The United States and Canada have reached an agreement to allow both countries to turn away migrants who cross illegally at the northern U.S. border, a U.S. official confirmed to Fox News Digital on Thursday.

The deal is set to be announced Friday by President Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who are meeting in Ottawa.

The agreement will mean that migrants who attempt to cross illegally between ports of entry into either country will be returned, which officials believe will deter irregular migration at the U.S.-Canada border.

The agreement, first reported by the L.A. Times, marks an update to the Safe Third County Agreement established by the two nations in 2004, which required migrants to claim asylum at a country through which they passed — but did not apply to those who entered illegally.

Additionally, Canada will announce a commitment to accept an additional 15,000 migrants over the next year from the Western Hemisphere, as part of its commitments made under the Los Angeles Declaration last year — which committed nations to a regional response to the migration crisis.

Such a move would be accepted to lessen the pressure facing the U.S. southern border, which has faced a historic migrant surge since 2021.

The move comes amid an increase in migrant encounters at the northern border which, while not as substantial as the surge at the southern border, has left some authorities overwhelmed.

There were over 109,000 migrant encounters at the northern border in FY 2022, up from 27,000 in FY 2021.  The border, which is 5,525 miles, only has 115 ports of entry. 

Fox News recently reported that Border Patrol was appealing for volunteers to deal with the surge, which was attributed to ‘Mexican migrants with no legal documents.’

The diplomatic agreement also marks the latest move by the administration to crack down on illegal border crossings. With the looming end of Title 42 expulsions in May, the administration has proposed a rule that would go into effect before then and would make migrants automatically ineligible for asylum if they have crossed illegally and have failed to claim asylum in a country through which they have passed.

This is a breaking news alert; check back for updates

In a victory for abortion-rights supporters, the Republican-led but closely divided New Hampshire House on Thursday rejected multiple bills to further restrict abortion access while also approving legislation to protect it.

The eight abortion-related bills came up for a vote during what has been a hectic week for abortion policy nationwide. Nine months after the U.S. Supreme Court ended a nationwide right to an abortion, court fights are playing out on multiple fronts, states dominated by Democrats are seeking to protect access and Republicans are trying to tighten restrictions.

In New Hampshire, Republicans hold a 201-198 majority in the House, with one seat vacant. That has made attendance on session days extra important, as evidenced by the vote on a measure Thursday that ended in a tie.

The proposal in question, backed by virtually all Democrats, would have repealed the state’s ban on abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy. The bill was tabled after the 192-192 tie.

Democrats succeeded, however, in sending the Senate a bill that would remove the civil and criminal penalties associated with the ban, a change Republican Gov. Chris Sununu supports. The House also voted to add an explicit right to abortion up to 24 weeks to state law, though the Republican-led Senate already has defeated a similar bill.

‘New Hampshire is one of only three states where abortion is legal but not protected,’ said Rep. Alexis Simpson, a Democrat from Exeter. ‘Today we can send a message to Granite Staters – a clear, purposeful message – that the New Hampshire House supports and affirms an individual’s right to an abortion and the tenets of Roe v. Wade.’

The House rejected a bill that would ban abortions after the first detectable ‘fetal heartbeat.’ Cardiac activity can be detected as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant. It also rejected a bill that would have required medical treatment for all infants born alive, including after an attempted abortion, along with measures that would have imposed a waiting period for those seeking abortions and additional audits for abortion providers.

A bill that would have asked voters to weigh in on adding ‘reproductive autonomy’ to the state Constitution failed, however. The House voted 193-191 in favor of the bill, but proposed constitutional amendments need a three-fifths majority to advance.

Rep. Bob Lynn, a Republican from Windham and former chief justice of the state Supreme Court, said changing the constitution would effectively throw the issue to the courts.

‘Is there any reason to believe that the court is somehow better equipped to make decisions on these issues than we are? I submit to you that the answer is no,’ he said. ‘Unlike unelected judges, we are the branch of government that is most accountable to the people. If we get it wrong, the voters will let us know about it soon enough at the next election.’

