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

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

1. He was funny 20 years ago

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

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

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

2. You knew they’d make the list

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

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

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

3. The first of the pod people

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

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

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

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

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

See what I mean?

4. More pod-ish people 

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

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

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

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

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

5. Spacey

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

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

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

6. Friday the 13th

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

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

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

Yeah, I can’t top that.

7. It ain’t over till it’s over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trump administration’s push for a deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where negotiations stand now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why talks stalled: leverage without decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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