Pakistan’s defense minister declared an ‘open war’ with Afghanistan on Friday after the two sides exchanged heavy fire along their shared border on Thursday, according to multiple reports.

Defense Minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif said in a post on X that Pakistan had hoped the Taliban would bring stability after NATO’s withdrawal, but instead accused the group of turning Afghanistan ‘into a colony of India’ and ‘exporting terrorism.’

‘Our patience has now run out. Now it is open war between us,’ he said.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.

Related Article

Thailand launches airstrikes along Cambodia border as tensions escalate

A Senate Republican warned Thursday that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s primary focus is shedding American blood as U.S.-Iran relations continue to simmer. 

‘The ayatollah not only thinks that I’m going to hell because I don’t agree with his religion — he wants to kill me,’ Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

‘He wants to kill Americans and the Israelis and anybody who does not believe in his jihad and drink our blood out of a boot,’ Kennedy continued. ‘And he’s acted on that, and that’s not acceptable.’

Kennedy’s message comes as tensions with Iran are escalating. At the core of the issue is Iran’s capability and Khamenei’s desire to build a nuclear weapon.

President Donald Trump gave the country’s leadership roughly 10 to 15 days to reach a nuclear agreement and warned that the inability to strike a deal could lead to U.S. military action in the region.

He renewed that edict during his State of the Union address earlier this week.

‘I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror … to have a nuclear weapon,’ Trump said.

Kennedy cautioned that if the Trump administration were to broker a deal, it would need to have guardrails.

‘If we make a deal with Iran, let’s make sure we have a protocol to enforce it because, in my experience in watching the Ayatollah through the years, I wouldn’t trust this man if he was three days dead,’ he said.

Lawmakers are wrestling with the exact nature of what a strike could look like and whether Congress should weigh in before Trump makes a decision.

Senators Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., expect that their Iran war powers resolution will hit the Senate floor next week, which would curb Trump’s ability to strike the country without Congress’ approval.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the most important aspect of the Iran negotiations was ‘to prevent them from having nuclear capability.’

‘But there are also other threats that they represent in the region, and we have a big presence in that region, as you know. So, I think they’re looking at and working through what the options might be,’ Thune said. 

‘In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change.’

Related Article

US positions aircraft carriers, strike platforms across Middle East as Iran talks shift to Oman

Afghanistan and Pakistan exchanged significant cross-border fire Thursday in an escalation of hostilities along their shared border, according to multiple reports.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.

Related Article

Thailand launches airstrikes along Cambodia border as tensions escalate

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wasted no time criticizing Republicans after she emerged from a roughly six-hour grilling in the House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein probe Thursday evening.

Clinton told reporters she answered questions ‘repetitively, literally over and over again’ after blasting Republicans for holding a closed-door deposition instead of a public hearing.

She said, however, that she would not testify again if there was a public hearing, telling reporters, ‘They had a chance to do it in public, and I wish they had done it in public. And I think they’re making the wrong decision, avoiding doing it in public.

‘It then got, at the end, quite unusual because I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet that was serving as the basis of a member’s questions to me,’ Clinton said.

She also knocked Republican lawmakers for not attending the deposition of former Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner in person.

Clinton did save praise for House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., however, ‘for raising a series of significant questions that I responded to about the nature of the investigation and the areas that I thought should be explored.’

‘So, I appreciated that. I want to see the truth come out. So, that was a reassuring way to end a very long, repetitive, deposition,’ Clinton said.

She also reiterated comments from her opening statement that she did not know Epstein and said she only knew Ghislaine Maxwell ‘as an acquaintance.’

When asked why Maxwell was invited to daughter Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, however, Clinton said she was a ‘plus-one of someone invited.’

Clinton’s deposition began in the 11 a.m. hour and wrapped in the 5 p.m. hour in her hometown of Chappaqua, New York.

Comer said afterward that Clinton ‘answered most of our questions’ in a ‘productive’ deposition but said Republicans ultimately ‘weren’t satisfied’ with what they gleaned.

‘The number of times that she said, ‘I don’t know, you’ll have to ask my husband,’ was more than a dozen,’ Comer said.

Former President Bill Clinton is slated to testify behind closed doors Friday for what Comer said would be an ‘even longer’ deposition.

Neither Clinton is implicated in any wrongdoing related to Epstein or Maxwell, but Bill Clinton was known to have a relationship with the late financier and sex trafficker before the federal investigations into Epstein’s crimes came to light.

