The far-left push within the Democratic Party, highlighted by mayoral victories by socialist candidates in New York City and Seattle, is poised to be a major factor in several key battleground House races as several candidates carrying the progressive mantle hold strong positions in Democratic primaries.

Several of the most competitive House races in the country feature candidates putting to the test whether progressive policies can appeal to voters outside deep blue urban centers, including in California’s 22nd Congressional District, where Democrat Randy Villegas is running to unseat Republican Rep. David Valadao. 

‘Bernie and I share the same goal: to make life more affordable for working families,’ Villegas said in a statement after being endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a self-described ‘democratic socialist.’

‘He has dedicated his life to putting power in the hands of ordinary Americans instead of the ultra-rich, and I’m excited to work together to fight for our communities here in the Central Valley and across the country.’

In addition to being endorsed by Sanders, who endorsed New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, Villegas has employed the Fight Agency advertising firm, among others, which is led by operatives who also helped Mamdani cruise to victory earlier this month.

Fox News Digital reported this week that Fight Agency is also working to defeat two vulnerable House Republicans in Pennsylvania, Reps. Rob Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie.

Villegas, endorsed by the progressive Working Families Party that endorsed Mamdani, is currently running in a Democratic primary against California state Assemblywoman Jasmeet Bains, who was recruited by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and currently is sitting on less cash on hand than Villegas.

‘Here in the Central Valley, we couldn’t care less about political labels,’ Villegas said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘We care about being able to see a doctor without going bankrupt and being able to feed our families without needing a second job. We’re sick of politicians in both parties selling us out to billionaires and corporations. Any politician who isn’t fighting for working families like our lives depends on it needs to get out of the way.’

In Colorado’s 8th Congressional District, GOP Rep. Gabe Evans is being challenged by another progressive Democrat, Manny Rutinel, in what is expected to be one of the tightest House races next November.

Rutinel, who serves as a Colorado state representative, who was reportedly spotted alongside Mamdani and holds a large fundraising lead over his Democrat opponents, has associated himself with a variety of far-left groups and politicians, including Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Townhall reported.

Rutinel has been endorsed by progressive groups like CHC Bold PAC and Latino Victory Fund.

The race to unseat GOP Rep. Darrell Issa in California’s redrawn 48th Congressional District features Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar, who describes himself as a ‘working-class progressive’ and was endorsed by the Sanders-linked group Our Revolution. 

Campa-Najjar, who volunteered for Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign and appears to be the front-runner in the Democratic primary, was endorsed in 2020 by the Working Families Party as well as Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Courage to Change PAC. 

GOP Rep. Tom Barrett is up for re-election in Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, and one of the Democrats running to replace him is William Lawrence, who co-founded the progressive Sunrise Movement.

Lawrence’s policies have drawn comparisons to Mamdani, including from the Lansing City Pulse, who wrote that his ‘campaign is built on a community movement, a message of ‘real representation’ that takes ‘political control away from the establishment and puts it back in the hands of the people.’ It’s like how Zohran Mamdani won in New York City.’

Peter Chatzky is running as a Democrat challenging GOP Rep. Mike Lawler in New York’s 17th Congressional District, and although he is running in a crowded primary, he has the ability to self-fund and is viewed as a formidable contender in a district ranked by Cook Political Report as ‘Lean Republican.’

Chatzky has defended Mamdani’s agenda on social media and praised the young socialist for running ‘an effective campaign that consistently focused on affordability, fairness, and opportunity in New York City.’

Chatzky, the only Democrat in the field who has called for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down, has expressed support for ‘universal healthcare.’

Like Mamdani, Chatzky has also faced criticism for his positions on Israel and defended Mamdani against allegations of antisemitism. 

In Nebraska, John Cavanaugh, a state senator, is running as a Democrat to replace retiring GOP Rep. Don Bacon in the 2nd Congressional District with the endorsement of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which he said he is ‘grateful’ for and that he plans to join them on the ‘front lines.’

As Democratic leadership in Washington, D.C. begins to face calls for new faces, Republicans across the country have made the argument that the socialist push in recent months is reshaping key House races and changing the landscape of the way the Democratic Party operates going forward. 

Mike Marinella, national spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), told Fox News Digital the rise of progressive candidates is a ‘full-blown battle for the soul of the Democrat Party’ and concluded that the ‘socialist stampede is winning.’

‘Democrats aren’t focused on helping working families, they’re too busy tearing each other apart.’ 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton touted the Democrats across the country who are focusing on affordability. 

‘Because of House Republicans, everything is too damn expensive and working families are struggling. Republican operatives in D.C. know they can’t win on the issues, so we’re seeing them melt down in real time,’ Shelton said.

‘Even President Trump is in the Oval Office desperately bear hugging the Mayor-elect. It’s embarrassing. While they waste their time, Democrats across the country are laser focused on lowering prices and fighting for everyday Americans, which is why we will re-take the majority.’

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo both issued dire warnings about the pressing need to protect the endangered Syrian Kurdish population under attack by government forces in the war-torn nation.

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who earlier this month ordered his army, which reportedly has a large jihadist element in it, to conquer territory controlled for more than a decade by the U.S.-allied Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF.)

