NEW YORK, NY – New U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz warned Monday the U.S. and its allies will defend ‘every inch’ of NATO territory after Russian fighter jets violated Estonian airspace.

‘The United States stands by our NATO allies in the face of these airspace violations, and I want to take this first opportunity to repeat and to emphasize the United States and our allies will defend every inch of NATO territory,’ Waltz said during opening remarks of the United Nations General Assembly high-level week. ‘Russia must urgently stop dangerous behavior.’

The warning marked one of Waltz’s first public statements since winning Senate confirmation Friday. It came days after three Russian MiG-31 jets flew deep into Estonian airspace — the closest such incursion to the Baltic nation’s Parliament building in years — raising fears Moscow is testing NATO’s resolve.

Estonia’s Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna revealed Monday morning that the jets were armed. The jets were in Estonian airspace for 12 minutes.

Tsahkna noted that Russia remains a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council even as it continues its war on Ukraine and now pushes into NATO territory.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that an armed attack against one or more NATO members in Europe or North America is considered an attack against them all. In practice, this means that if any member nation is attacked, the others are committed to take action.

Waltz, a former House member from Florida, served as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor until May. His confirmation to the U.N. was held up in the Senate until last week, when a 47-43 vote confirmed him as U.S. permanent representative to the U.N. Security Council.

A separate vote to confirm him as U.S. representative to the General Assembly did not come up — it’s unclear whether that will have any effect on his participation at UNGA. 

The Estonia incursion followed an incident where at least 19 Russian drones entered Poland’s airspace just one week after Polish President Karol Nawrocki met with President Donald Trump at the White House. Last week, Romania reported a Shahed drone of Russian origin was found in its territory. 

Russia called reports of the incursions ‘groundless accusations.’ 

‘There is no proof except the Russophobic hysteria coming from Tallinn,’ said Dmitry Polyansky, Russia’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the U.N., referring to Estonia’s capital. 

‘There was a time when Europe was associated with the renaissance, enlightenment cutting edge of philosophy, culture and science. Yet today unfortunately all of that is gone and it’s gone for good,’ the representative went on.

Polyansky claimed the ‘only ideology’ of European states is ‘primitive hatred’ for Russia. 

‘Any events are immediately interpreted through an anti-Russian prism,’ he said. ‘The idea that war with Russia is unavoidable is being frantically pounded into the heads of the European populace.’

On Monday, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting on the jet incursions into Estonia at Tallinn’s request. 

‘Russia’s reckless actions represent not only a breach of international law, but also a destabilizing escalation that brings the entire region closer to conflict than at any time in recent years,’ Tsahkna said. 

‘Such a provocation is profoundly disrespectful towards the collective and tireless efforts of the international community to bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war and to restore peace and stability in accordance with international law.’

The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump’s decision to fire a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, sending yet another signal that the high court intends to revisit a 90-year-old court precedent about executive firing power.

The temporary decision to maintain Biden-appointed commissioner Rebecca Slaughter’s termination was issued 6-3 along ideological lines. The Supreme Court set oral arguments in the case for December.

Trump’s decision to fire Slaughter and another Democrat-appointed commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, faced legal challenges because it stood in tension with the FTC Act, which says commissioners should only be fired from their seven-year tenures for cause, such as malfeasance.

Trump fired Slaughter and Bedoya shortly after he took office without citing a cause other than the president’s broad constitutional authority over the executive branch. Bedoya resigned, but Slaughter vowed to fight her firing in court and see the case through to its conclusion.

A lower court initially sided with Slaughter and reinstated her, but she has since been fired and re-hired several times as her case made its way to the Supreme Court. The decision on Monday came after the Trump administration asked the high court on an emergency basis to temporarily pause the lower court’s decision to reinstate Slaughter ahead of deciding on the merits of the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep Slaughter’s firing intact means she will remain sidelined from the FTC until after the high court hears arguments about the case in December.

Slaughter had argued to the Supreme Court that siding with Trump, even on an interim basis, disturbed the precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States, which deemed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC commissioner unlawful.

Legal experts have speculated that the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court is interested in narrowing or reversing Humphrey’s Executor, which could carry broad implications about a president’s ability to fire members of independent agencies.

