One of the key negotiators who helped end the last government shutdown won’t support a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill, further adding to the likelihood of another closure. 

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday that he could not support the current, six-bill funding package as is because it included the DHS funding bill. King was a pivotal figure in ending the last shutdown, and was one of only eight Senate Democratic caucus members to join Republicans to end it. 

King, like other members of the Senate Democratic caucus, is infuriated by the death of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old nurse who was shot dead by a border patrol agent in Minneapolis on Saturday. 

Congressional Democrats have railed against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents entering Minnesota and elsewhere, but begrudgingly agreed to support the DHS bill until the chaos over the weekend unfolded.

‘I hate shutdowns,’ King said. ‘I’m one of the people that helped negotiate the solution to the last — the end of the last shutdown, but I can’t vote for a bill that includes ICE funding under the circumstances.’ 

King’s resistance to the package comes after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced that Senate Democrats would not support the legislation, increasing the odds of a partial government shutdown by the end of the week. 

It also comes on the heels of ICE entering King’s home state of Maine for operation Catch of the Day, where Democratic Gov. Janet Mills is running to beat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in a pivotal Senate race that could determine the balance of power in the upper chamber.  

King argued that there was an ‘easy way out’ of the funding snafu — Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., could separate out the DHS funding bill and let lawmakers vote on the remaining five bills.

However, should that happen, the House would still have to weigh in. The lower chamber won’t return to Washington, D.C., until next month, all but ensuring a partial government shutdown by Friday unless lawmakers can reach a compromise agreement. 

‘Let’s have an honest negotiation,’ King said. ‘Put some guardrails on what’s going on, some accountability, and that would solve this problem. We don’t have to have a shutdown.’

President Donald Trump said Sunday that it was ‘too late’ to halt construction of a new ballroom at the White House, despite a newly filed lawsuit challenging the project.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump described the ballroom as ‘a GIFT (ZERO taxpayer funding) to the United States of America,’ estimating its cost at $300 million and saying it was financed through private donations.

Trump said the lawsuit was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, criticizing the group for filing it after construction was already underway.

‘Why didn’t these obstructionists and troublemakers bring their baseless lawsuit much earlier?’ he wrote.

Trump added that the East Wing was ‘changed, built and rebuilt over the years’ and that ‘it bore no resemblance or relationship to the original building.’

On July 31, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the planned construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom. The sprawling ballroom will accommodate approximately 650 seated guests and will stay true to the classical design of the White House.

The White House does not have a formal ballroom, and the new ballroom will take the place of the current East Wing of the White House. 

Since his return to office, Trump has wasted no time in reshaping the look and feel of the White House and the National Mall.

Trump has previously unveiled a new monument dubbed the ‘Arc de Trump,’ which is planned to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary next year.

He said the large arch, a near twin of Paris’s iconic Arc de Triomphe, will welcome visitors crossing the Arlington Memorial Bridge from Arlington National Cemetery into the heart of the nation’s capital.

Trump’s taste for opulence is unmistakable in the Oval Office, where golden accents now decorate the nation’s most iconic workspace, a reflection of his personal style.

Since then, Trump has added gold accents throughout the Oval Office to include decorative details along the ceiling and around the doorway trim. Even the cherubs inside the door frames were given a gilded makeover.

Outside the Oval Office, the Trump administration unveiled the ‘Presidential Walk of Fame,’ a series of portraits of past presidents now displayed along the West Wing colonnade.

The portrait of former President Joe Biden features his signature, created with an autopen, a machine that holds a pen and reproduces a person’s handwriting through programmed movements. The Trump administration has also installed several large mirrors in gold frames along the walkway.

Trump also said he renovated the Lincoln bathroom in the White House because it did not reflect the style of President Abraham Lincoln’s era. 

‘I renovated the Lincoln Bathroom in the White House. It was renovated in the 1940s in an art-deco green tile style, which was totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era,’ Trump wrote in an Oct. 31 Truth Social post.

President Donald Trump praised the soldiers of the United Kingdom who served alongside the U.S. in Afghanistan on Saturday, clarifying his previous criticism of NATO allies.

