House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., is departing Capitol Hill early, he announced on Monday.

Green said he is leaving Congress for the private sector after the House votes again on President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ in the coming weeks, in a statement first obtained by Fox News Digital.

‘It is with a heavy heart that I announce my retirement from Congress. Recently, I was offered an opportunity in the private sector that was too exciting to pass up. As a result, today I notified the Speaker and the House of Representatives that I will resign from Congress as soon as the House votes once again on the reconciliation package,’ Green said.

He called serving Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District ‘the honor of a lifetime.’

‘They asked me to deliver on the conservative values and principles we all hold dear, and I did my level best to do so. Along the way, we passed historic tax cuts, worked with President Trump to secure the border, and defended innocent life. I am extremely proud of my work as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and want to thank my staff, both in my seventh district office, as well as the professional staff on that committee,’ Green said.

Green acknowledged in his statement that he had previously geared up to retire in the last Congress, but reversed course.

‘Though I planned to retire at the end of the previous Congress, I stayed to ensure that President Trump’s border security measures and priorities make it through Congress,’ he said.

‘By overseeing the border security portion of the reconciliation package, I have done that. After that, I will retire, and there will be a special election to replace me.’

Green is an Army veteran who has served in Congress since 2019.

As House Homeland Security Committee chairman, he oversaw Republicans’ impeachment of former Biden administration DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

It’s not clear where in the private sector Green will go, but it’s a safe bet to assume his House seat will stay in Republican hands.

The district voted for President Donald Trump by more than 20 percentage points over former Vice President Kamala Harris last year.

Republican leaders are hoping to complete consideration of Trump’s massive agenda bill by the Fourth of July or shortly thereafter.

The bill passed the House in a narrow 215-214 vote, and it is now being considered by the Senate. If the Senate changes the bill, as expected, the House will have to approve that version before it hits Trump’s desk.

More than 100 Democrats voted against a House GOP-led resolution to condemn the accused terror attack in Boulder, Colorado.

It passed 280-113, with 75 Democrats joining Republicans to vote for the bill. Six lawmakers, five Democrats and one Republican, voted ‘present.’ 

The legislation was introduced by Rep. Gabe Evans, R-Colo., last week in response to the attack. But Democrat lawmakers made clear they were opposed to language in the resolution that they felt was politically charged.

In addition to condemning the attack, Evans’ resolution also appeared to rebuke blue-leaning sanctuary jurisdictions that were at odds with federal immigration authorities, and he condemned illegal immigrants who overstay their visas as well.

A second bill, led by Reps. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., and Joe Neguse, D-Colo., more broadly condemned the rise in antisemitic attacks in the U.S. That legislation netted much wider bipartisan support, passing 400-0, with just two lawmakers voting ‘present.’

But Evans’ resolution more specifically noted that the case of terror suspect Mohammed Sabry Soliman, who overstayed a tourist visa and a subsequent work authorization, ‘demonstrates the dangers of not removing from the country aliens who fail to comply with the terms of their visas.’

The Egyptian national is facing federal charges after allegedly attempting to set fire to peaceful demonstrators who were protesting Hamas’ continued possession of Israeli hostages in Gaza.

The Trump administration has vowed that he and his family will be deported from the U.S.

Evans’ resolution also ‘affirms that free and open communication between State and local law enforcement and their Federal counterparts remains the bedrock of public safety and is necessary in preventing terrorist attacks’ and it ‘expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland.’

It comes as Democrat-controlled cities like Los Angeles and Nashville, Tennessee, have seen their leaders criticize the Trump administration’s ICE crackdown.

The Trump administration’s handling of anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles has spurred an outpouring of scorn from Democrat officials, particularly the decision to send National Guard troops in to break up the demonstrations.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., criticized Evans’ resolution in comments to reporters on Monday.

‘Who is this guy? He’s not seriously concerned with combating antisemitism in America. This is not a serious effort,’ Jeffries said. ‘Antisemitism is a scourge on America. It shouldn’t be weaponized politically.’

