Russia isn’t backing off from attacking Ukraine and pummeled it with missiles and drones Thursday — just weeks after President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, in an attempt to advance a peace deal. 

The attack could be a signal Putin is utilizing diplomacy to buy himself more time to advance his goals and continue to attack Ukraine, all while avoiding secondary sanctions that the Trump administration has threatened to impose, according to experts. 

The time to act is now, according to Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on cyber issues.  

‘Putin is stringing President Trump along and the added time is helping Russia to continue the bombing campaign against Ukrainian cities,’ Bacon said in a Friday statement to Fox News Digital. ‘The longer Trump refuses to impose secondary sanctions against Russia and send high-end weapons to Ukraine, the more he looks like a simp for Putin. It is beyond time for Trump to have moral clarity and come in strong to help the democracy that is being attacked by the Russian thug.’ 

Bacon, a retired Air Force brigadier general who is not seeking reelection in 2026, said that discussions with Putin have proven futile and have indicated Putin isn’t serious about a deal. 

‘We’ve seen zero results from the talks as far as Putin being willing to compromise,’ Bacon said. ‘Although I think seeking negotiations was worthwhile initially, it showed Putin does not want peace.’ 

The White House has maintained that Trump has made more progress in two weeks to resolve the conflict than his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, did in more than three years, and pointed to Trump’s meeting with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy within days of each other.  

‘President Trump’s national security team continue to engage with Russian and Ukrainian officials toward a bilateral meeting to stop the killing and end the war,’ White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a Friday statement to Fox News Digital. 

Trump announced July 14 that he would sign off on ‘severe tariffs’ against Russia if Moscow failed to agree to a peace deal within 50 days. He then dramatically reduced the deadline to only 10–12 days — which ended Aug. 8. But rather than lay on additional sanctions against Russia, Trump met with Putin a week later in Alaska and hailed the meeting a great success. 

Still, progress stemming from the meeting appears limited. Russia did not agree to a ceasefire, and while Trump initially said a trilateral meeting with both Putin and Zelenskyy was in the works, Russia has shown disinterest in such a meeting. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with NBC News Aug. 22 that no meeting had been scheduled and Putin would only agree to one if certain terms were approved beforehand. That’s not the case, he said. 

‘Putin is ready to meet with Zelenskyy when the agenda is ready for a summit, and this agenda is not ready at all,’ Lavrov said. 

Meanwhile, Russia launched a massive attack employing nearly 600 drones and decoys against Kyiv Thursday, killing more than 20 people. In response, the U.N. Security Council scheduled an emergency meeting for Friday, per the urging of Ukraine and several other European allies. 

Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia during former President Barack Obama’s administration, said in a post on X that Putin has only escalated attacks against Ukraine following the Alaska meeting, and said Putin is ‘openly mocking’ Trump. 

‘I hope Mr. Trump and his team understand how Putin is spitting in their faces,’ McFaul said in a Thursday post on X. 

Additionally, Putin is onto the fact he can bypass economic consequences, and won’t seriously negotiate a deal unless he must, according to Steven Pifer, who previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during former President Bill Clinton’s administration. 

‘I think that Putin is, in fact, stringing the president along,’ Pifer told Fox News Digital. ‘Putin still believes he can achieve his goals, vis a vis Ukraine, on the battlefield. And we’re not going to see a serious negotiating attempt by the Russians until Putin is convinced he cannot win on the battlefield, and that continuing to try is only going to mean greater and greater cost — first and foremost, a lot more dead Russian soldiers.’

‘I just don’t see any really serious steps the administration has taken to inflict any punishment on Putin,’ Pifer said. ‘I think Putin’s figured that out, and until Putin is disabused of that notion, he’s going to keep missing deadlines.’ 

Historically, Russia’s demands for a peace deal have included barring Ukraine from ever joining NATO, along with concessions on some of the borders that previously were Ukraine’s.

Peter Rough, a senior fellow and director of the Center on Europe and Eurasia at the Hudson Institute think tank, said that because Putin knows the U.S. is eager to end the war, Putin’s peace deal requirements are an attempt to turn up the heat on Ukraine. 

Following Trump’s meeting with Putin and ahead of his meeting days later with Zelenskyy, the U.S. president put the onus on Ukraine to end the war – and said that Ukraine could end the war immediately if it agreed to cede Crimea to Russia, and abandon its bid for NATO membership.

