Russian President Vladimir Putin used his New Year’s address to deliver a blunt message to the West and to his own troops: Russia is not backing down in Ukraine.

As 2026 arrived in Russia’s far eastern regions, Putin vowed victory in the nearly four-year war, praising Russian soldiers and framing the conflict as a fight for the nation’s survival — even as the United States ramps up diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the bloodshed.

‘We believe in you and our victory,’ Putin said in remarks broadcast nationwide and released by the Kremlin on Wednesday. Addressing troops directly, he congratulated ‘all our soldiers and commanders’ and pledged continued support for what Moscow calls its ‘special military operation.’

Putin cast the war as a struggle for Russia’s homeland, ‘truth and justice,’ signaling determination to press ahead despite mounting losses and international pressure.

In a separate message, ex-President Dmitry Medvedev — Putin’s security council deputy — said of victory in Ukraine: ‘I sincerely believe that it is near.’ Echoing Putin, he spoke of ‘our great and invincible Russia.’

The defiant tone comes as the war approaches grim milestones. On Jan. 12, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will surpass the 1,418 days the Soviet Union fought Nazi Germany in Europe during World War II. On Feb. 24, the conflict will enter its fourth year. Western estimates place the number of killed and wounded at more than 1 million — a figure the Kremlin disputes.

Putin’s rhetoric stood in sharp contrast to renewed diplomatic activity led by Washington.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with U.S. President Donald Trump at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Sunday, as the White House explores possible paths to end Europe’s largest land war since World War II.

After the meeting, Trump said Ukraine and Russia were ‘closer than ever’ to peace, while acknowledging that major obstacles — particularly territorial disputes — remain unresolved. Reuters separately reported that Trump and Zelenskyy discussed potential U.S. troop involvement as part of broader security guarantees, though no decisions were announced.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Escalating claims by Russia that Ukraine tried to hit a residence used by President Vladimir Putin with drones have been dismissed by a top military drone expert, who called the alleged attack ‘hard to fathom’ and tactically implausible.

Cameron Chell’s comments came as Moscow doubled down on accusations Kyiv has flatly denied, with the drone industry leader arguing the alleged strike announced Monday runs counter to Ukraine’s drone tactics.

Chell, the CEO and co-founder of Draganfly, a drone manufacturer that supplies to the U.S. Department of Defense and allied militaries, including Ukraine, said Russia’s claims lack credibility.

‘What really makes things usually very signature about Ukraine is that they are always incredibly clever about how they use drones,’ Chell told Fox News Digital.

‘They are clever from a cost perspective — let’s call it an efficiency perspective — but also very clever in their tactics,’ he added.

‘I find it hard to fathom that this drone attack even happened on Putin’s residence or that it was something that Ukraine orchestrated for a number of reasons,’ Chell said.

‘Based on the description of the alleged attack over the top of Putin’s residence, the drones would not have been launched from a very long distance away,’ he said.

‘This would have avoided up to 1000 km of air defense systems and then likely attacking one of the most heavily fortified air defense networks surrounding Putin’s Valdai residence.

‘The cost benefit analysis, not to mention the political analysis, also does not make sense,’ he added.

Chell’s comments came as Russia doubled down Tuesday on accusations that Ukraine attempted to strike a presidential palace in the Novgorod region using drones, allegedly to disrupt peace efforts.

Kyiv dismissed the allegation, with the timing also raising questions given the upbeat tone of a recent meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Florida.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed late Monday that 91 drones were intercepted en route to Putin’s residence on the shores of Lake Valdai.

His statement appeared to contradict earlier Defense Ministry tallies, which said 89 drones were shot down over eight regions, including 18 over Novgorod, later adding another 23.

Only after Lavrov spoke did the ministry allege that 49 drones intercepted over Bryansk, nearly 300 miles away, were also targeting Valdai.

Asked about wreckage, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was ‘a matter for our military,’ while calling Zelenskyy’s denial and Western skepticism ‘completely insane.’

Peskov said Russia’s diplomatic stance would be toughened, and Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin vowed there could be ‘no forgiveness’ for Zelenskyy.

Chell said the story simply does not add up. ‘To attack Putin’s residence in the manner described would require much more sophisticated tactics than simply sending long-range, relatively slow-moving drones,’ he said.

Chell also noted that this was a night operation and therefore, it generally rules out accurate visual mapping navigation. 

‘Since the description of the attack also does not lend itself to the use of fiber optic communication, which requires a relatively close range launch point, these drones would likely have had to rely on GPS navigation,’ he explained.

‘This would easily have been thwarted in this area and the Ukrainians would have known this,’ Chell said.

