warnings. 

Khamenei said the United States could be ‘struck so hard that it cannot get up again,’ and a senior commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy declared the country is prepared to close the Strait of Hormuz if ordered — a move that could disrupt roughly one-fifth of global oil flows through the strategic waterway.

Despite the heightened rhetoric and military signaling, Iranian officials said talks would continue, framing the Geneva discussions as a step toward a possible agreement — even as the fundamental dispute over dismantlement versus preservation of Iran’s nuclear capabilities remains unresolved.

Fox News’ Nick Kalman contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump said the way Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez answered questions at the Munich Security Conference ‘was not a good look for the United States.’ 

The Democrat lawmaker from New York and potential 2028 presidential candidate has been facing criticism for making foreign policy gaffes at the event. In one instance, Ocasio-Cortez appeared to stall for nearly 20 seconds when asked if the U.S. should send troops to defend Taiwan from a possible invasion by China, and in another, claimed Venezuela is below the equator. 

‘By the way, I watched AOC answering questions in Munich. This was not a good look for the United States. I watched Gavin Newscum answering questions in Munich, and this was a bad look for our country,’ Trump told reporters onboard Air Force One on Monday night. 

‘This was a bad – these two people are incompetent, and at least Hillary is competent. She’s just Trump deranged. She was so deranged and she is an angry woman. But I watched the other two speaking and answering basic questions. Look, Gavin has destroyed California, and AOC I never really got her, I never heard her speak very much and they started answering questions. She had no idea what was happening,’ Trump continued, referencing Newsom’s and Clinton’s attendance at the Munich Security Conference.

‘She had no idea how to answer, you know, very important questions concerning the world. But she can’t answer questions concerning New York City either, because New York City [has] got some problems,’ Trump also said about Ocasio-Cortez. 

Fox News Digital has reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s and Newsom’s offices for reaction.

Ocasio-Cortez was asked on Friday, ‘Would and should the U.S. actually commit U.S. troops to defend Taiwan if China were to move?’ 

The four-term lawmaker appeared to stall for nearly 20 seconds before offering that the U.S. should try to avoid reaching a clash with China over Taiwan.

‘This is, of course, a, a very long-standing, policy of the United States, and I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point, and we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise,’ Ocasio-Cortez said. 

Ocasio-Cortez also claimed that Venezuela was ‘below the equator’ while criticizing the Trump administration for arresting the nation’s dictator Nicolás Maduro. 

‘It is not a remark on who Maduro was as a leader. He canceled elections. He was an anti-democratic leader. That doesn’t mean that we can kidnap a head of state and engage in acts of war just because the nation is below the equator,’ Ocasio-Cortez said.

In a post on Truth Social Monday night, Trump said, ‘AOC and Newscum were an embarrassment to our Nation.’ 

Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser, Lindsay Kornick and Peter Pinedo contributed to this report. 

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a longtime civil rights leader, two-time Democratic presidential candidate and founder of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, died Tuesday morning at the age of 84, his family said in a statement.

‘It is with profound sadness that we announce the passing of civil rights leader and founder of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Honorable Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson Sr. He died peacefully on Tuesday morning, surrounded by his family,’ the statement said.

‘Our father was a servant leader — not only to our family, but to the oppressed, the voiceless, and the overlooked around the world,’ the Jackson family said. ‘We shared him with the world, and in return, the world became part of our extended family. His unwavering belief in justice, equality, and love uplifted millions.’

A cause of death was not mentioned, but Jackson had suffered from multiple health problems in recent years. In 2017, Jackson revealed that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. He was also treated for progressive supranuclear palsy, a rare degenerative neurological disorder. Despite health setbacks that weakened his voice and mobility, he continued advocating for civil rights and was arrested twice in 2021 while protesting the Senate filibuster rule.

Born Oct. 8, 1941, in Greenville, South Carolina, Jackson grew up in a segregated community. As a teenager, he excelled academically and earned a football scholarship to the University of Illinois before transferring to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College, where he graduated in 1964.

He became involved in civil rights activism as a teenager and was arrested at 18 for participating in a sit-in at a segregated public library. The protest marked the beginning of his rise in the student-led movement challenging segregation across the South.

After graduation, Jackson left his studies at Chicago Theological Seminary to join the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, Alabama, and later became a key figure in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. With King’s support, he led Operation Breadbasket in Chicago, a campaign aimed at expanding economic opportunities for Black Americans.