‘Putin managed to sidestep U.S. sanctions in Alaska and is content slogging away in Ukraine,’ Rough told Fox News Digital Monday. ‘But he also recognizes that the U.S. wants this war to come to an end, so he has put forward a proposal intended to appeal to Washington in the hopes that the U.S. will put pressure on Ukraine to accept its terms. If he can divide the transatlantic alliance along the way, all the better. At the very least, it helps him stave off additional U.S. sanctions.’ 

John Hardie, Russia program deputy director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that Putin isn’t interested in agreeing to a deal unless his terms are included in it. In the meantime, Putin is utilizing diplomacy to avoid economic consequences, Hardie said. 

‘I think Putin does want a deal — but only if it’s on his terms,’ Hardie told Fox News Digital Monday. ‘Until that happens, he’s bent on continuing the war, and Russia seeks to use diplomacy to forestall tougher U.S. economic pressure and redirect Trump’s ire from Moscow to Kyiv.’ 

House investigators’ plan to grill former FBI Director Robert Mueller has hit a snag. 

The House Oversight Committee was set to have Mueller appear before the panel on Tuesday as part of the House’s probe into Jeffrey Epstein. However, a source familiar with the investigation told Fox News Digital that lawmakers ‘learned that Mr. Mueller has health issues that preclude him from being able to testify.’ 

‘The committee intends to withdraw its subpoena,’ the source said. 

Mueller was one of many notable figures, including the Clintons, who House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed to testify before the panel. 

He would have been the second witness appearing in-person before the House Oversight Committee after former Attorney General Bill Barr did so last month.

His closed-door deposition was expected to see at least some lawmakers on both sides attend, with the investigation so far seeing wide bipartisan support in an otherwise highly divided era for Congress.

Mueller was most recently in the headlines for his role as special counsel investigating whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump.

That probe, which did not find Trump to have committed any wrongdoing, saw 34 people indicted and eight convictions or guilty pleas, including several people associated with the president.

House investigators were expected to dive into Mueller’s time as director of the FBI. He led the bureau under former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, from September 2001 until September 2013.

It was during that window that the federal government first investigated Epstein, something Comer pointed out in his letter subpoenaing Mueller.

‘When you were FBI Director, an FBI investigation of Mr. Epstein led to an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida preparing a draft 60-count indictment of Mr. Epstein in 2007,’ Comer wrote.

‘However, the next year, Mr. Epstein pled guilty in Florida state court to two prostitution offenses, and, in exchange, he and his co-conspirators received immunity from federal prosecution through a non-prosecution agreement.’

That non-prosecution agreement has been widely criticized and is now the basis for Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell to appeal her conviction and 20-year prison sentence before the Supreme Court.

It’s not clear how much of a role Mueller would have had in that agreement. Alexander Acosta, the former Trump labor secretary and U.S. attorney in Florida who signed off on the deal, is sitting down with the House Oversight Committee for a voluntary transcribed interview later this month.

Comer sent out a flurry of subpoenas last month in relation to the Epstein probe. 

Other figures also compelled to appear after Mueller are former FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ex-first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday grilled lawyers for the Justice Department and Lisa Cook over President Donald Trump’s historic attempt to fire her from the Federal Reserve.

The landmark case is almost certain to be kicked to the Supreme Court for review. Despite the high-stakes nature of the legal dispute, Friday’s hearing ended after more than two hours without clear resolution. 

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, declined to immediately grant the temporary restraining order sought by Lisa Cook’s attorneys, which would keep her in her role on the Fed’s Board of Governors for now. 

Cook’s lawyers included the request for the temporary restraining order in the lawsuit filed in federal court on Thursday, challenging Trump’s attempt to fire her from her position on the independent board due to allegations of mortgage fraud. 

Instead, Judge Cobb ordered both parties to submit any supplemental briefs to the court by Tuesday, shortly before she dismissed the lawyers for the long weekend.

Cobb noted the novelty of the case before her, which involves the first attempt by a sitting president to oust a Federal Reserve governor ‘for cause.’ 

The fraud allegations were first leveled by Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the federal agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He accused Cook of claiming two primary residences in two separate states in 2021, with the goal of obtaining more favorable loan conditions. 

