Pro-life activists and groups are taking issue with President Donald Trump’s remarks to Republican lawmakers to be ‘flexible’ on a law that bans the use of federal funds for most abortions as health care talks continue in Congress. 

‘Any healthcare plan that prioritizes a ‘deal’ over saving lives — in and out of the womb — deserves to die, not children,’ Students for Life Action President Kristan Hawkins said in a statement Tuesday following Trump’s address. ‘Republicans need to fix what the Democrats profoundly broke. Former President Barack Obama destroyed the American healthcare system with Obamacare, driving up costs and pushing life-ending policies with taxpayer funds. The GOP must work not for any deal, but for the right deal.’ 

Trump joined Republican House lawmakers Tuesday morning at the newly renamed Trump–Kennedy Center during their annual policy retreat to discuss the party’s agenda for the coming year — a high-stakes election cycle with the midterms just over a year away. Lawmakers are working to revive Obamacare enhanced subsidies after they expired in 2025, with some Republicans new restrictions on federal funds as they relate to abortion services under Obamacare plans. 

Trump said Tuesday lawmakers should be ‘flexible’ on the Hyde Amendment — a long-standing appropriations rider enacted in 1976 — that bars most federal funding for abortion, including through Medicaid, with limited exceptions.

‘You have to be a little flexible on Hyde, you know that,’ Trump said. ‘You gotta be a little flexible. You gotta work something … we’re all big fans of everything. But you have to have flexibility.’ 

The comment set off criticism among conservatives and pro-lifers on social media, with many remarking they can’t be ‘flexible’ when it comes to the life a child. 

‘No President Trump, we will NEVER compromise on the Hyde Amendment. NO taxpayer funding of abortions. Period,’ pro-life outlet Life News posted to X. 

‘For decades, opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion and support for the Hyde Amendment has been an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party. To suggest Republicans should be ‘flexible’ is an abandonment of this decades-long commitment. If Republicans abandon Hyde, they are sure to lose this November,’ SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. 

”You have to be a little flexible on Hyde’ when passing healthcare legislation, President Donald Trump just told the House Republican retreat. The Hyde Amendment prevents your taxpayer money from funding elective abortions not carried out due to rape or incest. Hard pass,’ Eastern Orthodox priest Ben Johnson posted to X. 

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told Politico after Trump’s address that: ‘I’m not flexible on the value of every child’s life. Children are valuable, and so I’d have to get up to the context of what he meant by that.’ 

‘I almost fell out of my chair,’ another lawmaker told the outlet under the condition of anonymity. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House Tuesday for additional details on Trump’s comment and response to conservatives’ concerns, but did not immediately receive a reply. 

Just nearly a year ago, Trump doubled down on his support for the Hyde Amendment when he signed an executive order four days after he was sworn back into office titled, ‘ENFORCING THE HYDE AMENDMENT.’

The executive order directed federal agencies to implement restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion, while reinforcing the long-standing Hyde Amendment and rescinding previous Biden-era orders that expanded abortion access. 

‘It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,’ the executive order stated. 

Democrats campaigned against Trump in 2024 on claims he would wipe out abortion access and impose a national abortion ban, which the campaign brushed off as unrealistic. While some conservatives have previously taken issue with Trump for not being more vocal in his support of pro-life policies, including in 2024 when the GOP platform only mentioned abortion once, instead focusing on the preservation of life and returning power to the states when developing laws surrounding abortion.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s announcement that he is dropping his re-election bid amid a massive fraud scandal in the state is raising questions about the vetting process he received to be Kamala Harris’ running mate. 

Following Walz’s Monday announcement that he will not run for re-election as the state faces a fraud scandal that prosecutors say could total as much as $9 billion, many on social media from both sides of the aisle wondered aloud why he was elevated to the presidential ticket despite the fraud concerns which date back to at least 2019 when he was elected governor. 

‘What did Kamala Harris’ veep vetting team know about Tim Walz, and when did they know it?’ Conservative commentator and columnist Josh Hammer posted on X. 

