President Donald Trump claimed that California and Minnesota are both rife with fraud, slamming the two states and their respective governors as ‘Crooked.’

‘There is more FRAUD in California than there is in Minnesota, if that is even possible. When you add in Election Fraud, then they are tied for first. Two Crooked Governors, two Crooked States!’ the president asserted in the post on Wednesday, referring to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

Trump also slammed Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.

‘Much of the Minnesota Fraud, up to 90%, is caused by people that came into our Country, illegally, from Somalia. ‘Congresswoman’ Omar, an ungrateful loser who only complains and never contributes, is one of the many scammers. Did she really marry her brother? Lowlifes like this can only be a liability to our Country’s greatness. Send them back from where they came, Somalia, perhaps the worst, and most corrupt, country on earth. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!’ he declared.

Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Omar, Newsom and Walz to request comment but did not immediately hear back.

The president’s comments come in the wake of reporting alleging massive fraud in Minnesota.

‘We have frozen all child care payments to the state of Minnesota,’ Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services and acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Jim O’Neill declared in a Tuesday post on X. 

‘You have probably read the serious allegations that the state of Minnesota has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to fraudulent daycares across Minnesota over the past decade,’ he noted. ‘I have activated our defend the spend system for all ACF payments. Starting today, all ACF payments across America will require a justification and a receipt or photo evidence before we send money to a state.’ 

Walz responded to the move by blasting Trump.

‘This is Trump’s long game. We’ve spent years cracking down on fraudsters. It’s a serious issue — but this has been his plan all along. He’s politicizing the issue to defund programs that help Minnesotans,’ Walz asserted in a post on Tuesday to his official governor’s X account.

In a follow-up post Wednesday to his personal account, Walz declared, ‘While Minnesota has been combating fraud, the President has been letting fraudsters out of jail. Trump’s using an issue he doesn’t give a damn about as an excuse to hurt working Minnesotans.’

Momentum on a 20-point peace plan to end the war between Russia and Ukraine is faltering after President Vladimir Putin accused Kyiv of targeting a residence linked to him, a claim Moscow says leaves little room for compromise at the negotiating table.

The accusation comes as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been pressing a 20-point peace proposal as a counteroffer to a 28-point framework floated by the Trump administration before Thanksgiving. Zelenskyy was expected to present the plan directly to President Donald Trump during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, part of what he described as ‘some of the most active diplomatic days of the year.’

Russia claims Ukraine launched a large-scale drone attack early Monday against a presidential residence in the Novgorod region, involving 91 long-range drones that were intercepted by Russian air defenses.

Russia’s defense ministry released footage of a masked soldier standing next to drone wreckage it said was recovered from the attack, claiming the drone carried a high-explosive warhead ‘filled with a large number of striking elements’ intended to hit civilian targets.

The Kremlin has described the site as a presidential residence in the Novgorod region, one of several state-owned properties associated with Putin, though it has not said he was present at the time.

Kremlin officials quickly branded the incident ‘terrorist’ activity, warning it would force Russia to harden its negotiating position. 

‘This terrorist action is aimed at collapsing the negotiation process,’ Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters Tuesday. ‘The diplomatic consequence will be to toughen the negotiating position of the Russian Federation.’

Zelenskyy’s proposal calls for Western-backed security guarantees resembling NATO’s Article 5, a halt in fighting along current battle lines in contested regions, and the creation of demilitarized zones overseen by international forces — provisions Moscow has long opposed. The Ukrainian plan also rejects formal recognition of Russian control over occupied territory, a key point of divergence from the U.S. framework.

Ukraine has flatly denied responsibility for the alleged attack. Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said Russia has offered no evidence ‘because there’s none,’ accusing Moscow of leaning on a familiar strategy. 

‘Russia has a long record of false claims — it’s their signature tactic,’ Sybiha said in a post to the social platform X.

Zelenskyy told reporters that Ukraine had discussed the allegation with U.S. officials. ‘They’ve talked through the details. And we understand that it’s fake. And thanks to their technical opportunities, they can verify that it’s fake,’ he said.

Ukrainian officials argue the allegation fits a broader Kremlin playbook: using unproven claims to justify escalation or deflect blame as diplomacy intensifies. Kyiv has warned Moscow may be using the episode to lay the groundwork for new strikes, including against government buildings in the Ukrainian capital, while portraying Russia as the aggrieved party in peace talks.

The dispute has also drawn in Trump, who met with Zelenskyy in Florida Friday and later spoke by phone with Putin. Putin raised the alleged incident during their call.

