White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s first option for Iran is ‘always diplomacy,’ but that he is ‘willing to use the lethal force of the United States military if necessary.’ 

The remarks come after Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday that ‘it will be a very bad day’ for Iran if the country can’t strike a deal over its nuclear program. 

‘President Trump’s first option is always diplomacy. But as he has shown, he is willing to use the lethal force of the United States military if necessary. So the president is always the final decision-maker around here,’ Leavitt said Tuesday. 

‘And I’ve seen a lot of sensationalist reporting over the past day that is just completely untrue. And anyone speculating to the media hiding behind an anonymous source, pretending to know what President Trump is thinking, or a decision he will make with respect to action against Iran has no idea what they’re talking about,’ she added. 

The president told reporters last week that he is ‘considering’ a limited military strike on Iran to pressure its leaders into reaching a deal over its nuclear program. 

The U.S. has recently been increasing its military assets in the Middle East, sending the USS Gerald R. Ford and its strike group toward the region. 

The USS Abraham Lincoln and three guided-missile destroyers already are in the area. 

‘Everything that has been written about a potential War with Iran has been written incorrectly, and purposefully so. I am the one that makes the decision, I would rather have a Deal than not but, if we don’t make a Deal, it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday. 

The U.S. Postal Service cannot be sued for damages for intentionally failing to deliver mail, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision released Tuesday.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled the government’s sovereign immunity bars claims for undelivered mail. 

‘The United States enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued without its consent,’ Thomas wrote, citing the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) granting ‘sovereign immunity for a wide range of claims about mail.’

‘Specifically, the FTCA’s postal exception retains sovereign immunity for all claims ‘arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,’’ he continued, adding, ‘This case concerns whether this exception applies when postal workers intentionally fail to deliver the mail. We hold that it does.’

The case, U.S. Postal Service v. Konan, stemmed from a dispute between Texas landlord Lebene Konan and her local post office. Konan alleged that postal workers in Euless, Texas, intentionally withheld and returned mail addressed to her and her tenants at two rental properties she owned, causing financial harm and emotional distress.

After her administrative complaints failed, Konan sued the United States in federal court, asserting state law claims including nuisance, tortious interference and conversion. A federal district court dismissed her claims, citing the FTCA’s postal exception, which preserves immunity for ‘any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit revived the lawsuit, ruling the exception did not apply to intentional acts of nondelivery. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve a split among federal appeals courts.

Reversing the Fifth Circuit, the high court held that the ordinary meaning of ‘loss’ and ‘miscarriage’ at the time Congress enacted the FTCA in 1946 encompassed mail that fails to arrive at its destination, regardless of whether the failure was negligent or intentional.

‘A ‘miscarriage of mail’ includes failure of the mail to arrive at its intended destination, regardless of the carrier’s intent or where the mail goes instead,’ Thomas wrote.

The decision vacates the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and sends the case back for further proceedings, though the justices did not decide whether all of Konan’s claims are barred.

‘We hold that the postal exception covers suits against the United States for the intentional nondelivery of mail,’ Thomas concluded. ‘We do not decide whether all of Konan’s claims are barred by the postal exception, or which arguments Konan adequately preserved.

Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that the postal exception was meant to cover negligent mistakes, not intentional misconduct.

‘Today, the majority concludes that the postal exception captures, and therefore protects, the intentional nondelivery of mail, even when that nondelivery was driven by malicious reasons,’ she dissented.

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the three liberal justices – Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – in the dissent.

The ruling underscores the limits of the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity and narrows the circumstances in which individuals can seek damages for mail-related harms, even when they allege deliberate wrongdoing by postal employees.

Related Article

Trump’s tariff revenues hit record highs as Supreme Court deals major blow

A federal court ruling Monday has essentially locked in a new Utah congressional redistricting map that would create a Democrat-heavy Salt Lake City-based seat, potentially flipping one of Utah’s Republican-held U.S. House seats.

A special three-judge federal panel is allowing a revised congressional redistricting map in Utah to go into effect, rejecting an effort by state Republicans to block it. The judicial panel denied a Republican-led request for a preliminary injunction to put the new map on hold.

The new voting boundaries give Democrats a better shot at winning Utah’s 1st Congressional District, a seat currently held by Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah.