‘This will dog VP Harris and she will need to answer questions about Tim Walz and her answers need to be CLEAR.’ former Jill Biden Press Secretary Michael LaRosa posted on X. ‘If I were advising the former VP, I would put this to bed NOW and release a statement ASAP. Rip the Band-Aid off and get this behind her. Her judgment will be questioned and the trust she placed into those who vetted her VP options will also be questioned. How could they possibly have missed this?’

Harris released a statement later in the day wishing Walz the best and touting his ‘life in public service’ but did not specifically address the fraud scandal or vetting process.

‘The vetting clearly failed,’ retired Minnesota State Patrol Lt. John Nagel told Fox News Digital. Nagel is running for Congress as a Republican against Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar.

‘By the time Governor Tim Walz was selected, Minnesota’s fraud scandals were already public, already under federal investigation, and already raising serious questions about oversight. That wasn’t hidden information — it was an open and growing issue, despite a local media environment that protects Democrats.’ 

Former Obama-era attorney general Eric Holder was a key figure in the vetting process for the Harris campaign, and he defended his due diligence on Walz, telling CNN that ‘nothing of substance’ was missed in regard to Walz’s record, which Nagel told Fox News Digital ‘raised more questions than it answered’ given the visibility of fraud concerns. 

‘Either possibility is troubling,’ Nagel told Fox News Digital. ‘If Kamala Harris didn’t know, that points to a deeply flawed vetting process and an insane level of hubris. If she did know and proceeded anyway, that suggests accountability simply wasn’t a priority.’

Michael Ceraso, a veteran Democratic strategist, told Fox News Digital the Harris campaign was likely aware of the fraud reports, but internally compared it to Trump’s controversies and concluded it’s ‘not as bad.’

‘Maybe the standard was different because they understood who they were running against, and maybe they were blasé about it because they were looking at their opponent and saying, well, this may not be as comparable to this, and so we can excuse this because this guy over here has done X, Y, and Z,’ Ceraso explained.

Going forward, Ceraso said the Democratic Party could arguably ‘put itself in a position as being the values party’ by placing more emphasis on vetting issues on their own merits rather than comparing records to Trump. 

‘The Democratic Party needs to be better because we can all be better, but I think comparing ourselves to a president that we obviously disagree with morally and saying, well, we’re not as bad as that, but still let a multi-billion dollar corruption thing happen with no accountability. That’s still pretty bad.’

Nagel told Fox News Digital that if Harris decides to run for political office in the future that this issue will likely come up.

‘Voters deserve to know how decisions at the highest levels are made — and whether political considerations outweighed transparency and accountability,’ Nagel said. ‘Unfortunately, if Kamala decides to run in 2028, legacy media outlets will likely not press her on her choice of Walz. I expect that to only be raised in Democrat circles during a presidential debate during the primaries.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Harris’ office for comment.

Walz has also faced criticism in recent days for comments he made on the campaign trail touting childcare programs in Minnesota, suggesting it should be a model for the nation, even though the Feeding Our Future scandal had been bubbling for years.

When Nicolás Maduro was removed from power by the United States, many in Washington expected the U.S. to rally behind Venezuela’s most prominent opposition leader.

Instead, the Trump administration moved to engage a longtime Maduro loyalist, signaling a transition strategy driven less by democratic symbolism than by concerns over stability on the ground.

The approach sidelined María Corina Machado, the opposition leader who claims the strongest popular mandate and international profile, while elevating Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president and a central figure in the outgoing regime.

Administration officials and outside analysts say the shift reflects a calculated effort to avoid a power vacuum and maintain control during a fragile transition, even as it complicates Washington’s longstanding support for Venezuela’s democratic opposition. 

And President Donald Trump is betting Rodríguez now lives in fear of what might happen to her if she defies the U.S. 

Trump, describing his phone call with Rodríguez, said she offered: ‘We’ll do whatever you need.’

‘I think she was quite gracious,’ he said. 

But in a separate interview with The Atlantic he warned: ‘If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.’

Following Maduro’s removal, Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as Venezuela’s interim president after the Supreme Court ruled she should assume power in his absence. 