Writing on the social media platform X on, Graham declared, ‘There is strong and growing bipartisan interest in the U.S. Senate regarding the deteriorating situation in Syria. There is strong consensus that we must protect the Kurds who were there for us in destroying the ISIS caliphate, as well as many other groups.’

Pompeo responded to Graham’s post, stating, ‘Turning our backs on our Kurdish allies would be a moral and strategic disaster.’

The Trump administration is facing criticism from its long-standing ally, the Syrian Kurds, who played a crucial role in the defeat of the Islamic State in the heartland of the Middle East, following a U.S. government announcement on social media that seemed to hint that the partnership had ended this past week with the Kurdish-run SDF in northern Syria.

The SDF formed as a bulwark against the rapid spread of the Islamic State’s terrorist movement in 2013. ISIS created a caliphate covering significant territory in Syria and Iraq. Al-Sharaa was a former member of the Islamic State and al Qaeda.

Fox News Digital reached out to the State Department regarding U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, who also serves as the Special Envoy for Syria, for a response to his recent statement on X wrote that indicated the U.S. partnership with the SDF was over.

Barrack wrote, ‘The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), led by Kurds, proved the most effective ground partner in defeating ISIS’s territorial caliphate by 2019, detaining thousands of ISIS fighters and family members in prisons and camps like al-Hol and al-Shaddadi. At that time, there was no functioning central Syrian state to partner with — the Assad regime was weakened, contested, and not a viable partner against ISIS due to its alliances with Iran and Russia.’

He added, ‘Today, the situation has fundamentally changed. Syria now has an acknowledged central government that has joined the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS (as its 90th member in late 2025), signaling a westward pivot and cooperation with the U.S. on counterterrorism.’

Iham Ahmed, a prominent Syrian Kurdish politician, told Fox News Digital that, ‘We really wished to see a firm position from the U.S. The Kurdish people are at the risk of extermination. The U.S. does not give any solid or tangible guarantees.’

Ahmed cast doubt on statements like Barrack’s, warning the ‘Syrian army is still consisting of radical factions that no one can trust. Alawites, Christians, Sunnis and Druze cannot trust these factions. We could face massacres, which happened in other Syrian cities.’

When asked by Fox News Digital if the SDF wants Israel to intervene to aid the Kurds as it did to help the Syrian Druze and other minorities last year, Ahmed said, ‘Whoever wants to help us should do so – today is the day.’ She said that ‘the Islamic State is showing itself in the image of an official army. Everyone is threatened now.’

She urged a ‘special status for the Kurdish region’ in northeastern Syria.

Ahmed accused the Erdoğan government of nefarious involvement. ‘Turkey stands behind the attacks on our region. Turkish intelligence and small groups are leading attacks. Statements from Turkey are encouraging the extermination of our people,’ she claimed.

Fox News Digital sent a press query to the Turkish embassy spokesman in Washington D.C.

The influential president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, wrote on X that, ‘Sen. Graham is right. I’ve been discussing the situation in NE Syria with Republican House leaders.  It is not in America’s interest for Islamist forces to seize territory once governed by trusted U.S. allies who protected minorities and advanced religious freedom. Yet this is happening as Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa’s forces move into northeast Syria, displacing the Syrian Democratic Forces — our partners in the fight against ISIS, who lost thousands of fighters, guarded U.S. bases, and detained ISIS prisoners.’

He continued, ‘Before we place trust in al-Sharaa, a former al Qaeda insurgent who fought U.S. forces in Iraq and was held at Abu Ghraib, he has to show he is trustworthy.  So far, he is failing the test.’

Sinam Mohamad, the representative of the Syrian Democratic Council to the U.S., had harsh words for the administration, telling Fox News Digital, ‘American officials continue to describe the SDF as a reliable partner in that narrow mission. Washington avoids framing the relationship as a political alliance. The U.S. never intended a long-term political commitment to the Syrian Kurds. It was a military partnership without political guarantees. From Washington’s view, that’s consistency. From the Kurdish view, that’s betrayal.’

She added there has been an announcement of a 15-day extension of a ceasefire, ‘But both the SDF and outside observers noted continued [Syrian] government troop buildups near Kurdish-held areas, signaling that conflict could resume.’ She added, ‘The Kurds want to have peace and stability through negotiations.’

In one corner of the world, the U.S. is trying to end a war. In another, it may be preparing to start one.

While Washington pushes proposals aimed at easing Russia’s terms for a cease-fire with Ukraine in Europe, it’s taking a far tougher stance in the Western Hemisphere — moving to label Venezuela’s military-linked Cartel de los Soles a terrorist organization and quietly expanding its military footprint in the Caribbean.

Sporadic strikes on alleged cartel boats off Venezuela’s coast have grown into the largest U.S. military presence in Southern Command’s area in a generation, with the world’s biggest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, steaming toward the Caribbean Sea. President Donald Trump has reportedly approved CIA covert measures inside Venezuela — operations that often precede military force — and U.S. planners have already drawn up target lists for cartel sites, according to The New York Times.

Many believe the U.S. could soon launch direct strikes on Venezuelan territory aimed at pushing Nicolás Maduro out of power. 

