The White House issued a rare public rebuke of Israel for its strikes on Hamas leaders in Qatar, putting Washington in an awkward position between two key allies.

The Trump administration almost never breaks publicly with Israel on military campaigns. But analysts say the deeper question is how much the U.S. knew in advance — and whether it quietly offered its blessing.

Hamas said the strike killed five of its members but failed to assassinate the group’s negotiating delegation. A Qatari security official also died, underscoring the risk of escalation when Israeli operations spill into the territory of U.S. partners.

‘There’s a lot of opaqueness when it comes to exactly what the United States knew and when,’ said Daniel Benaim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. ‘But the President has been pretty clear that he was unhappy with the substance and the process of what happened yesterday. This kind of public statement by a U.S. president in the wake of a strike like this is already very notable in its own right.’

Just days before the strike, Trump issued what he called a ‘last warning’ to Hamas, urging the group to accept a U.S.-backed proposal to release hostages from Gaza. The timing has fueled speculation about whether the strike was connected to Washington’s frustration with Hamas and whether Israel acted with at least tacit U.S. approval.

‘It just seems like the Israelis wouldn’t have done this without him knowing,’ said Michael Makovsky, CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. 

‘They’ve got a U.S. base right in that country with everything going on with the hostage talks. I got a sense that he knew, and it’s hard to understand exactly what happened — that if he knew, he sat on it, and then he told the Qataris only when the missiles were flying.’

But Trump on Tuesday had harsh words about the strike, writing on Truth Social that it ‘does not advance Israel or America’s goals.’

The White House claimed it learned from the U.S. military that missiles were on the move, and gave warning to the Qataris. Qatar has denied getting any sort of advanced warning. 

If Washington knew in advance, why issue the rebuke? If it didn’t, how could Israel act so freely in airspace dominated by the U.S. military? Either option raises uncomfortable questions about America’s leverage.

‘Israel would not do what it did without some sort of an approval by the U.S.,’ said Dr. Yoel Guzansky, senior researcher and head of the Gulf program at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. ‘The Trump administration wants to distance itself, and it’s understandable, because it has good relations with the Qataris.’

That relationship is anchored in hard power. The U.S.’s biggest overseas air base, Al Udeid, sits on Qatari soil and hosts more than 10,000 American troops. Qatar is a top buyer of U.S. weapons and recently gifted the administration with a new Air Force One jet. Yet none of that deterred Israel’s strike. ‘If indeed the U.S. wasn’t aware, then we have a big problem, because Israel surprised the U.S., and it might cause damage to U.S.-Qatari relations,’ Guzansky said.

Others argue the U.S. may have been more aligned with the operation than its rhetoric suggests. ‘The fact that U.S. defenses at Al Udeid were not used against Israeli jets is a great indicator that Washington was not opposed to the strike,’ Ahmad Sharawi, a researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 

But Qatar’s international Media Office called claims that Qatar was re-evaluating its security partnership with the U.S. ‘categorically false.’ 

‘It is a clear and failed attempt to drive a wedge between Qatar and the U.S.’

Strains on Gulf relationships

The reverberations extend beyond Washington and Doha. The strikes risk unsettling the delicate outreach between Israel, the U.S., and Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, which has been under quiet but sustained pressure to join the Abraham Accords — the U.S.-brokered normalization deals between Israel and Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates.

‘Regional power dynamics are shifting,’ said Benaim. ‘Gulf states are a bit less concerned about the threat from Iran, which was pushing them closer to Israel, and they’re seeing that Israel is engaged in activities across the region, whether it’s Syria or inside Iran or now inside Doha.’

The divergence is stark. Gulf leaders want de-escalation and stability to rebrand their states as hubs of investment, tourism, and economic recovery. Israel, meanwhile, is pursuing a strategy of direct confrontation with Iran across multiple fronts.

‘Gulf states that are really focused on their own economic recovery don’t like the image of smoldering, smoking Gulf cities subject to bombs because they’re trying to attract investment and create an image of common stability,’ Benaim said.

