When President Donald Trump announced ‘TrumpRx’ in early February, a weight I’ve carried my entire adult life suddenly lifted from my shoulders. The website offers life-saving medications at much lower prices than normal, based on the president’s promise to give Americans the same prescription drug costs as patients in other developed countries. I can personally attest that such equal treatment — a policy known as ‘most favored nation’ pricing — is urgently needed for people who struggle with chronic disease.

I’ve had debilitating asthma since I was a child. I’ve been able to manage it thanks to a prescription drug which blocks lung inflammation and keeps my airways open. The few times I’ve gone off the medication, I’ve ended up in the emergency room, unable to breathe. That nearly happened four years ago in what I thought was the worst possible place — on the other side of the world, unable to contact my doctors or go to my pharmacy.

My family and I were in Italy, on a trip to honor my mother. She had recently been diagnosed with cancer and my brother and I scheduled the trip in between her chemo treatments, when she would be well enough to travel. She had always wanted to go there with us. But in our rush to get two families and three little kids packed, I accidentally grabbed a nearly empty inhaler.

I realized my mistake a few days into the trip, when I looked at the inhaler and saw that I only had two doses left. I wasn’t just worried about my health, though, of course, that was paramount. I worried how I’d afford the drug if I even found it in Italy.

I’ve organized my professional life around access to insurance that covers my medication, given its longstanding retail price $600 for a month’s supply. For 25 years, I’ve grappled with denied coverage letters, premium tier prescription charts and the constant worry that we would have to cut back on necessities to get my medication. At the time, in Italy, I was already paying a few hundred dollars a month for the drug — a lot, but a bargain compared to its normal price.

But I had no choice. I had to get my medication. After a few minutes of searching, I found an Italian pharmacy across town. I walked there immediately, trying to control my racing thoughts of what might happen. I knew that if I couldn’t get the drug, I couldn’t get safely back to the U.S.

Fifteen minutes later, in tears I walked out, drug in hand. It cost me only 30 euros or about $35.

At first, I was both relieved and grateful. But by the end of the day, I was scratching my head. Why was it $600 in the U.S. while Italians could get it for next to nothing? In the days that followed, I discovered that the answer is beyond complicated.

It’s affected by everything from a lack of price transparency to the meddling of middlemen who jack up costs. It’s also true that foreign countries have been negotiating the prices of prescription drugs for decades, forcing Americans to cover the enormous cost of pharmaceutical development while they pay far below market prices.

Whatever the reason, the system doesn’t work for Americans. Brand name prescription prices in the U.S. are more than four times higher than prices in other wealthy countries. As many as 18 million Americans have struggled to buy the prescriptions they need in recent years.

I’m now using a generic version of the drug that costs significantly less. But that doesn’t change the fact that I, like many other Americans with chronic disease, have paid through the nose for decades on end, only to find the medication I needed in Italy for what seemed like pennies.

I wasn’t just worried about my health, though, of course, that was paramount. I worried how I’d afford the drug if I even found it in Italy.

Trump is fighting to fix this broken system. Before launching TrumpRx, he reached 16 deals with pharmaceutical companies to charge most-favored-nation prices. As a lifelong conservative, I’m typically uncomfortable with this kind of government intervention in the market. But other countries have already intervened and people like me have paid the price.

If pharmaceutical companies need the extra money, they should take it up with other countries that negotiated them down first. Then they could recoup their costs on the backs of others, not simply by charging more in the U.S. Bottom line, there’s no good reason why 340 million Americans should pay so much more than hundreds of millions of people who live in Europe and Asia.

I will always be grateful that my medication was so affordable in Italy back in 2022. It may very well have saved my life. But I’m even more grateful that President Trump is finally lowering prices for every American here at home.

Ex-Victoria’s Secret mogul Les Wexner’s lawyer was caught on a hot mic jokingly threatening to ‘kill’ him if he continued giving long answers to questions during his deposition on Jeffrey Epstein by the House Oversight Committee.

The moment was caught after the committee released its full, nearly five-hour deposition of 88-year-old Wexner as part of its ongoing probe into Jeffrey Epstein’s network.

Several hours into the deposition, while Wexner was giving a particularly long-winded answer, Wexner’s attorney leaned over to him and whispered in his ear, ‘I’m going to f—ing kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, okay?’

Both Wexner and his attorney laughed after this statement, indicating Wexner understood it as a joke. The lawyer proceeded to instruct Wexner to ‘answer the question,’ laughing more.

Shortly before this exchange, the attorney had urged Wexner to ‘answer the question,’ saying, ‘I’m sure we all appreciate the stories, we’re just trying to answer questions that they actually want answered,’ referring to the House committee.