Trump followed up by posting a letter on Truth Social earlier this week that he had determined ‘sufficient cause’ to fire Cook, a dismissal he said was ‘effective immediately,’ prompting her attorneys to file the emergency lawsuit.

The crux of Friday’s arguments centered on the definition of what ‘for cause’ provisions must entail for removal from the board under the Federal Reserve Act, or FRA, a law designed to shield members from the political whims of the commander in chief or members of Congress. 

The arguments also centered on Cook’s claims in her lawsuit that Trump’s attempt to fire her amounts to an illegal effort to remove her from the Fed well before her tenure is slated to end in January 2038 to install his own nominee. 

Lawyers for Cook argued that her firing was merely a ‘pretext’ for Trump to secure a majority on the Fed board, a contention that Cobb admitted made her ‘uncomfortable.’

They also attempted to poke holes in the mortgage fraud allegations, which they said were made on social media and ‘backfilled.’

The case ‘obviously raises important questions’ about the Federal Reserve Board, Cobb said shortly before adjourning court.

She also noted that she had not yet made a determination about the alleged ‘irreparable harm,’ prompting her to set the Tuesday filing deadline.

Cook’s attorneys argued Friday that Trump’s attempt to fire her violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the Federal Reserve Act. 

Her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, noted on several occasions that there was no ‘investigation or charge’ from the administration prior to Trump’s abrupt announcement that he would fire Cook.  

Lowell also vehemently disputed the Justice Department’s allegations that Cook had an ‘opportunity’ to respond to the mortgage fraud accusations leveled by Bill Pulte, noting that they were made just 30 minutes before Trump called for Cook to be removed.  

He told Cobb that it was the latest attempt by the Trump administration to ‘litigate by tweet.’

Lawyers for the Trump administration, for their part, argued that the president has broad latitude to determine the ‘for cause’ provision.

Justice Department attorney Yakoov Roth told Cobb that the determination of when to invoke the provision should be left to the president, regardless of whether it is viewed by others as ‘pretextual.’

‘That sounds to me like the epitome of a discretionary determination, and that is when the president’s power is at [its] apex,’ Roth said.

DOJ lawyers also noted that Cook, to date, has not disputed any of the allegations in question and argued there is ‘nothing she has said’ about the allegations that would cause her to not be fired.

‘What if the stated cause is demonstrably false?’  Cobb asked, going on to cite hypothetical concerns that a president could, theoretically, use allegations to stack federal boards with majorities.

As for the issue of ‘irreparable harm,’ Justice Department attorneys argued that it would be more harmful for Cook to remain in office, arguing that the ‘harm of having someone in office who is wrongfully there … outweighs the harm of someone being wrongfully removed from office.’

Cook’s attorneys said Friday that in reviewing the lawsuit, the court need not itself establish a definition of what ’cause’ means under the Federal Reserve Act.

Instead, Lowell suggested, the court should instead work backwards to determine whether the accusations leveled by Pulte were in fact ‘backfilled’ by Trump to form the basis of her removal.  

‘It’s very difficult to come up with an 11-page definition of what it is,’ Lowell said Friday of the ’cause’ definition, adding that it is far easier to come up with a one-page definition of ‘what it’s not.’ 

‘Whatever it is, it’s not this,’ Lowell said.

America First Legal (AFL) sued the Food and Drug Administration on Friday to obtain Biden-era records related to the government’s internal guidance for the recommended use of puberty blockers for kids.  

The Trump-aligned legal group previously uncovered communications from the former administration through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which reportedly showed the FDA knew that these drugs increased mental health risk but still recommended approving them for kids.

Following those uncovered communications, AFL followed up with a separate FOIA requesting documents specifically pertaining to the FDA’s internal guidance for the off-label use of these drugs. Despite acknowledging the federal information request, the FDA has not cooperated, and the deadline to produce documents is up.

‘The Biden administration pushed gender-denying treatments on American kids. Now, it’s time to expose what officials really knew,’ AFL counsel Will Scolinos, said. 

Similar to AFL’s current FOIA request, the group was required to engage in litigation to compel the release of the first set of documents. 