Politically, Chell argued, Ukraine has nothing to gain. ‘They’re bold, but right in the middle of peace talks — when they need Trump on side — it makes no sense,’ he said. ‘Ukraine is just politically too smart to have done that.’

Zelenskyy on Monday also called the claim a complete fabrication, accusing Moscow of laying the groundwork for further attacks. 

Lavrov warned of retaliation but said Russia would continue talks with Washington.

Trump also said he learned of the alleged attack directly from Putin and was ‘very angry about it.’ Asked whether there was evidence, Trump replied, ‘We’ll find out.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Kremlin for comment.

Lawmakers fought over Obamacare subsidies tooth and nail for the latter part of the year, and ultimately, neither side won.

Senate Democrats thrust the government into the longest shutdown in history in an effort to refocus the narrative in Congress on healthcare, and Republicans agreed to talk about it in the open. And both Republicans and Democrats got a shot to advance their own, partisan plans. Both failed.

Now, the subsidies are set to expire on Wednesday, sending price hikes across the desks of tens of millions of Americans that relied on the credits. 

When lawmakers return on the first week of January, healthcare will be front of mind for many in the Senate. But any push to either revive, or completely replace, the subsidies may, for a time, take a backseat to the government funding fight brewing ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline.

When asked if he was disappointed that lawmakers were unable to, at least in the short term, solve the subsidies issue, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was more concerned about people that would experience higher costs. 

‘I think who it’s most disappointing for are the people whose premiums are going to go up by two, three times,’ Hawley said. ‘So, it’s not good.’

Price hikes on premium costs will be variable for the roughly 20 million Americans that rely on them, depending on age, income and other factors. Broadly, a person’s out-of-pocket cost is expected to double with the credit’s lapse, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The nonpartisan healthcare think tank painted a broader picture of the disparate impact on premium cost increases in a report released late last month that, based on myriad factors, including where a person lives, their age range and where they sit above the poverty line, some could see price hikes as high as 361%.

While Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ separate plans failed to advance — despite four Republicans crossing the aisle to support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., plan — lawmakers are working together for a solution.

There are two plans with traction in the House. The GOP’s plan advanced on the floor earlier this month but doesn’t address the issue of the expiring tax credits. Then there is a bipartisan plan that calls for a three-year extension of the subsidies, similar to Senate Democrats’ plan, that is teed up for a vote.

The latter option, and its bipartisan momentum, has some Democrats hopeful that a three-year extension could get a shot in the upper chamber.

‘I’ll also say that the glimmer of hope is if we’re searching for a bipartisan deal that can pass the Congress, we don’t need to search any further than the three-year extension of the subsidies that’s going to pass the House of Representatives,’ Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital. ‘We don’t need a negotiation any further. That bill can pass, if it can provide relief to the taxpayers, and it can pass, then that’s our vehicle.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, has maintained a deeply-rooted position against just a simple extension of the credits.

He argued that a straight-up extension for three years would be ‘a waste of $83 billion,’ and lacks any of the reforms that Republicans desire, like reinstalling an income cap, adding anti-fraud measures, and reaffirming language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘I mean, I think if nothing else, depending on if the House sends something over here, there would be a new vehicle available,’ Thune said. ‘And if there is some bipartisan agreement on a plan, then you know, it’s possible that we could — obviously it’d have to be something that we think the House could pass, and the president would sign.’

‘But I’m not ruling anything out, I guess is what I’m saying,’ he continued. ‘But you know, a three-year extension of a failed program that’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse is not happening.’

Senate Democrats are open to negotiating on a bipartisan plan, something that is already ongoing after Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, held a meeting with lawmakers before leaving Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

But Democrats are also making clear that they don’t want to budge on some of the Republicans’ demands.

‘Let’s put it this way, Republicans are asking to meet with me, and I’m telling them, I’ll listen, you know, I made it clear what I think is the only practical approach, and I’m certainly not going to go along with selling junk insurance,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

President Donald Trump spent much of 2025 attempting what had eluded his predecessors: personally engaging both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an effort to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. From high-profile summits to direct phone calls, the administration pushed for a negotiated settlement even as the fighting ground on and the map changed little.

By year’s end, the outlines of a potential deal were clearer than they had been at any point since Russia’s full-scale invasion, with U.S. and Ukrainian officials coalescing around a revised 20-point framework addressing ceasefire terms, security guarantees and disputed territory. But 2025 also made clear why the war has proven so resistant to resolution: neither battlefield pressure, economic sanctions nor intensified diplomacy were enough to force Moscow or Kyiv into concessions they were unwilling to make.

The Trump administration’s push for a deal

The year began with a high-profile fallout last February between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, when the Ukrainian leader stormed out of the White House after Trump told him he did not have ‘any cards’ to bring to negotiations with Russia.