At the same time, a top Russian commander, Colonel General Oleg Makarevich, has been reassigned from the Ukrainian front to head Russia’s Equator Task Force in Venezuela, overseeing roughly 120 troops training Venezuelan forces, Ukrainian intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov told The War Zone. Fox News Digital has not independently verified Budanov’s claim.

Seth Krummrich, a retired U.S. Army colonel and vice president at Global Guardian, said Russian military advisers are indeed operating inside Venezuela but doubted Moscow would back Maduro militarily. ‘They’re there, full stop,’ Krummrich said. ‘But Russia needs to stop the massive blood-letting of its young men in Ukraine. They’re not going to go toe-to-toe with us militarily.’ He added that the relationship is long-standing: ‘There is a long history of Russian military advisers in Cuba and in Venezuela that goes on for decades.’

Many in Washington see a strategic payoff in forcing out Maduro: it would strip Russia of its last firm foothold in the Western Hemisphere — a loss comparable, in some analysts’ view, to Moscow’s waning influence in Syria. ‘Venezuela, for the longest time, has been a launch pad for Chinese, Russian, and Iranian influence in the Western Hemisphere,’ Krummrich said. ‘These chess pieces are all tied together when you arch your great-power competition.’

Other experts caution against assuming the U.S. escalation in Venezuela and its peace overtures in Europe are part of a single coordinated plan. Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), spoke with Fox News Digital and said any overlap may be more coincidence than strategy.

‘We’ve been zigging and zagging in Venezuela,’ Berg said. ‘Trump has gone back and forth between build-ups and calls for dialogue, while the Russia timeline has only recently become parallel to these events. Anything that looks coordinated is likely coincidence.’

Berg recalled that during Trump’s first administration, some advisers floated an ‘Ukraine-for-Venezuela’ concept — asking Russia to relinquish its stake in Caracas in exchange for U.S. concessions in Eastern Europe — but the idea was quickly abandoned. ‘Russian power in Venezuela is important,’ Berg said, ‘but it’s not so overwhelming that it’s the reason Maduro survives.’

Russia’s footprint in Latin America has grown only modestly since the early 2000s, dwarfed by China’s economic expansion. Moscow’s closest partners remain Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Beyond them, its influence is exercised mainly through media and selective economic pressure.

‘If you look at Russia’s trade profile with the region, it’s small,’ Berg said. ‘But Moscow is very good at using those few trade points for leverage.’

He cited examples: when Ecuador considered sending old Russian-made equipment to Ukraine in exchange for U.S. military aid, Russia threatened to block Ecuadorian banana exports — nearly $1 billion annually — by imposing new phytosanitary checks. The deal collapsed within a week.

Similarly, Moscow has kept Brazil and Argentina largely muted on the Ukraine invasion by leveraging its control over nitrate fertilizer exports, crucial to both agricultural giants. ‘They use whatever levers they have — bananas, fertilizer, spare parts — to coerce quietly,’ Berg said.

Russia also continues to service aging equipment across the region. ‘They sell a lot of kit here,’ Berg added. ‘Many countries still operate Russian-origin systems that need maintenance and parts. That creates dependency.’

If U.S. forces strike Venezuelan targets, most observers expect Russia to limit its response to intelligence sharing and disinformation, not combat support. ‘The Russians are pretty tied down in Ukraine,’ Berg said. ‘We saw during the 12-day war, when Iran appealed for help, Moscow stayed silent. They simply don’t have the capacity.’

Berg described a recent episode in which a sanctioned Ilyushin cargo plane landed in Caracas. Russian lawmakers briefly claimed it carried air-defense systems and technicians to assist Maduro, but Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov later denied it. ‘He essentially said, ‘We have no mutual-defense treaty,’’ Berg noted. ‘That was widely read as: we’re not coming to Venezuela.’

John Hardie, deputy director of the Russia Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, also spoke with Fox News Digital and said there is little evidence of a coordinated link between the U.S. buildup in the Caribbean and Washington’s peace overtures in Europe. ‘I don’t see any immediate connection,’ Hardie said. ‘Russia’s ability to influence events in Venezuela is pretty limited.’

He said Moscow’s power-projection capacity in the Western Hemisphere remains constrained. ‘They can take limited action — fly some bombers into the region, sail submarines to Cuba — but major operations in Latin America are beyond their capacity,’ Hardie said.

Hardie also noted reports of the Russian Ilyushin transport aircraft visiting Venezuela and suggestions it could have carried air-defense systems, but said any such transfer would have little strategic effect. ‘Even if Russia slipped in some air defenses, it wouldn’t make much difference,’ he said. ‘The Venezuelan military would still be heavily overmatched by the United States.’

Both Krummrich and Berg agree that momentum is building toward U.S. kinetic action. Berg said indications point to possible strikes between Thanksgiving and Christmas, as U.S. naval and intelligence assets align and Trump signals impatience with Maduro’s attempts to stall.

‘Maduro’s instinct is to buy time — that’s what’s kept him afloat through multiple administrations,’ Berg said. ‘But Trump wants results, not a two-year transition or vague promises about U.S. oil access. The question is what Maduro can offer that will actually satisfy him.’

