Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserted in a Thursday post on X that the regime in the Islamic Republic of Iran has arrived at ‘its natural terminus’ and cautioned against squandering the ‘historic opportunity.’

‘The Iranian regime has reached its natural terminus. The government has zero legitimacy, is weaker than ever, and has run the economy into the ground. With sustained pressure, we could see an end to this evil, anti-American dictatorship. Let’s not waste this historic opportunity,’ he declared in the post on X.

Pompeo served as CIA director, and then as Secretary of State, during President Donald Trump’s first term in office.

Trump has been expressing his support for Iranian dissidents and promising U.S. assistance.

‘Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!’ he declared in a Truth Social post on Tuesday, using the acronym that stands for ‘Make Iran Great Again.’

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton warned that if Trump does not take action, his credibility will suffer damage.

‘It will be a blow to Trump’s credibility if the United States does nothing in Iran. He drew red lines and the regime crossed them,’ Bolton asserted in a post on X.

Bolton, who served as national security advisor during a portion of Trump’s first term, had previously served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during part of President George W. Bush’s second term.

Bolton has both praised and criticized Trump since leaving his first administration. He was indicted in October on charges related to the improper handling of classified materials.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman and David Spunt contributed to this report.

At least one U.S. aircraft carrier is being moved toward the Middle East as tensions with Iran continue to build, military sources confirm to Fox News.

It is not yet clear whether the carrier is the USS Abraham Lincoln, currently operating in the South China Sea, or one of two carriers that departed Norfolk and San Diego earlier this week. Transit to the region is expected to take at least a week.

U.S. military assets from air, land and sea are expected to flow into the region in the coming days and weeks to provide the president with military options should he decide to carry out strikes against Iran, sources said.

The movements are part of what officials described as a process of ‘setting the force.’

One well-placed source said if the president decides to carry out military action, ‘This will be different, more offensive.’ The source said U.S. military planners are preparing a range of options that would depend on how Iran’s regime acts in coming days.

Missile defense systems are also expected to be sent to the region to bolster the defense of U.S. bases and Israel. The systems would include missile defense assets, according to sources.

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

The Biden administration purchased a pulsed energy weapon suspected of being the type that may have caused ‘Havana Syndrome’ which caused a series of mysterious ailments for U.S. diplomats and government workers in Cuba. 

The weapon was bought at the end of the Biden Administration and has since been tested by the Pentagon, Fox News has learned. House Republicans are demanding answers amid reports of the purchase of the device.

In a letter to Homeland Security Kristi Noem, House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., is asking for information on the procurement process for the weapon, its costs and the findings associated with its year-long testing related to Havana Syndrome, officially known as Anomalous Health Incidents (AHI). 

‘The device in question is described as capable of producing pulsed radio waves and containing Russian components, though it is supposedly not entirely Russian in origin,’ the letter states. ‘Following HSI’s successful acquisition of the device, it was reportedly transferred to DoW, which spent more than a year testing the device and its capabilities.’

Some U.S. intelligence agencies have said a foreign adversary could be behind the mysterious ailment. 

Fox News Digital previously reported that Adam, a former government employee whose identity Fox News agreed to protect, is considered to be ‘Patient Zero.’

He was first attacked in December 2016 while living in Havana on assignment. During his time on the Caribbean island, Adam experienced multiple attacks and described pressure to the brain that led to vertigo, tinnitus and cognitive impairment.

‘While assessments from the Intelligence Community (IC) do not conclusively identify the factors causing AHIs or any foreign actor responsible, an assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) presented a majority view concluding that it was ‘very unlikely’ that a foreign actor ‘used a novel weapon or prototype device to harm even a subset of the U.S. Government personnel,’ with five out of seven agencies agreeing with that assessment,’ Garbarino wrote in his letter. 

‘However, two agencies dissented from the majority view and assessed that there was a chance that foreign actors may have developed some sort of ‘novel weapon or prototype device’ that could have harmed U.S. personnel,’ he added. 

However, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released the report and held a background call with reporters on Friday explaining that new reporting ‘led two components to shift their assessments about whether a foreign actor has a capability that could cause biological effects consistent with some of the symptoms reported as possible AHIs.’

‘This shift consequently led two IC components to subtly change their overall judgment about whether a foreign actor might have played a role in a small number of events,’ the agency said. 

Fox News’ Liz Friden contributed to this report. 

