Tensions between NATO and Russia sharpened Monday after the alliance’s top military commander said member states are considering whether they must become ‘more aggressive’ in confronting Moscow’s hybrid threat campaign.

Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chairman of NATO’s military committee, told the Financial Times the alliance is evaluating if it should be ‘proactive instead of reactive,’ including the possibility of ‘preemptive’ cyber or sabotage operations.

Dragone said such actions could still fall under defensive doctrine, saying, ‘It is further away from our normal way of thinking or behavior.’

Dragone pointed to the Baltic Sentry mission, launched this year to counter Russian-linked sabotage at sea, saying that ‘from the beginning of Baltic Sentry, nothing has happened. So this means that this deterrence is working.’

He added: ‘Being more aggressive compared with the aggressivity of our counterpart could be an option, but Dragone also admitted that NATO and its members had much more limits than our counterpart because of ethics, because of law, because of jurisdiction. It is an issue. I don’t want to say it’s a loser position, but it is a harder position than our counterpart’s.’

Moscow immediately pushed back. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova called Dragone’s comments ‘an extremely irresponsible step’ and accused NATO of signaling it is willing ‘to move toward escalation,’ according to Russian state media.

Carrie Filipetti, executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition and a former senior State Department and official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations, told Fox News Digital that, ‘Given Russia’s unilateral invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the idea that Russia is warning about NATO being irresponsible is laughable. Putin has been given numerous opportunities to end the war peacefully and has refused them all because of his own expansionist goals. NATO is simply reacting to his aggression.’

‘Regarding U.S. involvement,’ she explained, ‘Article 5 merely states that an attack on one is an attack on all. NATO adopting a more assertive position does not obligate the U.S. to do the same. We are only required to take ‘such action as [we] deem necessary’ – and that, only in the case of an attack on a NATO state.’

General Bruce Carlson, U.S. Air Force (ret.) and former director of the National Reconnaissance Office, told Fox News Digital, ‘Let’s not forget it’s Russia who is conducting preemptive military action in Europe with the sole intention of invading and occupying another sovereign nation’s territory by force.’ 

Carlson added, ‘Putin only understands one thing and that’s power. No one has strengthened NATO more than President Trump, and it is critical that we use every lever possible to push Russia to the negotiating table to achieve a lasting and sustainable peace deal that protects Ukraine’s sovereignty and defends U.S. national security interests.’

The warnings come amid a steady drumbeat of Russian-linked activity that NATO officials say falls under hybrid warfare. The alliance says it faces daily cyberattacks that can be traced to Moscow, alongside information operations, migration pressure, and repeated targeting of critical infrastructure.

A series of sabotage incidents in late 2024 triggered a major NATO review. Several undersea data cables and a key power link were damaged that November and December, including on Dec. 25. Prosecutors in Finland accused the crew of a Cook Islands–flagged tanker of dragging an anchor for more than 50 miles and severing infrastructure, though a Finnish court later dismissed the case, ruling national law did not apply.

More recently, roughly 20 drones crossed into NATO member Poland in September, prompting Warsaw to trigger Article 4 consultations. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said at the time it was ‘the closest we have been to open conflict since World War II,’ while Moscow denied targeting Polish territory.

The Trump administration harshly criticized the United Kingdom over its handling of mass immigration and the long-running rape gang scandal that has victimized white girls across the country.

In a statement posted to X, the U.S. State Department called on its Europe-based diplomats to track the effects of rampant immigration. While the statement zeroed in on the U.K., it also highlighted similar problems in Germany and Sweden.

‘The State Department instructed U.S. embassies to report on the human rights implications and public safety impacts of mass migration,’ the statement read. ‘Officials will also report policies that punish citizens who object to continued mass migration and document crimes and human rights abuses committed by people of a migration background.’

The statement referenced the so-called ‘grooming gangs’ made up of mostly Pakistani men who have victimized young girls for decades, with little action taken by the government.

‘In the United Kingdom, thousands of girls have been victimized in Rotherham, Oxford, and Newcastle by grooming gangs involving migrant men,’ the State Department said. ‘Many girls were left to suffer unspeakable abuse for years before authorities stepped in.’

A day after the statement, GB News reported that U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters at the G20 in South Africa that the national inquiry would ‘leave no stone unturned.’

The State Department’s warning comes weeks after several victims — who were members of the independent inquiry — resigned over what they claimed was a continuation of a cover-up. 

One abuse survivor, Ellie Reynolds, told cable channel GMB that the existence of grooming gangs has been ‘brushed under the carpet’ and that ‘our voices have been silenced.’

