The indirect nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran mediated by Oman were ‘very good,’ according to President Donald Trump.

‘Iran looks like it wants to make a deal very badly. We’ll have to see what that deal is. But I think Iran looks like they want to make a deal very badly, as they should. Last time they decided maybe not to do it, but I think they probably feel differently,’ Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday.

The president added that the U.S. had a ‘big Armada’ heading towards Iran, something he has spoken about in the past.

When he was pressed on how long the U.S. would be willing to wait to make a deal with Iran, the president indicated some flexibility, saying that he believes the two nations can reach an agreement.

‘It can be reached. Well, we have to get in position. We have plenty of time. If you remember Venezuela, we waited around for a while, and we’re in no rush. We have very good [talks] with Iran,’ Trump said.

‘They know the consequences if they don’t make a deal. The consequences are very steep. So we’ll see what happens. But they had a very good meeting with a very high representative of Iran,’ the president added.

American and Iranian representatives held separate meetings with Omani officials on Friday amid flaring tensions between Washington and Tehran. Oman’s Foreign Ministry said that the meetings were ‘focused on preparing the appropriate conditions for resuming diplomatic and technical negotiations.’

On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that indirect nuclear talks were ‘a good start’ and that there was a ‘consensus’ that the negotiations would continue.

‘After a long period without dialogue, our viewpoints were conveyed, and our concerns were expressed. Our interests, the rights of the Iranian people, and all matters that needed to be stated were presented in a very positive atmosphere, and the other side’s views were also heard,’ Araghchi said.

‘It was a good start, but its continuation depends on consultations in our respective capitals and deciding on how to proceed,’ he added.

While both sides expressed optimism about a possible deal, the U.S. moved to impose fresh sanctions on Iran after the talks. The State Department announced that the U.S. was sanctioning ’15 entities, two individuals and 14 shadow fleet vessels connected to the illicit trade in Iranian petroleum, petroleum products, and petrochemical products.’

‘Instead of investing in the welfare of its own people and crumbling infrastructure, the Iranian regime continues to fund destabilizing activities around the world and step up its repression inside Iran,’ the statement read.

‘So long as the Iranian regime attempts to evade sanctions and generate oil and petrochemical revenues to fund such oppressive behavior and support terrorist activities and proxies, the United States will act to hold both the Iranian regime and its partners accountable.’

The Iranian Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment on the sanctions.

Ambassador Mike Waltz, the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations, outlined the Trump administration’s ‘America First’-centered policies that he is adopting in a wide-ranging, exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, as the former national security advisor asserts himself in the role.

Waltz rejected claims that the present U.N. cash crisis was primarily a result of unpaid U.S. dues. ‘The United States pays to the U.N. system, more than 180 countries combined,’ noting, ‘We have historically been the largest supporter of the U.N., but under President Trump, we’re demanding reform.’

Waltz argued the organization has drifted from its founding mission. ‘There are times where the U.N. has been incredibly helpful to U.S. foreign policy and objectives, but there are also times where it’s working against us,’ he said. ‘It has become bloated, it has become duplicative, it has lost its way from its original founding.’

Waltz framed the approach as part of an ‘America First’ doctrine focused on accountability for taxpayer dollars and burden-sharing among member states, saying that Washington’s financial leverage is intended to force change. ‘When we give the U.N. some tough love … these are the American taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars,’ he said. ‘At the end of the day, we will get the American taxpayers’ money’s worth, so to speak, out of this organization.’

At the U.N. earlier this week, the secretary-general framed the crisis as a matter of unpaid obligations by member states. When asked what gives him confidence the United States will pay, he said, ‘The question is not one of confidence. Obligations are obligations. So in relation to obligations, it’s not a matter of having confidence. It’s a matter of obligations being met.’