Two of Utah’s other four GOP seat-holders in Congress – Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah; and Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah – had signed on to the challenge but have accepted the decision in a joint statement.

‘We receive today’s decision with profound disappointment but respect for the Court’s careful review,’ the statement, shared on X by Owens, read. ‘This case concerns the Constitution’s allocation of authority over federal elections, a question of lasting importance beyond any single election cycle.’

‘Having these issues heard has strengthened public understanding and clarified what is at stake,’ the statement continued. ‘We remain convinced that the Constitution assigns this responsibility to the State’s lawmaking authority and that this principle is essential to preserving constitutional order and the rule of law.’

A state judge had ordered the new map, striking congressional voting lines adopted by the state legislature after the 2020 census. A state voter referendum had approved anti-gerrymandering standards. The Utah Supreme Court, in recent days, had also rejected the original map crafted by the GOP-controlled legislature.

The federal panel’s decision rested on the ‘Purcell principle’ — the idea that judicial interference so close to an election causes ‘chaos and confusion.’

Though the GOP can still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency relief, the judges warned that any further ‘tinkering’ would come too late to prevent electoral disruption for the 2026 midterms.

Utah Republican Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson took no position on the case, but did tell the court she needed to have a decision by Monday in order to implement the proper redistricting map, according to the ruling.

Early race ratings from The Cook Political Report have already shifted this district from ‘Solid Republican’ to ‘Solid Democratic.’

Moore’s northern Utah seat is being renumbered to the 2nd Congressional District, a seat which is currently held by Maloy. Owens currently holds the 4th Congressional District, while Rep. Mike Kennedy, R-Utah, holds the GOP’s 3rd Congressional District seat.

President Donald Trump has acknowledged the difficult history for sitting presidents’ parties in midterm elections, and the current House GOP majority is held by a slim margin of 218-214 with three current vacancies: Former Rep. Mike Sherrill, D-N.J., who resigned to become New Jersey’s governor; former Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, R-Ga., who resigned at the start of the congressional year; and late Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., who died Jan. 6.

Fox News’ Bill Mears contributed to this report.

Related Article

Maryland House approves new congressional map as Senate leaders warn of risks

It goes against the very instincts of some of the most powerful officials in the U.S.: get all dressed up, appear before a national TV audience, but sit there like statues without betraying any words or emotion.

For members of the Supreme Court, enduring the annual State of the Union address is a civic exercise in poker-faced discretion. As recent history has shown, that has not always been easy.

Tuesday’s speech by President Donald Trump will be watched closely not only for what is said, but also for who will be there in person to hear it — especially an undetermined number of justices with front-row seats.

This year’s appearances are especially of interest, coming four days after a 6-3 majority of the court struck down the president’s sweeping tariffs, in a sweeping setback to his economic agenda.

Trump lashed out sharply at the court, especially the six members who voted against him, including two he appointed to the bench — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

The president said he was ‘ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for the country.’

At least one member of the bench, Justice Samuel Alito, has previously stated he will likely no longer go — after lingering, dramatic criticism leveled at a court ruling by Obama in his 2010 address.

But one or more justices have almost always attended the annual speech to Congress and the nation in recent decades. Court members are not required by law to be there, but custom has dictated their appearance, mostly for show. They are a key, if low-key, part of the pageantry, and are compelled to sit politely and stoically, amid the often high-spirited partisan rhetoric and response of the event.

There is no word yet from the high court on who will appear. Invitations are sent to each chamber, and the justices have individual discretion over whether to go.

Those who do traditionally wear their judicial robes, are escorted into the House as a group, and take prominent seats up front.

Retired justices usually get asked as well, minus the robes. They are joined by other officers of the court, such as the marshal and clerk.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elana Kagan, along with former Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy, have been regular attendees over the years.

But the ceremony put the justices in a highly uncomfortable position in 2010.

Democrats cheered President Barack Obama when he dressed down high court conservatives for its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, issued a week earlier, which removed legal barriers preventing corporations and unions from spending unlimited sums on federal elections.

‘With all due deference to the separation of powers,’ Obama said, ‘the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.’