‘I was very angry about it,’ Trump told reporters, adding that the U.S. was still working to determine what actually happened. ‘We’ll find out,’ he said.

Matthew Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, said on Fox Business that Washington is investigating Russia’s claim. 

‘It’s unclear whether it actually happened,’ Whitaker said. ‘We’re going to get to the bottom of the intelligence.’

Officials with the Attorney General’s Office said Wednesday they are working relentlessly over the holidays to review and redact troves of documents in the Epstein files, prior to their mandated public release.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche released a statement on X noting Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers from Main Justice, FBI, SDFL and SDNY are ‘working around the clock’ through Christmas and New Years to review documents, ensuring sensitive victim information is redacted from the impending release.

‘It truly is an all-hands-on-deck approach and we’re asking as many lawyers as possible to commit their time to review the documents that remain,’ Blanche wrote in the post. ‘Required redactions to protect victims take time but they will not stop these materials from being released.’

Blanche’s update comes amid recent threats of legal action after the department missed the Epstein Files Transparency Act’s Dec. 19 deadline to publish all of its documents related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

He previously argued there was ‘well-settled law’ supporting the missed deadline, as other legal requirements in the bill must be met prior to release, including redacting victim-identifying information.

‘The Attorney General’s and this Administration’s goal is simple: transparency and protecting victims,’ Blanche wrote Wednesday.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed Nov. 19 by President Donald Trump, required the DOJ to withhold information that could identify potential victims or compromise ongoing investigations or litigation.

It also allowed officials to exclude material deemed sensitive to national defense or foreign policy.

While it remains unclear how many files still need to be reviewed, the DOJ last week confirmed the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York recently submitted more than 1 million additional pages of potentially responsive documents related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking cases.

Officials said the ‘mass volume’ of material could take weeks to examine, further delaying their release, which was promised by Blanche on a ‘rolling basis,’ Fox News Digital previously reported.

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump spent much of 2025 attempting what had eluded his predecessors: personally engaging both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an effort to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. From high-profile summits to direct phone calls, the administration pushed for a negotiated settlement even as the fighting ground on and the map changed little.

By year’s end, the outlines of a potential deal were clearer than they had been at any point since Russia’s full-scale invasion, with U.S. and Ukrainian officials coalescing around a revised 20-point framework addressing ceasefire terms, security guarantees and disputed territory. But 2025 also made clear why the war has proven so resistant to resolution: neither battlefield pressure, economic sanctions nor intensified diplomacy were enough to force Moscow or Kyiv into concessions they were unwilling to make.

The Trump administration’s push for a deal

The year began with a high-profile fallout last February between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, when the Ukrainian leader stormed out of the White House after Trump told him he did not have ‘any cards’ to bring to negotiations with Russia.

Frustrated by the pace of talks after promising to end the war on ‘Day One’ of his presidency, Trump initially directed his ire toward Zelenskyy before later conceding that Moscow, not Kyiv, was standing in the way of progress.

‘I thought the Russia-Ukraine war was the easiest to stop but Putin has let me down,’ Trump said in September 2025.

That frustration had already surfaced publicly months earlier as Russian strikes continued despite diplomatic engagement. ‘He talks nice, and then he bombs everybody in the evening,’ Trump said in July.

Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin culminated in a high-profile summit in Alaska in August, though additional meetings were later called off amid a lack of progress toward a deal.

Still, Trump struck a more optimistic tone toward the end of the year. On Sunday, after meeting Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago, the president said the sides were ‘getting a lot closer, maybe very close’ to a peace agreement, while acknowledging that major obstacles remained — including the status of disputed territory such as the Donbas region, which he described as ‘very tough.’

Trump said the meeting followed what he described as a ‘very positive’ phone call with Putin that lasted more than two hours, underscoring the administration’s continued effort to press both sides toward a negotiated end to the war.

Where negotiations stand now

By the end of 2025, the diplomatic track had narrowed around a more defined — but still contested — framework. U.S. officials and Ukrainian negotiators have been working from a revised 20-point proposal that outlines a potential ceasefire, security guarantees for Ukraine, and mechanisms to address disputed territory and demilitarized zones.

Zelenskyy has publicly signaled openness to elements of the framework while insisting that any agreement must include robust, long-term security guarantees to deter future Russian aggression. Ukrainian officials have also made clear that questions surrounding occupied territory, including parts of the Donbas, cannot be resolved solely through ceasefire lines without broader guarantees.

