Taiwan’s foreign minister says China has ‘clearly become a troublemaker that is maliciously attempting to disrupt the cross-strait status quo and intimidate peaceful countries.’

In exclusive comments to Fox News Digital, Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung said China’s intensifying ‘authoritarian expansionism not only directly threatens Taiwan’s security and democratic system but also poses significant challenges to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world.’

‘Last June,’ Lin said, ‘[Chinese] aircraft carriers Liaoning and Shandong maneuvered beyond the second island chain, marking China’s first simultaneous, dual-carrier deployment into the Western Pacific. These developments demonstrate that Beijing’s expansionist ambitions extend far beyond Taiwan and pose an increasingly serious threat to the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific region and the world.’

Communist China was founded in 1949 and has not ruled Taiwan for a single day. Officially known as the Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan is currently recognized by eleven small countries, plus the Holy See. Beijing nonetheless rejects the reality of nearly 80 years of separate rule, describing Taiwan as a ‘sacred and inseparable part of China’s territory.’

China’s posture toward independently ruled Taiwan has hardened in recent years as President Xi Jinping removed term limits and consolidated near-total power. While earlier Chinese statements included talk of ‘peaceful unification,’ Beijing now openly threatens to use force. 

In 2024, Xi directed the Chinese military to complete preparations for a Taiwan operation by 2027. Most defense analysts agree that an invasion would be costly, bloody and highly risky for China, Taiwan and any countries that come to Taiwan’s aid, such as the United States or Japan.

Lin echoed those warnings that a conflict in the Taiwan Strait would reverberate worldwide. ‘Peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait are vital to global security and prosperity,’ Lin said, noting that approximately 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors are produced in Taiwan and that roughly 50% of global commercial shipping passes through the strait. He added that Taiwan is grateful to the United States and other partners for resisting China’s efforts to unilaterally alter the status quo.

The foreign minister said Taiwan’s central role in geopolitics, technology and supply chains ensures that Washington places a high priority on cross-strait stability. He said U.S. policymakers understand that Taiwan’s semiconductor industry and related supply chains are critical to American economic security.

‘There is clear strategic continuity between the policies of President Trump’s first and second terms,’ said Lin, adding that Taiwan’s government will seek ways to coordinate with the United States ‘through values-based, alliance and economic diplomacy.’

Commenting on Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy, Lin said, ‘The Trump administration and U.S. Congress continue to demonstrate a steadfast commitment to safeguarding peace and security across the Indo-Pacific region,’ Lin said, ‘which was emphasized in the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS).’ The foreign minister also noted that ‘the recent NSS released by the Trump administration underscored Taiwan’s geopolitical importance as a link between the Northeast and Southeast Asian theaters.’

Lin said Taiwan is working to rebalance trade with the United States while strengthening strategic cooperation on AI. ‘The Trump administration’s AI Action Plan,’ he said, ‘underscores the importance of innovation, infrastructure and international cooperation for AI development.’ 

He also touted Taiwan’s growing investments in the U.S., including a $165 billion commitment by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) in Arizona, and said Taipei is working to make it easier for Taiwanese companies trying to invest in the U.S.. ‘Against the backdrop of U.S.-China strategic competition and the restructuring of global supply chains,’ said Lin, ‘Taiwan’s enterprises understand the remarkable potential of investing in the United States.’

The foreign minister said Taiwan appreciates increasing American military support, highlighting that ‘Last December, the United States approved an arms sales package to Taiwan totaling $11 billion as well as signing the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. These measures underscore the firm bipartisan support for Taiwan in the U.S. government.’

But he stressed that Taiwan is accelerating its own defense investments. ‘Last year, [Taiwan] President Lai Ching-te announced that Taiwan’s defense budget would increase to over 3% of GDP by 2026 and rise to 5% by 2030,’ he said. While parts of that plan have faced resistance in the opposition-led legislature, both major parties have publicly backed closer security cooperation with the United States and a stronger deterrence posture.

A new report from the far-left Human Rights Campaign shows a remarkable shift: a 65% drop in Fortune 500 companies publicly communicating commitments to diversity and inclusion initiatives. Just a few years ago, corporations raced to outdo one another with ever-expanding DEI pledges. Today, many are quietly stepping back.

This is not a retreat from fairness. It is a return to sanity.

For years, corporate America embraced an ideological experiment that blurred the line between equal opportunity and preferential treatment. What began as a push for broader inclusion morphed into quota-driven mandates, demographic scorecards and internal political signaling exercises that often had little to do with business performance.

Now, the legal system — and increasingly federal regulators — are pushing back.