The three liberal justices dissented and would have denied Trump’s stay request. Writing for the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan speculated that the court’s majority may be ‘raring’ to reverse Humphrey’s Executor but that it should not make hasty decisions that contravene that precedent until such a reversal happens.

‘Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,’ Kagan wrote. ‘Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.’

Fox News Digital reached out to a representative for Slaughter for comment.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Ryan Routh, the man accused of attempting to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at his Florida golf course last year, said he would not take the stand in his own criminal case on Monday — the strongest sign yet that the defense is preparing to rest its case and kick the trial into its final phase before jury deliberation.

Routh, 59, has been representing himself in the federal criminal trial. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and possession of a firearm, among other crimes. If convicted, he could face life in prison. 

He previously floated the possibility that he could testify on his own behalf — a risky strategy that would have waived his Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, and opened him up to cross-examination by federal prosecutors.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon asked Routh repeatedly Monday morning whether he’d had enough time to consider his decision not to testify, and whether he wanted to consult standby counsel. He said he was sure. Prosecutors then asked for the lunch hour to decide if they would call rebuttal witnesses.

If none are called, the defense is expected to rest within hours, clearing the way for closing arguments and jury deliberations.

Routh opened his defense Monday with testimony from Michael McClay, a gun specialist and his only expert witness; followed by a family friend, Atwill Milsun, and a former colleague, Marshall Hinshaw.

McClay, an expert in sniper firearms and tactics with an extensive career in military and law enforcement, confirmed at the outset of Routh’s questioning that he was subpoenaed to testify, and did not want to appear on Routh’s behalf.

Routh spent most of the time questioning McClay about the operability scope of the rifle in question, including trying to cast doubt on the likelihood that the SKS rifle in question could not hit a target 375 yards away.

McClay said that it depended on the skill of the shooter — but confirmed that the rifle was capable of hitting a target from that distance.

During cross-examination, prosecutors asked McClay about whether the rifle could inflict damage to someone at that distance, which McClay confirmed it could.

Routh’s questions for McClay were buffeted by long pauses and sighs from Routh, who at one point, mused aloud: ‘I have to order my questions, or I will get confused.’

Routh’s witness list was sparse compared to the dozens of witnesses introduced by prosecutors, including forensics experts, FBI agents, and Secret Service agents over the course of a two-week period.

Instead, he used his two character witnesses to bolster his own attempts to cast himself as a person of ‘peacefulness, gentleness, and non-violence.’

Before his former colleague, Marshall Hinshaw, took the stand, Cannon reiterated to Routh the risks of introducing character witnesses, noting that personal relationships can leave such witnesses exposed to tough cross-examinations. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley told Judge Cannon in response that they planned to limit such questions.

The bulk of the questions Routh asked his witnesses focused closely on his reputation and engagement within the community. ‘You were very well-liked,’ Hinshaw told Routh, adding that he would ‘not expect’ Routh to harm anyone.

Asked whether he could have run for city council, Hinshaw responded, ‘absolutely.’

Certain questions, including about Routh’s ex-wife, prompted Cannon to interject several times, noting that they were far beyond the scope of the case. 

His family friend, Atwill Milsun, echoed that Routh is not a violent person. ‘You’ve always been a jolly person,’ he told Routh, who he said offered ‘everything he had’ to the local community. 

Still, Routh’s absence of counsel was starkly on display. His questions prompted visible frustration from Cannon, who at times had to stop the proceedings and instruct the jury to disregard questions or statements from Routh.

At times, his questions veered into deeply unconventional territory, leaving Cannon seemingly at a loss for words.

At one point, Routh asked Milsun whether he had ‘ever met Tony Hawk.’ Milsun responded, ‘yes,’ though not because of Routh. 

Routh then asked, ‘Would you be willing to go with me to Taiwan to host an international music festival?’ prompting Cannon to cut Routh off from his questions completely.  

‘I’ve given you a great deal of latitude, [but] this must cease,’ she told him.

On a cross-examination, prosecutors asked Milsun if he was aware that Routh ran over an employee with his truck. Milsun responded that he had not been aware of this. 

Both witnesses acknowledged during cross-examinations they had not spoken to Routh for years.

Routh was also not expected to present any evidence on his own behalf. He suggested, at one point, the idea that had a ‘new flashlight item’ to submit, though it is unclear what, exactly, he was referring to. 