The Oversight Committee heard from Wexner, a billionaire fashion mogul best known for his work in revolutionizing the Victoria’s Secret store chain, about his involvement with Epstein, whom Wexner characterized as strictly a business associate rather than a close friend.

Despite being named a co-conspirator in a recently uncovered FBI document from 2019, Wexner said that he has never been directly contacted by either the FBI or the Department of Justice. He maintained his total innocence during the deposition, saying, ‘I was naïve, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein. He was a con man. And while I was conned, I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. I completely and irrevocably cut ties with Epstein nearly twenty years ago when I learned that he was an abuser, a crook, and a liar.’

The committee stated it was releasing the full deposition with ‘no spin,’ saying, ‘The American people deserve to see the testimony for themselves—transparency matters.’

Wexner is the founder of L Brands, formerly called The Limited, through which he acquired well-known companies Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, Express, and Abercrombie & Fitch, among others. He is no longer associated with Victoria’s Secret. He was one of Epstein’s first major clients as a financial advisor, with Epstein being granted power of attorney over Wexner’s vast wealth. Wexner also sold his Manhattan townhouse to Epstein, which was later discovered to be one of the locations where federal authorities accused Epstein of abusing young women and girls under 18.

Despite this, Wexner stated that he always kept his relationship with Epstein as strictly professional, saying, ‘I don’t think I ever went to lunch, or dinner, a movie or had a cup of coffee with Jeffrey,’ adding, ‘My focus was on my business and on community.’

Wexner said he severed ties with Epstein in 2007 after learning of an investigation and discovering that Epstein had misappropriated funds from him and his family. He said a substantial amount of the money was returned. 

Wexner also testified that he was not aware of Epstein ever staying at a guesthouse on his New Albany, Ohio, estate, where Maria Farmer is said to have been abused by Epstein and associate Ghislaine Maxwell. He maintained that he only had knowledge of Epstein staying at a nearby neighbor’s residence. Pressed on whether he denies Farmer’s testimony that she was abused on his property, he stated, ‘I never met her, didn’t know she was here, didn’t know she was abused.’

He categorically denied any knowledge of either Epstein or Maxwell arranging women for prominent individuals. He also categorically denied ever having a sexual encounter with anyone introduced by Maxwell and Epstein or having any sexual relationship with Epstein himself.

He further denied any sexual contact or knowledge of another prominent Epstein victim, Virginia Giuffre.

Wexner was also asked about his knowledge of Epstein and President Donald Trump’s relationship. He said that he does not think they were friends, but said Epstein ‘held him out as a friend.’

Committee members also questioned Wexner on a note he wrote in a birthday book to Epstein in which he drew breasts with the caption, ‘Dear Jeffrey, I wanted to get you what you want, so here it is … Your friend, Leslie.’

Wexner confirmed that he wrote the note but dismissed it, saying, ‘He was a bachelor, so I drew a pair of boobs as kind of a joke, offhandedly, I would say.’

Wexner is the fourth person appearing before the House Oversight Committee in its Epstein probe.

Fox News Digital’s Liz Elkind contributed to this report.

The Pentagon is deploying the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East, creating a rare two-carrier presence in the region as tensions with Iran rise and questions swirl about possible U.S. military action.

The Ford will reinforce the USS Abraham Lincoln already operating in theater, significantly expanding American airpower at a moment of heightened regional uncertainty.

While officials have not announced imminent action, the dual-carrier presence increases the Pentagon’s flexibility — from deterrence patrols to sustained strike operations — should diplomacy falter.

The largest aircraft carrier in the world

The Gerald R. Ford is the largest and most advanced aircraft carrier ever built.

Commissioned in 2017, the nuclear-powered warship stretches more than 1,100 feet and displaces more than 100,000 tons of water. It serves as a floating air base that can operate in international waters without relying on host-nation approval — a key advantage in politically sensitive theaters.

Powered by two nuclear reactors, the ship has virtually unlimited range and endurance and is designed to serve for decades as the backbone of U.S. naval power projection.

How much airpower does it carry?

A typical air wing aboard the Ford includes roughly 75 aircraft, though the exact mix depends on mission requirements.

Those aircraft can include F/A-18 Super Hornets, stealth F-35C Joint Strike Fighters, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets, E-2D Hawkeye early warning aircraft and MH-60 helicopters.

In a potential conflict with Iran, several of those platforms would be central. 

The F-35C is designed to penetrate contested airspace and carry out precision strikes against heavily defended targets. The Growler specializes in jamming enemy radar and communications — a critical capability against Iran’s layered air defense systems. 