She was supported by fellow survivor Fiona Goddard, who was groomed from the age of 14, and said that when she spoke out for help she was dismissed as a ‘child prostitute’ by authorities.

Goddard resigned to protest the cover-up, saying members of the grooming gangs near Bradford were in the ‘vast majority … Pakistani men.’

Successive governments — both Conservative and Labour — have been dealing with the revelations for years that a number of grooming gangs, often consisting mostly of men of South Asian or Pakistani heritage, have sexually exploited girls for decades across the north of England.

Prior to the inquiry, Starmer had commissioned a national audit led by Baroness Louise Casey earlier this year. 

On the hot-button issue of the backgrounds of the criminals, the Casey report stated in part, ‘We found that the ethnicity of perpetrators is shied away from and is still not recorded for two-thirds of perpetrators, so we are unable to provide any accurate assessment from the nationally collected data.’

It continued: ‘Despite the lack of a full picture in the national data sets, there is enough evidence available in local police data in three police force areas which we examined which show disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds amongst suspects for group-based child sexual exploitation, as well as in the significant number of perpetrators of Asian ethnicity identified in local reviews and high-profile child sexual exploitation prosecutions across the country, to at least warrant further examination.’

Her audit also identified other perpetrators, including White British, European, African or Middle Eastern individuals.

The results of the audit produced 12 recommendations to the government, which have been implemented, including a national inquiry to ‘direct local investigations and hold institutions to account for past failures.’ 

But the Starmer government has been set back by a failure to appoint a chair for the inquiry, and it has faced resignations as critics have accused the Labour government of covering it up for political reasons.

Alan Mendoza, founder of the Henry Jackson Society, told Fox News Digital that ‘successive governments’ have allowed ‘gangs of largely South Asian Muslims to target white British girls, claiming, ‘the Labour government doesn’t want to be seen as stigmatizing demographics or potentially losing votes.’

‘I hope that the inquiry will focus more specifically on the real issue plaguing the U.K. over the last 20 years,’ Mendoza added.

The point person for the government’s inquiry is Labour member of Parliament Jess Phillips, who has served as the parliamentary undersecretary of state for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls since July 2024.

However, Phillips is facing heavy scrutiny over how she’s handling the set-up of the inquiry.

Asked in Parliament about the nature of the inquiry and whether it will address the perpetrators’ ethnicity, she vowed to be transparent.

‘There is absolutely no sense that ethnicity will be buried away,’ Phillips said. ‘Every single time that there is an apparently needless delay — even though it took seven months to put in place chairs for both the COVID inquiry and the blood inquiry, and nobody moaned about that — it gets used to say that we want to cover something up. That is the misinformation I am talking about. It will not cover things up. We are taking time to ensure that that can never happen.’

Elon Musk weighed in on the matter in a series of X statements earlier this year, stating that Phillips, was a ‘rape genocide apologist’ and the world was witnessing ‘the worst mass crime against the people of Britain ever.’ 

Philips told the BBC that his comments were ‘disinformation’ and ‘endangering’ her, but said it was nothing compared to what the victims of the abuse had faced. 

Commentators say the challenge for the government now is to find those credible and willing to bring justice and lasting change so it won’t happen again.

Fox News Digital reached out to Phillips’ office but received no response.
 

Congress will return to Washington, D.C., next week entering into a dead sprint to wrap up work before the year’s end, to cap off a blistering, often dramatic year on the Hill.

Both chambers will have three working weeks before again fleeing from the growing chill in Washington to their respective districts and states. And lawmakers have some of the biggest challenges of the year left to finish.

Perhaps the biggest looming legislative fight will be how lawmakers approach the expiring enhanced Obamacare subsidies, which dominated the recently-ended government shutdown.

Neither side has produced a fulsome plan on how to tackle the subsidies, though some solutions from Republicans, like funneling the subsidy funding into Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), have been floated.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., acknowledged last week that producing a solution would be a steep hurdle, and reiterated his commitment to Senate Democrats that they would get a vote on whatever proposal they produce no later than the second week in December.

Thune noted that ‘the one thing that unites’ the GOP is the belief that the subsidies need to be reformed and that rising healthcare costs need to be dealt with.

‘I think the affordability issue is a big issue,’ Thune said. ‘I think it’s been exacerbated by the way that Obamacare has been structured through the years, including the way that enhanced subsidies were structured by going directly to insurance companies and incentivizing them to enroll people without their knowledge.’

And the White House also has its own plan, which was expected to be rolled out earlier this week, but sidelined over reportedly disgruntled Republicans who disliked the proposed language.