Cannon told him that he would need to ‘lay a proper foundation’ before submitting any evidence. Asked whether the flashlight had an exhibit number, Routh told her, ‘It’s a brand new item we just created.’

Cannon told him to defer the matter to standby counsel and return to questioning his witness. 

His earlier submissions to the court were deemed to be inadmissible evidence. Prosecutors noted the exhibits in question include books that were authored by Routh, as well as handwritten drawings and Eagle Scout awards from his childhood. Cannon previously said she would keep the exhibits on the docket to give Routh the ability to challenge the court’s ruling, if he felt the need to do so.

Routh’s attempt to defend himself in his own criminal trial, using scant evidence and a thin list of witnesses, starkly contrasts with the prosecution, which spent nearly two weeks carefully and extemporaneously making its case against Routh to a jury in Fort Pierce, Florida.

In that span, jurors heard from 38 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of exhibits — text messages, call logs, bank records, and cellphone data — linking Routh to the alleged gun purchase and placing him near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach in the weeks before the attempted assassination.

Prosecutors also presented extensive digital and forensic evidence. FBI officials testified last week that Routh’s DNA was found on the rifle scope grip, a glove, a bungee cord, and a bag recovered from the ‘sniper’s nest’ near the sixth hole, where he allegedly waited at least 12 hours for the president’s arrival.

Before resting its case Friday, the government’s final witness, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Kimberly McGreevy, walked the jury through extensive cellphone data, license plate records, surveillance footage, and other information prosecutors alleged tied Routh to Trump’s movements in the weeks before the alleged attempt.

Cannon, despite her visible frustration, seemed to hope Routh would take the opportunity to testify on his own behalf.

‘Have you had enough time to decide?’ she pressed him at one point during the day. 

‘A year,’ Routh told her in response.

After the defense rests, both sides will present their closing arguments to the jury before they deliberate on the verdict. Closing arguments are expected Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., wants to jam Senate Democrats with the GOP’s short-term funding extension, but so far they aren’t ready to play ball.

Republicans and Democrats in the upper chamber blocked dueling continuing resolutions (CRs) from both parties last week and have now left Washington, D.C., until Sept. 29, effectively giving lawmakers in the upper chamber only two working days before the midnight deadline on Sept. 30.

Both sides are at an impasse. Senate Republicans argue that the ‘clean’ extension, which would last until Nov. 21 and lacks any partisan policy riders, is everything Democrats dreamed of when they controlled the upper chamber.

Senate Democrats led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., however, argue that they want a seat at the negotiating table and are adamant that expiring Obamacare premium subsidies must be dealt with now, rather than at the end of the year.

‘They’re trying to use what they think is leverage to get a bunch of stuff done,’ Thune said. ‘It’s never going to happen. I mean, can you imagine anything in that bill that they sent that we voted down today, passing in the Republican House of Representatives? Absolutely not. It’s just not serious.’

Democrats’ proposal included a permanent extension to the expiring Obamacare subsidies, clawbacks of canceled funding for NPR and PBS, and it would have repealed the healthcare provisions in President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ — policy that would reverse the nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts while also getting rid of the $50 billion rural hospital fund.

‘They’re not being serious,’ Thune said. ‘This is just a cold-blooded partisan political attempt to try and score political points with a left-wing base.’

Though he has not taken the option off the table, it’s unlikely that Thune would cut this recess short. Instead, he wants to use the impending deadline to back Senate Democrats into a corner. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., played into that strategy, too, when he announced that the House would not return until after the funding deadline.

Thune is ready to bring the same CR passed by House Republicans last week to the floor.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., railed against the likelihood that lawmakers wouldn’t return to Capitol Hill until the deadline was directly on them.

‘The Republicans want to shut down,’ he said. ‘A) they refuse to negotiate, and B) they’re sending us home for the week before the government shuts down. So you know this, this seems like a planned shutdown. As far as I can tell, there’s zero effort, zero effort by Republicans to try to solve this problem.’

Schumer and Democrats have pinned the blame on Trump and argue that his insistence that Thune only needs Republican votes was a sign that Democrats should be cut out of the process. Thune will need Democratic votes to advance through the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate.