Alito, sitting just feet away in the audience, shook his head and mouthed words interpreted as ‘not true,’ referring to the line about ‘foreign corporations,’ court sources later confirmed.

Alito’s five fellow justices in attendance showed no emotion.

He had been a regular at previous addresses, but months after the incident, Alito told an audience in New York that he felt ‘like the proverbial potted plant’ and would not be attending in the near future. In fact, the year after the presidential dress-down, Alito was in Hawaii at a law school symposium.

The now 75-year-old justice also, with a smile, noted that his colleagues ‘who are more disciplined, refrain from manifesting any emotion or opinion whatsoever.’

Roberts labeled the political atmosphere at the 2010 address ‘very troubling.’

The head of the federal judiciary has said partisan rhetoric and gestures aimed at the court left him questioning whether his colleagues should continue to attend.

During that 2010 address, members of Congress sat just behind the justices, many applauding loudly when Obama made his remarks about the court’s election spending case, especially Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

‘It does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there’ Roberts said weeks after the controversy. ‘To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there.’

Then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded quickly at the time with an indirect attack on Roberts, saying ‘the only thing troubling’ was the Citizens United ruling itself.

Regardless, Roberts has never missed a State of the Union as chief justice.

That included 2021 with President Joe Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress that was limited in attendance because of the pandemic. The sparse, widely-separated crowd included Roberts, a few Cabinet officers and a smattering of congressional members, all wearing masks.

Some justices were regular no-shows at the State of the Union, including John Paul Stevens, who stepped down from the court months after the 2010 State of the Union.

Roberts’ predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, also rarely appeared in person, once because he considered a painting class more preferable.

Justice Clarence Thomas called it ‘very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there.’ He went to Obama’s first annual address in 2009, but has not been back since.

‘There’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV,’ he once said, ‘the catcalls, the whooping, hollering and under-the breath comments.’

Another more vocal no-go was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who compared the televised State of the Union to ‘cheerleading sessions.’

‘I don’t know at what point that happened, but it has happened, and now you go and sit there like bumps on a log while applause lines cause one half of the Congress to leap up while [another line] causes the other half to leap up,’ he once said. ‘It is a juvenile spectacle. And I resent being called upon to give it dignity.’

He last attended the event in 1997, but did attend a special joint session of Congress after the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, with four other justices.

Scalia, a generally verbose and animated jurist, said bluntly: ‘You just sit there, looking stupid.’

Even remarks touching on supposedly nonpartisan topics like patriotism, war veterans and puppy dogs leave the justices in a quandary: should they applaud, should they stand and applaud or do neither? The protocols are never clear, and the public might view the court members as aloof or uncaring if they offer no reaction during, say, a salute to Martin Luther King Jr.’s memory, when everyone else is shown engaging in bipartisan applause in the chamber.   

One ‘extra-court-ricular’ event that is a must-attend for the Supreme Court is the presidential inauguration. All nine members were at last year’s public swearing-in for Trump to a second four-year term. Roberts and Kavanaugh had official duties to administer the oaths of office to the president and vice president, respectively, but the other seven justices only had to sit there, again quietly, in the Capitol Rotunda.

Breyer is the one justice who might be called a ‘regular’ at the State of the Union, going to nearly all of them since joining the court in 1994, including one in his retirement.

He missed President Bill Clinton’s last annual address in 2000 because of the flu. That year, no justices were in attendance.

Many believe the justices have to go to such events, that it is just another unwanted chore of office. Not so, Breyer told us in 2005. ‘People attend if they wish to attend. I do wish to attend, so I go.’

Here’s a list of Supreme Court members attending recent State of the Union or equivalent Joint Session of Congress addresses in recent years, based on Fox News research and congressional records. Names are listed by seniority:

– 2025: John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Anthony Kennedy (retired)

– 2024: Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kennedy (retired)

– 2023: Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, Kennedy, Stephen Breyer (retired)

– 2022: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett

– 2021: Roberts (limited speech attendance because of pandemic)

– 2020: Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

– 2019: Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

– 2018: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch

– 2017: Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

– 2016: Roberts, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

– 2015: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

– 2014: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan

– 2013: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan 

– 2012: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan

– 2011: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

– 2010: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sotomayor

– 2009: Roberts, Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito

– 2008: Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito

– 2007: Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito

– 2006: Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito

– 2005: Breyer

– 2004: Breyer

– 2003: Breyer

– 2002: Kennedy, Breyer

– 2001: Breyer

– 2000: None

– 1999: Sandra Day O’Connor, Kennedy, David Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer

