President Donald Trump said he is strongly considering pulling the United States out of NATO over the alliance’s refusal to join his administration’s efforts in the Iran conflict, according to a report.

“I was never swayed by NATO,” Trump told The Daily Telegraph in an interview published Wednesday.

The president, long a critic of the military alliance, which has been pivotal in maintaining global order since World War II, said reconsidering the matter was “beyond consideration.”

“I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way,” Trump told the British outlet.

MORE KEY US ALLIES BLOCK MILITARY FLIGHTS AS IRAN WAR RIFT WIDENS WITH TRUMP

The comments come after European nations reportedly rejected Trump’s request that allies send warships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply travels. Iran has threatened or moved to restrict access to the strait in reaction to the U.S. offensive against Iranian targets, raising concerns about global energy markets and economic stability.

“Beyond not being there, it was actually hard to believe. And I didn’t do a big sale. I just said, ‘Hey,’ you know, I didn’t insist too much. I just think it should be automatic,” Trump said.

“We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us.”

TRUMP WARNS NATO OF ‘VERY BAD’ FUTURE IF ALLIES DON’T HELP SECURE STRAIT OF HORMUZ

The president also criticized the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer for not participating in the conflict.

“You don’t even have a navy. You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work,” Trump said.

Responding to the president’s comments, Starmer said Britain is “fully committed to NATO,” calling it “the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen.”

Starmer told reporters that “whatever the pressure on me and others, whatever the noise, I am going to act in the British national interest in all the decisions I make.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pressed lawyers for the Trump administration and the ACLU on so-called “birthright citizenship” protections in the U.S., part of a landmark court challenge that could upend more than a century of legal precedent and executive branch policy. 

In Trump v. Barbara, justices are weighing the legality of the executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office. The order in question seeks to end automatic citizenship — or “birthright citizenship” — for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S. 

As oral arguments kicked off, justices appeared somewhat skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, including its view of the 14th Amendment, and pressed the Trump administration’s lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, on the administration’s reading of the citizenship clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts told Sauer that he viewed one of the key arguments made by the Trump administration in its case as “quirky.”

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

“You obviously put a lot of weight on [the] ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ issue,” Roberts told Sauer. He noted the administration cited “children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens here in the country,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch also expressed skepticism during early questions and pressed Sauer on key issues of precedent, enforcement, and the text of the citizenship clause itself.

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said, noting that “some 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”

“It’s a new world, but it’s the same constitution,” Roberts said in response.

As expected, arguments focused heavily on precedent set in the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established birthright citizenship protections for persons “domiciled,” or born on U.S. soil.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also appeared skeptical of the administration’s argument. He noted that Congress adopted the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which essentially mirrors the text of the 14th Amendment.

TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS

Kavanaugh pointed to the INA and the precedent in Wong Kim Ark, noting: “One might have expected Congress to use a different phrase if it wanted to try to disagree with Wong Kim Ark on what the scope of birthright citizenship, or the scope of citizenship, should be.”

“I am not seeing the relevance as a legal constitutional interpretative matter,” he told Sauer, after a brief back-and-forth.

Justice Samuel Alito, for his part, appeared the most open to Trump’s argument.

He noted that the case brings to the forefront key questions on whether laws should be read as being limited only to situations lawmakers had in mind at the time of passage, or whether they should be applicable in future situations, even if unimaginable at the time.

“Scalia had an example that dealt with this situation,” Alito said, referring to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. 

“He imagined an old theft statute that was enacted well before anybody conceived of a microwave oven,” Alito said. “And then afterwards, someone is charged with the crime of stealing a microwave oven. And this fellow says, ‘Well, I can’t be convicted under this, because the microwave oven didn’t exist at that time.’”

“There’s a general rule there, and you apply it to future applications,” Alito said, to which Sauer emphatically agreed.

 SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE

Trump’s executive order was immediately met with a flurry of federal lawsuits last year, and to date, no U.S. court has sided with the administration on the issue.

Trump himself attended Supreme Court oral arguments, making him the first sitting U.S. president to do so. Other administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, were also in the audience.

A ruling in Trump’s favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship that Trump and his allies argue are misguided.

It would also yield immediate, operational consequences for infants born in the U.S., putting the impetus on Congress and the Trump administration to immediately act to clarify their status. 

A decision from the high court is expected by late June. 

Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev., sparked an online frenzy after launching an expletive-filled, late-night rant against President Donald Trump in protest of his plans to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

“So f—ing f—ed up. I’ll pray they f— him to his face,” Lee wrote shortly before 1 a.m. Eastern time Wednesday. 

“Sorry, I say f— a lot these days,” Lee, 59, added.

Lee, a four-term House lawmaker, made the crude remarks in response to a story from The Associated Press reporting that Trump planned to visit the court to listen to Wednesday’s case about his birthright citizenship order.

TRUMP BLASTS OMAR, TLAIB AS ‘LUNATICS,’ SAYS ‘SEND THEM BACK’ AFTER SOTU PROTESTS

Democrats have widely opposed Trump’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States whose parents are illegal immigrants or those taking advantage of the birth tourism industry.

“Either Democrat Rep. Susie Lee was blackout drunk when she tweeted this or it was a staffer posting from her account,” conservative commentator Steve Guest wrote in response.

“Mentally deranged psycho!” conservative personality Eric Daugherty said on social media.

Amid the backlash, Lee deleted the tweet on Wednesday morning with little explanation.

When asked for comment, a spokesperson for Lee referred Fox News Digital to a statement posted on Lee’s personal social media account.

“Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers,” Lee wrote. “I took an oath to protect and defend it.”

OMAR SHOUTS ‘YOU ARE A MURDERER’ AND ‘LIAR’ AT TRUMP DURING STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Lee’s social media outburst comes as the Nevada Democrat has sought to brand herself as a bipartisan lawmaker. Trump notably won Lee’s suburban Las Vegas district by less than one point in 2024 and national Republicans view the battleground seat as a top flip opportunity. 

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), House Republicans’ campaign arm, slammed Lee’s expletive-filled post aimed at the president.

“Democrat Susie Lee has become Nevada’s fool, more focused on vulgar outbursts than doing the job she was elected to do,” NRCC spokesman Christian Martinez said in a statement. “Hitting delete doesn’t clean up her mess, it just proves she knows how embarrassing it is.

The Trump administration has argued that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to American slaves and their children, not the descendants of illegal immigrants or those living in the United States temporarily.

“I have listened to this argument for so long, and this is not about Chinese billionaires, or billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case, or 10 children becoming American citizens. This was about slaves,” Trump told Fox News’ Peter Doocy in the Oval Office on Tuesday regarding the case.

“It had to do with the babies of slaves,” the president continued. “It didn’t have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s been so badly handled by legal people over the years.”

A top Republican predecessor of Gov. Abigail Spanberger challenged her to publicly debate the merits of the redistricting referendum she and Virginia Democrats so fervently support, as an anti-gerrymandering group he works with also fired off a letter to her in his stead.

Spanberger, along with Senate and House leadership in Richmond, is squarely in the “Vote YES” camp when it comes to the April 21 public referendum to redraw the Old Dominion’s congressional districts in a way that would likely remove all but one GOP congressman from office.

Gov. George Allen, a Republican who served as governor from 1994 to 1998 between tenures in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, said in a statement that if the incumbent’s ideas are right, she should publicly defend them.

“Virginia voters expect a robust and transparent discussion of the issues. So, I am inviting Governor Spanberger to join me in a series of public debates to look Virginians in the eye and explain each side of this referendum vote,” Allen said.

BATTLE FOR THE HOUSE RUNS THROUGH VIRGINIA AS COURT OKS HIGH-STAKES REDISTRICTING VOTE

“I am prepared to discuss why I oppose gerrymandering in Virginia and anywhere else in our nation.”

Allen, whose father was one of the then-Washington Redskins’ most successful coaches, said that people in Virginia are being “barraged” by political ads and that $28 million has been spent on commercials that “are at best misleading and designed to confused voters.”

“Let’s give Virginians the honest and transparent discussion of gerrymandering that they deserve,” he said.

In that regard, the group No Gerrymandering Virginia, which is being spearheaded by a bipartisan group of former Virginia lawmakers and officials including Allen, sent a letter requesting such to Spanberger’s office at the Capitol.

“If you’re confident that your ideas and your candidates are so great, then you ought not fear the people,” Allen told Richmond’s NBC affiliate.

He added that gerrymandering is a personal subject, as part of his impetus to run for governor came when Albemarle County — where he owned a “log house on a gravel road” — was split into several pieces during one such redrawing.

No Gerrymandering Virginia’s letter called the April 21 vote a “consequential moment for Virginia.”

