Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis says that when it comes to implementing President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration, Florida is "rocking and rolling."
Florida's two-term conservative governor used a portion of his State of the State address on Tuesday to spotlight a sweeping package of immigration laws passed a few weeks ago during a special session of the GOP-dominated legislature.
"We are convening for the regular legislative session having already enacted groundbreaking legislation to fulfill the historic mission of delivering on President Donald Trump’s mandate to end the illegal immigration crisis once and for all," DeSantis said in his address to lawmakers inside the state capitol in Tallahassee.
"Thanks to the recent legislation, it is now a crime to enter Florida illegally, the days of catch and release are over, and all state and local law enforcement have a duty to assist in interior immigration enforcement efforts," the governor emphasized.
The new law also mandates the death penalty for immigrants in the U.S. without legal authorization who commit capital offenses such as first-degree murder or child rape. The legislation goes even further than a slew of executive orders signed by Trump since his return to the White House in late January.
Speaking with reporters following his speech, DeSantis described the new laws as "momentous immigration legislation" and touted that "we’ve gone so much faster than any other state."
The governor signed the immigration bills into law last month after a compromise with the Republican leaders of the legislature was brokered, which brought to an end a weekslong standoff over dueling bills.
DeSantis called the original special legislative session, but lawmakers quickly gaveled out and then held a separate special session, where they passed their own immigration bills, which the governor criticized.
DeSantis, reflecting Tuesday on the standoff with lawmakers, said "we got there. It wasn’t necessarily a straight shot, but we got there."
The governor, who waged a bitter and unsuccessful primary challenge against Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, was praised by the then-president-elect in January for calling the special session.
"Thank you Ron, hopefully other governors will follow!" Trump wrote in a social media post after DeSantis announced the special session.
The U.S. Supreme Court looked skeptically Tuesday at Mexico's efforts to hold American gunmakers legally responsible for their weapons being smuggled in and contributing to that country's drug cartel violence.
In a brisk 90-minute oral argument, the justices debated whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the "proximate cause" of alleged injuries to the Mexican government and its people, by somehow knowingly aiding and abetting illegal sales of guns to traffickers across the border.
The U.S. neighbor to the south, which has strict gun sale restrictions, argues it should be allowed to file a $10 billion civil suit in American courts.
But weapons manufacturers say their "routine business practices" are being unfairly targeted, and strongly deny being aware their products have been illegally transported into Mexico.
Both sides of the bench asked tough questions.
"We know that a straw seller is going to sell to someone who is going to use the gun illegally, because if they weren't, they wouldn't use the straw purchaser, and that illegal conduct is going to cause harm, and harm like this that the gun is going to be used in some way to injure people, correct?" said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, summarizing Mexico's legal position.
"Your theory of aiding and abetting liability would have destructive effects on the American economy," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they're going to be misused by some subset of people. They know that to a certainty, that it's going to be pharmaceuticals, cars, what you can name, lots of products. So that's a real concern."
The case comes to the high court during a delicate time for both countries, politically and diplomatically.
The Trump administration has pushed the Mexican government to better patrol its border to block drugs and migrants from entering the United States, while Mexican officials have demanded the U.S. stop military-style firearms from ending up in Mexico – fueling the very drug crisis both sides seek to end.
The public session arguments provide a high-profile American forum for Mexico and its complaints about its northern neighbor, just as the U.S. on Tuesday launched historic tariffs on Mexican imports.
The case could also affect the broader national debate over competing rights contained in the Second Amendment.
A 2005 federal law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was designed to shield gunmakers from civil suits when their products were criminally misused by others. But Mexico is relying on exceptions in the law to pursue its claims.
Families of gun violence, like the parents of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, have since still tried to file such claims, but this will be the first time the Supreme Court will rule on its limits.
Those families reached a $73 million out-of-court settlement with gunmaker Remington.
Supporters of gun control argue a high court ruling against Mexico will make it harder for them to go after U.S. gunmakers when future mass shootings occur, if it can be proved they knowingly and foreseeably broke the law.
Gun rights groups counter that a lawful, heavily regulated industry should not be subject to liability for criminal acts committed by armed gangs in another country.
Known as the "Iron River," anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 American-made guns are illegally trafficked into Mexico each year, according to U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimates.
More than 70% of illegal guns seized in Mexico between 2013-18 were sold in the U.S., according to the Giffords Center for Violence Intervention, named after former Rep. Gabby Giffords, severely wounded in a Tucson, Arizona-area mass shooting in 2011.
Mexico has only one gun store – managed by the country's military – with no private shops, gun shows or commercial manufacture of firearms.