Trump had earlier criticized NATO troops who served in Afghanistan, arguing they had stayed ‘a little bit back’ from the frontlines during the conflict. His statement was met with outrage in the U.K., however, where Prime Minister Kier Starmer called it ‘insulting and frankly, appalling.’

‘The GREAT and very BRAVE soldiers of the United Kingdom will always be with the United States of America! In Afghanistan, 457 died, many were badly injured, and they were among the greatest of all warriors,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social.

‘It’s a bond too strong to ever be broken. The U.K. Military, with tremendous Heart and Soul, is second to none (except for the U.S.A.!). We love you all, and always will!’ he continued.

The social media post partially walks back his previous criticism of NATO, made during an interview on Fox Business.

‘We have never really asked anything of them,’ he said. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that, and they did. They stayed a little back, little off the front lines.’

Starmer’s office says the prime minister raised the issue with Trump during a phone call this weekend.

‘The Prime Minister raised the brave and heroic British and American soldiers who fought side by side in Afghanistan, many of whom never returned home,’ a spokesperson said. ‘We must never forget their sacrifice.’

Trump’s initial remarks also drew a direct rebuke from Prince Harry, who served two tours in Afghanistan.

‘I served there. I made lifelong friends there. And I lost friends there,’ Harry said.

‘Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect, as we all remain united and loyal to the defense of diplomacy and peace,’ he added.

The horrific regime slaughter in Iran and President Trump’s aggressive campaign to acquire Greenland have resulted in the neglect of a major case now underway at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The ICJ last week began hearings brought by Gambia against Myanmar alleging genocide against the Rohingya people—about 1.4 million of whom live in Myanmar. Several other states have intervened in support of Gambia, which has presented the court with evidence it contends proves that Myanmar’s military forces committed a genocide against the Rohingya population. Myanmar vehemently denies the allegation.

While this case does not concern Israel directly, the ICJ’s determinations may have major ramifications for the case Israel is now defending at the tribunal against South Africa.

This is especially true since one of the judges hand-picked by Gambia to sit on its ICJ panel is South African national Navi Pillay. That would be the same Navi Pillay who recently rushed to publish a report accusing Israel of genocide before retiring as head of the UN Human Rights Council commission of inquiry—a panel widely criticized for its flagrant institutional bias against Israel and the anti-Semitic remarks of its members.

In reality, South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel is riddled with flaws. It is also pushing to redefine a term that been held sacrosanct since the end of the World War II.

The term ‘genocide’ was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Holocaust survivor who in 1944 strived for its incorporation into modern international law. That occurred in 1948 via the UN Genocide Convention.

The prohibition on genocide is considered a jus cogens norm—that is, a non-derogable rule accepted by all of the first-world community with no exceptions. The definition of ‘genocide’ requires no law degree to understand, and it should never, ever be politicized.

For a genocide to take place under Geneva, there must be acts committed ‘with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.’ The phrase ‘intent’ here is of paramount importance.

South Africa’s pending case before the ICJ alleges Israeli intent to destroy the Palestinian-Arab population of Gaza. Israel, by contrast, (correctly) maintains that its recent actions in Gaza have been a just and proper military response to the war of annihilationist jihad and unspeakable atrocities launched against it by the Hamas terrorist organization on Oct. 7, 2023.

Israel’s ‘intent’ is to free Gaza from Hamas, to return hostages abducted and held by Hamas, and to ensure Hamas has no future role in Gaza and cannot undertake another October 7-style massacre. It repeatedly offered to end the war if Hamas laid down its arms and released all hostages.

Hamas, on the other hand, has shown a complete disregard for human life and has openly stated that its sacrifice of Gazan civilians is a cynical strategic necessity to turn public opinion against Israel. It has for years embedded military infrastructure within Gazan civilian infrastructure—schools, hospitals, UN facilities, mosques, and children’s bedrooms. Israel has waged a defensive campaign in one of the most complex operational environments of any modern war.

At the same time, it has worked with states and NGOs to allow and facilitate extensive amounts of humanitarian aid, rebuilt water supplies, coordinated the vaccination of young Gazans against polio, and helped coordinate and approve the evacuation of those in need of urgent medical care.