Whether this two-track moment represents coincidence or coordination, the stakes are high. A peace framework in Europe could stabilize one front while a new flashpoint ignites closer to home — underscoring the paradox of Washington’s posture in late 2025: seeking de-escalation abroad while bracing for confrontation in its own hemisphere.

The horrific regime slaughter in Iran and President Trump’s aggressive campaign to acquire Greenland have resulted in the neglect of a major case now underway at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The ICJ last week began hearings brought by Gambia against Myanmar alleging genocide against the Rohingya people—about 1.4 million of whom live in Myanmar. Several other states have intervened in support of Gambia, which has presented the court with evidence it contends proves that Myanmar’s military forces committed a genocide against the Rohingya population. Myanmar vehemently denies the allegation.

While this case does not concern Israel directly, the ICJ’s determinations may have major ramifications for the case Israel is now defending at the tribunal against South Africa.

This is especially true since one of the judges hand-picked by Gambia to sit on its ICJ panel is South African national Navi Pillay. That would be the same Navi Pillay who recently rushed to publish a report accusing Israel of genocide before retiring as head of the UN Human Rights Council commission of inquiry—a panel widely criticized for its flagrant institutional bias against Israel and the anti-Semitic remarks of its members.

In reality, South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel is riddled with flaws. It is also pushing to redefine a term that been held sacrosanct since the end of the World War II.

The term ‘genocide’ was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Holocaust survivor who in 1944 strived for its incorporation into modern international law. That occurred in 1948 via the UN Genocide Convention.

The prohibition on genocide is considered a jus cogens norm—that is, a non-derogable rule accepted by all of the first-world community with no exceptions. The definition of ‘genocide’ requires no law degree to understand, and it should never, ever be politicized.

For a genocide to take place under Geneva, there must be acts committed ‘with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.’ The phrase ‘intent’ here is of paramount importance.

South Africa’s pending case before the ICJ alleges Israeli intent to destroy the Palestinian-Arab population of Gaza. Israel, by contrast, (correctly) maintains that its recent actions in Gaza have been a just and proper military response to the war of annihilationist jihad and unspeakable atrocities launched against it by the Hamas terrorist organization on Oct. 7, 2023.

Israel’s ‘intent’ is to free Gaza from Hamas, to return hostages abducted and held by Hamas, and to ensure Hamas has no future role in Gaza and cannot undertake another October 7-style massacre. It repeatedly offered to end the war if Hamas laid down its arms and released all hostages.

Hamas, on the other hand, has shown a complete disregard for human life and has openly stated that its sacrifice of Gazan civilians is a cynical strategic necessity to turn public opinion against Israel. It has for years embedded military infrastructure within Gazan civilian infrastructure—schools, hospitals, UN facilities, mosques, and children’s bedrooms. Israel has waged a defensive campaign in one of the most complex operational environments of any modern war.

At the same time, it has worked with states and NGOs to allow and facilitate extensive amounts of humanitarian aid, rebuilt water supplies, coordinated the vaccination of young Gazans against polio, and helped coordinate and approve the evacuation of those in need of urgent medical care.

Israel repeatedly provides advanced warnings of impending military strikes and has held off strikes where intelligence of nearby civilians has come to light. For a fighting party to so often relinquish the element of surprise to reduce harm to the local civilian population of its enemy is extraordinary.

None of this constitutes a ‘genocide’—and clearly shows the lack of any intent by Israel to destroy the local Palestinian-Arab population in Gaza.

Nonetheless, since South Africa brought its case before the ICJ, numerous groups and states have leapt at the opportunity to join in on the anti-Israel campaign. This has ranged from tendentious so-called online genocide scholars to anti-Semitic mobs to deeply politicized NGOs. Amnesty International, for instance, shamelessly waited more than two years before publishing a report focusing on Hamas’ crimes on Oct. 7, while straining to remind readers of its slanderous accusation of genocide made against Israel a year prior.

Together, they have all been involved in a campaign to redefine the term ‘genocide’ to suit their narrative—all while ignoring the reality of Hamas’ own Nazi-esque barbarism.

The politically motivated efforts to undermine the concept should be of grave concern to us all. If successful, it will result in the ICJ’s further self-discrediting as an institution of political point scoring, rather than meaningful justice.

Israel has legitimately responded to genocidal attacks by a terrorist organization that has repeatedly called for its entire annihilation and the murder of all global Jewry—something it broadcast live to the world on Oct. 7, 2023.

The term ‘genocide’ is one too important to be cheapened. Those pushing for its redefinition must be stopped in their tracks.

A federal judge threw out the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James on Monday, finding they were illegitimate because they were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney.

Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the false statements charges against Comey and bank fraud charges against James without prejudice, meaning the charges could be brought again.

‘I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025,’ Currie wrote.

The Department of Justice could appeal the decision or attempt to bring the charges under a different U.S. attorney. Fox News Digital has reached out to the DOJ for comment.

The move to scrap two of the highest-profile criminal cases the DOJ has leveled against President Donald Trump’s political foes comes after the judge voiced skepticism at a recent hearing in Virginia about Lindsey Halligan’s ability to bring the charges as interim U.S. attorney.

Currie, a Clinton appointee based in South Carolina, was brought in from out of state to preside over proceedings about the question of Halligan’s authority because it presented a conflict for the Virginia judges. Comey’s and James’ challenges to Halligan’s appointment were consolidated because of their similarity.