Hillary Clinton said that relationship ‘ended years, several years, before anything about Epstein’s criminal activities came to light.’

Rep. William Timmons, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital it was ‘frustrating’ to see Hillary Clinton ‘obstinate and sort of annoyed at the process.’

‘She had an excuse for everything. But when you’ve got a pattern of involvement and a pattern of association, the American people deserve answers,’ Timmons said.

‘Honestly, I tend to find her to be fairly credible, but I mean, all of this is going to culminate tomorrow with President Clinton, and he has a lot of really hard questions to answer. And I don’t think that the American people are going to like his answers.’

The deposition was tense at times, a tension Clinton alluded to when she accused Republicans of breaking the rules when Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., apparently shared a photo from inside the deposition room with a right-wing influencer.

‘We had a bit of a challenge in the beginning because we agreed upon rules based on the fact it was going to be a closed hearing at their demand. And one of the members violated that rule, which was very upsetting because it suggested that they might violate other of our agreements,’ Clinton said. 

‘So, we had to cease the hearing for a period of time until we could get assurances that no rules would be broken going forward.’

It’s notable, however, that Democrats also leaked information from inside the room but did not get any public blowback. A New York Times reporter posted reporting about the deposition on X earlier in the day while citing a ‘Dem member in the room.’

Bill Clinton’s deposition is also expected to kick off in the 11 a.m. hour on Friday at the Chappaqua Performing Arts Center.

Related Article

Reporter’s Notebook: Clintons call for open Epstein files hearing after months of defying subpoenas

A Senate Republican warned Thursday that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s primary focus is shedding American blood as U.S.-Iran relations continue to simmer. 

‘The Ayatollah not only thinks that I’m going to hell because I don’t agree with his religion — he wants to kill me,’ Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

‘He wants to kill Americans and the Israelis and anybody who does not believe in his jihad and drink our blood out of a boot,’ Kennedy continued. ‘And he’s acted on that, and that’s not acceptable.’

Kennedy’s message comes as tensions with Iran are escalating. At the core of the issue is Iran’s capability and Khamenei’s desire to build a nuclear weapon.

President Donald Trump gave the country’s leadership roughly 10 to 15 days to reach a nuclear agreement and warned that the inability to strike a deal could lead to U.S. military action in the region.

He renewed that edict during his State of the Union address earlier this week.

‘I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror … to have a nuclear weapon,’ Trump said.

Kennedy cautioned that if the Trump administration were to broker a deal, it would need to have guardrails.

‘If we make a deal with Iran, let’s make sure we have a protocol to enforce it, because in my experience in watching the Ayatollah through the years, I wouldn’t trust this man if he was three days dead,’ he said.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are wrestling with the exact nature of what a strike could look like and whether Congress should weigh in before Trump makes a decision.

Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., expect that their Iran war powers resolution will hit the Senate floor next week, which would curb Trump’s ability to strike the country without Congress’ approval.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that the most important aspect of the Iran negotiations was ‘to prevent them from having nuclear capability.’

‘But there are also other threats that they represent in the region, and we have a big presence in that region, as you know, so I think they’re looking at and working through what the options might be,’ Thune said. ‘In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change.’

Related Article

US positions aircraft carriers, strike platforms across Middle East as Iran talks shift to Oman

Denmark will head to the polls March 24 after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called a snap parliamentary election, a move widely viewed as an attempt to consolidate rising public support tied to her handling of tensions with President Donald Trump over Greenland.

Frederiksen announced the early vote Wednesday, arguing Denmark needs political clarity at a time of mounting geopolitical pressure. According to Reuters, she said the country faces ‘a serious foreign policy situation,’ adding voters should have a say in how Denmark navigates it.

Her center-left Social Democratic government has seen a lift in opinion polls in recent weeks after taking a firm stance that Greenland is not for sale and that Danish sovereignty is non-negotiable. 

The dispute with Washington has reshaped the domestic political conversation, pushing Arctic security and national sovereignty to the forefront of Danish politics.

Frederiksen, who has led Denmark since mid-2019, has spent much of the past year managing the fallout from Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland, the vast Arctic island that is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Tensions escalated sharply last month when Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on Denmark and several other European Union countries.

Trump has argued that the United States needs control of the North Atlantic island for national security reasons, citing increased activity by Russia and China in the Arctic. The region has grown in strategic importance as melting ice opens shipping routes and access to natural resources, intensifying competition among major powers.

