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.

The Biden administration purchased a pulsed energy weapon suspected of being the type that may have caused ‘Havana Syndrome’ which caused a series of mysterious ailments for U.S. diplomats and government workers in Cuba. 

The weapon was bought at the end of the Biden Administration and has since been tested by the Pentagon, Fox News has learned. House Republicans are demanding answers amid reports of the purchase of the device.

In a letter to Homeland Security Kristi Noem, House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., is asking for information on the procurement process for the weapon, its costs and the findings associated with its year-long testing related to Havana Syndrome, officially known as Anomalous Health Incidents (AHI). 

‘The device in question is described as capable of producing pulsed radio waves and containing Russian components, though it is supposedly not entirely Russian in origin,’ the letter states. ‘Following HSI’s successful acquisition of the device, it was reportedly transferred to DoW, which spent more than a year testing the device and its capabilities.’

Some U.S. intelligence agencies have said a foreign adversary could be behind the mysterious ailment. 

Fox News Digital previously reported that Adam, a former government employee whose identity Fox News agreed to protect, is considered to be ‘Patient Zero.’

He was first attacked in December 2016 while living in Havana on assignment. During his time on the Caribbean island, Adam experienced multiple attacks and described pressure to the brain that led to vertigo, tinnitus and cognitive impairment.

‘While assessments from the Intelligence Community (IC) do not conclusively identify the factors causing AHIs or any foreign actor responsible, an assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) presented a majority view concluding that it was ‘very unlikely’ that a foreign actor ‘used a novel weapon or prototype device to harm even a subset of the U.S. Government personnel,’ with five out of seven agencies agreeing with that assessment,’ Garbarino wrote in his letter. 

‘However, two agencies dissented from the majority view and assessed that there was a chance that foreign actors may have developed some sort of ‘novel weapon or prototype device’ that could have harmed U.S. personnel,’ he added. 

However, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released the report and held a background call with reporters on Friday explaining that new reporting ‘led two components to shift their assessments about whether a foreign actor has a capability that could cause biological effects consistent with some of the symptoms reported as possible AHIs.’

‘This shift consequently led two IC components to subtly change their overall judgment about whether a foreign actor might have played a role in a small number of events,’ the agency said. 

Fox News’ Liz Friden contributed to this report. 

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado said she presented President Donald Trump with her Nobel Peace Prize medal, describing it as a historic gesture recognizing his commitment to freedom and the fight against tyranny.

Machado spoke with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol Thursday, when she was asked whether she offered her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump.

‘I presented the president of the United States the medal … the Nobel Peace Prize, and I told him, ‘Listen to this, 200 years ago, General Lafayette gave Simón Bolívar a medal with George Washington’s face on it,’ Machado said. ‘He kept that medal for the rest of his life. Actually, when you see his portraits, you can see the medal.’

She said Lafayette gave the medal to Bolívar as a symbol of the partnership between the people of the U.S. and the people of Venezuela and their shared fight for freedom against tyranny.

‘Two hundred years in history, the people of Bolívar are giving back the heir of Washington, a medal, in this case the medal of the Nobel Peace Prize, as a recognition for his unique commitment with our freedom,’ Machado said.

Machado’s meeting with Trump came nearly two weeks after the U.S. captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and amid lingering questions about her political future. The meeting also followed comments from Trump casting doubt on Machado leading the country rather than endorsing the Venezuelan opposition leader.

‘I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader,’ Trump told reporters Jan. 3. ‘She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.’

The Washington Post previously reported Trump was annoyed Machado won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025, an award he had hoped to receive and that Machado dedicated to him, though the White House said the president’s decisions were based on ‘realistic decisions.’

Still, Machado floated the idea of transferring the prestigious award to Trump last week during an appearance on Fox News’ ‘Hannity.’

‘Did you at any point offer to give him the Nobel Peace Prize?’ Sean Hannity asked. ‘Did that actually happen?’

Machado responded, ‘Well, it hasn’t happened yet.’

‘I certainly would love to be able to personally tell him that we believe — the Venezuelan people, because this is a prize of the Venezuelan people — certainly want to give it to him and share it with him,’ Machado continued. ‘What he has done is historic. It’s a huge step toward a democratic transition.’

Despite her intent, the Norwegian Nobel Institute shut down the idea last Friday.

‘Once a Nobel Prize is announced, it cannot be revoked, shared or transferred to others,’ the institute said in a statement. ‘The decision is final and stands for all time.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for a reaction.

Fox News Digital’s Michael Sinkewicz contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump’s push for the U.S. to acquire Greenland could carry an estimated price tag of $700 billion, according to reports.

The estimate, reported by NBC News, was said to have been calculated by scholars and former U.S. officials involved in early planning discussions surrounding Trump’s interest in acquiring the 800,000-square-mile island as a strategic buffer in the Arctic against adversaries including Russia and China.

The figure would exceed half of the Defense Department’s annual budget and reflects what officials described as a significant national security priority for the Trump administration.

The reported cost comes as new Reuters polling shows the Trump proposal is unpopular with Americans, but also continues to strain relations with U.S. allies.

‘The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security,’ Trump wrote Wednesday in a Truth Social post and warned that if the U.S. does not act, ‘Russia or China will.’

The president added that ‘anything less’ than U.S. control of Greenland is ‘unacceptable’ and argued that the Arctic territory is vital to American defense interests, including the ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system in development.

Trump’s renewed push has increased tensions with Denmark and other NATO allies.

As previously reported by Fox News Digital, troops from several European countries deployed to Greenland Thursday for a two-day mission aimed at boosting the territory’s defenses.