Russia, however, has not agreed to the proposal. Moscow has continued to insist on recognition of its territorial claims and has resisted terms that would constrain its military posture or require meaningful concessions. Russian officials have at times linked their negotiating stance to developments on the battlefield, reinforcing the Kremlin’s view that leverage — not urgency — should dictate the pace of talks.

The result is a negotiation process that is more structured than earlier efforts, but still far from resolution: positions have hardened even as channels remain open, and talks continue alongside ongoing fighting rather than replacing it.

Russia’s territorial pressure — and Ukraine’s limited gains

Even as diplomacy intensified in 2025, the war on the ground remained defined by slow, grinding territorial pressure rather than decisive breakthroughs. Russian forces continued pushing for incremental gains in eastern and southern Ukraine, particularly along axes tied to Moscow’s long-stated objective of consolidating control over territory it claims as Russian.

Russian advances were measured and costly, often unfolding village by village through artillery-heavy assaults and sustained drone use rather than sweeping offensives. While Moscow failed to capture major new cities or trigger a collapse in Ukrainian defenses, it expanded control in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine, maintaining pressure across multiple fronts and keeping territorial questions central to both the fighting and any future negotiations.

Ukraine, for its part, did not mount a large-scale counteroffensive in 2025 comparable to earlier phases of the war. Ukrainian forces achieved localized tactical successes, at times reclaiming small areas or reversing specific Russian advances, but these gains were limited in scope and often temporary. None translated into a sustained territorial breakthrough capable of altering the broader balance of the front.

Instead, Kyiv focused on preventing further losses, reinforcing defensive lines and imposing costs on Russian forces through precision strikes and asymmetric tactics. With decisive territorial gains out of reach, Ukraine expanded attacks against Russian energy infrastructure, targeting refineries, fuel depots and other hubs critical to sustaining Moscow’s war effort — including sites deep inside Russian territory.

Russia, meanwhile, continued its own campaign against Ukraine’s energy grid, striking power and heating infrastructure as part of a broader effort to strain Ukraine’s economy, civilian resilience and air defenses. The result was a widening pattern of horizontal escalation, as both sides sought leverage beyond the front lines without achieving a decisive military outcome.

The result was a battlefield stalemate with movement at the margins: Russia advanced just enough to sustain its territorial claims and domestic narrative, while Ukraine proved capable of blunting assaults and imposing costs but not of reclaiming large swaths of occupied land. The fighting underscored a central reality of 2025 — territory still mattered deeply to both sides, but neither possessed the military leverage needed to force a decisive shift.

That dynamic would increasingly shape the limits of diplomacy. Without a major change on the battlefield, talks could test red lines and clarify positions, but not compel compromise.

Why talks stalled: leverage without decision

For all the diplomatic activity in 2025, negotiations repeatedly ran into the same obstacle: neither Russia nor Ukraine faced the kind of pressure that would force a decisive compromise.

On the battlefield, Russia continued to absorb losses while pressing for incremental territorial gains, reinforcing Moscow’s belief that time remained on its side. Ukrainian forces, though increasingly strained, succeeded in preventing a collapse and in imposing costs through deep strikes and attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure — demonstrating an ability to shape the conflict even without major territorial advances.

Economic pressure also reshaped — but did not determine — Moscow’s calculus. Despite years of Western sanctions, Russia continued financing its war effort in 2025, ramping up defense production and adapting its economy to sustain prolonged conflict. While sanctions constrained growth and access to advanced technology, they raised the long-term costs of the war without producing the immediate pressure needed to force President Vladimir Putin toward concessions.

Those realities defined the limits of U.S. mediation. While the Trump administration pushed both sides to clarify red lines and explore possible frameworks for ending the war, Washington could illuminate choices without dictating outcomes, absent a decisive shift on the ground or a sudden change in Moscow’s calculations.

The result was a year of talks that clarified positions without closing gaps. As long as pressure produced pain without decision, negotiations could narrow options and define boundaries, even if they could not yet bring the conflict to an end.
 

Lawmakers fought over Obamacare subsidies tooth and nail for the latter part of the year, and ultimately, neither side won.

Senate Democrats thrust the government into the longest shutdown in history in an effort to refocus the narrative in Congress on healthcare, and Republicans agreed to talk about it in the open. And both Republicans and Democrats got a shot to advance their own, partisan plans. Both failed.

Now, the subsidies are set to expire on Wednesday, sending price hikes across the desks of tens of millions of Americans that relied on the credits. 

