Meta and Google returned to Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday for the second day of a landmark trial over claims their platforms were designed to addict young users — a closely watched case that could carry major consequences for hundreds of similar lawsuits nationwide.

The outcome could put the social media giants on the hook for significant damages in this case and others, should a Los Angeles jury side with the plaintiffs. The lawsuit is widely viewed as a bellwether for roughly 1,600 related cases across the country, underscoring the potential legal and financial ripple effects.

Still, much remains uncertain. Attorneys told the court the trial could stretch six to eight weeks, offering little early indication of how jurors might ultimately rule.

As day two nears a close, here’s an overview of where things stand.

The lead attorney for the plaintiff, identified only as K.G.M, and for Meta presented dueling opening statements to jurors this week, offering an early preview of their most compelling arguments and points they are likely to revisit for the duration of the trial.

Mark Lanier, the attorney for the plaintiffs, told jurors that deciding in favor of his client, K.G.M. will be ‘as easy as ABC,’ which he told the court stands for ‘addicting the brains of children.’

Lanier’s opening statement was neither short nor lacking in props, including a toy Ferrari, a bicycle hand brake, and eggs —introduced to the jury, one-by-one, over the course of his two-hour remarks.

He argued the selective tactics used by tech giants were the same tactics embraced by casinos, ‘borrowing heavily’ from slot machines and tobacco companies in an attempt to ‘deliberately’ develop design features that maximize youth engagement, target younger users — and make it difficult for them to disengage from the platforms compared to older users and adults.

‘For a teenager, social validation is survival,’ Lanier said, noting that Meta, Google, and others ‘engineered a feature that caters to a minor’s craving for social validation.’ 

Meta lawyer Paul Schmidt, for his part, starkly contrasted Lanier’s tactics in his own remarks to the jury. His presentation was more formal and buttoned-up, as he ticked carefully through the points denoted in a PowerPoint presentation. 

Schmidt argued that K.G.M.’s struggles existed largely independently of the platform, telling jurors that their responsibility is to determine only whether Meta played a ‘substantial factor’ in her mental health struggles.

He cited excerpts from the plaintiff’s medical history, therapy sessions, and childhood to argue that the struggles she encountered appear to stem from other issues, including family problems, bullying, and issues with body image.

Schmidt also cited a 2025 interview in which K.G.M. said she continues to use Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok, which he said undercut the claim of substantial harm.

The outcome of the case could have a profound impact on hundreds of other cases in the U.S., including some that are slated to begin as early as this year.

It comes as parents, school districts, and other regulators have cited concerns about phone use among young people, including social media use.

Plaintiffs in the cases have argued that the companies themselves should be held liable for knowingly embracing design features that they say aim to keep children online.

The majority of lawsuits filed to date against the companies have alleged similar harm, including addiction, depression, anxiety, or self-harm behaviors. 

Because the case is being heard in civil court, it is unclear how much a jury might award to the plaintiff, should they find in favor of K.G.M. 

But experts say these outcomes could have a far-reaching consequences beyond simply financial exposure, impacting the design and regulation standards for social media giants for years to come. 

Vice President JD Vance warned Iran that there is ‘another option on the table’ if the regime does not make a nuclear deal with the U.S.

Vance made the statement while speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force Two on Tuesday. A reporter referenced President Donald Trump’s musings about potentially deploying a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East.

‘How confident are you in going the diplomatic route? Do you think that is still going to be successful or are we leaning more towards a military strike?’ the reporter asked.

‘The president has told his entire senior team that we should be trying to cut a deal that ensures the Iranians don’t have nuclear weapons,’ Vance responded.

‘But if we can’t cut that deal, then there’s another option on the table. So I think the president is going to continue to preserve his options. He’s going to have a lot of options because we have the most powerful military in the world. But until the president tells us to stop, we’re going to engage in these conversations and try to reach a good outcome through negotiation,’ he continued.

Vance went on to downplay pushes for regime change in Iran, saying a removal of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s regime would be up to ‘the Iranian people.’

He said the Trump administration’s only focus is preventing the current Iranian regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Vance’s comments come a day before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with Trump at the White House on Wednesday, with Iran expected to take center stage in the meeting.