The secretary-general’s spokesperson, in response to a Fox News Digital question, rejected the idea that the organization’s financial crisis stems from internal management and echoed that position, saying the funding situation is ‘very clear,’ pointing to the fact that some of the largest contributors have not paid, while arguing the secretary-general has been a ‘responsible steward’ of U.N. finances and has pursued management reform since the start of his tenure.

‘They just agreed to cut nearly 3,000 headquarters bureaucratic positions,’ Waltz said in their defense. ‘They agreed to the first-ever budget cut in U.N. history in 80 years, a 15% budget cut, and they’re cutting global peacekeeping forces by 25%.’

‘What’s interesting is, behind the scenes, a lot of people are saying thank you. This place needs to be better. President Trump is right. It’s not living up to its potential. We should ask ourselves, why isn’t the U.N. resolving things like border disputes with Cambodia and Thailand? Why aren’t they really driving the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan to a resolution? That’s what the U.N. was built for. Thank God President Trump is, but he’s asking the question of why is he having to do all of this. Where’s the United Nations? So we’re determined here to help them live up to their reforms, live up to their mandate, live up to their mission.’

‘You have to have one place in the world where everyone can talk,’ he said. ‘The president is a president of peace. He puts diplomacy first.’

Asked whether U.N. leadership is doing enough to reform the world body, Waltz said Secretary-General António Guterres has begun moving in the right direction but should have acted sooner.

‘The secretary general has taken steps in the right direction. Frankly, I wish he had done it much sooner in a much more aggressive way,’ Waltz said.

He cited structural changes and consolidation efforts while arguing that measurable results must follow.

‘The U.N.’s budget has quadrupled in the last 25 years,’ Waltz said. ‘We haven’t seen a quadrupling of peace around the world. In fact, it’s gone the opposite direction.’

When asked if the administration’s Gaza peace framework and a mechanism known as the Board of Peace are alternatives to the U.N., Waltz said they are intended to complement the institution rather than replace it.

‘The president doesn’t intend the Board of Peace to replace the U.N., but he intends to drive a lot of these conflicts to conclusion,’ he said.

‘As part of the president’s 20-point peace plan was also the Board of Peace to actually implement it,’ he said.

He said the Board of Peace involves regional governments and is designed to create a stabilization structure on the ground. ‘The Egyptians are involved, Turkey’s involved, the Gulf Arabs, Jordan and importantly, the Israelis,’ he said. ‘We’re going to have a stabilization force, we’re going to have a funding mechanism for rebuilding humanitarian aid … and this Palestinian technocratic committee that can restore government services.’

Looking ahead, Waltz said the administration wants a narrower, more mission-driven U.N. focused on security, conflict resolution and economic development.

‘I see … a much more focused U.N. that we have taken back to the basics of promoting peace and security around the world,’ he said.

He also called for greater private sector involvement and less reliance on traditional aid structures. ‘This old model of NGOs and agencies going to governments and just saying, ‘More, more, more’ — it isn’t sustainable,’ he said. ‘If we’re driving environments in developing countries that welcome American businesses … we break that dependence on development aid and everyone benefits.’

Ultimately, Waltz framed his role as executing foreign policy vision. ‘I’m a vessel for the president’s vision,’ he said. ‘From my perspective, at the end of his administration, he looks at a U.N. that is leading in driving countries toward peaceful conclusions to conflicts around the world and asking for his help. That’s a much better dynamic than the president having to do it all and saying, ‘Where is the U.N. in these conflicts?’ And so we’re looking to very much flip that on its head, and we have a plan to do it.’

Russia said it plans to ‘interrogate’ two suspects in the attempted assassination of a top military intelligence official who was ambushed in Moscow on Friday, according to a Russian newspaper.

The Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that two suspects in the shooting of Lt. Gen. Vladimir Alekseyev ‘will soon be interrogated,’ citing a source close to the investigation.

After questioning, the suspects are expected to be charged, the report said, according to Reuters. 

Alekseyev, the deputy head of Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency, was shot three times in his Moscow apartment building on Friday and rushed to a hospital.