The E-2D extends surveillance hundreds of miles, helping coordinate air and missile defense.

Together, they give commanders options ranging from deterrence patrols to sustained strike operations.

Built for higher combat tempo

What separates the Ford from earlier carriers is its ability to generate more sorties over time.

Instead of traditional steam catapults, it uses an electromagnetic aircraft launch system, or EMALS, allowing aircraft to launch more smoothly and at a faster pace. The system is designed to reduce stress on jets and increase operational tempo.

The ship also features advanced arresting gear and a redesigned flight deck that allows more aircraft to be staged and cycled efficiently.

In a high-intensity scenario — particularly one involving missile launches or rapid escalation — the ability to launch and recover aircraft quickly can be decisive.

How it compares to the Lincoln

While both the Ford and the Abraham Lincoln are 100,000-ton, nuclear-powered supercarriers capable of carrying roughly 60 aircraft to 75 aircraft, they represent different generations of naval design.

The Lincoln is a Nimitz-class carrier commissioned in 1989 and part of a fleet that has supported decades of operations in the Middle East. The Ford is the Navy’s next-generation carrier and the lead ship of its class.

The key difference is efficiency and output. 

The Ford was built to generate a higher sustained sortie rate using its electromagnetic launch system, along with a redesigned flight deck and upgraded power systems. In practical terms, both ships bring substantial strike capability — but the Ford is designed to launch and recover aircraft faster over extended operations, giving commanders greater flexibility if tensions escalate.

How it defends itself

The Ford does not sail alone. It operates as the centerpiece of a carrier strike group that typically includes guided-missile destroyers, cruisers and attack submarines.

Those escort ships provide layered air and missile defense, anti-submarine protection and additional strike capability.

The carrier itself carries defensive systems including Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles, Rolling Airframe Missiles and the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System — designed to intercept incoming threats at close range.

That defensive posture is especially relevant in the Middle East.

Iran has invested heavily in anti-ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, armed drones, naval mines and fast-attack craft operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Gulf region presents a dense and complex threat environment, even for advanced U.S. warships.

Why two carriers matter

With both the Ford and the Lincoln in theater, commanders gain more than just added firepower. Two carriers allow the U.S. to sustain a higher tempo of operations, distribute aircraft across multiple areas, or maintain continuous presence if one ship needs to reposition or resupply.

Dual-carrier deployments are relatively uncommon and typically coincide with periods of heightened regional tension.

The timing — as negotiations with Tehran continue — underscores the strategic message. Carriers are often deployed not only to fight wars, but to prevent them.

By positioning both ships in the region, Washington is signaling that if diplomacy falters, military options will already be in place.

A South Korean court sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to life in prison Thursday for leading an insurrection after declaring martial law in December 2024.

Yoon was found guilty of abuse of authority and masterminding the insurrection.

Yoon, 65, denied the charges and argued that he had presidential authority to declare martial law and that his action was aimed at sounding the alarm over opposition parties’ obstruction of government.

Prosecutors said in January that Yoon’s ‘unconstitutional and illegal emergency martial law undermined the function of the National Assembly and the Election Commission … actually destroying the liberal democratic constitutional order.’

Yoon’s attempt to impose martial law lasted roughly six hours, sparking mass street protests before parliament quickly voted it down.

Under South Korean law, masterminding an insurrection carries a maximum sentence of death or life imprisonment. Prosecutors hadsought the death penalty.

While courts last imposed a death sentence in 2016, South Korea has not carried out an execution since 1997.

Yoon is expected to appeal the ruling.

Yoon faces eight ongoing trial proceedings and was already given a five-year prison sentence last month in a separate case on charges including obstructing authorities’ attempts to arrest him following his martial law declaration. He has appealed that sentence.

Reuters contributed to this report.

A Washington, D.C., grandmother who lost her grandson to gun violence delivered a fiery defense of President Donald Trump during a Black History Month celebration Wednesday at the White House.

Forlesia Cook’s grandson, Marty William McMillan Jr., was killed in 2017 at the age of 22. Cook has since spoken publicly about the loss, including testifying before Congress about his killing.

After Trump invited Cook to say a few words at the event, she used the moment to defend him, urging critics to ‘get off the man’s back.’

‘I love him, I don’t want to hear nothing you got to say about that racist stuff,’ she said. ‘And don’t be looking at me on the news, hating on me because I’m standing up for somebody that deserves to be standing for.’

Cook’s voice grew louder as she continued.

‘Get off the man’s back,’ she said. ‘Let him do his job. He’s doing the right thing. Back up off him.’

