The U.S. seizure of the tanker formerly known as Bella I marks a rare escalation in sanctions enforcement against Russia’s so-called ‘dark fleet,’ but experts say the move is unlikely to trigger a broader confrontation with Moscow, at least in the near term.

Analysts largely agree that the interdiction — one of the most direct U.S. actions against a vessel Russia claims was operating under its flag — comes at a moment when the Kremlin has limited appetite for escalation outside Europe and is focused primarily on its war against neighboring Ukraine.

‘This is unique,’ said Brent Sadler, senior research fellow at the Washington conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. 

The U.S. rarely boards foreign-flagged vessels on the high seas unless the ship’s nationality is in doubt, which he said was the case here due to rapid reflagging and a pattern of sanctions violations.

Peter Rough, a senior fellow and director of the Center on Europe and Eurasia at the Hudson Institute think tank, said that the seizure of the tanker reinforces the message that the U.S. is aiming to ‘call the shots in its own backyard.’ Meanwhile, he said that Russia is bogged down fighting its war against Ukraine, meaning it will be challenging for it to engage in a significant way in Latin America. 

Likewise, Russia is also attempting to curry favor with the Trump administration for a favorable outcome in a peace deal ending the conflict with Ukraine, he said. 

‘The Donroe Doctrine,’ as President Donald Trump has called it, fashions the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning against European expansion into Latin America after himself. 

The empty vessel was seized in international waters during an operation overseen by U.S. European Command. The Wall Street Journal reported that Russia dispatched a submarine to escort the tanker after the U.S. attempted to seize it off Venezuela, heightening the risk of a naval standoff between two nuclear-armed states.

Russia has operated a so-called ‘shadow fleet’ of oil tankers for years to evade sanctions imposed after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Wednesday’s seizure marks one of the most direct U.S. enforcement actions to date against a vessel tied to that network.

‘There’s really not a whole lot of cards the Russians have to play at this point,’ Sadler said, anticipating a muted response. 

Rough also noted that similar actions like the one on Wednesday have not triggered major escalation previously. In October, French authorities boarded and detained a Russia-linked tanker suspected of being part of the shadow fleet off the coast of France without sparking a new crisis. 

In that instance, the tanker was not a Russian-flagged vessel. 

‘The upshot is that in light of the administration’s determination to dictate terms on Venezuela-related issues like this and Putin’s desire to work with Trump on what matters most to the Kremlin — Ukraine — I’m inclined to say that Moscow’s response will consist mostly of protesting this action and lodging political and legal complaints,’ Rough said in an email to Fox News Digital. ‘I don’t think it will lead to a full-blown political crisis in U.S.-Russian relations.’

John Hardie, deputy director of the Russia program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, also predicted the seizure of the Bella I tanker wouldn’t dramatically impact relations between Washington and Moscow. 

‘I suspect Moscow reacted the way it did because it worries about a precedent that could lead to U.S. interdiction of tankers moving Russian oil,’ Hardie said. ‘That said, I don’t think the Bella incident alone will have significant impact on relations between the Trump administration and Moscow or the peace talks.’

Russia has accused U.S. naval forces of illegally boarding the vessel — which had been reflagged as the Merinera under temporary Russian authorization Dec. 24 — arguing the action violated international maritime law. U.S. officials have not publicly detailed the legal justification for the seizure.

While Moscow’s response has so far been limited to diplomatic and legal objections, the incident has drawn attention because of how unusual the operation was. 

Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic & International Studies’ defense and security department, said that there are hundreds of sanctioned oil ships in the sea — with at least 100 of them belonging to Russia. If the U.S. started targeting more tankers, that would have a ‘huge’ impact on countries like Russia and Iran, he said. 

‘The one tanker will be an annoyance to Russia, and they’ll complain,’ Cancian told Fox News Digital Wednesday. ‘I think the bigger issue is whether we or other countries, start going after other tankers with sanctioned oil.’ 

The dramatic capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has handed President Donald Trump a rare strategic opening — one that could reshape Venezuela’s crippled oil industry, redirect global crude flows and weaken the foothold that rivals like Russia, China and Iran have built in the Western Hemisphere.

But unlocking the world’s largest oil reserves won’t be easy. Years of political turmoil, sanctions and infrastructure collapse mean U.S. energy companies face steep risks — and any production rebound would take time, capital and sustained political stability.