The Associated Press reported that the business daily Kommersant said the shooter posed as a delivery person and shot Alekseyev twice in the stairway of his apartment building, injuring him in the foot and arm. Alekseyev allegedly attempted to wrest the weapon away and was shot again in the chest before the attacker fled, the report said.

Kommersant reported that Alekseyev underwent successful surgery and regained consciousness Saturday but remained under medical supervision.

Russian news outlet TASS reported that the surgery was successful and that Alekseyev’s injuries were not life-threatening.

The outlet reported that the Investigative Committee launched a criminal investigation on charges of attempted murder and illicit trafficking in firearms.

Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov accused Ukraine of being behind the assassination attempt, alleging — without providing evidence — that it was intended to sabotage peace talks. Ukraine denied any involvement.

Alekseyev, 64, has been under U.S. sanctions over alleged Russian cyber interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The European Union also sanctioned him over the 2018 poisoning of former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England.

The assassination attempt came as President Donald Trump’s administration has been seeking to help broker peace between Russia and Ukraine.

The warring nations agreed to a prisoner swap this week, according to readouts posted on X by U.S. special presidential envoy for peace missions Steve Witkoff and Ukraine’s national security and defense council minister Rustem Umerov.

Fox News’ Alex Nitzberg and Reuters contributed to this report.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard denied any wrongdoing on Saturday as Democrats question why a whistleblower complaint filed against her last May took nearly a year before it was referred to Congress.

‘[Virginia Democrat] Senator Mark Warner and his friends in the Propaganda Media have repeatedly lied to the American people that I or the ODNI ‘hid’ a whistleblower complaint in a safe for eight months,’ Gabbard wrote in a lengthy X post on Saturday. ‘This is a blatant lie.’

She continued, ‘I am not now, nor have I ever been, in possession or control of the Whistleblower’s complaint, so I obviously could not have ‘hidden’ it in a safe. Biden-era IC Inspector General Tamara Johnson was in possession of and responsible for securing the complaint for months.’

The highly classified complaint by a U.S. intelligence official alleging wrongdoing on the part of Gabbard was filed eight months ago with the intelligence community’s watchdog office and was first reported on by the Wall Street Journal.

The complaint has been locked in a safe since its filing, according to the Journal, with one U.S. official telling the newspaper that the disclosure of its contents could cause ‘grave damage to national security.’

The whistleblower’s lawyer has accused Gabbard’s office of slow-walking the complaint, which her office has denied, calling it ‘baseless and politically motivated.’ 

Meanwhile, Democrats are also questioning why it took her office so long to hand the complaint over to Congress.

‘The law is clear,’ Warner, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Thursday, according to NPR, adding that the complaint was required to be sent to Congress within 21 days of its filing. ‘I think it was an effort to try to bury this whistleblower complaint.’

Neither the contents of the complaint nor the allegations against Gabbard have been revealed.

Gabbard wrote on Saturday that the first time she saw the complaint was ‘when I had to review it to provide guidance on how it should be securely shared with Congress.’

‘As Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Warner knows very well that whistleblower complaints that contain highly classified and compartmented intelligence—even if they contain baseless allegations like this one—must be secured in a safe, which the Biden-era Inspector General Tamara Johnson did and her successor, Inspector General Chris Fox, continued to do,’ she continued. ‘After IC Inspector General Fox hand-delivered the complaint to the Gang of 8, the complaint was returned to a safe where it remains, consistent with any information of such sensitivity.’

She claimed that either ‘Warner knows these facts and is intentionally lying to the American people, or he doesn’t have a clue how these things work and is therefore not qualified to be in the U.S. Senate.’

Gabbard further wrote that ‘When a complaint is not found to be credible, there is no timeline under the law for the provision of security guidance. The ‘21 day’ requirement that Senator Warner alleges I did not comply with, only applies when a complaint is determined by the Inspector General to be both urgent AND apparently credible. That was NOT the case here.’