Under Venezuela’s constitution, the vice president can serve on an interim basis while the country determines whether and when new elections will be held. While the constitution generally calls for elections within 30 days if a president is permanently unable to serve, authorities have so far described Maduro’s removal as temporary, allowing Rodríguez to remain in office as the timeline for a political transition is debated.

A classified CIA intelligence assessment examined who would be best positioned to lead a temporary government in Caracas, Venezuela, and maintain short-term stability, a source familiar with the intelligence told Fox News Digital. The report, requested by senior policymakers and presented to Trump, aimed to offer the president ‘comprehensive and objective analysis’ on possible scenarios after Maduro’s capture.

A source familiar with the assessment told Fox News Digital that the assessment attempted to analyze the domestic situation in Venezuela, but did not describe how Maduro could lose power or advocate for his removal.

Trump senior policymakers requested the assessment — specifically one that addressed who would be best able to stabilize Venezuela ‘immediately’ following a Maduro removal. 

‘There was sentiment among senior officials that Machado lacked the necessary support in Venezuela if Maduro was to be removed,’ the source familiar told Fox News Digital. 

One of the reasons for that, the source told Fox News Digital, was because Machado was not in Venezuela, though she has vowed to return. 

The report found Rodríguez would be best positioned to lead a temporary government in Caracas, Venezuela, and Gonzalez and Machado would struggle to gain support from security services. 

While Machado has been widely embraced by Western governments and democracy advocates, U.S. officials and analysts say that support has not translated into leverage over Venezuela’s military or security services.

Trump’s skepticism also has been shaped by frustration from his first term, when international backing and opposition momentum failed to produce a transfer of power.

‘Machado has an inherent problem from the get-go,’ said Pedro Garmendia, a Venezuela expert and Washington-based geopolitical risk analyst. ‘She doesn’t control troops or hold any sort of power in Venezuela.’

At the same time, ‘Rodríguez is an ideologue,’ he said. ‘In the long term, the Trump administration might find itself having trouble reining her in.’

Trump has been more blunt in explaining why the administration has not rallied behind Machado. Speaking after the operation that removed Maduro from power, Trump questioned whether she could lead Venezuela in a transition, saying she lacked sufficient support inside the country. 

‘I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader,’ Trump said. ‘She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country.’

A Washington Post report had claimed that Trump was upset Machado accepted this year’s Nobel Peace Prize — an award he coveted and that she dedicated to him. But the White House insisted Trump’s actions were the result of internal briefings.

‘President Trump is routinely briefed on domestic political dynamics all over the world. The President and his national security team are making realistic decisions to finally ensure Venezuela aligns with the interests of the United States, and becomes a better country for the Venezuelan people,’ said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. 

Rubio has sought to frame the decision as mission-driven rather than personal, pointing to past U.S. interventions as cautionary examples. 

‘I have tremendous admiration for María Corina Machado. I have admiration for Edmundo,’ Rubio said Sunday on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation.’ ‘But there’s the mission that we are on right now. … A lot of people analyze everything that happens in foreign policy through the lens of Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan. This is not the Middle East. This is the Western Hemisphere, and our mission here is very different.’

The administration’s caution also is shaped by a long history of U.S. intervention in Latin America, where American-backed coups and political engineering have left deep skepticism toward Washington’s motives. Installing an opposition leader immediately after a U.S. military operation, analysts warn, could revive those suspicions and undermine any transition before it begins.

‘If they were to bring María Machado and presumably Edmundo González back to the country and install them as president, it would look a lot like the United States installing a new president,’ said Eric O’Neill, a former FBI counterintelligence operative. ‘That would actually cause civil unrest.’

‘Venezuelans are proud people, and they need to elect their next president,’ O’Neill added.

But Garmendia said Rodríguez is ‘just as illegitimate as Maduro was — and probably even less popular.’ 

He said Rodríguez lacks the charisma and mass appeal that traditionally have sustained Venezuela’s ruling movement, and that her authority rests largely on internal bargaining and elite control rather than public support.

In the interim, locals have reports of armed gangs patrolling the streets. Venezuelan authorities have detained at least 14 journalists since Maduro’s capture, according to the union representing Venezuelan reporters. 