Halligan acted alone in presenting charges to a grand jury days after Trump ousted the prior interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, and replaced him with Halligan. At the same time, Trump urged Attorney General Pam Bondi in a social media post to act quickly to indict Comey, a call that came as the statutes of limitations in his case was about to lapse. Halligan, who had no prior prosecutorial experience when she took over one of the most high-profile federal court districts in the country, was the lone lawyer to present the cases to the grand jury and sign the indictments. No prosecutors from Virginia joined in on the case.

The DOJ has since put its full backing behind Halligan. Bondi attempted to ratify and then re-ratify the indictments after the fact, a move Currie suggested would not have been necessary if Halligan were a valid appointee.

DOJ attorney Henry Whitaker had argued during the hearing that the motions to dismiss Comey’s and James’ cases involved ‘at best a paperwork error.’

James’ attorney Abbe Lowell said Halligan was a ‘private person’ when she entered the grand jury rooms and completely unauthorized to be in them. Currie agreed, saying in her decision that retroactively validating Halligan and her actions would be unheard of.

‘The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary,’ Currie wrote. ‘It would mean the Government could send any private citizen off the street — attorney or not — into the grand jury room to secure an indictment so long as the Attorney General gives her approval after the fact. That cannot be the law.’

The Justice Department asked a federal judge to unseal grand jury materials and lift protective orders in the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases after President Donald Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Signed by Trump on Nov. 19, 2025, the law requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all unclassified records, communications and investigative materials related to Epstein within 30 days.

The order allows limited redactions for victim privacy or to protect active investigations, but those must be narrowly tailored and justified in the Federal Register.

The department asked the court to expedite the unsealing of grand jury transcripts and exhibits and to modify orders that block public release of discovery materials.

It argued that Congress explicitly authorized disclosure under the law, overriding the secrecy of grand jury proceedings outlined in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The law, the DOJ said, also supersedes earlier court rulings that denied unsealing.

The judge in the Maxwell case set a briefing schedule Monday, ordering Maxwell to file her position by Dec. 3. He also directed prosecutors to notify victims, who may submit letters to the court by the same date.

The government has until Dec. 10 to respond, and the judge will rule afterward, though he has not set a specific date. The judge has acknowledged the law’s 30-day release deadline for Bondi.

The House voted 421-1 last Tuesday to release the files after months of pressure from Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., cast the lone ‘no’ vote, saying the bill ‘reveals and injures thousands of innocent people — witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.’

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., supported the measure but voiced similar concerns. The Senate passed the bill hours later by unanimous consent.

Trump signed the law amid renewed scrutiny of his past association with Epstein after the Justice Department and FBI said in July they would not unseal related materials, citing the case’s closure.

The law directs the department to release all unclassified records related to Epstein and Maxwell, as well as files referencing individuals in Epstein’s prior cases, trafficking allegations, internal communications and details about his death.

Files containing victims’ names, child sexual abuse material, classified content or information that could affect active investigations may be withheld or redacted.

Bondi said Wednesday she would comply with the law, which requires the department to post the files online in a searchable format within 30 days.

The release has drawn strong interest from Trump supporters who have urged the department to disclose Epstein’s alleged ‘client list’ and details of his death.

While the documents are authentic, Epstein’s statements in the emails remain unverified. They do not allege wrongdoing by Trump and only reference him in passing.

Trump has not been formally accused of misconduct related to Epstein, and no law enforcement records link him to Epstein’s crimes.

Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Maxwell was later convicted of similar offenses and is serving a 20-year sentence.

Fox News’ Diana Stancy and Emma Colton contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday aimed at bolstering U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) initiatives as it unveiled its new ‘Genesis Mission’ to accelerate AI use for scientific purposes. 

The ‘Genesis Mission’ will direct the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and their national labs to work with private companies to share federal data sets, advanced supercomputing capabilities, and scientific facilities. 

‘The private sector has launched artificial intelligence at huge scale, but with a little bit different focus – on language, on business, on processes, on consumer services,’ Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told reporters Monday. ‘What we’re doing here is just pivoting those efforts to focus on scientific discovery, engineering advancements. And to do that, you need the data sets that are contained across our national labs.’ 

Additionally, the executive order instructs the Department of Energy and national labs to create an integrated platform aimed at expediting scientific discovery, in an attempt to connect AI capability with scientists, engineers, technical staff, and the labs’ scientific instruments, according to a White House official.

Trump hinted an effort like this was in the works during the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum Wednesday in Washington, where he said the U.S. would work ‘to build the largest, most powerful, most innovative AI ecosystem in the world.’

The effort comes after Trump issued an AI policy document called ‘Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan’ in July. The document laid out a framework focused on accelerating AI innovation, ensuring the U.S. is the leader in international AI diplomacy and security, and using the private sector to help build up and operate AI infrastructure. 

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is also currently considering other executive orders pertaining to AI, and more executive orders could be on the horizon. 

For example, Fox News Digital previously reported that the White House was gearing up an executive order instructing the Justice Department to sue states that adopt their own laws regulating AI. 