When lawmakers return on the first week of January, healthcare will be front of mind for many in the Senate. But any push to either revive, or completely replace, the subsidies may, for a time, take a backseat to the government funding fight brewing ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline.

When asked if he was disappointed that lawmakers were unable to, at least in the short term, solve the subsidies issue, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was more concerned about people that would experience higher costs. 

‘I think who it’s most disappointing for are the people whose premiums are going to go up by two, three times,’ Hawley said. ‘So, it’s not good.’

Price hikes on premium costs will be variable for the roughly 20 million Americans that rely on them, depending on age, income and other factors. Broadly, a person’s out-of-pocket cost is expected to double with the credit’s lapse, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The nonpartisan healthcare think tank painted a broader picture of the disparate impact on premium cost increases in a report released late last month that, based on myriad factors, including where a person lives, their age range and where they sit above the poverty line, some could see price hikes as high as 361%.

While Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ separate plans failed to advance — despite four Republicans crossing the aisle to support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., plan — lawmakers are working together for a solution.

There are two plans with traction in the House. The GOP’s plan advanced on the floor earlier this month but doesn’t address the issue of the expiring tax credits. Then there is a bipartisan plan that calls for a three-year extension of the subsidies, similar to Senate Democrats’ plan, that is teed up for a vote.

The latter option, and its bipartisan momentum, has some Democrats hopeful that a three-year extension could get a shot in the upper chamber.

‘I’ll also say that the glimmer of hope is if we’re searching for a bipartisan deal that can pass the Congress, we don’t need to search any further than the three-year extension of the subsidies that’s going to pass the House of Representatives,’ Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital. ‘We don’t need a negotiation any further. That bill can pass, if it can provide relief to the taxpayers, and it can pass, then that’s our vehicle.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, has maintained a deeply-rooted position against just a simple extension of the credits.

He argued that a straight-up extension for three years would be ‘a waste of $83 billion,’ and lacks any of the reforms that Republicans desire, like reinstalling an income cap, adding anti-fraud measures, and reaffirming language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘I mean, I think if nothing else, depending on if the House sends something over here, there would be a new vehicle available,’ Thune said. ‘And if there is some bipartisan agreement on a plan, then you know, it’s possible that we could — obviously it’d have to be something that we think the House could pass, and the president would sign.’

‘But I’m not ruling anything out, I guess is what I’m saying,’ he continued. ‘But you know, a three-year extension of a failed program that’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse is not happening.’

Senate Democrats are open to negotiating on a bipartisan plan, something that is already ongoing after Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, held a meeting with lawmakers before leaving Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

But Democrats are also making clear that they don’t want to budge on some of the Republicans’ demands.

‘Let’s put it this way, Republicans are asking to meet with me, and I’m telling them, I’ll listen, you know, I made it clear what I think is the only practical approach, and I’m certainly not going to go along with selling junk insurance,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

Lawmakers fought over Obamacare subsidies tooth and nail for the latter part of the year, and ultimately, neither side won.

Senate Democrats thrust the government into the longest shutdown in history in an effort to refocus the narrative in Congress on healthcare, and Republicans agreed to talk about it in the open. And both Republicans and Democrats got a shot to advance their own, partisan plans. Both failed.

Now, the subsidies are set to expire on Wednesday, sending price hikes across the desks of tens of millions of Americans that relied on the credits. 

When lawmakers return on the first week of January, healthcare will be front of mind for many in the Senate. But any push to either revive, or completely replace, the subsidies may, for a time, take a backseat to the government funding fight brewing ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline.

When asked if he was disappointed that lawmakers were unable to, at least in the short term, solve the subsidies issue, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was more concerned about people that would experience higher costs. 

‘I think who it’s most disappointing for are the people whose premiums are going to go up by two, three times,’ Hawley said. ‘So, it’s not good.’

Price hikes on premium costs will be variable for the roughly 20 million Americans that rely on them, depending on age, income and other factors. Broadly, a person’s out-of-pocket cost is expected to double with the credit’s lapse, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The nonpartisan healthcare think tank painted a broader picture of the disparate impact on premium cost increases in a report released late last month that, based on myriad factors, including where a person lives, their age range and where they sit above the poverty line, some could see price hikes as high as 361%.

While Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ separate plans failed to advance — despite four Republicans crossing the aisle to support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., plan — lawmakers are working together for a solution.

There are two plans with traction in the House. The GOP’s plan advanced on the floor earlier this month but doesn’t address the issue of the expiring tax credits. Then there is a bipartisan plan that calls for a three-year extension of the subsidies, similar to Senate Democrats’ plan, that is teed up for a vote.

