The federal government has entered its third partial shutdown of the last half-year after Congress failed to reach an agreement on all 12 of its annual spending bills.

Unlike past shutdowns, however, this one just affects the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It comes after Democrats walked away from a bipartisan deal to fund the department amid uproar over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.

And while some 97% of the federal government has been funded at this point, a DHS shutdown will still have effects on everyday Americans — effects that will become more apparent the longer the standoff continues.

Air travel delays

Disruptions to the TSA, whose agents are responsible for security checks at nearly 440 airports across the country, could perhaps be the most impactful part of the partial shutdown to Americans’ everyday lives.

Acting Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill told lawmakers at a hearing on Wednesday that around 95% of TSA employees — roughly 61,000 people — are deemed essential and will be forced to work without pay in the event of a shutdown.

‘We heard reports of officers sleeping in their cars at airports to save money on gas, selling their blood and plasma, and taking on second jobs to make ends meet,’ she said of the last shutdown.

But it would take some time before TSA funding could translate to delays. TSA agents, like other essential federal workers, received back pay once the shutdown was over. Those who did not miss shifts also got a $10,000 bonus for added relief.

TSA paychecks due to be issued on March 3 could see agents getting reduced pay depending on the length of the shutdown. Agents would not be at risk of missing a full paycheck until March 17.

If that happens, however, Americans could see delays or even cancellations at the country’s busiest airports as TSA agents are forced to call out of work and get second jobs to make ends meet.

Natural disaster reimbursement

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is one of the largest and most critical recipients of federal funding under DHS.

Associate Administrator of the Office of Response and Recovery Gregg Phillips told lawmakers on Wednesday that FEMA has enough funds to continue disaster response through a shutdown in the immediate future, but that its budget would be strained in the event of an unforeseen ‘catastrophic disaster.’

That means Americans hit by an unexpected natural disaster during the shutdown could see delayed federal reimbursement for their homes and small businesses.

Others who have already lived through a natural disaster in the last year but still have not received their checks — FEMA is currently working through a backlog worth billions of dollars — could see that relief delayed even further during the shutdown.

‘In the 45 days I’ve been here … we have spent $3 billion in 45 days on 5,000 projects,’ Phillips said. ‘We’re going as fast as we can. We’re committed to reducing the backlog. I can’t go any faster than we actually are. And if this lapses, that’s going to stop.’

Worker visa processing

American business owners who rely on certain types of worker visas could see processing times extended during a DHS shutdown.

That’s because United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) programs are run under DHS and are responsible for processing most immigration applications as well as temporary visas.

The majority of those programs are funded by fees and are largely untouched. However, areas like e-Verify, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program, Conrad 30 J-1 doctors, and non-minister religious workers all rely on funding appropriated by Congress, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

USCIS could allow employers to use alternate processes if e-Verify is disrupted during a shutdown, but it’s not clear how much time it would add to business owners’ day-to-day responsibilities to learn a new route for that paperwork.

China has spent decades building a land-based missile force designed to keep the United States out of a fight over Taiwan — and U.S. officials say it now threatens every major airfield, port and military installation across the Western Pacific.

As Washington races to build its own long-range fires, analysts warn that the land domain has become the most overlooked — and potentially decisive — part of the U.S.–China matchup. Interviews with military experts show a contest defined not by tanks or troop movements, but by missile ranges, base access and whether U.S. forces can survive the opening salvos of a war that may begin long before any aircraft take off.

‘The People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force … has built an increasing number of short-, medium-, and long-range missiles,’ Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Fox News Digital. ‘They have the capability to shoot those across the first and increasingly the second island chains.’

For years, Chinese officials assumed they could not match the United States in air superiority. The Rocket Force became the workaround: massed, land-based firepower meant to shut down U.S. bases and keep American aircraft and ships outside the fight.

‘They didn’t think that they could gain air superiority in a straight-up air-to-air fight,’ said Eric Heginbotham, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ‘So you need another way to get missiles out — and that another way is by building a lot of ground launchers.’

The result is the world’s largest inventory of theater-range missiles, backed by hardened underground facilities, mobile launchers and rapid shoot-and-scoot tactics designed to overwhelm U.S. defenses.

Despite China’s numerical edge, American forces still hold advantages Beijing has not yet matched — particularly in targeting and survivability. 

U.S. missiles, from Tomahawks to SM-6s to future hypersonic weapons, are tied into a global surveillance network the People’s Liberation Army cannot yet replicate. American targeting relies on satellites, undersea sensors, stealth drones and joint command tools matured over decades of combat experience.

‘The Chinese have not fought a war since the 1970s,’ Jones said. ‘We see lots of challenges with their ability to conduct joint operations across different services.’ 

The U.S., by contrast, has built multi-domain task forces in the Pacific to integrate cyber, space, electronic warfare and precision fires — a level of coordination analysts say China has yet to demonstrate.

Jones said China’s defense industry also faces major hurdles. 

‘Most of (China’s defense firms) are state-owned enterprises,’ he said. ‘We see massive inefficiency, the quality of the systems … we see a lot of maintenance challenges.’