An inspector general representative said that it had determined some of the allegations in the complaint against Gabbard weren’t credible, while it hasn’t made a determination on others, according to the Journal.

Gabbard said she was made aware that she needed to provide security guidance on the complaint by IC Inspector General Chris Fox on Dec. 4, ‘which he detailed in his letter to Congress.’

Afterward, she said she ‘took immediate action to provide the security guidance to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, who then shared the complaint and referenced intelligence with relevant members of Congress last week.’

In closing her post, Gabbard once again accused Warner of spreading ‘lies and baseless accusations over the months for political gain,’ which she said ‘undermines our national security and is a disservice to the American people and the Intelligence Community.’

Warner’s office told Fox News Digital Gabbard’s post was an ‘inaccurate attack that’s entirely on brand for someone who has already and repeatedly proven she’s unqualified to serve as DNI.’ 

Republicans on the House and Senate intelligence committees have backed up Gabbard, with Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., writing on X on Thursday: ‘I have reviewed this ‘whistleblower’ complaint and the inspector general handling of it. I agree with both inspectors general who have evaluated the matter: the complaint is not credible and the inspectors general and the DNI took the necessary steps to ensure the material has handled and transmitted appropriately in accordance with law.’

He addded, ‘To be frank, it seems like just another effort by the president’s critics in and out of government to undermine policies that they don’t like; it’s definitely not credible allegations of waste, fraud, or abuse.’

Gabbard’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., called out President Donald Trump for a post on Truth Social on Friday, demanding that the president take it down.

The post in question, which Trump put on his Truth Social Thursday night, depicted former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as monkeys or apes.

Scott, the only Black member of the Senate GOP, called on Trump to remove the post.

‘Praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House,’ Scott said. ‘The President should remove it.’

Scott found an unlikely ally in his request in Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who similarly called on Trump to take the post down. 

‘Racist. Vile. Abhorrent. This is dangerous and degrades our country — where are Senate Republicans? The President must immediately delete the post and apologize to Barack and Michelle Obama, two great Americans who make Donald Trump look like a small, envious man,’ Schumer said on X. 

Scott and Trump have shared a warm relationship since he ran and ultimately dropped out of the Republican presidential race last year. 

He now chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOP’s campaign arm tasked with keeping Republicans’ thin majority in the upper chamber and expanding it during the 2026 midterm cycle. 

Scott has rarely bucked Trump, positioning himself as a top ally to the president — he was on the short list of possible vice presidential picks before Trump ultimately tapped then Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio. 

However, he has recently broken with the president on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Scott, who also chairs the Senate Banking Committee, said during an interview with Fox Business earlier this week that he didn’t believe Powell had committed a crime during his testimony to the committee last year.

‘I found him to be inept at doing his job, but ineptness or being incompetent is not a criminal act,’ Scott said.

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

Senate Democrats are accusing President Donald Trump of trying to meddle in the upcoming election cycle, and Senate Republicans are calling them out. 

The topic of election integrity was again thrust back into the forefront by House Republicans last week, who demanded that voter ID legislation be included in a deal struck by Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to fund the government. 

While that ultimately never came to fruition, the talking point and legislative push have remained. 

Trump has called on Republicans to nationalize elections throughout the week; the FBI conducted a raid on an election hub in Fulton County, Ga. and a cohort from the Senate GOP are pushing for the SAVE America Act to get a shot in the upper chamber. 

Senate Democrats see the moves as laying the groundwork for election interference during the 2026 midterm election cycle — a point that they railed against Trump and Republicans for years. 

‘I think as Trump gets more desperate, he’s looking at ways that he can rig the election anytime a Republican doesn’t win,’ Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Fox News Digital. ‘He thinks it’s unfair, and so he wants to tilt the rules to make sure the Democrats don’t win.’ 