The standoff appeared to ease after Trump announced that a framework agreement to strengthen Arctic security had been reached in talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. After that announcement, U.S., Danish and Greenlandic officials began technical discussions on implementing the arrangement, focusing on security coordination rather than any change in sovereignty.

Throughout the crisis, Frederiksen and other senior Danish officials repeatedly emphasized that Greenland’s status is not up for negotiation. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference earlier in February, Frederiksen cautioned that she did not believe the crisis had fully passed and suggested Washington could still harbor ambitions to annex the island.

According to The Guardian, Danish commentators have described the prime minister’s polling boost as a ‘Greenland bounce,’ reflecting growing domestic approval of her firm posture toward Washington.

Frederiksen’s decision to call early elections appears aimed at converting that surge into a renewed mandate. Denmark’s next general election had not been scheduled until later this year, but the prime minister argued that the current security climate justifies seeking fresh voter backing.

Greenland, home to roughly 56,000 people, has long been strategically significant due to its location between North America and Europe. The United States maintains a military presence there at Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base. Any suggestion of U.S. acquisition has historically been sensitive in both Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

Euronews reported that Frederiksen’s government has stressed cooperation with allies while firmly rejecting any negotiations over Greenland’s sovereignty. European leaders have signaled support for Denmark, reinforcing the view that Arctic stability is increasingly central to NATO and EU planning.

Opposition parties have criticized the timing of the snap election, arguing that Frederiksen is seeking a political advantage during a moment of heightened nationalism. Others, however, have largely backed the government’s line on Greenland, suggesting that the sovereignty issue may transcend traditional party divides.

The March 24 vote will determine whether Frederiksen can strengthen her coalition or voters shift the parliamentary balance. It will also serve as a broader test of how Danes believe their country should manage its relationship with Washington as Arctic security becomes a defining issue of global competition.

Related Article

Trump tells Davos US alone can secure Greenland, insists he won’t ‘use force’

Denmark will head to the polls on March 24 after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called a snap parliamentary election, a move widely viewed as an attempt to consolidate rising public support tied to her handling of tensions with President Donald Trump over Greenland.

Frederiksen announced the early vote on Wednesday, arguing that Denmark needs political clarity at a time of mounting geopolitical pressure. According to Reuters, she said the country faces ‘a serious foreign policy situation,’ and that voters should have a say in how Denmark navigates it.

Her center-left Social Democratic government has seen a lift in opinion polls in recent weeks after taking a firm stance that Greenland is not for sale and that Danish sovereignty is non-negotiable. 

The dispute with Washington has reshaped the domestic political conversation, pushing Arctic security and national sovereignty to the forefront of Danish politics.

Frederiksen, who has led Denmark since mid-2019, has spent much of the past year managing the fallout from Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland, the vast Arctic island that is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Tensions escalated sharply last month when Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on Denmark and several other European Union countries.

Trump has argued that the United States needs control of the North Atlantic island for national security reasons, citing increased activity by Russia and China in the Arctic. The region has grown in strategic importance as melting ice opens shipping routes and access to natural resources, intensifying competition among major powers.

The standoff appeared to ease after Trump announced that a framework agreement to strengthen Arctic security had been reached following talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. After that announcement, U.S., Danish and Greenlandic officials began technical discussions on implementing the arrangement, focusing on security coordination rather than any change in sovereignty.

Throughout the crisis, Frederiksen and other senior Danish officials repeatedly emphasized that Greenland’s status is not up for negotiation. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference earlier in February, Frederiksen cautioned that she did not believe the crisis had fully passed and suggested Washington could still harbor ambitions to annex the island.

According to The Guardian, Danish commentators have described the prime minister’s polling boost as a ‘Greenland bounce,’ reflecting growing domestic approval of her firm posture toward Washington.

Frederiksen’s decision to call early elections appears aimed at converting that surge into a renewed mandate. Denmark’s next general election had not been scheduled until later this year, but the prime minister argued that the current security climate justifies seeking fresh voter backing.

Greenland, home to roughly 56,000 people, has long been strategically significant due to its location between North America and Europe. The United States maintains a military presence there at Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base. Any suggestion of U.S. acquisition has historically been sensitive in both Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

Euronews reported that Frederiksen’s government has stressed cooperation with allies while firmly rejecting any negotiations over Greenland’s sovereignty. European leaders have signaled support for Denmark, reinforcing the view that Arctic stability is increasingly central to NATO and EU planning.