Still, the United States faces a near-term problem of its own: missile stockpiles.

‘We still right now … would run out (of long-range munitions) after roughly a week or so of conflict over, say, Taiwan,’ Jones said.

Washington is trying to close that gap by rapidly expanding production of ground-launched weapons. New Army systems — Typhon launchers, high mobility artillery rocket system, batteries, precision strike missiles and long-range hypersonic weapons with a range exceeding 2,500 kilometers — are designed to hold Chinese forces at risk from much farther away.

Heginbotham said the shift is finally happening at scale. 

‘We’re buying anti-ship missiles like there’s no tomorrow,’ he said.

If current plans hold, U.S. forces will field roughly 15,000 long-range anti-ship missiles by 2035, up from about 2,500 today.

China’s missile-heavy strategy is built to overwhelm U.S. bases early in a conflict. The United States, meanwhile, relies on layered air defenses: Patriot batteries to protect airfields and logistics hubs, terminal high altitude area defense (THAAD) interceptors to engage ballistic missiles at high altitude, and Aegis-equipped destroyers that can intercept missiles far from shore.

Heginbotham warned the U.S. will need to widen that defensive mix. 

‘We really need a lot more and greater variety of missile defenses and preferably cheaper missile defenses,’ he said.

One of Washington’s biggest advantages is its ability to conduct long-range strikes from beneath the ocean. U.S. submarines can fire cruise missiles from virtually anywhere in the Western Pacific, without relying on allied basing and without exposing launchers to Chinese fire — a degree of stealth China does not yet possess.

Command integration is another area where Beijing continues to struggle. American units routinely train in multi-domain operations that knit together air, sea, cyber, space and ground-based fires. 

Jones and Heginbotham both noted that the People’s Liberation Army has far less experience coordinating forces across services and continues to grapple with doctrinal and organizational problems, including the dual commander–political commissar structure inside its missile brigades.

Alliances may be the most consequential difference. Japan, the Philippines, Australia and South Korea provide depth, intelligence sharing, logistics hubs and potential launch points for U.S. forces. 

China has no comparable network of partners, leaving it to operate from a much narrower geographic footprint. In a missile war, accuracy, integration and survivability often matter more than sheer volume — and in those areas the United States still holds meaningful advantages.

At the heart of this competition is geography. Missiles matter less than the places they can be launched from, and China’s ability to project power beyond its coastline remains sharply constrained.

‘They’ve got big power-projection problems right now,’ Jones said. ‘They don’t have a lot of basing as you get outside of the first island chain.’

The United States faces its own version of that challenge. Long-range Army and Marine Corps fires require host-nation permission, turning diplomacy into a form of firepower. 

‘It’s absolutely central,’ Heginbotham said. ‘You do need regional basing.’

Recent U.S. agreements with the Philippines, along with expanded cooperation with Japan and Australia, reflect a push to position American launchers close enough to matter without permanently stationing large ground forces there.

A U.S.–China land conflict would not involve armored columns maneuvering for territory. The decisive question is whether missile units on both sides can fire, relocate and fire again before being targeted.

China has invested heavily in survivability, dispersing its brigades across underground bunkers, tunnels and hardened sites. Many can fire and relocate within minutes. Mobile launchers, decoys and deeply buried storage complexes make them difficult to neutralize.

U.S. launchers in the Pacific would face intense Chinese surveillance and long-range missile attacks. After two decades focused on counterterrorism, the Pentagon is now reinvesting in deception, mobility and hardened infrastructure — capabilities critical to surviving the opening stages of a missile war.

Any U.S. intervention in a Taiwan conflict would also force Washington to confront a politically charged question: whether to strike missile bases on the Chinese mainland. Doing so risks escalation; avoiding it carries operational costs.

‘Yes … you can defend Taiwan without striking bases inside China,’ Heginbotham said. ‘But you are giving away a significant advantage.’

Holding back may help prevent the conflict from widening, but it also allows China to keep firing. 

‘It’s a reality of conflict in the nuclear age that almost any conflict is gonna be limited in some ways,’ Heginbotham said. ‘Then the question becomes where those boundaries are drawn, can you prevent it from spreading? What trade-offs you’re willing to accept?’

A U.S.–China clash on land would not be fought by massed armies. It would be a missile war shaped by geography, alliances and survivability — a contest where political access and command integration matter as much as raw firepower.

For the United States, the challenge is clear: build enough long-range missiles, secure the basing needed to use them and keep launchers alive under fire. For China, the question is whether its vast missile arsenal and continental depth can offset weaknesses in coordination, command structure and real-world combat experience.

The side that can shoot, relocate and sustain fire the longest will control the land domain — and may shape the outcome of a war in the Pacific.

This is the third installment of a series comparing U.S. and Chinese military capabilities. Feel free to check out earlier stories comparing sea and air capabilities.

The Trump administration’s latest offensive move against Venezuela, the seizure of a tanker carrying U.S.-sanctioned oil, has triggered predictable outrage from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government. 