Frustrated by the pace of talks after promising to end the war on ‘Day One’ of his presidency, Trump initially directed his ire toward Zelenskyy before later conceding that Moscow, not Kyiv, was standing in the way of progress.

‘I thought the Russia-Ukraine war was the easiest to stop but Putin has let me down,’ Trump said in September 2025.

That frustration had already surfaced publicly months earlier as Russian strikes continued despite diplomatic engagement. ‘He talks nice, and then he bombs everybody in the evening,’ Trump said in July.

Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin culminated in a high-profile summit in Alaska in August, though additional meetings were later called off amid a lack of progress toward a deal.

Still, Trump struck a more optimistic tone toward the end of the year. On Sunday, after meeting Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago, the president said the sides were ‘getting a lot closer, maybe very close’ to a peace agreement, while acknowledging that major obstacles remained — including the status of disputed territory such as the Donbas region, which he described as ‘very tough.’

Trump said the meeting followed what he described as a ‘very positive’ phone call with Putin that lasted more than two hours, underscoring the administration’s continued effort to press both sides toward a negotiated end to the war.

Where negotiations stand now

By the end of 2025, the diplomatic track had narrowed around a more defined — but still contested — framework. U.S. officials and Ukrainian negotiators have been working from a revised 20-point proposal that outlines a potential ceasefire, security guarantees for Ukraine, and mechanisms to address disputed territory and demilitarized zones.

Zelenskyy has publicly signaled openness to elements of the framework while insisting that any agreement must include robust, long-term security guarantees to deter future Russian aggression. Ukrainian officials have also made clear that questions surrounding occupied territory, including parts of the Donbas, cannot be resolved solely through ceasefire lines without broader guarantees.

Russia, however, has not agreed to the proposal. Moscow has continued to insist on recognition of its territorial claims and has resisted terms that would constrain its military posture or require meaningful concessions. Russian officials have at times linked their negotiating stance to developments on the battlefield, reinforcing the Kremlin’s view that leverage — not urgency — should dictate the pace of talks.

The result is a negotiation process that is more structured than earlier efforts, but still far from resolution: positions have hardened even as channels remain open, and talks continue alongside ongoing fighting rather than replacing it.

Russia’s territorial pressure — and Ukraine’s limited gains

Even as diplomacy intensified in 2025, the war on the ground remained defined by slow, grinding territorial pressure rather than decisive breakthroughs. Russian forces continued pushing for incremental gains in eastern and southern Ukraine, particularly along axes tied to Moscow’s long-stated objective of consolidating control over territory it claims as Russian.

Russian advances were measured and costly, often unfolding village by village through artillery-heavy assaults and sustained drone use rather than sweeping offensives. While Moscow failed to capture major new cities or trigger a collapse in Ukrainian defenses, it expanded control in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine, maintaining pressure across multiple fronts and keeping territorial questions central to both the fighting and any future negotiations.

Ukraine, for its part, did not mount a large-scale counteroffensive in 2025 comparable to earlier phases of the war. Ukrainian forces achieved localized tactical successes, at times reclaiming small areas or reversing specific Russian advances, but these gains were limited in scope and often temporary. None translated into a sustained territorial breakthrough capable of altering the broader balance of the front.

Instead, Kyiv focused on preventing further losses, reinforcing defensive lines and imposing costs on Russian forces through precision strikes and asymmetric tactics. With decisive territorial gains out of reach, Ukraine expanded attacks against Russian energy infrastructure, targeting refineries, fuel depots and other hubs critical to sustaining Moscow’s war effort — including sites deep inside Russian territory.

Russia, meanwhile, continued its own campaign against Ukraine’s energy grid, striking power and heating infrastructure as part of a broader effort to strain Ukraine’s economy, civilian resilience and air defenses. The result was a widening pattern of horizontal escalation, as both sides sought leverage beyond the front lines without achieving a decisive military outcome.

The result was a battlefield stalemate with movement at the margins: Russia advanced just enough to sustain its territorial claims and domestic narrative, while Ukraine proved capable of blunting assaults and imposing costs but not of reclaiming large swaths of occupied land. The fighting underscored a central reality of 2025 — territory still mattered deeply to both sides, but neither possessed the military leverage needed to force a decisive shift.

That dynamic would increasingly shape the limits of diplomacy. Without a major change on the battlefield, talks could test red lines and clarify positions, but not compel compromise.

Why talks stalled: leverage without decision

For all the diplomatic activity in 2025, negotiations repeatedly ran into the same obstacle: neither Russia nor Ukraine faced the kind of pressure that would force a decisive compromise.

