admin

Speaking to global leaders in Davos, Switzerland, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered a blunt warning to Europe about its self-defense.  

‘Europe needs to know how to defend itself,’ he said, arguing that the continent still isn’t ready to stand on its own without U.S. backing.

Zelensky’s remarks reflected a growing anxiety across Europe — that decades of reliance on American protection left the continent ill-prepared for a more dangerous era. While European countries have contributed troops, weapons and money to conflicts from Afghanistan to Ukraine, the ultimate backstop for NATO’s security has remained Washington.

President Donald Trump has openly challenged that assumption, repeatedly warning NATO allies that U.S. protection should not be taken for granted, and insisting the U.S. needed to take Greenland from Denmark

Before he ruled out the use of force to wrest control of the island, European officials had worried about a military dust-up between Western powers would mean the end of NATO.

‘Maybe we should have put NATO to the test: Invoked Article 5, and forced NATO to come here and protect our Southern Border from further Invasions of Illegal Immigrants, thus freeing up large numbers of Border Patrol Agents for other tasks,’ Trump mused on Truth Social Thursday.

Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. may not defend allies that fail to invest in their own security rattled the alliance and pushed European governments to pledge sharp increases in defense spending.

Even so, European leaders continue to acknowledge how central U.S. power remains to NATO’s defense. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has pointed to the American nuclear umbrella as the alliance’s ‘ultimate guarantor,’ alongside a strong U.S. conventional presence in Europe.

‘We are still having a strong, conventional U.S. presence in Europe,’ Rutte said, ‘and, of course, the nuclear umbrella as our ultimate guarantor.’

Security analysts say that long-standing guarantee shaped Europe’s choices over time.

‘For much of the post–Cold War period, it is fair to say that Europeans underinvested in defense, partly because threats were low, and partly because a series of U.S. presidents did everything they could to convince Europeans that we would stay there forever,’ Barry Posen, a professor of political science at MIT, told Fox News Digital.

‘Trump was right to argue that Europeans have been slow to fix up their forces as the situation changed — as Russia pulled itself back together and became more demanding and threatening, and as China also grew its power,’ Posen said.

But Posen warned that driving a wedge inside NATO carries risks. ‘The problem Trump faces is that ‘conditional commitments’ make challenges more likely,’ he said. ‘And then we would still have to decide what to do. As a great power, in the event of an actual challenge, we might not wish to look weak.’

Over time, those choices carried political consequences. With American power serving as the backstop, defense spending was easier to restrain than politically popular domestic subsidies such as healthcare, pensions and education, which became entrenched in European politics.

As defense demands rise, governments are running into those constraints. In Italy, officials have warned that boosting military spending to meet NATO commitments would strain an already tight budget, where pensions and social benefits account for a large share of public spending.

Germany found a way to buy time. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Berlin created a €100 billion special defense fund — financed through new borrowing and kept outside the regular budget — to rebuild its military without immediately cutting other spending. The move jump-started rearmament while shielding popular social programs from near-term cuts. But the fund is temporary. Once it runs out, sustaining higher defense spending will require permanent budget decisions inside a system built around strict fiscal rules and expansive social commitments.

John Byrne of Concerned Veterans for America said Europe’s dependence on the United States runs deeper than defense budgets. Even as European governments pledge more spending, Byrne said they still lack the senior-level experience needed to run NATO operations without U.S. leadership.

‘They don’t have the experience,’ Byrne said, pointing to the fact that large, multinational military commands have overwhelmingly been led by American generals for decades. ‘That institutional knowledge still sits almost entirely with the United States.’

Byrne said that gap matters in a crisis. Running complex, coalition military operations requires years of practice at the highest levels, he said — something that cannot be fixed quickly, even with higher spending.

‘You can buy equipment,’ Byrne said. ‘You can’t instantly buy command experience.’

During his address at Davos on Thursday, Zelenskyy questioned whether Europe has the power  or the will  to act independently if assumptions about U.S. protection change.

‘Europe still feels more like geography, history, tradition, not a real political force, not a great power,’ Zelenskyy said.

He warned that European leaders continue to plan around expectations that may no longer hold. ‘To believe that the United States will act, that it will not stand aside and will help,’ Zelenskyy said. ‘But what if it doesn’t? This question is everywhere in the minds of European leaders.’

The World Health Organization on Saturday warned that America’s withdrawal from the agency will make the country and the world ‘less safe.’

The globalist body said in part of a January 24 statement that it ‘regrets the United States’ notification of withdrawal from WHO – a decision that makes both the United States and the world less safe.’ 

‘We hope that in the future, the United States will return to active participation in WHO,’ the statement noted.

The U.S. announced its withdrawal from the WHO last week, after President Donald Trump got the ball rolling on his first day back in office last year.

‘Today, the United States withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO), freeing itself from its constraints, as President Trump promised on his first day in office by signing E.O. 14155,’ U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in part of a January 22, 2026, joint statement.

‘Going forward, U.S. engagement with the WHO will be limited strictly to effectuate our withdrawal and to safeguard the health and safety of the American people. All U.S. funding for, and staffing of, WHO initiatives has ceased,’ their statement said.

They claimed the WHO ‘pursued a politicized, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests.’ But the WHO pushed back.

‘This is untrue. As a specialized agency of the United Nations, governed by 194 Member States, WHO has always been and remains impartial and exists to serve all countries, with respect for their sovereignty, and without fear or favor,’ the WHO said in its statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is taking a big step toward holding its first-ever midterm convention.