‘There’s going to be a lot of instability in the next couple of weeks,’ Garmendia said.

President Donald Trump has adopted an interventionist posture to justify toppling dictator Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela and has signaled he’ll take the same approach with other Latin American countries next as his administration seeks to assert dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

Interventionism is a foreign policy approach by which one country intervenes in another state’s affairs. The U.S. has engaged in several interventions abroad, including launching an invasion of Iraq in 2003 that led to the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime. 

While Trump has blasted previous administrations for actions in the Middle East and vowed he would bring an end to ‘endless wars’ while ushering in an ‘America First’ agenda prioritizing U.S. interests, Trump signed off on conducting a ‘large scale strike’ against Venezuela and capturing Maduro Saturday, prompting concern, primarily from Democrats, about starting another lengthy conflict. 

The strikes in Venezuela come on the heels of several other major military operations from the Trump administration, including strikes in Nigeria on Christmas Day against Islamic State militants in response to attacks against Christians in the region, strikes in Syria in December against Islamic State operatives after an ambush against U.S. troops there, and strikes in June against the Iranian nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. 

But unlike the strikes in the Middle East, the operations in Venezuela require additional U.S. involvement. Trump said Sunday that the U.S. will run Caracas, Venezuela, until a safe transition can occur, thrusting the U.S. into the most significant military intervention of Trump’s presidencies as he wages a campaign to ‘reassert American dominance in the Western Hemisphere.’

‘Trump has never been an advocate of regime change, but that is what he has on his hands now. Unlike the Fordow strikes, where Trump acted and then said, ‘The fight is over,’ he will not have that luxury here in Venezuela,’ retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, now a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said in a statement Saturday. 

Most Republicans have backed Trump’s actions in Venezuela, although some from the more anti-interventionist camp of the GOP have voiced skepticism, including outgoing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who said in a social media post Saturday, ‘This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end.’

Meanwhile, Democrats have issued caution that the U.S. may be entangling itself in another complicated conflict. For example, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., claimed that the U.S. is on the path to another ‘endless war.’

‘The American people are worried that this is creating an endless war,’ Schumer said in an interview with ABC News Sunday. ‘The very thing that Donald Trump campaigned against over and over and over again was no more endless wars. And, right now, we’re headed right into one with no barriers, with no discussion.’

Trump announced Saturday that U.S. special forces conducted a strike against Caracas, Venezuela, and seized Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The two were taken to New York and appeared in a Manhattan federal court on Monday on drug charges. Both pleaded not guilty. 

In addition to running Venezuela, Trump said the U.S. was ‘ready to stage a second and much larger attack’ if needed in Caracas. Likewise, he signaled Sunday that other Latin American countries could also face regime change, singling out Cuba and issuing a word of caution to Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro.

‘Cuba only survives because of Venezuela,’ Trump said.

‘Colombia is very sick too — run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and sending it to the United States, and he’s not going to be doing it very long,’ Trump said. 

Trump’s words and actions come as he’s revived the Monroe Doctrine, rebranded as the ‘Don-roe Doctrine,’ that originally sought to limit European influence in Latin America and to protect U.S. influence in the region.

The Monroe Doctrine, first introduced in 1823 by President James Monroe, specifically cautioned European nations against further colonization in Central and South America. Later, it was used to justify U.S. actions in the region as an ‘international police power’ under former President Theodore Roosevelt, according to the National Archives.

‘The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal. But we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a lot,’ Trump said Saturday. ‘They now call it the ‘Don-roe Doctrine.’ … We sort of forgot about it. It was very important, but we forgot about it. We don’t forget about it anymore. Under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.’

Katherine Thompson, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital Tuesday it’s too early to tell if Trump’s future approach to the Western Hemisphere will include more interventionist activity.

However, she said the ‘expansive’ definition of what America’s core interests are ‘opens the administration up to risk of strategic drift away from the ‘America First’ framework, diminishes the principle of prioritization and allows greater tolerance for an interventionist approach.’ 