Opposition parties have criticized the timing of the snap election, arguing that Frederiksen is seeking political advantage during a moment of heightened nationalism. Others, however, have largely backed the government’s line on Greenland, suggesting that the sovereignty issue may transcend traditional party divides.

The March 24 vote will determine whether Frederiksen can strengthen her coalition or whether voters will shift the parliamentary balance. It will also serve as a broader test of how Danes believe their country should manage its relationship with Washington as Arctic security becomes a defining issue of global competition.

Related Article

Trump tells Davos US alone can secure Greenland, insists he won’t ‘use force’

A resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., aimed at curbing President Donald Trump’s war powers in Iran is getting the blessing of the House of Representatives’ top Democrat.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., released a statement alongside other Democratic leaders Thursday announcing that they will force a vote on Massie’s resolution next week.

‘As soon as Congress reconvenes next week, we will compel a vote of the full House of Representatives on the bipartisan Khanna-Massie War Powers resolution,’ the joint statement read.

‘This legislation would require the President to come to Congress to make the case for using military force against Iran. The Iranian regime is brutal and destabilizing, seen most recently in the killing of thousands of protesters. However, undertaking a war of choice in the Middle East, without a full understanding of all the attendant risks to our servicemembers and to escalation, is reckless.’

Jeffries and other top Democrats argued that any military force against Iran would be illegal without approval from Capitol Hill.

‘We maintain that any such action would be unconstitutional without consultation with and authorization from Congress. Next week, every Member will have the opportunity to go on the record as to whether they support military action against Iran absent Congressional approval,’ they said.

Massie cited Congress’ war powers in the Constitution in unveiling the legislation earlier this month alongside Khanna.

‘Congress must vote on war according to our Constitution,’ he posted on X. ‘[Khanna] and I will be forcing that vote to happen in the House as soon as possible. I will vote to put America first, which means voting against more war in the Middle East.’

There are multiple mechanisms for forcing a vote over the will of House leadership. But the quickest route is called a ‘privileged resolution,’ which mandates that a specific piece of legislation is considered by the full chamber within two legislative days of its introduction.

Before a vote on the measure itself, however, House GOP leaders can call for a preliminary vote to ‘table’ the legislation or refer it to the relevant committee, both ways of effectively killing those resolutions. 

It’s considered easier for lawmakers in the majority party to vote to kill resolutions on that procedural vote before they have to take a vote on the bill itself.

Privileged resolutions, which are traditionally seldom used, have gained popularity in recent years as Republicans grapple with a razor-thin House majority.

In this case, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., can only afford one GOP defection if all Democrats vote to proceed with blocking Trump’s war powers. 

Because Massie is already likely to vote with the minority party, all remaining Republicans in the chamber must vote in lockstep to block the resolution.

Related Article

Kaine wants to rein in Trump’s war powers, but never did the same for Biden, Obama

Talks between Iran and the U.S. wrapped up in Geneva Thursday as officials cited ‘significant progress’ and announced a next meeting set for Vienna within days.

Yet despite senior U.S. officials describing the third round as ‘positive,’ per Axios, Iranian state television also reported that Tehran will continue enriching uranium and rejected proposals to transfer it abroad.

According to The Associated Press , the reports claimed Iran would also push for the lifting of international sanctions — signaling it is not prepared to meet President Donald Trump’s demands.

The negotiations were carried out primarily indirectly, with Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi relaying messages between the two sides.

In a post on X, al-Busaidi confirmed that the round had concluded and said discussions would resume soon.

‘We have finished the day after significant progress in the negotiation between the United States and Iran,’ he said on X.

‘We will resume soon after consultation in the respective capitals. Discussions on a technical level will take place next week in Vienna. I am grateful to all concerned for their efforts: the negotiators, the IAEA, and our hosts, the Swiss government,’ al-Busaidi said.

There was no immediate public statement from U.S. or Iranian officials after the session.

Trump’s special Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, attended the three-hour negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi was also involved, with Iranian officials presenting a draft proposal for a potential nuclear agreement with the U.S., which has key demands.

Iran insists it has the right to enrich uranium and has appeared to refuse to negotiate over other issues, including its long-range missile program and support for armed groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Trump, meanwhile, insists on a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program. In his State of the Union address Feb. 24, the president said he prefers a diplomatic solution.

