Fox News Latest Headlines
From Gaza to Iran: What’s at stake in Trump-Netanyahu Mar-a-Lago talks?
President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago on Monday afternoon, with talks expected to focus on renewed tensions with Iran and the possibility of advancing to additional stages of the Gaza peace plan.
Before meeting with the president, Netanyahu is slated to meet with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday morning.
Dr. Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told Fox News Digital that President Trump has likely been pressuring Netanyahu since the peace plan’s implementation, noting that the American leader has little patience for Middle Eastern timelines, which he said are far longer than those in the U.S. and the real estate sector.
NETANYAHU CALLS ON NEIGHBORING NATIONS TO JOIN ISRAEL IN 'EXPELLING HAMAS' FROM REGION
"The problem is that Hamas knows all it has to do is survive and continue controlling the western part of Gaza while attacking Israel, as it has been doing from Gaza’s tunnel network, in order to ratchet up tensions between Israel and the U.S.," Diker said.
Netanyahu’s mission during the visit, he continued, will be first to lay out Israel’s threat assessment regarding Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas as extremely serious, and to impress upon the president that Tehran is rebuilding its military capabilities. He is also likely to seek to persuade Trump to allow Israel to take the steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas.
Israeli opposition leader and former prime minister Yair Lapid told Fox News Digital that "We [Israel] should be coordinating with President Trump on all the major fronts, but the top priority has to be the management of stage two in Gaza."
Lapid added, "Israel needs to achieve the disarmament of Hamas and the removal of the threat from Gaza, and that requires the implementation of President Trump’s plan."
IRANIAN PRESIDENT SAYS HIS COUNTRY IS AT 'TOTAL WAR' WITH THE US, ISRAEL AND EUROPE: REPORTS
During the meeting, Netanyahu will reportedly present Trump with plans for a potential strike on Iran. Israel has warned Washington that a recent Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps missile drill could be masking preparations for an attack, a concern that IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir conveyed to U.S. Central Command chief Adm. Brad Cooper during recent meetings in Tel Aviv.
In a Saturday interview reported by the country's media, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country is engaged in what he described as a "total war" with the U.S., Israel and Europe. The Times of Israel reported him saying, "In my opinion, we are at total war with the United States, Israel and Europe," Pezeshkian said. "They want to bring our country to its knees."
Axios reported that U.S. intelligence assesses there is no immediate threat, while Israeli defense officials say forces remain on heightened alert.
According to Dr. Meir Javedanfar, a lecturer on Iran and the Middle East at Reichman University, Netanyahu’s plan is expected to call for strikes on Iran’s missile program.
"Israel will probably hope that such a wide-scale attack would further undermine the legitimacy of Iran’s supreme leader, thereby creating greater political instability within the country. This is especially true given that after the recent war with Israel, Iran’s economy has deteriorated significantly, and the regime is not taking the necessary steps to address these problems," he said.
Israeli Minister for Settlement and National Missions Orit Strook stressed the importance of completing full Gaza demilitarization before moving forward with further stages of the plan.
She referenced Trump’s address to the Israeli Knesset in October, noting that he highlighted his role in building international support for Gaza’s demilitarization and securing a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for the full dismantling of weapons, tunnels and terror infrastructure.
"Hamas wakes up every day with a mission to hurt us," Strook told Fox News Digital. "The IDF will not withdraw even one meter, and no rehabilitation framework will be established until full demilitarization is completed.
"If, God forbid, the opposite happens in the meeting, it will be a failure of the peace plan, a failure for Trump himself — who would be settling for fake demilitarization— and a failure for us. We will not be able to say that we won this war if Hamas remains armed," she added.
Trump is nevertheless expected to soon unveil the second stage of his Gaza framework, despite Hamas’s failure to return the remains of Israel Police Master Sgt. Ran Gvili, who was killed during the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre, and whose body was taken to Gaza by Hamas terrorists.
Fox News Digital's Sophia Compton contributed to this report.
1,400-year-old skull with mysterious flat top found in ancient village, startling archaeologists
Archaeologists recently uncovered a surprising 1,400-year-old skull in an ancient village in Mexico — unusual for both its flat top and cube-like shape.
Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) announced the find. Officials said the skull was found in the Balcón de Montezuma Archaeological Zone, in the Northern Huasteca region of Tamaulipas.
The skull belonged to a man who lived between 400 and 900 A.D. He was over 40 years old when he died, officials said.
FACES OF ANCIENT MUMMIES, HIDDEN FOR CENTURIES, FINALLY REVEALED THROUGH DIGITAL RECONSTRUCTIONS
The man had a peculiar tabular erect-type skull — with the front and back of the head purposely flattened.
The skull also has an unusually flat top, giving it a cube-like shape, similar to the rare tabular superior form.
"As a result, not only was intentional cranial deformation identified for the first time at this type of site, but also a variant of cranial modeling not previously reported in this region of Mesoamerica," the INAH press release said.
In a translated written statement to Fox News Digital, INAH researchers said they believe the skull may have had meaning related to identity and status.
"Not all individuals at the site (for whom we have complete skeletons) show this kind of cultural modification," the researchers said.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER
"In other words, this individual clearly stood out from others, which gave him a differentiated position."
The man's position was not "necessarily a high social status" — and the experts suggested he may have held a shaman-like role within the group.