Now, Trump and energy CEOs must address three key challenges in order to seize opportunities. 

1. Venezuela holds massive oil reserves, but production remains severely constrained

Venezuela, a country almost twice the size of California, sits atop extraordinary wealth. 

With more than 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Venezuela holds more crude than established energy heavyweights like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait. The Latin American country’s reserves are nearly quadruple those of the United States.

Once a major oil producer, the country pumped about 3.5 million barrels a day in the late 1990s. Since then, its oil industry has sharply deteriorated, with production falling to roughly 800,000 barrels a day, according to energy analytics firm Kpler.

A key reason: much of Venezuela’s oil is difficult and expensive to extract.

The country’s reserves are dominated by heavy and extra-heavy crude, which is costly to extract and relies on specialized equipment and refining capacity that have deteriorated after years of underinvestment, U.S. sanctions and political instability.

Similar dynamics have unfolded in countries such as Iran and Libya, where turmoil, financial distress and crumbling infrastructure have kept vast reserves locked underground.

As a result, scaling operations back up would require significant time, capital and technical expertise, with any production increase likely to be gradual rather than immediate.

2. Political risk remains a major concern for American energy companies

Decades of political instability, shifting regulations and U.S. sanctions have made Venezuela a high-risk environment for long-term investment. 

That risk dates back to the mid-2000s, when then-President Hugo Chávez reshaped Venezuela’s relationship with international energy companies by tightening state control over the oil industry.

Between 2004 and 2007, Chávez forced foreign companies to renegotiate their contracts with the government. The new terms sharply reduced the role and profits of private firms while strengthening Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).

The move drove some of the world’s largest oil companies out of the country.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips exited Venezuela in 2007 and later filed claims against the government in international arbitration courts. Those courts ultimately ruled in favor of the companies, ordering Venezuela to pay ConocoPhillips more than $10 billion and ExxonMobil more than $1 billion. The cash-strapped country has paid only a fraction of those awards.

That history looms over Trump’s latest proposal.

Trump said on Saturday he would seek to revive the once-prominent commodity by mobilizing investment from major U.S. energy companies.

‘We are going to have our very large United States oil companies go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure and start making money for the country,’ Trump said during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago. 

It remains unclear whether U.S. energy companies are prepared to do so. American firms have yet to say whether they plan to return to Venezuela to resurrect an oil industry hollowed out by years of neglect.

Chevron, the only U.S. oil titan operating in Venezuela, said in a statement to Fox News Digital that it was following ‘relevant laws and regulations.’

‘Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets,’ a Chevron spokesperson added.

ConocoPhillips wrote in a statement to Fox News Digital that it is monitoring the developments in Venezuela as well as the ‘potential implications for global energy supply and stability.’ 

‘It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,’ a spokesperson for ConocoPhillips added.

ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

3. The push reflects a broader effort to leverage energy for geopolitical influence

As U.S. and European companies withdrew from Venezuela, Russia, China and Iran expanded their footprint in the country’s energy sector, using financing, fuel shipments and technical support to maintain influence.

That shift has also reshaped how Venezuelan oil is traded. Sanctions have fueled the rise of so-called ‘ghost ships,’ nondescript oil tankers that disable tracking systems to quietly move Venezuelan crude to foreign buyers outside traditional markets. The opaque trade has reduced transparency in global oil flows while helping Caracas sustain exports despite financial isolation.

For the Trump administration, the outcome has underscored an uncomfortable trade-off: restricting access to U.S. markets can limit revenue for sanctioned governments, but it can also push them deeper into the orbit of strategic rivals, turning energy policy into a front line of geopolitical competition.

Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are the central and most popular members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, but they have something else in common: All three are harsh former critics of their current boss.

Much has been made, especially on the left, of past statements by this big three in the Cabinet, Vance calling Trump Hitler, Rubio’s bruising 2016 primary attacks on the president’s hand size and pretty much everything former Democrat RFK Jr ever said prior to endorsing Trump in 2024.

To Democrats, of course, this about face to Orange Man Good from all three, and others in the White House orbit, means that these men have abandoned their principles and are bootlicking for their own power. But in fact, something much more amazing is happening.