A former Ukrainian prime minister has been accused of plotting to bribe politicians with stacks of U.S. dollars in a scheme aimed at weakening President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government, a former political adviser has claimed.

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (UNACB) first confirmed Jan. 13 it uncovered an alleged effort by the leader of an unnamed parliamentary faction to offer illegal benefits to lawmakers, according to Reuters.

Video released by UNACB showed stacks of U.S. dollars seized during overnight searches earlier this week, including footage of a woman in the office sitting behind a desk. Authorities did not publicly identify the suspect.

According to the Kyiv Post, published recordings allegedly show that three lawmakers were offered $10,000 per month in exchange for their votes, with the case linked by some to Yulia Tymoshenko, a veteran politician, former prime minister, and current leader of the Batkivshchyna party.

Former Zelenskyy press secretary Yuliia Mendel told Fox News Digital the cash allegedly belonged to Tymoshenko and was intended to pay lawmakers to vote against the president’s legislative proposals.

‘In Ukraine, such transactions are usually discussed in U.S. dollars, as you can see from the law enforcement reports,’ Mendel, a former political advisor said.

‘The U.S. dollars shown in that video were allegedly hers that she was supposed to use to pay people to vote against Zelenskyy’s legislative proposals. She said it was her personal savings,’ Mendel added.

Mendel said the sums shown in the footage appeared relatively modest, ‘about $40,000,’ she said, noting other corruption cases in Ukraine have involved ‘much larger sums, sometimes millions of dollars.’

The raid on Tymoshenko’s party office reportedly lasted nearly all night. ‘Officers arrived in the evening and remained in her office for almost the entire night,’ Mendel said.

Investigators allege several lawmakers — reportedly including members of Zelenskyy’s own faction — approached Tymoshenko, leading to discussions about regular monthly payments in exchange for coordinated voting.

Despite reportedly being served with a notice of suspicion, Tymoshenko also addressed parliament this week, calling the case ‘political persecution against me.’

‘The so-called ‘urgent investigative actions’ that lasted all night ended at the Batkivshchyna party office. These ‘urgent investigative actions’ have nothing to do with law and order,’ Tymoshenko also wrote on Facebook.

According to Mendel, the goal was not to attack Zelenskyy personally but to fracture the ruling mono-majority in parliament.

‘Ukraine’s system is a parliamentary-presidential republic, meaning the legislature plays a central role in governance. When the president controls a mono-majority, legislation can pass quickly,’ Mendel said.

‘Breaking that majority would significantly weaken Zelenskyy’s legislative authority,’ Mendel explained.

Tymoshenko, a central figure in the 2004 Orange Revolution and Ukraine’s first female prime minister, has faced legal trouble before.

In 2011, she was jailed over a gas deal with Russia in a case widely viewed as politically motivated, before being released in 2014. She is expected to appear before Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court.

‘Corruption is one of the key reasons we are losing this war. It severely damages Ukraine’s image on the international stage,’ Mendel warned.

‘By 2024, corruption had reached such a scale that Ukrainians chose an extremely dangerous and painful path — exposing it publicly in order to fight it,’ Mendel added.

‘Now, cases like this bring the issue back into the spotlight. Corruption will destroy Ukraine.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office for comment.

More than a decade ago, China launched its Belt and Road Initiative, pouring billions into ports, railways and power plants across the developing world to extend Beijing’s economic and political reach far beyond its borders.

Today, experts say China is applying that same playbook to a far more strategic domain: space.

Across Africa, Latin America and other parts of the Global South, Chinese firms have quietly built or expanded satellite ground stations, tracking facilities and space infrastructure that position Beijing as a gateway to orbit for countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Argentina and Namibia, which lack the resources to get there on their own. Analysts warn the effort carries implications not just for economic influence, but for future warfare and global dominance.

A new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) finds that China is embedding itself deeply into the space programs of dozens of countries, offering end-to-end services that include satellite design, manufacturing, launches, training and ground infrastructure — a strategy that could give Beijing long-term leverage over a domain increasingly critical to modern military power.

High above Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, a newly expanded satellite facility built by Chinese firms now tracks objects in orbit. Similar Chinese-built or Chinese-operated sites have appeared in Egypt and Namibia, where large satellite dishes, tracking antennas and testing complexes support space missions that can serve both civilian and military purposes.