Though cranial deformations were not unheard of in Mesoamerica, researchers stressed that this type is less common than other types in the region — and unusually combines both tabular erect and tabular superior styles.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE LIFESTYLE STORIES
"The differences among them lie in the lateral projection angle between the frontal, occipital and/or coronal bones," the team said.
The team also said the grave was unusual for its small circular shell beads, which served as personal adornments.
"This new discovery provides highly relevant data on the nature of intercultural relationships in the Huasteca region — especially with the North and the Sierra Madre Oriental of Mexico," the researchers added.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
"It not only shows the high degree of ethnic diversity, but also provides insights into the physical characteristics of its inhabitants."
The discovery is only one of many archaeological finds that were uncovered in 2025.
In El Salvador, excavators found "creepy" puppets at the top of a pyramid that dated back over 2,400 years.
This summer, a Texas couple unearthed the ancient tomb of a legendary king in Caracol, Belize, a major Mayan city established in the 300s A.D.
Cellphone data defined 2025’s biggest criminal cases as expert calls them a 'crime scene in their pocket'
A forensic scientist said that cellphones have turned into a "crime scene" in the pockets of everyday Americans, as the device has been at the center of several major criminal cases over the past year.
In cases such as the University of Idaho murders and Brian Walshe’s killing of his wife, Ana, prosecutors and defense attorneys leaned heavily on cellphone data to present juries with evidence that simply didn’t exist a decade ago.
Forensic scientist and Jacksonville State University Professor Joseph Scott Morgan told Fox News Digital that everyday Americans may not be aware that they're carrying a "crime scene in their pocket everywhere they go" because of the amount of data that the device constantly collects.
"We're so married to it that people cannot see themselves absent this thing. They're gonna hold onto it, even if it means that it's gonna bring them down because so much data is captured on there," Morgan said. "People are, you know, certainly not aware of the fact that, that they are, they're carrying a crime scene in their pocket wherever they go."
Morgan said there’s much more evidence on a person’s cellphone than many expect, such as search history, metadata, deleted conversations, GPS data, time stamps and more.
"Now you've literally got digital breadcrumbs that might be hiding in the data and you can begin to track them," Morgan said. "And the thing about it is they're time-stamped. And this goes to, if someone is trying to alibi themselves, for instance, 'Wow, I wasn't there,' or ‘I never thought about that, contemplated that.’ Well, we show here in the data that we've collected out of your phone it."
Bryan Kohberger pleaded guilty to murder in the Nov. 13, 2022 killings of University of Idaho students Xana Kernodle, 20, Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Madison Mogen, 21, and Ethan Chapin, 20.
FBI cellphone tower data obtained by NBC's "Dateline" allegedly showed that Kohberger's cellphone pinged nearly a dozen times to a tower that provides coverage to an area within 100 feet of 1122 King Road, where the four University of Idaho students were killed. The late-night drives all allegedly happened starting in July 2022 and continued through mid-August 2022.
According to the report, Kohberger’s late-night trips to the King Road area started after a Moscow pool party he was invited to. Kohberger allegedly visited the area three more times in the first two weeks of October 2022.
In total, FBI cellphone records allegedly indicated that Kohberger was within 100 meters of the King Road house on 23 occasions, including one time on Nov. 7. All the trips were after dark.
Brian Walshe was sentenced to life in prison plus a 22-year sentence on Dec. 18 after he was convicted of killing and dismembering his wife, Ana, after she disappeared on New Year's Day in 2023.
Massachusetts State Trooper Nicholas Guarino, an expert on digital forensics, testified during Brian's trial that he made several incriminating Google searches, which included the name of the man previously involved in an affair with Ana.
The Google and Yahoo searches made by Brian included the following, according to Guarino:
- "Best ways to dispose of body parts after murder."
- "How long does DNA last?"
- "Is it possible to clean DNA off a knife?"
- "How long someone missing until inheritance."
Brian's wife had a $2.7 million life insurance policy which he was the beneficiary of, court records show. He owed nearly $500,000 in restitution for his federal case.
Karen Read was acquitted of second-degree murder in June after her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, died. She was accused of ramming O'Keefe with her Lexus SUV, then leaving him to die during a snowstorm after the couple had a drunken argument.
During the trial, witness Jennifer McCabe admitted to searching for "hos [sic] long to die in cold," and claimed Read instructed her to make the search.
"You also testified that at the time you Google search those phrases, it was Karen Read screaming and yelling at you, shaking you to Google 'hypothermia,'" defense attorney Alan Jackson asked.
"Correct," McCabe responded.
However, Kerry Roberts, who was a friend of Read's, testified that she never actually heard Read ask for McCabe to make the searches.
2025 in Review: A tumultuous year for Paramount and CBS News
It's difficult to think of a media company that had quite a year like Paramount did.
From a giant merger, a controversial settlement, a canceled late-night show to overhauling CBS News, Paramount had a rollercoaster year that lasted right up to the end of 2025.
Here is a look back at Paramount's tumultuous journey:
In the days leading up to the 2024 presidential election, CBS News aired its "60 Minutes" interview featuring then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Critics at the time noticed that an answer she gave to a question about Israel that first aired in a preview clip on "Face the Nation," which was mocked by conservatives for her "word salad" comments, appeared to have been swapped with a different answer that aired during the primetime election special the next evening.