Court records show only 3,215 private gun licenses were issued in the country for low-caliber weapons as of the year 2018, and that illegal possession was the third leading cause of criminal imprisonment.
Mexico is usually among the top three countries globally in annual gun deaths.
Two weeks ago, the Trump administration designated six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.
Much of the oral arguments centered on whether gunmakers could be sued on the "proximate case" standard, when the complex commerce pipeline goes from them to wholesalers, distributors, rogue retail dealers, straw purchasers, smugglers, and then to Mexican cartels themselves.
"You haven't sued any of the retailers that were the most proximate cause of the harm," Justice Amy Coney Barrett told Catherine Stetson, lawyer for Mexico. "And you haven't identified them that I can tell in the complaint."
"All of the things that you asked for in this lawsuit would amount to different kinds of regulatory constraints that I'm thinking Congress didn't want the courts to be the ones to impose," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, when it came to such remedies as gun distribution and marketing practices.
But some on the court suggested the scope of the problem Mexico alleges has real consequences.
"The complaint says that 2% of the guns manufactured in the United States find their way into Mexico," asked Chief Justice John Roberts of the gunmakers' attorney Noel Francisco. "And I know you dispute that, but is there a number where your legal analysis might have to be altered – if it's 10%, if it's 20%? At some point, the proximate cause lines that you draw really can't bear the weight of the ultimate result."
The case is Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (23-1141). A ruling is expected by late June.
The former chairwoman of a little-known agency that hears appeals by fired or disciplined federal government employees has been ordered reinstated to her position by a federal judge.
Cathy Harris, a Democrat who led the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) until she was fired by President Donald Trump on Feb. 10, has been put back in her position after a judge issued a permanent injunction.
Harris had filed an appeal the day after her sacking, arguing that Trump and other federal officials did not have the authority to terminate her and that an email outlining her dismissal showed no reason for cause to terminate her.
She cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States that has limited a president's ability to fire certain agency heads. Some justices on today's 6-3 conservative-majority court have signaled a willingness to rein in or perhaps overturn that ruling.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Rudolph Contreras of the District of Columbia agreed with Harris and wrote that federal law states that members of the MSPB may be removed from office "only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."
Contreras wrote that President Donald Trump informed Harris that her position on the MSPB was "terminated, effective immediately," but provided no reason for Harris’s termination.
Harris was appointed to the board in 2022 by former President Joe Biden for a 7-year term. The merit Systems Protection Board is the primary agency used by civil servants to file complaints within the federal government.
Trump named Henry Kerner, a Republican, as its acting chair upon returning to the White House on Jan. 20.
Contreras further ordered that Harris shall continue to serve as a member of the MSPB until her term expires, unless she is earlier removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office under that statute.
Contreras, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and has served on the court since 2012, initially agreed on Feb. 18 to issue a temporary restraining order for Harris to continue chairing the three-member board until the court decides her case. After a hearing on Monday, the judge issued a permanent injunction extending that previous order.
"Harris has undoubtedly experienced an injury to this independence in her capacity as a member of the MSPB following the President’s attempt to terminate her without cause, and any future attempts would prove just as harmful to that autonomy," the judge wrote.
"In addition, unlike most other federal employees, Harris was duly appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to a position carrying a term of years with specific reasons for her removal."
The judge wrote that injunctive relief in this case is in the public interest, and the balance of the equities tips in Harris’s favor.
"Given that federal law limits the conditions under which Harris’s tenure may be terminated, Supreme Court precedent supports the constitutionality of those conditions, and defendants do not argue that those conditions were met here, the court finds that it is in the public interest to issue injunctive relief," the judge wrote.
Government attorneys had argued that the court didn’t have the authority to reinstate Harris or bar Trump from replacing her on the board.
"The American people elected President Trump to run the executive branch," they wrote in court documents. "And President Trump has determined that keeping (Harris) in office no longer serves the best interests of the American people. That democratically accountable choice should be respected."
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday said her agency "will not be deterred" by leaks after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid was leaked ahead of time — the latest leak to dog the agency.
"We will not be deterred by leaks. If you come to this country and break our laws, we will hunt you down," Noem said on X.
She pointed to what she said was a successful operation that hauled in MS-13 and 18th Street gang members, as well as sex criminals.
Migrant Insider had reported on Sunday that raids were planned on Monday and Tuesday in Northern Virginia, and that the agency had obtained between 75 and 100 warrants.
"Judicial warrants mean ICE can go into your homes, so plan accordingly," the outlet's editor, Pablo Manriquez, said on X. He later posted where they had been allegedly spotted in Northern Virginia.
Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid also reported where ICE activity could be expected and urged followers to what they should do when approached by ICE.