The latter option, and its bipartisan momentum, has some Democrats hopeful that a three-year extension could get a shot in the upper chamber.

‘I’ll also say that the glimmer of hope is if we’re searching for a bipartisan deal that can pass the Congress, we don’t need to search any further than the three-year extension of the subsidies that’s going to pass the House of Representatives,’ Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital. ‘We don’t need a negotiation any further. That bill can pass, if it can provide relief to the taxpayers, and it can pass, then that’s our vehicle.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, has maintained a deeply-rooted position against just a simple extension of the credits.

He argued that a straight-up extension for three years would be ‘a waste of $83 billion,’ and lacks any of the reforms that Republicans desire, like reinstalling an income cap, adding anti-fraud measures, and reaffirming language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘I mean, I think if nothing else, depending on if the House sends something over here, there would be a new vehicle available,’ Thune said. ‘And if there is some bipartisan agreement on a plan, then you know, it’s possible that we could — obviously it’d have to be something that we think the House could pass, and the president would sign.’

‘But I’m not ruling anything out, I guess is what I’m saying,’ he continued. ‘But you know, a three-year extension of a failed program that’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse is not happening.’

Senate Democrats are open to negotiating on a bipartisan plan, something that is already ongoing after Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, held a meeting with lawmakers before leaving Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

But Democrats are also making clear that they don’t want to budge on some of the Republicans’ demands.

‘Let’s put it this way, Republicans are asking to meet with me, and I’m telling them, I’ll listen, you know, I made it clear what I think is the only practical approach, and I’m certainly not going to go along with selling junk insurance,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

This year brought us Trump the Sequel and that meant the left had extra motivation to be annoying. Their hatred of President Donald Trump, conservatives and even the late Charlie Kirk defined 2025.

Still, there were some who outdid everyone else in their quest to be, drumroll, please, the Most Annoying Person of 2025. I ignored people who made news saying just one idiotic comment or who are just obscure media personalities. (Like Matthew Dowd who lost his bogus MSNBC job for his comments bashing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk for ‘hate speech’ after Kirk had been murdered.)

1. He was funny 20 years ago

No one deserves the top spot on this list more than ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ host Jimmy Kimmel. Most late-night programs have faded from view as their hosts have turned them into orgies of Trump-bashing. But Kimmel excels at hating conservatives so much that he almost qualifies to be a male cast member of ‘The View.’ (Yep, they’re here, too.)

Kimmel gained more attention for saying vile things and fighting Trump than for anything funny.

Former ‘Late Show’ host David Letterman termed Kimmel, ‘the leader of the resistance,’ and Kimmel later cried millionaire tears because he had a ‘hard year.’ He earned a temporary suspension with one of the worst comments about the Kirk assassination, saying, ‘We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and everything they can to score political points from it.’ He was wrong, of course, but we are used to that. Trump later said, ‘Jimmy Kimmel was horrible,’ and who am I to disagree with my president?

2. You knew they’d make the list

If the annoying people of Earth have a home base, it’s not some secluded island fortress, it’s ABC’s ‘The View.’ The gaggle of hosts — from leftist moderator Whoopi Goldberg to crackpot Joy Behar to pretend conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin — is a reminder that quantity is not quality. 

This year, they pretended radical Islamic Iran wasn’t worse than the U.S. (Goldberg); claimed using the National Guard to stop crime was ‘a pretext to stop the next election!’ (Behar); and compared the election of Trump to … Hitler. (Behar: ‘The Germans voted also. Just saying.’)

The show has become such an embarrassment that the TV show ‘Landman’ mocked it for being a, ‘bunch of pissed off millionaires bitching about how much they hate millionaires, Trump, and men, and you, and me, and everybody else they got a bee up their ass about.’ ‘The View’ has gone from mindless propaganda to a punchline.

3. The first of the pod people

If you’re lucky, you’ve never heard of podcaster Jennifer Welch. Just imagine a ghoul-like figure from your deepest nightmares, then give her blonde hair and a microphone.

She’s one of the two co-hosts for the ‘I’ve Had It’ podcast, and it’s well-named. She and her co-host first appeared in the Bravo series ‘Sweet Home Oklahoma,’ which no one ever heard of. But now, the press loves her because she says hateful things about conservatives. 

CNN’s profile of Welch quotes her calling Trump a, ‘fat, fascist f— who’s ruining everything for everybody.’ The New York Times notes, ‘‘Patriots, gaytriots, theytriots, Blacktriots and browntriots,’ is how Ms. Welch greets the listeners of their primary podcast.’ She left out morontriots who must make up the bulk of her audience.