Consider the recent lawsuit against Starbucks, where Missouri’s attorney general alleged ‘systemic discrimination’ in hiring and promotion practices tied to DEI goals. While a federal judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds, the filing itself signaled growing scrutiny over whether corporate diversity initiatives cross into unlawful discrimination.

Nike is currently facing a federal investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over allegations that certain DEI-related employment practices may have resulted in race-based discrimination against White employees. Whether the agency ultimately finds wrongdoing or not, the investigation underscores a new reality: DEI programs are no longer insulated from legal challenge.

And JPMorgan Chase has been sued over allegations of ‘systemic’ race bias, including claims that the bank conducted ‘fake interviews’ to satisfy internal diversity targets. That allegation — that a company might go through the motions of interviewing candidates solely to hit demographic benchmarks — illustrates how performative compliance can undermine both fairness and trust.

But the scrutiny does not stop at employment law.

In recent weeks, the Federal Trade Commission reportedly sent letters to 42 of the largest and most profitable law firms in the United States, warning that racially discriminatory hiring practices — even if adopted under the banner of DEI — could constitute unfair or anti-competitive conduct. According to reporting, the firms were participating in a program overseen by the Diversity Lab that required at least 30% of leadership candidates to come from underrepresented groups.

That kind of industry-wide coordination raises serious questions.

First, there is the obvious Civil Rights Act concern: employment decisions cannot be made on the basis of race, period. But there is also a broader antitrust dimension. When competitors collectively adopt demographic quotas or coordinated hiring mandates, they may be engaging in collusive conduct — effectively setting industry standards through cooperation rather than competing freely for the best talent.

This theory is not new. Federal antitrust authorities have previously warned climate and ESG coalitions that there is no ‘ESG exception’ to the antitrust laws. As former FTC Chair Lina Khan stated plainly: competitors are not permitted to coordinate with one another simply because the coordination is framed as socially beneficial. The same logic applies here. There is no DEI exception to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

For years, corporate America embraced an ideological experiment that blurred the line between equal opportunity and preferential treatment. 

The implications are enormous.

Retailers such as Nordstrom, Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Ulta and Sephora signed the ‘Fifteen Percent Pledge,’ committing to reserve 15% of shelf space exclusively for Black-owned brands. More than seventy major corporations — including competitors like Nike, Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren and American Eagle — signed the ‘Count Us In’ pledge, coordinating around policies that include funding transgender surgeries for employees and engaging in shared lobbying efforts.

The legal question is no longer just whether these initiatives are politically popular. It is whether they create exposure under antitrust law by reducing competition or creating coordinated market standards among competitors.

Corporate America is beginning to recognize the risk.

Public companies exist to create shareholder value — not to serve as enforcement arms for shifting social movements. When executives adopted DEI mandates that required race-based hiring targets, demographic quotas, or coordinated pledges with competitors, they exposed their companies to multi-front liability: discrimination claims from employees, regulatory investigations, shareholder lawsuits and now potential antitrust scrutiny.

The 65% drop in DEI messaging suggests something important: boards and CEOs are recalibrating.

That recalibration is healthy. 

There is nothing wrong with expanding opportunity, recruiting broadly, or fostering a respectful workplace culture. But the law demands equal treatment — not equal outcomes engineered through quotas or industry collusion. When companies forget that distinction, they risk violating both civil rights statutes and competition laws designed to protect markets.

Markets function best when companies compete — for customers, for innovation, and, yes, for talent. The moment competitors coordinate around hiring mandates or collective pledges, they drift away from competition and toward centralized standard-setting. That is precisely what antitrust law exists to prevent.

The pendulum is swinging back toward merit.

Employees want to know they were hired because of their ability. Shareholders want disciplined capital allocation. Customers want quality products at fair prices. None of those priorities require demographic quotas or public virtue declarations.

The retrenchment we are witnessing is not an attack on diversity. It is a rejection of coercion and coordination masquerading as virtue. It is a reminder that equal opportunity under the law applies to everyone — White, Black, male, female — and that industry competitors are not allowed to suspend antitrust principles simply because the goal sounds noble.

Corporate America is finally rediscovering a simple truth: treat people equally, compete vigorously, and let merit determine outcomes.

That is not only legally sound. It is economically sound. And it is long overdue.

The partial government shutdown stretched into another week after negotiators failed to reach a deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the weekend.

Congress is on a weeklong recess and is not scheduled to return to Washington, D.C., until next week, leaving the shutdown’s end in limbo as both parties remain far apart on key provisions.

Senate Democrats are demanding a series of reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a position they have maintained since the fatal shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good during ICE operations in Minnesota.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus are standing by a list of 10 proposed reforms, including requiring ICE agents to obtain judicial warrants and limiting the use of face coverings — proposals Republicans have described as red lines.