On the battlefield, Russia continued to absorb losses while pressing for incremental territorial gains, reinforcing Moscow’s belief that time remained on its side. Ukrainian forces, though increasingly strained, succeeded in preventing a collapse and in imposing costs through deep strikes and attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure — demonstrating an ability to shape the conflict even without major territorial advances.

Economic pressure also reshaped — but did not determine — Moscow’s calculus. Despite years of Western sanctions, Russia continued financing its war effort in 2025, ramping up defense production and adapting its economy to sustain prolonged conflict. While sanctions constrained growth and access to advanced technology, they raised the long-term costs of the war without producing the immediate pressure needed to force President Vladimir Putin toward concessions.

Those realities defined the limits of U.S. mediation. While the Trump administration pushed both sides to clarify red lines and explore possible frameworks for ending the war, Washington could illuminate choices without dictating outcomes, absent a decisive shift on the ground or a sudden change in Moscow’s calculations.

The result was a year of talks that clarified positions without closing gaps. As long as pressure produced pain without decision, negotiations could narrow options and define boundaries, even if they could not yet bring the conflict to an end.
 

Two West African nations have issued a simultaneous ban on American citizens in a diplomatic tit-for-tat move, amidst heightened tensions with both the United States and Europe, and as Russia seeks to increase its economic and geopolitical influence in the region.

Mali and Burkina Faso made the move in response to the Trump administration’s Dec. 16 expansion of travel restrictions to more than 20 countries. The policy particularly affected the African continent, with Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Niger, Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan also being subject to travel restrictions.

The Trump administration cited the persistence of armed attacks in both nations as part of the rationale for its decision:

‘According to the Department of State, terrorist organizations continue to plan and conduct terrorist activities throughout Burkina Faso. According to the Fiscal Year 2024, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Entry/Exit Overstay Report (‘Overstay Report’), Burkina Faso had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 9.16 percent and a student (F), vocational (M), and exchange visitor (J) visa overstay rate of 22.95 percent. Additionally, Burkina Faso has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.’

Regarding its decision to include Mali on the list, it stated:

‘According to the Department of State, armed conflict between the Malian government and armed groups is common throughout the country.  Terrorist organizations operate freely in certain areas of Mali.’

Burkina Faso and Mali are both currently ruled by military juntas that came to power amidst rising violence and instability, as both nations came under attack from Islamist terrorist groups.

Both nations have also seen a rise in anti-French sentiment, in conjunction with deepening relationships with Russia, which has pledged to offer assistance in fighting back the Islamist rebels battling the central governments for territorial control.

‘In accordance with the principle of reciprocity, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation informs the national and international community that, with immediate effect, the Government of the Republic of Mali will apply the same conditions and requirements to US nationals as those imposed on Malian citizens,’ the Malian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated.

Burkina Faso’s government cited a similar rationale for issuing its ban on American travelers.

Both nations, as well as neighboring Niger and Nigeria, have seen skyrocketing violence in recent years, as chronically underfunded governments struggle to retain control of rural, sparsely-populated desert regions.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

U.S. and partner forces killed or captured nearly 25 Islamic State operatives in Syria in the days following a large-scale U.S.-led strike on Dec. 19, according to a new statement from U.S. Central Command, underscoring Washington’s assessment that ISIS remains an active and persistent threat inside the country.

CENTCOM said those forces conducted 11 follow-on missions between Dec. 20 and Dec. 29, killing at least seven ISIS members, capturing the remainder and eliminating four ISIS weapons caches. The operations followed Operation Hawkeye Strike, when U.S. and Jordanian forces hit more than 70 ISIS targets across central Syria using over 100 precision munitions, destroying infrastructure and weapons sites linked to the group. 

‘We will not relent,’ CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper said, adding that U.S. forces remain ‘steadfast’ in working with regional partners to dismantle ISIS networks that pose a threat to U.S. and regional security.

The scope of the follow-on raids highlights a reality U.S. commanders and analysts have been warning about for months: ISIS no longer controls large swaths of territory, but it retains the ability to organize, strike and regenerate inside Syria’s fragmented security landscape.

Syria remains divided among competing forces, militias and foreign-backed armed groups, with no single authority exercising full control over large parts of the country. Analysts say that vacuum continues to provide space for ISIS cells to operate quietly, recruit and exploit overstretched local forces.

Analysts note that Syria’s security environment remains shaped by former jihadist networks that were never fully demobilized after the war. The country’s transitional leadership, including President Ahmed al-Sharaa, emerged from armed Islamist factions that relied heavily on foreign fighters and militias, according to regional security assessments. While those groups are not synonymous with ISIS, experts say the incomplete dismantling of extremist networks has left gaps that ISIS cells continue to exploit.