Trump appeared to address the initiative at the U.S-Saudi Investment Forum as well, claiming that a series of AI regulations imposed at the state level would prove a ‘disaster.’

‘And we are going to work it so that you’ll have a one approval process to not have to go through 50 states,’ Trump said. 

Fox News’ Amanda Macias and Dennis Collins contributed to this report. 

The Club for Growth says it has President Donald Trump’s back as the president pushes Republican-controlled states to redraw congressional maps in order to create more right-leaning districts to help defend the GOP’s fragile House majority in next year’s midterm elections.

‘We’re all in on helping Republicans do redistricting,’ David McIntosh, longtime president of the deep-pocketed and influential conservative group, said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital.

McIntosh highlighted that the Club for Growth’s seven-figure efforts ‘give Republicans a better shot at winning those extra districts.’

The push by the Club is the latest example of its strong support for the president and his policies, just two years after the group worked to prevent Trump from winning the 2024 Republican presidential nomination amid a bitter feud.

Trump and his political team are aiming to pad the GOP’s razor-thin House majority to keep control of the chamber in next year’s midterms, when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats.

Trump is trying to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House when Democrats reclaimed the House majority in the 2018 midterm elections.

Texas was the first Republican-controlled state to pass rare but not-unheard-of mid-decade congressional redistricting, although a ruling by two federal judges threatens to overturn the redrawn map. Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have also drawn new maps as part of the president’s push.

Indiana, where McIntosh served three terms as a congressman 25 years ago, is the latest battlefield in the high-stakes redistricting showdown pitting Trump and Republicans versus Democrats to shape the 2026 midterm landscape in the fight for the House majority.

‘Democrats for years have gerrymandered and Republicans have not, and now it’s time so we can have Republicans in Congress for states like my home state of Indiana, step up to the plate, draw the district, so Republicans can be represented,’ McIntosh argued.

Trump has threatened to back primary challenges against Republican state lawmakers in Indiana who are reluctant to pass redistricting.

‘I was delighted to see President Trump calling them to do it. And you know, he said, we’re going to start endorsing against you if you don’t do what’s right for the Republican Party and for the nation. Club for Growth will be there to back up his endorsements,’ McIntosh said.

And the Club’s political arm, the Club for Growth Action super PAC, which is one of the biggest spenders in Republican primary showdowns thanks to the support of top-dollar conservative donors, is running ads to support the president’s push in right-leaning states across the country.

‘We’re way over seven figures when you put together all the different states. And what we’re doing is running ads. We have a new ad today that talks about the need for redistricting,’ McIntosh revealed. ‘We have a program that brings constituent calls into the Senate members, and so they get to hear directly from their voters that they want them to do this.’

It’s not just redistricting.

The Club is spending seven figures in next week’s hotly contested special election for a Republican-controlled vacant House seat in a solidly red congressional district in Tennessee.

‘Matt Epps is going to win,’ McIntosh said as he pointed to the Trump-endorsed GOP nominee in the race to succeed former Republican Rep. Mark Green, who resigned from office in June to take a private sector job.

‘It’s going to be a hard race. They all are, but he’s going to win that race because he’s more in line with Tennessee,’ McIntosh said of Van Epps. ‘I’m confident of him, and we’re going to help him do it.’

And looking ahead to next year’s midterms, McIntosh shared that the Club has ‘already started raising a $40 million fund to keep the House majority, and we’re about 25 million into it.’

‘I’m going to keep going, and then we’ll deploy that to make sure Republicans can keep the majority,’ he emphasized.

And as they’ve done in the past, the Club, which pushes a fiscally conservative agenda, including a focus on tax cuts and other economic issues, will once again play an influential role in GOP primaries.

‘We’re interviewing a lot of candidates now. We’re going to look for the strongest conservative candidate, somebody who wants to continue the economic progress, less regulation, lower taxes, balance the budget, the things that will make America great,’ McIntosh said. ‘And then when we endorse them, we’ll come in with our funding to pay for ads. We’ll recruit and help them raise money. It’s important we get the right Republicans in these primaries, and there are a lot of open seats.’

Democrats are energized coming out of their party’s sweeping victories earlier this month in the 2026 elections.

‘Democrats have racked up wins this year by running on affordability and lowering costs, and headed into 2026 our momentum continues to build,’ CJ Warnke, communications director for the Democrat-aligned House Majority PAC told Fox News Digital.

Warnke predicted, ‘As Trump’s poll numbers on the economy continue to plummet and voters see him prioritizing the elite over lowering prices, his broken promises will sink House Republicans. No Republican-held seat is safe, and HMP will do whatever it takes to win the House in 2026.’

McIntosh sees the 2025 elections as ‘a warning sign, a wake-up call for two things.’

‘One, we got to get our voters out, and that’s the job of the party and Club for Growth and groups like us,’ McIntosh noted.

But he added that ‘the party has to explain how our agenda makes life more affordable, how we can lower your insurance costs by forcing the insurance industry to tell you how much they’re charging. We can lower housing by getting rid of all sorts of regulation.’