FIRST ON FOX: Pressure is continuing to build on the Mexican government over its military’s seizure of American company property in its eastern state of Quintana Roo earlier this month.

The entire bipartisan Alabama congressional delegation is uniting in support of Vulcan Materials, a Birmingham-based company, demanding the government immediately withdraw its troops.

In a Wednesday letter to Mexican Ambassador Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Alabama Reps. Gary Palmer, R, Terri Sewell, D, Robert Aderholt, R, Barry Moore, R, Jerry Carl, R, Dale Strong, R, and Mike Rogers, R, along with Sens. Katie Britt, R, and Tommy Tuberville, R, called the Mexican military’s entry onto Vulcan’s property ‘unlawful,’ and requested he meet with the delegation for an explanation.

‘While these events on their own are concerning enough, it seems that this is just the latest in a pattern of the Mexican government ignoring the rule of law,’ the lawmakers wrote in the letter, describing numerous instances they said the Mexican government had harassed the company prior to the seizure.

‘With Vulcan’s headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama, we write to request the military presence from Vulcan’s property be immediately withdrawn and that you schedule a meeting with our delegation to discuss these troubling events,’ they added.

Palmer, who is leading the delegation’s effort, said in a statement following the letter being sent to Moctezuma that once the situation is resolved, they would need assurances a similar situation wouldn’t occur in the future.

‘This action by the Mexican military is unprovoked and unacceptable,’ he said. ‘The Mexican government needs to immediately recall their troops from Vulcan Materials’ port and ensure it will not happen again. 

‘The Alabama delegation and I have requested a meeting with the Mexican Ambassador, preferably at the earliest possible time. I look forward to receiving a prompt response from Ambassador Esteban Moctezuma,’ he added.

According to Vulcan, the largest producer of construction aggregates in the U.S., members of the Mexican navy, local state police, along with federal investigators, entered the quarry just south of Playa del Carmen in Mexico’s Quintana Roo state in the early morning hours of March 14 and has remained since.

The company said the seizure was likely due to the breakdown of contract negotiations between it and CEMEX, a Mexican materials company with which it had previously provided services, and ongoing tensions with the Mexican government over its mining operations.

The State Department told Fox News Digital on Tuesday that it was concerned about the seizure, and warned of the potential impacts such action could have on trade and future economic opportunities for Mexico. The Department added that it, as well as the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, were actively engaged in the situation with the Mexican government.

Moctezuma’s office did not respond to Fox’s request for comment concerning the seizure.

Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., on Wednesday blocked a Republican request to quickly pass a bill to end the Biden administration’s ban on the entry of foreign travelers who aren’t vaccinated for COVID-19.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, brought up his FREEBIRD Act on the Senate floor, and asked his fellow senators to agree to the bill that the House passed last month. The bill would end the requirement that was imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

‘In the spirit of freedom, in the spirit of self-determination and sanity, I am here today to try to pass this, to try to pass by unanimous consent the FREEBIRD Act, which will restore the right to explore and experience the world by allowing non-immigrant, non-citizen travelers to be vaccinated only if they choose to do so,’ Lee said on the floor.

‘It’s time to end the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for foreign visitors, prohibit using federal funds to carry out this requirement, and prevent the CDC from ordering future COVID-19 vaccine mandates for foreign travelers,’ he added. ‘It’s just costing too much.’

Lee noted that Biden last year declared that the pandemic is over and that top tennis competitor Novak Djokovic has now missed two major tournaments because he isn’t vaccinated.

When Lee asked if there were any objections to unanimously passing his bill today, Welch rose to object.

‘This public health emergency is going to end,’ Welch said, hinting at the Biden administration’s plan to end the emergency on May 11. ‘The administration is actively, day in and day out, in the process of taking the steps that are going to unwind this.

‘My view is that this is an area where executive responsibility has to be carried out in an orderly way, not just to address this question of ending the vaccine mandate, but there are other matters that are affected if this public health emergency is abruptly ended that may do harm to Vermont,’ he added. Welch said he’s worried that expanded telehealth and health care assistance could be affected if Lee’s bill were to pass.