Jackson was in Memphis in 1968 when King was assassinated. In the years that followed, Jackson founded what became the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, an organization focused on civil rights, voter registration and economic empowerment. Over decades of activism, he received dozens of honorary degrees and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000 by President Bill Clinton.

Jackson ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988. In 1984, he won 18% of the primary vote. His campaign faced controversy over an antisemitic remark he made about New York’s Jewish community.

In 1988, Jackson won nearly 7 million votes — about 29% of the total — and finished first or second in multiple Super Tuesday contests. Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ultimately secured the nomination.

Though he never held elected office, Jackson remained an influential political figure, advocating for expanded voter registration, lobbying for Washington, D.C., statehood, and at times serving as a diplomatic envoy, including efforts to secure the release of Americans held overseas.

In 2001, Jackson publicly acknowledged that he had fathered a daughter, Ashley, with a woman affiliated with his advocacy organization. He later apologized.

Jackson is survived by his wife of more than 60 years, Jacqueline; their children — Santita, Jesse Jr., Jonathan, Yusef and Jacqueline — daughter Ashley Jackson; and grandchildren.

Public observances will be held in Chicago with final funeral arrangements yet to be announced. 

The Senate inched closer to striking a compromise on a Homeland Security (DHS) funding deal as the partial government shutdown entered its fourth day Tuesday.

Whether Senate Democrats and the White House can reach a deal this week while lawmakers are out of town remains an open question.

Negotiations between the Trump administration and Senate Democrats were seemingly at an impasse through much of Monday after little activity over the weekend. The White House provided a counteroffer to Democrats’ list of demands midway through last week, which they summarily rejected and, in turn, blocked attempts to fund DHS.

But that changed when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., office announced that Senate Democrats had sent their counterproposal to the White House late Monday night. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was wary of whether Schumer and his caucus would actually put forth a response, but remained hopeful that negotiations would continue. 

‘We’ll see if they are at all serious about actually getting a solution to this, or whether they just want to play political games with these really important agencies,’ Thune told Fox News Digital. 

He also noted that lawmakers went through the same exercise last year when Senate Democrats slow-walked negotiations during the 43-day shutdown.  

‘It’s wrong, in my view, for Democrats to use these folks as collateral in yet another harmful government shutdown,’ Thune said.

The administration wants to keep the dialogue going, a White House official told Fox News Digital.

‘The Trump administration remains interested in having good-faith conversations with Democrats,’ the White House official said.

The official noted that Senate Democrats’ refusal to extend DHS funding is affecting several key functions under the agency’s umbrella, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Secret Service.

‘President Trump has been clear — he wants the government open,’ the official said.

The partial government shutdown, which went into effect over the weekend, stems from Schumer and Senate Democrats’ demands for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

ICE operations are unlikely to be significantly affected by the lapse in DHS funding, as legislation backed by President Donald Trump allocates billions of dollars to immigration enforcement.

Both sides remain at odds over how far those changes should go. Senate Republicans have signaled willingness to cede some ground but have drawn a red line on certain demands, such as requiring ICE agents to obtain judicial warrants or prohibiting them from wearing face coverings during enforcement actions.

Senate Democrats, however, describe their 10 demands as straightforward reforms designed to ensure federal immigration agents adhere to standards similar to those governing local and state police.

‘There’s not much we need to figure out,’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told Fox News Digital. ‘Either you think ICE agents are special, and they get to own our streets with no accountability, or that ICE agents should follow the same rules as everyone else — that’s all Democrats are asking for.’

The State Department’s allegation that China conducted a yield-producing nuclear test in 2020 is reigniting debate in Washington over whether the United States can continue its decades-long moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. 

U.S. officials warned that Beijing may be preparing tests in the ‘hundreds of tons’ range — a scale that underscores China’s accelerating nuclear modernization and complicates efforts to draw Beijing into arms control talks.

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said recently that the United States has evidence China conducted an explosive nuclear test at its Lop Nur site.

‘I can reveal that the U.S. government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons,’ DiNanno said during remarks at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament.

He added that ‘China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22 of 2020.’

DiNanno also accused Beijing of using ‘decoupling’ — detonating devices in ways that dampen seismic signals — to ‘hide its activities from the world.’

China’s foreign ministry has denied the allegations, accusing Washington of politicizing nuclear issues and reiterating that Beijing maintains a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing.