In a phone interview with Axios, the president said Tehran ‘very much wants to reach a deal,’ but warned, ‘Either we make a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough — like last time.’

Netanyahu, speaking before departing Israel for Washington, said he intends to present Israel’s position. 

‘I will present to the president our concept regarding the principles of the negotiations — the essential principles that are important not only to Israel but to anyone who wants peace and security in the Middle East,’ he told reporters.

U.S. and Iranian officials resumed talks in Oman this week for the first time since last summer’s 12-day war. The United States continues to maintain a significant military presence in the Gulf, a posture widely viewed as both deterrence and for holding leverage in negotiations with Tehran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday in a visit expected to center on Iran, as Washington weighs diplomacy against the threat of military action and Israel pushes to shape the scope of negotiations.

Trump has signaled the Iranian file will dominate the agenda. In a phone interview with Axios, the president said Tehran ‘very much wants to reach a deal,’ but warned, ‘Either we make a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough — like last time.’

Netanyahu, speaking before departing Israel for Washington, said he intends to present Israel’s position. ‘I will present to the president our concept regarding the principles of the negotiations — the essential principles that are important not only to Israel but to anyone who wants peace and security in the Middle East,’ he told reporters.

The meeting comes days after U.S. and Iranian officials resumed talks in Oman for the first time since last summer’s 12-day war, while the United States continues to maintain a significant military presence in the Gulf — a posture widely viewed as both deterrence and for holding leverage in negotiations with Tehran.

From the U.S. perspective, Iran is seen as a global security challenge rather than a regional one, according to Jacob Olidort, chief research officer and director of American security at the America First Policy Institute. ‘It’s an important historic time of potentially seismic proportions,’ he told Fox News Digital.

‘Iran is not so much a Middle East issue. It’s a global issue affecting U.S. interests around the world,’ he added, calling the regime ‘probably the world’s oldest global terror network… [with] thousands of Americans killed through proxies.’

Olidort said the administration’s strategy appears to combine diplomacy with visible military pressure. ‘The president has been clear… should talks not be successful, the military option cannot be off the table,’ he said. ‘Military assets in the region serve as part of the negotiation strategy with Iran.’

For Israel, the main concern is not only Iran’s nuclear program but also its ballistic missile arsenal and regional network of armed groups.

Trump indicated to Axios that the United States shares at least part of that view, saying any agreement would need to address not only nuclear issues but also Iran’s ballistic missiles. 

Israeli intelligence expert Sima Shein has warned that negotiations narrowly focused on nuclear restrictions could leave Israel exposed. ‘The visit signals a lack of confidence that American envoys, Witkoff and Kushner, alone can represent Israel’s interests in the best way. They were in Israel just a week ago — but Netanyahu wants to speak directly with Trump, so there is no ambiguity about Israel’s position,’ she added.

Shein says Iran may be stalling diplomatically to see whether Washington limits talks to nuclear issues while avoiding missile constraints. Her analysis further suggests that a sanctions-relief agreement that leaves Iran’s broader capabilities intact could stabilize the regime at a moment of internal pressure while preserving its military leverage. 

‘An agreement now would effectively save the regime at a time when it has no real solutions to its internal problems. Lifting sanctions through a deal would give it breathing room and help stabilize it,’ she said.

‘If there is an agreement, the United States must demand the release of all detainees and insist on humanitarian measures, including medical support for those who have been severely injured. Washington would need to be directly involved in enforcing those provisions.’

Netanyahu said before leaving Israel that he and Trump would discuss ‘a series of topics,’ including Gaza, where a U.S.-backed postwar framework and ceasefire implementation remain stalled. 

According to Israeli reporting, Netanyahu plans to tell Trump that phase two of the Gaza peace plan ‘is not moving,’ reflecting continued disputes over disarmament, governance and security arrangements.

The timing of Netanyahu’s visit may also allow him to avoid returning to Washington the following week for the inaugural session of the Board of Peace, Shein said, noting the initiative is controversial in Israel’s parliament. 

‘Israel is deeply concerned about the presence of Turkey and Qatar on the board of peace and their malign influence on other members as well as on the Palestinian authority’s technocratic government,’ Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told Fox News Digital.

