The Trump administration, citing Iran, is taking more action against the Muslim Brotherhood—this time in one of the world’s worst conflicts: the civil war in Sudan.

On Monday, the State Department declared the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood (SMB) to be a ‘Designated Global Terrorist and intends to designate the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, effective March 16, 2026.’ The statement also contained a warning to Iran regarding its meddling in the conflict.

‘The SMB has contributed upwards of 20,000 fighters to the war in Sudan, many receiving training and other support from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,’ the statement noted. 

It added, ‘As the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, the Iranian regime has financed and directed malign activities globally through its IRGC. The United States will use all available tools to deprive the Iranian regime and Muslim Brotherhood chapters of the resources to engage in or support terrorism.’

In November, the State Department sanctioned the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, declaring it to be a terrorist organization in those countries.

The organization, the State Department noted, is ‘composed of the Sudanese Islamic Movement and its armed wing – the al-Baraa Bin Malik Brigade (BBMB), (and) uses unrestrained violence against civilians to undermine efforts to resolve the conflict in Sudan and advance its violent Islamist ideology.’

The statement added that the group’s ‘fighters have conducted mass executions of civilians in areas they captured, and repeatedly and summarily executed civilians based on race, ethnicity or perceived affiliation with opposition groups.’

Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told Fox News Digital that the Muslim Brotherhood’s links within the Sudanese government’s Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) are deep and contribute aggressively in the war against the Rapid Support Forces.

Fitton-Brown, a former U.K. ambassador to Yemen, added that the Brotherhood has a ‘strong component’ in the Sudanese regular army.

Adding that the Brotherhood in Sudan has historical links with Osama Bin Laden, responsible with al Qaeda for the 9/11 terrorist attack, Fitton-Brown stated that the State Department’s move is significant. ‘It is the first concrete indication that the November executive order was only the start of a process.’

On the sanctioning of the Brotherhood in several countries in the region, he said, ‘I expect there will be many more, possibly starting with al-Islah in Yemen.’ He said the move ‘puts Sudan under political pressure because it is effectively associating its government with a terrorist entity.’

The effects of the nearly three-year-long civil war on the people of Sudan are dire. Last month, the Council on Foreign Relations’ global conflict tracker stated the ‘death toll estimates vary widely, with the former U.S. envoy for Sudan suggesting as many as 400,000 have been killed since the conflict began on April 15, 2023. More than 11 million have been displaced, giving rise to the worst displacement crisis in the world.

On Monday, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho., posted on X, ‘This is a vital step to curb the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in the region, especially as hardline Islamists seek to reassert themselves. Now, we must also seriously consider the same FTO designation for the genocidal Rapid Support Forces and their terror campaign in Sudan.’

Fitton-Brown said the State Department’s designation against the Brotherhood in Sudan ‘is good because it objectively targets a group of people who have brought untold misery to Sudan over decades. It is not a statement of support for the RSF. It is potentially empowering of democratic forces inside Sudan, although it will not be sufficient to change the way Sudan is governed or end the civil war, without much more proactive external involvement in the country.’

Nicholas Coghlan, a former Canadian diplomat in Khartoum, was not as hopeful, telling Toronto’s Globe and Mail that hardline factions within leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s government alliance ‘will push him now to ignore the U.S. and other potential mediators and go all out,’ adding ‘they have nothing further to lose by holding back.’

Russia has turned to its so-called ‘shadow fleet’ to carry out a roughly $29.3 million ‘semi-dark’ ship-to-ship oil transfer in the Gulf of Oman, deliberately sidestepping Western sanctions, according to reports.

Maritime intelligence firm Windward AI reported on March 8 that the Russian-flagged tanker M/V TRUST, a vessel already blacklisted by the U.S., European Union and United Kingdom, carried out a ‘high-probability’ covert crude transfer in Omani territorial waters.

Based on an estimated price of about $90 per barrel on March 10, the cargo involved in the transfer was valued at roughly $29.3 million.