But behind the rhetorical fire, analysts say the regime has few practical ways to hit back without doing even more damage to itself.

Experts say that Maduro could target U.S. oil interests in Venezuela, but doing so would almost certainly inflict more pain on his own cash-starved regime than on the United States.

Maduro could also halt U.S.-chartered deportation flights, but again, would be harming his own interests, experts say. 

‘Venezuelans are just leaving the country because of the terrible conditions the regime has created,’ said Connor Pfeiffer, a Western Hemisphere analyst at FDD Action. ‘By having people come back, even if they’re on U.S. charter deportation flights, it kind of counters that narrative.’

Western oil firms have significantly decreased their presence in Venezuela, home to world’s largest proven oil reserves, in recent years due to sanctions. 

But U.S.-owned Chevron does still maintain a license to operate there, on the condition that the Maduro regime does not financially benefit from its operations. Instead, Chevron hands over to Maduro half of its oil production as payment, according to multiple reports.

‘Chevron’s operations in Venezuela continue in full compliance with laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the U.S. government,’ a Chevron spokesperson told Fox News Digital.  

Imports of Venezuelan crude have declined to roughly 130,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 150,000 bpd in recent months, below the nearly 300,000 bpd seen under the prior petroleum licensing regime under the Biden administration. Most of Venezuela’s exports are now routed to Asia, with the bulk ultimately landing in China through intermediaries, according to data from Kplr. 

Despite that flow of crude, analysts say the idea of Caracas striking back at Chevron is more potent as a talking point than as a viable policy option.

Shutting down or seizing the company’s operations would instantly cut off one of the few lifelines still feeding Venezuela’s collapsing oil sector. It also would risk triggering a swift and politically difficult American response, including a full reinstatement of the sanctions relief the regime has quietly relied on.

Pfeiffer noted that the Maduro government has been ‘very supportive of Chevron continuing to operate’ because the arrangement provides tens of thousands of barrels a day of oil with minimal investment from Venezuelan-owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. Other analysts say that reality sharply limits Maduro’s room to maneuver: any attack on Chevron would strike at his own revenue stream first.

Another theoretical lever — military or maritime escalation — is widely viewed as even less credible. Venezuela has taken delivery of small Iranian-built fast attack craft equipped with anti-ship missiles, a fact that has fueled speculation Maduro could threaten U.S. or allied vessels.

But Venezuela’s navy suffers from years of maintenance failures and lacks the ability to sustain operations against American forces deployed in the Caribbean. Any aggressive move at sea would almost certainly invite a U.S. military response the regime is in no position to absorb.

Diplomatically, Caracas could suspend remaining channels with Washington, or file legal challenges in U.S. courts or international forums. Yet previous efforts to contest sanctions-related seizures have gone nowhere, and Venezuela’s relationships in the hemisphere offer limited leverage. 

Regional bodies have little sway over U.S. sanctions law, and even supportive governments in Russia, China, or Iran are unlikely to intervene beyond issuing critical statements. Beijing, now the primary destination for Venezuelan crude, has economic interests at stake but few practical avenues to challenge U.S. enforcement actions.

Absent direct military strikes, cracking down on sanctioned oil exports is one of the most potent ways the U.S. can weaken the regime, according to Pfeiffer. 

‘This is one of his main sources of revenue keeping the regime afloat.’

The State Department is so far refusing to comment on a growing corruption crisis engulfing the Balkan nation of Albania, a vital U.S. ally in the region. 

Following an Albanian court’s decision to remove Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku from her position on allegations she interfered in two construction bids, socialist Prime Minister Edi Rama took the issue to the country’s Constitutional Court, which on Friday reinstated Balluku until a ‘final decision’ could be made, according to media reports.

The Special Anti-Corruption and Organized Crime Structure (SPAK) issued a criminal indictment against Balluku on Oct. 31, alleging she had been improperly influenced in her decision to favor one company in a tender for the construction of a 3.7-mile tunnel in southern Albania, Reuters reported. SPAK delivered an additional charge for violating rules in a Tirana road construction project on Nov. 21, the date when Balluku was removed from office.

The day before her November court appearance, Balluku told the country’s parliament the accusations against her amounted to ‘mudslinging, insinuations, half-truths and lies.’

As the second member of Rama’s cabinet to face corruption accusations since 2023, her charges have drawn the ire of Rama opponents.

Agim Nesho, former Albanian ambassador to the U.S. and the United Nations, told Fox News Digital that Balluku’s case demonstrates ‘the Rama government shows no sign of assuming moral responsibility or allowing justice the space to act independently. Instead, it appears intent on shielding Ms. Balluku, portraying the judiciary’s actions as an attack on the executive.’

Tirana’s ex-ambassador to Washington argued that ‘influencing the Constitutional Court may be an attempt to set a protective precedent — one that could prove useful if investigators ever seek to involve Mr. Rama himself in their investigations.’

‘It’s becoming increasingly clear that the emperor has no clothes,’ Nesho said, adding that Rama’s rule has amounted to ‘state capture’ as the ‘lack of checks and balances has enabled a recurring system of corruption across multiple of his terms.’