The leaks drew anger from ICE, with one official telling Fox they feared it could result in an ICE agent being killed.
Previous leaks to the news media have included raids in Los Angeles and Aurora, Colorado.
Asked by Fox News Digital if he was hoping to prevent the raid or effect any other outcome, Manriquez told Fox News Digital that he was "just breaking news."
When asked why he thinks there have been so many leaks, Manriquez said he didn’t know the answer, but said, "If people wanna send me a scoop, I’m here for it."
He also rejected concerns that revealing the details of raids could result in agents getting harmed.
"We break immigration news all the time. We follow this topic very closely and haven't seen any reports of ICE being harmed," he said.
Border czar Tom Homan said last month that the administration was closing in on the individual responsible for the leak of the Aurora raid.
Noem had pointed the finger at the FBI.
"The FBI is so corrupt," Noem wrote on X. "We will work with any and every agency to stop leaks and prosecute these crooked deep state agents to the fullest extent of the law."
Homan confirmed last month that "some of the information we’re receiving tends to lead toward the FBI" and promised consequences for whoever is found responsible.
"If anyone leaks anything, people don’t understand that it jeopardizes the lives of our great men and women in law enforcement," Bondi said. "If you leaked it, we will find out who you are, and we will come after you."
Fox News' Bill Melugin and Madison Colombo contributed to this report.
President Donald Trump, the consummate showman, is hyping his primetime address Tuesday to a joint session of Congress.
"TOMORROW NIGHT WILL BE BIG. I WILL TELL IT LIKE IT IS!" the president touted in a social media post on the eve of his first major speech to Congress since the start of his second presidential administration six weeks ago.
Trump has been moving at warp speed since returning to the White House on Jan. 20, and he is expected to use the closely watched address to tout his many accomplishments — some of which have been very controversial.
During his first six weeks back in office, Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders and actions — 82 as of Tuesday, according to a Fox News count. His moves not only fulfilled some of his major campaign trail promises, but also allowed the returning president to flex his executive muscles, quickly putting his stamp on the federal government and making major cuts to the federal workforce, dramatically altering U.S. foreign policy, implementing steep tariffs on the nation's top trading partners and also settling some long-standing grievances.
The president will tout his domestic and international accomplishments, spotlight what the Trump administration has done for the economy, make a renewed push for Congress to pass additional border security funding and detail his plans for peace around the globe, according to details from the White House that were shared first with Fox News.
The theme of the speech is "The Renewal of the American Dream."
"The renewal of the American Dream is underway already. Look at all that President Trump has accomplished in his first month as president. He’s going to highlight some of those accomplishments," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said hours before the address in an appearance on Fox News' "Fox and Friends."
Here are five things to watch for when Trump speaks to Congress, the nation and the world.
Trump will deliver his address hours after his 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico — the nation's neighbors and top trading partners — kicked in.
The speech will likely offer him a platform to explain his controversial tariff moves, which have been widely panned by critics, and to outline how he will combat continued inflation.
Democrats and even some Republicans warn that the tariffs could further boost inflation and raise prices even higher. Additionally, Democrats argue that "Donald Trump has done nothing to lower costs for you."
Inflation, which dogged former President Joe Biden for much of his four years in the White House, was a key issue that boosted Trump back to the presidency.
However, Trump has not talked much about inflation since returning to power, other than to blame Biden for continued high prices. He has acknowledged that consumers could feel "some pain" from his tariffs but has said they are necessary to help boost the nation's manufacturing.
"IF COMPANIES MOVE TO THE UNITED STATES, THERE ARE NO TARIFFS!!!," Trump wrote in a social media post hours ahead of his address.
Arguably the biggest attention-grabber during the opening weeks of Trump's second administration has come from his recently created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Trump named Elon Musk — the world's richest person and the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX — to steer DOGE.
DOGE has swept through federal agencies since Trump was inaugurated, rooting out what the White House argues was billions in wasteful federal spending. It has also taken a meat cleaver to the federal workforce, resulting in a massive and controversial downsizing of employees. The moves by DOGE have triggered a slew of lawsuits in response.
Trump has defended and applauded the moves made by DOGE. While public opinion polling suggests that Americans approve of slashing government waste and shrinking a bloated bureaucracy, a growing number have a negative view of Musk and worry that he has too much power.
The speech gives Trump an opportunity to explain Musk's mission with DOGE.
Trump is expected to detail his plan to end the war in Ukraine, which was triggered three years ago by Russia's invasion of its neighbor.
The speech comes four days after last week's verbal clash in the Oval Office between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump and Vice President JD Vance. The tense meeting and Trump's booting of the Ukrainians out of the White House, which put on hold a mineral resources deal between Washington and Kyiv, was seen as a key step toward reaching a deal to end the bloody war with Moscow.
