President Donald Trump’s approach with Russian President Vladimir Putin pivoted drastically this month when, for the first time since returning to the White House, he not only confirmed his support for Ukraine in a NATO arms agreement but issued an ultimatum to the Kremlin chief.

The warning came in a clear message: Enter into a peace deal with Ukraine or face stiff international sanctions on its top commodity, oil sales.

While the move has been championed by some, it has been questioned by others who debate whether it will be enough to deter Putin’s war ambitions in Ukraine. One security expert is arguing the plan will work, but it might take years to be effective.

‘I think it will be effective, and he’s going to stick to that strategy. He’s going to continue to push Putin to return to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith, not come to the bargaining table, make promises that the Russians don’t plan on keeping,’ Fred Fleitz, who served as a deputy assistant to Trump and chief of staff of the National Security Council during the president’s first term, told Fox News Digital.

‘That’s something Trump’s not going to tolerate,’ Fleitz added. ‘We will see this is just the first six months of the Trump presidency. This may take a couple of years to solve.’

But Trump campaigned on ending the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which has proven to be more complicated than he suggested from the campaign trail. And not everyone in the Republican Party has backed his approach when it comes to Europe, including a staunch Trump supporter, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

‘We do not want to give or sell weapons to Ukraine or be involved in any foreign wars or continue the never-ending flow of foreign aid,’ Greene said on X. ‘We want to solve our own problems plaguing our own people.’ 

Fleitz pointed to Trump’s decision to directly strike Iran and argued it reflected Trump’s ability to be nimble as a leader. 

‘He looked at the intelligence and realized it was getting too close, and he decided to adjust his policy, which was first diplomacy,’ Fleitz said.

‘But Trump also specified something very important. He said to his supporters, ‘I came up with a concept of the America-first approach to U.S. national security, and I decide what’s in it,’ Fleitz added. ‘He has ownership of this approach, and he will adjust if necessary.’

Though Trump had made clear from the campaign trail that he wanted to see Europe take a leading role in the war in Ukraine, last week he countered a major talking point from some within his party, including Vice President JD Vance.

Vance has argued against arming Ukraine and said in an op-ed last year, ‘[It] is not just a matter of dollars. Fundamentally, we lack the capacity to manufacture the amount of weapons Ukraine needs us to supply to win the war.’

Trump agreed to sell NATO nations top U.S. arms that will then be supplied to Ukraine.

‘We want to defend our country. But, ultimately, having a strong Europe is a very good thing,’ Trump said, sitting alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Security experts have largely argued that the future of Ukraine’s negotiating ability and, ultimately, the end of the war, will play out on the battlefield. 

On Thursday, John Hardie, deputy director of FDD’s Russia Program, told U.S. lawmakers on the Helsinki Commission, also known as the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, in a defense briefing that Ukraine needs to be supplied with long-range strike capabilities that can hit key Russian missile and drone plants.

‘Ukraine shouldn’t be restricted merely to shooting down ‘arrows’,’ Hardie said. ‘An optimal approach will combine both offense and defense. Ukraine needs to be able to hit the ‘archer’ and the factories that make the ‘arrows.’

‘Putin will continue his unprovoked war so long as he believes it’s sustainable and offers a pathway to achieving his goals,’ Hardie argued. ‘By shoring up Ukraine’s defense of its skies and enabling Ukraine to inflict growing costs on Russia’s war machine, as well as pressuring the Russian economy and exhausting Russia’s offensive potential on the ground, we may be able to change that calculus.’

But Fleitz, who serves as vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security, said he believes this war will only be brought to an end when an armistice agreement is secured. 

‘I think there’s probably going to be an armistice where both sides will agree to suspend the fighting,’ Fleitz said. ‘Someday, we will find a line where both nations will agree to stop fighting.’

Ultimately, he believes this will happen by Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO for a certain period of time, though with Moscow’s understanding that Kyiv will be heavily armed by Western allies. 

‘I think there’s a way to do this where Russia wouldn’t be concerned about growing Western European influence in Ukraine, and Ukraine would not be worried that Russia will invade once a ceasefire or armistice is declared,’ he added. ‘Maybe this is a pipe dream, but I think that’s the most realistic way to stop the fighting.

‘We know from history conflicts like this take time; peacemaking takes time,’ Fleitz said. ‘I think that over time, Trump is going to have an effect on Putin.’

A federal appeals judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people in the country illegally or temporarily. 