Jeffries also called Evans ‘a joke.’

Evans responded on X, ‘I served our nation in uniform in the Middle East, as a cop in Colorado, & now as a Congressman. This wildly offensive sentiment from Democrat’s Leader is why antisemitism persists. The Left is unserious about finding real solutions.’

Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who is Jewish, also criticized Evans’ resolution.

‘You weren’t here, Mr. Evans, last term, but there were about 10 antisemitism resolutions that effectively said the same thing solely to score political points. We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns,’ Goldman said during debate on the bill.

But Van Drew, who is leading a bipartisan resolution that similarly condemns antisemitism but does not discuss immigration, defended Evans’ measure.

‘Yes, it is different than mine. Mine focused purely on antisemitism here in the world. But he brings up a valid point not only for Jews, but for many innocent victims. Whether it was Laken Riley, whether it was the women that were raped, the women and men that were killed, those that were beaten, those that were hurt, who were in law enforcement. Illegal immigration is not a good thing,’ Van Drew said.

The two lawmakers who voted ‘present’ on Van Drew’s resolution were Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.

Greene wrote on X after the vote, ‘Antisemitic hate crimes are wrong, but so are all hate crimes. Yet Congress never votes on hate crimes committed against white people, Christians, men, the homeless, or countless others. Tonight, the House passed two more antisemitism-related resolutions, the 20th and 21st I’ve voted on since taking office. Meanwhile, Americans from every background are being murdered — even in the womb — and Congress stays silent.’

President Trump’s relationship with Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, which appeared to publicly blow up last week as the two feuded in public, took a softer tone on Monday when Musk responded to a clip of the president on X. 

‘We had a great relationship and I wish him well — very well, actually,’ Trump said on Monday in a clip that was posted by conservative influencer ALX. 

Musk responded to that post with a heart emoji on Monday evening.

Earlier in the day, Fox News Digital reported that the public spat between the two billionaires appeared to be losing steam after Musk seemingly issued support from Trump’s handling of the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles.

‘Governor Gavin Newscum and ‘Mayor’ Bass should apologize to the people of Los Angeles for the absolutely horrible job that they’ve done, and this now includes the ongoing L.A. riots,’ Trump said late Sunday in the post Musk shared. ‘These are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists.’

Additionally, Musk also re-posted one of Vice President JD Vance’s posts on X about the riots.

‘This moment calls for decisive leadership,’ Vance said, sharing a screenshot of a post from Trump about how his administration would address the riots. ‘The president will not tolerate rioting and violence.’ 

Musk also appeared to post a self-deprecating joke about himself on X on Sunday which many interpreted to be a veiled reference to the fallout with Trump.

‘It’s outrageous how much character assassination has been directed at me, especially by me!’ Musk posted.

While speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump said that he was ‘very disappointed’ by Musk’s vocal criticisms of the bill. The president claimed that Musk knew what was in the bill and ‘had no problem’ with it until the EV incentives had to be cut.

On X, Musk called that assessment ‘false.’

Trump turned to social media to criticize Musk, who he appointed to find ways to cut $2 trillion after forming the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

‘Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!’ Trump said in one post.

In another post, Trump said, ‘I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It’s a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given.’

‘If this Bill doesn’t pass, there will be a 68% tax increase, and things far worse than that. I didn’t create this mess, I’m just here to FIX IT. This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!’

At one point, Musk referenced late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in relation to Trump as part of the larger tirade in a comment that several Republicans told Fox News Digital went ‘too far.’

Musk deleted that post days later. 

Other posts from Musk included a claim that Trump would not have won the election without his help while accusing Trump of ‘ingratitude.’ In another post, Musk suggested that Trump should be impeached and replaced by Vice President Vance. 

Trump told Fox News on Friday that he isn’t interested in talking to Musk, adding that ‘Elon’s totally lost it.’