However, on Tuesday, Zelenskyy said he was ready for peace negotiations after a "regrettable" meeting in the White House.
The speech gives Trump a platform to explain his diplomatic efforts and fend off criticism from Democrats and a handful of Republicans that he is reading out of Russian President Vladimir Putin's playbook.
"He’s going to dive into foreign policy – talk about his intention to end the war in Ukraine," Leavitt said in her "Fox and Friends" interview.
Trump told reporters on Monday that he would talk about the minerals deal in his address.
Border security has long been Trump's signature issue and was a key element in his successful 2024 campaign to win back the presidency, and since returning to the White House, the president has cracked down on illegal immigration.
Trump suspended asylum efforts and launched a mass deportation program, but he and his administration want to speed up efforts, and he'll use his speech to ask Congress for help.
Leavitt highlighted that Trump is "going to make an ask of Congress tonight: We need more border funding to continue these deportations."
Which Donald Trump will show up in front of Congress; will it be a disciplined president who mostly sticks to his teleprompter, or will it be the freewheeling and unpredictable Trump who zigzags between topics and issues in what he likes to call "the weave?"
Will it be a bipartisan Trump who makes appeals for national unity, or a partisan president relitigating past grievances?
And how will lawmakers in the House chamber respond to the address?
Republicans are expected to enthusiastically applaud the politician who single-handedly transformed their party from a conservative bastion to a more populist, America First and MAGA-dominated party.
But what will Democrats do?
Primetime presidential addresses to Congress, once staid events, have become much more rowdy in the past decade and a half, starting with GOP Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouting "You lie!" at then-President Barack Obama during his 2009 address to Congress.
Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
When do the House and Senate vote on President Trump’s "big, beautiful bill?"
Doesn’t that address the debt ceiling?
I don’t blame you if it’s hard to follow. There are really four distinct issues with which Congress is grappling. So let me try to sort it out for you.
The deadline for Congress to avoid a government shutdown is 11:59:59 p.m. ET on Friday, March 14. The House and Senate must figure out how to either re-up all current funding at existing levels for a short time period – or face a shutdown. The other option – which is utterly unrealistic at this point – is for the House and Senate to pass all 12 of the annual spending bills which run the government. The House approved several of these last year, but the Senate hasn’t OK'd any of those bills.
Keep in mind, these are spending measures for fiscal year 2025. They were due Oct. 1, so both Democrats and Republicans have stumbled in this effort.
Congress finally approved a "skinny" stopgap spending package just before Christmas to keep the lights on. That was after adopting another interim measure to avoid a government shutdown last Oct. 1 – the start of fiscal year 2025.
What does all of this mean? Well, for starters, Congress is already running behind funding the government for fiscal year 2026 – which begins this coming Oct. 1. Lawmakers are trapped on a vicious treadmill. That’s because it’s been years since Congress finished its bills on time. Congress didn’t approve the final spending plan for fiscal year 2024 until April of last year, seven months and change after the deadline.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, and President Donald Trump are signaling they’re good with another "year-long" Continuing Resolution, or CR in Congress-speak. That just renews the funding at existing levels through the fall. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., says to expect text of a CR over the weekend.
But some conservatives are opposed to all CRs. Military hawks have yet to weigh in on the consequences of a CR, but those who support the military generally hate them. The reason? The Pentagon consumes about 55% of all money that Congress appropriates to federal departments and agencies annually. So a CR is disproportionately damaging to the armed forces. No department likes to operate under a CR because spending doesn’t go up, but it’s particularly troubling for the military since it enjoys the largest slice of federal dollars doled out by Congress.
Funding the government is completely separate from what House and Senate Republicans prepped in late February: a budget. Yes, a "budget" may sound like the legislative vehicle to run the government, but it’s not. A "budget" is a general, non-binding blueprint which lays out the prospective expenditures for all federal programs. That includes "discretionary" spending – which is what Congress allocates to run the government each year – and "mandatory" spending. That includes dollars which lawmakers green-lighted at one point for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Beneficiaries of those programs receive assistance based on qualifications. A big chunk of the mandatory spending pie includes interest on the debt. Congress doesn’t draw up a bill to alter this spending each year, but it could, and that’s where Republicans are eyeing cuts.
Note that entitlements and mandatory spending comprise about 65% of every dollar spent by the government. Earlier, I wrote about how the Pentagon consumes more than 50% of discretionary spending. That’s a pittance compared to what goes out the door for entitlements. And that’s why it’s such a challenge for Republicans to cut spending – and cut taxes – without blowing an even bigger hole in the already yawning deficit chasm.