GOP-LED COUNTIES PUSH BACK AGAINST DEMOCRAT’S REDISTRICTING CHARGE, TESTING VIRGINIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS

“At its core, the referendum asks whether the commonwealth will maintain its commitment to fair representation or move toward a mid-decade gerrymandering approach that has already taken hold in other states,” the letter said.

“Virginians deserve the opportunity to hear a clear and direct debate on this question before they vote.”

“To that end, I would like to invite you to participate in a televised, live-streamed debate on the referendum. Former Governor George Allen has agreed to participate and would present the case against adopting the proposed maps. As you know, Governor Allen has long opposed gerrymandering, shaped in part by his experience being drawn out of his congressional district in the early 1990s, and he supported the 2020 constitutional amendment establishing Virginia’s current fair redistricting process.”

In a prior statement in February, Allen said mid-decade “gerrymandering” is wrong, no matter who does it.

“Texas was wrong. California was wrong. North Carolina was wrong. Virginians should stand up for principle like those in Indiana and South Carolina who said ‘No’ to this egregious gerrymandering their states,” he said, adding that the 2020 referendum that took power away from the assembly shows Virginia has “much better standards of fairness than this.”

Allen is joined on No Gerrymandering Virginia’s advisory council by former Virginia House Speaker William Howell, R-Stafford, former State Sen. Chap Peterson, D-Fairfax, and ex-Del. William Fralin, R-Roanoke.

Other recent Virginia officials have also lambasted the redistricting push, including ex-Gov. Glenn Youngkin and ex-Attorney General Jason Miyares.

Fox News Digital reached out to Spanberger for comment.

In recent public statements defending the referendum, she said it is “temporary” and suggested she still supports the 2020 amendment otherwise.

President Donald Trump goes before the nation in prime time on Wednesday evening to deliver what the White House says is “an important update” on the war with Iran.

The president’s address comes amid the month-long attacks by the U.S. and Israel on Iran, which polls indicate are unpopular with many Americans, and a surge in gas prices as a direct result of the fighting have triggered a further slide in Trump’s standing in public opinion surveys.

The political implications are clear: The strikes on Iran and the erosion of the president’s approval ratings are warning signs for the GOP as Republicans ramp up to defend their slim House and Senate majorities in this autumn’s midterm elections.

Trump stood at 41% approval and 59% disapproval in the latest Fox News national poll, which was conducted March 20–23. The president’s negative 18-point margin was up from 14 points in the previous Fox News poll, which was conducted Feb. 28–March 2, as the strikes against Iran began.

FOX NEWS LIVE UPDATES ON THE U.S. WAR WITH IRAN

The president’s approval ratings stood in the upper 30s, with his disapproval in the upper 50s to low 60s, in the most recent national surveys from Reuters/Ipsos, AP/NORC, and Quinnipiac University. A CNN poll conducted March 26–30 and released Wednesday indicated Trump had a 35%-64% approval/disapproval rating.

An average of the most recent national surveys gauging the president’s standing puts Trump just above 40%, with his disapproval in the upper 50s.

WHAT THE LATEST FOX NEWS POLL SHOWS ON THE WAR WITH IRAN

While Trump’s base remains extremely supportive of the president and the war, much of the slippage is coming from within the GOP, specifically those who are considered non-MAGA Republicans.

“I do see in the last couple of surveys an edging down…close to a double-digit movement,” veteran Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps run the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson, said, pointing to declining support for Trump among non-MAGA Republicans.

Fueling Trump’s decline appears to be the surge in gas prices.

The average price of gasoline in the U.S. topped $4 per gallon on Tuesday, according to national averages from AAA and GasBuddy, for the first time in four years.

FOX BUSINESS: GAS PRICES TOP $4 PER GALLON

The military attacks by the U.S. and Israel have resulted in the deaths of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials, and the decimation of the country’s military.

In response, Iran has targeted energy facilities with missile and drone attacks in a number of Persian Gulf nations. It has also made the Strait of Hormuz nearly impassable to commercial shipping, bringing roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply to a halt and sending global fuel prices sharply higher.

That has only exacerbated Trump’s polling woes when it comes to his performance on the economy, amid public dissatisfaction with high prices and the cost of living.

A spotlight on inflation helped fuel sweeping victories by Trump and Republicans in the 2024 elections, when they won back the White House and Senate and successfully defended their slim House majority.