– 1998: William Rehnquist, O’Connor, Souter, Thomas, Breyer

– 1997: Antonin Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Byron White (retired)

– 1996: Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer

– 1995: Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Harry Blackmun (retired)

Related Article

EXCLUSIVE: Trump to center SOTU on working families with sweeping economic case

A new study aims to jolt Israel’s security and technology establishment into embracing a new post-Oct. 7, 2023, business model that will advance the U.S.-Israel strategic partnership in the heart of the Middle East and across the globe.

The Henry Jackson Society study titled ‘Israel 2048: A Blueprint for a Rising Asymmetric Geopolitical Power’ jumps into the future, with a view toward advancing American and Israeli security interests.

Co-author of the report, Barak M. Seener, told Fox News Digital that America requires Israel for ‘its security architecture in the region via the Abraham Accords and, more broadly, will be a force multiplier regarding the technological edge against China.’

During President Donald Trump’s first term, his administration sealed diplomatic normalization deals between Sunni Gulf and North African countries: Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Sudan and Israel.

Seener and co-author David Wurmser argue that there is a pressing need to reframe the U.S.–Israel strategic partnership ‘around technology,’ and ‘shift from military aid dependency towards joint R&D and investment in shared technological platforms in defence-tech, AI, quantum computing and next generational warfare capabilities.’

They wrote, ‘Israel must prioritize passing negotiated regulations for technology sharing to prevent AI/ quantum technology leakage to China.’

Seener noted that the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy (released in January) describes Israel as a strategic military partner. ‘That has never happened before.’

He continued, ‘Israel is not only achieving regional dominance but international power by connecting trade routes and digital connectivity. Israel simply cannot remain in a purely defensive posture and hunker down and react to threats on its borders.’ 

Seener said following Israel’s successful air war campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran in June 2025, ‘America now wants to be part of this success story. ‘

He argues that President Donald Trump entered on the side of Israel with military attacks because ‘Israel demonstrated intelligence acumen and military prowess. For the first time, America joined Israel’ in the prosecution of a war.

Consequently, Seener said Israel’s ‘defense technology makes it indispensable for nations.’

Seener and Wurmser’s 51-page study contains granular information on how the U.S. can strengthen American security and recommend embedding ‘Israel as a defense-tech and deep-tech power that is indispensable to Western security and global technological competition in supply chains for AI, semiconductors, missile defense, cyber capabilities and critical materials. Israel’s technological dominance must be leveraged to anchor alliances and shape global supply chains.’

The wobbliness of America’s European partners is also highlighted to show the need for Israel to ‘Accelerate domestic lines of production of critical military systems, munitions and energy infrastructure to reduce vulnerability to foreign political pressure such as Europe’s growing ambivalence, coupled with episodic constraints on arms transfers,’ according to the authors.

Earlier this month, Britain’s left-leaning government reportedly denied the U.S. military’s use of British bases to strike Iran.

Israel is uniquely positioned to help regenerate relations among Western powers, the study notes. According to the authors, there is an opportunity to ‘use Israel’s defense-tech, quantum computing, AI and cyber capabilities as a tool of statecraft to deepen alliances, deter political isolation and strengthen influence in Europe, the Gulf and Asia.’

Seener said, ‘Israel is not a superpower but a geopolitical power that gives nations a force multiplier, and they benefit from Israel as a tech defense nation.’

Related Article

Trump’s America First strategy builds deterrence through strong US-Israel alliance, experts say

A new study aims to jolt Israel’s security and technology establishment into embracing a new post-Oct. 7, 2023 business model that will advance the U.S.-Israel strategic partnership in the heart of the Middle East and across the globe.

The Henry Jackson Society study titled ‘Israel 2048: A Blueprint for a Rising Asymmetric Geopolitical Power’ jumps into the future, with a view toward advancing American and Israeli security interests.