That mismatch could slow normalization, even if it doesn’t derail it. ‘Israel is probably underestimating the power of Gulf solidarity and the barrier being crossed when you see Israel striking inside of a GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] state,’ one former senior State Department official added. ‘I don’t think that means their relationships are going to fall apart or unravel, but these things cast a long shadow.’

Sharawi counters that Gulf outrage may be less about Israel itself than about the precedent of a strike on GCC soil. ‘It was an Israeli action against a fellow GCC partner, despite the hostile relationship that countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE had with Qatar in the past,’ he said. ‘But Gulf leaders are also deeply critical of Qatar for hosting Hamas. Privately, many will understand why Israel acted, even if publicly they condemn it.’

Qatar’s balancing act

For Qatar, the strikes open up both a vulnerability and an opportunity. On the one hand, it cannot allow itself to appear passive in the face of foreign attacks on its soil. Analysts expect Doha to respond through diplomatic channels, critical media coverage, and perhaps limited economic measures against Israel.

But Qatar also has a long history of turning crisis into relevance. ‘Qataris want to be again the mediator, because they earn a lot of points internationally — especially from the U.S.,’ said Guzansky. ‘It’s in their DNA.’

That means Qatar’s public outrage may coexist with a return to shuttle diplomacy, positioning itself once more as indispensable to ceasefire negotiations.

Sharawi argues that Qatar’s victim narrative also obscures its complicity. ‘The leadership of a terrorist organization has failed to bring in a sustainable ceasefire, and Qatar has empowered Hamas by hosting them,’ he said. ‘Even though Gulf leaders won’t say it publicly, they are very anti-Hamas. That context matters for how normalization prospects are viewed after this strike.’

Earlier this week Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade told a Qatari spokesperson it sounded more like the nation was ‘taking Hamas’ side’ than playing mediator. 

‘When one of the parties decides to attack our sovereignty in a residential neighborhood where my countrymen, the residents of Qatar, live in schools and nurseries right next door. Believe me, it’s very difficult to maintain a very calm voice,’ foreign ministry spokesperson Majed Al Ansari said. 

A different reaction than Iran

The Doha strikes also highlight an asymmetry in Gulf reactions. When Iran struck Al Udeid Air Base earlier this year, Gulf solidarity with Qatar was muted. This time, condemnations poured in minute by minute.

‘You didn’t see Gulf leaders coming and hugging the Qataris after Iran’s strike,’ Guzansky noted. ‘But with Israel, the reaction was much louder, with strong rhetoric across the Arab world.’

Sharawi agrees but frames it differently: ‘They were overly critical of Israel compared to Iran. The Jordanian king even said Qatar’s security is Jordan’s security — a very strong statement. The Arabs don’t hesitate to latch onto anything that criticizes Israel, and that showed yesterday, even in comparison with Iran.’

The contrast underscores a regional reality: Gulf leaders fear escalation with Tehran, but criticizing Israel carries little risk. For Qatar, the difference offers a chance to rally sympathy and spotlight its sovereignty — even as its neighbors quietly question its choice to host Hamas.

A shadow over normalization

Israel’s military reach is undeniable. But by striking inside Doha, it may have paid a hidden diplomatic price — reinforcing perceptions of Israel as a destabilizing actor at a time when Gulf states seek calm.

The fact that Hamas leaders survived while a Qatari security official was killed may further complicate fallout, heightening anger in Doha while leaving Israel’s core objective incomplete.

Israel’s defense minister Israel Katz has promised to strike ‘enemies everywhere.’

‘There is no place where they can hide,’ Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a post on X, raising questions about whether a sovereign nation like Turkey, a NATO ally, which houses Hamas senior leaders, may be next. 

Below are live updates from inside the federal trial of Ryan Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump in September 2024 at his West Palm Beach golf club. The proceedings are closed to electronics and not televised, with Fox News reporters providing firsthand accounts from the Federal Courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida.