But mechanically, here’s what must happen next.
The House and Senate approved different budget frameworks. The House plan went all the way with major spending cuts and a renewal of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. The Senate version was leaner – focused on border security.
Here’s the most important thing I will write in this column.
The only reason Republicans want to develop a budget blueprint is so they can sidestep a Senate filibuster when it comes to advancing their final piece of legislation. It’s about the math. Republicans only have 53 Senate seats. Sixty votes are required to overcome a filibuster. So while Republicans might be able to thread the needle and approve the plan with their narrow majority in the House, moving it through the Senate is tough.
Unless…
They can avoid a filibuster.
That’s why House and Senate Republicans prepared a budget framework. Then they have the opportunity to plop their final bill into the budget reconciliation vehicle and avoid a filibuster. Otherwise, the gig is up.
Still, there are lots of problems for the GOP.
In order to use budget reconciliation, the House and Senate must approve the SAME framework. That hasn’t happened yet. Then, via the budget reconciliation process, the House and Senate must align on the same bill.
There’s a lot of work ahead.
And don’t forget that a government shutdown could sidetrack or delay all of this.
That brings us to the debt ceiling.
First, let’s define the debt ceiling. It is a distinct issue from government funding and the budget frameworks lawmakers are now working on. The debt ceiling is simply a threshold as to how much red ink the federal government can carry at any one time. That figure is now around $36 trillion. A failure to address the debt ceiling could make the stock and bond markets go bonkers.
President Trump tried to get Congressional Republicans to shoehorn an increase or suspension of the debt ceiling into the CR to avoid a government shutdown last fall. The president parachuted this demand into talks to fund the government at the last minute – even though Johnson and others had not heard anything about that request until two days before the deadline.
It’s unclear whether the debt ceiling could wind up in a spending measure or attached to another piece of legislation in the next few months. Some Republicans have never voted for a debt ceiling increase. A successful increase of the debt limit will likely need the assistance of Democrats voting yea on the floor. The numbers won’t work out for House Republicans. Plus, Democrats would be necessary to break a filibuster on the plan, since Republicans only hold 53 Senate seats.
The government technically hit the debt ceiling in January. But via a mechanism the Treasury Department calls "extraordinary measures," the government can delay an actual drop-dead date for a few months. That means the true debt ceiling deadline probably comes in April or May.
So there you have it. Four distinct fiscal issues facing Congress right now: government funding, a "budget" for the "reconciliation" process to avoid a filibuster, President Trump’s policy agenda, and a race to avoid a debt ceiling collision.
None are directly related, but yet all intertwined. The only thing Congress must do is fund the government and wrestle with the debt ceiling. And an imbroglio over those issues could sidetrack efforts to finalize the budget framework and move the president’s policy agenda.
FIRST ON FOX: An effort to recall Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass officially launched its website on Tuesday.
The Democratic mayor faces significant backlash due to her response to the wildfires that burned through the Pacific Palisades in January, including the fact that she was in Ghana despite dangerous fire conditions warnings ahead of time.
If the recall petition meets the threshold of needed signatures — 15% of Los Angeles registered voters — then a special election would be triggered. The group launching the effort includes people directly impacted by the wildfire and other residents frustrated with crime and homelessness issues plaguing the city, according to a source familiar with the campaign. The source added that there is a bipartisan makeup of the people involved in the effort.
The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday that the groundwork was being laid to raise funds for Bass' potential ouster.
"The LAFD's budget was slashed by more than $17 million, stripping critical resources from firefighters as Los Angeles faces escalating wildfire threats and emergency response challenges. At a time when rapid response is more crucial than ever, officials are underfunding the very department responsible for protecting lives and property," the website, RecallBassNow.com, states, along with other reasons for supporting her removal.
Bass recently fired LAFD Chief Kirstin Crowley, who is appealing her termination, and replaced her with Ronnie Villanueva. Crowley previously warned about the potential risks of not having enough funding and staff for the department.
"Acting in the best interests of Los Angeles’ public safety, and for the operations of the Los Angeles Fire Department, I have removed Kristin Crowley as Fire Chief. We know that 1,000 firefighters that could have been on duty on the morning the fires broke out were instead sent home on Chief Crowley’s watch," Bass said in a statement last month.
"Furthermore, a necessary step to an investigation was the President of the Fire Commission telling Chief Crowley to do an after action report on the fires. The Chief refused. These require her removal. The heroism of our firefighters – during the Palisades fire and every single day – is without question. Bringing new leadership to the fire department is what our city needs," she added.