‘My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy, but one thing is certain: I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon,’ the president said. ‘Can’t let that happen.’

As the Geneva talks unfolded Thursday, Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also wrote on X that if the main U.S. concern is preventing a nuclear weapon, that stance ‘aligns’ with Khamenei’s fatwa and Iran’s defensive doctrine.

He added that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has ‘sufficient support and authority’ to come to a final agreement in the talks.

The development came as the U.S. continues assembling military assets, including a fleet of aircraft and warships in the Middle East.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

Related Article

Witkoff warns Iran is ‘a week away’ from ‘bomb-making material’ as Trump weighs action

China is expanding a network of space facilities across Latin America that could strengthen Beijing’s military surveillance and war-fighting capabilities in the Western Hemisphere, according to a new report. 

A new report from the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party identifies at least 11 PRC-linked ground stations, radio telescopes and satellite ranging sites in Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile and Brazil — installations the panel says may have dual-use military applications.

The report calls on the Trump administration to ‘halt the expansion’ of Chinese space infrastructure in the region and ‘ultimately seek to roll back and eliminate’ PRC space capabilities in the hemisphere that threaten U.S. interests.

According to the findings, the analysis relies on open-source reporting, satellite imagery and Chinese planning documents that elevate space cooperation as a pillar of Beijing’s relations with Latin America. Lawmakers argue China’s military-civil fusion strategy makes it difficult to separate academic or commercial space cooperation from potential military applications.

‘Beijing uses space infrastructure in Latin America to collect adversary intelligence and strengthen the PLA’s future warfighting capabilities,’ the report states.

Lawmakers also raised concerns about oversight at certain sites, noting that in at least one case host-nation inspection rights appear limited. The report emphasizes that ‘host nations retain both the right and responsibility to verify that facilities advertised as civilian are not being used for military or intelligence purposes inconsistent with their national laws.’

One of the most closely watched sites is a Chinese-operated deep space station in Argentina’s Neuquén province, established under a 50-year lease agreement signed in 2015. The facility, which includes a 35-meter antenna used for satellite tracking and deep space missions, has been described by Beijing as a civilian research installation supporting lunar and space exploration programs.

However, the House report notes that the station is operated by an entity linked to China’s satellite launch and tracking network and raises concerns about transparency and oversight. In previous reporting, questions have surfaced about the extent to which Argentine officials have inspection access to the site, fueling debate over sovereignty and foreign control of strategic infrastructure.

The Argentina embassy could not immediately be reached for comment. 

Lawmakers argue that facilities like the one in Neuquén illustrate the broader concern that ostensibly civilian space cooperation can be integrated into China’s military-civil fusion framework, potentially supporting the People’s Liberation Army’s global space architecture.

The Pentagon declined to comment on the specifics of the committee’s findings but said it ‘continuously monitors developments that could affect the security environment, including space-related infrastructure and capabilities.’ 

A Defense Department spokesperson added that the department remains ‘attentive to activities that could impact stability, transparency, or the long-term security interests of the United States and our partners in the Western Hemisphere.’

The Department of War’s 2025 annual report to Congress on China’s military developments similarly notes that Beijing ‘has the largest space infrastructure footprint outside of mainland China in Latin America and the Caribbean,’ and assesses that expanding its regional space presence ‘almost certainly provides China with enhanced space domain surveillance capabilities, including against U.S. military space assets, throughout the hemisphere.’ 

The same report states that China’s growing space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities have ‘dramatically increased its ability to monitor, track, and target U.S. and allied forces both terrestrially and on orbit.’ 

The House panel also points to Chile, where a proposed expansion of a Chinese space-related project was put on hold following engagement from the Trump administration, according to sources familiar with the project. Lawmakers view the pause as evidence that diplomatic pressure can influence host governments weighing cooperation with Beijing.

The report further urges federal agencies to review existing cooperation agreements in the region. Lawmakers recommend that NASA examine any partnerships with countries hosting Chinese-operated space facilities to ensure compliance with the Wolf Amendment, a federal law that restricts bilateral space cooperation with China and Chinese-owned entities.

The panel argues that even multilateral arrangements could warrant scrutiny if they indirectly benefit PRC-linked infrastructure and calls on Congress to clarify that such agreements should not be structured in a way that circumvents existing prohibitions.

Related Article

CHAD WOLF: Space isn’t just the final frontier, it’s the ‘ultimate high ground’