‘Hamas’s control of Gaza has not weakened, while international commitments to disarm Hamas have appeared to weaken,’ he added, ‘The longer the U.S. waits before taking action against the Iranian regime, the more compromised Israel is in its ability and determination to forcibly disarm Hamas, both of which require the sanction and the blessing of the new international structures on Gaza.’

‘The prime minister’s deep concern is the stalled state of affairs both against the Iranian regime and apparently in Gaza. Timing is critical on both fronts. And for Israel, the window seems to be closing,’ Diker said.  

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refused to consider Moderna’s application for a new flu vaccine using mRNA technology, the company announced Tuesday, a decision that could delay the introduction of a shot designed to offer stronger protection for older adults.

Moderna said it received what’s known as a ‘refusal-to-file’ (RTF) letter from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), citing the lack of an ‘adequate and well-controlled’ study with a comparator arm that ‘does not reflect the best-available standard of care.’

Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said the FDA’s decision did not ‘identify any safety or efficacy concerns with our product’ and ‘does not further our shared goal of enhancing America’s leadership in developing innovative medicines.’

‘It should not be controversial to conduct a comprehensive review of a flu vaccine submission that uses an FDA-approved vaccine as a comparator in a study that was discussed and agreed on with CBER prior to starting,’ Bancel said in a statement. ‘We look forward to engaging with CBER to understand the path forward as quickly as possible so that America’s seniors, and those with underlying conditions, continue to have access to American-made innovations.’

The rare decision from the FDA comes amid increased scrutiny over vaccine approvals under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has criticized mRNA vaccines and rolled back certain COVID-19 shot recommendations over the past year.

Kennedy previously removed members of the federal government’s vaccine advisory panel and appointed new members, and moved to cancel $500 million in mRNA vaccine contracts.

The FDA authorized COVID-19 vaccines for the fall for high-risk groups only. Last May, Kennedy announced the vaccines would be removed from the CDC’s routine immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women.

According to Moderna, the refusal-to-file decision was based on the company’s choice of comparator in its Phase 3 trial — a licensed standard-dose seasonal flu vaccine — which the FDA said did not reflect the ‘best-available standard of care.’

Moderna said the decision contradicts prior written communications from the FDA, including 2024 guidance stating a standard-dose comparator would be acceptable, though a higher-dose vaccine was recommended for participants over 65.

Moderna said the FDA ‘did not raise any objections or clinical hold comments about the adequacy of the Phase 3 trial after the submission of the protocol in April 2024 or at any time before the initiation of the study in September 2024.’

In August 2025, following completion of the Phase 3 efficacy trial, Moderna said it held a pre-submission meeting with CBER, which requested that supportive analyses on the comparator be included in the submission and indicated the data would be a ‘significant issue during review of your BLA.’

Moderna said it provided the additional analyses requested by CBER in its submission, noting that ‘at no time in the pre-submission written feedback or meeting did CBER indicate that it would refuse to review the file.’

The company requested a Type A meeting with CBER to understand the basis for the RTF letter, adding that regulatory reviews are continuing in the European Union, Canada and Australia.

Fox News has reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Alex Miller and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The House of Representatives is readying to vote on a bill that would mandate photo identification for voters across the United States in the coming 2026 midterm elections.

The House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most bills see a chamber-wide vote, advanced the SAVE America Act on Tuesday as conservatives continue to pressure the Senate to take up the bill after its likely House passage.

It’s a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at keeping non-citizens from participating in U.S. elections.

Democrats have attacked the bill as tantamount to voter suppression, while Republicans argue that it’s necessary after the influx of millions of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. during the four years of the Biden administration.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters it would get a vote on Wednesday.

The legislation is led by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, in the House, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate.

It is an updated version of Roy’s Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the House in April 2025 but was never taken up in the Senate.

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

It would also require information-sharing between state election officials and federal authorities in verifying citizenship on current voter rolls and enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to pursue immigration cases if non-citizens were found to be listed as eligible to vote.

The legislation is highly likely to pass the House, where the vast majority — if not virtually all — Republicans have supported similar pushes in the past.

But in the Senate, where current rules say 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster and hold a final vote on a bill, at least seven Democrats would be needed even if all Republicans stuck together.

It’s why House conservatives are pushing Senate GOP leaders to change rules in a way that would effectively do away with the 60-vote threshold, even if alternative paths mean paralyzing the upper chamber with hours of nonstop debate.