‘The timing of the operation coincided with heightened military escalation in the Gulf following Operation Epic Fury, suggesting the vessel exploited regional instability to conduct the transfer under reduced scrutiny,’ Windward said.

The tanker had previously loaded approximately 325,000 barrels of Russian crude oil at the Russian port of Ust-Luga, Windward said.

Windward described the operation as a ‘semi-dark’ activity, meaning one of the vessels transmitted its automatic identification system (AIS) signal while the other did not.

According to the firm, the M/V TRUST had anchored and switched off its AIS transponder while holding what it called a ‘prolonged stationary meeting’ with another tanker, likely producing an anonymous vessel to transfer cargo process.

A fully ‘dark’ meeting, Windward said, typically involves two vessels not transmitting, but, in this case, only one ship appeared to be broadcasting, creating partial visibility that still complicates tracking efforts.

Such tactics are part of a broader strategy by Moscow to continue exporting crude despite sweeping Western sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The semi-dark oil transfer comes amid heightened volatility in global energy markets tied to the escalating conflict in the Middle East and limited traffic in the Strait of Hormuz given the joint U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran.

Oil topped $100 a barrel March 9 as traders priced in the risk that the conflict was disrupting flows through the Strait, which carries about a fifth of global supply, CNBC reported.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on March 9 that Russia, the world’s second-largest oil exporter and holder of the largest natural gas reserves, stands ready to resume long-term energy cooperation with European customers if they choose to return, Reuters reported.

Meanwhile, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that Russia ‘should not be involved’ in the escalating conflict between the U.S., Israel and Iran.

His comments followed reports suggesting Moscow may be providing intelligence support to Tehran, though the Kremlin has not publicly confirmed the claims.

On Russia’s ship-to-ship semi-dark cargo transfer amid the ongoing conflict, Windward highlighted ‘operational blind spots that enable illicit maritime activity to proceed largely uninterrupted.’

A senior Trump administration official and former acting U.S. attorney for D.C. is under disciplinary review for his role in President Donald Trump’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative — sparking outrage from the Justice Department, which assailed alleged ethics violations against Ed Martin as a ‘partisan’ effort, and one that unfairly targets Trump and his allies. 

The disciplinary charge, filed Friday to the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility and published Tuesday, centers on a letter sent by Martin to Georgetown Law last February while Martin was serving as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. 

Martin allegedly demanded in the letter that Georgetown Law provide information about its DEI practices and teachings, according to the ethics complaint. It states that without ‘further explanation,’ and without receiving a response from Georgetown Law, Martin then announced he would be imposing sanctions on the school — instructing his staff not to hire any students, fellows, or interns affiliated with the university.

The Justice Department blasted news of the ethics complaint, telling Fox News Digital on Tuesday that the complaint represented yet another ‘clear indication’ of unfair and ‘partisan’ treatment from the D.C. Bar, a body they argued has continued ‘to target and punish those serving President Trump while refusing to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys,’ representing what DOJ spokesperson described as ‘a clear indication of this partisan organization’s agenda.’

The complaint was signed by the disciplinary counsel for the D.C. Bar, Hamilton Fox, whose role allows him to function similarly to a prosecutor for attorney misconduct cases.  Fox previously donated thousands to Obama’s first presidential campaign in 2008, according to FEC records reviewed by Fox News Digital. 

The complaint accuses Martin of violating the First and Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by using his role as a government official to demand that the university change its teachings; failing to give the university a time frame to respond; and threatening adverse action against Georgetown Law for teaching a particular viewpoint.

It also accuses Martin of conducting unauthorized, ex parte communications with the chief judge and senior judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after he was asked to respond to a complaint about his remarks to Georgetown Law. ‘In that letter, he stated that he would not be responding to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry, complained about Disciplinary Counsel’s ‘uneven behavior,’ and requested a ‘face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward,” the complaint said, noting that Martin had copied White House counsel onto the email. 

The Justice Department’s second-highest-ranking official, Todd Blanche, sharply criticized the complaint on social media Tuesday, noting: ‘The DC Bar is such a blatantly Democrat-run political organization.’