Secret Service agent describes ‘textbook ambush’ — 11:52 a.m. ET

The government’s first witness, Special Agent Robert Fercano, testified Thursday that Ryan Routh aimed a rifle directly at his face while lying in wait at Trump International Golf Course in West Palm Beach on Sept. 15, 2024.

Fercano, now with Homeland Security Investigations – but at the time a Secret Service agent – said he was scanning the sixth hole while Trump played the fifth when he noticed ‘several abnormalities on the fence line.’

‘There appeared to be a face, a barrel of a weapon and what I perceived to be plates, like Humvee plates like I saw in the Marine Corps,’ he told Department of Justice prosecutor Maria Medetis Long.

Fercano said he tried to make contact: ‘Hey sir,’ he called out. Moments later, he noticed the rifle barrel starting to move, heard ‘what sounded like a groan,’ and saw the man smile, he testified.

At first, Fercano said, he thought it could be a homeless person. But Fercano claimed the barrel followed his movement and he saw plates hanging from the fence that looked like makeshift bulletproof shielding.

‘This appeared to be a textbook ambush scenario,’ Fercano testified, saying he drew his weapon and fired as he walked backward.

Jurors also heard Fercano’s frantic radio calls:

‘Mogul on 5 green,’ at 1:24 p.m., alerting colleagues Trump was on the fifth hole.

Just 11 seconds later: ‘Shots fired, shots fired, shots fired.’

‘Be advised it looked like an AK-47 style rifle pointed through the fence.’

Prosecutors then presented the Chinese-made SKS rifle they say Routh used. Wearing black gloves, Fercano demonstrated for the jury how 1–2 inches of the barrel protruded through the fence that day.

Representing himself, Ryan Routh spent about 15 minutes questioning Special Agent Robert Fercano before the court broke for lunch.

Routh began with an unusual opener: ‘Good to see ya. First question, is it good to be alive?’

‘Yes, it is good to be alive,’ Fercano replied.

Routh followed up: ‘I’m sure your family is happy you’re alive and well?’ Prosecutors objected, and the agent did not answer.

Throughout the exchange, Fercano repeatedly identified Routh as the man he saw that day. ‘I saw you in the bushes… you smiled at me,’ he said. Routh did not dispute the identification.

Routh asked why Fercano moved off the golf cart path and onto a service path. Fercano said he was ‘thinking like a criminal’ and noticed Routh along the fence line.

When Routh asked if a tree limb blocked his view, Fercano said, ‘The path was unobstructed.’

Pressed on whether the suspect was concealed, Fercano answered: ‘Yes, you were concealed.’

Routh asked, ‘You happened to see the individual driving by?’ Fercano replied, ‘There was no individual driving by.’

In a final series of questions, Routh pressed Fercano about sniper tactics: ‘As far as being a sniper, what would be the best stance to shoot people? Standing, crouching, laying down?’

Fercano responded: ‘I wasn’t a sniper… it depends.’

Court recessed for lunch until 1:05 p.m., when prosecutors will decide whether to follow up with additional questions for Fercano.

Routh delivers rambling opening statement — 11:23 a.m. ET

Ryan Routh, representing himself in his federal trial where he is accused of attempting to assassinate Trump last year, spoke to jurors for just seven minutes before Judge Aileen Cannon cut off his opening statement, saying it had ‘absolutely nothing to do with this case.’

Routh began by apologizing to the jury: ‘Sorry to take your time and disrupt your lives…I’m so sorry.’ He then launched into a meandering monologue, citing everything from prehistoric human history to world leaders.

‘What is intent?… Why are we here? What is our intent? To love one another… Is this so difficult?’ Routh asked. He went on to reference Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Putin, Sudan’s civil war, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

After four minutes, Judge Cannon interrupted, dismissed the jury, and warned Routh his remarks ‘go beyond any relevance in the case.’ When he returned to similar themes, she stopped him again.

‘We have limited patience, and you don’t have unlimited license to go forward and make a mockery of the dignity of this courtroom,’ Cannon told him.

