President Donald Trump pushed back on suggestions from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that the United States could capture Russian President Vladimir Putin after Zelensky pointed to Washington’s recent action against Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

Trump waved off the idea of such an operation, while venting frustration over the grinding war and his failure so far to bring it to an end. Trump has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he could end the war on his first day back in office, but despite meetings with both Zelenskyy and Putin, a resolution remains elusive.

‘Well, I don’t think it’s going to be necessary,’ Trump said in response to a question from Fox News’ Peter Doocy during a meeting with US oil companies executives at the White House Friday.

‘I’ve always had a great relationship with him. I’m very disappointed,’ Trump said of Putin. ‘I settled eight wars. I thought this would be in the middle of the pack, or maybe one of the easier ones.’

Trump said the conflict continues to take a heavy toll, particularly on Russian forces, and claimed Moscow’s economy is suffering as well.

‘And in the last month they lost 31,000 people, many of them Russian soldiers,’ Trump said, adding that the Russian economy is ‘doing poorly.’

‘I think we’re going to end up getting it settled,’ Trump said. ‘I wish we could have done it quicker because a lot of people are dying.’

‘But largely it’s the soldier population,’ he continued. ‘When you have 30,000, 31,000 soldiers dying in a period of a month, 27,000 the month before, 26,000 the month before that. That’s bad stuff.’

Trump also criticized the Biden administration for sending what he said was $350 billion to Ukraine, arguing the U.S. should be able to recoup costs through a rare earth minerals agreement tied to continued support. He also claimed the U.S. is not losing money in the conflict, saying Washington is benefiting through arms sales to NATO allies, and pointed to NATO’s pledge to raise defense and security spending toward 5% of GDP by 2035, up from the longstanding 2% benchmark.

‘We’re not losing any money. We’re making a lot of money.’

Zelenskyy’s comments came after Russia said it fired its new nuclear-capable Oreshnik hypersonic missile as part of a massive overnight attack on Ukraine, a claim Kyiv disputed. Ukrainian officials said the barrage involved hundreds of drones and multiple missiles and struck energy facilities and civilian infrastructure, killing at least four people. 

Zelenskyy called on the United States and the international community to respond, saying Russia must face consequences for attacks targeting ordinary civilians.

Fox News’ Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

Four tankers that left Venezuela in early January with their transponders off, also known as ‘dark mode,’ have reportedly returned to the country’s waters. The news comes after several U.S. tanker seizures and amid the Trump administration’s push to acquire Venezuelan oil following the arrest of dictator Nicolás Maduro.

Most of the four tankers were loaded, according to Reuters, which noted that Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), a state-owned company, and monitoring service TankerTrackers.com had reported the vessels’ return.

A flotilla of approximately one dozen loaded vessels as well as at least three empty ships left Venezuelan waters last month, despite a U.S. blockade that has been imposed since mid-December, according to Reuters.

One of the vessels, the supertanker M Sophia, which had the Panamanian flag, was intercepted by the U.S. earlier this week, as was the Olina, which had the flag of Sao Tome And Principe, according to Reuters. The outlet reported, citing PDVSA, that the Olina was released to Venezuela on Friday.

The Olina had been seized by U.S. forces in a pre-dawn mission on Friday. The U.S. Southern Command said that Marines and sailors from Joint Task Force Southern Spear worked on the mission in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.

‘Apprehensions like this are backed by the full power of the U.S. Navy’s Amphibious Ready Group, including the ready and lethal platforms of the USS Iwo Jima, USS San Antonio, and USS Fort Lauderdale,’ the U.S. Southern Command wrote in a post on X. ‘The Department of War’s Operation Southern Spear is unwavering in its mission to defend our homeland by ending illicit activity and restoring security in the Western Hemisphere.’

The Olina, previously named the Minerva M, was sanctioned by the United States for its role in transporting Russian oil, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Three other vessels that departed Venzuela in the flotilla, Panama-flagged Merope, Cook Islands-flagged Min Hang and Panama-flagged Thalia III, were spotted late Friday in Venezuelan waters by TankerTrackers.com, Reuters reported.

On Friday, Trump hosted nearly two dozen oil executives at the White House to discuss investment in Venezuela after the U.S. military’s successful capture of Maduro. The executives represented several major companies, including Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Continental, Halliburton, HKN, Valero, Marathon, Shell, Trafigura, Vitol Americas, Repsol, Eni, Aspect Holdings, Tallgrass, Raisa Energy and Hilcorp.

‘You have total safety, total security. One of the reasons you couldn’t go in is you had no guarantees, you had no security, but now you have total security,’ Trump said during the meeting. 

‘It’s a whole different Venezuela and Venezuela is going to be very successful, and the people of the United States are going to be big beneficiaries because we’re going to be extracting, you know, numbers of in terms of oil, like, you know, few people have ever seen actually. So, you’re dealing with us directly. You’re not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don’t want you to deal with Venezuela,’ the president added.