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration’s effort to end birthright citizenship that he issued earlier this year and that was granted to more than a dozen states can stand. 

Sorokin said the ruling was an exception to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limited lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. The issue is expected to return to the Supreme Court.  

Trump and the administration ‘are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,’ Sorokin wrote in his ruling. ‘But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.’

The Trump administration has argued that children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally and temporarily are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. 

Trump signed the birthright citizenship executive order, along with a slew of other orders, on his first day in office in January. 

On Wednesday, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court’s nationwide injunction, and, earlier this month, a New Hampshire federal judge issued a ruling prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit.

Sorokin disagreed with the Trump administration’s argument that the Supreme Court’s ruling warranted a narrower ruling. 

The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit argued that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, and it also threatens millions of dollars in state funding for ‘essential’ health insurance services contingent on citizenship status. 

Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Artist Amy Sherald canceled her upcoming exhibit featuring a portrait of a transgender Statue of Liberty at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery after Vice President JD Vance raised concerns the show included woke and divisive content, Fox News Digital has learned. 

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March that placed Vance in charge of overseeing the removal of programs or exhibits at Smithsonian museums that ‘degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.’ 

Vance said Sherald’s ‘American Sublime’ exhibit violated Trump’s executive order and was an example of woke and divisive content during a meeting June 9 with the Board of Regents, a source familiar with the meeting told Fox News Digital. 

‘Vice President Vance has been leading the effort to eliminate woke indoctrination from our beloved Smithsonian museums,’ an administration official said in an email to Fox News Digital. ‘On top of shepherding the One Big Beautiful Bill through the Senate and helping President Trump navigate international crises, the vice president has demonstrated his ability to get President Trump’s priorities across the finish line.’

Sherald, best known for painting former first lady Michelle Obama’s official portrait in 2018, announced Thursday she was pulling her show, ‘American Sublime,’ from the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery slated for September, The New York Times first reported. 

Sherald said she was rescinding her work from the exhibition after being told that the National Portrait Gallery had some concerns about featuring the portrait of the transgender Statue of Liberty during the show. The painting, ‘Trans Forming Liberty,’ depicts a trans woman with pink hair wearing a blue gown. 

‘These concerns led to discussions about removing the work from the exhibition,’ Sherald said in a statement, The New York Times first reported Thursday. ‘While no single person is to blame, it’s clear that institutional fear shaped by a broader climate of political hostility toward trans lives played a role. 

‘This painting exists to hold space for someone whose humanity has been politicized and disregarded. I cannot in good conscience comply with a culture of censorship, especially when it targets vulnerable communities.

‘At a time when transgender people are being legislated against, silenced and endangered across our nation, silence is not an option,’ Sherald added. ‘I stand by my work. I stand by my sitters. I stand by the truth that all people deserve to be seen — not only in life, but in art.’

The Smithsonian did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Vance’s involvement in the matter. 

The White House said the removal of Sherald’s exhibit is a ‘principled and necessary step’ toward cultivating unity at institutions like the Smithsonian. 

‘The ‘Trans Forming Liberty’ painting, which sought to reinterpret one of our nation’s most sacred symbols through a divisive and ideological lens, fundamentally strayed from the mission and spirit of our national museums,’ Trump special assistant Lindsey Halligan said in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

‘The Statue of Liberty is not an abstract canvas for political expression. It is a revered and solemn symbol of freedom, inspiration and national unity that defines the American spirit.’

Other members of the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents include the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, along with senators John Boozman, R-Ark.; Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev.; and Gary Peters, D-Mich., along with several other House members. 

Fox News’ Gabriel Hays contributed to this report. 

A House GOP lawmaker is entering the race to become South Carolina governor on Friday, his campaign confirmed to Fox News Digital.

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, is expected to kick off his campaign with an event in Rock Hill, South Carolina, on Friday.

As of Friday morning, his non-congressional X account had been changed to say, ‘Ralph Norman for Governor.’

He’s a fiscal hawk on the House GOP’s rightmost flank, where he’s joined other like-minded colleagues in upending leaders’ legislative agenda at times in the name of pushing for more conservative policy wins.

Norman is joining a crowded Republican primary field with his new gubernatorial bid. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and state Sen. Josh Kimbrell are also in the race.

Meanwhile, Norman’s House colleague, Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., is also said to be considering a campaign for governor.