When the jury came back in, Routh grew emotional, choking up as he invoked Henry Ford and the Wright brothers, before saying: ‘This case means absolutely nothing. A life has been lived to the fullest.’

At that point, Cannon ended his opening remarks and allowed prosecutors to call their first witness.

Trial begins with prosecution’s opening arguments — 10:15 a.m. ET

Federal prosecutors opened their case against Routh on Thursday, telling jurors he came ‘within seconds’ of assassinating Trump during a round of golf in West Palm Beach last year.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley read Routh’s own words to the jury — ‘Trump cannot be elected’ and ‘I need Trump to go away’ — before laying out what he described as a ‘deadly serious’ plan to kill a major presidential candidate.

Shipley said Routh traveled from Hawaii to the mainland with a Chinese military-grade assault rifle, 20 rounds of ammunition, 10 burner phones, three aliases, stolen license plates, and ‘a trail of lies from Honolulu to Florida.’

Jurors were shown photos of the golf course perch where prosecutors say Routh hid for 10 hours with his rifle chambered, safety off, and pointed at a Secret Service agent clearing the hole for Trump.

That agent, Fercano, testified Thursday. Shipley told jurors Fercano spotted Routh’s face in the bushes and saw ‘the muzzle of a rifle pointed directly at his face’ before returning fire.

‘Had he not seen that rifle,’ Shipley said, ‘the defendant would have succeeded in killing Trump.’

Routh has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate and assaulting a federal officer. Prosecutors say he was armed with an AK-style rifle when Secret Service agents stopped him near Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach in September 2024. The attempt came just months after Trump was shot and narrowly survived an assassination attempt in Butler, Pa.

Routh’s opening statement also began Thursday morning. He was given 41 minutes for his opening arguments, right after prosecutors finished their opening presentation. 

This is a developing story. Check back here for live updates.

After an attempt to secure a bipartisan deal failed, Senate Republicans went nuclear for the fourth time in the Senate’s history Thursday to speed up confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

Republicans had threatened turning to the ‘nuclear option,’ which would allow for a rule change with a simple majority vote, to blast through the blockade from Senate Democrats and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 

Lawmakers were frustrated that, through the first eight months of Trump’s presidency, not a single nominee had moved through fast-track unanimous consent or voice votes.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., argued it shouldn’t have come as a surprise to Democrats what Republicans intended to do. 

‘I’ve been saying all week, ‘We’re going to vote on this on Thursday, one way or the other,” Thune said. 

‘We’re going to change this process in a way that gets us back to what every president prior has had when it comes to the way that these nominees are treated here in the United States Senate — by both sides, Republicans and Democrats; both presidents, Republicans and Democrats.’ 

The GOP’s rule change, which was born from a revived Democratic proposal from 2023, will now allow lawmakers to vote on Trump’s nominees in batches.

Senate Republicans’ rule change, which has been pitched as beneficial to the current and future administrations, would only apply to nominees subject to the Senate’s requirement for two hours of debate, which includes sub-Cabinet-level positions and executive branch picks.

Judicial nominees, like district court judges and district attorneys, don’t fall under the rule change. Lawmakers are expected to plow through dozens of nominees early next week under the new rules with the intent of clearing the backlog of Trump’s picks, which grew to more than 140 and counting. 

With the change in place, it will only take a simple majority vote to confirm the picks. Still, the decision to do bloc packages will require 30 hours of debate before a final confirmation vote. 

Schumer panned the move and contended Republicans had turned the Senate into ‘a conveyor belt for unqualified Trump nominees.’

‘This is a sad, regrettable day for the Senate, and I believe it won’t take very long for Republicans to wish they had not pushed the chamber further down this awful road,’ he said. 

However, before resorting to the nuclear option, lawmakers were close to a bipartisan deal that would have allowed for 15 nominees to be voted on in groups with two hours of debate.