Trump’s first term was often mired in internal debate and friction from a Cabinet that at times seemed more interested in being a guardrail to Trump’s supposed impulsiveness than stewards of his agenda.

Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and National Security Adviser John Bolton, for example, were, in Trump’s administration and to this day, deeply critical of his approach to governing, which hurt the White House’s effectiveness.

This time around, in Trump 2.0, his Cabinet, which has remained all but unchanged for a year now, is not trying to hem him in, but rather to make his vision for a better America a reality, regardless of any past tensions they may have had with the boss.

This tells us a couple of things. First, it showsTrump has pretty thick skin at the end of the day. Barring the kind of complete betrayals we have seen from figures like Pence and Esper, the president is showing his ability to let bygones be bygones.

Second, it demonstrates that Vance, Rubio, and Bobby, not to mention former Democrat and current National Security Adviser Tulsi Gabbard, have found that when you honestly and openly work with Trump, and get to know him, your opinion of him can change.

Trump’s team of former rivals has also been so effective because Trump’s only firm ideological position is America first, and under this rubric, Vance’s economic protectionism, Rubio’s foreign adventurism and RFK Jr’s Make America Healthy Again agenda all have a welcome home at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Much of this is down to Trump’s unique ability to put common sense above political orthodoxy. For example, Democrats were stunned this week when the White House announced it wanted to bar large corporations from purchasing single family homes, something they themselves have called for.

Both from my own private conversations with members of the Trump administration and through their public remarks, what becomes clear is that, in the starkest possible reversal of the first term, today’s Cabinet is a well-oiled and utterly unified team.

The knock on the president, especially from conservative Never Trumpers, some of whom haunted his first White House, is that he has no principles. But the positive way to frame this is that he is flexible and open to new ideas.

The biggest question today in American politics is what the Republican Party will look like on Jan. 21, 2029, when Trump’s political career moves from the headlines to the history books. The answers sit in his Cabinet.

Trump took a lot of guff this past year for allegedly filling his White House with nothing but loyalists. Well, first of all, what do you want in the Cabinet, unloyalists? But second, these are not toadies, they are accomplished former foes who Trump has given the room and authority to execute pro American policies.

Maybe that really is the thread that pulls together Trump’s tight team, the idea of making America and Americans pro America again, to restore the bold idea that America is not a declining power, but rather that it can do great things both at home and around the globe.

While the bookmaking sharps have their money on Vance as the 2028 candidate most likely to emerge from Trump’s cabinet, whomever it is will almost certainly run not just as an individual, but as the man or woman who can continue to lead the all-star team that the president has assembled.

There is an old saw in Washington that personnel is policy, and that is a lesson Trump learned the hard way in his first term. But often times, the hard way is the best way to learn. And a year in, it is clear that President Trump has indeed learned well from his past mistakes.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is demanding answers on the process of how the FBI determines code names for its investigations, after receiving records that show agents ‘renaming’ the Arctic Frost investigation into President Donald Trump, with the senator calling the move ‘anything but random.’ 

Grassley penned a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel raising questions on the process, after Patel’s team transmitted records the committee requested pertaining to the FBI’s Arctic Frost probe into Trump and the 2020 election.

Documents revealed that the investigation was first named Hyperbolic Frost and later changed to Arctic Frost.

‘In response to our document requests, your agencies produced a document that shows that edits were made to an early version of a draft Arctic Frost opening document,’ Grassley wrote. ‘This document has several handwritten edits, including the crossing out of the initial name of the investigation, ‘Hyperbolic Frost,’’ and renaming it ‘Arctic Frost.’’

Grassley said the document ‘calls into question the accuracy of the testimony’ former FBI Director James Comey gave to him during a May 3, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

‘At this hearing, I asked ‘Was the Clinton investigation named Operation Midyear because it needed to be finished before the Democratic National Convention? If so, why the artificial deadline? If not, why was that the name?’ Grassley shared.

Grassley was referring to ‘Midyear Exam,’ which was the FBI’s code name for the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

Comey replied: ‘Certainly not because it had to be finished by a particular date.’

‘There’s an art and a science to how we come up with code names for cases,’ Comey said at the time. ‘They assure me it’s done randomly. Sometimes I see ones that make me smile, so I’m not sure.’

Comey added: ‘But I can assure you that it was called Midyear Exam, was the name of the case. I can assure you the name was not selected for any nefarious purpose or because of any timing on the investigation.’