‘So yeah, I think we ultimately have to be really vigilant about this,’ he continued. ‘The Constitution is crystal clear, the federal government can’t run state elections, but that doesn’t mean he won’t try.’

The accusation has made Senate Republicans balk, particularly after congressional Democrats raged against the GOP for questions of election integrity following the 2020 election and after Democrats pushed for their own, sweeping election reform packages under former President Joe Biden. 

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital that Democrats’ charge was ‘ridiculous.’ 

‘Sounds like a conspiracy theory,’ Schmitt said. 

‘I think President Trump cares very deeply about the integrity of our elections,’ he continued. ‘If you ask the American people, they support voter ID by overwhelming numbers. So look, they’ve got some outrage of the week every week.’

Trump’s comments to nationalize elections came first during an interview with former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino on his podcast, where the president said, ‘The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over, we should take over the voting in at least many — 15 places.’’ 

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., shot back that a Democratic politician didn’t need to weigh in on the issue because Trump ‘said it with his own mouth.’

‘You can take the president at his own words and believe what he says,’ Slotkin told Fox News Digital. ‘And he’s had an obsession with this issue, certainly an obsession with Fulton County, since he lost the 2020 election, and he’s now weaponizing the federal government because of his obsession.’

But some Senate Republicans have pushed back on Trump’s desire to implement more federal control over elections. 

They argue that it’s a request that runs headfirst into the Constitution, which dictates that elections are run at the state and local levels with little impact from the federal government. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has also thrown cold water on the notion. 

‘Distributed, decentralized elections held at state-level, in my view, are a protection against hacking and other things, so it’s a lot harder to hack 50 systems than it is one,’ Thune said. ‘So, if that’s the issue, I’m a believer in keeping most of those administered — most issues, at least administered by the state. The issue of citizenship, when it comes to voting, would be an exception to that.’

And while there is a push to pass the SAVE America Act, which would include voter ID, proof of citizenship to register to vote, and other reforms, it’s unlikely to survive in the Senate. 

That’s because of the 60-vote filibuster threshold and Senate Democrats’ near-unanimous disdain of the legislation, which Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has called ‘Jim Crow 2.0.’

Still, Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rick Scott, R-Fla., the three most vocal supporters of the bill, met with Trump to discuss a path forward on Thursday. 

‘It is Democrats bending over backwards to prevent voter ID and proof of citizenship for American elections,’ Lee told Fox News Digital in a statement. ‘It is Democrats demanding that nobody ask questions about election security and irregularities. The projection is jaw-dropping.’

President Donald Trump took down an inflammatory post from Truth Social that depicted the Obamas as monkeys after a wave of backlash from some of the president’s top allies on Capitol Hill. 

The post first appeared on Thursday night and went under the radar until Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the lone Black member of the Senate GOP, demanded Trump take it down.

The post in question depicted former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama as monkeys or apes.

‘Praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House,’ Scott said. ‘The President should remove it.’

His reaction opened a floodgate of responses from other congressional Republicans, who didn’t buy the White House’s initial explanation for the video. 

‘This is totally unacceptable,’ Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said on X. ‘The president should take it down and apologize.’ 

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote the post off as a ‘meme’ that was part of a video depicting Trump as the king of the jungle from ‘The Lion King.’ 

‘Even if this was a Lion King meme, a reasonable person sees the racist context to this,’ Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., said in a post on X. ‘The White House should do what anyone does when they make a mistake: remove this and apologize.’

Still, it took several hours for the post to be removed. 

A Trump advisor told Fox News Digital that ‘the president did not see the video before it was posted.’

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., said on X, ‘This content was rightfully removed, should have never been posted to begin with, and is not who we are as a nation.’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., similarly called on Trump to take the post down. 

‘Racist. Vile. Abhorrent. This is dangerous and degrades our country — where are Senate Republicans? The President must immediately delete the post and apologize to Barack and Michelle Obama, two great Americans who make Donald Trump look like a small, envious man,’ Schumer said on X. 

