U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz warned Iran during an emergency meeting of the Security Council that President Donald Trump ‘is a man of action’ who has ‘made it clear all options are on the table to stop the slaughter.’ 

Waltz said Thursday that, ‘We all have a responsibility to support the Iranian people and to put an end to the regime’s neglect and oppression of the Iranian nation.’ 

Iran has been plunged into turmoil amid recent anti-government protests, with the death toll from those being at least 2,677, the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency told The Associated Press. 

‘Colleagues, let me be clear. President Trump is a man of action, not endless talk like we see at the United Nations. He has made it clear all options are on the table to stop the slaughter. And no one should know that better than the leadership of the Iranian regime,’ Waltz added. 

Waltz’s remarks came as Gholam Hossein Darzi, the deputy Iranian ambassador to the U.N., accused the U.S. of trying to destabilize the Islamic Republic.

‘Under the hollow pretext of concern for the Iranian people and claims of support for human rights, the United States regime is attempting to portray itself as a friend of the Iranian people, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for political destabilization and military intervention under a so-called humanitarian narrative,’ Darzi said. 

Waltz dismissed the claim, telling diplomats at U.N. headquarters on Thursday that Iran’s leaders are ‘afraid of their own people.’ 

‘I would like to address the allegation put forward by the regime that these inspired protests are somehow a foreign plot to give a precursor to military action. Everyone in the world needs to know that the regime is weaker than ever before, and therefore is putting forward this lie because of the power of the Iranian people in the streets,’ Waltz said.

‘They are afraid. They’re afraid of their own people. Iran says it’s ready for dialogue, but its actions say otherwise. This is a regime that rules through oppression, through violence, and through intimidation, and has destabilized the Middle East for decades. Well, enough is enough,’ he added. 

‘The regime’s dereliction of duty to its own citizens is what has put the ayatollahs in the positions they are in today with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, protesting in the streets after decades of neglect and abuse. So everyone should ask themselves, everyone sitting here today, how many people are dead?’ Waltz also said.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday that Trump and his team ‘have communicated to the Iranian regime that if the killing continues, there will be grave consequences.’ 

‘And the president received a message as he revealed to all of you and the whole world yesterday, that the killing and the executions will stop. And the president understands today that 800 executions that were scheduled and supposed to take place yesterday were halted. And so the president and his team are closely monitoring this situation, and all options remain on the table for the president,’ she added. 

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who visited with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem less than a month ago, said in a Thursday post on X he was going to Israel to meet with the foreign leader and his team.

‘I am traveling to Israel to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his team at this crucial time in the history of the Middle East. The goal is to build on the historic opportunities created by President Trump’s unprecedented leadership, to stand up to evil, and to support the people who are sacrificing for freedom,’ Graham wrote in the post.

‘The Trump-Netanyahu alliance has thus far been one of the strongest partnerships in the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and I am hopeful it will pay dividends in the near future. We live in a time of great consequence with the Middle East on the verge of previously unimaginable change. Standing together and following through on our commitments only makes us stronger,’ he added.

Graham’s announcement comes less than a month after he met with Netanyahu in Israel in December.

In a video posted to X on December 21, Netanyahu welcomed the senator, calling Graham ‘a great friend of Israel’ and ‘great personal friend.’

The lawmaker has been advocating for U.S. President Donald Trump to attack Iran.

‘President Trump’s resolve is not the question: Question is, when we do an operation like this, should it be bigger, or smaller? I’m in the camp of bigger,’ Graham said in footage he highlighted in a Thursday post on X. ‘Time will tell. I’m hopeful and optimistic that the regime days are numbered.’

In a Wednesday post on X, Graham wrote, ‘People often ask me what should we do next when it comes to the murderous, religious Nazi regime in Iran. It’s pretty simple. Stand by the protesters demanding an end to their oppression. But it’s going to take more than standing by them. We must stop those who are responsible for killing the people by any means necessary ASAP. Make The Iranian People Safe Again.’

Former Rep. Billy Long, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to be ambassador to Iceland, has apologized after privately joking to House lawmakers that the Arctic island would become the ’52nd state’ with him as its governor.

Long, a Republican who represented Missouri from 2011 to 2023 and served a brief stint as IRS commissioner last year, said he was just joking with his former congressional colleagues.

‘There was nothing serious about that, I was with some people, who I hadn’t met for three years, and they were kidding about Jeff Landry being governor of Greenland and they started joking about me and if anyone took offense to it, then I apologize,’ Long told Arctic Today.