‘Because of my concern about the collateral consequences of stripping the administration, in effect, of a capacity to have that orderly unwinding, I object,’ he said.

Lee said he regretted Welch’s objection to quick, unanimous passage and said nothing in his bill would put limits on healthcare access for Americans.

‘We could join the ranks of civilized nations of the world who have seen what a barbaric piece of nonsense this sort of restriction is, and we could do it right now,’ Lee said. He also rejected the idea that the Senate should wait for administration ‘experts’ to decide when the emergency ends, given how much experts got wrong about COVID.

‘The American people who we serve, who hired us to make laws, have to sit there and take it, and we pretend, ‘Sorry, there’s nothing we can do, we gotta wait for the experts to end this problem,’’ Lee said.

‘This has got to stop. I’m not going away, this issue isn’t going away,’ Lee added. ‘I don’t want to wait until May 11. I don’t want to wait until those bureaucrats pull their heads out of wherever their heads happen to be at the moment.’

A paper recently accepted for publication in a Harvard University academic journal lays out a legal argument for prosecuting fossil fuel companies with homicide, citing the impacts of carbon emissions and the industry’s alleged disinformation campaign.

The paper – titled ‘Climate Homicide: Prosecuting Big Oil For Climate Deaths’ and set to be published in the Harvard Environmental Law Review in 2024 – identifies how prosecutors may use existing homicide laws, as opposed to civil and regulatory remedies, to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for conduct that ‘endangers much or all of the public.’

‘Prosecutors regularly bring homicide charges against individuals and corporations whose reckless or negligent acts or omissions cause unintentional deaths, as well as those whose misdemeanors or felonies cause unintentional deaths,’ the paper states.

‘Fossil fuel companies learned decades ago that what they produced, marketed, and sold would generate ‘globally catastrophic’ climate change,’ it adds. ‘Rather than alert the public and curtail their operations, they worked to deceive the public about these harms and to prevent regulation of their lethal conduct.’

While the paper’s authors – David Arkush, a director at advocacy group Public Citizen, and Donald Braman, a law professor at George Washington University – acknowledge that fossil fuel companies have never been charged with homicide, they say the case for doing so is ‘increasingly compelling’ and argue that their lethal harm may soon become ‘unparalleled in human history,’ which is rife with genocides, wars and other atrocities.

Arkush and Braman specifically point to alleged activity from oil and gas companies in developing so-called disinformation and political influence campaigns to shield themselves from scrutiny over the harms of carbon emissions. Such activity would meet a core requirement – conduct undertaken with a culpable mental state that substantially contributes to or accelerates death – of a mass homicide prosecution.

‘Perhaps most importantly, if [fossil fuel companies] continue to fight speedy reductions in the harms they are generating, and if they continue to obstruct or delay state and federal regulation and civil suits designed to reduce the lethal impact of their conduct, then homicide prosecutions may prove necessary to prevent the escalating threat that their lethal conduct poses to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of potential victims in the United States,’ the paper states.

The paper also addresses how the legal system may go about handling homicide prosecution cases, saying imprisonment and abruptly ending fossil fuel production wouldn’t be reasonable objectives. Instead, prosecutors may consider restructuring oil and gas companies as public benefit corporations and be forced to phase out fossil fuel production.

‘[Fossil fuel companies], on this account, could be restructured in much the same way, reducing the production and distribution of fossil fuels at the fastest pace feasible, but not so fast as to cause harm, while protecting displaced workers and local economies and investing in the development and deployment of clean energy,’ the paper continues.

‘By working to defeat alternative energy competition, as well as defeat policies that would diminish or disincentivize fossil fuels or promote alternatives, [fossil fuel companies] have kept the United States dependent on their product, and they bear significant responsibility for our inability to shift to alternative energy more quickly.’

When asked about the paper, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, the largest fossil fuel industry group in the U.S., noted that companies have worked to decrease their environmental impacts in recent decades.