The post has since been removed, and a Trump advisor told Fox News Digital that ‘the president did not see the video before it was posted.’

Scott and Trump have shared a warm relationship since he ran and ultimately dropped out of the Republican presidential race last year. 

He now chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOP’s campaign arm tasked with keeping Republicans’ thin majority in the upper chamber and expanding it during the 2026 midterm cycle. 

Scott has rarely bucked Trump, positioning himself as a top ally to the president — he was on the short list of possible vice presidential picks before Trump ultimately tapped then Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio. 

However, he has recently broken with the president on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Scott, who also chairs the Senate Banking Committee, said during an interview with Fox Business earlier this week that he didn’t believe Powell had committed a crime during his testimony to the committee last year.

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

After 13 years of pursuit, one of the terrorists who murdered four Americans in Benghazi has arrived on U.S. soil to face justice.

Zubayr al-Bakoush was flown to Joint Base Andrews early Friday morning following an FBI overseas operation. Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced that he faces eight federal counts, including murder, terrorism, and arson, for his role in the September 11, 2012, attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, State Department officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

‘For 13 hours, Americans waited for help that never came,’ Pirro said, as personnel defended the nearby CIA annex under sustained attack. ‘Today, American justice has arrived.’

The families of the fallen deserved this moment. But Benghazi was always about more than catching terrorists. It exposed fundamental leadership failures and an administration that prioritized narrative control over accountability.

Security Failures Nobody Owned

The State Department’s own Accountability Review Board delivered a devastating verdict in December 2012. The board found ‘systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies’ that resulted in ‘grossly inadequate’ security in Benghazi. While the board did not assign criminal liability, it made clear that leadership failures in Washington materially contributed to the tragedy.

Despite extensive intelligence warnings about deteriorating security and al-Qaeda’s expanding operations, State Department officials in Washington repeatedly denied requests for additional security from personnel on the ground. The CIA, by contrast, increased security at its Benghazi facilities.

This is what American resolve looks like when clarity replaces spin and persistence replaces defensiveness.

Four State Department officials were cited for their failures by the Accountability Review Board. They were placed on administrative leave with pay, then returned to government service in other roles rather than being dismissed. Two eventually retired voluntarily. More than a year after the attack, no official had been fired, demoted, or otherwise held personally accountable for decisions that left Americans vulnerable.

The YouTube Video That Wasn’t

In the days following the assault, senior Obama administration officials blamed a spontaneous protest sparked by an anti-Islam video. That explanation collapsed under scrutiny. Intelligence agencies understood almost immediately that this was a coordinated terrorist attack by extremist militias, including the designated terror group Ansar al-Sharia.

When Hillary Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 2013, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pressed her on why evacuees who could confirm there was no protest were not immediately contacted. Clinton’s response became infamous: ‘What difference, at this point, does it make?’ To critics, her remark symbolized an administration more focused on managing political fallout than confronting hard truths about security and responsibility.

Those five words crystallized critics’ view that the administration prioritized public messaging in the weeks preceding a national election over candor. Clinton later said, ‘I take responsibility,’ yet she simultaneously distanced herself from operational security decisions, and no disciplinary action followed. President Obama took no steps to remove her from office.

Congress launched multiple investigations. The House Select Committee on Benghazi, after two years and $7 million, found bureaucratic failures and ignored security warnings—but no definitive evidence of personal wrongdoing by Clinton.

That contrast between evasion then and resolve now explains why this arrest matters.

Why This Arrest Matters

The capture of al-Bakoush sends an unmistakable message: America does not forget its fallen, and justice will be pursued regardless of time or politics. As Pirro emphasized, ‘There are more of them out there. Time will not stop us from going after these predators, no matter how long it takes.’