But the accusation has sharpened questions about verification, deterrence and whether the U.S. stockpile stewardship program — which relies on advanced simulations rather than live detonations — remains sufficient in an era of renewed great-power nuclear competition.

Why small nuclear tests are hard to detect

Detecting small underground nuclear tests has long been one of the thorniest problems in arms control.

Unlike the massive atmospheric detonations of the Cold War, modern nuclear tests are conducted deep underground. If a country uses so-called ‘decoupling’ techniques — detonating a device inside a large underground cavity to muffle the seismic shock — the resulting signal can be significantly reduced, making it harder to distinguish from natural seismic activity.

That vulnerability has been debated for decades in discussions over the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which China signed but never ratified. Even a relatively small underground detonation can provide valuable weapons data while remaining difficult to detect.

‘If you detonate a device inside a large underground cavity, you can significantly attenuate the seismic signature,’ said Chuck DeVore, chief national initiatives officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a former Pentagon official. ‘That makes it much harder to detect with confidence.’

Are simulations enough?

China signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996 but has not ratified it, and the treaty has never entered into force. It has maintained a voluntary testing moratorium — a commitment that a yield-producing detonation would contradict.

As China expands its nuclear arsenal and major arms control frameworks falter, the Cold War principle of ‘trust but verify’ is under growing strain.

‘The arms control community should feel thoroughly discredited at this point,’ DeVore said, arguing that policymakers should not assume Western restraint will be reciprocated by Beijing.

For decades, the U.S. has relied on the Stockpile Stewardship Program — advanced computer modeling and simulations — to ensure its weapons remain reliable without explosive testing. DeVore warned that this approach may no longer be sufficient if competitors are conducting live detonations.

‘The question presupposes that we only live in a technical world,’ he told Fox News, arguing that relying solely on simulations while rivals ‘cheat at every treaty they’ve ever signed’ risks leaving the United States behind.

DeVore also pointed to what he described as a growing institutional challenge.

‘Virtually everyone who had direct experience with live testing is now retired,’ he said. ‘Rebuilding that expertise would take years.’

But not all nuclear experts agree that resuming testing is the answer.

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, cautioned that a return to live detonations would be far more complex and costly than critics of the current system suggest.

‘Yield testing isn’t a magic switch,’ Sokolski said. ‘If you want meaningful reliability data, you don’t do one test — you do many.’

He noted that the United States conducted more than 1,000 nuclear tests during the Cold War, building a deep database that now underpins the program. Restarting that process, he argued, would likely require years of preparation and significant funding before yielding strategic benefits.

‘The debate isn’t pro-nuclear weapon versus anti-nuclear weapon,’ Sokolski said. ‘It’s about what’s technically necessary and what’s economical.’

A debate inside the weapons complex

Sokolski said the disagreement extends even within the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.

‘Certainly at one of our major labs that likes using calculations — that’s Livermore — they would say you’re home,’ he said, referring to confidence in advanced simulations and hydrodynamic modeling.

Others place greater weight on empirical validation and preserving the option of live testing.

The dispute, he said, is not ideological but technical — centered on confidence levels, cost and long-term strategic planning.

Allies and the credibility question

The implications extend beyond Washington and Beijing. 

Sokolski warned that the credibility of ‘extended deterrence’ — the U.S. commitment to defend allies under its nuclear umbrella — could come under strain if doubts grow about American resolve or capability.

‘Do they think you’re going to come to their defense?’ Sokolski said. ‘If they don’t, it doesn’t matter how reliable your weapons are, extended deterrence isn’t going to work very well.’

Allies such as Japan and South Korea long have relied on U.S. nuclear guarantees rather than pursuing independent arsenals. Any perception that the balance is shifting could complicate regional stability and long-standing nonproliferation efforts.

The policy crossroads

For now, U.S. lab directors continue to certify that the American arsenal remains safe, secure and reliable without explosive testing. But Heather Williams, director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said sustained testing by competitors — particularly absent transparency — could alter that calculus.

‘If Russia and China continue their nuclear testing activities without providing some sort of transparency, then the technical community might make a different assessment,’ she said.

The debate confronting U.S. policymakers is not simply whether to test, but under what conditions testing would meaningfully strengthen deterrence rather than accelerate competition.

Trump previously has suggested the U.S. should ensure testing ‘on an equal basis’ with competitors, though his administration has not formally announced a policy shift.