Welch made news calling Kirk’s widow Erika a ‘grifter’ and TPUSA said that comment was, ‘beneath contempt.’ 

I’m sure Welch will say worse in 2026 because the media reward her bile with support. CNN said she and her co-host are, ‘two women who love their country and aren’t afraid to name and shame people.’ 

See what I mean?

4. More pod-ish people 

Podcaster antisemite Nick Fuentes and Twitch antisemite Hasan Piker showed the world that the worst users of social media have one thing in common — hatred. Both of them have dominated the social world and been everywhere in the media as civilized society reacts in horror. 

Fuentes calls himself an admirer of communist Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and says Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler was ‘really f—ing cool.’ Pretty much on brand.

Piker, when he’s not being accused of giving his dog electric shocks, spends his time saying offensive things, like, ‘America deserved 9/11.’ He later walked it back because of the backlash, but he still has millions of followers on multiple platforms. 

Fox News did an analysis of what he says, and it’s so vile, I don’t want to repeat it. He’s all across major media. The Times called him, ‘A Progressive Mind in a Body Made for the ‘Manosphere.’’ 

The press is desperate to recreate their own Joe Rogan and this is the best they’ve got.

5. Spacey

Singer Katy Perry had not one, but two spacey experiences in 2025. First, she sort-of went into space on a Jeff Bezos rocket. The owner of Amazon and the Washington Post sent his then-fiancée Lauren Sanchez, and five other famous women, into near-space. 

Perry is in the cool kids’ club, so she got to go. The singer actually vowed to ‘put the ‘a–’ in astronaut’ and made a fool of herself when she landed, kneeling and kissing the ground because of an 11-minute rocket trip. She was quoted declaring, ‘I feel super connected to love.’ 

That must have been true. She is now dating her own space cadet, former lefty Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

6. Friday the 13th

Cynthia Erivo is 2025’s it gal. She’s everywhere and impossible not to see. As NBC put it, she’s ‘Proudly Bald and Has No Eyebrows.’ Throw in nails like Freddy Krueger and the bisexual star is everything the media want in a celebrity — weird and alternative. 

She’s the star of the two ‘Wicked’ movies and even played Jesus in the Hollywood Bowl (naturally) version of the musical ‘Jesus Christ Superstar.’ 

Erivo revels in her unusual look, even shaving her own eyebrows, ‘Whenever I’m talking to my makeup artist, I tell her that I just want to look like a pretty thumb.’ 

Yeah, I can’t top that.

7. It ain’t over till it’s over

The 2024 Democratic election debate wasn’t enough for Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris recently declared, ‘I am not done. I have lived my entire career a life of service, and it’s in my bones.’ Harris released her book, ‘107 Days’ and managed to annoy Democrats and Republicans about equally with her alleged recollection of events. 

At least former President Richard Nixon was nice enough to tell us, ‘You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.’ 

Harris will make us endure more garbled responses before she goes gently into that good night of her career.

Two West African nations have issued a simultaneous ban on American citizens in a diplomatic tit-for-tat move, amidst heightened tensions with both the United States and Europe, and as Russia seeks to increase its economic and geopolitical influence in the region.

Mali and Burkina Faso made the move in response to the Trump administration’s Dec. 16 expansion of travel restrictions to more than 20 countries. The policy particularly affected the African continent, with Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Niger, Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan also being subject to travel restrictions.

The Trump administration cited the persistence of armed attacks in both nations as part of the rationale for its decision:

‘According to the Department of State, terrorist organizations continue to plan and conduct terrorist activities throughout Burkina Faso. According to the Fiscal Year 2024, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Entry/Exit Overstay Report (‘Overstay Report’), Burkina Faso had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 9.16 percent and a student (F), vocational (M), and exchange visitor (J) visa overstay rate of 22.95 percent. Additionally, Burkina Faso has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.’

Regarding its decision to include Mali on the list, it stated:

‘According to the Department of State, armed conflict between the Malian government and armed groups is common throughout the country.  Terrorist organizations operate freely in certain areas of Mali.’

Burkina Faso and Mali are both currently ruled by military juntas that came to power amidst rising violence and instability, as both nations came under attack from Islamist terrorist groups.

Both nations have also seen a rise in anti-French sentiment, in conjunction with deepening relationships with Russia, which has pledged to offer assistance in fighting back the Islamist rebels battling the central governments for territorial control.