DEMOCRATS TARGET TRUMP, GOP, OVER SURING GAS PRICES 

But a laser focus on affordability by Democrats, amid persistent inflation, has fueled a slew of victories and overperformances in 2025’s off-year elections and in special elections in the more than 14 months since Trump returned to the White House.

According to the Fox News poll, 80% of respondents said they were concerned about gas prices, and 86% concerned about inflation and high prices. And the CNN survey spotlighted that the president’s approval rating for handling the economy sank to 31%, Trump’s lowest level ever in their polling.

The White House says the surge in prices is temporary.

“When Operation Epic Fury is complete, gas prices will plummet back to the multiyear lows American drivers enjoyed before these short-term disruptions,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on Tuesday.

Leavitt emphasized that “President Trump remains committed to fully unleashing American energy dominance, lowering costs, and putting more money back in the pockets of hardworking American families.”

OIL HAS SURGED SINCE THE IRAN CONFLICT BEGAN, BUT GAS PRICES MAY NOT BE DONE RISING

The gas price surge is giving Democrats more political ammunition to target the GOP.

“BREAKING: National Gas Prices Skyrocket to $4 Per Gallon,” read the headline from an email Tuesday morning from the Democratic National Committee.

The House Democrats’ campaign committee last week launched digital ads showing prices at the pump rising and an image saying “D.C. Republicans Did That!” Sources say to expect another round of ads on gas prices in the coming weeks.

But Democrats have their own polling problems, as the party’s brand image has cratered to historic lows in a slew of polls over the past year.

Shaw, pointing to the so-called double-haters, voters who disapprove of both Trump and the Democrats, said that group hasn’t “really swung dramatically to the Democrats” as the midterms approach.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas emphasized in a recent Fox News Digital interview that, in his opinion, Trump’s “decision to launch this military action is the most consequential decision” of his presidency.

Such perceptions only increase what’s at stake when Trump addresses the nation in prime time.

“The American people want to hear what the off-ramp for the war is and when it will end,” Dan Eberhart, an oil drilling chief executive officer and prominent Republican donor told Fox News Digital.

Eberhart, who is supportive of the president, said: “Trump’s base is with him, but many ordinary Americans feel the war is unnecessary. Tonight is Trump’s opportunity to explain why this war matters to everyday Americans.”

President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday that Iran may be seeking a ceasefire, but analysts say real power lies with hardline figures inside the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including newly prominent Commander Ahmad Vahidi.

Trump did not name the Iranian figure he was referring to, but his comment likely pointed to President Masoud Pezeshkian, writing: “Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE! We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!”

Experts caution, however, that Iran’s president does not control decisions of war and peace.  

“He clearly does not have the authority to turn on or turn off a major military conflict with the United States,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital.

TRUMP’S IRAN STRATEGY SHOWCASES ‘DOCTRINE OF UNPREDICTABILITY’ AMID STRIKE THREATS AND SUDDEN PAUSE

Instead, analysts say real power lies with senior figures tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including Vahidi, Parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and security official Mohammad Zolghadr, all of whom operate within overlapping centers of influence.

Attention is turning to the new terror chief seen as an extremist pulling strings, Vahidi — a longtime Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander whose reemergence highlights a broader shift underway inside Iran’s leadership.

Beni Sabti, an Iran expert at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies, warned that even when Iran signals interest in a “ceasefire,” it may not reflect a Western understanding of the term. 

He pointed to the concept of “hudna,” describing it as “a ceasefire with deception — they stop when they are weak, rebuild their strength, and then attack again, whether against Israel or the United States.” 

Sabti added that such pauses can become “a cycle of violence that does not end,” driven by ideological motivations, and should not be interpreted as a genuine end to hostilities.

From covert operations to global attacks

At the center of that uncertainty is Vahidi, the new Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander. 

“He is a very violent man and belongs to a generation that fought in guerrilla warfare,” Sabti told Fox News Digital.

Sabti described Vahidi as part of an early cadre of Iranian operatives who built ties with militant groups in Lebanon before and after the 1979 revolution, relationships that later became central to Iran’s regional strategy. Some accounts suggest Vahidi trained in camps linked to Palestinian and Lebanese factions in southern Lebanon, helping lay the groundwork for Iran’s long-standing alliance with Lebanon-based terror group Hezbollah. 

DESTROY THE REGIME’S POWER WITHOUT OCCUPYING IRAN: A SMARTER WAR PLAN

Vahidi rose through the ranks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and went on to serve as commander of its elite Quds Force in the 1990s, a unit responsible for overseas operations.