Nesho also claimed that Balluku had pointed to broader involvement of the Rama government in decision-making. Former Deputy Prime Minister Arben Ahmetaj, allegedly on the run after coming under SPAK investigation, has likewise alleged that Rama ‘directed all key decisions on tenders, finances and public assets,’ according to Nesho’s claims.

Ahmetaj’s accusations included allegations that Rama is involved with mafia bosses. Rama responded to these insinuations by saying Ahmetaj ‘should not be taken seriously. Albanian politics is not tainted by the mafia,’ Balkanweb reported.

The U.S. has funded efforts for judicial reforms in Albania to aid its efforts toward accession into the European Union by cutting down on corruption. However, those reforms have led to legal backlogs that have drawn frustration and violence from the public.

Nesho said ‘it is hard to see how a government that behaves like a banana republic gains accession to the EU.’ He said, ‘Albania is a living contradiction in terms of law and order.’ 

While Nesho says Rama’s opposition has been ‘decimated by ‘lawfare’ and the compromising of legal institutions,’ Rama remains in office despite ‘documented multibillion-dollar corruption scandals, documented electoral thefts across multiple voting cycles, and, most concerning, documented links to international drug cartels like the Sinaloa Cartel.’

Allegations that Rama is linked to the Sinaloa Cartel emerged after the prime minister met with Sinaloa-connected Luftar Hysa, who is sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Treasury. Rama told an Albanian news outlet he met with Hysa just once.

With Balluku’s removal, Nesho says ‘public anger is directed not only at [her] but also at the irresponsible conduct of a regime that rules without accountability, abuses public property and finances, and faces no consequences despite society’s reaction.’ 

Nesho said many in the country have given the prime minister the nickname ‘Ramaduro,’ saying it’s ‘a direct comparison to the Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.’

Rama’s press office told Fox News Digital it declined to comment on Nesho’s allegations against him.

In May 2021, the State Department sanctioned former Prime Minister Sali Berisha over corruption allegations, which forbade him from traveling to the U.S. Fox News Digital asked the State Department whether it had plans to issue similar sanctions against Balluku.

A State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘We have no comment on ongoing legal matters.’

The U.S. Embassy in Tirana issued the same response to Fox News Digital when asked whether it would suspend Balluku’s visa as a result of her removal from office.

The State Department is so far refusing to comment on a growing corruption crisis engulfing the Balkan nation of Albania — a vital U.S. ally in the region. 

Following an Albanian court’s decision to remove Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku from her position on allegations she interfered in two construction bids, socialist Prime Minister Edi Rama took the issue to the country’s Constitutional Court, which on Friday reinstated her until a ‘final decision’ could be made, according to media reports.

The Special Anti-Corruption and Organized Crime Structure (SPAK) issued a criminal indictment against Balluku on Oct. 31, alleging that she had been improperly influenced in her decision to favor one company in a tender for the construction of a 3.7-mile tunnel in southern Albania, Reuters reported. SPAK delivered an additional charge for violating rules in a Tirana road construction project on Nov. 21, the date when Balluku was removed from office.

The day prior to her November court appearance, Balluku told the country’s parliament that the accusations against her constituted ‘mudslinging, insinuations, half-truths and lies.’

As the second member of Rama’s cabinet to face corruption accusations since 2023, her charges have drawn the ire of Rama opponents.

Agim Nesho, former Albanian ambassador to the U.S. and the United Nations, told Fox News Digital that Balluku’s case demonstrates ‘the Rama government shows no sign of assuming moral responsibility or allowing justice the space to act independently. Instead, it appears intent on shielding Ms. Balluku, portraying the judiciary’s actions as an attack on the executive.’

Tirana’s ex-ambassador to Washington argued that ‘influencing the Constitutional Court may be an attempt to set a protective precedent — one that could prove useful if investigators ever seek to involve Mr. Rama himself in their investigations.’

‘It’s becoming increasingly clear that the emperor has no clothes, Nesho said, adding that Rama’s rule has amounted to ‘state capture’ as the ‘lack of checks and balances has enabled a recurring system of corruption across multiple of his terms.’

Nesho also claimed that Balluku had pointed to broader involvement of the Rama government in decision-making. Former Deputy Prime Minister Arben Ahmetaj, who went on the run after coming under SPAK investigation, has likewise alleged that Rama ‘directed all key decisions on tenders, finances, and public assets,’ according to Nesho’s claims.

Ahmetaj’s accusations included allegations that Rama is involved with mafia bosses. Rama responded to these insinuations by saying Ahmetaj ‘should not be taken seriously. Albanian politics is not tainted by the mafia,’ Balkanweb reported.

The U.S. has funded efforts for judicial reforms in Albania to aid its efforts toward accession into the European Union by cutting down on corruption. However, those reforms have led to legal backlogs that have drawn frustration and violence from the public.