‘I apologize and that’s my only comment, I look forward to working with the people of Iceland and I apologize it was taken that way, I was with a group of friends and there was nothing serious about it,’ he added.

Trump recently named Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry as a special envoy to Greenland.

This comes as Trump heats up his threats to acquire Greenland, a Danish territory, saying he plans to take the island ‘one way or the other.’

‘We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not,’ Trump said last week. ‘Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.’

Trump administration officials are openly weighing options such as military force to take Greenland, a move that would violate NATO’s Article V, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all of them and could end the alliance of more than 75 years.

Denmark and other European countries have made moves, including sending additional troops to Greenland in case of a U.S. invasion, backing the territory as it reaffirms its position that it does not want to join the U.S. Iceland is among the NATO members that have expressed opposition to Trump’s repeated threats to take Greenland.

On Capitol Hill, most Democrats and even some Republicans have opposed the idea of taking Greenland, while other Republicans have voiced support for pursuing closer ties with the territory, including Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., who introduced legislation to make it the 51st U.S. state, although he said the best way to acquire Greenland is voluntarily.

Trump has also said he wanted to make Canada the 51st U.S. state.

Long was visiting former colleagues on the House Floor earlier this week when he made the controversial comment about Iceland, sparking some minor diplomatic backlash, with Iceland’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs demanding answers from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavík.

‘There is no doubt that this is very serious for a small country like Iceland,’ Icelandic Parliament member Sigmar Guðmundsson told MBL. ‘We need to understand that all the security arguments made by the U.S. regarding Greenland, also apply to Iceland.’

Some Icelanders also launched a petition drive calling on their government to reject Long as ambassador if he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The petition has obtained 2,000 signatures.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Politico that Long was ‘probably having some fun’ and ‘I wouldn’t read too much into that.’

The Supreme Court is poised to rule soon on President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency wartime law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. countries — and which brought to the fore key questions over the ‘major questions doctrine,’ or the limiting principle by which courts can, in certain circumstances, move to curb the power of executive agencies.

During oral arguments over Trump’s tariffs in November, justices honed in on the so-called major questions doctrine — which allows courts to limit the power of executive agencies on actions with ‘vast economic and political significance’ — and how it squares with Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping global and reciprocal tariffs.

Plaintiffs told the court that Trump’s use of IEEPA to unilaterally impose his steep import duties violates the major questions doctrine, since IEEPA does not explicitly mention the word ‘tariffs.’ Rather, it authorizes the president to ‘regulate … importation’ during a declared national emergency — plaintiffs noted, arguing that it falls short of the standard needed to pass muster for MQD.

‘Congress does not (and could not) use such vague terminology to grant the executive virtually unconstrained taxing power of such staggering economic effect — literally trillions of dollars — shouldered by American businesses and consumers,’ they told the court in an earlier briefing.

Lawyers for the Trump administration countered that text of the IEEPA emergency law is the ‘practical equivalent’ of a tariff.

‘Tomorrow’s United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country,’ Trump posted on Truth Social back in November.

‘With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us,’ Trump continued.

‘Our Stock Market is consistently hitting Record Highs, and our Country has never been more respected than it is right now,’ he added. ‘A big part of this is the Economic Security created by Tariffs, and the Deals that we have negotiated because of them.’

While U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer acknowledged to the justices that IEEPA does not explicitly give an executive the power to regulate tariffs, he stressed in November that the power to tariff is ‘the natural common sense inference’ of IEEPA.

But whether the high court will back his argument remains to be seen.

That was the conclusion reached by the U.S. Court of International Trade last year. Judges on the  three-judge panel voted unanimously to block Trump’s tariffs from taking force, ruling that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have ‘unbounded authority’ to impose tariffs under the emergency law. 

‘The parties cite two doctrines—the nondelegation doctrine and the major questions doctrine—that the judiciary has developed to ensure that the branches do not impermissibly abdicate their respective constitutionally vested powers,’ the court said in its ruling.

The doctrine was also a focus in November, as justices pressed lawyers for the administration over IEEPA’s applicability to tariffs, or taxation powers, and asked the administration what guardrails, if any, exist to limit the whims of the executive branch, should they ultimately rule in Trump’s favor.

Though it’s not clear how much the court will rely on the MQD in its ruling, legal experts told Fox News Digital that they would expect it to potentially be cited by the Supreme Court if it blocks Trump’s tariff regime.

The high court agreed to take up the case on an expedited basis last fall, and a ruling is expected to be handed down within the coming days or weeks.

There’s very little precedent for major questions as a formal precedent cited by the courts, as noted by the University of Chicago College of Law in 2024.