The RNC on Friday approved a change to the party’s rules that would allow Chair Joe Gruters to convene a convention during a midterm election year.

National political conventions, where party delegates from around the country formally nominate their party’s presidential candidates, normally take place during presidential election years.

But with Republicans aiming to protect their narrow control of the Senate and their razor-thin House majority in this year’s elections, President Donald Trump announced in September that the GOP would hold a convention ahead of the midterms ‘in order to show the great things we have done’ since recapturing the White House.

As first reported by Fox News Digital, the rule change was adopted Thursday evening by the RNC’s Rules Committee during the party’s winter meeting in Santa Barbara, California.

The full RNC membership, meeting Friday during the confab’s general session, approved the rule change in a unanimous vote.

A memo obtained by Fox News Digital highlighted ‘the possibility of an America First midterm convention-style gathering aligned with President Trump’s vision for energizing the party this fall.’

And speaking with reporters on Friday, Gruters called the convention a ‘Trump-a-palooza’ where ‘we can really highlight all the incredible things that this president has done.’

But the president’s approval ratings remain well underwater, with many Americans giving him a big thumbs down on the job he’s doing with the economy and the issue of affordability.

‘Trump has historically low approval ratings because he has put America last, sold out working families to hand out favors to billionaires, and made life unaffordable,’ Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin told Fox News Digital in a statement.

The party in power, in this case the Republicans, normally faces stiff political headwinds in the midterms. And the hope among Trump and top Republicans is that a midterm convention would give the GOP a high-profile platform to showcase the president’s record and their congressional candidates running in the midterms.

Gruters, in a statement to Fox News Digital, touted that the RNC’s winter meeting ‘shows how completely united Republicans are behind President Trump and our efforts to win the midterms. The RNC has been aggressively focused on expanding our war chest, turning out voters and protecting the ballot in this fall’s elections. We’re building the operation needed to protect our majorities and give President Trump a full four-year term with a Republican Congress.’

Details on the date and location of the midterm convention will come at a later date and will likely be announced by the president.

But a Republican source told Fox News Digital it’s probable the convention would be held at the same time as the RNC’s summer meeting, which typically occurs in August.

The DNC may also hold a midterm convention. Sources confirmed to Fox News Digital last summer that Martin and other party leaders were quietly pushing the idea of a convention ahead of the midterms.

Democrats held a handful of midterm conventions in the 1970s and 1980s.

Chaos engulfing northeastern Syria has sparked fresh security fears after Syria’s new governing authorities moved against U.S.-backed Kurdish forces, forcing the U.S. military to rush ISIS detainees out of Syria and into Iraq.

The U.S. military launched an operation Wednesday to relocate ISIS detainees amid fears that instability could trigger mass prison breaks. So far, about 150 detainees have been transferred from a detention center in Hasakah, Syria, with plans to move up to 7,000 of the roughly 9,000 to 10,000 ISIS detainees held in Syria, U.S. officials said.

The operation comes as Syria’s new government, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, ordered the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) — Washington’s longtime partner in the fight against ISIS — to disband following a rapid offensive over the weekend that severely weakened the group.

Syrian government forces have since assumed control of several detention facilities previously guarded by the SDF. At least 120 ISIS detainees escaped during a breakout at the al-Shaddadi prison in Hasakah this week, according to Syrian authorities, who say many have been recaptured. U.S. and regional officials caution that some escapees remain at large.

The deteriorating security situation also has raised alarms around al-Hol camp, a sprawling detention site housing the families of ISIS fighters and long viewed by Western officials as a breeding ground for radicalization.

Kurdish forces announced they would withdraw from overseeing the camp, citing what they described as international indifference to the ISIS threat.

‘Due to the international community’s indifference towards the ISIS issue and its failure to assume its responsibilities in addressing this serious matter, our forces were compelled to withdraw from al-Hol camp and redeploy,’ the SDF said in a statement.

The camp is currently home to about 24,000 people, mostly women and children linked to ISIS fighters from across the Middle East and Europe. Many residents have no formal charges, according to aid groups, and humanitarian organizations have long warned that extremist networks operate inside the camp.

The SDF said guards were redeployed to confront the threat posed by Syrian government forces advancing into Kurdish-held territory. On Tuesday evening, Kurdish forces and Syrian government troops agreed to a four-day ceasefire, though officials warned the truce remains fragile.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. officials are weighing whether to withdraw the roughly 1,000 American troops still stationed in Syria, raising questions about Washington’s long-term ability to secure ISIS detainees as local alliances shift.

Two U.S. Army soldiers were killed in Syria in December 2025 by a lone ISIS gunman.

ISIS lost its last territorial stronghold in Syria in 2019, when U.S. forces and their SDF partners overran the group’s enclave in Baghouz. While the defeat ended the group’s self-declared caliphate, U.S. and allied officials say ISIS has since regrouped as a decentralized insurgency, repeatedly targeting prisons and detention camps in Syria and Iraq.

Western governments have cautiously backed al-Sharaa — a former militant once designated as a terrorist — since his forces overthrew longtime Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, framing the support as a pragmatic security calculation rather than an endorsement of his past.

U.S. envoy to Syria Tom Barrack urged Kurdish leaders to reach a permanent deal with the new Syrian government, emphasizing Washington’s focus on preventing an ISIS resurgence rather than maintaining an indefinite military presence.

‘The United States has no interest in a long-term military presence,’ Barrack said, adding that U.S. priorities include securing ISIS detention facilities and facilitating talks between the SDF and the Syrian government.