‘[Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.] will take it up. The only question is, will he take it up in an environment where it can pass?’ Roy posed to Fox News Digital on Tuesday. 

‘My view is that the majority leader can and should. I’m not afraid of amendment votes…we should table all their amendments, force them to run through all their speaking, make them take the floor and filibuster.’

The Justice Department is signaling a broader use of federal civil rights law against protesters accused of disrupting religious worship, with officials pointing to synagogue cases as a model for future enforcement.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said the department has applied the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act — a law historically associated with abortion clinic protests — to cases involving disruptions at Jewish houses of worship.

‘It was our pioneering application of the FACE Act to defend Jewish synagogues that paved the way for its use to defend churches,’ Dhillon said during remarks at an antisemitism and extremism conference at George Washington University Tuesday, describing the enforcement approach as a way to draw clear legal lines between protected speech and unlawful conduct.

The FACE Act makes it a federal offense to use force, threats of force or physical obstruction to intentionally interfere with individuals because they are exercising their right to religious worship or to an abortion. Dhillon said the statute allows federal authorities to intervene when protests cross into obstruction, intimidation or trespass at places of worship.

Dhillon cited a civil lawsuit filed by the Justice Department against protesters accused of disrupting services at a synagogue in West Orange, New Jersey, calling the case a first-of-its-kind application of the law in that context. She said the department is also reviewing similar incidents elsewhere and warned that additional enforcement actions could follow.

According to Dhillon, the Civil Rights Division has shifted toward more aggressive enforcement in response to a rise in antisemitic incidents since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, including harassment, vandalism and disruptions of religious services.

‘Antisemitism is an American problem, not a Jewish problem,’ Dhillon said. ‘It strikes at the heart of who we are as a nation.’

She argued that allowing unlawful conduct targeting one religious group risks eroding civil rights protections more broadly, adding that the department’s approach is meant to protect all faith communities.

Beyond the synagogue protest cases, Dhillon pointed to a series of recent Justice Department actions addressing antisemitism, including major settlement agreements with Columbia University and Northwestern University to resolve federal investigations into alleged discriminatory environments, as well as civil litigation against an Oakland, California, coffeehouse accused of refusing service to visibly Jewish customers.

Dhillon also cited federal hate crime prosecutions tied to violent antisemitic attacks, saying the department is moving quickly in cases where evidence supports criminal charges.

While emphasizing that lawful protest remains protected under the First Amendment, Dhillon said physically blocking access to religious services, trespassing on synagogue property, or defying lawful police orders fall outside constitutional protections.

‘We are not just reacting,’ she said. ‘We are proactively defending the freedoms that make this nation exceptional.’

Senate Democrats aren’t ready to concede in their push for stringent reforms to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and are ready to buck Senate Republicans’ plans to avert a partial shutdown. 

Their resistance comes as Senate Republicans and the White House have floated a counteroffer to Democrats’ proposed DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reforms. But the two sides remain far apart on a deal to fund the agency, and they are quickly running out of time.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., the top-ranking Senate Democrat on the Homeland Security spending panel, said he would not support another short-term DHS funding extension unless Republicans made meaningful concessions on immigration enforcement.

Murphy also dismissed the White House’s proposal as a list of ‘sophomoric talking points.’

‘We had plenty of time, they wasted two weeks,’ Murphy said. ‘They still haven’t given us any meaningful answer or response.’ 

His position is shared by several Senate Democrats who have unified around a push to codify a list of 10 DHS reforms. Those include requirements that ICE agents obtain judicial warrants, unmask and display identification, provisions Republicans have labeled red lines.

The standoff follows criticism late Monday from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who rejected President Donald Trump’s counteroffer.

In a joint statement, the leaders said the proposal ‘is both incomplete and insufficient in terms of addressing the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct.’ Jeffries added he would not support another short-term funding patch, known as a continuing resolution (CR), Tuesday morning. 

Schumer argued that there was plenty of time to hash out a deal. 

‘There’s no reason we can’t get this done by Thursday,’ he said. 

With Friday’s funding deadline approaching, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., teed up a backup plan Tuesday night as the risk of a shutdown grew.