In a recent interview with Fox 11 Los Angeles, Bass said that she was not aware of the potential severity of the fires that burned down thousands of homes and businesses, saying she "felt absolutely terrible not being here."
"It didn’t reach that level to me to say, 'Something terrible could happen, and maybe you shouldn’t have gone on the trip,'" the Democrat told the outlet.
"I think that’s one of the things we need to look at, everything that happened, including that, needs to be examined," she continued, revealing that there are at least two investigations into the city's response to the fires.
The National Weather Service put out the "fire weather warning" on Jan. 3, and the mayor left for Africa the next day. She did not return until Jan. 8, according to Fox 11 LA.
A Change.org petition has over 176,000 signatures asking her to resign as mayor. Still, there has been no indication that Bass would step down voluntarily.
"This recall is nothing more than another extreme right-wing political stunt designed to divide Los Angeles when we need to move forward," Doug Herman, a strategist for Bass, told Fox News Digital in a statement.
The gathering of European leaders took on greater significance after Trump and Zelenksy's flare up in the Oval Office, political editor Chris Mason writes.
President Donald Trump vows to "TELL IT LIKE IT IS" during his primetime address Tuesday to a joint session of Congress.
"TOMORROW NIGHT WILL BE BIG," the president touted in a social media post on the eve of his first major speech to Congress during his second presidential administration.
Trump is expected to use the address — which Fox News was first to report will be themed, "The Renewal of the American Dream" — to showcase his avalanche of activity during his first six weeks in the White House.
"Best Opening Month of any President in history," Trump wrote in a social media post last week, as he touted his accomplishments — some of them controversial — since his Jan. 20 inauguration.
Trump stands at 45% approval and 49% disapproval in one of those polls, according to a Marist College poll for PBS News and NPR. Additionally, a CNN survey, also conducted last week, put the president's approval rating at 48%, with 52% disapproving.
But Trump's approval ratings were above water in other new polls, including one for CBS News that was also in the field in recent days and released over the weekend.
With the president being a polarizing and larger-than-life politician, it is no surprise that the latest polls indicate a massive partisan divide over Trump's performance. The surveys spotlight that the vast majority of Democrats give the president a big thumbs down, while Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the job he is doing in office.
While Americans are split on Trump's performance, the approval ratings for his second term are an improvement from his first tour of duty, when he started 2017 in negative territory and remained underwater throughout his four-year tenure in the White House.
One reason — Trump nowadays enjoys rock solid Republican support.
"He never had support among Democrats in the first administration, but he also had some trouble with Republicans," Daron Shaw, a politics professor and chair at the University of Texas, noted.
Shaw, who serves as a member of the Fox News Decision Team and the Republican partner on the Fox News Poll, emphasized "that’s one acute difference between 2017 and 2025. The party’s completely solidified behind him."
Trump has been moving at warp speed during his opening six weeks back in the White House with a flurry of executive orders and actions. His moves not only fulfilled some of his major campaign trail promises, but also allowed the returning president to flex his executive muscles, quickly put his stamp on the federal government, make major cuts to the federal workforce and also settle some long-standing grievances.
Trump as of Tuesday had signed 82 executive orders since his inauguration, according to a count from Fox News, which far surpasses the rate of any recent presidential predecessors during their first weeks in office.
Those moves include a high-profile crackdown on immigration, slapping steep tariffs on major trading partners, including Canada and Mexico, and freezing foreign aid to Ukraine.
"It’s been a flooding-of-the-zone here every day, often multiple times a day," Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, told Fox News Digital. "We’re just seeing a lot of things happening with little time for the public to digest. The net effect of it all is there’s a sense, on the part of the public, that some things are moving just a little too fast."
While an improvement over his first term, Trump's approval ratings are lower six weeks into his presidency than any of his recent predecessors in the White House.
Shaw noted that neither Trump nor former President Joe Biden "started out with overwhelming approval. This is not like the honeymoon period that we historically expect presidents to enjoy….Historically, the other side gives you a little bit of leeway when you first come in. That just doesn’t happen anymore."
Biden's approval rating hovered in the low- to mid-50s during the first six months of his single term as president, with his disapproval in the upper 30s to the low- to mid-40s.
However, Biden's numbers sank into negative territory in the late summer and autumn of 2021, in the wake of his much-criticized handling of the turbulent U.S. exit from Afghanistan, and amid soaring inflation and a surge of migrants crossing into the U.S. along the nation's southern border with Mexico.
Biden's approval ratings stayed underwater throughout the rest of his presidency.
"He just got crippled and never recovered," Shaw said of Biden.