‘We wish Congressman Ralph Norman the best of luck today as he announces his run for Governor,’ Mace said in a statement on X.

Norman previously ran the Warren Norman Company, a commercial real estate development business started by his father.

Before being elected to Congress via special election in 2017, Norman served in the South Carolina state House from 2009 to 2017.

A longtime ally of former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Norman was the only House Republican to formally endorse her before Haley dropped out of the race, after which Norman emphatically backed President Donald Trump.

He told Fox News Digital of his endorsement in January 2024, ‘When I supported Nikki Haley, I had the respect of Donald Trump to call him, and I told him what I was gonna do, and I decided I was going to do it.’

Norman has been a vocal supporter of Trump since Haley’s exit. He was most recently at the White House earlier this week with other House Republicans for a reception celebrating their legislative successes.

Earlier this year, he was part of a group of conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus forcing last-minute changes to the president’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ that they said fell more in line with what Trump actually wanted.

Current South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, also a close Trump ally, is term-limited at the end of 2026.

The president’s endorsement will likely play a decisive role in the Palmetto State’s GOP primary.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., exuded confidence as she declared to Gen Z activists at the Voters of Tomorrow summit that the Democrats would take back the House in 2026.

‘We have no doubt that we will win the election with the House of Representatives,’ Pelosi said, eliciting applause from the crowd. She then responded to the cheers by once again saying ‘No doubt.’

The longtime California lawmaker also said she was confident that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., would be speaker of the House after the 2026 midterms.

While Pelosi was confident about the Democrats’ chances, she also emphasized the need for preparation. The former House speaker credited early preparation for the Democrats’ victories in 2006 and 2018 to early preparation, saying that 2026 could be the same. 

‘It’s important to be strong in the year in advance, because that’s when the troops line up. We have our messaging, we have our mobilization, we need the money to do it, but they go only next to a school to hold up the most important part: the candidate,’ she said.

However, Pelosi sees another element as being key to Democrats’ victory: bringing down President Donald Trump’s approval rating. The former House speaker called Trump’s current numbers ‘terrible.’

‘By October — certainly by November, but by October, we will have — with the help of so many people working — we’ll have taken what’s his name’s numbers down,’ Pelosi said.

A recent Fox News Poll found that 46% of voters approve of Trump’s performance, while 54% disapprove. That’s exactly where things stood last month, and better than at this point 8 years ago when 41% approved.

The Voters of Tomorrow summit boasts a lineup of high-profile speakers alongside Pelosi, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and David Hogg. Both Harris and Raskin are set to address the group virtually.

Fox News’ Dana Blanton and Victoria Balara contributed to this report.

To endorse, or not to endorse, that is the question for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) as New York City and the nation wait to see if this top Democrat will throw his backing behind socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.

According to Zany Zohran’s backers, this should be a no-brainer. After all, Mamdani won the primary fair and square, but given his far-left proposals like city-owned grocery stores, free buses, and replacing cops with social workers. Jeffries is rightfully wary.

This week, would-be Mayor Mamdani ran away to Uganda to let the heat die down over a guy who once said the state should control the means of production potentially governing Wall Street.

This Africa adventure gives Jeffries a little more time to decide whether to endorse, but not much. The moment is still coming.

What makes this choice so hard for Jeffries is that he knows better than anyone just how dangerous these Democratic Socialists can be. In fact, it’s the whole reason he is now in line for the speakership should Democrats retake the House.

In 2019 Jeffries replaced another New Yorker named Joe Crowley as chair of the Democratic Caucus in the House. The coveted spot in leadership was available because Crowley had suffered a shocking primary defeat at the hands of whom? A bartender named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In spite of the fact that AOC opened the door to power for Jeffries, he is actually much more of a Crowley than a Cortez. He might be the poster child for the old-school Democrat machine politician.

Jeffries was born and raised in Brooklyn, state college undergrad, masters in public policy from Georgetown, law degree from NYU, clerked with a federal judge, a decade of private practice, two years in the state assembly and now, Congress. That is how it used to be done.

Now, Hakeem Jeffries’ party is being overrun with theater kids who skirt through college and whose political training comes almost exclusively from far-left activist organizations and Marxist tracts, and they want him to sign off on it.

The political reality for Jeffries is that if he endorses Zohran, then this 33-year-old, who can be credibly called a communist, will be hung like a millstone around the neck of every Democrat running for the House.