Trump in October 2025 suggested the U.S. should consider resuming nuclear weapons testing ‘on an equal basis’ with other powers, and at one point said that if others were testing, ‘I guess we have to test.’ 

The president did not clarify whether he meant full nuclear explosive detonations, which the U.S. has not conducted since 1992,  or other forms of testing such as delivery system evaluations that do not involve nuclear explosions. Any return to explosive testing would represent a significant shift in U.S. policy.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are both hopeful about becoming their party’s presidential nominee in 2028. They both have a shot. Odds-makers place the New York congresswoman second only to California Gov. Gavin Newsom in the race to be the Democratic nominee, while President Trump, asked whether Vice President JD Vance is his chosen successor, has more than once suggested that Rubio is also in the running.

Recently, both spoke at the Munich Security Conference. While Secretary of State Rubio earned well-deserved applause from policymakers at home and abroad for his speech, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez showed she was not ready for prime time — not even close.

In what may prove a preview of the presidential race two years from now, Rubio and Ocasio-Cortez squared off on geopolitics. For Rubio, the occasion was another opportunity to articulate President Trump’s foreign policy vision — one that embraces American leadership powered by a strong military, a forceful trade agenda, energy independence and a robust economy. And, as we have seen, the Trump White House is not shy about using that military.

Trump has also declined to surrender national sovereignty to global treaties such as the Paris Climate Accord or institutions such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization — bodies he has deemed anti-American. In the case of the United Nations, the recent elevation of Abbas Tajik, Iran’s representative to the United Nations, to serve as vice chair of the 65th Session of the Commission for Social Development — a group purportedly ‘tasked with promoting democracy, gender equality, tolerance and non-violence,’ as one critic described it — proves once again the debasement of the institution’s integrity. Iran, which only recently crushed protests and slaughtered tens of thousands of its own innocent, unarmed citizens, should be thrown out of the U.N., not rewarded. And certainly not congratulated by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution — which he did even as his own Human Rights Council passed a resolution condemning the mass murders.

Rubio’s speech was challenging, calling out European allies for succumbing to climate zealotry, encouraging mass migration, exporting industrial self-sufficiency and investing ‘in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves.’ But it was also conciliatory, emphasizing that ‘we are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally,’ and reviewing the many bonds that link the United States and Europe. It was an inspiring call for unity and progress, assuring the appreciative audience that ‘our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours.’

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board described Rubio’s speech as drawn from Ronald Reagan’s playbook, arguing that Trump’s ‘greatest failure as president is that he won’t, or can’t, articulate his larger principles.’ I would argue that Trump is putting those principles into action, coherently and consistently, and that Rubio brilliantly summarized the Trump doctrine.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez delivered remarks at a forum on the sidelines of the Munich conference and reminded us why she should not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Former Vice President Kamala Harris introduced Americans to the magic of word salads — the endless spewing of language that says nothing while helpfully obscuring vast pits of ignorace — but AOC has perfected the art.

Ocasio-Cortez is known as a fierce critic of Israel but otherwise is not known for her geopolitical views, having largely spent her career railing against corporations and the evil rich. But if she wants to run for president, it is important for her to demonstrate some basic foreign policy chops. Hence, the trip to Munich. Unhappily for her, the foray into the world of diplomacy did not go well. Even The New York Times had to admit that she had some ‘shaky moments.’

Asked whether the United States should come to Taiwan’s aid if China attempted to seize the island, Ocasio-Cortez hesitated for several uncomfortable minutes. Even the  description from anti-Trump left-wing Bloomberg, whose reporter had posed the question, said the response was ‘flubbed,’  and wrote: ‘Normally quick to respond, Ocasio-Cortez was at a loss for words, saying, ‘this is such a, a, you know, I think that, this is a, um, this is of course, a, ah, a very longstanding, um, policy of the United States.’’ Hilariously, the piece added that AOC regrouped with what it called a ‘cogent response,’ saying the United States should ‘avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise.’ That’s cogent?

The Times, too, admitted the Munich outing ‘demonstrated the relative foreign policy inexperience of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’, and that she ‘struggled at times to formulate succinct answers’. But the Times excused her incapacity, describing the questions posed as ‘probing and specific.’ Asking her policy vis-à-vis Taiwan is hardly ‘probing’; this issue is, along with our relationship with Israel, fundamental.