He has been linked to some of the deadliest attacks attributed to Iranian-backed networks abroad, including the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina and the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

Sabti said Vahidi was also accused of maintaining connections with al Qaeda figures following the Sept. 11 attacks, reflecting what he described as Iran’s willingness to cooperate with groups targeting Western and Israeli interests.

Despite later holding positions that appeared political or bureaucratic, Sabti said Vahidi never truly stepped away from the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s powerful military and intelligence arm, meaning his role remained closely tied to the regime’s security and operational apparatus.

“He always remained part of the Revolutionary Guards — even wearing uniform,” he said. “That’s common in Iran. Even when they move into politics, they stay within the force.”

Sabti also pointed to Vahidi’s alleged role in suppressing Kurdish uprisings in northwestern Iran in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, underscoring his longstanding involvement in internal security operations. 

HEGSETH REVEALS COVERT VISIT TO TROOPS FIGHTING IN OPERATION EPIC FURY

A system driven by power, not position

Vahidi’s renewed prominence comes as Iran’s internal structure appears increasingly fragmented, with authority concentrated in overlapping and sometimes competing networks.

“It’s not clear how coordinated either the military or political actions of the government of the Islamic Republic is today,” Ben Taleblu said.

He described Iran as “a system of men, not a system of laws,” where personal ties and informal influence often outweigh formal titles.

That dynamic has intensified as the war continues. 

“We are seeing the IRGC ascendancy… across a host of Iranian political and security institutions,” he said.

“This IRGC ascendancy will mean a more crass Islamic Republic, but it comes at a time when this regime is militarily less capable than ever before,” he added.

More power, less restraint

Sabti said Vahidi may now be more influential than other prominent figures in Tehran, including parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei.

“In my view, he is more dominant right now, even if they are coordinated. This is not a time for internal competition,” Sabti said.

He warned that Vahidi’s rise could further harden Iran’s posture.

“He brings even more radicalization into the system and may not want to stop the war, because it serves the interests of the Revolutionary Guards to continue,” Sabti said.

“They could become masters of the region if the United States folds — and that is very much in his interest.”

Trump’s suggestion that Iran is seeking a ceasefire has raised hopes of a potential diplomatic opening, but experts caution that such signals may not reflect a unified position inside Iran. 

“The question is what was shared with President Trump genuine, or is it wheeling and dealing of just one ambitious person?” Ben Taleblu said.

“Pezeshkian clearly does not have the authority to turn on or turn off a major military conflict with the United States,” Ben Taleblu said.

That leaves open the possibility that any outreach could be tactical, fragmented, or even contradictory.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

FIRST ON FOX: A new report is raising concerns about Turkey’s role in the Middle East, arguing that under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the country has moved away from its traditional Western alignment and toward deeper engagement with Islamist movements, including the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies report, led by senior fellow Sinan Ciddi and titled “Islamist Domination of Turkey: A Forward Base for Muslim Brotherhood-Aligned Jihadism,” argues that Turkey has ties to Hamas — the U.S.-designated terrorist group responsible for the Oct. 7 massacre — as well as to the Muslim Brotherhood — an Islamist movement whose affiliates have recently been designated as terrorist organizations by the United States — placing Turkey’s policies under renewed scrutiny as it prepares to host a NATO summit.

Ciddi told Fox News Digital the shift reflects a broader transformation in how Turkey defines threats.

“What we have is Turkey has completely rewritten the rules of how you interpret what a jihadist terrorist entity may be,” Ciddi said. “Erdoğan has reinvented what is interpreted as a terrorist entity … groups such as Hamas or al-Nusra fall into line with his pan-Islamist view of the world.”

EXPERT WARNS RADICAL ISLAMIST NETWORKS COULD SHIFT WEST AFTER IRAN REGIME SHAKEUP

Hamas presence draws scrutiny

A central focus of the report is Turkey’s relationship with Hamas, which the United States designates as a terrorist organization, and yet Hamas expanded its presence in Turkey after 2011, establishing offices and networks inside the country.

“From 2011 onward … Hamas used this opportunity inside of Turkey with a friendly government to establish offices, engage in recruitment (and) fundraising,” Ciddi said.

U.S. authorities have taken action against some of those networks. The Treasury Department has designated Hamas-linked individuals and entities operating in Turkey, a point Ciddi said underscores longstanding concerns.