Co-author of the report, Barak M. Seener, told Fox News Digital that America requires Israel for ‘its security architecture in the region via the Abraham Accords and, more broadly, will be a force multiplier regarding the technological edge against China.’

During President Donald Trump’s first term, his administration sealed diplomatic normalization deals between Sunni Gulf and North African countries: Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Sudan and Israel.

Seener and co-author David Wurmser argue that there is a pressing need to reframe the U.S.–Israel strategic partnership ‘around technology,’ and ‘shift from military aid dependency towards joint R&D and investment in shared technological platforms in defence-tech, AI, quantum computing and next generational warfare capabilities.’

They wrote, ‘Israel must prioritize passing negotiated regulations for technology sharing to prevent AI/ quantum technology leakage to China.’

Seener noted that the U.S. Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy (released in January) describes Israel as a strategic military partner. That hat has never happened before.’

He continued that ‘Israel is not only achieving regional dominance but international power by connecting trade routes and digital connectivity. Israel simply cannot remain in a purely defensive posture and hunker down and react to threats on its borders.’ 

Seener said following Israel’s successful air war campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran in June 2025, ‘America now wants to be part of this success story. ‘

He argues that President Donald Trump entered on the side of Israel with military attacks because ‘Israel demonstrated intelligence acumen and military prowess. For the first time, America joined Israel’ in the prosecution of a war.

Consequently, Seener said Israel’s ‘defense technology makes it indispensable for nations.’

Seener and Wurmser’s 51-page study contains granular information on how the U.S. can strengthen American security and recommend embedding ‘Israel as a defense-tech and deep-tech power that is indispensable to Western security and global technological competition in supply chains for AI, semiconductors, missile defense, cyber capabilities and critical materials. Israel’s technological dominance must be leveraged to anchor alliances and shape global supply chains.’

The wobbliness of America’s European partners is also highlighted to show the need for Israel to ‘Accelerate domestic lines of production of critical military systems, munitions and energy infrastructure to reduce vulnerability to foreign political pressure such as Europe’s growing ambivalence, coupled with episodic constraints on arms transfers,’ according to the authors.

Earlier this month, Britain’s left-leaning government reportedly denied the U.S. military’s use of British bases to strike the Islamic Republic.

Israel is uniquely positioned to help regenerate relations among Western powers, the study notes. According to the authors, there is an opportunity to ‘use Israel’s defense-tech, quantum computing, AI and cyber capabilities as a tool of statecraft to deepen alliances, deter political isolation and strengthen influence in Europe, the Gulf and Asia.’

Seener said that ‘Israel is not a superpower but a geopolitical power that gives nations a force multiplier, and they benefit from Israel as a tech defense nation.’

Related Article

Trump’s America First strategy builds deterrence through strong US-Israel alliance, experts say

France has restricted U.S. Ambassador Charles Kushner’s access to senior government officials after he failed to attend a summons from the French Foreign Ministry over comments regarding the death of a French activist.

Speaking Tuesday in an interview with public broadcaster France Info, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Kushner’s decision not to appear at the Quai d’Orsay ‘will naturally affect his ability to carry out his mission in our country,’ and demanded ‘explanations’ from the ambassador.

Barrot described the no-show as a ‘surprise,’ saying that when an ambassador has ‘the honor of representing your country in France,’ they are expected to ‘respect the most basic practices of diplomacy’ and respond to summons from the ministry.

The diplomatic dispute stems from social media posts by official U.S. government accounts following the death of Quentin Deranque, a 23-year-old activist who was killed in Lyon earlier this month.

The Associated Press reported that Deranque, described as a fervent nationalist, was beaten during clashes between far-left and far-right activists and later died of brain injuries sustained in the attack.

‘Reports, corroborated by the French Minister of the Interior, that Quentin Deranque was killed by left-wing militants, should concern us all. Violent radical leftism is on the rise and its role in Quentin Deranque’s death demonstrates the threat it poses to public safety,’ the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism said in a Feb. 19 post on X. ‘We will continue to monitor the situation and expect to see the perpetrators of violence brought to justice.’

The U.S. Embassy in France later shared the statement on its official account.

Barrot said the remarks amounted to an ‘injunction’ toward France and rejected what he characterized as foreign interference in the country’s domestic political debate. 