Ocasio-Cortez also mixed up the trans-Atlantic partnership, referring to it as the ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership,’ and scoffed at Rubio’s claim that American cowboy culture came from Spain. (It did.) But the corker was another response she gave, enthusiastically endorsed by the Times, about President Trump’s foreign policy, ‘They are looking to withdraw the United States from the entire world so that we can turn into an age of authoritarians that can carve out a world where Donald Trump can command the Western Hemisphere and Latin America as his personal sandbox, where Putin can saber-rattle around Europe.’

Yes, AOC, Trump is withdrawing the U.S. from the ‘entire world’ by trying to end the war between Ukraine and Russia, deliver the people of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba from authoritarian regimes, confront China, protect Christians in Nigeria, strengthen Western defense capabilities and pursue peace in the Middle East. Former President Joe Biden declared that ‘America is back,’ but did nothing to protect our interests around the globe.

Under President Trump, the U.S. is not only ‘back,’ it is also in the lead and moving persuasively forward.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., is ready to put Senate Democrats to the test on voter ID legislation.

The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has earned the backing of 50 Senate Republicans, including Thune, which is enough to break through a key procedural hurdle.

Whether it can pass from the Senate to President Donald Trump’s desk is, for now, an unlikely scenario if lawmakers take the traditional path in the upper chamber. Still, Thune wants to put Democrats on the spot as midterm elections creep closer.

‘We will have a vote,’ Thune told Fox News Digital.

His comments came as he crisscrossed his home state of South Dakota, where he and Republicans in their respective states are out selling their legislative achievements as primary season fast approaches.

Thune viewed the opportunity of a floor vote as a way to have Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus explain to voters why they would block a legislative push to federally enshrine voter ID and proof of citizenship to register to vote.

‘We will make sure that everybody’s on the record, and if they want to be against ensuring that only American citizens vote in our elections, they can defend that when they have to go out and campaign against Republicans this fall,’ Thune said.

But the political makeup of the Senate will prove a tricky path to navigate if Republicans want to pass the bill.

Though the majority of the Senate GOP backs the bill, without at least a handful of Senate Democrats joining them, it is destined to fall victim to the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

And Schumer has time and again made clear that he and the majority of Senate Democrats view the legislation, which passed the House last week, as a tool of voter suppression that would unduly harm poorer Americans and minority groups.

So Senate Republicans are looking at their options.

One, which Thune already threw cold water on, is nuking the Senate filibuster. The other is turning to the talking, or standing, filibuster. It’s the physical precursor to the current filibuster that requires hours upon hours of debate over a bill.

Some fear that taking that path could paralyze the Senate floor. Thune acknowledged that concern, having previously made it himself, but noted another wrinkle.

‘A lot of people focus on unlimited debate, and yes, it is something that could drag on for weeks or literally, for that matter, months,’ Thune said. ‘But it’s also unlimited amendments, meaning that every amendment — there’s no rules — so every amendment will be 51 votes.’

He argued that there are several politically challenging amendments that could hit the floor that would put members in tough reelections in a hard spot and possibly cause them to pass, which ‘could also be very detrimental to the bill in the end.’

Thune didn’t shut down the idea of turning to the talking filibuster, especially if it ended in lawmakers being able to actually pass the SAVE America Act. But in the Senate, outcomes are rarely guaranteed on politically divisive legislation.

‘I think that, you know, this obviously is a mechanism of trying to pursue an outcome, but I don’t know that, in the end, it’ll get you the outcome you want,’ Thune said. ‘And there could be a lot of ancillary damage along the way.’

Senate Republicans now have enough support within their conference to pass Trump-backed voter ID legislation, but a major hurdle remains.

The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has secured the backing of 50 Senate Republicans, following a pressure campaign by the White House and a cohort of Senate conservatives over the past several weeks.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has led the charge in the upper chamber, ramping up his efforts last week as the bill moved through the House.

Lee told Fox News Digital that he was ‘ecstatic’ about the progress made in shoring up support for the legislation and hoped the Senate would move as quickly as possible to consider it. 

‘I would love to see us turn to it next week, perhaps the day after the State of the Union address,’ Lee said. ‘I think that would be good timing. But I think this needs to get done sooner rather than later.’

That multifaceted campaign — both on social media and behind closed doors in the Senate — proved successful, drawing support from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and several others.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, became the 50th senator to back the bill. That gives Republicans the internal support they need to advance the legislation procedurally, but only if they turn to the standing, or talking, filibuster.