An average of all the most recent national polls indicates that Trump's approval ratings are just above water. However, Trump has seen his numbers edge down slightly since returning to the White House in late January, when an average of his polls indicated the president's approval rating in the low 50s and his disapproval in the mid 40s.
"The honeymoon is over, and he's actually governing, and that typically does bring numbers down," veteran political scientist Wayne Lesperance, the president of New Hampshire-based New England College, told Fox News Digital. "I expect the numbers to continue to slip as the changes in Washington really do begin to impact people's everyday lives."
Shaw noted that Trump's "rating on the economy is about minus four, which is 25 points better than Biden. He’s above water on immigration. His best issue right now is crime. He’s plus ten on crime."
However, Shaw emphasized that inflation, the issue that helped propel Trump back into the White House, remains critical to the president's political fortunes.
"If prices remain high, he’s going to have trouble," Shaw warned.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., announced Monday in a post on X that he was nominating President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
"Today I will nominate @realDonaldTrump for the Nobel Peace Prize. No one deserves it more," Issa declared in the tweet.
Fox News Digital reached out to Issa's office on Tuesday to request a comment from the congressman regarding why he decided to nominate the president for the award.
"Not since Ronald Reagan has an American president better represented the national resolve of peace through strength or the fundamental case for a world without war," Issa said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
"Remarkably, it was the 2024 election of Donald Trump – more than 10 weeks before his swearing in – that tangibly kickstarted the cause of peace in numerous regions of the world, and we are already seeing the benefits. I hope the Committee takes note of these extraordinary times and recognizes that President Trump ideally represents what the Nobel Peace Prize should stand for," the lawmaker added.
President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, less than a year into his first term in office.
Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize last year.
"Donald Trump was instrumental in facilitating the first new peace agreements in the Middle East in almost 30 years," the congresswoman said, according to a January 2024 press release.
Later in 2024, Tenney nominated Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for the prize.
She asserted that their "valiant work to combat terrorism and stand up to Islamist regimes has directly led to greater regional and global stability," according to a December 2024 press release.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called his meeting at the White House last week "regrettable" on Tuesday and said he is ready to pursue peace under President Donald Trump's leadership.
Zelenskyy made the concession in a lengthy statement posted to social media on Tuesday, saying Ukraine "is ready to come to the negotiating table." He added that last week's meeting "did not go the way it was supposed to be," and he said "it is time to make things right."
"My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts," Zelenskyy wrote.
"We are ready to work fast to end the war, and the first stages could be the release of prisoners and truce in the sky — ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy and other civilian infrastructure — and truce in the sea immediately, if Russia will do the same. Then we want to move very fast through all next stages and to work with the US to agree a strong final deal," he added.
"We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence. And we remember the moment when things changed when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins. We are grateful for this," the statement continued.
"Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be. It is regrettable that it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive. Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it at any time and in any convenient format. We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively," Zelenskyy concluded.
Zelenskyy's statement comes after White House national security advisor Mike Waltz called Zelenskyy's clash with Trump "ridiculous" in a Monday appearance on Fox News. Waltz said Trump's White House needed to hear that Zelenskyy "has regret for what happened" and that he is now "ready to engage in peace talks."
The drawdown of hostilities referenced in Zelenskyy's statement mirrors that proposed by European leaders in a meeting with Zelenskyy on Sunday.
U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron suggested a freeze on strikes from the air, sea and on energy infrastructure for 30 days in Ukraine. Macron told French media the window could be used to negotiate a wider peace deal.
Trump's White House has yet to weigh in on the proposal.
Zelenskyy's statement came less than a day after Trump paused all aid to Ukraine on Monday night. A senior Trump administration official also told Fox News that military aid will remain on hold until Ukrainian leaders show a commitment to good faith peace negotiations.
"This is not permanent termination of aid, it's a pause," the official emphasized. "The orders are going out right now."
Vice President JD Vance visited Capitol Hill to offer a message of support for his "friend," Elbridge "Bridge" Colby, President Donald Trump's contentious nominee for the Pentagon’s No. 3 spot, undersecretary of defense for policy.
"In so many ways, Bridge predicted what we would be talking about four years down the road, five years down the road, 10 years down the road. He saw around corners that very few other people were seeing around," Vance said in opening remarks Tuesday at Colby's confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"If you look at his long career in defense policy, he has said things that, you know, frankly, alienated Democrats and Republicans. He's also said things that I think both Democrats and Republicans would agree with," Vance continued.
The vice president praised Colby as a "good man" and an "honest man."
"You need people who are going to tell you the truth. We're going to look you in the eye who are going to disagree," Vance said.
The vice president’s presence demonstrates how seriously the White House is looking to shore up support for Colby, whose restraint-minded views have given pause to some more hawkish senators.