Nesho said that ‘it is hard to see how a government that behaves like a banana republic gains accession to the E.U.’ He said that ‘Albania is a living contradiction in terms of law and order.’ While Nesho says Rama’s opposition has been ‘decimated by ‘lawfare’ and the compromising of legal institutions,’ Rama remains in office despite ‘documented multi-billion-dollar corruption scandals, documented electoral thefts across multiple voting cycles, and, most concerning, documented links to international drug cartels like the Sinaloa Cartel.’

Allegations that Rama is linked to the Sinaloa Cartel emerged after the prime minister met with Sinaloa-connected Luftar Hysa, who is sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Treasury. Rama told an Albanian news outlet that he met with Hysa just once.

With Balluku’s removal, Nesho says that ‘public anger is directed not only at [her] but also at the irresponsible conduct of a regime that rules without accountability, abuses public property and finances, and faces no consequences despite society’s reaction.’ Nesho said many in the country have given the prime minister the nickname ‘Ramaduro,’ saying it’s ‘a direct comparison to the Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.’

Rama’s press office told Fox News Digital that it declined to comment on Nesho’s allegations against him.

In May 2021, the State Department sanctioned former Prime Minister Sali Berisha over corruption allegations, which forbade him from traveling to the U.S. Fox News Digital asked the State Department whether it had plans to issue similar sanctions against Balluku.

A State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘We have no comment on ongoing legal matters.’

The U.S. Embassy in Tirana issued the same response to Fox News Digital when asked whether it would suspend Balluku’s visa as a result of her removal from office.

The Trump administration’s latest offensive move against Venezuela, the seizure of a tanker carrying U.S.-sanctioned oil, has triggered predictable outrage from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government. 

But behind the rhetorical fire, analysts say the regime has few practical ways to hit back without doing even more damage to itself.

Experts say that Maduro could target U.S. oil interests in Venezuela, but doing so would almost certainly inflict more pain on his own cash-starved regime than on the United States.

Maduro could also halt U.S.-chartered deportation flights but again would be harming his own interests, experts say. 

‘Venezuelans are just leaving the country because of the terrible conditions the regime has created,’ said Connor Pfeiffer, a Western Hemisphere analyst at FDD Action. ‘By having people come back, even if they’re on U.S. charter deportation flights, it kind of counters that narrative.’

Western oil firms have significantly decreased their presence in Venezuela, home to world’s largest proven oil reserves, in recent years due to sanctions. 

But U.S.-owned Chevron does still maintain a license to operate there, on the condition that the Maduro regime does not financially benefit from its operations. Instead, Chevron hands over to Maduro half of its oil production as payment, according to multiple reports.

‘Chevron’s operations in Venezuela continue in full compliance with laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the U.S. government,’ a Chevron spokesperson told Fox News Digital.  

Imports of Venezuelan crude have declined to roughly 130,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 150,000 bpd in recent months, below the nearly 300,000 bpd imported under the prior petroleum licensing regime under the Biden administration. Most of Venezuela’s exports are now routed to Asia, with the bulk landing in China through intermediaries, according to data from Kpler. 

Despite that flow of crude, analysts say the idea of Caracas striking back at Chevron is more potent as a talking point than as a viable policy option.

Shutting down or seizing the company’s operations would instantly cut off one of the few lifelines still feeding Venezuela’s collapsing oil sector. It also would risk triggering a swift and politically difficult American response, including a full reinstatement of the sanctions relief the regime has quietly relied on.

Pfeiffer noted that the Maduro government has been ‘very supportive of Chevron continuing to operate’ because the arrangement provides tens of thousands of barrels a day of oil with minimal investment from Venezuelan-owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. Other analysts say that reality sharply limits Maduro’s room to maneuver, and that any attack on Chevron would strike at his own revenue stream first.

Another theoretical lever — military or maritime escalation — is widely viewed as even less credible. Venezuela has taken delivery of small Iranian-built fast attack craft equipped with anti-ship missiles, a fact that has fueled speculation Maduro could threaten U.S. or allied vessels.

But Venezuela’s navy suffers from years of maintenance failures and lacks the ability to sustain operations against American forces deployed in the Caribbean. Any aggressive move at sea would almost certainly invite a U.S. military response the regime is in no position to absorb.

Diplomatically, Caracas could suspend remaining channels with Washington or file legal challenges in U.S. courts or international forums. Yet previous efforts to contest sanctions-related seizures have gone nowhere, and Venezuela’s relationships in the hemisphere offer limited leverage. 

Regional bodies have little sway over U.S. sanctions law, and even supportive governments in Russia, China or Iran are unlikely to intervene beyond issuing critical statements. Beijing, now the primary destination for Venezuelan crude, has economic interests at stake but few practical avenues to challenge U.S. enforcement actions.

Absent direct military strikes, cracking down on sanctioned oil exports is one of the most potent ways the U.S. can weaken the regime, according to Pfeiffer. 

‘This is one of his main sources of revenue keeping the regime afloat,’ he said. 

Heated racial rhetoric in Texas is flaring this primary season, as Democratic contenders lean into identity-focused messaging that Republicans say is divisive and a clinic in ‘wokeness at its worst.’