But Grassley said ‘the renaming of the Trump investigation from Hyperbolic Frost to Arctic Frost via handwritten notes is clearly anything but random.’

Sources believe the investigation’s title could hint at the probe’s intended target: Trump. 

Sources say ‘Arctic Frost’ is also the name of a variety of orange tree. Opponents of the president have mocked him and called him an ‘orange man.’ 

Grassley is asking that Bondi and Patel ‘produce all records relating to the naming of Operation Midyear Exam including former Director Comey’s emails.’

The records produced by the FBI this week also show handwritten notes discussing the subjects of the Arctic Frost investigation.

‘Subjects of the investigation include members of Donald J. Trump for President, INC., both identified and yet to be identified,’ the document reads.

Beside that paragraph is a handwritten note reading: ‘Add DJT.’

Grassley, along with Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., have been investigating the origins of the Arctic Frost probe since July 2022.

The senators have made whistleblower records public that they say ‘have exposed how partisan FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors opened, approved, and advanced the investigation against President Trump and expanded its scope to other Republican groups and individuals.’

‘The recent records produced by the FBI contain even more damning evidence of the Biden administration’s unapologetic abuse of power during the Arctic Frost investigation,’ Johnson, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital. ‘The American people deserve to know the full extend of Jack Smith’s massive partisan dragnet, which targeted law-abiding U.S. citizens.’ 

He added: ‘Chairman Grassley and I will continue to fight to ensure that the complete truth is revealed.’ 

A bipartisan cohort of senators is nearing a final plan to tackle rising healthcare costs, but the issue of more-stringent restrictions preventing taxpayer-funded abortions remains a major hurdle in the way to sealing the deal.

The working group, led by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, has held several meetings since dueling, partisan proposals to either extend or replace expired enhanced Obamacare premium subsidies failed late last year.

Now, they’re on the verge of unveiling their plan and have started sharing what exactly the rough framework would look like. But while selling the bones of the latest idea to tackle healthcare will be one thing, overcoming the issue of taxpayer-funded abortions will be another.

The Hyde Amendment, which dictates that taxpayer dollars can’t fund abortions, has proven a sticking point on both sides of the aisle. Senate Republicans argue that Obamacare doesn’t completely follow the law, while Senate Democrats contend that no modifications need to be made to the longstanding statute.

‘There’s no disagreement that there should not be federal funding for abortion,’ Moreno said. ‘Nobody on either side is wanting to relitigate that question. So we’re past that mountain. The next mountain is a dispute as to whether that is actually happening today through [Obamacare].’

‘A group of people, very good people, say that it is happening, and there’s a group of other people who have good people, too, that say it’s not happening,’ he continued. ‘So we have to resolve that.’

That wrinkle, in particular, was further amplified by President Donald Trump, who earlier this week urged that House Republicans ‘have to be a little flexible’ when it comes to the Hyde Amendment. That edict was met with backlash from Senate Republicans, who argued there was no room for flexibility on the issue. 

Moreno didn’t say whether the current plan addressed the Hyde issue, but he laid out what the skeletal framework that senators have built would look like.

It would play out over two years and act as more of a temporary fix than a permanent bridge, which Moreno noted would be crucial in selling the plan to his Republican colleagues.

‘That’s a key thing that I got to convince my colleagues to understand, who hate Obamacare, they hate the policy, and say, ‘Let’s take two years to actually deliver for the American people truly affordable healthcare and solve this problem for the people who are going to suffer as a result of not having these enhanced premium tax credits,’’ Moreno said. ‘They didn’t cause the problem, politicians caused that problem.’

Up front, their plan would extend the subsidies for two years and prolong the open enrollment period for the Obamacare marketplace until March 1.

During the first year, an income cap would be added, which was blown away when the subsidies were enhanced under former President Joe Biden, at 700% of the federal poverty level. There would also be a requirement of either a $5 or $60 minimum premium payment as a fraud prevention method. That would be coupled with a $100,000 fine for insurance companies that are ‘deliberately causing fraud, and signing [someone] up without their consent.’

In the second year, people would have a choice to either stick with the subsidies or switch their coverage plan in favor of a health savings account (HSA) — a key demand from Republicans and Trump.