‘Americans are tired of masked agents conducting warrantless operations in their communities — secret police,’ Schumer said. ‘They’re tired of chaos, secrecy and zero accountability. That is not what law and order looks like, and Republicans simply cannot pretend that this outrage does not exist.’

However, ICE received additional funding under previously passed legislation, and core enforcement operations are expected to continue. Other DHS agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Coast Guard, remain affected by the shutdown.

The White House has led negotiations for Senate Republicans and offered Senate Democrats a proposal that they have rejected. Details of that proposal have not been made public.

‘This is a Democrat-driven shutdown caused by their intransigence and desire to use government funding for services all Americans rely on as a hostage in order to achieve an unrelated political goal,’ a senior White House official said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said lawmakers would receive 24 hours’ notice to return if a deal is reached.

‘I think all those reasonable efforts and requests have been overshadowed by the fact that the Democrats don’t seem to want to play ball,’ Thune said.

On the House side, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told lawmakers they would receive 48 hours’ notice to return if the Senate passes a bill. The House is also in recess until Feb. 23.

Johnson and other Republicans have expressed support for the original DHS funding bill crafted by House and Senate appropriators, but the speaker said he does not want further delays in DHS funding to be attributed to the House.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has said Democrats will not accept a funding bill that does not include significant reforms to ICE.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement involving the U.S. and Hungary on Monday.

During remarks at the signing ceremony, Rubio indicated that the U.S.-Hungary relationship, and the relationship between President Donald Trump and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, is very close.

The American diplomat described the relationship between the two nations as being ‘as close as I can possibly imagine it being.’

Rubio, during remarks delivered alongside Orbán, asserted, ‘Your success is our success.’ 

He noted that if Hungary ever faces financial problems, impediments to growth or threats to national stability, he knows ‘President Trump will be very interested’ in ‘finding ways’ to help.

Trump has praised Orbán and backed him for re-election.

‘Highly Respected Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, is a truly strong and powerful Leader, with a proven track record of delivering phenomenal results. He fights tirelessly for, and loves, his Great Country and People, just like I do for the United States of America. Viktor works hard to Protect Hungary, Grow the Economy, Create Jobs, Promote Trade, Stop Illegal Immigration, and Ensure LAW AND ORDER!’ Trump declared on Truth Social this month. 

‘Relations between Hungary and the United States have reached new heights of cooperation and spectacular achievement under my Administration, thanks largely to Prime Minister Orbán. I look forward to continuing working closely with him so that both of our Countries can further advance this tremendous path to SUCCESS and cooperation. I was proud to ENDORSE Viktor for Re-Election in 2022, and am honored to do so again. Viktor Orbán is a true friend, fighter, and WINNER, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election as Prime Minister of Hungary — HE WILL NEVER LET THE GREAT PEOPLE OF HUNGARY DOWN!’ Trump added.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is making a push to have the Pride flag considered on the same level as the U.S. flag in the eyes of the federal government.

Schumer announced plans to introduce legislation that would make the flag, a symbol of the LGBTQ movement, a congressionally authorized flag. The distinction would enshrine the flag with similar protections as the U.S. flag, military flags, POW/MIA flags and others recognized by Congress.

His move comes after the Trump administration removed a Pride flag from a national monument outside the Stonewall Inn earlier this month. A clash between police and patrons at a gay bar in the 1960s is widely considered the birth of the gay rights movement.

‘Stonewall is sacred ground and Congress must act now to permanently protect the Pride flag and what it stands for,’ Schumer said. ‘Trump’s hateful crusade must end.’

The flag has since been reinstalled atop the pole outside the Stonewall Inn, and Schumer’s legislative push would prevent it from being taken down in the future.

President Donald Trump has not explicitly targeted the Pride flag but previously signed an executive order restricting what types of flags may be displayed on federal property to ensure only the U.S. flag is prominently flown.

The Pride flag was taken down from the monument following an internal memo from the Department of the Interior ordering ‘non-agency’ flags at national parks be removed.

The directive, signed by National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron in late January, included certain exceptions to the rule, including historical flags, military flags and federally recognized flags from tribal nations.

The Stonewall National Monument, first designated by former President Barack Obama in 2016, falls under the agency’s supervision. The Pride flag atop a large flagpole outside the famous gay bar did not fall under the list of protected flags and pennants.

‘The very core of American identity is liberty and justice for all — and that is what this legislation would protect: each national park’s ability to make its own decision about what flag can be flown,’ Schumer said. ‘Attempts to hurt New York and the LGBTQ community simply won’t fly, but the Stonewall Pride flag always will.’