‘In accordance with the principle of reciprocity, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation informs the national and international community that, with immediate effect, the Government of the Republic of Mali will apply the same conditions and requirements to US nationals as those imposed on Malian citizens,’ the Malian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated.

Burkina Faso’s government cited a similar rationale for issuing its ban on American travelers.

Both nations, as well as neighboring Niger and Nigeria, have seen skyrocketing violence in recent years, as chronically underfunded governments struggle to retain control of rural, sparsely-populated desert regions.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

U.S. and partner forces killed or captured nearly 25 Islamic State operatives in Syria in the days following a large-scale U.S.-led strike on Dec. 19, according to a new statement from U.S. Central Command, underscoring Washington’s assessment that ISIS remains an active and persistent threat inside the country.

CENTCOM said those forces conducted 11 follow-on missions between Dec. 20 and Dec. 29, killing at least seven ISIS members, capturing the remainder and eliminating four ISIS weapons caches. The operations followed Operation Hawkeye Strike, when U.S. and Jordanian forces hit more than 70 ISIS targets across central Syria using over 100 precision munitions, destroying infrastructure and weapons sites linked to the group. 

‘We will not relent,’ CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper said, adding that U.S. forces remain ‘steadfast’ in working with regional partners to dismantle ISIS networks that pose a threat to U.S. and regional security.

The scope of the follow-on raids highlights a reality U.S. commanders and analysts have been warning about for months: ISIS no longer controls large swaths of territory, but it retains the ability to organize, strike and regenerate inside Syria’s fragmented security landscape.

Syria remains divided among competing forces, militias and foreign-backed armed groups, with no single authority exercising full control over large parts of the country. Analysts say that vacuum continues to provide space for ISIS cells to operate quietly, recruit and exploit overstretched local forces.

Analysts note that Syria’s security environment remains shaped by former jihadist networks that were never fully demobilized after the war. The country’s transitional leadership, including President Ahmed al-Sharaa, emerged from armed Islamist factions that relied heavily on foreign fighters and militias, according to regional security assessments. While those groups are not synonymous with ISIS, experts say the incomplete dismantling of extremist networks has left gaps that ISIS cells continue to exploit.

‘ISIS today doesn’t need a caliphate to be dangerous,’ Bill Roggio told Fox News Digital. ‘We’ve always been quick to declare terrorist organizations defeated and insignificant, and that couldn’t be further from the truth.’

Roggio said the group has adapted rather than disappeared, shifting away from holding territory toward smaller, more covert cells capable of carrying out lethal attacks. He pointed to ongoing ISIS activity not only in Syria and Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and other regions, citing United Nations reporting that estimates roughly 2,000 ISIS fighters remain active in Afghanistan alone.

‘That’s not what a defeated group looks like,’ Roggio said, noting that ISIS continues to recruit, indoctrinate and inspire attacks even without the visibility it once had.

One of the most sensitive vulnerabilities remains the network of detention facilities in northeastern Syria holding thousands of ISIS terrorists and supporters. Those prisons are guarded primarily by Kurdish-led forces backed by a small U.S. military presence, estimated at roughly 1,000 troops, according to Reuters.

U.S. and coalition officials have repeatedly warned that any major disruption to prison security could allow hardened ISIS operatives to escape and reconstitute networks across Syria and beyond. Kurdish officials have also raised concerns about funding shortages, manpower strain and pressure from rival militias operating nearby.

While U.S. officials have not publicly linked the recent strikes to prison-related threats, analysts say the broader environment of fragmented control increases the risk of coordinated attacks, insider assistance or prison unrest.

The danger is not theoretical. ISIS has previously staged mass prison break operations in Syria and Iraq, including a 2022 assault on the al-Sinaa prison in Hasakah that required days of fighting to contain.

The U.S. strikes also come amid continued instability inside Syria, where multiple armed actors operate with overlapping authority. Analysts note that clashes among militias, sectarian violence and unresolved command structures have weakened overall security and diverted attention from counterterrorism efforts.

Bombings in neighborhoods of Damascus, including Mezzeh, and unrest in minority areas have further illustrated the gaps ISIS and other extremist groups can exploit, according to regional security assessments and open-source reporting.

‘Syria’s chaos is the accelerant,’ Roggio said. ‘ISIS thrives where no one is fully in charge.’

U.S. officials and analysts stress that ISIS activity in Syria is part of a wider pattern rather than an isolated flare-up.