Even moderate House Democrats who try to distance themselves from Mamdani and his parade of pathetic and stale socialist programs will be sharply and publicly reminded that the guy they want to make Speaker of the House endorsed a communist.

Nowhere is this more true than close to home in the suburban New York districts that Republicans swept in 2024 to keep their slim House majority. There is no path back to power that doesn’t flow through Long Island and Westchester.

Republican House candidates like incumbents Mike Lawler and Nick LaLota will absolutely make Mamdani a focal point of their campaigns, no matter who their actual opponents are.

There is no easy way out of this predicament for Jeffries. Either he refuses to endorse Mamdani, and sets off an angry civil war in his party, or he does endorse him, and watches Democrats’ chances to win the House and make him speaker diminish greatly.

For any party leader, herding the cats is a great challenge. It was for Nancy Pelosi, and it is for Jeffries. But the Mamdani question is bigger than managing normal ideological differences. Jeffries has to decide if he will, for the first time, usher actual communists into the Democrats’ tent.

Most of us were born at a time when Democrats still proudly called themselves the party of Jefferson and Jackson. Today, it is starting to look more like the party of Marx and Guevara. Can Hakeem Jeffries hit the brakes? Don’t count on it.

My sources in Gotham, in both parties, the ones I trust the most, all think Jeffries will eventually, as quietly as possible, give his support to Mamdani. I’m not completely convinced, but it is the path of least resistance, which is a siren call for most politicians.

When and if Jeffries makes this cowardly choice, Republicans must be prepared to explain, quite clearly, to Americans that one of their major political parties, its oldest, in fact, has come to embrace communism.

For Hakeem Jeffries this is an existential choice, not just for his political future, but the future of his political party, and of our nation itself.

President Donald Trump arrived in Scotland late Friday for a working trip where he is expected to meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer amid ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and the U.K., as well as visit several of his properties there. 

‘We’re meeting with the prime minister tonight,’ Trump told reporters Friday before departing for Scotland. ‘We’re going to be talking about the trade deal that we made, and maybe even improve it.’

‘We want to talk about certain aspects, which is going to be good for both countries,’ Trump said. ‘More fine-tuning. Also, we’re going to do a little celebrating together, because, you know, we got along very well. U.K.’s been trying to make a deal with us for like, 12 years, and haven’t been able to do it. We got it done, and he’s doing a very good job, this prime minister. Good guy.’

In May, the U.S. and the U.K. announced the two countries had agreed to a major trade deal, which marked the first historic trade negotiation signed following Liberation Day, when Trump announced widespread tariffs for multiple countries April 2 at a range of rates.

Trump, who is slated to remain in Scotland until Tuesday, is also scheduled to visit his golf courses in Turnberry and Aberdeen while abroad. 

Here’s also what happened this week:

Federal Reserve visit 

Trump visited the Federal Reserve headquarters Thursday, as he has ramped up digs at Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. 

Trump accompanied other administration officials for a tour of the headquarters, following $2.5 billion in renovations to the building. The massive project has attracted scrutiny from lawmakers and members of the Trump administration, including the president, who suggested the huge renovation could amount to a fireable offense. 

‘I think he’s terrible … I didn’t see him as a guy that needed a palace to live in,’ Trump said July 16. ‘But the one thing I would have never guessed is that he would be spending two and a half billion dollars to build a little extension onto the Fed.’

On Thursday, the two briefly sparred over the cost of the renovation, but Trump told reporters afterward that the two had a ‘good meeting’ and that there was ‘no tension.’ Trump also shut down speculation he might oust Powell, claiming such a move would be unnecessary. 

The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, oversees the nation’s monetary policy and regulates financial institutions. 

Trump historically has railed against Powell, calling him names like ‘numskull’ and ‘too late.’ Likewise, Trump has expressed ire toward Powell for ignoring requests to lower interest rates. 

‘Well, I’d love him to lower interest rates, but other than that, what can I tell you?’ Trump said Thursday. 

Trump signed into law Thursday his roughly $9 billion rescissions package to claw back already approved federal funds for foreign aid and public broadcasting. 

The rescissions measure revoked nearly $8 billion in funding Congress already approved for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a formerly independent agency that provided impoverished countries aid and offered development assistance.

The rescissions package also rescinds more than $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides federal funding for NPR and PBS.