Trump also said to Fox News’ Bret Baier that he isn’t worried about Musk’s suggestion to form a new political party, citing favorable polls and strong support from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy contributed to this report

The hottest topic nowadays revolves around Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its potential to rapidly and imminently transform the world we live in — economically, socially, politically and even defensively. Regardless of whether you believe that the technology will be able to develop superintelligence and lead a metamorphosis of everything, the possibility that may come to fruition is a catalyst for more far-leftist control.  

The likeliest starting point will be more calls for Universal Basic Income (UBI), a program by which the government guarantees every American some form of ongoing payment (such as a monthly stipend). Despite direct and indirect pilots of UBI being a failure, a potential ‘crisis’ will render that fact moot.  

Using the prospect of AI software and hardware (aka robots) taking large swaths of American jobs, politicians won’t focus on retraining, they will go for the easy popular fix of promising something for ‘free.’ And something politicians can offer at someone else’s expense while creating more dependence on the government is a far-leftist dream. 

Unfortunately, that dream is an economic nightmare for the rest of us. The government doesn’t produce anything productive, and any money that it has is either taken from us via taxes or ‘printed’ which devalues our purchasing power.  

With an existing massive debt and deficit problem that has created a weak fiscal foundation, the government is in no position to create new entitlement programs. Further, taking money from workers, laundering it through the government and redistributing it to those who are not working is not a productive use of capital. It’s also not good for morale or giving people a sense of purpose in their lives. 

With that, there will likely be a communist-leaning conversation about any AI that takes jobs and who should have ownership over that AI. If AI drives — or is even perceived to possibly create in the future — a deeper rift between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots,’ there’s no doubt that government ownership or societal sharing of the AI will be seized upon by those who look for any reason to push socialistic or communistic ideals.  

Then, there is the potential for tyranny. If you thought the COVID-19 lockdowns were bad, wait until attack drones and robots create societal chaos. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where people are told to lock down or give up their freedoms until protocols are sorted out.  

This is why we should be imagining and planning for those scenarios today, and not let reactive crises lead to an erosion of our freedoms.  

Likewise, protecting our individual rights in the digital sphere, particularly as AI companies lobby to help shape regulation, is critical. 

And a final piece of the puzzle is embedded in the AI itself. A Substack, called ‘Contemplations on the Tree of Woe,’ raised a related concern, noting that just as the left captured the culture via the mainstream media and Hollywood, a similar thing is happening with AI. The piece notes, ‘The code is not neutral … every major LLM is aligned with leftist priors. OpenAI’s GPT, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, every single one leans Left. Even the much-ballyhooed Grok is at best Centrist. (And, unfortunately, the ‘center’ of the political compass these days isn’t exactly Philadelphia 1776.)’  

The piece goes on to say that if a left-leaning worldview is embedded in the coding and the output, and if something isn’t done to counter that, leftist ideals will be at the foundational core of everything, from education to culture to science (or repression of science). 

If you thought the COVID-19 lockdowns were bad, wait until attack drones and robots create societal chaos. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where people are told to lock down or give up their freedoms until protocols are sorted out.  

We need balance. A foundational infrastructure that is too far left or too far right can each cause myriad problems that compound and become too entrenched to resolve.   

Americans tend to be very reactive instead of proactive in addressing issues. But with AI, we cannot wait. If we let AI become a catalyst to move us permanently to the far left, or if the underpinnings of the AI do that inherently and foundationally, we will give up our checks, balances and freedoms for the future. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other politicians from the U.S. and Latin America condemned the shooting of Colombian presidential candidate Miguel Uribe on Sunday.

Rubio blamed the assassination attempt on ‘violent leftist rhetoric’ originating from the Colombian government. Uribe, a Colombian senator, is currently fighting for his life after sustaining three gunshot wounds, one of which was to the head.