‘Thank God I’m not a member, and trust me, I never will be,’ Blanche said in a post on X.Martin, a former defense attorney who helped represent individuals charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, has made headlines during his short time at DOJ. His path to confirmation to serve as U.S. Attorney for D.C. stalled last year amid concerns from some Senate Republicans, prompting Trump to install Martin last May as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney. 

Trump also tapped Martin at the time to head up the Justice Department’s so-called ‘Weaponization Working Group,’ or the newly formed internal body within DOJ tasked with probing federal prosecutions viewed by the administration as unfairly partisan. 

Martin was removed last month from his role heading up the working group, though no reason for his removal was immediately provided. 

The complaint will now be kicked to D.C. Court of Appeals for next steps and review — a notoriously lengthy process that will likely take months, if not longer.

News of the ethics complaint comes just days after the Justice Department filed a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that would allow the department to suspend state bar investigations while the DOJ conducts its own review. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., signaled Tuesday that Republicans will continue to closely align themselves with President Donald Trump as the November midterms creep closer.

‘The American people are going to understand he is on the ballot, at least in a metaphorical sense, because if we were to lose the midterms, everybody knows the chaos that would ensue,’ the leader of the House of Representatives told NBC News reporter Scott Wong.

Johnson made the remarks at House Republicans’ annual policy retreat, which is taking place this year at Trump’s golf course and resort in Doral, Florida, where GOP lawmakers are huddling to hash out policy goals ahead of the midterm races and beyond.

He said Trump is also going to take an ‘active’ role in the coming election cycle.

‘President Trump is going to be … he’s engaged, he’s going to run like he’s 2024. He’s going to do the rallies and do the events, and he’s already doing it now,’ Johnson said.

‘He’s going to be heavily involved. And he is still the turnout machine for our side — as well as the other side, I acknowledge that.’

The speaker’s comments are not surprising given Trump’s continued command and influence over the GOP, but tying Republicans so closely to a sitting president in a midterm year could be viewed as a risky strategy.

Political history dictates that the party holding all levers of power in Washington at the beginning of a presidential term — in this case, Republicans — generally lose control of one or both houses of Congress in the following election cycle.

It happened most recently during former President Joe Biden’s term, when Republicans clawed back the House majority in the 2022 races and won the Senate in the following 2024 cycle.

But Johnson has been and continues to be optimistic about Republicans’ chances of bucking that trend in November.

‘I think there’s so many factors in our favor. I think the energy and excitement is going to be on our side,’ Johnson said. ‘I can’t wait for the midterm convention that we’re going to have before early voting starts in the fall, where we parade all of our stars across the stage, and we talk about all the great things we’ve done for the American people.

‘This is a midterm like none other. So, I’m telling you, do not bet against the House Republicans.’

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated Afghanistan as a ‘state sponsor of wrongful detention,’ accusing the Taliban of ‘unjustly’ detaining Americans and other foreign nationals.

In his announcement on Monday, Rubio said the Taliban continues to use ‘terrorist tactics’ that he insisted ‘need to end.’

‘I am designating Afghanistan as a State Sponsor of Wrongful Detention,’ Rubio said in a statement. ‘The Taliban continues to use terrorist tactics, kidnapping individuals for ransom or to seek policy concessions. These despicable tactics need to end.’

The secretary also called on the terror group to free a pair of Americans who are ‘unjustly detained’ in Afghanistan.

‘It is not safe for Americans to travel to Afghanistan because the Taliban continues to unjustly detain our fellow Americans and other foreign nationals,’ he said. ‘The Taliban needs to release Dennis Coyle, Mahmoud Habibi, and all Americans unjustly detained in Afghanistan now and commit to cease the practice of hostage diplomacy forever.’

Coyle, 64, was detained more than a year ago without charges by the Taliban General Directorate of Intelligence, according to his family, noting that he still has not been charged. His family said he was legally working to support Afghan language communities as an academic researcher.