Donald Trump did better with American young people last fall than any Republican candidate in decades. He won men under 30, won men of college age, and even won the youth vote in the swing state of Michigan. American young people were widely assumed to be uniformly liberal, and expected to remain so forever and ever. But the reality was anything but. I saw this trend playing out in real time as I toured the country speaking on college campuses to crowds of three, four, and even five thousand strong.  Young Americans were not happy with Joe Biden’s America or Kamala Harris’ vows to continue it, and they were ready to return to the president they associated with a more prosperous pre-COVID time.

It was a big win. But it was also impermanent. It could be a one-off. It could easily be explained by the aftermath of COVID or the incredible political charisma of Donald Trump himself. The youth vote of 2024 wasn’t so much a win as it was an opportunity: A clear demonstration that conservatives actually can compete to win the votes of American young people, rather than writing them off. 

The challenge for Republicans now is seizing this Gen Z opportunity. Because Gen Z won’t become lifelong conservatives thanks to a good campaign or slick online memes. They’ll only become lifelong supporters if we’re able to deliver for them on the big issues that matter.

Experts expend a lot of effort and ink explaining what Gen Z ‘wants.’ But between my campus visits and my work running Turning Point USA, I talk to as many Gen Z’ers as anyone in the country. They want basic economic success and security like the generations before them. They want a home, they want a family, they want to feel like they are building something and that they are a part of something. 

And right now, on that front, Gen Z has a lot of problems. Economically, things are dire. In 1984, the median American home cost about three and a half times the median income in America. Today, the median house costs almost six times the median income. Rent isn’t much better, and has risen more than 50% in real terms since the 1970s. 

In 1980, tuition at the average public college was about $2,800 in today’s dollars. Today it’s around $10,000, and, unsurprisingly, that means the average college student leaves school with a debt burden that previously could have bought them a car, provided the down payment on a house, or helped them start a family. 

Financially, young people aren’t just facing more expensive necessities, but also a more predatory economic reality. Millions of Gen Zers are buying everything from concert tickets to groceries to Chipotle burritos through buy now, pay later (BNPL) setups from companies like Klarna and Affirm. Some polls indicate Gen Z prefers BNPL to traditional credit cards. Taking on debt for purchases may make sense when buying a house or a car, but once a person is paying for their groceries with 4 monthly payments at 10% interest, something has gone awry. 

Of course, America hasn’t become a poor nation. In fact, we’re as spectacularly wealthy as ever. Yet this wealth doesn’t reach young Americans (unless it’s by way of inheritance). Instead, over and over, policy decisions have ensured that elderly Americans grow wealthier and wealthier. Never in American history has so much wealth been concentrated in those who are already retired from the labor force. This reality became even more pronounced during COVID and the rampant inflation that followed. Older Americans with equities and assets in their portfolio saw their net worth skyrocket, while younger Americans just saw those assets become even more unaffordable.

It wasn’t always like this. When the baby boomers of today were growing up, government policy routinely favored young people. Jobs were easier to get, with far fewer credentialing hurdles. Houses were built far faster. Wages were higher instead of being suppressed through sky-high legal and illegal immigration. Today, though, America is a country built for those who are already owners, and those too young to buy are finding themselves stuck becoming borrowers and renters. The median age of first-time home buyers is now pushing 40, about a decade higher than the 1980s when the average age was just 29!

This isn’t because Gen Z is lazy — a common retort I hear — it’s because they are contending with structural disadvantages older Americans didn’t experience. If this continues, something will break, and young people will lead the way in breaking it. 

Zohran Mamdani has become a celebrity for Gen Z with his slick promises of a New York City rent freeze, state-owned grocery stores, and free daycare as stepping stones to eventually seizing the means of production. Mamdani’s political surge is not a passing fad or pure TV news fodder. 

It should be a giant flashing red alarm. There are millions of Americans who feel cut off from any meaningful economic progress or stability. Eventually, if they can’t obtain prosperity the old-fashioned way, they will simply try to vote themselves prosperity, and there will be plenty of demagogues promising this can be done easily by simply expropriating those with more than them.

Most of Gen Z is ideologically fluid. They’re happy to give Republicans a shot, then turn around and elect a Marxist two years later.

America will have a reordering of its economy. The only question is what that reordering will look like. There are two paths before us. We will either have stabilizing reforms like those of Theodore Roosevelt a century ago and those espoused by nationalist, populist conservatives, or we will have revolutionary, destructive ‘reforms’ like those that have already ruined once-prosperous countries like Cuba or Venezuela. If we succeed in the next three years, or if we fail, will determine which.