The doctrine was cited formally by the Supreme Court for the first time ever in its 2022 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, when the court’s majority cited the doctrine as its basis for invalidating the EPA’s emissions standards under the Clean Power Plan. 

Prior to that, the doctrine existed as a more amorphous strand of statutory interpretation — a phenomenon that Justice Elena Kagan noted in her dissent in the same case.

‘The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it,’ Kagan said then. ‘When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.’

One factor that could play in Trump’s favor is the fact that the tariffs case is to some degree a foreign policy issue, which is an area where executives enjoy a higher level of deference from the court. 

Still, if oral arguments were any indication, the justices seemed poised to block Trump’s use of IEEPA to continue his steep tariff plan. 

Justices pressed Sauer as to why Trump invoked IEEPA to impose his sweeping tariffs, noting that doing so would be the first time a president used the law to set import taxes on trading partners.

They also seemed skeptical of the administration’s assertion that they did not need additional permission from Congress to use the law in such a sweeping manner, and pressed the administration’s lawyers on their contention that EEPA is only narrowly reviewable by the courts.

‘We agree that it’s a major power, but it’s in the context of a statute that is explicitly conferring major powers,’ Sauer said. ‘That the point of the statute is to confer major powers to address major questions — which are emergencies.’

A former Ukrainian prime minister has been accused of plotting to bribe politicians with stacks of U.S. dollars in a scheme aimed at weakening President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government, a former political adviser has claimed.

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (UNACB) first confirmed Jan. 13 it uncovered an alleged effort by the leader of an unnamed parliamentary faction to offer illegal benefits to lawmakers, according to Reuters.

Video released by UNACB showed stacks of U.S. dollars seized during overnight searches earlier this week, including footage of a woman in the office sitting behind a desk. Authorities did not publicly identify the suspect.

According to the Kyiv Post, published recordings allegedly show that three lawmakers were offered $10,000 per month in exchange for their votes, with the case linked by some to Yulia Tymoshenko, a veteran politician, former prime minister, and current leader of the Batkivshchyna party.

Former Zelenskyy press secretary Yuliia Mendel told Fox News Digital the cash allegedly belonged to Tymoshenko and was intended to pay lawmakers to vote against the president’s legislative proposals.

‘In Ukraine, such transactions are usually discussed in U.S. dollars, as you can see from the law enforcement reports,’ Mendel, a former political advisor said.

‘The U.S. dollars shown in that video were allegedly hers that she was supposed to use to pay people to vote against Zelenskyy’s legislative proposals. She said it was her personal savings,’ Mendel added.

Mendel said the sums shown in the footage appeared relatively modest, ‘about $40,000,’ she said, noting other corruption cases in Ukraine have involved ‘much larger sums, sometimes millions of dollars.’

The raid on Tymoshenko’s party office reportedly lasted nearly all night. ‘Officers arrived in the evening and remained in her office for almost the entire night,’ Mendel said.

Investigators allege several lawmakers — reportedly including members of Zelenskyy’s own faction — approached Tymoshenko, leading to discussions about regular monthly payments in exchange for coordinated voting.

Despite reportedly being served with a notice of suspicion, Tymoshenko also addressed parliament this week, calling the case ‘political persecution against me.’

‘The so-called ‘urgent investigative actions’ that lasted all night ended at the Batkivshchyna party office. These ‘urgent investigative actions’ have nothing to do with law and order,’ Tymoshenko also wrote on Facebook.

According to Mendel, the goal was not to attack Zelenskyy personally but to fracture the ruling mono-majority in parliament.

‘Ukraine’s system is a parliamentary-presidential republic, meaning the legislature plays a central role in governance. When the president controls a mono-majority, legislation can pass quickly,’ Mendel said.

‘Breaking that majority would significantly weaken Zelenskyy’s legislative authority,’ Mendel explained.

Tymoshenko, a central figure in the 2004 Orange Revolution and Ukraine’s first female prime minister, has faced legal trouble before.

In 2011, she was jailed over a gas deal with Russia in a case widely viewed as politically motivated, before being released in 2014. She is expected to appear before Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court.

‘Corruption is one of the key reasons we are losing this war. It severely damages Ukraine’s image on the international stage,’ Mendel warned.

‘By 2024, corruption had reached such a scale that Ukrainians chose an extremely dangerous and painful path — exposing it publicly in order to fight it,’ Mendel added.

‘Now, cases like this bring the issue back into the spotlight. Corruption will destroy Ukraine.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office for comment.