Before leaving Washington, D.C., for a weeklong break last week, Lee and other supporters, including Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rick Scott, R-Fla., pitched the voter ID proposal and potential pathways to pass it to colleagues.

‘We had some good senators stand up and say, ‘No, we got to fight for this,’’ Johnson told Fox News Digital. ‘I’m with them. We need to fight for this.’

Still, the effort faces heavy resistance from Senate Democrats, who are nearly unified in their opposition.

The only potential outlier is Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who has pushed back against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., characterization of the bill as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ but has not said whether he would ultimately support the SAVE America Act.

Despite that possibility, Schumer and most of his caucus plan to block the legislation.

‘We will not let it pass in the Senate,’ Schumer told CNN’s Jake Tapper. ‘We are fighting it tooth and nail.’

Not every Senate Republican is onboard, either. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has announced she will vote against the measure, while Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., have not signed on as co-sponsors.

One option to bypass Democratic opposition would be nuking the filibuster and its 60-vote threshold — a move some congressional Republicans argue has effectively become a ‘zombie filibuster,’ since legislation can be blocked simply by withholding votes rather than holding the floor.

Despite previous pressure from President Donald Trump to eliminate the filibuster, the move does not have the votes among Republicans to succeed — a point Thune underscored last week.

‘There aren’t anywhere close to the votes — not even close — to nuking the filibuster,’ Thune said.

That leaves a return to the standing, or talking, filibuster — the precursor to today’s procedural hurdle. Under that approach, Senate Democrats would be required to hold the floor and publicly debate their opposition, as senators did for decades before the modern filibuster became standard practice.

The idea appears to be gaining traction among some Republicans, though critics warn it could effectively paralyze the upper chamber for days, weeks or even months, depending on Democrats’ resolve.

Lee said that many senators he’s spoken with are open to the idea, and that those who were reluctant didn’t believe it wouldn’t work. 

‘I understand why people might have questions about a procedure that we’re not familiar with,’ Lee said. ‘It doesn’t mean we don’t have to do it, because we do.’

Meanwhile, Trump has suggested he could take matters into his own hands if Congress cannot pass the SAVE America Act.

In a Truth Social post last week, Trump called the legislation a ‘CAN’T MISS FOR RE-ELECTION IN THE MIDTERMS, AND BEYOND.’

‘This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW! If we can’t get it through Congress, there are legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted,’ Trump wrote. ‘I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.’

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., is accusing Democrats of being hypocritical in their opposition to Republicans’ latest election integrity bill.

The No. 3 House Republican ripped the rival party after nearly all of them voted against the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act last week, specifically over its provision mandating federally accepted photo identification at the polls. It’s also sometimes referred to as the ‘SAVE Act.’

‘These guys are doing the same old broken record about voter suppression,’ Emmer told Fox News Digital. ‘Why aren’t they screaming about photo IDs at the airport? Why aren’t they screaming about photo IDs when you check out a book at the library?’

Emmer pointed out that a photo ID was required for attendees to watch former Vice President Kamala Harris accept the Democratic Party’s nomination for the White House in Chicago last year.

‘By the way, if they think it’s voter suppression, why do they require photo IDs at the Democrat National Convention to get in?’ Emmer said.

‘I mean, I think Americans are so much smarter than these people can understand, can let themselves understand,’ he said.

The SAVE America Act passed the House on Wednesday with support from all Republicans — an increasingly rare sight in the chamber — and just one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

A previous iteration of the bill, just called the SAVE Act, passed the House in April of last year with support from four House Democrats.

Whereas the SAVE Act would have created a new federal proof-of-citizenship mandate in the voter registration process and imposed requirements for states to keep their rolls clear of ineligible voters, the updated bill would also require photo ID to vote in any federal election.

That photo ID would also have to denote proof-of-citizenship, according to the legislative text.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have both panned the bill, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries calling it ‘voter suppression’ and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., dismissing it as ‘a modern-day Jim Crow.’

Jeffries also specifically took issue with a provision that would enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to initiate removal proceedings if an illegal immigrant was found on a state’s voter rolls, arguing DHS would weaponize the information.

But voter ID, at least, has proven to be a popular standard in U.S. elections across multiple public polls.

A Pew Research Center poll released in August 2025 showed a whopping 83% of people supported government-issued photo ID requirements for showing up to vote, compared to just 16% of people who disapproved of it.

A Gallup poll from October 2024 showed 84% of people supported photo ID for voting in federal elections.