CBS ‘60 MINUTES’ AIRS TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS FROM VP HARRIS TO THE SAME QUESTION
Donald Trump, who at the time was the GOP nominee and only a former president, filed a multibillion-dollar lawsuit against CBS News and its parent company Paramount Global, alleging "election interference" with "deceptive editing." CBS News and Paramount insisted the Harris interview followed editorial standards and stood by what aired.
While liberals widely viewed Trump's lawsuit as frivolous and as something that would crumble under legal scrutiny, the entire dynamic completely flipped when he defeated Harris in the election just days later.
Earlier in the year, Paramount announced its plans to merge with Skydance Media, run by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Oracle founder and Trump ally Larry Ellison.
TRUMP CLAIMS CBS, ‘60 MINUTES’ HAVE TREATED HIM ‘FAR WORSE’ UNDER NEW OWNERSHIP
However, the proposed $8 billion merger would ultimately need to seek the approval of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which Trump could sway in his favor once he returns to office. In other words, if Paramount aggressively fought Trump's lawsuit, it risks the Skydance merger being blocked by the incoming Trump administration.
Settling Trump's lawsuit became a real possibility for Paramount and CBS News, coming on the heels of ABC News' $15 million settlement in December after Trump accused George Stephanopoulos of defamation for a segment.
After Trump was sworn back into office, he appointed Brendan Carr to be FCC chair. One of Carr's first major actions was demanding CBS News to hand over the raw transcript and footage from the Harris interview, something CBS News refused to do when the controversy first erupted in the run-up to the election.
In February, the FCC released the transcript which showed that both sets of comments Harris made in the preview clip and in the primetime special came from the same answer — CBS News used the first half of her answer in the preview clip while the latter half aired on "60 Minutes." This disputed Trump's repeated claims that CBS News aired two different answers from two entirely different questions. Still, he had no intention to withdraw his lawsuit, which he upped from $10 billion to $20 billion.
‘60 MINUTES’ STAFF STAND BY KAMALA HARRIS INTERVIEW AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S MAJOR PARAMOUNT LAWSUIT
Meanwhile, internal strife had already begun plaguing the CBS newsroom as word got out to the press that Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder at the time, wanted to settle Trump's lawsuit in order to pave the way for the Skydance merger, resulting in a huge payout for her. While she recused herself from the decision-making, Redstone had reportedly put "60 Minutes" under a microscope by keeping tabs on what upcoming segments were about Trump and his administration.
That led to the resignation of "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens, who told his colleagues in April that the corporate overreach impacted his ability to maintain an independent newsroom. CBS News President Wendy Mahon was also pushed out less than a month later.
The dramatic exits of well-respected bosses and the looming prospect of a Trump settlement drowned the CBS newsroom in consternation.
In July, after months of contentious mediation, Paramount and CBS settled Trump's lawsuit for a sum expected to be north of $30 million, including $16 million upfront for Trump's presidential library.
A source familiar with Paramount’s Redstone-era leadership told Fox News Digital that only the initial $16 million was sanctioned by the official mediator, and they had no knowledge of any deal Trump made with incoming ownership. Trump confirmed on Truth Social this week that he expects another $20 million from the new owners to be allocated for advertisements and public service announcements to promote conservative causes.
CBS News issued no apology as part of the settlement, but the network did update its editorial policies that now require the release of raw transcripts of interviews with presidential candidates going forward.
Despite the outcry from her critics, Redstone stood by the settlement, calling it a "no-brainer."
While liberal critics blasted Paramount for allegedly "bending the knee" to Trump, the outrage reached new heights when just days later, CBS announced that it was canceling "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," sending shockwaves throughout the industry.
Colbert's allies in the liberal media accused Paramount of pulling the plug on "The Late Show" as a decision directly tied to Trump's settlement and the merger, something Democratic lawmakers vowed to investigate. It even sparked an uproar within Paramount. "The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart — who at the time may have also been on the chopping block at Paramount-owned Comedy Central, but has since gotten a one-year extension — went after his corporate bosses over the cancellation, as did "South Park," which dedicated the entire back-to-back seasons ridiculing Trump — depicting him as a Saddam Hussein-like authoritarian with small genitalia and in a romantic relationship with Satan — as well as several members of his administration.
Colbert himself routinely targeted his own bosses during his monologues even though the network is giving his show until May 2026 before it's officially pulled off the air.
CBS maintained it was purely a financial decision. A report about the astronomical expenses of "The Late Show" backed that up, alleging it was losing more than $40 million a year for the network and that it had a budget of more than $100 million per season. Meanwhile, Colbert was allegedly making $15-20 million per year.
Within days of Colbert's announced cancellation, the FCC approved the Paramount-Skydance merger.
In August, Ellison officially became the owner and CEO of Paramount, now formally referred to as "Paramount, a Skydance company," and Redstone received a reported $2 billion buyout.
Ellison hit the ground running in his first few months as the Paramount owner, with the appointment of Bari Weiss as CBS News' new editor-in-chief and acquiring her outlet The Free Press for $150 million. He also struck a $7 billion exclusive deal with UFC as well as a four-year deal with the Duffer Brothers, the co-creators of Netflix's "Stranger Things."