‘We have no lessons to learn in matters of maintaining order or public order in matters of violence and we have no lessons to learn at all from the reactionary international, simply,’ he told France Info.

The State Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Barrot said Kushner could regain access to French officials if he provides clarification to the ministry, stressing that the dispute would not alter broader relations between France and the United States. 

He noted the two countries are preparing to mark the 250th anniversary of their historic alliance this year and expressed hope that cooperation would continue ‘in this spirit.’

Related Article

Witkoff and Kushner scheduled to meet Putin in Moscow

Former White House speechwriters from both parties say President Donald Trump must decide whether to double down on the rally-style politics that powered his campaign or broaden his message to unify a divided country around his governing agenda in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

As Trump prepares to speak to the nation and the world, a majority of Americans think the country is worse off today than it was a year ago, according to a recent Fox News survey. The challenge he faces Tuesday night is to persuade skeptical voters that his economic policies are bringing costs down, that tougher immigration enforcement is making the country safer and that he has a disciplined, forward-looking plan for the years ahead — a message that could shape Republicans’ prospects as they head into the 2026 midterm elections with narrow majorities in Congress.

Clark Judge, a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan and now chairman of the Pacific Research Institute, told Fox News Digital that Trump should address America’s position in the world.

‘Threats to the country and to the economy were growing,’ Judge said. ‘Now, in area after area, those threats have been confronted and defeated.’

Judge said Reagan’s strength was clarity. People ‘knew where he would come down. One advantage of working with him was that he had been so clear throughout his career on what he was for,’ he said.

There are lessons from Reagan that Judge suggested Trump should take to heart. ‘Know the president, know the administration, know the public — where is the public at any one moment?’

‘Where are the Democrats? What are they trying to do — and how do we disarm their arguments?’ he said.

The balance needed in a State of the Union is finding a ‘middle ground’ between the president’s Cabinet fighting for their mentions and ‘trying to create big, thematic connections,’ former Jimmy Carter presidential speechwriter James Fallows told Fox News Digital.

Fallows, the Georgia Democrat’s chief speechwriter during his first two years in office, has since been a book, magazine and Substack writer. He said Trump’s challenge, both now and in his previous addresses, is to unite the country around his agenda, not just please his supporters.

Trump’s preferred rhetorical style is a rally-style approach — ‘where he can digress and weave’ and create ‘us versus them’ scenarios to rile the audience,’ he said, adding that a State of the Union address requires the opposite.

Former Joe Biden speechwriter Dan Cluchey expressed skepticism that Trump would be able to rise to the occasion.

‘President Biden has a deep reverence for both the constitutional role of Congress and the dignity of the presidential office, so he approached the State of the Union as an opportunity to rise above the fray and bring Americans together,’ Cluchey said, pointing to what the Delawarean considered the ‘Unity Agenda’ laid out in his 2022 address.

When asked what could surprise him about Trump’s Tuesday address, Fallows said sticking to his script would be a novelty.

‘[Also,] given what the next day’s news will describe as a ‘big tent speech’’ à la Reagan, the Carter speechwriter said.

Former George W. Bush speechwriter and current Wall Street Journal editorial board member Bill McGurn said presidents do tend to differ, sometimes greatly, from each other in style, contrasting the president with his former boss.

‘George W. Bush was very driven by logic — the speech had a flow and had a logic that was coherent.’

‘He’d always say, ‘make it so Bubba would understand what that meant’ — don’t dumb it down; but make it so an intelligent person listening can get the idea of what you’re about.’

Trump, he said, will likely repeat what many presidents often say, that ‘the State of the Union is strong.’

‘Even if it is a laundry list, there’s ways to make it more compelling if you find a unifying thread to it.’

Fallows told Fox News Digital there are many ‘structural challenges’ for any president and his team crafting a State of the Union.

‘So much to cover and only so much time you can hold the attention of even a captive audience.’

Fallows, who now writes ‘Breaking the News’ on Substack, said the SOTU is a rare moment for a president to address the nation as a whole, not just partisan supporters.

McGurn agreed.

‘For all the grandiosity and the important things they cover, they’re usually not remembered,’ he said, noting how many more Americans remember Bush’s 9/11 speech or his brief address through a bullhorn atop the rubble of the Twin Towers.