When asked about specifics of the plan, and it was scrapped, a White House official told Fox News Digital that ‘there was never a healthcare announcement listed on [Monday’s] daily guidance.’

But the rumblings of a plan from President Donald Trump and the administration have encouraged some Senate Democrats.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who originally proposed legislation to extend the subsidies, said that she was glad that the president was making an effort to ensure the credits don’t sunset by the end of the year.

‘I’ve had constructive conversations with many of my Republican colleagues who I believe want to get this done,’ Shaheen said in a statement. ‘They understand that the vast majority of people who benefit from these tax credits live in states the President won, and that the President’s own pollsters have underscored the enormous political urgency of Republicans acting.’

But the Obamacare issue is not the only issue Congress faces. Lawmakers are eyeing passage of the annual National Defense Authorization Act by the end of the year, the Senate is considering another package of Trump’s nominees and another package of spending bills is expected on the horizon, too.

That package of four bills, which is expected to include the Defense, Labor, Transportation and Commerce funding bills, would be a massive step toward averting yet another deadline to fund the government by Jan. 30, 2026.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, said earlier this month that there was also an ‘interest on the House side’ to move the bills.

‘The more appropriations bills that we’re able to pass, the better off we’re going to be, the better off the American people will be served,’ she said.

There are also some lingering issues that could pose surprises before the year’s end, including how Congress will handle Russia sanctions and the controversial provision in the package that reopened the government that would allow senators to sue for upwards of $500,000 if their records were requested without notification.

On the sanctions front, the Senate has overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation that Trump appears to support, but there’s a possible disconnect between Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on where the legislation should originate.

Thune believed it’d be better suited in the House given that it’s a revenue-geared bill, while Johnson warned that it would be time-consuming to pass the bill in the lower chamber because of how many different committees it would have to move through.

Some in the Senate are already looking ahead to next year, when lawmakers will be in full midterm election mode. Another crack at budget reconciliation, the process used to pass Trump’s marquee ‘big, beautiful bill,’ has been floated, but whether there is broad buy-in from congressional Republicans remains in the air.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that it would be ‘legislative malpractice’ to not undertake the grueling process once more.

‘It’s just exquisitely dumb,’ Kennedy said. ‘Why would you not take advantage of an opportunity to pass something with 51 votes? That doesn’t mean that our Democratic colleagues can’t join with us, but if they don’t, they can’t filibuster. Did I mention it’s exquisitely dumb?’

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, an elected Democrat, is a disgrace to her office and the legal profession. She to bring down President Trump with a politically motivated indictment, but her vendetta came crashing to a pitiful end on Wednesday. Now, it is time for Willis to face maximum legal accountability.

Trump vigorously objected to the results of the 2020 presidential election in several states and during the Congressional certification process. He offered no bribes and made no threats of violence; indeed, he urged his supporters to march ‘peacefully’ to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the day of the certification. Yet, Willis—a leftist hack—secured an indictment against Trump and many of his allies with an overwhelming Democrat grand jury in Atlanta. These included Trump’s loyal White House chief of staff Mark Meadows; Jeff Clark, an exceptional former top Justice Department official who is facing a disgraceful disbarment effort by the District of Columbia Bar; and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, America’s greatest mayor who served as one of President Trump’s attorneys. Willis alleged a vast RICO conspiracy that could have landed President Trump and his supporters in prison for decades.

Willis had ethical issues even before her indictment. Lt. Gov. Burt Jones was one of her targets, but she never got the chance to persecute him. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney disqualified Willis because she had fundraised for Jones’ Democrat opponent. This disqualification was an easy call; indeed, McBurney expressed incredulity as to what Willis possibly could have been thinking. Pete Skandalakis, head of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia (PACGA), took over the case and dismissed it after determining that Jones had not acted with criminal intent. This shameful episode would not be Willis’s most shocking lapse in judgment during this fiasco.

Willis hired her secret (and married) boyfriend Nathan Wade, who had never tried a felony case. He had been a lawyer in private practice and a municipal court judge. Somehow, he found his way onto Willis’s team, raking in $250 an hour from Fulton County taxpayers. He billed eight-hour days constantly, and he even billed 24 hours on one occasion. He wound up taking home almost $700,000. He made far more money than John Floyd, Georgia’s preeminent expert on the RICO statute. The mystery of Wade’s involvement was solved thanks to Ashleigh Merchant, an excellent attorney who represented one of Trump’s co-defendants and American patriotic warrior Mike Roman.  Merchant alleged that Willis and Wade had been having an affair and filed a motion for their disqualification.