This is what American resolve looks like when clarity replaces spin and persistence replaces defensiveness. The terrorists who attacked Americans that September night made a calculation that they could kill with impunity. Friday’s arrest proves that calculation wrong.

Benghazi remains a painful chapter marked by loss and leadership failures. But this arrest demonstrates something essential: when America commits to justice, we finish what we start. The families who waited more than a decade understand the difference that makes. It also sends a message to adversaries worldwide that America’s commitment to justice—and to its people—does not expire.

The United States and Russia are entering a new phase of nuclear relations with no treaty limiting their arsenals, as President Donald Trump calls for a sweeping new arms control agreement and Russian officials warn that Washington’s approach would make any deal impossible.

The last agreement that capped U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, known as New START, expired Thursday, leaving the world’s two largest nuclear powers without legally binding limits on their arsenals or an inspection regime.

Trump called New START a ‘bad deal’ that was being ‘grossly violated,’ and said the United States should instead pursue a ‘new, improved and modernized treaty.’

Russian officials quickly pushed back. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of Russia’s security council, said U.S. criticism of New START ‘means one thing: there’ll never be a treaty under these terms,’ arguing Washington is demanding limits that ignore other nuclear-armed states and new weapons systems.

The United States and Russia have entered a new phase of nuclear relations with no treaty now limiting their arsenals, after the last remaining arms control agreement between the two powers expired this week. As the two powers seek to negotiate a new framework, each is seeking to expand restrictions on each other’s allies, with the U.S. aiming to include China, and Russia countering by saying Britain and France should also be covered.

Speaking Wednesday at the Conference on Disarmament, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said New START’s limits no longer reflect today’s nuclear landscape.

‘As of yesterday, New START and its central limits have expired,’ DiNanno said. ‘Even if we could have legally extended the treaty, it would not have been beneficial for the United States — or the world — to do so.’

‘A bilateral treaty with only one nuclear power is simply inappropriate in 2026 and going forward,’ DiNanno said, pointing to Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons and China’s unconstrained buildup.

In practice, New START’s verification regime had already been largely dormant since 2023, when Russia stopped allowing on-site inspections of its nuclear facilities and halted required data exchanges under the treaty, even as both sides said they continued to observe its numerical limits.

But China remains far behind the United States and Russia in overall nuclear warheads and is unlikely to accept binding limits while it is still expanding its arsenal, arms control experts say.

The United States and Russia each maintain roughly 4,000 total nuclear warheads, with about 1,700 deployed on strategic delivery systems, according to expert estimates. China, by contrast, is projected to reach about 1,000 warheads by 2030.

Arms control experts caution that while New START had clear shortcomings, its expiration still removes an important stabilizing mechanism. Lynn Rusten, a former senior U.S. arms control official now at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said the treaty provided a foundation that is now gone.

‘We did lose something,’ Rusten told Fox News Digital. ‘It would have been good to continue that as a foundation and a stabilizing platform on which to negotiate a better deal.’

The growing uncertainty comes as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last month moved its symbolic Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight — the closest it has ever been to global catastrophe — citing rising nuclear risks, the collapse of arms control frameworks, and intensifying great-power competition.

Rusten said the immediate concern is not a rapid buildup of new missiles or bombers, but how many warheads each side could deploy on systems they already have.

‘Both countries have the capacity to increase deployed warheads on their existing strategic delivery vehicles,’ she said. ‘It would take time, but they could add several hundred if they chose to.’

Russia has also developed a number of nontraditional delivery systems that were not limited by New START.

Those systems include a nuclear-powered cruise missile known as Burevestnik, sometimes referred to as Skyfall, and a nuclear-powered underwater torpedo called Poseidon — weapons Moscow has touted as capable of evading existing missile defenses and striking targets at intercontinental range.

‘Those are systems that really should be included in any future treaty,’ Rusten said. ‘They’re troubling because they’re just adding to the number and type of strategic-range nuclear systems that can kill huge numbers of people.’