Their plan would also reinstate cost-sharing reduction payments, ‘which, according to [Congressional Budget Office], would reduce premiums for everybody on the exchange by 11%,’ Moreno said.

President Donald Trump briefly paused his meeting with nearly two dozen oil executives Friday afternoon to walk over to a window at the White House to check out updates on the ballroom’s construction.

‘Today, I’m delighted to welcome almost two dozen of the biggest and most respected oil and gas executives in the world to the White House,’ he said. ‘It’s an honor to be with them. We have many others that were not able to get in. I said, ‘If we had a ballroom, we’d have over a thousand people.’

‘I never knew you had that many people in your industry. But here we are. And if you’re, in fact, if you look, come to think of it. Well, I gotta look at this myself,’ Trump said as he got up from his chair to peek out of a window in the East Room, looking out to where the ballroom is under construction.

‘Wow. What a, what a view. This is the door to the ballroom,’ he continued. 

Trump remarked that it was an ‘unusual time to look’ out in the ballroom, which earned chuckles, and then invited the ‘fake news’ to check out the progress. 

Trump announced in October 2025 that construction had begun on the ballroom after months of the president floating the planned project to modernize the White House. The project does not cost taxpayers and is privately funded, the White House reported.

Photos of the demolition crew dismantling the East Wing’s facade circulated on social media and in news reports in October 2025, sparking outrage from Democrats and other Trump critics who argued the president was ‘destroying’ the White House. 

Trump said Friday the construction is ahead of schedule. The White House said the ballroom will be ‘completed long before the end of President Trump’s term’ in 2029. 

‘We’re ahead of schedule in the ballroom and under budget. It’s going to be … I don’t think there will be anything like it in the world, actually. … This is, as you know, our biggest room, which would seat 100 for dinner, maybe, if you’re lucky, if you’re … nice and tight.

‘And the ballroom will seat many, and it’ll also take care of the inauguration with bulletproof glass, drone-proof ceilings and everything else, unfortunately, that today you need.’ 

The president repeatedly has remarked that the White House’s current rooms do not accommodate large crowds for dinners and other public events. 

Trump hosted nearly two dozen oil executives at the White House Friday to discuss investment in Venezuela after the U.S. military’s successful capture of the nation’s dictatorial president, Nicolás Maduro, Saturday. 

The lengthy lineup of oil companies includes Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Continental, Halliburton, HKN, Valero, Marathon, Shell, Trafigura, Vitol Americas, Repsol, Eni, Aspect Holdings, Tallgrass, Raisa Energy and Hilcorp.

Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum also attended the meeting. 

‘The plan is for them (oil companies) to spend at least $100 billion to rebuild the capacity and the infrastructure necessary,’ Trump said during the meeting. ‘Venezuela has also agreed that the United States will immediately begin refining and selling up to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan crude oil, which will continue indefinitely. 

‘We’re all set to do it. We have the refining capacity, (which) was actually based very much on the Venezuelan oil, which is a heavy oil, very good oil.’

Russia said on Friday it used its new hypersonic Oreshnik missile in an attack against Ukraine, according to reports.

The Kremlin said that the strike was carried out in response to what it said was an attempted Ukrainian drone strike on one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residences, something Kyiv has denied, according to Reuters. 

The outlet noted that Ukraine and the U.S. have cast doubt on Russia’s claims about the alleged attempted attack on Putin’s residence on Dec. 29, the report said. Ukraine called it ‘an absurd lie,’ while President Donald Trump also doubted the veracity of the claim, saying he did not believe the strike occurred and that ‘something’ unrelated happened nearby.

This is the second time Russia has used the intermediate-range Oreshnik, which Putin has said is impossible to intercept because of its velocity, Reuters reported.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that the strike targeted critical infrastructure in Ukraine, according to Reuters, which added that Russia said the attack also used attack drones and high-precision long-range land and sea-based weapons.

While Moscow did not say where the missile hit, Russian media and military bloggers said it targeted an underground natural gas storage facility in Ukraine’s western Leviv region, CBS News reported. Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadoviy said the attack hit critical infrastructure but did not give details, the outlet added.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the attack on social media, saying that the aftermath was ‘still being dealt with.’