Weiss, who reports directly to Ellison, has made some moves of her own. She tapped "CBS Mornings" co-host Tony Dokoupil to become the new face of "CBS Evening News," pushing out its co-anchors John Dickerson and Maurice DuBois after the perpetual third-place newscast took a notable hit in viewership after Norah O'Donnell stepped down in January. She also poached ABC News correspondent Matt Gutman, the reporter who sparked outrage earlier this year for calling the text messages Charlie Kirk's accused assassin Tyler Robinson sent to his trans partner "very touching."
TONY DOKOUPIL BECOMES LATEST IN REVOLVING DOOR OF ANCHORS TASKED TO REVIVE ‘CBS EVENING NEWS’
There had been concerns among CBS News staffers about Ellison's appointment of Weiss, particularly whether the two of them would inject their ideological views into their reporting. Earlier this month, "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley said the long-running magazine show has yet to face any corporate interference by the new bosses. However, days later, there was upheaval in the newsroom after Weiss pulled a segment about the brutal El Salvador prison CECOT where illegal migrants in the U.S. were sent to just hours before it was set to air. Sharyn Alfonsi, the segment's correspondent, called it a "political" move, while Weiss suggested it wasn't "fair" since it did not include a response from the Trump administration.
Ellison rocked Paramount and CBS with a massive round of layoffs in October, something he had signaled leading up to the company merger. He cut roughly 1,000 jobs, many of them impacting various departments at CBS News. There had also been reports that "CBS Mornings" host Gayle King could potentially be on the outs from the network next year.
While 2025 marked an eventful year for Paramount, the saga may continue into 2026 as Ellison recently launched a hostile bid to take over Warner Bros. Discovery for $108 after it was announced that Netflix was going to buy Warner Bros. for $83 billion. If successful, not only would he own two major Hollywood studios, he would also become the new owner of CNN, fueling questions about whether Weiss would oversee both CBS News and CNN going forward.
So far, Trump himself has had a more agnostic approach to the bidding war despite his reported coziness with the Ellisons. He praised Netflix as a "great company" and called its CEO Ted Sarandos a "fantastic man" but expressed concern about its market share.
CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST MEDIA AND CULTURE NEWS
In fact, Trump has expressed frustration over the Ellison-owned Paramount. He blasted the company for its "60 Minutes" interview featuring ally-turned-foe Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., writing on Truth Social that the new ownership is "NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP." He later claimed he's being treated "far worse" under the new ownership.
He also called for CNN to be part of "any deal" with Warner Bros. Discovery, demanding that the network have completely new ownership.
So, in the end, Paramount may once again be at the mercy of the Trump administration since it has the power to quash its financial prospects. Only time will tell.
Ownership shifts reshape iconic sports teams as pro leagues expand and valuations surge in 2025
Two of the NBA’s most decorated franchises changed ownership this year.
The WNBA’s growing popularity has fueled plans for multiple expansion teams in the coming years.
Hurricane Milton severely damaged Tropicana Field, which forced the Rays to play home games at George M. Steinbrenner Field — the spring training home of the New York Yankees — in 2025 before new ownership clarified the team’s future.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
Growth in U.S. women’s professional soccer further underscored the broader impact sports had in 2025.
Here’s a look at some of the biggest sports ownership changes, league expansions and other stories that defined the year.
In June, the Buss family entered a purchase agreement for the Los Angeles Lakers with Guggenheim Partners CEO Mark Walter for a valuation of approximately $10 billion. The figure represented the highest valuation on record for a U.S. professional sports team.
While the deal transferred majority ownership to Walter, the Buss family retained a minority stake in the franchise. Jeanie Buss continues to represent the Lakers on the NBA’s board of governors.
The deal also included guarantees giving Buss the power to continue overseeing the franchise’s day-to-day basketball operations for "at least a number of years," ESPN reported at the time.
Elsewhere, in August, the NBA board of governors backed a Bill Chisholm-led investor group gaining controlling interest in the Boston Celtics. The deal was worth approximately $6.1 billion. The Celtics won the franchise’s record-setting 18th NBA championship in 2024, surpassing the Lakers for the most in league history.
Real estate magnate Patrick Zalupski led an investment group that gained approval for a controlling interest in the Rays after Stu Sternberg expressed interest in parting ways with the MLB club. The deal to acquire the Rays reportedly closed at $1.7 billion in September.
In late January, an investment group headed by Robert Cohen, the chairman and CEO of IMA Financial, set an NWSL expansion fee. The deal awarded Denver its first NWSL team, whose name was unveiled in the summer as the Denver Summit. The franchise is scheduled to take the pitch in 2026. Another expansion club, the Boston Legacy, will also begin play that year.
In November, the NWSL announced that Atlanta had been awarded the league’s 17th franchise, set to debut in 2028. The expansion club will be owned by Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank.
"I want to thank Commissioner Jessica Berman, NWSL owners and the expansion committee for their trust in awarding Atlanta this opportunity, as well as our executive leadership team for their tireless efforts as we have worked to make this dream a reality. We can’t wait to see our NWSL club take the pitch in 2028," Blank said in a statement.
Cleveland, Detroit and Philadelphia are all slated to become home to the three newest WNBA teams. The additions will bring the league to 18 teams by 2030.
Dan Gilbert’s Rock Entertainment Group was announced as the ownership entity for the Cleveland-based team, which is scheduled to tip off in 2028. Gilbert also owns the Cleveland Cavaliers.