Leftist legal analysts like the insufferable Norm Eisen scoffed at Merchant when she filed her motion. The prosecution even sought sanctions. Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee did not issue sanctions; instead, he held an evidentiary hearing. The hearing was a national disgrace. Willis could not control her rage, and McAfee had to caution her to stop her antics. The proceedings degenerated into an episode of Jerry Springer, and the salacious details of the affair were broadcast for the nation to see. Wade paid for lavish trips to the Caribbean and other luxurious places. Willis claimed that she had reimbursed Wade with cash that she kept in her house at the direction of her father, a prominent Black Panther. There are no records of any of these purported reimbursements. Willis also claimed the affair had nothing to do with the indictment, testifying that it only started after Wade’s appointment.

McAfee used the phrase ‘odor of mendacity’ to describe the testimony of Willis and Wade. He sadly split the baby, ruling that one of them would be disqualified. Wade resigned that day, meaning that Willis could stay on the case. President Trump and most codefendants appealed the decision not to disqualify Willis, and an appellate court agreed with the defendants. Willis sought review by the Georgia Supreme Court, but the justices rebuffed her earlier this year. The case was then reassigned to PACGA. Skandalakis could not find a prosecutor to take it over, so he assigned it to himself. The day before Thanksgiving, McAfee granted Skandalakis’ motion to dismiss the case in its entirety. Willis secured a few plea deals to misdemeanor charges, a pathetic result given the fanfare that the indictment initially received. Willis promised that ‘[t]he train is coming,’ but her staggering corruption, arrogance, and incompetence derailed the train.

Willis’s sham indictment devastated many lives. People with not nearly the resources of Trump faced indictment and had to shell out massive amounts to pay lawyers. They had their lives destroyed. The dismissal cannot be the last word here, and Trump’s attorney, the brilliant Steve Sadow, has made that clear. He will move for attorney’s fees and costs under Georgia Code § 17-11-6. Such fees are proper because Willis was disqualified for improper conduct, and the case was fully dismissed. Every other defendant should join Sadow’s motion. Additionally, Willis and Wade must face severe criminal accountability by the U.S. Justice Department for a conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. Wade visited the Biden White House, billing 16 hours of his time to the taxpayers of Fulton County. What happened here is obvious. Willis and Wade were coordinating their farcical prosecution with Team Biden. It could not have been for any other reason, as Wade was hired as a special counsel just for this case. If Wade were billing his time to Fulton County taxpayers for his Biden White House meeting for an unrelated matter to the Trump case, Wade committed fraud. Willis hired her lover, who kicked back some of his unearned salary to finance lavish trips for himself and Willis. The U.S. Justice Department has subpoenaed records from Willis, and a grand jury must promptly investigate and indict these corrupt public (dis-)servants.

President Trump objected to an election he thought had been stolen. Democrats did the same in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017—yet, none faced indictment. Such objections are allowed under the First Amendment and the Electoral Count Act. It is only illegal to object to elections in third-world Marxist hellholes. Willis and Wade were neck-deep in the Republic-ending lawfare conspiracy against Trump that tore apart our nation. They failed, but they cannot walk away from their despicable actions. Justice must come their way swiftly and severely. They could not wait to post President Trump’s mugshot, and the time has come for theirs.

Lawyer up, Fani. Justice is coming. Nobody is above the law.

President Donald Trump announced on Friday he is terminating all documents allegedly signed by former President Joe Biden with the autopen.

In a Truth Social post, Trump claimed 92% of documents signed during Biden’s presidency were done so with the device.

‘The Autopen is not allowed to be used if approval is not specifically given by the President of the United States,’ Trump wrote. ‘The Radical Left Lunatics circling Biden around the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office took the Presidency away from him.’

Trump said he is canceling all executive orders and ‘anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden, because the people who operated the Autopen did so illegally.’

The autopen device, which holds a real pen and signs paper using a handwriting template, automatically reproduces a person’s signature with high accuracy.

The U.S. government has used autopens since the Truman administration, and the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel previously confirmed use of the device is legal for presidential signatures on legislation and executive acts, so long as it is authorized by the president.

However, Trump claimed Biden did not approve the signatures, and threatened to charge him with perjury if he says he was involved in the autopen process.

During Biden’s presidency, he signed 162 executive orders, in addition to hundreds of memoranda, proclamations and notices.

Though Trump signed an executive order in January rescinding nearly 80 Biden-era executive orders, some of those that appear to remain in full force, and may now be subject to cancelation, include: Executive Order 14087, which lowers prescription drug costs in the U.S.; Executive Order 14096, which centers around environmental justice; and Executive Order 14110, which cracks down on the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI).

It is unclear who will validate the signatures on documents allegedly signed by Biden.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.