‘ISIS today doesn’t need a caliphate to be dangerous,’ Bill Roggio told Fox News Digital. ‘We’ve always been quick to declare terrorist organizations defeated and insignificant, and that couldn’t be further from the truth.’

Roggio said the group has adapted rather than disappeared, shifting away from holding territory toward smaller, more covert cells capable of carrying out lethal attacks. He pointed to ongoing ISIS activity not only in Syria and Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and other regions, citing United Nations reporting that estimates roughly 2,000 ISIS fighters remain active in Afghanistan alone.

‘That’s not what a defeated group looks like,’ Roggio said, noting that ISIS continues to recruit, indoctrinate and inspire attacks even without the visibility it once had.

One of the most sensitive vulnerabilities remains the network of detention facilities in northeastern Syria holding thousands of ISIS terrorists and supporters. Those prisons are guarded primarily by Kurdish-led forces backed by a small U.S. military presence, estimated at roughly 1,000 troops, according to Reuters.

U.S. and coalition officials have repeatedly warned that any major disruption to prison security could allow hardened ISIS operatives to escape and reconstitute networks across Syria and beyond. Kurdish officials have also raised concerns about funding shortages, manpower strain and pressure from rival militias operating nearby.

While U.S. officials have not publicly linked the recent strikes to prison-related threats, analysts say the broader environment of fragmented control increases the risk of coordinated attacks, insider assistance or prison unrest.

The danger is not theoretical. ISIS has previously staged mass prison break operations in Syria and Iraq, including a 2022 assault on the al-Sinaa prison in Hasakah that required days of fighting to contain.

The U.S. strikes also come amid continued instability inside Syria, where multiple armed actors operate with overlapping authority. Analysts note that clashes among militias, sectarian violence and unresolved command structures have weakened overall security and diverted attention from counterterrorism efforts.

Bombings in neighborhoods of Damascus, including Mezzeh, and unrest in minority areas have further illustrated the gaps ISIS and other extremist groups can exploit, according to regional security assessments and open-source reporting.

‘Syria’s chaos is the accelerant,’ Roggio said. ‘ISIS thrives where no one is fully in charge.’

U.S. officials and analysts stress that ISIS activity in Syria is part of a wider pattern rather than an isolated flare-up.

Sources in the Israeli Mossad told Fox News Digital of continued ISIS-linked activity across multiple theaters, including recruitment networks and small-scale attacks designed to test security responses and maintain operational relevance.

In Turkey, security forces recently clashed with Islamic State militants during counterterrorism operations, wounding several officers, according to Reuters on Monday. Turkish authorities said the raids targeted ISIS cells suspected of planning attacks inside the country.

‘These are signals, not spikes,’ Roggio said. ‘ISIS operates across regions, adapting to pressure and exploiting weak governance wherever it finds it.’

The renewed U.S. military action raises difficult questions for policymakers about how long the current containment strategy can hold.

While U.S. officials say the Dec. 19 strikes delivered a significant blow to ISIS infrastructure, they have also acknowledged that counterterrorism operations alone cannot eliminate the underlying conditions that allow the group to persist.

‘Just because we want to declare the war against terror over doesn’t mean it’s over,’ Roggio said. ‘The enemy gets a vote.’

This year brought us Trump the Sequel and that meant the left had extra motivation to be annoying. Their hatred of President Donald Trump, conservatives and even the late Charlie Kirk defined 2025.

Still, there were some who outdid everyone else in their quest to be, drumroll, please, the Most Annoying Person of 2025. I ignored people who made news saying just one idiotic comment or who are just obscure media personalities. (Like Matthew Dowd who lost his bogus MSNBC job for his comments bashing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk for ‘hate speech’ after Kirk had been murdered.)

1. He was funny 20 years ago

No one deserves the top spot on this list more than ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ host Jimmy Kimmel. Most late-night programs have faded from view as their hosts have turned them into orgies of Trump-bashing. But Kimmel excels at hating conservatives so much that he almost qualifies to be a male cast member of ‘The View.’ (Yep, they’re here, too.)

Kimmel gained more attention for saying vile things and fighting Trump than for anything funny.

Former ‘Late Show’ host David Letterman termed Kimmel, ‘the leader of the resistance,’ and Kimmel later cried millionaire tears because he had a ‘hard year.’ He earned a temporary suspension with one of the worst comments about the Kirk assassination, saying, ‘We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and everything they can to score political points from it.’ He was wrong, of course, but we are used to that. Trump later said, ‘Jimmy Kimmel was horrible,’ and who am I to disagree with my president?

