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.

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.

Iran claims it is open to compromise with the U.S. on a nuclear deal if the administration is willing to discuss lifting sanctions, a senior Iranian official said Sunday.

Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, also said in an interview that the ball was ‘in America’s court to prove that they want to do a deal,’ adding: ‘If they are sincere, I’m sure we will be on the road to an agreement.’

‘We are ready to discuss this and other issues related to our program if they are ready to talk about sanctions,’ Takht-Ravanchi told the BBC.

Takht-Ravanchi’s comments came as Iran’s top diplomat traveled to Geneva for a second round of indirect talks with the U.S. delegation.

Abbas Araghchi left for the Swiss city following an initial round of negotiations last week with Oman again mediating the next round of talks, according to Iranian state media and the Associated Press.

U.S. officials, however, have emphasized that Iran — not the U.S. — is holding up progress in negotiations.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Feb. 14 that President Donald Trump would prefer to reach an agreement but warned it was ‘very hard to do’ one with Iran.

Past diplomatic efforts had collapsed in 2025 after Israel launched what became a 12-day war with Iran and U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

But on Sunday, Takht-Ravanchi pointed to Tehran’s offer to dilute its stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity as evidence of its willingness to compromise, the BBC reported.

Asked whether Iran would ship its stockpile of more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium abroad, as it did under the 2015 deal, Takht-Ravanchi said it was ‘too early to say what will happen in the course of negotiations.’

One of Iran’s main demands is that talks focus on the nuclear issue. ‘Our understanding is that they have come to the conclusion that if you want to have a deal you have to focus on the nuclear issue,’ Takht-Ravanchi said.

Takht-Ravanchi also said the ‘issue of zero enrichment is not an issue anymore and as far as Iran is concerned, it is not on the table anymore.’

Trump has since threatened further military action if a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program cannot be reached.

The U.S. has also reinforced its military presence in the region amid heightened tensions and after spiraling protests across the country in December left thousands reportedly dead at the hands of the clerical regime.

The Trump administration is weighing involvement in the case of a protester who was fined for burning a Quran outside the Turkish Consulate in London, as U.K. prosecutors look to reinstate his overturned conviction, according to reports.

Officials are said to be discussing granting 51-year-old Hamit Coskun refugee status if the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) wins its appeal, with a senior U.S. administration official telling The Telegraph the case is one of several ‘the administration has made note of.’

Coskun, of Armenian-Kurdish descent, had initially sought asylum in the U.K. from Turkey, where he says Islamic extremists ‘destroyed’ his family’s life and where he was jailed for protesting Islamist governance.

On Feb. 13, 2025, he traveled to the Turkish Consulate in London and set fire to a copy of the Quran while shouting slogans including ‘Islam is [the] religion of terrorism’ and ‘f— Islam.’

There he was attacked by Moussa Kadri, a passerby who chased him with a knife, kicked him and spat on him.

Kadri later received a suspended prison sentence after being convicted of assault and having a bladed article in a public place.

Initially charged with harassing the ‘religious institution of Islam,’ Coskun’s case drew intervention from the National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union, who argued prosecutors were effectively reviving blasphemy laws already abolished in 2008.

Coskun was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offense and fined in June 2025.

That October, Coskun’s conviction was overturned when a judge ruled that while burning a Quran was ‘desperately upsetting and offensive’ to many Muslims, the right to free expression ‘must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.’

The CPS is now seeking to reverse that decision at London’s High Court, with Coskun telling The Telegraph that if the appeal goes against him, he may be forced ‘to flee’ the country.

‘For me, as the victim of Islamic terrorism, I cannot remain silent. I may be forced to flee the UK and move to the USA, where President Trump has stood for free speech and against Islamic extremism,’ he told the outlet.

‘If I have to do so, then, to me, the UK will have effectively fallen to Islamism and the speech codes that it wishes to impose on the non-Muslim world,’ he added.

President Donald Trump and the U.S. administration have already criticized the U.K. and European governments over increased restrictions on expression.

In 2025, Trump slammed the U.K.’s laws around online speech, saying ‘strange things are happening’ there and that it was ‘not a good thing.’

At the Munich Security Conference in 2025, Vice President JD Vance also said, ‘In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Department of State for comment.

A rather interesting foursome teed off for a round of golf in Florida this weekend: President Donald Trump was joined by college football coaching legends Urban Meyer and Nick Saban, and perhaps more importantly, a former rival by the name of Gov. Ron DeSantis.

It would go too far to say that Trump and DeSantis have had bad blood, but there has been a rift since the Florida governor’s 2023 primary challenge to Trump, which petered out in New Hampshire before primary votes had even been cast.

To see Trump and DeSantis spending a few hours engaged in what Mark Twain once called a ‘good walk spoiled’ leads to an interesting question: After the ace Florida governor leaves office next year, could he be a hole in one for the Trump administration?

DeSantis is the kind of guy who Trump could put in charge of basically anything in the federal government and fully expect not just his signature competence, but his calm and no-nonsense manner.

In recent weeks, calm is something the administration has been thirsting for.

After DeSantis dropped out in early 2024, the schism in the conservative commentariat more or less was cleaved, notwithstanding some fairly bitter vitriol that had consumed the previous year, and the governor can still be an important buttress to GOP unity.

There has been a frustration, especially from former DeSantis supporters, of late, that the White House has been too tolerant of extreme views from figures in its orbit. The best answer to that is not to cancel supposed cancers but to bolster the administration’s credibility.

I don’t know what DeSantis’s middle name is, but I would not be surprised to find that it is ‘crediblity.’ With the possible exception of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, no leader in America, maybe the world, handled COVID better.

The knock on DeSantis is that, credible though he may be, he’s not particularly compelling. He does not, in the parlance of entertainment, chew up the scenery. I remember spending much of the spring of 2023 thinking, as he geared up for the presidential run, ‘Less talking, more throwing the baseball around.’

But, to be frank, the Trump administration has a sufficient current supply of colorful characters.It needs more competence, more Lee Zeldins and Scott Bessents.

In a column for the Washington Examiner this week, Byron York asked whether it is time for Trump to shake up his cabinet. Wherever one stands on that interesting political question, you do have to ask, who could the Senate confirm as a new member?

Let’s say Attorney General Pam Bondi, or Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who have been lightning rods for criticism, leave their positions. I’m not advocating for that, but should it happen, DeSantis is one of a few prominent Republicans who could sail through Senate confirmation.

The subtext to all of this, including the round of golf that I’m just going to go ahead and assume Trump won, is the 2028 presidential election, in which DeSantis is one of only a handful of figures who rate among the public.

The polls, early though they are, show Vice President JD VanceJD Vance with a big lead, especially given that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has all but endorsed him. But for now, DeSantis is the most viable GOP option who is not already in the administration or related to Trump.

While politically this may be a reason for the Florida governor to eschew an administration position, to remain the Republican who isn’t seen in the Oval Office day after day fawning over Trump, a national position could be great for him, and for the party.

And honestly, where is DeSantis supposed to go after leaving office, if not Washington?

Whether the 19th hole of this golf outing with Trump and football royalty turns out to be a position in the administration or not, Republicans should rejoice to see these two conservative leaders hanging out.

Unity must be the watchword for Republicans both in this year’s midterms and in the presidential race of 2028. In both cases, DeSantis can be a voice for common sense, competence and American values.

America needs all the good leadership it can get in Washington, and DeSantis is the poster child for it. Trump should seriously consider giving him a prominent national platform.