‘The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the attempted assassination of Senator Miguel Uribe. This is a direct threat to democracy and the result of the violent leftist rhetoric coming from the highest levels of the Colombian government,’ Rubio wrote.

‘Having seen firsthand Colombia’s progress over the past few decades to consolidate security and democracy, it can’t afford to go back to dark days of political violence. President Petro needs to dial back the inflammatory rhetoric and protect Colombian officials,’ he added.

Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno also condemned the attack in a statement on social media.

‘The assassination attempt on leading presidential candidate Miguel Uribe is a vile attack on democracy. This evil act must be investigated and anyone responsible, directly or indirectly, must face swift punishment,’ Moreno wrote.

Chilean President Gabriel Boric also reacted to Uribe’s shooting.

‘My strongest condemnation of the attack against Miguel Uribe Turbay, pre-presidential candidate in Colombia. In a democracy, violence has no place or justification,’ Boric wrote.

Authorities say Uribe was shot by a 15-year-old hit man, and they are investigating who was behind the attack.

‘Miguel is fighting for his life at this moment. Let us ask God to guide the hands of the doctors who are attending to him,’ Maria Claudia Tarazona, Miguel’s wife, wrote on her husband’s X account. ‘I ask everyone to join together in a prayer chain for Miguel’s life.’

Colombian President Gustavo Petro, Uribe’s chief opponent in the presidential race, said the attack crossed a ‘red line’ and ordered an investigation. He also canceled a planned trip to France this week, citing the ‘seriousness of the events.’

Colombia’s Ministry of Defense has offered a nearly $750,000 reward for information relating to the assassination attempt.

Former President Barack Obama’s White House physician said in a new interview that former President Joe Biden’s doctor should have performed a cognitive test to evaluate his fitness to serve in office. 

Obama’s doctor, Jeffrey Kuhlman, told The Washington Post that Biden White House physician Kevin O’Connor should have performed a cognitive test during Biden’s last year as president, given his age. 

O’Connor, who Kuhlman first appointed as Biden’s doctor in 2009 when he was vice president, declared in a 2024 report that the then-81-year-old president ‘continues to be fit for duty.’ The report did not mention any neurocognitive testing. 

‘Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest,’ Kuhlman told the Post.

‘It shouldn’t be just health, it should be fitness,’ Kuhlman said. ‘Fitness is: Do you have that robust mind, body, spirit that you can do this physically, mentally, emotionally demanding job?’

Kuhlman, who departed the White House Medical Unit in 2013, described O’Connor as ‘a good doctor’ who appeared to do his best to ‘give trusted medical advice.’

‘I didn’t see that he’s purposely hiding stuff, but I don’t know that,’ Kuhlman told the Post. ‘Maybe the investigation will show it.’

President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Biden’s aides ‘abused the power of Presidential signatures through the use of an autopen to conceal Biden’s cognitive decline and assert Article II authority.’ 

‘This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history,’ the order says. ‘The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden’s signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.’  

‘Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,’ Biden said in a statement Wednesday night. ‘I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.’

Trump’s order appeared to nod to the findings of special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated Biden’s handling of classified documents while he was vice president. 

In a report released in February 2024, Hur concluded Biden ‘willfully retained and disclosed’ sensitive materials but should not stand trial, describing the president as a ‘sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.’ Hur cited instances when Biden could not recall key dates and events, including when he served as vice president and when his son, Beau, passed away. The report was released at a time when Biden was still planning a second term run. 

Last week, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., issued a subpoena for O’Connor to appear for a deposition at the end of the month ‘as part of the investigation into the cover-up of President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline and potentially unauthorized issuance of sweeping pardons and other executive actions.’ 

The committee re-posted the Post’s interview with Kuhlman to X, writing, ‘Even Obama’s doctor admits the truth. This is precisely why Chairman @RepJamesComer subpoenaed Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s physician. This is a scandal of historical proportions, and we will investigate it thoroughly!’ 

In a letter to O’Connor, Comer said the transcribed interview would focus on the physician’s February 2024 assessment that Biden was ‘a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency.’