Together, the facilities form part of a growing global network strengthening China’s ability to track, communicate with and potentially influence activity in space — now widely viewed by defense planners as a new frontier of conflict.

‘This is really about who’s winning the space diplomacy race in the Global South,’ said Matthew Funaiole, a senior fellow at CSIS and one of the report’s authors. ‘Space is becoming central to economic power, national security, and military capability, and China is positioning itself accordingly.’

Once dominated by science and commerce, space is now treated as a warfighting domain alongside land, sea, air and cyberspace. Satellites underpin modern military operations, enabling communications, intelligence collection, missile warning, navigation and targeting.

Experts say China cannot operate a truly global space power from within its own borders alone. Satellites require constant tracking and communication, which is only possible through a worldwide network of ground stations spread across multiple continents. 

By building facilities overseas, China is closing gaps in its own network and adding redundancy that would be critical in a crisis.

‘Chinese-built ground stations can absolutely support civil and scientific missions — and they do,’ Funaiole said. ‘But they also provide China with the ability to level up its own national security capabilities.’

The report raises particular concern about the dual-use nature of the infrastructure China is exporting. Facilities marketed as scientific or commercial assets also can be used to monitor military satellites, communicate with defense systems, and collect sensitive data — capabilities closely tied to China’s People’s Liberation Army.

Compounding those concerns is a lack of transparency over who ultimately controls the data flowing through these systems.

‘When you’re dealing with space technology in China, there’s always a question of who has access and what the data is being used for,’ Funaiole said. ‘That lack of transparency is a real issue.’

Instead of ports and highways, experts say Beijing is now exporting satellites, launch services and ground stations — offering countries a turnkey path to space while embedding Chinese technology, standards and companies deep inside critical national systems. It is, in effect, Belt and Road applied to orbit.

‘There’s a lot of interest across Africa and Latin America in gaining access to space,’ Funaiole said. ‘Many countries just don’t have the capabilities to do it on their own, and China has stepped into that gap in a way the United States largely hasn’t.’

The report introduces a new China Space Cooperation Index, ranking 64 countries based on the depth of their engagement with Beijing. More than three-quarters of those countries are in the Global South, with Africa accounting for the largest share.

While China’s commercial space sector remains less advanced than that of the United States, it has leveraged state-backed financing, diplomatic outreach and bundled technology offerings to gain footholds that can be difficult to unwind.

‘Once countries are in China’s ecosystem, it becomes very costly for them to switch away,’ Funaiole said. ‘We’ve seen that play out in other critical technologies.’

The United States, by contrast, built its global space network decades ago primarily for warfighting and allied defense, relying on facilities in close partner nations rather than developing countries. Washington never packaged space access as a diplomatic tool, leaving a gap China is now exploiting.

While Africa has emerged as a hub for China’s newest physical infrastructure, the report finds some of Beijing’s deepest space partnerships are in Latin America, including Venezuela and Argentina — developments with direct implications for U.S. security interests closer to home.

That expansion has not gone unnoticed in Washington. 

On display during the most recent operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump explicitly revived what he dubbed the ‘Donroe Doctrine,’ a modernized and more confrontational take on the Monroe Doctrine that asserted the United States’ right to push hostile foreign powers out of the Western Hemisphere.

The posture was sharpened by the crisis in Venezuela, where China had built a significant economic and technological footprint, reinforcing concerns that Beijing was using infrastructure and technology partnerships to gain long-term strategic leverage in Latin America.

Experts say China’s growing role in satellite launches, space infrastructure and data-sharing agreements shows how strategic competition is moving beyond ports, power plants and telecom networks — and into space.

Beyond security concerns, the report warns of economic consequences if China becomes the space partner of choice for the developing world. The global space economy is projected to reach trillions of dollars in the coming decades, and long-term partnerships forged today could determine who dominates that market tomorrow.

Despite China’s momentum, Funaiole stressed that the United States still holds decisive advantages, if it chooses to use them.

‘The U.S. still has tremendous strengths,’ he said, pointing to companies like SpaceX, which he described as ‘leaps and bounds ahead’ of Chinese competitors. ‘China is trying to emulate that success.’

The question, he said, is whether Washington is willing to treat space not just as a scientific or commercial arena, but as a strategic tool of diplomacy, deterrence and competition.

‘This isn’t an area where it’s too late,’ Funaiole said. ‘The U.S. still has the ability to provide a real alternative — but it requires sustained attention and commitment.’