‘The record of the past two decades demonstrates that the industry has achieved its goal of providing affordable, reliable American energy to U.S. consumers while substantially reducing emissions and our environmental footprint,’ the spokesperson told Fox News Digital. ‘Any suggestion to the contrary is false.’

The paper comes as Democrat-run cities and states are increasingly taking up legal efforts to punish fossil fuel companies for their alleged environmental damage and deception campaigns.

Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., New York City, Baltimore, Honolulu and San Francisco are among the many state and city governments actively involved in litigation against the industry over the issue. 

‘Based on their own research, these companies understood decades ago that their products were causing climate change and would have devastating environmental impacts down the road,’ New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said in October.

‘They went to great lengths to hide the truth and mislead the people of New Jersey and the world,’ he said. ‘In short, these companies put their profits ahead of our safety. It’s long overdue that the facts be aired in a New Jersey court and the perpetrators of the disinformation campaign pay for the harms they’ve caused.’

A powerful California Democrat who recently helped kill a Republican-backed state bill that would’ve increased criminal penalties for those found guilty of various forms of sexual assault, including rape, is staying quiet amid widespread backlash for opposing the measure.

Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer, chair of the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, along with the rest of the panel’s Democrats voted last week against Bill 229, which would classify domestic violence, human trafficking, and several sex offenses as a violent crime in the state.

As a result, the bill failed to make it out of committee, despite the committee’s two Republicans voting in support of the legislation.

Jones-Sawyer didn’t respond to Fox News Digital’s latest request for comment after similarly not responding to one last week.

The successful effort to kill the bill received backlash, both in the media and online.

‘This week, CA Democrats killed a GOP bill to increase penalties for domestic violence, human trafficking & other sex crimes. Moments later, they approved a Dem bill to impose sentence enhancements on theft of property above $275k,’ tweeted Emily Hoeven, a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. ‘If Dems aren’t going to show ideological consistency in their votes, they owe it to us to allow a wider swath of ideas to be robustly debated. Their party, which controls a legislative supermajority, has not come close to solving CA’s problems on its own.’

Hoeven was referring to the fact that shortly after Democrats on the Public Safety Committee killed Assembly Bill 229, they passed a separate measure to enhance sentences for people convicted of taking, damaging, or destroying property worth more than $275,000.

‘Doesn’t really make sense to me why Capitol Democrats don’t feel like domestic violence and human trafficking should be a violent crime, but damaging property is worthy of harsher penalties,’ Assembly Member Joe Patterson, the Republican who introduced AB229, told Fox News Digital last week. ‘Their priorities are inconsistent at best.’

Ana Fuentes, a former photographer for the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Associated Press, retweeted Hoeven’s comments, writing a bill to increase penalties for violent offenders deserved more attention.

‘The bill deserved serious consideration — not only b/c it would amend Calif penal code to classify domestic violence as the violent crime that it is, but also b/c it could help the state reduce mass shootings, which research shows are overwhelmingly committed by domestic abusers,’ she tweeted, quoting from Hoeven’s column.

‘According to [California Democrats,] rape is not a violent act,’ added George Andrews, chief of staff to the California Assembly Republican Caucus. ‘Victims don’t matter & prison time is worthless/racist. Let’s just hand out parking tickets to criminals who commit sexual assault because incarceration hurts feelings.’

Under California law, committing a ‘violent felony’ enhances the punishment for crimes in accordance with the state’s Three Strikes Law, which significantly increases the prison sentences of people convicted of felonies who have been previously convicted of a violent or serious felony. For those already found guilty of two violent or serious felony offenses, a third conviction necessitates a prison sentence of 25 years to life.

Patterson’s bill would expand the crimes that are considered violent felonies, thereby increasing the punishments for those convicted of such crimes. Among the several crimes listed are domestic violence, human trafficking, and a host of sex crimes such as rape of an unconscious or incapacitated person. Under current law, human trafficking, for example, is defined as a non-serious and non-violent crime.

‘I am disgusted to announce that [AB229], a measure to make sexual assault a violent felony, failed on a party-line vote in the #CALeg Assembly Public Safety Committee,’ tweeted Republican Assembly Member Tom Lackey. ‘Please explain to me why isn’t rape violent in California?’