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, blocked the new proposal on the floor and argued that Senate Republicans were trying to rush through the negotiating process ahead of their plan to leave Washington for the weekend.

‘What they’re asking for is unanimity, and we don’t have it,’ he said. ‘And, so, if you’re interested in enacting this on a bipartisan basis, the process for doing that — it is available to you. But, again, it’s more a matter of running out of patience than running out of time.’

A frustrated Thune fired back, ‘How much time is enough?

‘Give me a break,’ he said. ‘Two years. Not long enough. How about eight months? Eight months of this.’

The nuclear process began earlier this week when Thune teed up 48 nominees, all of which moved through committee on a bipartisan basis, for confirmation on the floor.

‘It’s time to move,’ Thune said. ‘Time to quit stalling. Time to vote. It’s time to fix this place. And the ideal way to fix it would be in a bipartisan way.’

Both parties have turned to the nuclear option a handful of times since 2010. In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used the nuclear option to allow for all executive branch nominees to be confirmed by simple majority.

Four years later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., went nuclear to allow for Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority. In 2019, McConnell reduced the debate time to two hours for civilian nominees.

The fifth day of trial is slated to kick off in Fort Pierce, Florida on Friday for the case of Ryan Routh, who faces charges for attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump at his West Palm Beach golf club in September 2024.

On Thursday, then-Secret Service Special Agent Robert Fercano testified on behalf of the government that Routh pointed a rifle at his face while hiding out in shrubbery at the golf course. 

Fercano, currently assigned to Homeland Security Investigations, said he was scanning the sixth hole while Trump was playing the fifth when he ‘noticed several abnormalities on the fence line.’ 

‘There appeared to be a face, a barrel of a weapon and what I perceived to be plates, like Humvee plates like I saw in the Marine Corps,’ Fercano told Assistant U.S. Attorney Maria Medetis Long on Thursday. 

Fercano said that he initially thought he may have spotted a homeless person, but then noticed the barrel followed him and that the weapon was ‘pointed directly at my face.’ 

‘This appeared to be a textbook ambush scenario,’ Fercano said. 

Routh also questioned Fercano – and used his time to ask a series of questions regarding sniper tactics. 

‘As far as being a sniper, what would be the best stance to shoot people? Standing, crouching, laying down?’ Routh asked. 

‘I wasn’t a sniper … it depends,’ Fercano said. 

Others who testified Thursday included Tommy McGee, a government witness and a civilian who heard gunshots break out the day of the alleged assassination attempt and took a photo of Routh and his car. 

‘He looked frantic,’ McGee said Thursday. ‘He ran right in front of me. We looked at each other… it looked like he was trying to get away.’

When Justice Department prosecutor John Shipley asked McGee if Routh was the same man he saw the day of the alleged assassination attempt, McGee said yes. 

According to prosecutors, Routh laid out the groundwork to kill Trump for weeks, and hid out in shrubbery on Sept. 15, 2024, when a Secret Service agent, Fercano, identified him pointing a rifle at Trump while the then-presidential candidate played golf. Although Routh pointed his rifle at the agent, he then abandoned his weapon and the scene after Fercano opened fire.

Routh was later apprehended by the Martin County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office on the I-95 interstate in a black Nissan Xterra. 

According to the Justice Department, he is charged with attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate; possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence; assaulting a federal officer; felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Routh also faces state charges related to terrorism and attempted murder. 

Routh, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges, was previously convicted of felonies in North Carolina in 2002 and 2010. 

Routh, 59, is representing himself in his trial – a process known as ‘pro se.’ Routh sent a letter to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in June notifying her of his decision to represent himself. 

‘I will be representing myself moving forward; it was ridiculous from the outset to consider a random stranger that knows nothing of who I am to speak for me,’ Routh said in the letter. ‘That was foolish and ignorant, and I am sorry-a childlike mistake.’ 

Cannon approved the move in July, although she said that she believes it’s not a good idea for Routh to represent himself in this case. Routh has said he went to college for two years after receiving a GED certificate and told Cannon he was prepared to navigate any challenges that could come from representing himself. 