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado said she presented President Donald Trump with her Nobel Peace Prize medal, describing it as a historic gesture recognizing his commitment to freedom and the fight against tyranny.

Machado spoke with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol Thursday, when she was asked whether she offered her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump.

‘I presented the president of the United States the medal … the Nobel Peace Prize, and I told him, ‘Listen to this, 200 years ago, General Lafayette gave Simón Bolívar a medal with George Washington’s face on it,’ Machado said. ‘He kept that medal for the rest of his life. Actually, when you see his portraits, you can see the medal.’

She said Lafayette gave the medal to Bolívar as a symbol of the partnership between the people of the U.S. and the people of Venezuela and their shared fight for freedom against tyranny.

‘Two hundred years in history, the people of Bolívar are giving back the heir of Washington, a medal, in this case the medal of the Nobel Peace Prize, as a recognition for his unique commitment with our freedom,’ Machado said.

Machado’s meeting with Trump came nearly two weeks after the U.S. captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and amid lingering questions about her political future. The meeting also followed comments from Trump casting doubt on Machado leading the country rather than endorsing the Venezuelan opposition leader.

‘I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader,’ Trump told reporters Jan. 3. ‘She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.’

The Washington Post previously reported Trump was annoyed Machado won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025, an award he had hoped to receive and that Machado dedicated to him, though the White House said the president’s decisions were based on ‘realistic decisions.’

Still, Machado floated the idea of transferring the prestigious award to Trump last week during an appearance on Fox News’ ‘Hannity.’

‘Did you at any point offer to give him the Nobel Peace Prize?’ Sean Hannity asked. ‘Did that actually happen?’

Machado responded, ‘Well, it hasn’t happened yet.’

‘I certainly would love to be able to personally tell him that we believe — the Venezuelan people, because this is a prize of the Venezuelan people — certainly want to give it to him and share it with him,’ Machado continued. ‘What he has done is historic. It’s a huge step toward a democratic transition.’

Despite her intent, the Norwegian Nobel Institute shut down the idea last Friday.

‘Once a Nobel Prize is announced, it cannot be revoked, shared or transferred to others,’ the institute said in a statement. ‘The decision is final and stands for all time.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for a reaction.

Fox News Digital’s Michael Sinkewicz contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court is poised to rule soon on President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency wartime law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. countries — and which brought to the fore key questions over the ‘major questions doctrine,’ or the limiting principle by which courts can, in certain circumstances, move to curb the power of executive agencies.

During oral arguments over Trump’s tariffs in November, justices honed in on the so-called major questions doctrine — which allows courts to limit the power of executive agencies on actions with ‘vast economic and political significance’ — and how it squares with Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping global and reciprocal tariffs.

Plaintiffs told the court that Trump’s use of IEEPA to unilaterally impose his steep import duties violates the major questions doctrine, since IEEPA does not explicitly mention the word ‘tariffs.’ Rather, it authorizes the president to ‘regulate … importation’ during a declared national emergency — plaintiffs noted, arguing that it falls short of the standard needed to pass muster for MQD.

‘Congress does not (and could not) use such vague terminology to grant the executive virtually unconstrained taxing power of such staggering economic effect — literally trillions of dollars — shouldered by American businesses and consumers,’ they told the court in an earlier briefing.

Lawyers for the Trump administration countered that text of the IEEPA emergency law is the ‘practical equivalent’ of a tariff.

‘Tomorrow’s United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country,’ Trump posted on Truth Social back in November.

‘With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us,’ Trump continued.

‘Our Stock Market is consistently hitting Record Highs, and our Country has never been more respected than it is right now,’ he added. ‘A big part of this is the Economic Security created by Tariffs, and the Deals that we have negotiated because of them.’

While U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer acknowledged to the justices that IEEPA does not explicitly give an executive the power to regulate tariffs, he stressed in November that the power to tariff is ‘the natural common sense inference’ of IEEPA.

But whether the high court will back his argument remains to be seen.

That was the conclusion reached by the U.S. Court of International Trade last year. Judges on the  three-judge panel voted unanimously to block Trump’s tariffs from taking force, ruling that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have ‘unbounded authority’ to impose tariffs under the emergency law. 