McIntosh and the Club have had an up-and-down relationship with the president. They opposed Trump as he ran for the White House in 2016 before embracing him as an ally. In the 2022 cycle, Trump and the Club teamed up in some high-profile GOP primaries but clashed over combustible Senate nomination battles in Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The Club was on the outs with Trump as the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race got underway. Trump repeatedly criticized McIntosh and the Club, referring to them as ‘The Club for NO Growth,’ and claimed they were ‘an assemblage of political misfits, globalists, and losers.’

However, Trump and McIntosh made peace in early 2024, with Trump saying as he was wrapping up the GOP presidential nomination, that they were ‘back in love’ after the protracted falling out.

Asked about the Club’s relationship with Trump, McIntosh said, ‘We’re right there with the President, especially in these races … Club for Growth is very aligned with President Trump, and we’re especially in these contested races, we’re going to help him win.’

One Senate Republican proved that it’s still possible to bridge the chasm between the aisles after brokering an end to the longest government shutdown in history.

The 43-day impasse in Congress may have ended in the House, but it was in the Senate that Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., worked to build an old-fashioned bipartisan coalition to jump-start the stalled chamber.

It took several weeks, numerous conversations and reconstructing broken trust between Senate Republicans and Democrats to pull off what would become a bipartisan package to reopen the government.

And it was something that Britt, in an interview with Fox News Digital, contended she was uniquely positioned to do.

She was chief of staff for former Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and knew how the sausage was made in the upper chamber. She also had longstanding relationships with some of the key Democratic negotiators, like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who ultimately joined most Republicans to reopen the government.

For Britt, who chairs the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, the key to reopening the government was funding the government through spending bills.

‘I’m very grateful for those on the other side of the aisle that had the courage to step forward and say, you know, we’re not going to allow everyday Americans to suffer as a result of keeping this government closed,’ she said. ‘I do think what we saw was a lot of people that were listening to their political consultants instead of the actual constituency that they serve.’

‘Because clearly, I think a lot of people had lost sight of the fact that we were in this place because we hadn’t passed appropriations bills,’ Britt continued.

During the last session of Congress, the chambers were split. Republicans held a tenuous grip on the House while Schumer and Senate Democrats controlled the Senate. Many of the spending bills produced by the House were often partisan, while the bipartisan bills crafted in the Senate never made it to the floor.

‘If you look back over Senator Schumer’s tenure as leader and over the last two years, he didn’t even put one bill on the floor last year, which is what led us to this posture of a CR to start with,’ she said.

Britt believed that at least moving a trio of spending bills could perhaps unstick the gears in the Senate and get lawmakers closer to ending the shutdown. Whether that package of bills could end up attached to legislation to reopen the government, however, remained elusive.

While she lauded both Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., for their roles in ensuring the funding process actually worked, her role as de facto arbiter began roughly three weeks before the shutdown ended.

One of the main issues before and throughout the shutdown was a lack of trust that Senate Democrats had in Republicans, an issue that was reaffirmed when the GOP voted to claw back billions in congressionally approved funding earlier in the year.

That trust issue was further solidified due to a lack of commitments from Republicans to prevent the Trump administration from continuing to carve away at federal funding with impoundments and rescissions.

And the key moment that saw the wheels begin to move in the direction of reopening came when Senate Democrats blocked the Defense appropriations bill, which would have paid service members among a plethora of other things.

‘The question that I had for each of them, you know, why? This came out of committee in a bipartisan way, and it was clear, they wanted greater conversation around how we were planning on moving these things forward,’ she said.

It was from those informal talks that she leaned into speaking with more Democratic lawmakers to try and assuage their concerns about what would happen during and after the spending bills were passed. Those conversations brought her all the way to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on whether he would approve of the appropriations process moving forward.

‘Taking a cue from that is why I really leaned into conversations, both with people that I believed were gettable in finding a pathway forward on reopening the government and those who were not,’ she said. ‘You know, just saying, like, ‘Look, guys, here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to work to fund these three bills. And if we do that, you know, here will be the ultimate result of it.’’

But, as with any successful legislation, there’s always a numbers game.

Not every Senate Republican was in favor of reopening the government, or at least the vehicle to do so, a point Britt reiterated often. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., had consistently voted against the House-passed bill until that point.

So that meant she needed to find the numbers elsewhere across the aisle. Shaheen, who was leading negotiations for Senate Democrats, largely had her numbers in check, but there was one more that needed an extra nudge: Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

Over the course of 48 hours, the weekend of the penultimate vote to seal the deal in the Senate, Kaine went from being against the package to supporting it. Britt acted as a liaison to the White House, bringing Kaine’s demands that the administration roll back firings carried out during the shutdown and provide protections to federal workers, which the administration ultimately agreed to.

But ending the shutdown was the first hurdle. Lawmakers now have until Jan. 30, 2026, to fund the government. Britt said she would keep doing what she’s been doing: talking to the other side.

‘I am hopeful that people will remember what we’re supposed to be doing, and that is working to pass these bills,’ she said. ‘And I am sure that there will be challenges in front of us, but you know, having dialogue and working to break the logjam will be essential when it does occur to keep America moving.’

Four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, the war in Ukraine has settled into a grinding conflict defined by high casualties and incremental territorial shifts. Russia still controls roughly one-fifth of Ukrainian territory, while Kyiv has recently clawed back limited ground in counteroffensives. Military estimates put Russian losses at about 1.2 million casualties since 2022, with Ukrainian losses between 500,000 and 600,000, underscoring the scale of attrition on both sides.