She ended her remarks by declaring, ‘And grandma said it.’

The East Room crowd erupted in applause and cheers.

Trump appeared to welcome the praise, joking that she should run for public office.

‘Wow, that’s pretty good,’ Trump said. ‘When is she running for office? Forlesia, when are you running for office? You have my endorsement.’

Cook also thanked Trump for calling the National Guard to the capital and praised his tough-on-crime approach.

‘One thing I like about him, he keeps it real, just like grandma,’ she said. ‘I appreciate that because I can trust him.’

The White House event marked the annual celebration of Black History Month.

Trump also addressed the death of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, saying, ‘I wanted to begin by expressing a sadness at the passing of a person who was, I knew very well, Jesse was a piece of work. He was a piece of work, but he was a good man.’

‘I just want to pay my highest respects to Reverend Jesse Jackson,’ Trump added, calling him ‘a real hero’ and saying, ‘he really was special, with lots of personality, grit and street smarts.’

The president also announced that former Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson would receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Fox News Digital’s Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report.

: This was the kind of prison break officials say could have changed the region, and perhaps even the world, overnight.

Nearly 6,000 ISIS detainees, described by a senior U.S. intelligence official as ‘the worst of the worst,’ were being held in northern Syria as clashes and instability threatened the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, the guards responsible for keeping the militants locked away and preventing a feared ISIS resurgence. U.S. officials believed that if the prisons collapsed in the chaos, the consequences would be immediate.

‘If these 6,000 or so got out and returned to the battlefield, that would basically be the instant reconstitution of ISIS,’ the senior intelligence official told Fox News Digital.

In an exclusive interview, the official walked Fox News Digital step by step through the behind-the-scenes operation that moved thousands of ISIS detainees out of Syria and into Iraqi custody, describing a multi-agency scramble that unfolded over weeks, with intelligence warnings, rapid diplomacy and a swift military lift.

The risk, the official explained, had been building for months. In late October, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard began to assess that Syria’s transition could tip into disorder and create the conditions for a catastrophic jailbreak.

The ODNI sent the official to Syria and Iraq at that time to begin early discussions with both the SDF and the Iraqi government about how to remove what the official repeatedly described as the most dangerous detainees before events overtook them.

Those fears sharpened in early January as fighting erupted in Aleppo and began spreading eastward. Time was running out to prevent catastrophe. ‘We saw this severe crisis situation,’ the official said.

According to the source, the ODNI oversaw daily coordination calls across agencies as the situation escalated. The official said Secretary of State Marco Rubio was ‘managing the day to day’ on policy considerations, while the ODNI drove a working group that kept CENTCOM, diplomats and intelligence officials aligned on the urgent question: how to keep nearly 6,000 ISIS fighters from slipping into the fog of war.

The Iraqi government, the official said, understood the stakes. Baghdad had its own reasons to move quickly, fearing that if thousands of detainees escaped, they would spill across the border and revive a threat Iraq still remembers in visceral terms.

The official described Iraq’s motivation bluntly: leaders recognized that a massive breakout could force Iraq back into a ‘2014 ISIS is on our border situation once more.’

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the official said, played a pivotal role in smoothing the diplomatic runway for what would become a major logistical undertaking.

Then came the physical lift. The official credited CENTCOM’s surge of resources to make the plan real on the ground, saying that ‘moving in helicopters’ and other assets enabled detainees to be removed in a compressed timeframe.

‘Thanks to the efforts… moving in helicopters, moving in more resources, and then just logistically making this happen, we were able to get these nearly 6000 out in the course of just a few weeks,’ the official said.

The SDF, he said, had been securing the prisons, but its attention was strained by fighting elsewhere, fueling U.S. fears that a single breach could spiral into a mass escape. Ultimately, detainees were transported into Iraq, where they are now held at a facility near Baghdad International Airport under Iraqi authority.

The next phase, the official said, is focused on identification and accountability. FBI teams are in Iraq enrolling detainees biometrically, the official said, while U.S. and Iraqi officials examine what intelligence can be declassified and used in prosecutions.

‘What they were asking us for, basically, is giving them as much intelligence and information that we have on these individuals,’ the official said. ‘So right now, the priority is on biometrically identifying these individuals.’

The official said the State Department is also pushing countries of origin to take responsibility for their citizens held among the detainees.

‘State Department is doing outreach right now and encouraging all these different countries to come and pick up their fighters,’ he said.

While the transfer focused strictly on ISIS fighters, the senior intelligence official said families held in camps such as al-Hol were not part of the operation, leaving a major unresolved security and humanitarian challenge.

