The United Nations on Friday failed to adopt a resolution brought by China and Russia that would have extended sanctions relief for Iran for another six months under the nuclear deal.

The vote was 4 to 9, with Algeria, China, Pakistan and Russia in favor and Denmark, France, Greece, Panama, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Somalia, the United Kingdom and the United States against.

Guyana and South Korea abstained.

The vote came after Britain, France and Germany triggered the deal’s ‘snapback’ measure, which reinstates sanctions on Iran following stalled talks on its nuclear program.

The sanctions, which will go into effect unless there’s a last-minute deal Friday, will include freezing Iranian assets abroad, halting arms deals with Tehran and penalizing any development of Iran’s ballistic missile program. 

‘We had hoped that European colleagues and the U.S. would think twice, and they would opt for the path of diplomacy and dialogue instead of their clumsy blackmail, which merely results in escalation of the situation in the region,’ Dmitry Polyanskiy, deputy Russian ambassador to the U.N., said during the meeting.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, had also been meeting with his French, German and British counterparts in the lead-up to the U.N. vote. 

A European diplomat told The Associated Press the meeting ‘did not produce any new developments, any new results.’

On Tuesday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, also said Iran would not ‘surrender to pressure’ and that negotiations with the U.S. would be a ‘dead end.’ 

In an interview on Friday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian called the decision ‘unfair, unjust and illegal.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

An appellate court is poised to decide a case that supporters and opponents of abortion access are closely watching because the decision could put Planned Parenthood, a prolific abortion vendor, on the hook for up to $1.8 billion.

A full panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard oral arguments Thursday in the years-long case, which centers on Planned Parenthood’s use of Medicaid funds in Texas and Louisiana.

Jennie Bradley Lichter, president of March for Life, told Fox News Digital the ‘stakes couldn’t be higher’ and that the lawsuit could bankrupt Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit with hundreds of clinics across the country.

‘Planned Parenthood is facing a repayment obligation of close to $2 billion because it continued to fill its coffers with taxpayers’ money even after two states had already disqualified it,’ Lichter said. ‘If that obligation stands, it will strike a serious — even existential — blow to Planned Parenthood’s national operations and potentially change the abortion landscape in this country forever.’

The case comes after Texas and Louisiana stripped Planned Parenthood affiliates of their Medicaid qualifications in response to activist David Daleiden releasing video footage showing Planned Parenthood staff discussing selling aborted fetal tissue.

Daleiden faced a lawsuit and prosecution for illegally recording the staff, but his footage set off a firestorm in the pro-life movement and caused it to ramp up its efforts to weaken the nonprofit.

Planned Parenthood, however, sued Texas and Louisiana and initially won an injunction that allowed it to keep receiving the Medicaid reimbursements. But the decision was reversed on appeal years later.

An anonymous litigant then brought a new lawsuit on behalf of the two states seeking to claw back the millions of dollars Planned Parenthood had collected while the injunction had been in place.

Court papers indicate that the potential money Planned Parenthood could now owe — reimbursement of the Medicaid dollars it collected plus various multipliers — could add up to $1.8 billion. The exact dollar amount would be determined by a jury in the lower court.

But Planned Parenthood and the anonymous litigant, named in court papers as ‘Alex Doe,’ are now waiting to see where the conservative 5th Circuit will land.

The issue before the 5th Circuit’s en banc panel is about whether Planned Parenthood had immunity when it collected the four years’ worth of Medicaid dollars. Planned Parenthood has argued it has immunity because its counsel advised it to collect the payments during the injunction period.

Thursday’s oral arguments came after a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit comprising two Republican-appointed judges and one Democrat-appointed judge sided with Planned Parenthood.

Susan Manning, general counsel for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, blasted the Texas and Louisiana lawsuit as a ‘politically-motivated’ attempt to put the nonprofit out of business.

‘This baseless case has only one goal: to shut down Planned Parenthood and deny patients access to sexual and reproductive health care,’ Manning said in a statement this year. ‘Planned Parenthood health centers are nonprofits that provide essential, high-quality health care to more than 2 million people nationwide every year.’