Habibi, a 38-year-old American citizen who was born in Afghanistan, was taken along with his driver from their vehicle in the capital of Kabul in August 2022 by the Taliban General Directorate of Intelligence, according to the State Department.

The FBI said Habibi was previously Afghanistan’s director of civil aviation and worked for the Kabul-based telecommunications company Asia Consultancy Group. The FBI said the Taliban detained 29 other employees of the company but has released most of them.

Habibi has not been heard from since his arrest, and the Taliban has not disclosed his whereabouts or condition, according to the State Department and FBI. The Taliban has previously denied it detained Habibi.

The U.S. is also calling for the return of the remains of Paul Overby, an author who was last seen close to Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan in 2014, according to Reuters, citing two sources familiar with the situation.

The State Department could restrict the use of U.S. passports for travel to Afghanistan if the Taliban does not meet the U.S. government’s demands, the sources told the outlet.

A passport restriction of this kind is currently only in place for North Korea.

The Taliban called the decision by Rubio to designate Afghanistan a ‘state sponsor of wrongful detention’ regrettable, adding that it wanted to resolve the matter through dialogue.

The Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2021 during the U.S. military’s chaotic withdrawal from the country that ended the 20-year war in the region.

Rubio gave the ‘state sponsor of wrongful detention’ designation to Iran late last month, just one day before the U.S.-Israeli strikes on the country. He warned that the U.S. could restrict travel to Iran over its detention of U.S. citizens, but there have not been any restrictions yet.

‘The Iranian regime must stop taking hostages and release all Americans unjustly detained in Iran, steps that could end this designation and associated actions,’ Rubio said at the time.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Kharg Island, which handles the bulk of Iran’s crude exports and was once floated by President Donald Trump as a potential target could spark broader regional instability and attacks on energy infrastructure if struck by the U.S., a leading energy security expert has warned.

Reports indicate the Trump administration is weighing options that could include a direct attack on Kharg Island.

Discussing the possibility of boots on the ground amid Operation Epic Fury on ‘The Claman Countdown,’ retired Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt also told Liz Claman striking Kharg could be in the ‘offing.’

‘I don’t think a significant number of boots on the ground, other than the chance of an assault on Kharg Island, is in the offing,’ he said March 9.

Trump’s interest in the island dates back to a 1988 interview in which he reportedly suggested targeting Kharg in response to Iranian aggression, according to reports.

‘I’d be harsh on Iran. They’ve been beating us psychologically, making us look like a bunch of fools,’ Trump said. ‘One bullet shot at one of our men or ships, and I’d do a number on Kharg Island. I’d go in and take it.’

Sara Vakhshouri, a global energy analyst, said striking Kharg aligns squarely with Washington’s ‘energy dominance’ doctrine and spoke as U.S. and Israeli military action in Iran rattles energy markets and disrupts oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

‘Kharg currently acts as a strategic restraint point in the conflict,’ Vakhshouri, founder and president of SVB Energy International, told Fox News Digital.

‘Interrupting Iran’s main export terminal would likely trigger a major oil price spike, market instability and regional retaliation against energy infrastructure.’

Kharg’s significance is not only tactical but strategic, she added, arguing that it fits squarely within Trump’s long-touted doctrine.

The policy, central to Trump’s first term, prioritized maximizing U.S. oil and gas production, expanding exports and leveraging U.S. energy strength as a geopolitical tool.

‘But when we talk about Kharg, the most important factor is that it fits within the U.S. energy dominance concept,’ Vakhshouri said, suggesting that holding the island in reserve as a pressure point — rather than immediately striking it — may be a more strategic option.

Kharg sits in the northern Persian Gulf, roughly 15 miles off Iran’s mainland. Tankers leaving the terminal pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow choke point that handles about one-fifth of global oil trade.

Around 90% to 95% of Iran’s crude and petroleum exports pass through Kharg, making it the regime’s primary oil revenue hub.