Steve Pagliuca, a Celtics minority owner, spearheaded an investment group that reportedly reached an agreement with the Mohegan Tribe — the ownership group of the WNBA’s Connecticut Sun. Pagliuca’s group announced plans to relocate the franchise to Boston after the deal closed.
However, WNBA leadership pushed back, saying relocation decisions rest with the league’s Board of Governors, not individual teams.
The Mohegan Tribe purchased the Sun in 2003 and successfully moved the team, formerly known as the Orlando Miracle, from Florida to Connecticut that year. According to ESPN, there are several options on the table pertaining to the franchise’s future.
Options include a league-led purchase, a Marc Lasry-backed relocation to Hartford, or a partial sale approved by the WNBA.
Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Pennsylvania man charged after killing mother, wounding father after Christmas
An 18-year-old man was taken into custody in West Virginia after allegedly shooting his parents in their Pennsylvania home the day after Christmas — killing his mother and wounding his father.
Jarrod Noll was charged with homicide and attempted homicide in connection with the shooting.
Pennsylvania State Police were called just before 2 p.m. on Friday to the home on Garrison Ridge Road in Freeport Township in Greene County, located near the West Virginia border.
MASSACHUSETTS MAN ACCUSED OF BEATING PARENTS AND SETTING HOME ON FIRE, LEAVING THEM TO DIE
Police arrived to find Noll's parents suffering from gunshot wounds. Both were transported to a hospital, with his mother in critical condition.
His mother was later pronounced dead at the hospital, while his father was eventually released in stable condition.
Authorities launched a manhunt for Noll, who fled the home on foot after the shooting. He was considered armed and dangerous as police conducted an "extensive search" of the surrounding area.
SON SUSPECTED IN KILLING OF BELOVED DOCTOR AND WIFE BEFORE TORCHING CAR AND TAKING HIS OWN LIFE
"We used tracking dogs, we used helicopters, and we used police on foot searching rough terrain," Pennsylvania State Police Sergeant Richard Sizer said, according to CBS Pittsburgh.
"Obviously, when you have someone on the run with a homicide warrant, on the run with a gun, it is a huge danger to the community," Sizer continued.
Noll was captured on Saturday by West Virginia State Police without incident.
He will be held in custody in West Virginia before his extradition to Pennsylvania, CBS Pittsburgh reported.
The suspect's younger siblings were home during the shooting, although he allegedly fired the shots outside the house, according to the outlet. The children were placed in the custody of a relative.
Washington Post article fretting over Trump officials' religious Christmas messages draws strong pushback
The White House remarked that Christmas will continue to be a holiday for Christians "celebrating the birth of their Savior" after a Washington Post article criticized the Trump administration's "explicitly sectarian" holiday messages.
On Friday, the Washington Post went viral after promoting an article that highlighted the more religious tone in many Trump officials' Christmas messages.
"Top officials in President Donald Trump's administration posted messages from their government accounts hailing Christmas in explicitly sectarian terms, such as a day to celebrate the birth of 'our Savior Jesus Christ,'" the article read.
The article included examples from the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who all described Christmas as a Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.
CHARLOTTE CHURCH DEPICTS ICE ARRESTING HOLY FAMILY IN TRUMP-ERA NATIVITY SCENE
"The messages sharply diverged from the more secular, Santa Claus-and-reindeer style of Christmas messages that have been the norm for government agencies for years," the article read. "The posts provided the latest example of the administration's efforts to promote the cultural views and language of Trump's evangelical Christian base."
In a statement to Fox News Digital, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson stood by the officials' responses.
"While the Washington Post would prefer we stick to ‘Happy Holidays,’ we’re saying Merry Christmas again. And Christmas is a Christian holiday for millions of Christians celebrating the birth of their Savior, whether the Washington Post likes it or not," Jackson said.
JOE BIDEN BLOWS UP SOCIAL MEDIA OVER 'HUMILIATING' FAMILY CHRISTMAS PHOTO HE'S BARELY VISIBLE IN
Fox News Digital reached out to the Washington Post for a response.
Other members of the Trump administration have also responded to the article on X.
"You really do not hate the media scum enough. Christmas is about the birth of our Savior, the Son of God. Our Republic was founded by men of God, based on Western Christian values. The West is the greatest civilization Mankind has ever known since it predicates rights given by God," Trump counterterrorism advisor Sebastian Gorka wrote.
Federal Trade Commission commissioner Mark Meador added, "Imagine how unhappy a person you have to be to write something like this. These people need Jesus."
PROGRESSIVE CHURCHES IN COLORADO AND WASHINGTON HOST DRAG NATIVITY, CHRISTMAS SHOWS
Conservative commentators also mocked the Washington Post for pushing what they saw as a secular view of a religious holiday.
"The 'Christ' in Christmas is a pretty strong signal that the entire foundation of the holiday is Christian. In fact, it might even be a sign that the whole reason for the season is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, the incarnation of God’s Son. You absolute clowns," The Federalist CEO Sean Davis wrote.
RedState writer Bonchie commented, "They’ll dedicate dozens of days a year celebrating mental delusions about gender identity, but notice that Christmas is about Jesus Christ, and the great triggering begins."
"Such a dumb thing to be outraged about at Christmas," radio host Erick Erickson remarked.