‘The parties cite two doctrines—the nondelegation doctrine and the major questions doctrine—that the judiciary has developed to ensure that the branches do not impermissibly abdicate their respective constitutionally vested powers,’ the court said in its ruling.

The doctrine was also a focus in November, as justices pressed lawyers for the administration over IEEPA’s applicability to tariffs, or taxation powers, and asked the administration what guardrails, if any, exist to limit the whims of the executive branch, should they ultimately rule in Trump’s favor.

Though it’s not clear how much the court will rely on the MQD in its ruling, legal experts told Fox News Digital that they would expect it to potentially be cited by the Supreme Court if it blocks Trump’s tariff regime.

The high court agreed to take up the case on an expedited basis last fall, and a ruling is expected to be handed down within the coming days or weeks.

There’s very little precedent for major questions as a formal precedent cited by the courts, as noted by the University of Chicago College of Law in 2024.

The doctrine was cited formally by the Supreme Court for the first time ever in its 2022 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, when the court’s majority cited the doctrine as its basis for invalidating the EPA’s emissions standards under the Clean Power Plan. 

Prior to that, the doctrine existed as a more amorphous strand of statutory interpretation — a phenomenon that Justice Elena Kagan noted in her dissent in the same case.

‘The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it,’ Kagan said then. ‘When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.’

One factor that could play in Trump’s favor is the fact that the tariffs case is to some degree a foreign policy issue, which is an area where executives enjoy a higher level of deference from the court. 

Still, if oral arguments were any indication, the justices seemed poised to block Trump’s use of IEEPA to continue his steep tariff plan. 

Justices pressed Sauer as to why Trump invoked IEEPA to impose his sweeping tariffs, noting that doing so would be the first time a president used the law to set import taxes on trading partners.

They also seemed skeptical of the administration’s assertion that they did not need additional permission from Congress to use the law in such a sweeping manner, and pressed the administration’s lawyers on their contention that EEPA is only narrowly reviewable by the courts.

‘We agree that it’s a major power, but it’s in the context of a statute that is explicitly conferring major powers,’ Sauer said. ‘That the point of the statute is to confer major powers to address major questions — which are emergencies.’

Former Rep. Billy Long, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to be ambassador to Iceland, has apologized after privately joking to House lawmakers that the Arctic island would become the ’52nd state’ with him as its governor.

Long, a Republican who represented Missouri from 2011 to 2023 and served a brief stint as IRS commissioner last year, said he was just joking with his former congressional colleagues.

‘There was nothing serious about that, I was with some people, who I hadn’t met for three years, and they were kidding about Jeff Landry being governor of Greenland and they started joking about me and if anyone took offense to it, then I apologize,’ Long told Arctic Today.

‘I apologize and that’s my only comment, I look forward to working with the people of Iceland and I apologize it was taken that way, I was with a group of friends and there was nothing serious about it,’ he added.

Trump recently named Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry as a special envoy to Greenland.

This comes as Trump heats up his threats to acquire Greenland, a Danish territory, saying he plans to take the island ‘one way or the other.’

‘We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not,’ Trump said last week. ‘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 administration officials are openly weighing options such as military force to take Greenland, a move that would violate NATO’s Article V, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all of them and could end the alliance of more than 75 years.

Denmark and other European countries have made moves, including sending additional troops to Greenland in case of a U.S. invasion, backing the territory as it reaffirms its position that it does not want to join the U.S. Iceland is among the NATO members that have expressed opposition to Trump’s repeated threats to take Greenland.

On Capitol Hill, most Democrats and even some Republicans have opposed the idea of taking Greenland, while other Republicans have voiced support for pursuing closer ties with the territory, including Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., who introduced legislation to make it the 51st U.S. state, although he said the best way to acquire Greenland is voluntarily.

Trump has also said he wanted to make Canada the 51st U.S. state.

Long was visiting former colleagues on the House Floor earlier this week when he made the controversial comment about Iceland, sparking some minor diplomatic backlash, with Iceland’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs demanding answers from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavík.

‘There is no doubt that this is very serious for a small country like Iceland,’ Icelandic Parliament member Sigmar Guðmundsson told MBL. ‘We need to understand that all the security arguments made by the U.S. regarding Greenland, also apply to Iceland.’

Some Icelanders also launched a petition drive calling on their government to reject Long as ambassador if he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The petition has obtained 2,000 signatures.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Politico that Long was ‘probably having some fun’ and ‘I wouldn’t read too much into that.’