It is the second confirmation hearing Vance has attended after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who the vice president also has a close relationship with.
Colby said in his own opening remarks, "There is a real risk of major war, and we cannot afford to lose one. I recognize these realities in my bones. It is my great hope that we can get through the coming years peacefully, with strength in ways that put us and our alliances on a stronger and more sustainable footing."
"I'm willing and ready to engage with those who disagree with me and adapt my views based on persuasive arguments and the fact is that I value our alliances deeply, even as I think they must be adapted, and that I love our great country, and will put its interests first and foremost."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., questioned Colby on his previously stated position, "America has a strong interest in defending Taiwan, but Americans can survive without it."
"Your views on Taiwan’s importance to the United States seems to have softened considerably," Wicker told Colby.
Colby disputed that point, arguing he had been shooting a warning flare that the U.S.’ "military balance has declined" with regard to China.
"What I have been trying to shoot a signal flare over is that it is vital for us to focus and enable our own forces for an effective and reasonable defense of Taiwan and for the Taiwanese, as well as the Japanese to do more," said Colby.
"So my position in terms of the value of Taiwan is consistent. But what I'm very fearful of, Senator, and I think this is agreed across administrations of both parties, is that, you know, the military balance has declined. So I'm trying to avoid a situation of which, because we are not adequately prepared."
Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the committee, pressed Colby on his views on Russia and Ukraine.
"In November 2023, you said, ‘The invasion of Ukraine is an evil act by the Russians, and I morally support the Ukrainian defense.’ Do you still agree with that statement?" asked Reed, D-R.I.
"I think I stand by my record, but at this point, I think, there's a very delicate diplomatic process going on where the president is rightfully trying to resuscitate the peace process. And I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to weigh in," said Colby.
Colby's confirmation process has rankled Iran hawks, and at least Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has privately expressed skepticism. Wicker previously told Roll Call that Colby’s nomination poses "a concern to a number of senators."
Colby, who worked at the Pentagon during Trump’s first term and was a lead author on the 2018 U.S. National Security Strategy, has long asserted the U.S. should limit its resources in the Middle East and refocus on China as the bigger threat.
Colby said during the hearing that Iran was an "existential" threat to the U.S. and he present the White House with military options if diplomacy fails at preventing Iran with a nuclear weapon.
Cotton pressed Colby on whether a nuclear-armed Iran poses an "existential danger to us … not just a ‘severe danger,’ as you said in response to Sen. Gillibrand or a ‘significant one’ as you said in your written answers,"
"Yes, a nuclear-armed Iran — especially, Senator, given that … we know they’ve worked on ICBM-range capabilities and other capabilities that would pose an existential danger to the United States," Colby said.
"I believe we should not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon and, if confirmed, I would believe it’s my responsibility to provide credible good military options," he added later on.
Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, D-N.Y., pressed Colby on whether Russia was an "adversary" or an "ally" to the U.S.
"Russia presents a significant military threat to Europe, and there are significant military threats to the homeland as well," said Colby. "We can… diminish, you know, the potential for direct confrontation with Russia in the same way with China."
Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett was ripped by conservatives on social media this week after claiming President Donald Trump is "occupying the White House" and is an "enemy to the United States."
"Unfortunately, we have someone that is occupying the White House, and as far as I’m concerned, he is an enemy to the United States," Crockett said on MSNBC on Sunday. "I don’t know what it’s going to take to get people to wake up."
The Texas congresswoman also suggested that Trump is a "dictator" in her cable news appearance.
Conservatives on social media quickly pushed back against Crockett.
"Almost sounds like this ‘defender of democracy’ would support an insurrection," Fox News host Laura Ingraham posted on X.
"When are we going to hold members of Congress accountable for their words and actions?" retired professor Carol Swain posted on X.
"Dangerous election denier stuff here," former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., posted on X.
"By all means, continue this leaderless, tired charade and keep losing elections," Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., posted on X.
"Yeah, she's running in 2028," Red State writer Bonchie posted on X.
"Jasmine Crockett labeled Trump as an enemy of America while simultaneously saying she doesn’t understand anything that’s going on," conservative influencer account Gunther Eagleman posted on X. "She’s really this dumb."
"The unquestioned leader of the Democratic Party," CNN commentator Scott Jennings posted on X. "Keep going!"
Fox News Digital reached out to Crockett’s office for comment but did not immediately hear back.
Crockett has become one of the most prominent faces of the Democratic Party, opposing Trump’s agenda and the DOGE efforts of Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
Crockett recently sparked a frenzy on social media when she told a reporter outside the U.S. Capitol that if she could tell Musk one thing it would be, "F--- off."