Despite Routh’s decision to act singularly, court-appointed attorneys are still on call to provide standby counsel. 

Fox News’ Jamie Joseph, Jake Gibson, Olivianna Calmes, Heather Lacey and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Last-minute closed-door talks between Senate Republicans and Democrats failed to prevent a ‘nuclear option’ in the upper chamber, as frustrations on both sides killed a deal to move ahead with President Donald Trump’s nominees.  

Lawmakers were inching closer to a deal that would have allowed sub-Cabinet-level nominees to be voted on in bunches, but neither side could reach a final agreement.

Senate Republicans argued that a majority of their counterparts agreed with the new proposal, but that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was still standing in the way.

‘I think the majority of Democrats are on board with it,’ Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital. ‘And Schumer is blocking it from actually having consent to come to the floor.’

The failed deal was a modified version of a proposal first unveiled by Senate Democrats in 2023, and would have allowed 15 nominees to be batched together en bloc and voted on while still requiring two hours of debate for the group.

But when Lankford brought the proposal to the floor for consideration, Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, blocked it.

Schatz argued that Senate Republicans were trying to rush through the negotiating process ahead of their plan to leave Washington for the weekend.

‘What they’re asking for is unanimity, and we don’t have it,’ he said. ‘And so, if you’re interested in enacting this on a bipartisan basis, the process for doing that — It is available to you. But again, it’s more a matter of running out of patience than running out of time.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., fired back ‘how much time is enough?’

‘Give me a break,’ he said. ‘Two years. Not long enough. How about eight months? Eight months of this.’

With the prospects of bipartisan deal to move nominees through Democrats’ blockade, Senate Republicans are expected to continue down the path of the ‘nuclear option.’

That means that their initial proposal, which would allow for an unlimited number of sub-cabinet level nominees to be voted on en bloc with 30 hours of debate tacked on, is expected to pass with a simple majority, and effectively change the confirmation process in the Senate.

‘We are achingly close to doing this like adults,’ Schatz said.

The gun recovered by authorities in the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a bolt-action rifle — a common hunting weapon valued for its reliability but limited to a single shot before reloading.

Unlike a semiautomatic, the shooter must manually operate the bolt handle to cycle the weapon: lifting and pulling it back moves the spent cartridge, while pushing it forward chambers a new round from the magazine. Lowering the bolt locks the round and seals the chamber, making the rifle ready to fire again — a simple, durable design that has kept it popular among hunters and target shooters.

‘This process limits the rate of fire, you can only take one shot at a time,’ explained retired Marine Lt. Col. Hal Kempfer in an interview with Fox News Digital.

Kempfer noted that with a bolt-action rifle, the spent cartridge often remains in the chamber rather than being ejected, meaning shooters don’t leave behind shell casings or ‘brass’ that investigators can use for forensics.

‘That’s just one of those things where you, if you’ve thought it through, you know that you can’t leave any forensic evidence for investigators to work with,’ he said.

On Thursday, authorities said they recovered the rifle used to assassinate Kirk in the woods near the scene, where investigators believe the shooter abandoned it while fleeing to evade law enforcement.

‘They’re gonna be doing a lot of work on the forensics of this weapon as these firearms tend to have a history,’ he said, adding that investigators will try to trace where it was sold and how it changed hands. 

‘It’s possible the shooter used a straw buyer or another method to conceal their identity — but that’s the kind of legwork investigators will now have to do to track the shooter,’ Kempfer said.

Kempfer, who served as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, said that the fatal shot was ‘not a particularly difficult’ one but does take planning.

‘You wouldn’t have to be some expert sniper or something, hunters take this shot all the time,’ he said, adding that the distance, clear weather, and elevated position all worked to the shooter’s advantage.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday that the U.S. would respond after former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was convicted of plotting a coup to remain in power after his loss in the 2022 election, although the secretary did not go into detail about what a U.S. response would look like.