So far, Trump has claimed his actions in Venezuela are complementary to his ‘America First’ priorities because he wants the U.S. to have ‘good neighbors.’ 

Retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward, a Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) 2022 General and Admirals Program participant and a member of JINSA’s Iran Policy Project, said Trump’s actions in Venezuela are on the same page as the president’s ‘America First’ agenda.

That means holding other nations who mistreat their people accountable for their own benefit and for the benefit of the American people, he said. 

‘They’re clearly aligned. This is exactly what he’s talked about. … This is an accountability for them,’ Harward said.

For those concerned about the U.S. military’s actions in Venezuela, Vice President JD Vance has attempted to soothe their fears. Vance leans toward the non-interventionist wing of the Trump administration and historically has backed a foreign policy doctrine that supports minimal interference with other nations’ affairs.

‘I understand the anxiety over the use of military force, but are we just supposed to allow a communist to steal our stuff in our hemisphere and do nothing?’ Vance said in a social media post Sunday. ‘Great powers don’t act like that.’ 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the U.S. did not require approval from Congress to conduct the strike since it wasn’t an ‘invasion’ and claimed actions in Caracas, Venezuela, were part of a ‘law enforcement function to capture a drug trafficker.’ 

The Trump administration repeatedly stated that it did not recognize Maduro as a legitimate head of state and insisted he was the leader of a drug cartel. 

But lawmakers, especially Democrats, have called into question the legality of the operation in Venezuela, which was conducted without Congress’ approval. 

‘This has been a profound constitutional failure,’ the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in a statement Saturday. ‘Congress — not the President — has the sole power to authorize war. Pursuing regime change without the consent of the American people is a reckless overreach and an abuse of power.

‘The question now is not whether Maduro deserved removal — it is what precedent the United States has just set, and what comes next.’ 

In the aftermath of Nicolás Maduro’s capture by United States forces, paramilitary groups tied to the Venezuelan leader’s regime have initiated an aggressive campaign to maintain control over the country.

Mobs of motorcycle-riding civilians often armed with assault rifles, known as colectivos, have been conducting intrusive searches and establishing checkpoints to identify and punish anyone showing support for Maduro’s removal from power, Reuters reported.

The National Union of Press Workers of Venezuela reported that armed forces briefly detained fourteen journalists during Monday’s induction of Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as the country’s interim leader. Residents have also reported that some Venezuelans have been afraid to leave their homes, fearing that armed forces would seize and scour their phones for signs of dissent, The Telegraph said.

‘The future is uncertain, the Colectivos have weapons, the Colombian guerrilla is already here in Venezuela, so we don’t know what’s going to happen, time will tell,’ Oswaldo, a 69-year-old Venezuelan shop owner, told The Telegraph.

The colectivos are largely controlled by Nicolás Maduro’s close ally, Diosdado Cabello, who has a $25 million bounty from the U.S. State Department largely for his role in corruption and drug trafficking.

Cabello, who serves as the state’s Minister of Interior, Justice and Peace, is widely known for suppressing political dissent in Venezuela. The presence of colectivos, who often serve as an unofficial arm of state repression, suggests that Maduro loyalists are desperately trying to maintain their grip on the country.

The reported crackdown began with a government directive to root out dissent against the Venezuelan regime. According to Reuters, a state of emergency decree published on Monday ordered police to ‘immediately begin the national search and capture of everyone involved in the promotion or support of the armed attack by the United States.’

As someone who conducts state-run domestic espionage through widespread coordination of surveillance and counterintelligence agencies, Cabello remains a major unpredictable and dangerous figure in the wake of Maduro’s capture, Reuters reported.

‘The focus is now on Diosdado Cabello,’ Venezuelan military strategist Jose Garcia told the outlet. ‘Because he is the most ideological, violent and unpredictable element of the Venezuelan regime.’

Reuters reported that the former military officer was also recently spotted patrolling Venezuelan streets with security forces.

In a social media post by the Venezuelan government, footage reportedly showed Cabello posing with a crowd of armed militia as they shouted, ‘Always loyal, never traitors.’