The camps themselves were under separate arrangements, the official said, and responsibility shifted as control on the ground evolved. 

According to the official, the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian government reached an understanding that Damascus would take over the al-Hol camp, which holds thousands of ISIS-affiliated women and children.

‘As you can see from social media, the al-Hol camp is pretty much being emptied out,’ the official said, adding that it ‘appears the Syrian government has decided to let them go free,’ a scenario the official described as deeply troubling for regional security. ‘That is very concerning.’

The fate of the families has long been viewed by counterterrorism officials as one of the most complicated, unresolved elements of the ISIS detention system. Many of the children have grown up in camps after ISIS lost territorial control, and some are now approaching fighting age, raising fears about future radicalization and recruitment.

For now, the official said, intelligence agencies are closely tracking developments after a rapid operation that, in their view, prevented thousands of experienced ISIS militants from reentering the battlefield at once and potentially reigniting the group’s fighting force. 

‘This is a rare good news story coming out of Syria,’ the official concluded.

The House Oversight Committee is hearing from a billionaire on Wednesday who was named one of Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators by a 2019 FBI document.

Les Wexner is the latest person to be deposed in the House’s investigation into the federal government’s handling of Epstein’s case. 

Unlike most previous depositions, however, committee staff and potentially some lawmakers are traveling to Ohio on Wednesday morning to depose Wexner in his home state.

A spokesperson for Wexner declined to comment on the deposition and on whether he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right to avoid answering questions.

But if he cooperates with the committee’s questioning, Wexner’s insight is likely to be key to unlocking information on just how Epstein obtained his vast wealth before dying by suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019.

The 88-year-old businessman is the founder of L Brands, formerly called The Limited, through which he acquired well-known companies Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, Express, and Abercrombie & Fitch, among others.

He was also one of Epstein’s first major clients as a financial advisor, with Epstein being granted power of attorney over Wexner’s vast wealth.

Wexner also sold his Manhattan townhouse to Epstein, which was later discovered to be one of the locations where federal authorities accused Epstein of abusing young women and girls under 18.

But Wexner has never been criminally accused nor charged in relation to the late pedophile’s crimes.

A letter from Wexner to his Wexner Foundation charity dated Aug. 7, 2019, said he ended his relationship with Epstein sometime after the first federal investigation into his crimes emerged nearly 20 years ago.

Wexner also accused Epstein of misusing his vast wealth.

‘As the allegations against Mr. Epstein in Florida were emerging, he vehemently denied them. But by early fall 2007, it was agreed that he should step back from the management of our personal finances. In that process, we discovered that he had misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family,’ read the letter, obtained by Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

‘This was, frankly, a tremendous shock, even though it clearly pales in comparison to the unthinkable allegations against him now. With his credibility and our trust in him destroyed, we immediately severed ties with him. We were able to recover some of the funds.’

Wexner is the fourth person appearing before the House Oversight Committee in its Epstein probe.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., previously oversaw the panel through the depositions of former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr, ex-Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, who was the U.S. attorney in Florida who signed off on Epstein’s infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, and convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

Maxwell’s deposition lasted less than an hour after she invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions unless she was granted clemency by President Donald Trump.

Arguing that noncitizens could be on state voter rolls — something that is illegal under federal law — the Trump administration is escalating its campaign to obtain registration data ahead of the 2026 midterms, despite a string of federal court setbacks.

The strategy has unfolded on three fronts: cooperation from Republican-led states willing to share voter data, lawsuits against roughly two dozen blue and purple states that have refused, and a legislative push in Congress to tighten national voting requirements. Federal judges have so far rebuffed the administration’s legal demands, but the Justice Department is widening its campaign as Election Day draws near. 

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative group Advancing American Freedom, said voter rolls are a central focus ahead of the midterms because of the Trump administration’s concerns that noncitizens are on them and could end up voting. It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.

‘The problem is, blue states, like Oregon, they have no interest in that kind of verification, so they’re not actually doing what they ought to be doing, which is running data-based comparisons with the [Department of Homeland Security],’ von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital.

The DOJ has made sweeping demands for not just publicly available voter roll data, but also sensitive information, such as voters’ partial Social Security numbers and dates of birth.

The latest state to successfully fight the DOJ’s request is Michigan, where Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said the federal government was not entitled to its 7 million voters’ personal information beyond what was already available.

The DOJ cited three federal laws, the Civil Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, that it said gave the Trump administration the right to the confidential information. Judge Hala Jarbou disagreed.