Sources in the Israeli Mossad told Fox News Digital of continued ISIS-linked activity across multiple theaters, including recruitment networks and small-scale attacks designed to test security responses and maintain operational relevance.

In Turkey, security forces recently clashed with Islamic State militants during counterterrorism operations, wounding several officers, according to Reuters on Monday. Turkish authorities said the raids targeted ISIS cells suspected of planning attacks inside the country.

‘These are signals, not spikes,’ Roggio said. ‘ISIS operates across regions, adapting to pressure and exploiting weak governance wherever it finds it.’

The renewed U.S. military action raises difficult questions for policymakers about how long the current containment strategy can hold.

While U.S. officials say the Dec. 19 strikes delivered a significant blow to ISIS infrastructure, they have also acknowledged that counterterrorism operations alone cannot eliminate the underlying conditions that allow the group to persist.

‘Just because we want to declare the war against terror over doesn’t mean it’s over,’ Roggio said. ‘The enemy gets a vote.’

Escalating claims by Russia that Ukraine tried to hit a residence used by President Vladimir Putin with drones have been dismissed by a top military drone expert, who called the alleged attack ‘hard to fathom’ and tactically implausible.

Cameron Chell’s comments came as Moscow doubled down on accusations Kyiv has flatly denied, with the drone industry leader arguing the alleged strike announced Monday runs counter to Ukraine’s drone tactics.

Chell, the CEO and co-founder of Draganfly, a drone manufacturer that supplies to the U.S. Department of Defense and allied militaries, including Ukraine, said Russia’s claims lack credibility.

‘What really makes things usually very signature about Ukraine is that they’re always incredibly clever about how they use drones,’ Chell told Fox News Digital.

‘They are clever from a cost perspective — let’s call it an efficiency perspective — but also very clever in their tactics,’ he added.

‘I find it hard to fathom that this drone attack even happened on Putin’s residence or that it was something that Ukraine orchestrated for a number of reasons,’ Chell said.

‘To get over the top of Putin’s residence, for one, the drones would not have been launched from a very long distance away,’ he added.

Chell’s comments came as Russia doubled down Tuesday on accusations that Ukraine attempted to strike a presidential palace in the Novgorod region using drones, allegedly to disrupt peace efforts.

Kyiv dismissed the allegation, with the timing also raising questions given the upbeat tone of a recent meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Florida.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed late Monday that 91 drones were intercepted en route to Putin’s residence on the shores of Lake Valdai.

His statement appeared to contradict earlier Defense Ministry tallies, which said 89 drones were shot down over eight regions, including 18 over Novgorod, later adding another 23.

Only after Lavrov spoke did the ministry allege that 49 drones intercepted over Bryansk, nearly 300 miles away, were also targeting Valdai.

Asked about wreckage, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was ‘a matter for our military,’ while calling Zelenskyy’s denial and Western skepticism ‘completely insane.’

Peskov said Russia’s diplomatic stance would be toughened, and Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin vowed there could be ‘no forgiveness’ for Zelenskyy.

Chell said the story simply does not add up. ‘To attack Putin’s residence, you need long-range, very fast-moving drones,’ he said.

He added that for drones that small to reach such a site, they would have had to be launched from a much closer location, likely inside Russia itself.

‘They would have to be within about 10 kilometers [6.2 miles] — or maybe, at most, 30 kilometers — of Putin’s residence,’ Chell said.

‘That facility where Putin lives would also be incredibly secure, and so to have a number of lower-cost, slower-moving drones coming in on that facility would be very un-Ukrainian,’ Chell said.

‘Ukraine also doesn’t announce when they’re going to show up,’ he added.

Chell also noted that night operations would rule out GPS- or AI-based navigation due to jamming and visibility limits, making the launch of dozens of drones even less plausible.

‘Apparently the thing was at night, so that’s very difficult for machine vision or AI mapping software,’ he said. ‘So, you know, it definitely wasn’t using GPS, because it would have been jammed. There are just a bunch of things that don’t add up.’

Politically, Chell argued, Ukraine has nothing to gain. ‘They’re bold, but right in the middle of peace talks — when they need Trump on side — it makes no sense,’ he said. ‘Ukraine is just politically too smart to have done that.’

Zelenskyy on Monday also called the claim a complete fabrication, accusing Moscow of laying the groundwork for further attacks. 

Lavrov warned of retaliation but said Russia would continue talks with Washington.

Trump also said he learned of the alleged attack directly from Putin and was ‘very angry about it.’ Asked whether there was evidence, Trump replied, ‘We’ll find out.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Kremlin for comment.