‘Twenty residential buildings alone were damaged. Recovery operations after the strikes also continue in the Lviv region and other regions of our country. Unfortunately, as of now, it is known that four people have been killed in the capital alone. Among them is an ambulance crew member. My condolences to their families and loved ones,’ Zelenskyy wrote.

The Ukrainian leader said the attack involved 242 drones, 13 ballistic missiles, one Oreshnik missile and 22 cruise missiles. Zelenskyy added that the ballistic missiles were aimed at energy facilities and civilian infrastructure as the people of Ukraine faced ‘a significant cold spell.’ He said the attack was ‘aimed precisely against the normal life of ordinary people.’ However, he assured that Ukraine was working to restore heating and electricity.

Zelenskyy claimed that in addition to the civilian infrastructure, a building of the Embassy of Qatar was damaged in the attack.

‘A clear reaction from the world is needed. Above all from the United States, whose signals Russia truly pays attention to. Russia must receive signals that it is its obligation to focus on diplomacy, and must feel consequences every time it again focuses on killings and the destruction of infrastructure,’ Zelenskyy added.

A spokesperson for the State Department told Fox News Digital that the U.S. remains committed to ending the war through diplomatic means, emphasizing that it is the only path toward a durable peace. The spokesperson underscored Trump’s desire to end the war that is approaching its fourth year.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the ‘status quo’ on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

‘Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,’ HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating ‘operational chaos’ in the states.

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had ‘reason to believe’ that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a ‘critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

FBI veteran Christopher Raia has been named co-deputy director of the federal law enforcement agency, the bureau confirmed Friday to Fox News Digital.

Raia, who runs the bureau’s New York City field office, will move to Washington, D.C., and begin his job on Monday serving as co-deputy director with Andrew Bailey.

Raia’s elevation comes after Dan Bongino announced he was leaving the position and returning to ‘civilian life.’ His last day on the job was Jan. 3.

Bongino was a conservative commentator and podcaster before President Donald Trump nominated him for the position.

‘It’s been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump,’ Bongino wrote on X Saturday. ‘It was the honor of a lifetime to work with Director [Kash] Patel, and to serve you, the American people. See you on the other side.’

Bongino made the announcement he was leaving last month, thanking Trump, Patel and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi ‘for the opportunity to serve with purpose.’

Bongino and Bondi had previously clashed over the release of the Epstein files, and a source told Fox News over the summer he had considered resigning over the Justice Department’s handling of the situation.

Bongino didn’t give a reason for his resignation less than a year after he started as deputy director, but Trump said last month the 51-year-old ‘wants to go back to his show.’

President Trump sported a unique accessory at the White House on Friday, a custom lapel pin depicting what he called a ‘happy Trump.’

The president wore the small pin, which appeared to be a cartoon-style depiction of Trump in a navy suit and red tie just beneath his customary American flag lapel pin, while meeting with oil and gas executives in the East Room of the White House.

Fox News’ Senior White House Correspondent Peter Doocy noticed the accessory and asked the president about it. 

‘I see the American flag lapel pin,’ Doocy said. ‘What is the other lapel pin?’

Trump explained that the pin was a gift.

‘Somebody gave me this. You know what that is? That’s called a ‘happy Trump,” the president said, holding up the pin. 

‘And consider the fact that I’m never happy. I’m never satisfied. I will never be satisfied until we make America great again. But we’re getting pretty close.’

Trump added, ‘Somebody gave it to me. I put it on.’

The lighthearted moment quickly gained traction on social media, with users on X praising the pin and the president’s sense of humor.

‘Trump is wearing a ‘Happy Trump’ pin today,’ one user wrote, alongside laughing emoji. ‘How can you not love this guy?’

‘Where can I get a happy Trump pin?’ another asked.

‘Only our wonderful President Trump! He is wearing a ‘Happy Trump’ pin because he says he’ll never be happy until America is Great Again…but we’re getting close! Hilarious!’ a third user wrote.

The exchange came as Trump hosted nearly two dozen oil executives at the White House Friday to discuss investment in Venezuela after the U.S. military’s successful capture of the nation’s dictatorial president, Nicolás Maduro.

The lineup of oil companies included Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Continental, Halliburton, HKN, Valero, Marathon, Shell, Trafigura, Vitol Americas, Repsol, Eni, Aspect Holdings, Tallgrass, Raisa Energy and Hilcorp.

Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum also attended the meeting. 

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.