2. You knew they’d make the list

If the annoying people of Earth have a home base, it’s not some secluded island fortress, it’s ABC’s ‘The View.’ The gaggle of hosts — from leftist moderator Whoopi Goldberg to crackpot Joy Behar to pretend conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin — is a reminder that quantity is not quality. 

This year, they pretended radical Islamic Iran wasn’t worse than the U.S. (Goldberg); claimed using the National Guard to stop crime was ‘a pretext to stop the next election!’ (Behar); and compared the election of Trump to … Hitler. (Behar: ‘The Germans voted also. Just saying.’)

The show has become such an embarrassment that the TV show ‘Landman’ mocked it for being a, ‘bunch of pissed off millionaires bitching about how much they hate millionaires, Trump, and men, and you, and me, and everybody else they got a bee up their ass about.’ ‘The View’ has gone from mindless propaganda to a punchline.

3. The first of the pod people

If you’re lucky, you’ve never heard of podcaster Jennifer Welch. Just imagine a ghoul-like figure from your deepest nightmares, then give her blonde hair and a microphone.

She’s one of the two co-hosts for the ‘I’ve Had It’ podcast, and it’s well-named. She and her co-host first appeared in the Bravo series ‘Sweet Home Oklahoma,’ which no one ever heard of. But now, the press loves her because she says hateful things about conservatives. 

CNN’s profile of Welch quotes her calling Trump a, ‘fat, fascist f— who’s ruining everything for everybody.’ The New York Times notes, ‘‘Patriots, gaytriots, theytriots, Blacktriots and browntriots,’ is how Ms. Welch greets the listeners of their primary podcast.’ She left out morontriots who must make up the bulk of her audience.

Welch made news calling Kirk’s widow Erika a ‘grifter’ and TPUSA said that comment was, ‘beneath contempt.’ 

I’m sure Welch will say worse in 2026 because the media reward her bile with support. CNN said she and her co-host are, ‘two women who love their country and aren’t afraid to name and shame people.’ 

See what I mean?

4. More pod-ish people 

Podcaster antisemite Nick Fuentes and Twitch antisemite Hasan Piker showed the world that the worst users of social media have one thing in common — hatred. Both of them have dominated the social world and been everywhere in the media as civilized society reacts in horror. 

Fuentes calls himself an admirer of communist Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and says Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler was ‘really f—ing cool.’ Pretty much on brand.

Piker, when he’s not being accused of giving his dog electric shocks, spends his time saying offensive things, like, ‘America deserved 9/11.’ He later walked it back because of the backlash, but he still has millions of followers on multiple platforms. 

Fox News did an analysis of what he says, and it’s so vile, I don’t want to repeat it. He’s all across major media. The Times called him, ‘A Progressive Mind in a Body Made for the ‘Manosphere.’’ 

The press is desperate to recreate their own Joe Rogan and this is the best they’ve got.

5. Spacey

Singer Katy Perry had not one, but two spacey experiences in 2025. First, she sort-of went into space on a Jeff Bezos rocket. The owner of Amazon and the Washington Post sent his then-fiancée Lauren Sanchez, and five other famous women, into near-space. 

Perry is in the cool kids’ club, so she got to go. The singer actually vowed to ‘put the ‘a–’ in astronaut’ and made a fool of herself when she landed, kneeling and kissing the ground because of an 11-minute rocket trip. She was quoted declaring, ‘I feel super connected to love.’ 

That must have been true. She is now dating her own space cadet, former lefty Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

6. Friday the 13th

Cynthia Erivo is 2025’s it gal. She’s everywhere and impossible not to see. As NBC put it, she’s ‘Proudly Bald and Has No Eyebrows.’ Throw in nails like Freddy Krueger and the bisexual star is everything the media want in a celebrity — weird and alternative. 

She’s the star of the two ‘Wicked’ movies and even played Jesus in the Hollywood Bowl (naturally) version of the musical ‘Jesus Christ Superstar.’ 

Erivo revels in her unusual look, even shaving her own eyebrows, ‘Whenever I’m talking to my makeup artist, I tell her that I just want to look like a pretty thumb.’ 

Yeah, I can’t top that.

7. It ain’t over till it’s over

The 2024 Democratic election debate wasn’t enough for Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris recently declared, ‘I am not done. I have lived my entire career a life of service, and it’s in my bones.’ Harris released her book, ‘107 Days’ and managed to annoy Democrats and Republicans about equally with her alleged recollection of events. 

At least former President Richard Nixon was nice enough to tell us, ‘You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.’ 

Harris will make us endure more garbled responses before she goes gently into that good night of her career.

Lawmakers fought over Obamacare subsidies tooth and nail for the latter part of the year, and ultimately, neither side won.