"It’s not sectarian to 1) Believe in the true God who alone created the universe and all that is in it. 2) Proclaim the good news that the Father sent His only begotten Son to earth to save us. There is either the true God or there isn’t, but if He doesn’t exist and rule over the earth then there’s little point in us living in our bubbles of false morality and 'right' and 'wrong.' There is no neutrality," Rep. Daniel Alders, R-Texas, commented.
Five hopeful signs college students are seeking truth once more
It would be easy to end this year discouraged. From campus unrest to ideological extremes at some of the most prestigious universities in America, 2025 gave us more than enough to lament. But as a university president, and as we approach this season of Christmas, a time marked by reflection, renewal and hope, I believe the full story of higher education this year was not just about collapse. It was also about conviction.
This was a year when students spoke up. Parents got involved. Christian leaders stayed the course. And across the country, signs of renewal began to take shape. Not everywhere. Not perfectly. But undeniably.
As I reflect on this year in higher education, I believe these five moments signal that a meaningful shift is already underway.
This year saw real momentum to protect women’s athletics from ideological overreach. States passed legislation to keep competition fair. Student athletes spoke up with clarity and conviction. And for the first time in years, the tide began to shift in public opinion. Biology is not bigotry. Truth matters. And this was the year more students started saying so out loud.
I’VE BEEN A COLLEGE PRESIDENT AND HIGHER EDUCATION NEEDS TO EMBRACE DIVERSITY OF BELIEFS
Free speech had a comeback moment in 2025. From student groups gaining official recognition to legal victories across the country, the message was clear. Viewpoint discrimination will not be tolerated. For too long, Christian and conservative students were told to stay silent. This year, many chose to speak with boldness and grace. And the courts began backing them up.
Scandals at top-tier institutions, like Harvard, did more than make headlines. They exposed a deeper crisis of trust and leadership. As families watched these schools stumble, many began looking elsewhere for wisdom, integrity and formation. That shift matters. It means the era of blind prestige may finally be giving way to a new era of purpose-driven education.
Across the country, parents stepped in with renewed focus and resolve. Whether speaking out at school board meetings or reevaluating where their children should attend college, families pushed back against ideological extremes. They are asking better questions, looking for schools that reflect their values, and taking ownership of the academic formation of the next generation.
LAW STUDENTS EAGER TO FIGHT CORROSIVE CAMPUS 'CANCEL CULTURE' SPREADING NATIONWIDE
This year, public trust in higher education hit historic lows. That might sound like bad news, but it actually reveals something hopeful. People are not giving up on education. They are giving up on broken systems. They are hungry for models that prioritize truth, character and community over bureaucracy and activism. That creates space for bold, mission=driven universities to lead.
As president of Southeastern University, I saw these changes take root firsthand. We continue to partner with churches, families and communities to offer a model of higher education that is accessible, formative and grounded in biblical truth. Our students are not being trained to escape the world. They are being equipped to lead within it.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Looking ahead to 2026, we must keep building on this momentum. This is not the time to retreat. It is the time to renew. For parents, that means choosing schools that care more about character than rankings. For students, it means pursuing truth over popularity. And for colleges, it means refusing to trade moral clarity for cultural approval.
Most importantly, we must lead with hope instead of fear. Fear sees only what is broken. Hope sees what can be restored. Fear pulls away from the moment. Hope steps into it. As Christian leaders, our role is not to mirror the culture’s anxiety but to model resilience, faith and joy. Our campuses should be places where truth is not just protected but proclaimed. Where students are not just prepared for the workforce but called into lives of meaning, service, and leadership. That is the future we are building, and this year proved we are not alone.
There is still work to do. But there is also reason to hope. This year showed us that a better future for higher education is not only possible. It has already begun.
As we celebrate Christmas and look toward a new year, let us be reminded that light shines brightest in darkness. Let us build institutions that reflect that truth. These must be places where courage is cultivated, faith is lived out and hope is more than a feeling. It is the foundation.
Birthright citizenship supporters get the law wrong by ignoring obvious evidence
Despite what some legal scholars are claiming, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment does not extend citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents are illegal aliens, or for that matter, lawful aliens such as tourists or foreign diplomats.
That includes our good friend, professor John Yoo. On Dec. 10, he published an op-ed insisting that arguments for a more limited interpretation of the citizenship clause must "disregard the plain text of the Constitution, the weight of the historical evidence from the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification and more than 140 years of unbroken government practice and judicial interpretation."
Supporters of birthright citizenship ignore the contrary evidence that shows their interpretation is wrong. The language in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens.
Yet Yoo and others claim anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, no matter the legal status of their parents. They dismiss any contrary position as a modern reinvention promulgated by a few outlier academics at the Claremont Institute. But there are many other scholars who have added their voices to a growing body of scholarship that runs counter to that preferred interpretation.
MSNBC HOST ERUPTS OVER SCOTUS RULING ON TRUMP'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER
In recent years, we, as well as other respected legal scholars like professors Kurt Lash, Ilan Wurman, Randy Barnett and Samuel Estreicher, have produced substantive research that significantly undermines the birthright citizen claim.
Supporters cite the 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone regarding the common-law rule on citizenship. But they omit any mention of prominent American jurist Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1834 legal treatise that one "reasonable qualification" on the common law rule would be to exclude the U.S.-born children of aliens who are only temporarily present in the country.