Texas Democrats are heading into primary season with an intraparty fight that is increasingly spilling into race and identity. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who is running for the Senate, has suggested racism would be to blame if she loses, while former Rep. Colin Allred accused Crockett rival and Austin state Rep. James Talarico of calling him ‘a mediocre Black man’ in a political spat affecting races in the Senate and House.

‘These disgusting comments are wokeness at its worst and the silence is deafening from Democrats,’ RNC spokesman Zach Kraft said of the recent rhetoric out of Texas in recent months.

Crockett, who is running for the Senate to replace Republican Sen. John Cornyn, offered a fiery response.

‘You think I didn’t know I was a black woman when I woke up and decided that I was going to run for the U.S. Senate? You think I didn’t factor in and make sure we had enough room to account for that?’

Racially focused flare-ups have broken out in recent weeks as Democrats eye high-profile races and try to energize blue voters in the red state.

‘Look no further than the Senate primary to see how the woke mind virus has spread like wildfire among the ranks of Texas Democrats. James Talarico spent last week apologizing for his ‘white privilege,’ and Jasmine Crockett is taking a page out of Kamala Harris’ playbook by preemptively blaming racism and sexism for why she will lose,’ Kraft told Fox News Digital.

Just this month, Texas Democratic state Rep. Gene Wu, the minority leader of the Texas House, drew backlash over a resurfaced clip from a 2024 interview in which he described white Americans as ‘oppressors’ of ‘non-whites.’

‘That there is a sense of, ‘America really just belongs to White people,’ that this was that a lot of people believe that God gave America to White people to rule, and that any time that immigrants, minorities make progress in this country, that that is seen as a slight against them,’ Wu, of Houston, said in 2024 on ‘Define American’ podcast with Antonio Vargas.

Wu, who was born in Guangzhou, China, added that Latinos, Asians and Black Americans — ‘everybody’ — are kept divided because powerful forces have spent time and money ensuring they do not unite. Instead, he argued, those groups are pushed to see each other as rivals even though they share the same oppressor, and he claimed the oppression ‘comes from one place.’

‘I always tell people the day the Latino, African-American, Asian and other communities realize that they are — that they share the same oppressor is the day we start winning, because we are the majority in this country now,’ he continued. ‘We have the ability to take over this country and to do what is needed for everyone and to make things fair.’

The clip set off swift condemnation from Texans as it circulated online, including Republican Sen. Ted Cruz saying, ‘The Democrat party is built on bigotry.’

Allred recently told former DNC chairman Jaime Harrison of South Carolina on his podcast that Talarico made another disparaging comment about him in private while the former Tennessee Titans linebacker was still a candidate in the Senate race.

Allred has since dropped out and is seeking a newly drawn 33rd Congressional District near Dallas. The current 33rd District in the Metroplex is represented by Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey.

‘He’s said some things to me that I don’t like. He said to me before he got into the race that he thought that he would be a better candidate because he doesn’t have a family, and that… he could spend more time campaigning,’ Allred said.

‘As you know, Jaime, like I didn’t know my dad, so I’m like all about being a father to my two boys, right? I was like, no, no, no, I run because of my family.’

A TikTok influencer named Morgan Thompson originally claimed Allred made the ‘mediocre Black man’ comments, recounting the conversation from a Talarico rally in Plano.

‘James Talarico told me that he signed up to run against a mediocre Black man, not a formidable and intelligent Black woman,’ Thompson said, adding she now supports Crockett.

Talarico released a statement soon after calling the situation a ‘mischaracterization of a private conversation’ and said he was talking about Allred’s ‘method of campaigning,’ not his life.

‘I would never attack him on the basis of race,’ Talarico said. ‘As a Black man in America, Congressman Allred has had to work twice as hard to get where he is. I understand how my critique of the Congressman’s campaign could be interpreted given this country’s painful legacy of racism, and I care deeply about the impact my words have on others,’ Talarico said, according to the Texas Tribune.

Talarico recently announced that he raised $7.4 million in the first six weeks of the quarter in his contest against Crockett.

He did not respond to a request for comment. Crockett’s campaign also did not respond to an inquiry left in its campaign inbox, which is separate from her official congressional office due to the Hatch Act.

Fox News Digital’s Marc Tamasco contributed to this report.  

After a self-imposed political exile to Ireland after President Donald Trump’s re-election, Rosie O’Donnell quietly returned to the United States.

During an interview with Chris Cuomo on his new show, ‘SiriusXM’s Cuomo Mornings,’ the 63-year-old actress revealed she recently returned to the country to visit her family. The actress moved to Ireland with her teenage daughter in January 2025, just prior to President Trump’s second inauguration. 

‘I was recently home for two weeks, and I did not really tell anyone,’ she told Cuomo. ‘I just went to see my family. I wanted to see how hard it would be for me to get in and out of the country. I wanted to feel what it felt like. I wanted to hold my children again. And I hadn’t been home in over a year.’

She then shared that she ‘wanted to make sure that it was safe’ for her and her daughter to come back over the summer so that they could be with family during her break from school.