‘The Court concludes that (1) HAVA does not require the disclosure of any records, (2) the NVRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not records concerning the implementation of list maintenance procedures, and (3) the CRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not documents that come into the possession of election officials,’ Jarbou, a Trump appointee wrote.

Federal judges in Oregon and California have also thrown out the DOJ’s lawsuits. The DOJ could appeal the decisions. A department spokesperson declined to comment for this story.

But the DOJ has seen cooperation from red states, such as Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, who were among several to reach a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ that led the states to hand over the information the department wanted.

In another maneuver, Attorney General Pam Bondi pressured Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, to provide the Midwest battleground’s voter rolls, saying in a warning letter that such action would help ease unrest in the state that stemmed from a federal immigration crackdown there. 

Democrats were enraged by the letter and have argued the Trump administration is infringing on states’ rights to conduct their own elections.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Ct., argued the letter was a ‘pretext for Trump to take over elections in swing states,’ while a state lawyer described the letter as a ‘ransom note.’ The DOJ, at the time, told Fox News Digital Democrats were ‘shamelessly lying’ about the letter’s purpose. Bondi said that handing over the voter rolls was among several ‘simple steps’ Minnesota could take to ‘bring back law and order.’ A lawsuit is still pending in Minnesota over the voter rolls.

In Congress, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act would make it a national requirement that people registering to vote provide in-person proof of citizenship, such as birth certificates or passports. The legislation also includes a new national requirement for photo ID at the polls.

The bill has widespread Republican support. The House passed the SAVE Act last week, and even moderate Republican senators like Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., have said they are on board with it. The bill is still stalled in the Senate, however, because it needs 60 votes to pass, meaning several Democrats would need to support it. Currently, none do. 

Von Spakovsky noted that the SAVE Act had a key provision that would allow private citizens to bring lawsuits over it.

‘There’s no question in my mind that if the Save Act gets passed, there are election officials in blue states that will be reluctant to or may refuse to enforce the proof of citizenship requirement,’ von Spakovsky said. ‘The Save Act provides a private right of action, so that means that citizens in Oregon could sue those election officials if they’re refusing to comply with the Save Act.’

He said the private right of action provision would also provide recourse for citizens if Democrats take over the DOJ in the next administration and refuse to enforce the SAVE Act.

Trump has repeatedly argued that noncitizen voting poses a threat to election integrity and has pressed Republican lawmakers to tighten federal requirements. Last week, he floated attempting to impose identification requirements through executive order if Congress does not act.

‘This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW!’ Trump wrote on Truth Social. ‘If we can’t get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.’

A much broader bill called the Make Elections Great Again Act is still moving through the House and faces a steeper uphill climb to passage.

In addition to national documented proof of citizenship requirement, the MEGA Act would end universal mail voting, eliminate ranked-choice voting and ban ballots postmarked by Election Day from being accepted after that day, which would outlaw postmark rules in 14 states and Washington, D.C.

The U.S. is preparing to expand the deployment of advanced missile systems in the northern Philippines, placing additional long-range strike capability within range of key Chinese military assets and reinforcing Washington’s effort to counter Beijing’s growing assertiveness across the Indo-Pacific.

U.S. and Philippine officials announced plans to increase deployments of ‘cutting-edge missile and unmanned systems’ to the treaty ally, as both governments condemned what they described as China’s ‘illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive activities’ in the South China Sea.

The move comes as confrontations between Chinese and Philippine vessels have intensified in disputed waters and as Beijing continues to pressure Taiwan, raising the stakes across the region’s most sensitive flashpoints.

It builds on the deployment of the U.S. Army’s Typhon missile system in northern Luzon, Philippines, a ground-based launcher capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles that can travel more than 1,000 miles.

Tomahawks can travel more than 1,000 miles — a range that, from northern Luzon, Philippines, places portions of southern China and major People’s Liberation Army (PLA) facilities within reach. The positioning also allows the U.S. and Philippine militaries to cover large swaths of the South China Sea and key maritime corridors connecting it to the broader Pacific.

The U.S. first deployed the Typhon system to Luzon, Philippines, in April 2024. An anti-ship missile launcher known as the Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System was deployed in 2025 to Batan Island in the northernmost Philippine province of Batanes.

That island faces the Bashi Channel, a strategic waterway just south of Taiwan that serves as a critical transit route for commercial shipping and military vessels moving between the South China Sea and the Western Pacific. Control of that channel would be vital in any potential Taiwan contingency.

Beijing has urged Manila to withdraw the U.S. systems from its territory, but officials under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. have rejected those demands.