While Jones-Sawyer didn’t respond to Fox News Digital, he outlined his views on the matter at last week’s committee hearing.

‘You’re trying to say, ‘If we go back to three strikes, we will stop all crime,” he told Patterson. ‘We’ve already proven that doesn’t work.’

A conservative Republican and a progressive Democrat in the U.S. Senate are introducing legislation on Wednesday to replace the Federal Reserve’s internal watchdog with one appointed by the president, aiming to tighten bank supervision following the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.

Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Elizabeth Warren blamed the collapse of the two banks on regulatory failures at the U.S. central bank, which has operated up to now with an internal inspector general who reports to the Fed board.

‘Our legislation fixes that by establishing a presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed inspector general at the Fed, like every other major government agency,’ Scott said in a joint release with Warren.

Warren said this month’s banking upheavals ‘have underscored the urgent need for a truly independent inspector general to hold Fed officials accountable for any lapses or wrongdoing.’

The Federal Reserve was not immediately available for comment.

The legislation was due to be introduced later on Wednesday. According to a four-page legislative text, the measure would replace the Fed’s inspector general with an independent IG who would oversee the Federal Reserve and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB is an independent bureau within the central bank that is responsible for consumer protection within the financial sector.

Warren played a key role in setting up the CFPB under Democratic President Barack Obama following the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The U.S. Supreme Court last month agreed to hear a case challenging the CFPB’s funding structure, which some conservatives argue violates the U.S. Constitution,

The cooperation between Scott and Warren, who usually inhabit opposite poles of the political spectrum, could be the start of a new bipartisan push on banking.

Warren is a leading voice on financial matters. She sits on both the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, and chairs subcommittees of both panels.

Scott, a former Florida governor, is a hardline conservative who has positioned himself as a leading fiscal hawk.

The show of bipartisanship poses a stark contrast with the partisan standoff between Republicans and Democratic President Joe Biden over the nation’s $31.4 trillion debt ceiling, which has raised concerns in the financial markets about a prolonged debate that could damage the U.S. economy.

Both Republicans and Democrats have pledged tighter oversight of banking regulators following the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, which were followed by billions of dollars in losses for financial stocks.

‘We may end up in one of these strange-bedfellows situations,’ said Chris Brown, a banking lobbyist and former staffer on the House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee, which oversees the banking industry.

‘I do think there’s overarching concern about what happened here,’ he said.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry, a North Carolina Republican, and the panel’s top Democrat, Maxine Waters, have jointly scheduled a March 29 hearing on the banking system that will present testimony from officials with the Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

The Biden administration is putting out the word that planned stopovers in the United States by Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen in the coming weeks fall in line with recent precedent and should not be used as a pretext by China to step up aggressive activity in the Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan’s office of the president confirmed on Tuesday that Tsai is tentatively scheduled to transit through New York on March 30 before heading to Guatemala and Belize. She’s expected to stop in Los Angeles on April 5 on her way back to Taiwan. The office did not provide details of her itinerary while in the U.S.

Ahead of Taiwan’s announcement, senior U.S. officials in Washington and Beijing have underscored to their Chinese counterparts in recent weeks that transit visits through the United States during broader international travel by the Taiwanese president have been routine over the years, according to a senior administration official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

In such unofficial visits in recent years, Tsai has met with members of Congress and the Taiwanese diaspora and has been welcomed by the chairperson of the American Institute in Taiwan, the U.S. government-run nonprofit that carries out unofficial relations with Taiwan. White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said the planned stopovers—administration officials stress they are not official visits—are ‘business as usual’ and consistent with longstanding U.S. policy.

‘There’s no reason for China to overreact,’ Kirby said about the expected unofficial visit. ‘Heck, there’s no reason for China to react.’

Tsai transited through the United States six times between 2016 and 2019 before slowing international travel with the coronavirus pandemic. In reaction to those visits, China rhetorically lashed out against the U.S. and Taiwan.