‘A dirty little secret is most speech artists hate the State of the Union for the laundry list kind of thing,’ he added.

Sometimes, a State of the Union may not be remembered itself, but it may lead to something much more memorable.

Judge recalled drafting Reagan’s 1988 address, thinking ‘this is technical and dull — what I need is an image.’

Settling on the phrase, ‘1,000 sparks of genius in a 1,000 communities,’ the line went viral in then-fledgling ‘dial’ polling — to the extent that Reagan’s protégé, the future President George H.W. Bush, borrowed the line for his ‘Thousand Points of Light’ speech, Judge said.

While the public may not remember everything from every SOTU, the speechwriters collectively said there are parts they still recall today. Cluchey said his best memories are of Biden choosing to share stories of everyday Americans he helped, ‘in order to illustrate the impact of his policies.’

In other cases, there are times the world takes notice.

Working with Reagan near the end of his successful bid to stifle the Cold War, Judge said crafting the speech was important not just for Congress in front of him and the American people at home, but everyone at once.

‘Behind the cameras are the editors and producers — even if they’re hostile, how do I frame something so it gets through? Behind them is our world leaders — what will catch them and move them in the direction you want?’

With Reagan pushing hard to end the Soviet Union, he was also speaking to both the leaders and those to the East.

Reagan would later be greeted by Soviet dissidents in public who would tell him, ‘You don’t know how important that was – the speeches gave us courage.’

Fallows said that Trump may have to overcome some habits to give an effective address this year.

‘State of the Unions are best in areas that are not Donald Trump’s strengths. They’re meant to be embracing the country as a whole. They’re meant to be delivered from a prompter but without seeming too scripted.’

‘We’ll see how this goes.’

Related Article

WATCH: Top 5 most memorable moments in American State of the Union history

President Donald Trump, taking to social media earlier this month, touted, ‘The highest Poll Numbers I have ever received.’

‘Obviously, people like a strong and powerful Country, with the best economy, EVER!’ the president added in a post on his Truth Social platform.

But on the day of his annual State of the Union Address, Trump’s poll numbers remain in negative territory in the vast majority of national surveys.

The president’s approval rating stands at 44% in the latest Fox News national poll, which was conducted late last month, with 56% disapproving of the job he’s doing in the White House.

And he stood at 39% approval among all adults and 41% among registered voters in an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos survey conducted Feb 12-17 and released on Sunday.

An average of the most recent surveys conducted over the past four weeks puts Trump’s approval ratings in the low 40s, with disapproval in the mid-50s.

Trump started his second term in positive territory, but his approval ratings sank below water last March and have slowly edged down deeper into negative territory in the ensuing months.

The latest surveys point to a massive partisan divide, with continued strong support for the president among Republicans, a thumbs down among independents and near total disapproval among Democrats.

‘Support among Republicans has remained in place, but the opposition has become even more calcified,’ veteran Republican pollster Daron Shaw told Fox News Digital, as he pointed to Democrats.

Deep concerns over inflation boosted Trump and Republicans to sweeping victories at the ballot box in 2024, as they won back the White House and Senate and kept their House majority.

‘We had record inflation. We don’t have it anymore,’ Trump said at a campaign event last week in Rome, Georgia. ‘I’m going to make a State of the Union address on Tuesday. I hope you’re going to watch and we’re going to be talking about it.’

But the president’s approval ratings on the economy are, on average, slightly lower than his overall approval ratings.

And Democrats say their decisive victories in November’s 2025 elections, and their overperformances in special elections and other ballot box showdowns in the year since Trump returned to office, were fueled by their laser focus on affordability amid persistent inflation.

A slew of surveys, including the latest Fox News polling, indicate Americans are pessimistic about the economy and say things have not generally improved during the second Trump administration.

‘He can’t unstick the notion that inflation is too high and that the economy is not moving in the right direction,’ added Shaw, who helps run the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson.

But Democrats don’t have much to brag about when it comes to the polls.

The party’s brand dropped to historic lows last year in a slew of polls, with the trend continuing into the new year.

The president’s primetime address in front of Congress comes with just over eight months to go until the midterm elections, when Republicans will be defending their razor-thin majority in the House and their narrow control of the Senate.