Diplomacy has intensified alongside the fighting. President Donald Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska last August for high-stakes talks aimed at advancing negotiations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has traveled to Washington multiple times since Trump returned to office, including a contentious Oval Office meeting in Feb. 2025 and a follow-up visit later in the year.

The most recent U.S. engagement with both sides came during trilateral negotiations in Abu Dhabi earlier this year and more taking place in Geneva on Feb. 17–18, where special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Russian and Ukrainian delegations as part of ongoing efforts to broker a settlement.

As the war enters its fifth year, former officials and analysts say the next phase could unfold along three possible paths: prolonged stalemate, shifting Ukrainian momentum, or a dangerous erosion of Western resolve.

Scenario one: Prolonged stalemate

The most immediate trajectory is continuation. The war remains defined by attrition, with neither side delivering a decisive blow and negotiations producing little progress.

Ret. U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, former NATO supreme allied commander of Europe, said Moscow is not winning despite its territorial hold, ‘There isn’t a winner right now.’

‘Russia, supposedly a world superpower with one of the world’s probably top three world armies and top four world air forces, in 12 years has gained about 20% of Ukraine. And they have lost some, say, over 1.2 million in the conflict so far. It’s a conflict that Ukraine is working hard to manage. It’s also a conflict that Russia is not, I repeat, not winning,’ he said.

Scenario two: Ukrainian momentum reshapes diplomacy

Recent battlefield developments suggest another possibility. Breedlove pointed to rapid Ukrainian gains following disruptions in Russia’s command-and-control systems.

‘In the last three or four days, because of the loss of the Starlink command and control system, Ukraine launched an offensive, and they have snatched back months of Russian gains in three days, three-pronged push, hundreds of square miles regained, and Russia is backing up in several places right now.’

Carrie Filipetti, executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition, said such advances could shift leverage at the negotiating table. ‘Ukraine’s recent advances to recapture its territory is yet another signal that Putin’s war machine is continuing to atrophy as the world marks the fourth year of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Russia’s latest territorial losses shows that far from being invincible, Putin and his army are beginning to experience real failures in terms of capability and resources.’

She added that momentum matters. ‘Not only is this the most significant Ukrainian advance on the battlefield in more than two years, its importance may be felt even more concretely at the diplomatic table. Finding a lasting and equitable peace deal through negotiation is often about momentum – and right now the Ukrainians have it.’

If sustained, such gains could alter Moscow’s calculations and give Kyiv a stronger footing in negotiations as long as Ukraine has strong U.S. support, Breedlove argues, ‘The first thing and the most important thing Ukraine needs is a declaratory statement by the West and specifically by the United States that we are not going to allow Russia to win in Ukraine, and we will give Ukraine what it needs to stop Russia… where Putin hears it loud and clear and where the people of Russia hear it loud and clear that is a game changer. And I think that’s when Mr. Putin is going to have to make some tough decisions.’

Scenario three: Escalation or Western fatigue

A third path worries some Western strategists: that inconsistent support could prolong or tilt the conflict in Russia’s favor.

Heather Nauert, who served as spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State from 2017 to 2019, framed the war as more than a territorial dispute. ‘As we now enter the fifth year of Putin’s war in Ukraine, we’re reminded that this conflict has never been only about territory — it’s about identity, faith, and the future of a free nation. Russia has destroyed more than 600 churches, persecuted millions of Ukrainian Christians under occupation, and abducted more than 19,000 children in an effort to break Ukraine’s spirit. President Trump’s push for a lasting peace must be backed by strength and accountability – one that protects innocent lives, defends religious freedom and brings stolen children home.’

Ret. Lt. Gen. Richard Newton said deterrence remains central. ‘Four years into this horrific war, the fundamental lesson remains unchanged: Peace is only possible when strength shapes the terms. Putin will continue to savagely test our resolve until the costs of his aggression outweigh any possible gain.’

‘What Ukraine needs isn’t gestures from the world, but instead, unwavering support from the U.S. and Europe that convinces Moscow further advances carry unacceptable consequences,’ he argued. ‘Russia must not prevail against Ukraine and the West. What are needed are credible security guarantees, robust offensive and defensive capabilities and a unified, long-term commitment by the West to ensure deterrence isn’t an elusive goal, but a lasting reality.’

Breedlove warned that negotiations alone will not shift the balance. ‘The most dangerous scenario is that we do not do what we should do in Ukraine and Russia takes over Ukraine because they’re not done.We have a policy of peace through strength and we’re using it in Iran. We’ve used it in Venezuela. We’re using it with oil tankers around the world… But when it comes to Putin and Ukraine, we are peace through weakness.’

‘Mr. Putin is making a point that he’s in charge in Ukraine, not the West and certainly not America. And so we need to change that dynamic. You got good guys and you got bad guys. And right now the bad guys have told America to take a hike. So now, rather than telling them what to do, we are going to the good guys and saying, you have to give up more because the bad guys are not playing well in the sandbox. That’s peace through weakness, not peace through strength,’ Breedlove concluded.