‘Among other subjects, the Committee expressed its interest in whether your financial relationship with the Biden family affected your assessment of former President Biden’s physical and mental fitness to fulfill his duties as President,’ Comer wrote. 

Questions about Biden’s cognitive state stretch extend solely past Republicans. 

CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson recently published a book titled ‘Original Sin,’ which details concerns and debates inside the White House and Democratic Party over Biden’s mental state and age.

In the book, Tapper and Thompson wrote, ‘Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was at best a senior member of the board.’

Naomi Biden, the former president’s granddaughter, dismissed the book as ‘political fairy smut for the permanent, professional chattering class.’ 

Comer requested transcribed interviews with Biden’s White House senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, former deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed and Steve Ricchetti, a former counselor to the president. He also called for former senior White House aides Annie Tomasini, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams and Neera Tanden to appear before the committee and suggested subpoenas could be forthcoming if they did not schedule voluntary interviews. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

One of the leading opponents of President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ declared not even the commander in chief will be able to deter him from speaking out against what he sees as a bill that falls short of Republicans’ goal of cutting government waste.

‘It’ll completely backfire on him,’ Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital of any attempts by Trump to sway him on the current legislation.

Johnson has become a prominent voice of opposition against the House GOP’s offering to the budget reconciliation process. Senate Republicans finally began the tedious process of parsing through the bill this week.

Lawmakers in the upper chamber, Johnson included, are determined to make changes to the bill, with most wanting to make reductions to Medicaid and food stamps more palatable. Trump has made it clear his bill must pass but has acknowledged the Senate will need to make a few changes.

Trump’s directive has been to deliver a bill that can survive the razor-thin majorities in both chambers.  

Johnson, however, wants to see spending returned to pre-pandemic levels, cuts that are trillions of dollars deeper than what House Republicans could stomach. And he is ready to vote against the bill unless he sees the changes he wants.

And he believes that a pressure campaign from the president against him and other like-minded fiscal hawks will fail.

He said a better approach would be to work with lawmakers and fiscal hawks like him to gain a better understanding of the reality of the country’s fiscal situation, a reality that ‘is grim,’ he said.

Johnson has been up front about his disdain for the bill but has so far avoided public retribution from Trump. In fact, the two have spoken twice this week, once on Monday and later during a Senate Finance Committee meeting at the White House Tuesday.

The lawmaker has told Trump he’s in Trump’s corner and that he wants ‘to see you succeed,’ but he has been steadfast in his position that the bill does not go far enough to tackle the national debt.

And the debt continues to climb, nearing $37 trillion and counting, according to Fox News’ National Debt Tracker.

The House’s offering set a goal of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, which lawmakers in the lower chamber have pitched as a positive step forward to righting the country’s fiscal ship, an offering Johnson panned as falling drastically short of the GOP’s promises to cut deep into government spending.

‘What’s so disappointing about what happened in the House is it was all rhetoric. It’s all slogans,’ Johnson said. ‘They picked a number. Literally, they picked a number out of the air.’

Johnson views this attempt at the budget reconciliation process as a rare opportunity to ‘do the hard things’ when it comes to spending cuts, but others in the GOP have been more hesitant to cut as deep.

Johnson said a main reason Republicans have so far fallen short of meeting the moment for the most part is that lawmakers don’t understand just how much the federal government shovels out the door year in and year out.

The lawmaker recalled a moment roughly three years ago during a debate over another year-end omnibus spending bill, when each of the dozen appropriations bills is crammed into one, bloated package that is universally reviled and almost always passes.

He asked his colleagues if they really knew just how much the government spends, and no one ‘volunteered to answer.’

‘Nobody knew. I mean, think of that. The largest financier in the world. We’re supposedly, in theory, the 535 members of the board of directors, and nobody knew,’ he said. ‘Why would they? We never talked about it.’