Israel repeatedly provides advanced warnings of impending military strikes and has held off strikes where intelligence of nearby civilians has come to light. For a fighting party to so often relinquish the element of surprise to reduce harm to the local civilian population of its enemy is extraordinary.

None of this constitutes a ‘genocide’—and clearly shows the lack of any intent by Israel to destroy the local Palestinian-Arab population in Gaza.

Nonetheless, since South Africa brought its case before the ICJ, numerous groups and states have leapt at the opportunity to join in on the anti-Israel campaign. This has ranged from tendentious so-called online genocide scholars to anti-Semitic mobs to deeply politicized NGOs. Amnesty International, for instance, shamelessly waited more than two years before publishing a report focusing on Hamas’ crimes on Oct. 7, while straining to remind readers of its slanderous accusation of genocide made against Israel a year prior.

Together, they have all been involved in a campaign to redefine the term ‘genocide’ to suit their narrative—all while ignoring the reality of Hamas’ own Nazi-esque barbarism.

The politically motivated efforts to undermine the concept should be of grave concern to us all. If successful, it will result in the ICJ’s further self-discrediting as an institution of political point scoring, rather than meaningful justice.

Israel has legitimately responded to genocidal attacks by a terrorist organization that has repeatedly called for its entire annihilation and the murder of all global Jewry—something it broadcast live to the world on Oct. 7, 2023.

The term ‘genocide’ is one too important to be cheapened. Those pushing for its redefinition must be stopped in their tracks.

The daughter of a senior Iranian official who publicly criticized U.S. involvement against President Donald Trump regarding intervening in Iran’s protests has reportedly been fired from her teaching post at a top U.S. college.

The Emory Wheel, Emory University’s news outlet, reported the School of Medicine Dean announced in an email Jan. 24 that Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani was no longer a university employee.  

Ardeshir-Larijani was an assistant professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory’s medical school.

‘The announcement follows a Jan. 19 protest where Iranian-American demonstrators gathered outside Emory’s Winship Cancer Institute to oppose the employment of Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani by the University,’ the outlet said.

Ardeshir-Larijani’s Emory faculty page and her Emory Healthcare pages were also no longer visible online.

The nonprofit Alliance Against Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists (AAIRIA) claimed that Ardeshir-Larijani had lived and worked in the U.S. for several years.

The group also cited the professional profile on Emory Healthcare’s official website as showing a listing for a woman called Ardeshir-Larijani who is a U.S.-trained hematologist-oncologist and practicing in Atlanta.

The claims had first drawn attention amid escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran following the outbreak of protests and reports of deaths during an intense crackdown from Dec. 28.

Trump warned of potential U.S. action in response.

In a Jan. 2 Truth Social post, the president warned that if Iran ‘violently kills peaceful protesters’ the U.S. ‘will come to their rescue,’ saying ‘we are locked and loaded and ready to go.’ 

Trump’s remarks prompted warnings from senior Iranian officials, who said any American interference would cross a ‘red line.’

Ali Larijani had posted on X that U.S. interference in Iran’s internal affairs would ‘[destabilize] the entire region’ and ‘[destroy] American interests.’

‘The American people must know that Trump is the one who started this adventure,’ he wrote, ‘and they should pay attention to the safety of their soldiers.’

AAIRIA responded by urging U.S. authorities to review the immigration and visa status of Ardeshir-Larijani and her husband.

The group urged officials to determine whether continued residence in the U.S. aligns with U.S. law, national security considerations and principles of accountability and human rights, in a statement shared online.

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., also called on Emory to dismiss Ardeshir-Larijani and the state’s medical board to revoke her medical license.

Ardeshir-Larijani’s dismissal also arrived two weeks after sanctions had been placed on her father by the Treasury Department, who said that he ‘is responsible for coordinating the response to the protests on behalf of the Supreme Leader of Iran and has publicly called for Iranian security forces to use force to repress peaceful protesters,’ and has publicly defended the regime’s actions.

Ali Larijani has portrayed the U.S. as a hostile power in the past.

A 2018 report by The Washington Times highlighted what critics described as a double standard among Iranian officials whose relatives live or work in Western countries.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for comment and Emory University for comment.