‘China has consistently stated its firm opposition to the United States’ deployment of advanced weapons systems in the Philippines. The introduction of strategic and offensive weapons that heighten regional tensions, fuel geopolitical confrontation, and risk triggering an arms race is extremely dangerous. Such actions are irresponsible to the people of the Philippines, to Southeast Asian nations, and to regional security as a whole,’ Chinese embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu told Fox News Digital.  ‘The United States is not a party to disputes in the South China Sea and has no standing to intervene in maritime issues between China and the Philippines.’

‘The Taiwan question lies at the very heart of China’s core interests. China’s determination to defend its national sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity is unwavering. Any provocation that crosses red lines on Taiwan will be met with resolute countermeasures, and any attempt to obstruct China’s reunification is doomed to fail,’ Liu continued. 

Neither side detailed how many additional systems would be sent or whether the deployments would be permanent, but Philippine Ambassador to Washington Jose Manuel Romualdez said U.S. and Filipino defense officials discussed deploying upgraded missile launchers that Manila may eventually seek to purchase.

‘It’s a kind of system that’s really very sophisticated and will be deployed here in the hope that, down the road, we will be able to get our own,’ Romualdez told The Associated Press.

Romualdez stressed that the deployments are intended as a deterrent.

‘It’s purely for deterrence,’ he said. ‘Every time the Chinese show any kind of aggression, it only strengthens our resolve to have these types.’

China repeatedly has objected to the missile deployments, warning they threaten regional stability and accusing Washington of trying to contain its rise.

In a joint statement following annual bilateral talks in Manila, the U.S. and the Philippines underscored their support for freedom of navigation and unimpeded commerce in the South China Sea — a vital global trade artery through which trillions of dollars in goods pass each year.

‘Both sides condemned China’s illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive activities in the South China Sea, recognizing their adverse effects on regional peace and stability and the economies of the Indo-Pacific and beyond,’ the statement said.

China claims virtually the entire South China Sea despite an international tribunal ruling in 2016 that invalidated many of its sweeping claims. In recent years, Chinese coast guard and maritime militia vessels have clashed repeatedly with Philippine ships near disputed shoals, including Second Thomas Shoal.

The expanded missile deployments also come as the Pentagon balances rising tensions in multiple theaters. In recent weeks, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group — which had been operating in the Indo-Pacific — was redirected toward the Middle East as the U.S. moved to bolster its posture amid escalating tensions with Iran. 

The deployments also reflect a broader U.S. effort to strengthen its military posture along the so-called ‘first island chain’ — a string of territories stretching from Japan through Taiwan and the Philippines that forms a natural barrier to Chinese naval expansion into the Pacific.

Washington has deepened defense cooperation with Manila under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, expanding U.S. access to Philippine bases, including sites in northern Luzon close to Taiwan.

China in May released a national security white paper criticizing the deployment of an ‘intermediate-range missile system’ in the region — widely viewed as a reference to the U.S. Typhon launcher in the Philippines. The document accused unnamed countries of reviving a ‘Cold War mentality’ and forming military ‘small groups’ that aggravate regional tensions.

For U.S. planners, dispersing mobile, land-based missile systems across allied territory complicates Beijing’s military calculus. Instead of relying solely on ships and aircraft, the U.S. can field ground-based systems that are harder to track and capable of holding Chinese naval and air assets at risk.

For Beijing, however, such deployments reinforce its long-standing claim that the United States is encircling China militarily.

As tensions simmer in both the South China Sea and around Taiwan, the positioning of long-range U.S. missile systems on Philippine soil underscores how the strategic competition between Washington and Beijing is increasingly being defined by geography — and by which side can project credible deterrent power across it.

The State Department’s allegation that China conducted a yield-producing nuclear test in 2020 is reigniting debate in Washington over whether the United States can continue its decades-long moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. 

U.S. officials warned that Beijing may be preparing tests in the ‘hundreds of tons’ range — a scale that underscores China’s accelerating nuclear modernization and complicates efforts to draw Beijing into arms control talks.

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said recently that the United States has evidence China conducted an explosive nuclear test at its Lop Nur site.

‘I can reveal that the U.S. government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons,’ DiNanno said during remarks at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament.

He added that ‘China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22 of 2020.’

DiNanno also accused Beijing of using ‘decoupling’ — detonating devices in ways that dampen seismic signals — to ‘hide its activities from the world.’

China’s foreign ministry has denied the allegations, accusing Washington of politicizing nuclear issues and reiterating that Beijing maintains a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing.

But the accusation has sharpened questions about verification, deterrence and whether the U.S. stockpile stewardship program — which relies on advanced simulations rather than live detonations — remains sufficient in an era of renewed great-power nuclear competition.