When speaking to Cuomo, she went on to discuss how America ‘feels like a very different country’ to her than when she lived here because she hasn’t ‘been watching the news’ or keeping up with ‘American culture television’ while living in Ireland.

‘I’ve been in a place where celebrity worship does not exist,’ she explained. ‘I’ve been in a place where there’s more balance to the news. There’s more balance to life. It’s not everyone trying to get more, more, more. It’s a very different culture. And I felt the United States in a completely different way than I ever had before I left.’

O’Donnell claimed she doesn’t ‘regret leaving at all’ and feels she did ‘what I needed to do to save myself, my child and my sanity.’

‘And I’m very happy that I’m not in the midst of it there because the energy that I felt while in the United States was — if I could use the most simple word I can think of — it was scary,’ she added. ‘There’s a feeling that something is really wrong, and no one is doing anything about it.’

The bad blood between O’Donnell and President Trump goes back 20 years, when she criticized him while on ‘The View.’ They continued to throw jabs at each other over the years, with O’Donnell telling the Irish radio show ‘Sunday with Miriam,’ ‘He uses me as a punching bag and a way to sort of rile his base.’

After announcing she had moved to Ireland, the star shared she was applying for Irish citizenship during an interview with the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph in October 2025.

‘What great news for America!’ White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital about the news at the time.

President Trump had previously threatened to revoke O’Donnell’s American citizenship twice before through posts on Truth Social.

‘Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,’ he wrote in July 2025. ‘She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. GOD BLESS AMERICA!’

He later renewed the threats in September 2025, writing, ‘She is not a Great American and is, in my opinion, incapable of being so!’

O’Donnell fired back against the president’s threats, using the Constitution as her defense against the President.

‘He can’t do that because it’s against the Constitution, and even the Supreme Court has not given him the right to do that. … He’s not allowed to do that. The only way you’re allowed to take away someone’s citizenship is if they renounce it themselves, and I will never renounce my American citizenship,’ the ‘Now and Then’ star said. ‘I am a very proud citizen of the United States.

‘I am also getting my citizenship here so I can have dual citizenship in Ireland and the United States because I enjoy living here,’ she added. ‘It’s very peaceful. I love the politics of the country. I love the people and their generous hearts and spirit. And it’s been very good for my daughter. But I still want to maintain my citizenship in the United States. My children are there. I will be there visiting and go to see them. And I have the freedom to do that, as does every American citizen.’

Under the United States Constitution, a president does not have the power to strip the citizenship of someone born in the country, meaning since O’Donnell was born in New York, her citizenship is protected by the 14th Amendment.

Lawmakers are jetting from Washington, D.C., without a deal to prevent a partial government shutdown. 

Their departure comes after the Senate was unable to send a full-year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to President Donald Trump’s desk. 

Senate Democrats doubled down on their demands for stringent reforms to immigration enforcement and bucked multiple attempts Thursday to keep the agency open.

With both chambers now on their way to a weeklong recess, the agency is expected to shutter at midnight Friday. Unless a deal is struck before lawmakers return, DHS will be shut down for at least that period of time.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., made the call to send lawmakers home and noted that if negotiations made a breakthrough, they would be on 24-hour notice to return. But talks, for now, are somewhere between baby steps and stuck. 

‘What it appears to me, at least at this point, is happening is the Democrats, like they did last fall, they really don’t want the solution,’ Thune said. ‘They don’t want the answer. They want the political issue.’ 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus blocked an attempt to pass the original DHS funding bill and a subsequent two-week funding extension. 

Their resistance comes after the White House unveiled the legislative text of the administration’s counteroffer, which several Senate Democrats balked at Thursday morning. 

‘The administration doesn’t actually want to reform ICE,’ Schumer said. ‘They never do it on their own. That is why we need — we are fighting for — legislation to rein in ICE and stop the violence.’

Senate Democrats have demanded a stringent list of reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They weren’t persuaded by border czar Tom Homan that operations in Minneapolis would be drawn down as negotiations continue.

It was a déjà vu moment from months earlier, when Thune repeatedly tried to peel Democrats away from Schumer during the longest government shutdown in U.S. history but failed to break their blockade.

While there was optimism that negotiations were moving in a positive direction earlier this week, those hopes appeared to have shattered. 

‘At this point, it seems clear that the Democrats are going to walk away from that bipartisan conversation,’ a senior White House official said. ‘They’re going to shut the department down. They’re going to deprive Americans of critical services such as FEMA, such as TSA and what will be the third partial government shutdown of this Congress.’

Senate Democrats received the legislative version of Republicans and the White House’s counteroffer Wednesday night, but many said it was ‘not sufficient,’ and several Democrats leaving a closed-door meeting Thursday morning said a deal remained out of reach.

Given the stagnation in talks, Thune opted to go ahead with the scheduled recess, but made clear to lawmakers that if there was a breakthrough they would need to return.

‘Obviously, we’ve made it clear to people that they have to be available to come back and vote,’ Thune said. 

Talks of another counteroffer to the White House are in the works. Some Senate Democrats hope that the upcoming recess and likely closure of DHS will serve as a wake-up call to Republicans. 