Thune and Senate Republicans have warned since Trump and Schumer finalized a broader funding agreement earlier this month that Congress did not have enough time to negotiate and pass a revised DHS funding bill in just two weeks.

‘I understand that, on the other side of the Capitol, the Democrats are already objecting to that, which is no big surprise since they haven’t voted for anything yet,’ Thune said.

‘I think there are Democrats in both the House and the Senate who do want to see this addressed,’ he added. ‘I’m hopeful the conversations lead to an outcome, but we probably won’t know by the time the current CR expires.’

As with most funding fights, both parties accuse the other of failing to negotiate in good faith.

‘I’m not for putting DHS on a CR until they show us they are serious about doing something,’ Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told Fox News Digital.

Republicans counter that Democrats spent more than a week drafting their proposal, while the White House produced a counteroffer in less than two days.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital Republicans didn’t expect their counterparts to accept their offer, ‘but we didn’t accept theirs either.’ 

‘Hopefully, this is a working footprint,’ Mullin said. ‘We can start negotiating because we’re definitely not accepting their things. But the thing is, what we’re trying to do is protect the ability for ICE and our border agents to do their job. I think it’s pretty clear, though, unless the Democrats want to shut down DHS, we’re going to have to do another CR.’

The Justice Department has installed a Missouri-based U.S. prosecutor to head the Trump administration’s election probe in Fulton County, Georgia, according to recent court records, marking the latest instance in which an out-of-state prosecutor has been tasked with a leading role in a politically charged case.

The involvement of Thomas Albus, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, was revealed last month when he signed off on a Fulton County search warrant that authorized the FBI’s raid of a key Georgia election hub. The warrant authorized federal agents to seize a broad range of election records, voting rolls, and other data tied to the 2020 election, according to a copy reviewed by Fox News Digital.

The news, and the timing of Albus’ appointment, have sparked questions over the scope of the effort, including whether it is a one-off designed to shore up election-related vulnerabilities ahead of the midterms or part of a broader test case for expanded federal authority.

It also prompted Fulton County officials to sue the FBI earlier this month, demanding the return of the seized ballots.

The FBI’s decision to order the raid remains unclear, adding further uncertainty as to why Trump may have tapped Albus.

But the scope of the case is significant. Fulton County officials told reporters this month that FBI agents were seen carrying some 700 boxes of ballots from a warehouse near the election hub and loading them into a truck.

More answers could be revealed soon. The judge assigned to rule on Fulton County’s motion ordered the Justice Department to file by 5 p.m. Tuesday the arguments it made in its effort to obtain the search warrant. 

But it’s unclear how much information will be revealed as many of the documents are widely expected to remain under seal. 

Still, the installation comes as Fulton County emerged as ‘ground zero’ for complaints about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 presidential elections, including from Trump, who lost the state to former President Joe Biden by a razor-thin margin.

And while it’s not the first time Trump’s Justice Department has sought to assign prosecutors to issues outside their district lines, unlike other efforts, the legality of Albus’s role in the district is likely to be upheld. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly tapped Albus last month to oversee election integrity cases nationwide, according to multiple news outlets. 

The DOJ did not immediately return Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the nature of his role in Georgia or elsewhere.

Under federal law — 28 U.S. Code § 515 — Bondi has the legal authority to appoint an individual to coordinate civil and criminal cases, including grand jury proceedings, across all federal districts nationwide. 

Albus also spent years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Justice Department, where he helped prosecute hundreds of federal cases and jury trials, including on charges of white-collar crime, tax offenses, public corruption, and more.

Still, his installment is not completely without criticism. 

Some have played up his role as a former deputy attorney for then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt in 2020. 

Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, was one of 17 Republican attorneys general who filed a brief supporting Trump’s push to invalidate the election results of four battleground states after the election. 

There are key differences between his installment and the installment of former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan, tapped last year to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She was also the sole prosecutor who secured the indictments against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

A judge ruled in November she was illegally appointed to her role, prompting the dismissals of both cases.

Legal experts have cited differences between Halligan’s role and Albus’s role, which appears to enjoy wide protection under federal law.

‘Unlike Halligan, Albus’ appointment appears to be lawful under a federal statute that permits the attorney general to direct ‘any other officer of the Department of Justice’ to ‘conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal … whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought,’’ Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and University of Michigan Law School professor, said in a Bloomberg op-ed.