Last week, the president’s political team huddled in a closed-door strategy session with Trump administration Cabinet members and their top aides on how best to sell the president’s agenda to voters in this year’s midterm elections.

According to sources familiar with the meeting, the message during a slide presentation by chief pollster and strategist Tony Fabrizio was that the economy will be the top issue on the minds of voters, and that the White House needs to spotlight its efforts on easing affordability.

‘Team Trump will deploy every resource necessary to win the midterms, protect our majorities, and ensure President Trump keeps delivering results for America’s working families,’ a source in the president’s political orbit told Fox News Digital.

Regardless of Trump’s overall approval ratings, he remains very popular and influential with Republicans. And in what may be a base election, the GOP sees the president as their best tool to motivate low-propensity MAGA voters, who don’t always vote when Trump’s not on the ballot, to show up at the polls during the midterms.

Republican National Committee Chair Joe Gruters told Fox News Digital last month that Trump was the GOP’s ‘secret weapon’ that will help Republicans ‘defy history’ in the midterms.

‘We got to make sure we turn our voters out, and we got to make sure that we have people energized. And there’s nobody that can energize our base more than President Trump,’ Gruters said.

Related Article

Strategy session: Trump’s team huddles on midterm messaging with spotlight on economy

The State Department has received hundreds of calls on its 24/7 crisis hotline as Americans in Mexico scramble to find ways home amid escalating chaos following the killing of a top cartel leader. 

The calls have been mostly pertaining to flight cancellations and concerns about travel back to the U.S., Fox News has learned.

Violence erupted in Mexico after a Feb. 22 government operation in which Jalisco New Generation cartel leader Nemesio ‘El Mencho’ Oseguera Cervantes was killed. The cartel leader was killed during a shootout inside his home as the Mexican military attempted to capture him. The operation was carried out by Mexican forces with U.S. intelligence support. 

Mexico Security Secretary Omar García Harfuch said the 25 Mexican National Guard troops in Jalisco were killed in six separate attacks following the killing of El Mencho. He also said some 30 criminal suspects were killed in Jalisco and four others were killed in Michoacan. Additionally, García Harfuch said that a prison guard, an agent from the state prosecutor’s office and a woman whom he did not identify were also killed.

The State Department’s travel advisory for Mexico, which was issued in August 2025, has since been updated regarding areas of risk. The Mexican states of Colima, Guerrero, Michoacan, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas are under a ‘Level 4: Do Not Travel’ advisory. Meanwhile, the states under a ‘Level 3: Reconsider Travel’ advisory are Baja California, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Morelos and Sonora.

Americans in Mexico who need consular assistance are advised to call the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs at +1-202-501-4444 from outside the U.S. or +1-888-407-4747 from within the U.S. or Canada. 

Additionally, the department has recommended U.S. citizens enroll in the online Smart Traveler Enrollment Program or follow the ‘U.S. Department of State – Security Updates for U.S. Citizens’ WhatsApp channel for safety and security updates. The Smart Traveler Enrollment Program, also known as STEP, allows the U.S. embassy or consulate to contact travelers or their emergency contact if necessary.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Mexico issued an updated security alert for Jalisco State, including Puerto Vallarta, Chapala and Guadalajara, and Nayarit State, including the Nuevo Nayarit/Nuevo Vallarta area near Puerto Vallarta. The embassy and consulates said in the joint alert that due to road blockages and criminal activity, U.S. government staffers in several locations — including Guadalajara (Jalisco), Puerto Vallarta (Jalisco/Nayarit), and Ciudad Guzman (Jalisco) — are sheltering in place. The government entities said the workers would remain sheltered in place until blockades are cleared and called on U.S. citizens to follow suit.

While the State Department hotline has been flooded with calls regarding flight cancellations, the embassy and consulates noted that ‘all airports in Mexico are open, and most airports are operating normally.’ The entities noted that travelers whose flights to the U.S. had been canceled could be able to book a connecting flight through another Mexican city, as not all airports were impacted by the disruptions.

Fox News Digital’s Stephen Sorace contributed to this report.

Related Article

Mexico violence sees dozens of military troops, criminals dead after cartel leader ‘El Mencho’ killed