Also, glaringly absent from most analyses is the Civil Rights Act of 1866, in which Congress first defined the limits on birthright citizenship and which served as the basis for the 14th Amendment. That statute made citizens only of persons born in the United States and "not subject to any foreign power."
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES AGAINST TRUMP'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER
Sen. Lyman Trumbull — a principal author of the act’s citizenship clause and a sponsor of the 14th Amendment — explained that Congress intentionally crafted this language to exclude the U.S.-born children of parents who owed the nation only a qualified and temporary allegiance under the common law rule. That applies to all children born of alien parents who owe their primary and permanent political allegiance to their native land, not the U.S.
True, the 14th Amendment employs different language. The legislative history, however, makes it clear that the change wasn’t to abrogate the Civil Rights Act, but to more adequately exclude Native Americans who were not considered U.S. citizens even though they were born in America until the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. Why? Because, said the Supreme Court in 1884 in Elk v. Wilkins, they owed their "immediate allegiance" to their tribal governments, not the United States.
As Sen. Reverdy Johnson, another sponsor of the 14th Amendment explained, Congress understood that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" constitutionalized precisely the same principles of citizenship found in the Civil Rights Act: "All that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign power … shall be considered as citizens of the United States."
TRUMP CELEBRATES SUPREME COURT LIMITS ON 'COLOSSAL ABUSE OF POWER' BY FEDERAL JUDGES
Moreover, Congress re-enacted the Civil Rights Act verbatim in 1870, and for 70 years, both courts and scholars understood that the two definitions were consistent and complementary. Yoo never mentions this history.
Also not mentioned are any of the influential stalwarts of American legal commentary who, in the decades following ratification, interpreted the citizenship clause’s jurisdictional language in a manner now dismissed as "misreading" the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Perhaps, famed jurist Thomas Cooley got it wrong when he explained that phrase "meant that full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens generally are subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government." But this would seem worthy of substantive rebuttal rather than silence.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
In the same vein, Yoo insists that his view is consistent with "more than 140 years of unbroken government practice." This is curious, given early executive branch decisions denying citizenship claims on behalf of U.S.-born children based on their parents’ immigration status.
In the 1885 case of Richard Greisser, his German father and Swiss mother never became permanent U.S. residents and returned to Germany with the toddler. Secretary of State Thomas Bayard concluded that Greisser had been born "subject to a foreign power" and not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," despite having been literally born on U.S. soil. Similarly, in Mary Devereaux’s 1890 case, the Department of Justice determined that because Devereaux was ultimately denied entry to the United States, her U.S.-born daughter was not an American citizen, either.
And we should not neglect to mention the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1873 in which the Supreme Court said this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."
Perhaps five justices will agree with the modern misinterpretation of the citizenship clause that supporters are urging. But to do that, they will have to ignore the historical evidence on the proper application of the citizenship clause, which does not render those born of parents who are illegally in this country citizens of the United States.
Hans von Spakovsky is a former senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
Affordability, DOGE and the language that captured American politics in 2025
The Words That Remade America in 2025
There's a peculiar magic to language moments — those rare instances when a phrase or term suddenly captures something we've all been feeling, but couldn't quite articulate, and then refuses to let go. For most of 2025, I found myself cataloging them, watching as new words and reframed ideas metastasized through our politics, our culture, our everyday conversations in ways that felt genuinely consequential.
If I had to identify the single most consequential word of the year — the one that actually changed the trajectory of elections and scrambled the political narrative — it would be this: affordability.
Affordability: The Word That Rewired Everything
JONATHAN TURLEY: WITH 'RAGE BAIT' CROWNED WORD OF THE YEAR, FREE SPEECH BECOMES THE TARGET
Here's what fascinates me about the rise of "affordability" as a political frame. For decades, we've operated on the assumption that "the economy" is what matters. It's what campaigns organize around. It's what polling measures. It's what pundits obsess over.
Republicans entered 2025 confident this would hold. Jobs were up. Growth was real. By traditional economic metrics, they should have swept elections nationwide. They didn't. And the reason reveals something crucial about how language actually works — not as data, but as meaning.
Democrats made a deliberate pivot. They stopped saying "economy." They started saying "affordability."
It's a small linguistic move with staggering implications. "Economy" is abstract, statistical, disconnected from lived experience. You can argue about GDP while people feel broke. "Affordability" is visceral. It's your grocery bill. Your rent. Your ability to afford healthcare or childcare or a place to live in the city where you work. It's immediate and personal and undeniable.
The polling told the story: affordability wasn't even measured as a distinct metric in 2024. By the 2025 elections, it was everything. Democrats gained eight points on the issue in the two months before the vote — eight points that translated to flipped races and disappointed Republicans who couldn't understand why their economic talking points weren't landing.
The Miami mayor's race is instructive. For 30 years, Miami had a Republican mayor. Then a Democrat running on affordability flipped it. Thirty years. That's not a small shift. That's a tectonic movement driven by a single word that reframed what people cared about.
And here's where it gets interesting: Trump noticed. For the first time in quite some time, we've seen him reactive rather than setting the agenda. He launched "Make America Affordable Again" — focusing on bigger paychecks and lowering prices. He watched Democrats define the battlefield and then moved to reclaim it. That's a concession, whether he'd frame it that way or not.