‘But sidelining Atlanta U.S. Attorney Theodore Hertzberg in favor of Albus is concerning nonetheless — especially given his ties to Trump allies.’

An association representing governors from across the country will not be holding a formal meeting with President Donald Trump after the White House reportedly snubbed Democrats, only inviting Republican governors to attend.

‘The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year. To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration,’ Bandon Tatum, CEO of the National Governors Association, said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. 

‘At this moment in our nation’s history, it is critical that institutions continue to stand for unity, dignity, and constructive engagement,’ he added.

‘NGA will remain focused on serving all governors as they deliver solutions and model leadership for the American people. Traditionally, the White House has played a role in fostering these moments during NGA’s annual meeting. This year, they will not,’ Tatum added.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who is the chairman of the NGA, said in a Monday letter to fellow governors that the association was ‘no longer serving as the facilitator’ for an event scheduled for Feb 20, according to The Associated Press, which obtained Stitt’s letter. Stitt said the NGA was meant to represent all governors — those of the 50 states as well as the governors of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

In response to the reported snub, Democratic governors from across the country said they would not be attending White House events. The statement was issued by Democratic Governors Association (DGA) Chair Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, DGA Vice Chair Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Pennsylvanie Gov. Josh Shapiro, New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

‘Democratic governors have a long record of working across the aisle to deliver results, and we remain committed to this effort. But it’s disappointing this administration doesn’t seem to share the same goal. At every turn, President Trump is creating chaos and division, and it is the American people who are hurting as a result,’ the statement read. ‘If the reports are true that not all governors are invited to these events, which have historically been productive and bipartisan opportunities for collaboration, we will not be attending the White House dinner this year. Democratic governors remain united and will never stop fighting to protect and make life better for people in our states.’

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

The NGA was scheduled to meet in Washington from Feb. 19-21, according to the AP.

During last year’s meeting, Trump and Maine’s then-Gov. Janet Mills traded barbs, showing signs of tensions between the White House and Democrats, the AP noted. At the time, Trump singled out Mills over his administration’s push to bar transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports. Mills retorted, ‘We’ll see you in court.’ Trump then predicted that opposing the order would end Mills’ political career. She is now runing for U.S. Senate.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Russia’s military has been badly battered by its failure to conquer Ukraine, but Moscow is now rebuilding its war machine for the long haul, according to a new assessment from Estonia’s foreign intelligence service, even as the force it is fielding relies more on mass and attrition than military quality. 

The report says Russia has suffered catastrophic losses since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with an estimated 1 million soldiers killed or severely wounded, draining its ranks and forcing the Kremlin to rely on mass mobilization rather than professional military strength.

Despite those losses, Estonian intelligence says the Kremlin is compensating by shifting toward mass and attrition, dramatically expanding weapons production and reorganizing its military around volume rather than quality, even as fighting in Ukraine continues.

Taken together, the assessment portrays a Russian military that has failed to defeat Ukraine, suffered historic manpower losses, and rebuilt around quantity over quality — leaving its true combat effectiveness increasingly in question.

Russia’s military-industrial complex has increased artillery ammunition production more than 17 times that of 2021, a surge the report says points to preparation for future conflicts rather than short-term battle needs, including the rebuilding of strategic stockpiles depleted during the war. Russia produced roughly 7 million artillery rounds in 2025 alone, according to the assessment.

The assessment cautions that Russia remains a diminished force compared with pre-war expectations — reliant on poorly trained recruits, convicts, foreign nationals and aging equipment — but warns that a degraded military rebuilt around attrition still poses a long-term challenge for Ukraine, NATO and European security.

Estonia, a frontline NATO state bordering Russia, has built one of Europe’s most detailed intelligence pictures of Russian military activity through its proximity, regional expertise and intelligence sharing with allies. Its annual assessments are closely read within NATO for its granular focus on Russia’s capabilities, limitations and long-term planning.

Nearly four years into the war, Estonia’s intelligence service says Russia has failed to achieve its core objective of subjugating Ukraine, which it describes as ‘more determinedly independent than ever before.’

President Donald Trump recently mocked Moscow’s performance, calling Russia a ‘paper tiger’ in a Truth Social post and questioning how a superpower could spend ‘four years fighting a war that should have taken a week.’