‘Roughly 15 to 20 million barrels may be in storage, with around 1.5 to 3 million barrels per day exported through the terminal during the sanctions, with export capacity up to 5 million barrels per day,’ Vakhshouri said.

‘If the export capability from Kharg were lost, this restraint could diminish, shifting the risk toward further strikes on regional energy facilities and, more importantly, prolonged disruption of oil flows and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz,’ she warned.

‘Putting a price ceiling on such a scenario would depend largely on Iran’s retaliatory actions,’ Vakhshouri added.

‘The certain outcome, however, would be prolonged volatility and uncertainty in the market, driven by fears of further retaliation or an extended cycle of disruption.’

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

As a physician and a mother, I have seen firsthand how Washington’s decisions ripple into the exam room and around the kitchen table. At a time when healthcare debates often divide, it is worth recognizing leaders who safeguard freedom while tackling real health needs. The Trump administration is doing exactly that: protecting access, preserving choice and confronting public-health challenges while trusting families and their physicians to decide what is best.

President Donald Trump is proving that when Washington listens to everyday Americans and acts with urgency, real change is possible. For too long, the crushing cost of prescription drugs has forced families to make an impossible choice between filling a prescription and paying their bills.

Lowering drug prices has been a cornerstone of his presidency, and he has taken meaningful steps to deliver by expanding generics and biosimilars, implementing historic price transparency rules, capping insulin costs for seniors, advancing TrumpRX to increase competition to increase competition and direct access, and pursuing a ‘Most Favored Nation’ policy, so Americans are no longer paying more for medications than patients in other developed countries.

These policies represent an important shift toward putting patients, not middlemen, first. It’s a strong and necessary start, but sustaining this momentum by increasing competition and expanding access will be critical to finally bringing lasting relief to Americans.

This is not the first time Trump has revolutionized healthcare access. He set the tone during his first term with Operation Warp Speed, a milestone in American biomedical history, after COVID-19 paralyzed the world six years ago this month. By pairing private‑sector innovation with decisive federal coordination, it accelerated effective vaccine development and distribution; proving speed and rigor can coexist when government clears paths instead of creating bottlenecks. Just as important, it expanded options for patients and families, reinforcing a simple principle: access first, always.

What followed, however, is where public trust began to erode. Not because of Operation Warp Speed, but because its success was taken over by bureaucratic overreach. I watched in real time as public trust in health institutions collapsed, common sense was dismissed, legitimate debate was shut down and universal COVID vaccine mandates were imposed. Patients did not turn away from the vaccine recommendations because of the science; they turned away because of coercion despite evolving science and varying risk levels.

When personal autonomy gave way to mandates, they undermined confidence in both institutions and vaccines themselves. The result wasn’t the product of Trump’s leadership and scientific progress; it was the consequence of power being prioritized over personal choice.

Today, this administration is again pursuing strong public‑health outcomes without treating Americans as bystanders. Trust should be built where it matters most: in the home and in the doctor’s office. Parents want choice. Doctors want access. Parents overwhelmingly trust their own physicians. Doctors who know a child’s history and needs should remain the most trusted voices and, increasingly, America’s health agencies are speaking that same language.

The recent shift in tone from top health leaders is significant and worth recognizing. Acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Jay Bhattacharya is urging Americans to get the measles vaccine as cases rise and the U.S. risks losing its hard-won elimination status. He called the decision ‘deeply personal’ while making clear that ‘measles is preventable and vaccination remains the most effective way to protect yourself and those around you.’

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz echoed that in February: ‘There will never be a barrier to Americans getting access to the measles vaccine. It is part of the core schedule.’ This is what responsible public health communication looks like: honest, direct, and rooted in science, without coercion.

President Donald Trump is proving that when Washington listens to everyday Americans and acts with urgency, real change is possible.

The challenge now is sustaining this posture. Keeping vaccines available, affordable and accessible is not a concession to one side of the political debate, it’s broadly popular across the spectrum and conservatives are no exception. Skepticism of mandates and top-down health edicts does not translate into a desire to see vaccines become harder to get or more expensive to access. Americans want the freedom to make their own choices alongside their doctors and that freedom is only meaningful when access is guaranteed.