The president also predicted that the acquisition of Venezuelan oil would lead to massive wealth, lower taxes and ‘lots of jobs for Americans and for Venezuelans.’

Days before the meeting with oil executives, Trump said that Venezuela would be turning over between 30 million and 50 million barrels of ‘high-quality,’ sanctioned oil to the U.S. He made the announcement on Truth Social and said that the oil would be sold at market price and that he would ‘control the proceeds to ensure it is ‘used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!’

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

Greenland’s leadership is pushing back on President Donald Trump as he and his administration call for the U.S. to take control of the island. Several Trump administration officials have backed the president’s calls for a takeover of Greenland, with many citing national security reasons.

‘We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders,’ Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and four party leaders said in a statement Friday night, according to The Associated Press. Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory and a longtime U.S. ally, has repeatedly rejected Trump’s statements about U.S. acquiring the island.

Greenland’s party leaders reiterated that the island’s ‘future must be decided by the Greenlandic people.’

‘As Greenlandic party leaders, we would like to emphasize once again our wish that the United States’ contempt for our country ends,’ the statement said.

Trump was asked about the push to acquire Greenland on Friday during a roundtable with oil executives. The president, who has maintained that Greenland is vital to U.S. security, said it was important for the country to make the move so it could beat its adversaries to the punch.

‘We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not,’ Trump said Friday. ‘Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.’

Trump hosted nearly two dozen oil executives at the White House on Friday to discuss investments in Venezuela after the historic capture of President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3.

‘We don’t want to have Russia there,’ Trump said of Venezuela on Friday when asked if the nation appears to be an ally to the U.S. ‘We don’t want to have China there. And, by the way, we don’t want Russia or China going to Greenland, which, if we don’t take Greenland, you can have Russia or China as your next-door neighbor. That’s not going to happen.’ 

Trump said the U.S. is in control of Venezuela after the capture and extradition of Maduro. 

Nielsen has previously rejected comparisons between Greenland and Venezuela, saying that his island was looking to improve its relations with the U.S., according to Reuters.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said on Monday that Trump’s threats to annex Greenland could mean the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

‘I also want to make it clear that if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops. Including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War,’ Frederiksen told Danish broadcaster TV2.

That same day, Nielsen said in a statement posted on Facebook that Greenland was ‘not an object of superpower rhetoric.’

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller doubled down on Trump’s remarks, telling CNN in an interview on Monday that Greenland ‘should be part of the United States.’

CNN anchor Jake Tapper pressed Miller about whether the Trump administration could rule out military action against the Arctic island.

‘The United States is the power of NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the United States,’ he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed the possibility of U.S. intervention in Iran, according to a report.

The two leaders spoke by phone Saturday as Israel is on ‘high alert,’ preparing for the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Iran, according to Reuters, citing multiple Israeli sources.

The report comes as nationwide anti-regime demonstrations across Iran hit the two-week mark.

On Saturday, the Iranian regime triggered an internet ‘kill switch’ in an apparent effort to conceal alleged abuses by security forces and as protests against it surged nationwide, according to a cybersecurity expert. The blackout reduced internet access to a fraction of normal levels.

On Sunday, Iran’s parliament speaker warned that the U.S. military and Israel would be ‘legitimate targets’ if America strikes the Islamic Republic.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf issued the threat as lawmakers rushed the dais in the Iranian parliament, shouting, ‘Death to America!’ according to The Associated Press.

President Donald Trump offered support for the protesters on Saturday, writing on Truth Social that ‘Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help!!!’

At a news conference Friday, Trump said Iran was facing mounting pressure as unrest spreads across the country.

‘Iran’s in big trouble,’ he said. ‘It looks to me that the people are taking over certain cities that nobody thought were really possible just a few weeks ago. We’re watching the situation very carefully.’

The president said the U.S. would respond forcefully if the regime resorts to mass violence. 

‘We’ll be hitting them very hard where it hurts. And that doesn’t mean boots on the ground, but it means hitting them very, very hard where it hurts,’ he said.

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

Fox News Digital’s Emma Bussey, Brie Stimson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump pushed back on suggestions from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that the United States could capture Russian President Vladimir Putin after Zelensky pointed to Washington’s recent action against Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

Trump waved off the idea of such an operation, while venting frustration over the grinding war and his failure so far to bring it to an end. Trump repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he could end the war on his first day back in office. Despite meetings with both Zelenskyy and Putin, a resolution remains elusive.

‘Well, I don’t think it’s going to be necessary,’ Trump said in response to a question from Fox News’ Peter Doocy during a meeting with U.S. oil companies executives at the White House Friday.

‘I’ve always had a great relationship with him. I’m very disappointed,’ Trump said of Putin. ‘I settled eight wars. I thought this would be in the middle of the pack or maybe one of the easier ones.’