President Vladimir Putin has dismissed Western assessments of Russian military exhaustion as ‘wishful thinking.’ Speaking in Minsk, Belarus, Putin claimed Russia is actually preparing to ‘reduce defense spending’ starting in 2026, framing the surge in production as a completed objective rather than a sign of desperation. 

‘We keep moving, keep advancing, and feel confident,’ Putin retorted to ‘paper tiger’ claims. ‘If we are a paper tiger, then what is NATO?’

But, the report concludes, ‘Russia remains dangerous despite its incompetence.’

The intelligence service also stresses that Russia is not expected to launch a military attack against Estonia or any other NATO member in the coming year, a judgment it says is likely to remain unchanged if current levels of deterrence are maintained.

According to the report, Russia is ‘merely feigning interest in peace talks,’ using negotiations to buy time, ease pressure on its economy and reset conditions for a longer confrontation rather than to end the war on terms acceptable to Ukraine.

To offset its manpower losses, Russian authorities have built a nationwide recruitment system that increasingly relies on coercion and desperation rather than voluntary service, with regional governments under pressure to meet monthly enlistment quotas at any cost, the report says. 

Recruitment efforts now focus heavily on ‘socially vulnerable groups,’ including the unemployed, chronic debtors, detainees, individuals under judicial supervision, and those suffering from alcohol or drug addiction, according to the assessment. Labor migrants and foreign nationals have also been swept up into the system as traditional recruitment pools dry up.

The report ties Russia’s military strategy to mounting economic and social strain at home, saying the prolonged war has hollowed out civilian sectors of the economy while pushing the state to prioritize defense spending at the expense of living standards. Nearly all nonmilitary sectors are either in recession or stagnation, the assessment says, increasing the risk of social instability in the years ahead.

The intelligence service also documents the use of foreign students — particularly from African countries — who are lured with promises of employment or residency extensions, then redirected into military training and sent to the front. Hundreds of foreign nationals from countries including Zambia, Tanzania, Cameroon and Nigeria have been deployed to Russian combat units, often with little training and limited understanding of the terms they agreed to.

These foreign recruits are frequently assigned to units used to absorb heavy losses, shielding better-trained formations and underscoring what the report describes as Russia’s growing reliance on expendable manpower rather than professional soldiers.

The assessment describes widespread lawlessness inside the armed forces, citing abuse of power, corruption, theft, alcoholism and drug use as persistent problems that have eroded discipline and combat effectiveness. Frontline units, the report says, are increasingly composed of individuals who ‘under normal circumstances should not be entrusted with weapons.’

Russia also has relied heavily on convicts to replenish its ranks. Between 150,000 prisoners and 200,000 prisoners were recruited from Russian detention facilities between 2022 and 2025, many of them convicted of serious violent crimes and granted pardons in exchange for frontline service, according to the report.

Despite the erosion of professionalism across its ranks, Estonian intelligence cautions against interpreting Russia’s military shortcomings as a reduction in threat. Instead, it says Moscow has adapted by embracing a model built around attrition, firepower and expendability, rather than maneuver warfare or elite units.

For NATO planners, the concern is that a Russia rebuilt around mass firepower and expendable manpower lowers the threshold for prolonged, high-casualty conflicts, even if Moscow struggles with complex operations.

The report emphasizes that Russia has exhausted much of the military stockpiles it inherited from the Soviet Union and exposed systemic problems within its armed forces, yet continues to invest heavily in rebuilding ammunition reserves and unmanned systems that could be used beyond Ukraine.

Not all analysts agree that ‘mass’ is Russia’s only path. A recent report from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) suggests 2026 will instead be the ‘year of hybrid escalation.’ With conventional options ‘foreclosed by economic constraints,’ researchers William Dixon and Maksym Beznosiuk argue the Kremlin is pivoting to a ‘thousand cuts’ strategy of cheaper, deniable sabotage across Europe.

‘We must prepare not for a resurgent Russia but for a desperate one,’ the report warns. 

This shift replaces traditional combat with an agile network of ‘disposable’ saboteurs— recruited via encrypted apps for arson and infrastructure attacks — designed to fracture Western support for Ukraine from within.