The top Senate Democrat hoped Thune and Republicans would ‘now see that the only way to avoid a shutdown is negotiate with Democrats.’

‘We’re saying clearly, let’s sit down. Let’s figure this out,’ Schumer said. ‘But Republicans have now left town with no sign they want to avoid a shutdown in a week. They left town. Donald Trump is the shutdown president and Senate Republicans are following him over the cliff.’

Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., also sent a letter on Saturday to Trump demanding a meeting, where the pair charged that ‘Republicans would bear the responsibility’ of a partial shutdown.

‘As a result, it is now your obligation to meet with us directly to reach an agreement to keep the government open and address the Republican healthcare crisis,’ they wrote.

Trump said on Saturday that he would ‘love to meet with them, but I don’t think it’s going to have any impact.’

A day before, he didn’t appear optimistic that a shutdown could be averted.

‘I think we could very well end up with a closed country for a period of time,’ Trump said.

Thune may have defections within his own ranks to contend with, too. Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted against the GOP’s bill. Only Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., crossed the aisle to support it.

Paul’s vote against the bill wasn’t a surprise. However, Murkowski, who is an appropriator, contended that she wanted a better bill on the floor than the one presented by Republicans and charged that the back-to-back failures of both bills was a ‘messaging exercise.’

‘I want to project a message of something that can actually get us through this impasse,’ she said. ‘And so my message is a short-term CR that also addresses three past appropriations bills that we’ve already done. We should include those. We should include a short-term fix of the premium tax credits.’ 

As world leaders gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, French President Emmanuel Macron is seizing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to stake out global leadership — and, critics argue, to position himself as a counterweight to President Donald Trump.

Renewing his call for recognition of a Palestinian state, Macron has also put forward a proposal for a multinational force to take over from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) ‘the day after’ the Gaza war, according to The Times of Israel. 

For Macron, the United Nations General Assembly is a stage to project France as an alternative power. ‘Macron’s policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict reflects his broader ambitions on France’s foreign policy, that is, the idea that the country, as a middle European power, can offer an alternative to the U.S.-China competition,’ Jean-Loup Samaan, a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute, told Fox News Digital. ‘In this specific case, Macron believes that his push for a Palestinian state will increase French credibility in the Arab world and the so-called ‘Global South.’’

‘We have to recognize the legitimate right of Palestinian people to have a state,’ Macron said in an interview broadcast Thursday on Israel’s Channel 12. ‘If you don’t give a political perspective, in fact, you just put them in the hands of those who are just proposing a security approach, an aggressive approach.’ He went further, denouncing Israel’s ground offensive in Gaza City as ‘absolutely unacceptable’ and ‘a huge mistake.’

The comments infuriated both Israel and the United States, which argue that recognition emboldens extremists and rewards Hamas, the group responsible for the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.

Macron, however, insists recognition is the only way forward, reviving the long-stalled two-state solution. More than 145 countries already recognize Palestine, and European allies, including the U.K., Canada, Australia, Portugal, Malta, Belgium, and Luxembourg, are expected to follow France’s lead in the coming days.

Yet analysts warn Macron’s track record suggests otherwise. ‘If you want to know how UN-sponsored peacekeepers do with terrorist groups in the region, we have a 20-year case study in UNIFIL, which enabled rather than denied Hezbollah the ability to grow into a massive military threat,’ Richard Goldberg, senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital.

‘Macron is certainly driven by his beleaguered domestic political situation and the large French Muslim population, but in his own mind he’s also been down this road in Lebanon, where France has historic equities. The record is pretty clear: Macron has never delivered on anything; security improvements have only come through U.S. pressure and Israeli military might,’ Goldberg said.

Just days before Macron’s push, Trump met with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jared Kushner to discuss Gaza’s future — and is set to hold a meeting tomorrow with Arab leaders on ‘the day after,’ sources confirm to Fox News Digital. The overlap has fueled speculation that Macron is maneuvering to outshine Trump and claim the mantle of statesman-in-chief.

Goldberg added bluntly: ‘He may perceive himself that way, but I don’t think many in Washington spend a lot of time thinking about him.’