Separate from those novel strategic systems, experts say one of the biggest unresolved issues in nuclear arms control involves so-called tactical, or non-strategic, nuclear weapons — shorter-range nuclear arms designed for battlefield use rather than long-range strikes against cities.

Russia is believed to possess far more of these weapons than the United States, and they have never been subject to legally binding arms control limits. While Washington drastically reduced its tactical nuclear stockpile after the Cold War, Moscow retained and later modernized many of its own, viewing them as a key tool to offset NATO’s conventional military strength.

‘Russia has thousands of tactical nuclear weapons, and they’ve never been covered by a treaty,’ Rusten said. ‘That’s been a long-standing concern for the United States and our NATO allies, and it’s one of the hardest issues to negotiate.’

Because they are smaller, more flexible, and potentially usable earlier in a conflict, experts say tactical nuclear weapons pose a unique escalation risk — lowering the threshold for nuclear use and complicating efforts to prevent a crisis from spiraling into a broader nuclear exchange.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that indirect nuclear talks with the U.S. in Oman were ‘a good start’ and that there was a ‘consensus’ that the negotiations would continue.

‘After a long period without dialogue, our viewpoints were conveyed, and our concerns were expressed. Our interests, the rights of the Iranian people, and all matters that needed to be stated were presented in a very positive atmosphere, and the other side’s views were also heard,’ Araghchi said.

‘It was a good start, but its continuation depends on consultations in our respective capitals and deciding on how to proceed,’ he added.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi met with both Iranian and American officials on Friday, the Foreign Ministry of Oman said on X. The ministry said that al-Busaidi held separate meetings with Araghchi and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

‘The consultations focused on preparing the appropriate conditions for resuming diplomatic and technical negotiations, while emphasizing their importance, in light of the parties’ determination to ensure their success in achieving sustainable security and stability,’ the Foreign Ministry of Oman said.

Oman reportedly put out a public statement acknowledging the talks after journalists with The Associated Press saw Iranian and American officials separately visit the palace, the outlet reported. The AP said it was not immediately clear if talks were done for the day, but noted that the palace was empty after the convoys left.

The Iranian representatives reportedly met with al-Busaidi first, and only after their convoy left the palace did another set of vehicles arrive, one of which had an American flag, according to the AP. The outlet said the SUV flying the American flag stayed at the palace for an hour and a half.

The talks were initially set to take place in Turkey, but were later moved, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who confirmed the change in venue on Wednesday.

‘We thought we had an established forum that had been agreed to in Turkey. It was put together by a number of partners who wanted to attend and be a part of it,’ Rubio said when taking questions from reporters on Wednesday.

‘I saw conflicting reports yesterday from the Iranian side saying that they had not agreed to that. So, that’s still being worked through. At the end of the day, the United States is prepared to engage in, has always been prepared to engage with Iran.’

Iranian officials also reportedly tried to limit the talks to a bilateral U.S.-Iran format, excluding other Arab and regional countries, according to Axios.

Tensions between Iran and the U.S. have been high since Washington bombed Tehran’s nuclear facilities in the summer of 2025. Things escalated further as the U.S. condemned Iran’s treatment of anti-regime protesters, with President Donald Trump threatening to act if government actors used violence against demonstrators.

Trump recently said in an interview with NBC News that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ‘should be very worried,’ though the president acknowledged that the two countries were ‘negotiating.’

When pressed about why he has not followed through on threats to take action if the regime used violence against protesters, Trump said that the U.S. ‘had their back’ and that the ‘country’s a mess right now because of us,’ referring to the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Trump also told NBC News that the U.S. had learned that Iran was attempting to build a new nuclear site in a different part of the country.

The president said that he issued a threat that if Iran were to build a new nuclear facility, the U.S. would ‘do very bad things.’

It is not immediately clear whether there will be more discussions over the course of the weekend or if there are any plans for direct discussions between Iranian and American officials.

The State Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.