Why small nuclear tests are hard to detect

Detecting small underground nuclear tests has long been one of the thorniest problems in arms control.

Unlike the massive atmospheric detonations of the Cold War, modern nuclear tests are conducted deep underground. If a country uses so-called ‘decoupling’ techniques — detonating a device inside a large underground cavity to muffle the seismic shock — the resulting signal can be significantly reduced, making it harder to distinguish from natural seismic activity.

That vulnerability has been debated for decades in discussions over the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which China signed but never ratified. Even a relatively small underground detonation can provide valuable weapons data while remaining difficult to detect.

‘If you detonate a device inside a large underground cavity, you can significantly attenuate the seismic signature,’ said Chuck DeVore, chief national initiatives officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a former Pentagon official. ‘That makes it much harder to detect with confidence.’

Are simulations enough?

China signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996 but has not ratified it, and the treaty has never entered into force. It has maintained a voluntary testing moratorium — a commitment that a yield-producing detonation would contradict.

As China expands its nuclear arsenal and major arms control frameworks falter, the Cold War principle of ‘trust but verify’ is under growing strain.

‘The arms control community should feel thoroughly discredited at this point,’ DeVore said, arguing that policymakers should not assume Western restraint will be reciprocated by Beijing.

For decades, the U.S. has relied on the Stockpile Stewardship Program — advanced computer modeling and simulations — to ensure its weapons remain reliable without explosive testing. DeVore warned that this approach may no longer be sufficient if competitors are conducting live detonations.

‘The question presupposes that we only live in a technical world,’ he told Fox News, arguing that relying solely on simulations while rivals ‘cheat at every treaty they’ve ever signed’ risks leaving the United States behind.

DeVore also pointed to what he described as a growing institutional challenge.

‘Virtually everyone who had direct experience with live testing is now retired,’ he said. ‘Rebuilding that expertise would take years.’

But not all nuclear experts agree that resuming testing is the answer.

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, cautioned that a return to live detonations would be far more complex and costly than critics of the current system suggest.

‘Yield testing isn’t a magic switch,’ Sokolski said. ‘If you want meaningful reliability data, you don’t do one test — you do many.’

He noted that the United States conducted more than 1,000 nuclear tests during the Cold War, building a deep database that now underpins the program. Restarting that process, he argued, would likely require years of preparation and significant funding before yielding strategic benefits.

‘The debate isn’t pro-nuclear weapon versus anti-nuclear weapon,’ Sokolski said. ‘It’s about what’s technically necessary and what’s economical.’

A debate inside the weapons complex

Sokolski said the disagreement extends even within the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.

‘Certainly at one of our major labs that likes using calculations — that’s Livermore — they would say you’re home,’ he said, referring to confidence in advanced simulations and hydrodynamic modeling.

Others place greater weight on empirical validation and preserving the option of live testing.

The dispute, he said, is not ideological but technical — centered on confidence levels, cost and long-term strategic planning.

Allies and the credibility question

The implications extend beyond Washington and Beijing. 

Sokolski warned that the credibility of ‘extended deterrence’ — the U.S. commitment to defend allies under its nuclear umbrella — could come under strain if doubts grow about American resolve or capability.

‘Do they think you’re going to come to their defense?’ Sokolski said. ‘If they don’t, it doesn’t matter how reliable your weapons are, extended deterrence isn’t going to work very well.’

Allies such as Japan and South Korea long have relied on U.S. nuclear guarantees rather than pursuing independent arsenals. Any perception that the balance is shifting could complicate regional stability and long-standing nonproliferation efforts.

The policy crossroads

For now, U.S. lab directors continue to certify that the American arsenal remains safe, secure and reliable without explosive testing. But Heather Williams, director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said sustained testing by competitors — particularly absent transparency — could alter that calculus.

‘If Russia and China continue their nuclear testing activities without providing some sort of transparency, then the technical community might make a different assessment,’ she said.

The debate confronting U.S. policymakers is not simply whether to test, but under what conditions testing would meaningfully strengthen deterrence rather than accelerate competition.

Trump previously has suggested the U.S. should ensure testing ‘on an equal basis’ with competitors, though his administration has not formally announced a policy shift.

Trump in October 2025 suggested the U.S. should consider resuming nuclear weapons testing ‘on an equal basis’ with other powers, and at one point said that if others were testing, ‘I guess we have to test.’ 

The president did not clarify whether he meant full nuclear explosive detonations, which the U.S. has not conducted since 1992,  or other forms of testing such as delivery system evaluations that do not involve nuclear explosions. Any return to explosive testing would represent a significant shift in U.S. policy.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.