Senate Democrats thrust the government into the longest shutdown in history in an effort to refocus the narrative in Congress on healthcare, and Republicans agreed to talk about it in the open. And both Republicans and Democrats got a shot to advance their own, partisan plans. Both failed.

Now, the subsidies are set to expire on Wednesday, sending price hikes across the desks of tens of millions of Americans that relied on the credits. 

When lawmakers return on the first week of January, healthcare will be front of mind for many in the Senate. But any push to either revive, or completely replace, the subsidies may, for a time, take a backseat to the government funding fight brewing ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline.

When asked if he was disappointed that lawmakers were unable to, at least in the short term, solve the subsidies issue, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was more concerned about people that would experience higher costs. 

‘I think who it’s most disappointing for are the people whose premiums are going to go up by two, three times,’ Hawley said. ‘So, it’s not good.’

Price hikes on premium costs will be variable for the roughly 20 million Americans that rely on them, depending on age, income and other factors. Broadly, a person’s out-of-pocket cost is expected to double with the credit’s lapse, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The nonpartisan healthcare think tank painted a broader picture of the disparate impact on premium cost increases in a report released late last month that, based on myriad factors, including where a person lives, their age range and where they sit above the poverty line, some could see price hikes as high as 361%.

While Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ separate plans failed to advance — despite four Republicans crossing the aisle to support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., plan — lawmakers are working together for a solution.

There are two plans with traction in the House. The GOP’s plan advanced on the floor earlier this month but doesn’t address the issue of the expiring tax credits. Then there is a bipartisan plan that calls for a three-year extension of the subsidies, similar to Senate Democrats’ plan, that is teed up for a vote.

The latter option, and its bipartisan momentum, has some Democrats hopeful that a three-year extension could get a shot in the upper chamber.

‘I’ll also say that the glimmer of hope is if we’re searching for a bipartisan deal that can pass the Congress, we don’t need to search any further than the three-year extension of the subsidies that’s going to pass the House of Representatives,’ Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital. ‘We don’t need a negotiation any further. That bill can pass, if it can provide relief to the taxpayers, and it can pass, then that’s our vehicle.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, has maintained a deeply-rooted position against just a simple extension of the credits.

He argued that a straight-up extension for three years would be ‘a waste of $83 billion,’ and lacks any of the reforms that Republicans desire, like reinstalling an income cap, adding anti-fraud measures, and reaffirming language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘I mean, I think if nothing else, depending on if the House sends something over here, there would be a new vehicle available,’ Thune said. ‘And if there is some bipartisan agreement on a plan, then you know, it’s possible that we could — obviously it’d have to be something that we think the House could pass, and the president would sign.’

‘But I’m not ruling anything out, I guess is what I’m saying,’ he continued. ‘But you know, a three-year extension of a failed program that’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse is not happening.’

Senate Democrats are open to negotiating on a bipartisan plan, something that is already ongoing after Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, held a meeting with lawmakers before leaving Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

But Democrats are also making clear that they don’t want to budge on some of the Republicans’ demands.

‘Let’s put it this way, Republicans are asking to meet with me, and I’m telling them, I’ll listen, you know, I made it clear what I think is the only practical approach, and I’m certainly not going to go along with selling junk insurance,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

Escalating claims by Russia that Ukraine tried to hit a residence used by President Vladimir Putin with drones have been dismissed by a top military drone expert, who called the alleged attack ‘hard to fathom’ and tactically implausible.

Cameron Chell’s comments came as Moscow doubled down on accusations Kyiv has flatly denied, with the drone industry leader arguing the alleged strike announced Monday runs counter to Ukraine’s drone tactics.

Chell, the CEO and co-founder of Draganfly, a drone manufacturer that supplies to the U.S. Department of Defense and allied militaries, including Ukraine, said Russia’s claims lack credibility.

‘What really makes things usually very signature about Ukraine is that they’re always incredibly clever about how they use drones,’ Chell told Fox News Digital.

‘They are clever from a cost perspective — let’s call it an efficiency perspective — but also very clever in their tactics,’ he added.

‘I find it hard to fathom that this drone attack even happened on Putin’s residence or that it was something that Ukraine orchestrated for a number of reasons,’ Chell said.

‘To get over the top of Putin’s residence, for one, the drones would not have been launched from a very long distance away,’ he added.

Chell’s comments came as Russia doubled down Tuesday on accusations that Ukraine attempted to strike a presidential palace in the Novgorod region using drones, allegedly to disrupt peace efforts.

Kyiv dismissed the allegation, with the timing also raising questions given the upbeat tone of a recent meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Florida.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed late Monday that 91 drones were intercepted en route to Putin’s residence on the shores of Lake Valdai.