Johnson has been busy trying to better educate his colleagues, putting together his own charts and graphs that cut out the ‘noise,’ like the latest nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report that found the legislation would add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over a decade. The GOP has universally panned that projection.

‘We can’t accept this as a new normal,’ Johnson said. ‘We can’t accept — you can take pot shots of CBO, but you can’t deny that reality. [It] might be off a little bit, but that is the trajectory, and that’s undeniable.’
 

By all appearances, the world is edging perilously close to the brink of a catastrophic global conflict. In just the past few days, five deeply troubling developments have emerged — each significant on its own — but taken together, they form a pattern too urgent to dismiss. Viewed in context, these events expose a rapidly deteriorating international order, where diplomacy is failing, deterrence is weakening, and the risk of multi-theater war is rising sharply. 

First, Ukraine’s audacious drone strike deep inside Russian territory — reportedly destroying or damaging a significant share of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet — bears the hallmarks of Western involvement. While Kyiv claimed responsibility, the attack’s sophistication, including precise long-range targeting and coordinated timing, suggests U.S. or NATO intelligence and technological support.  

Former intelligence officials have even pointed to likely CIA or allied agency involvement. Whatever the true origin, Moscow now sees itself not merely at war with Ukraine, but with the broader Western alliance. Russia’s retaliation — whether cyber, kinetic or covert — could spiral well beyond the front lines. 

Second, efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions have collapsed further. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly rejected a U.S. proposal that would have permitted tightly restricted low-level uranium enrichment. Denouncing the offer as ‘100% against our interests,’ he reaffirmed Iran’s demand for full sovereign enrichment rights.  

With Israel openly contemplating military action and negotiations at a standstill, the Middle East stands on the edge of a potentially region-wide conflagration — especially if Iran accelerates toward weapons-grade enrichment. 

Third, a highly anticipated phone call between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin yielded no diplomatic breakthrough. Though both men discussed the escalating war and the drone strike, the call ended with no commitments, no ceasefire, and no plan for de-escalation.  

Trump admitted it was not the kind of conversation that would bring peace. Instead, the call served to underscore how deeply entrenched the conflict has become — and how narrow the remaining diplomatic off-ramps now are. 

Fourth, a chilling threat emerged on American soil. Federal prosecutors charged a Chinese national couple with attempting to smuggle Fusarium graminearum into the U.S. — a crop-killing fungus labeled by the Justice Department as a potential ‘agroterrorism weapon.’ The pathogen can devastate wheat, barley and corn, and its toxins are harmful to both humans and livestock.  

The couple is linked to Chinese state-sponsored research and is suspected of prior smuggling attempts. Whether or not this plot was state-directed, it underscores an alarming vulnerability: America’s homeland is increasingly exposed to unconventional threats from hostile actors. 

Fifth, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth warned that China may be preparing to launch a full-scale invasion of Taiwan. Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, he declared, China ‘is rehearsing for the real deal.’  

With Beijing ramping up military drills and tightening its rhetoric, the Taiwan Strait has become a powder keg. Should China act, U.S. intervention would be virtually guaranteed — potentially igniting a major conflict in the Indo-Pacific. 

Together, these flashpoints paint a stark picture of a world in crisis. Three nuclear powers — Russia, China and Iran (potentially) — are simultaneously testing Western resolve.  

The United States faces a mounting burden to deter aggression on multiple fronts, with few diplomatic successes to lean on. Traditional tools — talks, sanctions, summits — are proving inadequate. What remains is a binary choice: step back from global leadership or confront rising threats in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, possibly all at once. 

This is not alarmism. This is convergence. With diplomacy unraveling, adversaries emboldened and the homeland no longer secure, the global order is careening toward synchronized escalation. The world is not yet at war — but it is teetering dangerously close to systemic conflict that could engulf major powers and redraw the map of the 21st century. 

The warning lights are flashing red. The only question now is whether the world will act — or continue its drift toward fire.