Reuters added that in recent weeks, Cabello was also seen on television ordering Venezuela’s military counterintelligence agency to ‘go and get the terrorists’ and warning ‘whoever strays, we will know.’

He reportedly repeated the same rhetoric in a state television appearance Saturday, wearing a flak jacket and helmet and surrounded by heavily armed guards.

Despite the removal of Maduro, the loyalist crackdown on dissent and the media suggests that the ruling party has no intention of relinquishing its grip on power.

Reuters contributed to this report.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., will accuse top Minnesota government officials of being ‘asleep at the wheel’ at the start of his panel’s high-profile hearing into alleged fraud.

In Comer’s opening statement, obtained by Fox News Digital, he is expected to question whether ‘Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Minnesota’s Democratic leadership’ were negligent or ‘complicit’ in the growing scandal.

‘Minnesota’s social services — which are funded by you, the American taxpayer — are being ripped off. The most vulnerable are suffering as a result,’ Comer will say, according to his prepared remarks. 

‘The fraudsters — many of whom are from Minnesota’s Somali community — have stolen from programs meant to feed needy kids, provide services to autistic children, house low-income and disabled Americans, and provide healthcare to vulnerable Medicaid recipients.’

Federal prosecutors in Minnesota have charged multiple people with stealing more than $240 million from the Federal Child Nutrition Program through the Minnesota-based nonprofit Feeding Our Future.

However, the probe has since widened to multiple state-run programs being investigated for potential fraud. Childcare providers receiving state funding, mainly within the Somali community, are also under scrutiny.

U.S. attorneys have alleged that billions more dollars could have fallen prey to fraud in the state, something Walz has pushed back on while accusing Republicans of politicizing the scandal.

‘Fraudsters like these take millions to enrich themselves while providing nothing, overstating, or outright faking the services. How many children have gone hungry because fraudsters stole money that was intended to provide them with food?’ Comer will say.

‘How many autistic children were denied services because fraudsters instead sent this money overseas? How many low-income seniors, people with disabilities, or those with mental illnesses were denied access to housing because fraudsters drained resources and pocketed the money for themselves?’

Comer will argue in his statement that the revelations so far are ‘just the tip of the iceberg.’

The Wednesday hearing, which kicks off at 10 a.m. ET, will feature testimony from three Republicans in the state legislature.

Comer summoned Walz and Ellison for a follow-up hearing on Feb. 10, but it’s not yet clear if they will attend.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., will also take part in Wednesday’s hearing, Fox News Digital was told. Emmer is a longtime critic of Walz’s administration and represents a district that’s home to two out of three of the hearing’s GOP witnesses.

The U.K. and France signed a declaration Tuesday pledging troops for Ukraine under a future peace deal and with security guarantees supported by the U.S. and allied partners.

The declaration was adopted in Paris by the Coalition of the Willing and sets out what leaders said was a framework for lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia, set in international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, triggered Europe’s largest conflict since World War II.

The new agreement says that Ukraine’s sovereignty and its ability to defend itself are non-negotiable elements of any peace deal and warned that its self-defense is essential to its own security and wider Euro-Atlantic stability.

Under the plan, a multinational force for Ukraine would be deployed once a ceasefire is in place, aimed at deterring any Russian aggression and supporting the rebuilding of Ukraine’s military.

The force would be European-led with proposed support from the U.S.

The declaration also commits the Coalition to security guarantees that would be activated once a ceasefire begins.

These include commitments to support Ukraine militarily, diplomatically and economically in the event of a future armed attack by Russia.

A key U.S. role is outlined in plans for a continuous, U.S.-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism, with contributions from partners.

The U.S. would participate in a special commission to manage ceasefire breaches, attribute responsibility and determine solutions.

Coalition members also agreed to carry on with long-term military support for Ukraine and pledged defense cooperation, including training, defense production and intelligence sharing.

Leaders also announced the creation of a permanent U.S.-Ukraine-Coalition coordination cell based at the Coalition’s headquarters in Paris.

The declaration was unveiled at a joint news conference by French President Emmanuel Macron, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

This followed talks in Paris which were attended by Jared Kushner and the U.S. special envoy, Steve Witkoff.