His statement appeared to contradict earlier Defense Ministry tallies, which said 89 drones were shot down over eight regions, including 18 over Novgorod, later adding another 23.

Only after Lavrov spoke did the ministry allege that 49 drones intercepted over Bryansk, nearly 300 miles away, were also targeting Valdai.

Asked about wreckage, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was ‘a matter for our military,’ while calling Zelenskyy’s denial and Western skepticism ‘completely insane.’

Peskov said Russia’s diplomatic stance would be toughened, and Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin vowed there could be ‘no forgiveness’ for Zelenskyy.

Chell said the story simply does not add up. ‘To attack Putin’s residence, you need long-range, very fast-moving drones,’ he said.

He added that for drones that small to reach such a site, they would have had to be launched from a much closer location, likely inside Russia itself.

‘They would have to be within about 10 kilometers [6.2 miles] — or maybe, at most, 30 kilometers — of Putin’s residence,’ Chell said.

‘That facility where Putin lives would also be incredibly secure, and so to have a number of lower-cost, slower-moving drones coming in on that facility would be very un-Ukrainian,’ Chell said.

‘Ukraine also doesn’t announce when they’re going to show up,’ he added.

Chell also noted that night operations would rule out GPS- or AI-based navigation due to jamming and visibility limits, making the launch of dozens of drones even less plausible.

‘Apparently the thing was at night, so that’s very difficult for machine vision or AI mapping software,’ he said. ‘So, you know, it definitely wasn’t using GPS, because it would have been jammed. There are just a bunch of things that don’t add up.’

Politically, Chell argued, Ukraine has nothing to gain. ‘They’re bold, but right in the middle of peace talks — when they need Trump on side — it makes no sense,’ he said. ‘Ukraine is just politically too smart to have done that.’

Zelenskyy on Monday also called the claim a complete fabrication, accusing Moscow of laying the groundwork for further attacks. 

Lavrov warned of retaliation but said Russia would continue talks with Washington.

Trump also said he learned of the alleged attack directly from Putin and was ‘very angry about it.’ Asked whether there was evidence, Trump replied, ‘We’ll find out.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Kremlin for comment.

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to produce documents related to its decision to investigate and bring criminal charges against Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia while he was detained at a maximum-security prison in El Salvador earlier this year – signaling what is sure to be an action-packed evidentiary hearing in Nashville next month. 

The order, filed by U.S. Judge Waverly Crenshaw earlier this month and released to the public Tuesday afternoon, requires the Justice Department to produce all relevant documents to defense lawyers pertaining to its decision earlier this year to open an investigation and seek criminal charges against Abrego Garcia for conduct stemming from a 2022 traffic stop. 

The Justice Department opened the criminal investigation and presented the case to a grand jury earlier this year, when Abrego Garcia was detained at CECOT, and at the same time as lawyers for the Trump administration officials were telling a separate federal judge in Maryland that they were powerless to bring him back from Salvadoran custody. 

The new order stops short of compelling any government witnesses to testify for next month’s hearing, including testimony from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose remarks – for months – have been at the center of the vindictive prosecution effort pursued by Abrego Garcia’s defense team in Tennessee.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have argued Blanche played ‘a leading role’ in the decision to prosecute him, a notion Blanche’s office has vehemently dismissed.

They had also honed in on the involvement of Blanche’s associate, Aakash Singh. 

‘The cornerstone of Abrego’s motion to dismiss is that the decision to prosecute him was in retaliation for his success in the Maryland District Court,’ Crenshaw said in the newly unsealed ruling. 

‘Indeed, at the time of Abrego’s arrest, Blanche linked Abrego’s criminal charges to his successful civil lawsuit in Maryland. Specifically, some of the documents suggest not only that McGuire was not a solitary decision-maker, but he, in fact, reported to others in DOJ and the decision to prosecute Abrego may have been a joint decision, with others who may or may not have acted with improper motivation.’ 

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw had ruled in October that Abrego Garcia had established a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that the criminal case against him was the result of vindictive prosecution by the Justice Department, a determination that shifted the burden to the government to rebut ahead of the criminal trial, and ordered the Trump administration to produce for the court internal documents and government witnesses to testify about its decision to bring the case. 

Lawyers for the Justice Department fiercely resisted efforts to produce government witnesses or documents, arguing that the documents should be protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product privilege, among other things. 

The evidentiary hearing is slated to take place on Jan. 28.

Crenshaw separately canceled the criminal trial date for Abrego Garcia, though the update is likely more a procedural one than a reflection of the status of the case.

Abrego Garcia’s status has been at the center of a legal and political maelstrom for nearly 11 months, after he was arrested and deported to his home country of El Salvador, in violation of a 2019 withholding of removal order. 

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.