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, called Macron’s maneuvering ‘a blatant power-grab.’ She told Fox News Digital: ‘The fact is that would-be Emperor Macron has no clothes. The promise he is waving around of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ ‘promise’ to soon hold elections and abandon dictatorship and terror screams ‘scam.’’

‘At home, foreign policy topics are not driving the current political troubles, which are primarily focused on France’s need to reduce its fiscal deficit,’ Samaan noted. ‘I think Macron’s initiative on Palestine has more to do with his personal aspirations in terms of legacy. He’ll leave office in 2027.’

The proposed Gaza force, modeled on UNIFIL in Lebanon where France has long played a role, would demand French resources and likely face opposition in parliament from both the far left and far right, and without U.S. endorsement, Israeli buy-in, or domestic consensus in France, the initiative could stall before it begins.

Ryan Routh, the man accused of attempting to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at his Florida golf course last year, said he would not take the stand in his own criminal case on Monday — the strongest sign yet that the defense is preparing to rest its case and kick the trial into its final phase before jury deliberation.

Routh, 59, has been representing himself in the federal criminal trial. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and possession of a firearm, among other crimes. If convicted, he could face life in prison. 

He previously floated the possibility that he could testify on his own behalf — a risky strategy that would have waived his Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, and opened him up to cross-examination by federal prosecutors.

Judge Aileen Cannon pressed Routh repeatedly Monday morning on whether he’d had enough time to consider his decision or wanted to consult standby counsel. He said he was sure. Prosecutors then asked for the lunch hour to decide if they would call rebuttal witnesses.

If none are called, the defense is expected to rest within hours, clearing the way for closing arguments and jury deliberations.

Routh opened his defense Monday with Michael McClay, a gun specialist and his only expert witness, followed by testimony from a family friend and a former colleague.

McClay, an expert in sniper firearms and tactics with an extensive career in military and law enforcement, confirmed at the outset of Routh’s questioning that he was subpoenaed to testify, and did not want to appear on Routh’s behalf.

Routh spent most of the time questioning McClay about the operability scope of the rifle in question, including trying to cast doubt on the likelihood that the SKS rifle in question could not hit a target 375 yards away.

McClay, in response, said it depended on the skill of the shooter — but confirmed that the rifle was capable of hitting a target from that distance.

During cross-examination, the prosecution asked McClay about the likelihood of the rifle inflicting damage on a person if it was shot at that distance and hit an intended target. McClay said yes, the person would be hurt. Routh asked in McClay’s view whether he believed that a cowardly sniper would have an exit strategy if their plan failed, to which McClay said, ‘in all his missions, there was some way to escape.’

Routh’s witness list was sparse compared to the dozens of witnesses introduced by prosecutors, including forensics experts, FBI agents, and Secret Service agents over the course of a two-week period.

By contrast, Routh’s list included McClay, family friend Atwill Milsun, and a former colleague, Marshall Hinshaw.

The other witnesses spoke briefly and did not present much in the way of new or relevant information, as was expected, given their personal ties to the defendant.

Routh was also not expected to present any evidence on his own behalf. 

His earlier submissions to the court were deemed to be inadmissible. Prosecutors said the exhibits include books that were authored by Routh, handwritten drawings, and Eagle Scout awards from his childhood.

Last week, Cannon said that she would keep the exhibits on the docket and would give Routh the ability to challenge the court’s ruling, should he choose to do so.

Routh’s attempt to defend himself in his own criminal trial, using scant evidence and a thin list of witnesses, starkly contrasts with the prosecution, which spent nearly two weeks carefully and extemporaneously making its case against Routh to a jury in Fort Pierce, Florida.

In that span, jurors heard from 38 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of exhibits — text messages, call logs, bank records, and cellphone data — linking Routh to the alleged gun purchase and placing him near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach in the weeks before the attempted assassination.

Prosecutors also presented extensive digital and forensic evidence. FBI officials testified last week that Routh’s DNA was found on the rifle scope grip, a glove, a bungee cord, and a bag recovered from the ‘sniper’s nest’ near the sixth hole, where he allegedly waited at least 12 hours for the president’s arrival.

Before resting its case Friday, the government’s final witness, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Kimberly McGreevy, walked the jury through extensive cellphone data, license plate records, surveillance footage, and other information prosecutors alleged tied Routh to Trump’s movements in the weeks before the alleged attempt.