Complicating matters is that several members of the House and Senate are expected to travel to Germany for the annual Munich Security Conference.

‘I still think the Republicans are in a bubble and do not understand the depth of the anger out there in the world,’ Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital. 

‘And maybe this break will allow them to go home and get yelled at, not just by people who are progressive, but everybody who thinks that this agency is out of control and needs to be reined in.’

James Boasberg, the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and a Biden appointee, is a judicial disgrace. Boasberg’s recent rulings show he is unfit for the bench.

His repeated abuse of judicial power, whether undermining national security, releasing violent threats, or enabling unlawful surveillance, demonstrates a blatant disregard for the Constitution and a dangerous partisan agenda that disqualifies him from holding a lifetime appointment.

The time has come for the House of Representatives to do its job and impeach him.

The Constitution fixes the term of service for a judge as ‘during good Behaviour.’ The Constitution also dictates that impeachment is proper for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’  House Democrats in 2020 argued an official can get impeached for an abuse of power even without a statutory crime, setting an important precedent. The Constitution draws no distinction between the requirements for impeaching Executive Branch and Judicial Branch officials. What is good for the Executive Branch goose is just as good for the Judicial Branch gander, so the House should not hesitate to pursue a judicial impeachment.

Boasberg’s first act of misconduct occurred during a judicial conference. During the earliest stages of President Trump’s second term, Boasberg expressed the view to Chief Justice John Roberts that President Trump would not follow court orders. The President has not violated a court order. Boasberg’s claim had no basis and was plainly partisan. Boasberg baselessly told Chief Justice Roberts that Trump wouldn’t follow court orders, an unfounded partisan claim that undermines any expectation of impartiality.

Tren de Aragua is a barbaric international state-sponsored terrorist organization from Venezuela. MS-13 is an animalistic gang based in El Salvador.  Thousands of these gang members have come to the United States and perpetrated horrific acts. In March, the Trump administration deported hundreds of these barbarians to El Salvador, where they were sent to a maximum security prison. Boasberg issued a highly illegal and dangerous order directing the government to turn around planes as they were in international airspace, flying over the Gulf of America. In doing so, Boasberg exposed an ongoing military operation and gave an order that could have endangered Americans.

Why would we have security in place in the United States to deal with an unexpected influx of hundreds of dangerous terrorist, because some rabidly partisan judge just illegally opened his courtroom and stunningly attempted to sabotage an ongoing military operation? Rather, the security footprint was in El Salvador—hundreds of military, intel, and law-enforcement officials—where the terrorists were expected to land. There was also a serious risk to the personnel on the planes, given that they had a limited fuel supply and were in the middle of the Gulf of America. Boasberg showed a blatant disregard for these serious risks in issuing a highly illegal and dangerous order that he lacked jurisdiction to give.

The planes landed in El Salvador, and Boasberg began contempt proceedings. Even after a D.C. Circuit panel rejected his reasoning, Boasberg pressed ahead, ordering the administration to detail its deliberations that March day. The Justice Department is objecting, asserting that Boasberg is violating the foundational principle of separation of powers by having executive branch officials illegally divulge privileged internal discussions.

Moreover, Boasberg played a key role in Operation Arctic Frost—one of the most dangerous spy scandals in our history. Biden Special Counsel Jack Smith, a political scud missile sent to take out President Trump via lawfare with the full blessing of Biden and his Justice Department, subpoenaed the phone records of nearly a dozen U.S. senators. Boasberg issued a gag order preventing the phone companies from disclosing the information for a year. With no basis, he reasoned that disclosure could lead to destruction of evidence and witness intimidation. The relevant statute, 2 U.S.C. § 6628, explicitly requires disclosure to the Senate when such spying occurs. Boasberg now is attempting to weasel his way out of this jam, claiming that he did not know that Smith was seeking the senators’ records. Either Boasberg is lying, or he was an illegal rubber stamp who signed whatever Smith put under his nose. It is disgraceful, and Boasberg, citing the same separation-of-powers claim that the Justice Department is using in the contempt proceeding, refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee last week.

Finally, Boasberg has shown a flippant concern for the security of President Trump. Nathalie Rose Jones is a deeply disturbed woman. She made a social media post threatening to disembowel President Trump. She admitted to the post when the Secret Service visited her. Then, Jones attended a protest and was spotted near the White House carrying a knife. Authorities arrested her, and even Democrat-appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, exercising the most basic level of common sense, ordered her held without bail. Then, Boasberg stepped in and overruled Upadhyaya, releasing Jones to go home with an electronic monitor.

Boasberg has not simply issued a ruling with which conservatives disagree. Boasberg instead has engaged in a pattern of impeachment-worthy behavior—extremely lawless and dangerous partisan rulings—that shows no signs of ending. He is bolder than ever, refusing to testify before Congress and proceeding merrily along with his absurd contempt vendetta. The House disgraced itself with two impeachments of President Trump. It is time for the House to redeem itself by bringing reason back to the impeachment process. Boasberg is a more-than-worthy candidate, and the House should impeach him before they go home for the year.