Because, once Democrats defined the conversation as being about affordability, rather than the economy, they'd already won the semantic ground. And you can't win it back by insisting your facts are better. The frame has shifted.
It's a reminder that politics isn't ultimately about reality. It's about the story we tell about reality. And in 2025, the story became: Can you afford to live here? And suddenly, everyone had to answer it.
DOGE: When an Acronym Becomes a Movement
I'm struck by how DOGE worked, precisely because it transcended the boring bureaucratic reality of what it supposedly stood for. The Department of Government Efficiency didn't need to explain itself through its component words. It became a symbol — a verb, even. You're getting DOGE'd. It's happening to you.
What's remarkable is how this inverts what usually happens with acronyms. Usually, they compress and clarify. ESG tried to do that — to make three words into one digestible container. But DOGE worked because people forgot what it stood for and simply understood what it meant: ruthlessness, disruption, the chainsaw on stage, "we're starting over and collateral damage is just collateral damage." For supporters, that meant something clean and necessary. For critics, something dangerous and reckless. But, both camps understood they were talking about the same thing: a commitment to cutting, not governing. And that singular clarity — however divisive — is the hallmark of effective language strategy.
The question it raised, though, is worth sitting with: What happens when a symbol becomes so powerful that the actual policy beneath it doesn't matter anymore? We still don't entirely know.
Democratic Socialism: Authenticity as Strategy
One of the more unexpected language moments came when a New York mayoral candidate refused to sanitize his identity as a democratic socialist. He could have hedged. He could have spent political capital explaining the difference between democratic socialism and socialism. He didn't.
What he understood — what his campaign understood — is that younger voters don't hear "socialism" the way their parents do. To voters under 30, socialism doesn't conjure gulags or breadlines. It conjures functioning Nordic countries with good healthcare and reasonable work-life balance. It's a generational dividing line in what certain words mean.
More importantly, he understood that in a polarized moment, owning a label — even a historically toxic one — can paradoxically give you more credibility than running from it. He wasn't a typical politician with typical positions. He was someone unafraid to be called what he was. There's stopping power in that. There's authenticity in it, too.
The risk was real. The upside was that he could speak directly to a constituency that had grown exhausted with politicians who triangulate and hedge and soften their positions into meaninglessness. He just said: here's who I am, here's what I actually believe, and here's what I'll do for you. Fast and free buses. Affordable housing. Not an explanation of democratic socialism. Just: this is what it means in practice.
The lesson, which should terrify both parties heading into 2026, is that party labels themselves are becoming almost quaint — at least to younger voters. They don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican. They care if you're going to do something for them. That's a fundamental shift in how politics works.
Gulf of America: Who Gets to Name Things
The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America raises questions that go beyond nomenclature. It's about who gets to decide what things are called, and what happens when you lose that power.
For years, the left has been winning these definitional battles — language around race, gender, sexuality, identity. The right watched it happen and mostly grumbled. The Trump administration decided to fight back visibly, aggressively, consequences be damned. Journalists who refused to comply faced access restrictions. The press was banned from White House events.
Here's what's interesting: both sides are doing this now. The difference is visibility and aggression. And yes, in Florida, people are buying merchandise celebrating the Gulf of America — which tells you everything you need to know about how the same phrase means different things depending on who's hearing it and what it symbolizes to them.
Department of War: The Power of Words to Shape Reality
When the administration renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War, something unexpected happened. Military recruiting improved. For the first time in years, the armed forces exceeded their recruitment goals.
Why? Not because the name change itself mattered, but because it signaled something. It told recruits: you're a warrior, not an administrator managing a department. You're on offense, not defense. You're ready to fight. That messaging — cascading through the entire institution — changed how people viewed the role.
It's a reminder that language doesn't just describe reality. Sometimes it creates it. The words we use shape behavior, identity, aspiration. Call someone a warrior and they stand differently. They think differently.
What This Actually Means
What 2025 revealed is something almost encouraging when you really think about it. We discovered that language — the deliberate, strategic choice of words — genuinely matters. More than we thought. More than most of us give it credit for.
The most successful language moments of the year didn't argue with facts. They reframed what facts mean. Affordability didn't deny economic growth. It reframed what that growth means to people checking out at the grocery store. DOGE didn't deny concerns about government efficiency. It symbolized a particular kind of efficiency. Democratic socialism didn't deny the term's history. It claimed it meant something different to a new generation.
This is actually profound. It means that the power to shape our future doesn't lie exclusively with those who control traditional levers of power. It lies with whoever can name the thing we're all feeling but can't quite articulate. Whoever finds the word that captures the zeitgeist.
And that word — affordability — proved stronger than incumbency, stronger than economic data, stronger than the usual playbook. It shows that sometimes the person willing to say the unsayable thing first, the person willing to name what everyone's already thinking, can actually move the needle.
In a moment when so much feels fixed and immovable, there's something genuinely hopeful about that. The next language moment — the next word that remakes the political landscape — could come from anywhere. Could be from either side. Could come from someone we haven't heard from yet.
All it takes is the right word at the right time. A word so true, so immediate, so utterly undeniable that it can't be ignored or explained away.
That's the story of 2025. And it suggests that 2026 is wide open.