Trump said the conflict continues to take a heavy toll, particularly on Russian forces, and claimed Moscow’s economy is suffering.

‘And in the last month, they lost 31,000 people, many of them Russian soldiers,’ Trump said, adding that the Russian economy is ‘doing poorly.’

‘I think we’re going to end up getting it settled,’ Trump said. ‘I wish we could have done it quicker because a lot of people are dying.

‘But largely it’s the soldier population,’ he continued. ‘When you have 30,000, 31,000 soldiers dying in a period of a month, 27,000 the month before, 26,000 the month before that. That’s bad stuff.’

Trump also criticized the Biden administration for sending what he said was $350 billion to Ukraine, arguing the U.S. should be able to recoup costs through a rare earth minerals agreement tied to continued support. He also claimed the U.S. is not losing money in the conflict, saying Washington is benefiting through arms sales to NATO allies, pointing to NATO’s pledge to raise defense and security spending toward 5% of GDP by 2035, up from the longstanding 2% benchmark.

‘We’re not losing any money. We’re making a lot of money,’ Trump said. 

Zelenskyy made his comments after Russia said it fired its new nuclear-capable Oreshnik hypersonic missile as part of a massive overnight attack on Ukraine, a claim Kyiv disputed. Ukrainian officials said the barrage involved hundreds of drones and multiple missiles and struck energy facilities and civilian infrastructure, killing at least four people. 

Zelenskyy called on the United States and the international community to respond, saying Russia must face consequences for attacks targeting ordinary civilians.

Fox News’ Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

An anti-regime protester scaled the balcony of Iran’s Embassy in London on Friday and tore down the Islamic Republic’s flag, replacing it with Iran’s pre-1979 ‘Lion and Sun’ emblem, video shows.

The demonstrator climbed the front of the embassy building in Kensington before ripping down the regime’s flag and hoisting the historic symbol associated with Iran’s monarchy prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution as a large crowd of anti-regime protesters cheered on.

The Metropolitan Police said officers responded to the scene and made two arrests — one for aggravated trespass and assault on an emergency worker, and another for aggravated trespass. Police said they are also seeking another individual for trespass. It was not immediately clear whether the protester who tore down the flag was among those arrested.

Fox News Digital reached out to Iran’s Embassy in London for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

The embassy protest comes as Iran faces its most significant wave of unrest in years. President Trump has warned the regime that the U.S. will protect protesters if necessary.

Potkin Azarmehr, a British-Iranian journalist, said the current unrest stands in sharp contrast to Iran’s 2009 Green Movement, when protesters openly questioned whether the Obama administration supported them.

‘What a contrast to Obama’s time, when protesters in Iran were chanting, ‘Obama, are you with us or with them?’’ Azarmehr told Fox News Digital.

‘Any international support, whether at the grassroots or government level, is encouraging,’ he said.

He said global attention matters to protesters on the ground, but questioned the lack of visible demonstrations by Western activist groups.

‘The question is where are the Western activist elite protesters? Why are they not protesting? Are they on the side of the ayatollahs? An archaic religious apartheid?’

Demonstrations that began on Dec. 28 over economic grievances have since spread nationwide, evolving into a direct challenge to Iran’s clerical leadership. Solidarity protests with Iranian demonstrators have also emerged in other major European cities, including Paris and Berlin. A protest also took place outside the White House in Washington, D.C.

As of Saturday, at least 72 people have been killed and more than 2,300 detained in Iran-based protests, according to the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency.

Some protests have included chants supporting Iran’s former monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who died in 1980. His son, Reza Pahlavi, has publicly called for continued demonstrations. The Iranian regime has also cut nationwide internet access.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Trump said Iran was facing mounting pressure.

‘Iran’s in big trouble,’ Trump said. ‘It looks to me that the people are taking over certain cities that nobody thought were really possible just a few weeks ago. We’re watching the situation very carefully.’

Trump warned the United States would respond forcefully if the regime resorts to mass violence.

‘We’ll be hitting them very hard where it hurts,’ Trump said. ‘And that doesn’t mean boots on the ground, but it means hitting them very, very hard where it hurts.’

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has signaled a coming clampdown despite U.S. warnings, according to The Associated Press.

Tehran escalated its threats Saturday, with Iran’s attorney general, Mohammad Movahedi Azad, warning that anyone taking part in protests would be considered an ‘enemy of God,’ a charge that carries the death penalty. The statement, carried by Iranian state television, said even those who ‘helped rioters’ would face the charge.

‘Prosecutors must carefully and without delay, by issuing indictments, prepare the grounds for the trial and decisive confrontation with those who, by betraying the nation and creating insecurity, seek foreign domination over the country,’ the statement read.

‘Proceedings must be conducted without leniency, compassion or indulgence.’

Fox News’ Efrat Lachter, Greg Norman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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.