But, eventually, documents were released that seemed to show the Biden-era Division of General Endocrinology at the FDA recommended the agency approve puberty blockers for children despite the knowledge that there were negative impacts associated with them, such as increased depression, suicidality and seizure risks.

‘There is definitely a need for these drugs to be approved for gender transition,’ an FDA official from the agency’s endocrinology division stated in an email uncovered by AFL. In the same communications, the FDA official also explicitly states that studies found ‘increased risk of depression and suicidality, as well as increased seizure risk.’

Such findings have been confirmed by other studies as well.

Researchers at the University of Texas sampled 107,583 patients 18 and older who had gender dysphoria, including some who underwent gender surgery, and concluded that ‘gender-sensitive mental health support … to address post-surgical psychological risks’ is a ‘necessity.’

Males who received surgery had depression rates of 25% compared to males without surgery, who had rates slightly below 12%. Anxiety rates among that group were 12.8% compared to 2.6%.

The same differences were seen among females as well. Those with surgery had 22.9% depression rates compared to 14.6% in the non-surgical group. Females who did get surgery also had a rate of anxiety of 10.5% compared to 7.1% for girls who had not gotten surgery.

Fox News Digital reached out to the FDA for comment but did not immediately receive a response. 

Fox News’ Melissa Rudy and Michael Dorgan contributed to this report

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso is ready to go nuclear on Senate Democrats and their blockade of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

Before leaving Washington, D.C., to their respective home states, Senate Republicans were on the verge of a deal with their colleagues across the aisle to hammer out a deal to ram through dozens of Trump’s picks for non-controversial positions.

But those talks fell apart when Trump nuked any further negotiations over funding demands from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Currently, there are 145 pending nominations on the Senate’s executive calendar, with that number expected to balloon when the upper chamber reopens for business.

Lawmakers are set to return on Tuesday, and Barrasso, R-Wyo., wants to immediately tackle the nomination quandary. He’s engaged in a public pressure campaign, writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal directly calling out Schumer.

Meanwhile, he’s facilitated talks among Senate Republicans on the best path forward, and told Fox News Digital in an interview that, at this point, he’s willing to do anything necessary to see the president’s picks confirmed.

‘We need to either get a lot of cooperation from the Democrats, or we’re going to have to roll over them with changes of the rules that we’re going to be able to do in a unilateral way, as well as President Trump making recess appointments,’ he said.

Senate Democrats, under Schumer’s direction, are unlikely to play ball, however.

Schumer, in response to Barrasso’s public jab against him and Senate Democrats, contended in a statement that ‘historically bad nominees deserve a historic level of scrutiny by Senate Democrats.’

‘Anybody nominated by President Trump is, in Schumer’s words, ‘historically bad.’ Why? Because they were nominated by President Trump,’ Barrasso shot back. ‘That is his sole criteria for which these people are being gone after and filibustered, each and every one of them, even those that are coming out of committee, many, many of whom are with bipartisan support.’

Unilaterally changing the rules, or the nuclear option, would allow Republicans to make tweaks to the confirmation process without help from Democrats, but it could also kneecap further negotiations on key items that would require their support to advance beyond the Senate filibuster.

Barrasso was not worried about taking that route, however, and noted that the nominees that he and other Republicans were specifically considering would be ‘sub-Cabinet level positions’ and ambassadors.

Up for discussion are changes to the debate time, what kind of nominee could qualify for a speedier process and whether to give the president runway to make recess appointments, which would require the Senate to go into recess and allow Trump to make appointments on a temporary basis.

‘When you take a look at this right now, it takes a 30-minute roll-call vote to get on cloture, and then two hours of debate time, and then another 30-minute roll-call vote,’ Barrasso said. ‘Well, that’s three hours, and it’s time when you can’t do legislation, you can’t do any of the other things.’

But there is a menu of key items that Congress will have to deal with when they return, particularly the deadline to fund the government by Sept. 30.

Barrasso acknowledged that reality, and noted that it was because of the hefty schedule that he wanted a rules change to be put front and center.

‘There’s not going to be any time to — or there’s going to be limited time, I should say, to actually get people through the nominations process, which is just going to drag on further, and you’ll have more people having hearings and coming out of committees,’ he said.  

‘This backlog is going to worsen this traffic jam at the Schumer toll booth. So, we are going to do something, because this cannot stand.’