‘The political persecutions by sanctioned human rights abuser Alexandre de Moraes continue, as he and others on Brazil’s supreme court have unjustly ruled to imprison former President Jair Bolsonaro,’ Rubio wrote on X.

‘The United States will respond accordingly to this witch hunt,’ he continued.

Brazil’s Foreign Ministry argued that Rubio’s comment represented a threat that ‘attacks Brazilian authority and ignores the facts and the compelling evidence in the records.’

The ministry said Brazilian democracy would not be intimidated by the U.S. government.

Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison when he was convicted by the country’s Supreme Court on Thursday on charges of plotting a coup to stop President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from taking office in January 2023.

The former Brazilian leader was a close ally of U.S. President Donald Trump during the first Trump administration.

‘Well, I watched that trial. I know him pretty well. I thought he was a good president of Brazil, and it’s very surprising that could happen very much like they tried to do with me, but they didn’t get away with it at all,’ Trump told reporters, noting the legal cases against the U.S. president in recent years at the state and federal level, which included his conviction in New York.

‘But I can always say this: I knew him as president of Brazil. He was a good man,’ he added.

Trump has criticized the Brazilian judicial system and threatened tariffs on the country for its case against Bolsonaro.

In July, the U.S. president placed 50% tariffs on most Brazilian goods in response to a ‘witch hunt’ against Bolsonaro. He later exempted some Brazilian exports, including passenger vehicles and numerous parts and components used in civil aircraft.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, his unspecified allies on the court and his immediate family members will face visa revocations, according to Rubio, who criticized what he called a ‘political witch hunt’ against the former president.

That same month, Rubio announced visa revocations on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over Bolsonaro’s criminal case, and his unspecified allies on the court after the court issued search warrants and restraining orders against Bolsonaro.

The U.S. Treasury Department had also sanctioned the judge over allegations of authorizing arbitrary pre-trial detentions and suppressing freedom of expression.

Bolsonaro’s son, Brazilian Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, said he anticipates additional U.S. sanctions against Brazilian justices following his father’s conviction.

‘We are going to have a firm response with actions from the U.S. government against this dictatorship that is being installed in Brazil,’ he told Reuters on Thursday.

He warned that justices who voted to convict the former president could face sanctions under the Magnitsky Act, which was previously used by the Trump administration against de Moraes.

‘If these Supreme Court justices keep following Moraes, they also run the risk of facing the same sanction,’ he said.

Reuters contributed to this report.

The first day of opening statements in Ryan Routh’s federal trial ended with Judge Aileen Cannon noting the case was ‘moving at a pretty fast clip,’ after a lengthy day of testimony that put the Secret Service agent who spotted Routh in the bushes, a civilian witness who chased him down, and FBI agents on the stand.

Routh is accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump last year while he was golfing.

The morning began with Routh’s own rambling opening statement, which lasted just seven minutes before Cannon cut him off for going off-topic.

‘What is intent? … Why are we here? What is our intent? To love one another … Is this so difficult?’ Routh asked. He went on to reference Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Putin, Sudan’s civil war and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

‘We have limited patience, and you don’t have unlimited license to go forward and make a mockery of the dignity of this courtroom,’ Cannon told him.

Federal prosecutors opened their case against Routh on Thursday, telling the 12 jurors he had come ‘within seconds’ of assassinating Trump during a round of golf in West Palm Beach last year.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley read Routh’s own words to the jury — ‘Trump cannot be elected’ and ‘I need Trump to go away’ — before laying out what he described as a ‘deadly serious’ plan to kill a major presidential candidate.

Shipley said Routh had traveled from Hawaii to the mainland with a Chinese military-grade assault rifle, 20 rounds of ammunition, 10 burner phones, three aliases, stolen license plates and ‘a trail of lies from Honolulu to Florida.’