At the same time, the message must be clear: removing mandates does not mean vaccines are no longer recommended, or they have somehow been deemed unsafe. Vaccines remain one of the most effective tools in modern medicine. When vaccination rates fall, history and modern-day show that preventable disease and mortality rise.

Trump understands this, and his agencies need to hold the line: speak honestly about what the science says, respect personal decision-making and ensure that no American faces a barrier to a vaccine they want. That’s a winning posture politically — and more importantly, it’s the right thing to do.

Three years ago, I came to the United States as a graduate student with the intention of studying public and international affairs at Columbia University, with a focus on public service. Like many who come here from across the world, I had a vision of the United States as the land of the free, a place where freedom of speech was cherished and where I could study freely. I thought it was a place where I could stand up for what I believed in without fear of retaliation from the government.

On March 8, 2025, that vision shattered. Multiple plainclothes ICE agents in unmarked cars grabbed me, without a warrant, from the lobby of my apartment building in New York and threw me on a plane to a federal detention center in Louisiana. As a green card holder with a U.S. citizen wife — who was 8 months pregnant at the time — I couldn’t believe what was happening. I had been targeted by the government because of my lawful speech in support of Palestinian rights, for protesting the use of my tax dollars and tuition fees to support the Israeli occupation.

Throughout my 104 days in federal detention, during which I missed the birth of my first child, I considered myself a political prisoner. The government had deprived me of my liberty, not because I had broken any laws, but because it didn’t like what I had to say.

Once I challenged my detention and Secretary Rubio’s determination that my political views posed a foreign policy threat, the government scrambled to add new accusations. They alleged, baselessly, that I had committed fraud on my green card application. Claims invented not out of evidence, but out of retaliation. Recent evidence in federal court revealed that DHS itself acknowledged, a day before my arrest, that there were no issues with the information I provided on my green card application because everything was complete, true, and correct. Yet I was arrested anyway.

I was not alone. Other students and scholars with valid immigration status were similarly targeted for detention and deportation despite having committed no crime. They were pulled off streets by masked agents, targeted outside of their homes, and tricked into arrests during citizenship appointments. What happened to us is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to prevent: the government deciding which speech is acceptable and which is not. Once that protection is weakened, everyone is at risk.

The Supreme Court recognized eighty years ago that the First Amendment protects all of us in the United States — citizens and noncitizens alike — from government persecution for our beliefs. If we allow that boundary to be violated for noncitizens, or when the government claims a foreign policy concern, a precedent is created that can be used against all of us. Even citizens. Even people who disagree with me vehemently about Palestine.

The government has argued that federal courts must let people sit in immigration detention for months or years before reviewing allegations of constitutional violations. They have argued that Pro-Palestine speech constitutes a foreign policy threat. They have argued that I deserve to be deported because they dislike my ideas. If they can do this to a lawful permanent resident with a U.S. citizen wife and newborn U.S. citizen child, there’s no telling who else they will come for.

The government isn’t allowed to control how we can speak and think. Attorneys representing me in my case, and others like me in similar cases, argued this point in court and secured our release from detention. But my case is still ongoing, and the executive branch’s immigration agency may soon order my deportation. So, I ask Americans directly: do you want to live in a country where you can be snatched off the street by plainclothes agents for your thoughts?

In Assad’s Syria, where I grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp, that was routine. Since the beginning of 2025, the United States, a country whose Constitution protects freedom of speech, has seen an increase in these actions that I once associated with Assad: abductions by plainclothes officers without warrants, forced detention of people who express views the government doesn’t like, and the targeted silencing of dissent.

I will continue to use my platform to advocate for human rights in Palestine. But I ask each and every person reading this to use their voice to defend our First Amendment rights. The right to speak our minds, no matter who holds power, is the foundation of our democracy, and it is in peril. Whatever you may think of me or my views, that foundation belongs to all of us.