“The United States Treasury has been tracking and designating Hamas-affiliated NGOs and individuals inside of Turkey,” he said.

The report also alleges that some Hamas operatives have been able to travel using Turkish-issued documents and that senior figures have been publicly received by Erdoğan.

Beyond Hamas, the report describes Turkey as a hub for Muslim Brotherhood figures from across the region, including Egypt and Yemen, many of whom relocated there following crackdowns in their home countries.

Across parts of the Arab world, the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned or restricted for years. 

Egypt outlawed the movement in 2013, accusing it of inciting unrest and undermining state institutions. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates later designated it a terrorist organization, describing it as a threat to national stability, while Bahrain adopted a similar stance. 

Jordan dissolved its local chapter this year following arrests authorities said were linked to illicit weapons activity.

Some European countries also have taken steps targeting networks linked to the movement. 

Austria, for example, has pursued legal action against individuals and organizations it says are connected to Brotherhood-linked activity as part of its counter-extremism policies.

Officials in these countries have argued that the Brotherhood operates through a mix of religious outreach, political activism, charitable organizations and media platforms to influence public opinion and challenge state authority.

ISRAEL SHUTS DOOR ON TURKEY IN GAZA AS TRUMP PRAISES ERDOGAN, PLAYS DOWN CLASH

Syria policy and sanctions questions

The report also examines Turkey’s role in Syria, where the country backed opposition forces during the civil war, supporting a range of armed factions, including groups that later formed the Syrian National Army.

“The Syrian National Army … was a hodgepodge collection of militias that Turkey directly armed, paid and organized,” he said.

The report links Turkish support to groups such as al-Nusra and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, raising questions among analysts about whether such ties could expose Turkish officials to potential sanctions under U.S. law.

TRUMP FACES MIDDLE EAST TEST AS NETANYAHU BALKS AT ERDOGAN’S GAZA TROOP HOPES

A balancing act with Washington

Despite these concerns, other analysts say Turkey’s relationship with the United States continues to act as a constraint on its behavior, while the relationship between Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been characterized by renewed trust, with Trump praising Erdoğan’s role in Gaza diplomacy.

As Trump celebrated the Gaza ceasefire agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt in October 2025, he singled out one leader for extraordinary praise — Erdoğan, whose leadership he credited for helping deliver the Gaza ceasefire.

“A guy who’s been a friend of mine for a long time. I don’t know why I like the tough people better than the soft, easy ones,” Trump said about Erdoğan at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in October 2025. “This gentleman from a place called Turkey is one of the most powerful in the world … He’s a tough cookie — but he’s my friend.”

Hişyar Özsoy, a Turkish politician and academic, described the relationship between Erdoğan and Trump as “transactional,” noting Washington often relies on Turkey for regional coordination.

In a policy webinar hosted by the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, Turkish academic Hüseyin Bağcı emphasized that Ankara remains closely tied to Washington.

“The Turkish state is not interested in fighting with Israel because the Turkish government has very good relations with (the) United States of America,” he said. “You cannot be good with America and then be in conflict with Israel.”

Bağcı also suggested Turkey has at times limited Islamist actors domestically.

“Today do you hear anything about” the Muslim Brotherhood, he said. “No … because the president said stop.” 

NATO ally under pressure

Turkey, a NATO member since 1952, remains a key partner for the United States, providing logistical access, military capabilities and diplomatic reach.

But Ciddi argued Turkey’s current trajectory increasingly diverges from alliance priorities.

“There is an established track record … where Turkey significantly undermines the transatlantic alliance’s core security concerns,” he said.

He pointed to U.S. sanctions on Turkish entities accused of supplying dual-use goods to Russia, as well as Ankara’s broader strategy of maintaining ties with competing powers.

Iran and regional positioning

As far as Turkey’s positioning itself amid tensions with Iran, Ciddi said Turkey is likely to favor a weakened Iranian regime rather than a complete collapse that could produce a more pro-Western government. 

“A weakened Iranian regime is Erdoğan’s safest bet,” he said.

Bağcı offered a similar assessment of the rivalry.

“Iran is not an enemy of Turkey, but not necessarily its best friend. Turkey and Iran are two regional competitors,” he said.

Looking ahead

The report recommends potential U.S. policy responses, including sanctions and increased scrutiny of Turkey’s financial system, steps that could reshape relations between Washington and Ankara.

Fox News Digital reached out multiple times to the Turkish government and to the State Department for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.