France, Germany, Sweden and Norway are participating in the exercise, Fox News said, with leaders saying the mission is intended to demonstrate NATO’s ability to deploy military assets quickly in the Arctic.

NBC News also reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been tasked with developing a proposal to purchase Greenland that will be presented to Trump in the coming weeks.

Rubio and Vice President JD Vance are also expected to meet with officials from Denmark and Greenland in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday.

Trump has vowed to acquire Greenland ‘one way or the other,’ a remark Danish and Greenlandic officials have sharply rejected.

Danish leaders have warned that any military action against another NATO member could jeopardize the alliance itself.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll also found just 17% of Americans approve of Trump’s efforts to acquire Greenland, with 47% opposed, and 35% unsure.

Greenland is the world’s largest island and has a population of roughly 56,000 people with most people living along its ice-free coastline. About 80% of the territory is covered by ice caps and glaciers.

Fishing, hunting, whaling, sealing and tourism are the backbone of its local economy.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

After a brief series of delay tactics deployed by Democrats, the Senate passed a $174 billion spending package, sending a trio of funding bills to President Donald Trump’s desk.

The move puts Congress one step closer to averting a partial government shutdown, but lawmakers are only halfway through completing and passing the legislation needed to keep the lights on in Washington, D.C.

Neither party is keen to repeat the events of last fall, when Congress shattered the record for the longest government shutdown in history at 43 days. Still, hurdles remain before the fast-approaching Jan. 30 deadline to fund the government.

Despite attempts by Senate Democrats to slow the process, with lawmakers railing against recent actions by the Trump administration in Minnesota and Colorado, the power of jet fumes and an impending week-long break from the Capitol smashed through any resistance.

The three-bill package, known as a minibus, includes legislation to fund commerce, justice, science and related agencies; energy and water development and related agencies; and interior, environment and related agencies.

Comparatively, that package, and a forthcoming two-bill package from the House, are much easier lifts for lawmakers to pass than what’s to come.

Funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proved tricky, given congressional Democrats’ outrage over the agency’s actions in Minnesota.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was hopeful that a forthcoming package would include that bill, and that it could advance through the House to the Senate in the coming weeks.

‘Appropriators are working on another package of the four remaining bills, which I hope will receive the same bipartisan backing that has characterized the appropriations cycle thus far,’ Thune said on the Senate floor. ‘And before the end of the month the Senate will need to process all of these funding bills and get them to the president’s desk.’

But there is an acknowledgment among several lawmakers that Congress will likely have to turn to a short-term funding extension, or continuing resolution (CR), for some remaining funding bills or directly targeted at DHS.

Congressional Democrats are demanding restrictions on DHS funding, particularly money that flows to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) following the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent last week.

Lawmakers are staying tight-lipped, for now, about what exactly the restrictions could be.

In the upper chamber, Homeland Security Appropriations Chair Katie Britt, R-Ala., said that Republicans had sent a ‘counteroffer to the Democrats but have yet to hear back from them.’

When asked if, ultimately, a CR for just DHS funding would be acceptable for the time being, she told Fox News Digital, ‘What I want to do is actually pass a bill.’

‘I find it hard to believe that Democrats would give President Trump, in their words, a ‘slush fund’ on DHS,’ Britt said. ‘So I think figuring out a pathway forward is what we need to do for everybody involved. And so I’m continuing to be committed to doing that. Time is of the essence.’

Britt’s opposite on the committee, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., noted that the bill was ‘obviously the hardest,’ but contended that Democrats did not want to try to fix every issue in one fell swoop.

He also believed that a CR wouldn’t fix any of the issues, either.

‘A CR doesn’t stop them from terrorizing our citizens, doesn’t stop the violence,’ Murphy said. ‘So, a CR isn’t great. A budget without any constraints on DHS isn’t likely to get a lot of Democratic votes either.’

‘That’s one of the difficult things to figure out, is whether there’s any language you can put in a budget that the administration will follow,’ he continued. ‘But yes, I think there are ways that we could write accountability into the budget that would be hard for the administration to avoid.’

The Senate’s passage of the minibus comes after the House advanced its latest two-bill package on Wednesday evening. That bill totaled roughly $80 billion in funding for the State Department and related national security, as well as federal financial services and general government operations.

That legislation easily passed the House in a 341-79 vote on Wednesday evening and is now headed to the Senate for its consideration.

House appropriators are expected to release the text of their minibus covering the War Department, Labor Department, Education Department, Department of Transportation, and Department of Health and Human Services, among others, in the coming days.

House GOP leaders are hoping to advance that bill, which will likely be the largest by far, next week while the Senate is in recess. The House will be out the following week.

Questions remain about whether DHS funding will be part of that legislation or its own standalone issue, however.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told Fox News Digital on Wednesday, ‘Right now, there’s no bipartisan path forward for the Department of Homeland Security bill.’

At least one U.S. aircraft carrier is being moved toward the Middle East as tensions with Iran continue to build, military sources confirm to Fox News.

It is not yet clear whether the carrier is the USS Abraham Lincoln, currently operating in the South China Sea, or one of two carriers that departed Norfolk and San Diego earlier this week. Transit to the region is expected to take at least a week.

U.S. military assets from air, land and sea are expected to flow into the region in the coming days and weeks to provide the president with military options should he decide to carry out strikes against Iran, sources said.

The movements are part of what officials described as a process of ‘setting the force.’

One well-placed source said if the president decides to carry out military action, ‘This will be different, more offensive.’ The source said U.S. military planners are preparing a range of options that would depend on how Iran’s regime acts in coming days.

Missile defense systems are also expected to be sent to the region to bolster the defense of U.S. bases and Israel. The systems would include missile defense assets, according to sources.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.