Jurors then heard from Special Agent Robert Fercano, who testified he was five feet away when he saw Routh’s face and the barrel of a rifle pointing directly at him on the sixth hole of Trump International Golf Course. ‘

‘This appeared to be a textbook ambush scenario,’ he told the jury, describing how he fired while walking backward to cover. Prosecutors showed the Chinese-made SKS rifle and played Fercano’s radio calls, where ‘shots fired, shots fired, shots fired’ could be heard.

Routh, representing himself, opened his cross-examination with: ‘Good to see ya. First question, is it good to be alive?’ Fercano replied, ‘Yes, it is good to be alive.’ The agent repeatedly identified Routh as the man who smiled at him from the bushes.

Later, jurors heard from Tommy McGee, a mental health professional who testified he saw a frantic man running from the golf course and later helped authorities track down Routh’s black Nissan Xterra. McGee identified Routh in court and in video shown to the jury. Routh’s cross-examination drew objections after he asked McGee if he supported Trump and whether ‘Madea, Beyoncé and Michelle Obama will be mad’ if he did.

Additional agents who testified described recovering the rifle and other gear, and processing Routh after his arrest. One FBI agent displayed the clothing Routh allegedly wore the day he was captured, along with a debit card in his name.

Routh’s questions grew increasingly odd as the afternoon wore on — at one point asking an agent whether ‘someone who loses things’ might drill a hole in a debit card to keep it on a key ring.

Routh has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate and assaulting a federal officer. Prosecutors say he had been armed with an AK-style rifle when Secret Service agents stopped him near Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach in September 2024. The attempt came just months after Trump had been shot and narrowly survived an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The trial resumes Friday morning in Fort Pierce federal court.

Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is appearing before the House Oversight Committee on Friday for a high-profile interview on whether senior staffers worked to obscure signs of mental decline in then-President Joe Biden.

Jean-Pierre is one of the highest-profile figures so far to appear before the committee, having been the most public-facing spokesperson for Biden from May 2022 until the end of his term.

The longtime Democrat-turned-Independent did not speak to reporters on her way into her closed-door transcribed interview with House investigators, which is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. and is likely to last into the afternoon.

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., is investigating whether there was a cover-up of Biden’s mental and physical state in the White House, and whether any executive actions were approved via autopen without the then-president’s full awareness.

Of particular interest to committee investigators are the myriad clemency orders Biden signed, including about 2,500 toward the end of his presidency that were executed via autopen.

Biden himself told The New York Times recently that he made every clemency decision on his own. His allies have also blasted the Republican-led probe as a partisan exercise.

Jean-Pierre was among those who publicly defended Biden in the wake of his disastrous June 2024 debate against then-candidate Donald Trump. She told reporters at a press briefing in early July that Biden was ‘as sharp as ever.’

But unlike other ex-Biden administration aides who have appeared ahead of her – many of whom still hold close ties and fierce loyalty to Biden – Jean-Pierre had a very public falling out with their world earlier this year.

In June, Jean-Pierre announced she was writing a book titled ‘Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines.’

She also announced she was leaving the Democratic Party in a press release for that book, expected in October 2025.

A summary for her book suggests it is about ‘the three weeks that led to Biden’s abandonment of his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision.’

The announcement was reportedly met with scorn by others in Biden’s orbit.

‘The hubris of thinking you can position yourself as an outsider when you not only have enjoyed the perks of extreme proximity to power — which…bestows the name recognition needed to sell books off your name — but have actively wielded it from the biggest pulpit there is, is as breathtaking as it is desperate,’ one former official told Axios.

Another person told the outlet she ‘was one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I’ve ever worked with.’

Comer sent a letter to Jean-Pierre in late June asking her to appear for an interview, in which he pointed out she was ‘a trusted inner-circle confidante’ and ‘near the president daily.’

‘Your assertion, on multiple occasions, that President Biden’s decline was attributable to such tactics as ‘cheap fakes’ or ‘misinformation’ cannot go without investigation. If White House staff carried out a strategy lasting months or even years to hide the chief executive’s condition — or to perform his duties — Congress may need to consider a legislative response,’ Comer wrote.