Separately, pro-life activists made progress in their mission to defund Planned Parenthood this year when Congress voted to strip the nonprofit of Medicaid funding at the federal level for a one-year period.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit sided against Planned Parenthood in a lawsuit over the measure.

Eastern European leaders are urging President Donald Trump to keep U.S. troops on NATO’s eastern flank after a wave of Russian air and drone incursions, warning that Vladimir Putin is ‘pushing the limits’ and will ‘believe only what he sees’ from allied defenses.

In interviews with Fox News Digital, ministers from Estonia, Lithuania and Romania said the alliance must harden its posture — moving from air policing to integrated air and missile defenses, sharpening rules of engagement and sustaining U.S. troop rotations — to prevent Russia from normalizing violations and eroding Article 5 credibility. They paired the military message with calls for tighter sanctions and an end to European energy dependence that funds the Kremlin’s war machine.

Their appeals land as Washington weighs a new national security strategy aimed at prioritizing homeland defense. Before the most recent incursions, U.S. officials had cautioned allies to prepare for a reduction of the American footprint, pressing Europe to take on a greater share of the burden.

‘We hope U.S. troops remain in the region. Their presence secures peace and sends a clear signal,’ Estonia’s foreign minister Margus Tsahkna said. ‘Putin understands only the language of strength. His goal is the restoration of the Soviet empire.’

This month Russian drones were detected in Polish and Romanian airspace, while Russian missile-carrying MiG-29s crossed briefly into Estonian territory. For the ninth time this year, Russian jets were also spotted inside the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone.

Ahead of the U.S. expected global review of force posture, Lithuania’s foreign minister Kęstutis Budrys said deterrence must be visible, not theoretical.

He said he has been making the case to U.S. counterparts: ‘This presence makes the difference. It forces Russia to change its calculations.’

‘Russia they have to see. They don’t believe in our plans and our protocols. They believe in what they see. So they are crossing our airspace, and they see no reaction,’ he went on. ‘With the presence of the troops. When they see that they are stationed there, and they are training. And they’re interacting with the local armed forces. For them, this is the message that, okay, we are not getting in there.’

‘U.S. rotational deployments are one of the most effective deterrents,’ Budrys said. ‘Russia doesn’t believe in our plans; it believes what it sees.’

Romania’s warning

Romanian foreign minister Oana Țoiu echoed the Baltics, adding that security on the Black Sea is tied to U.S. interests.

‘Every country sets its priorities, but the security of the eastern flank also serves U.S. security and financial interests — there’s real potential for joint investment, cyber, energy and infrastructure if security is ensured,’ she said.

Țoiu noted Romania has authorized its forces to shoot down Russian drones that threaten its territory and economy, and stressed the importance of NATO’s U.S. presence. Bucharest is also positioning itself as a regional energy supplier, expanding nuclear power with U.S. support and tapping natural gas fields in the Black Sea.

Washington’s role

About 80,000 American troops are stationed across Europe, according to U.S. European Command — down from roughly 105,000 just after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Thousands rotate through Lithuania, Estonia hosts a persistent U.S. contingent and roughly 3,000 are based in Romania, according to the State Department.

Despite speculation about U.S. drawdowns, Trump and senior officials have sharpened their rhetoric. On Monday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz pledged Washington would defend ‘every inch’ of NATO territory. Trump suggested intruding Russian aircraft should be shot down and insisted Ukraine, with European support, can take back all of its territory.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said those statements have resonance.

‘The unity of NATO has never been clearer,’ Wilson told Fox News Digital. ‘Sweden and Finland are now members. Trump correctly pointed out allies weren’t reaching 2 percent, now he’s moving to 5 percent. That means peace through strength.’

Eastern Sentry

In response to Russia’s provocations, NATO launched Eastern Sentry on September 12, 2025. The multidomain activity, led by Allied Command Operations, brings together fighter jets, naval assets and counter-drone systems from multiple allies to plug gaps and rotate forces across the eastern flank — from the Baltics to the Black Sea. Unlike a static buildup, the mission is designed to adapt quickly to emerging threats and demonstrate flexible deterrence.

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. 

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.’