State Department deputy spokesman Vedant Patel said ‘the unofficial nature of our relations with Taiwan remains unchanged.’

The Biden administration is trying to avoid a replay of the heavy-handed response by China that came after then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan last year.

Following Pelosi’s August visit, Beijing launched missiles over Taiwan, deployed warships across the median line of the Taiwan Strait and carried out military exercises near the island. Beijing also suspended climate talks with the U.S. and restricted military-to-military communication with the Pentagon.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, has said he would meet with Tsai when she is in the U.S. and has not ruled out the possibility of traveling to Taiwan in a show of support.

Beijing sees official American contact with Taiwan as encouragement to make the island’s decades-old de facto independence permanent, a step U.S. leaders say they don’t support. Pelosi, D-Calif., was the highest-ranking elected American official to visit the island since Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997. Under the ‘one China’ policy, the U.S. recognizes Beijing as the government of China and doesn’t have diplomatic relations with Taiwan but has maintained that Taipei is an important partner in the Indo-Pacific.

U.S. officials are increasingly worried about China’s long-stated goals of unifying Taiwan with the mainland and the possibility of war over Taiwan. The self-ruled island democracy is claimed by Beijing as part of its territory. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which has governed U.S. relations with the island, does not require the U.S. to step in militarily if China invades but makes it American policy to ensure Taiwan has the resources to defend itself and to prevent any unilateral change of status by Beijing.

The difficult U.S.-China relationship has only become more complicated since Pelosi’s visit.

Last month, President Joe Biden ordered a Chinese spy balloon shot out of the sky after it traversed the continental United States. And the Biden administration in recent weeks has said that U.S. intelligence findings show that China is weighing sending arms to Russia for its ongoing war in Ukraine, but it does not have evidence that suggests Beijing has decided to follow through on supplying Moscow.

The Biden administration postponed a planned visit to Beijing by Secretary of State Antony Blinken following the balloon controversy but has signaled it would like to get such a visit back on track.

The White House on Monday also said officials are in talks with China about possible visits by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo focused on economic matters. Biden has also said he expects to soon hold a call with China’s Xi Jinping.

Kirby said ‘keeping those lines of communication open’ is still valuable.

Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi met in Moscow on Tuesday for a second day of talks, the first face-to-face meeting between the allies since before Russia launched its Ukraine invasion more than a year ago.

The Taiwanese government earlier this month said that Tsai planned stops in New York and Southern California during an upcoming broader international trip.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told Fox Nation’s Piers Morgan he believes Taiwan is a ‘critical interest’ to the U.S., and suggested China was a far greater threat than Russia to America’s ability to lead across the world.

DeSantis, who is mulling a run for the White House in 2024, made the comments during an exclusive interview with Morgan, which will air this week on Fox Nation’s ‘Piers Morgan Uncensored.’

‘And if China did invade Taiwan?’ Morgan asked DeSantis at one point of the interview focused on the global issue facing the U.S.

‘That would be aggression. Absolutely would be aggression,’ DeSantis said, prompting Morgan to ask whether that was something Americans should be involved in.

‘So I would say that Taiwan is a strong ally of the United States. I think that that’s a critical interest. I think it’s for us, but also for our key allies like Japan and South Korea,’ he responded. 

‘And I think overall, the number one issue that we face internationally is checking the growth and the rise of China. They’re much more powerful, I think, than Putin and Russia are, and they really represent the biggest threat that we’ve seen to our ability to lead since the Soviet Union,’ he said.

Concern has been growing over an increasingly powerful China, which has continued to expand its military and strengthen its ties with nations hostile to the U.S. and its allies. Lawmakers and military officials have also grown more concerned over the Chinese threat to Taiwan, with some arguing China has become more emboldened to invade the island nation it sees as part of its territory because of the aggressive action Russia has taken against Ukraine.

Chinese President Xi Jinping ended a three-day visit to Russia on Wednesday, which saw the two nations sign an agreement to expand economic ties. Some have also expressed worry that China could be planning to supply Russia with weapons intended to be used in its war with Ukraine.

Russia has, however, experienced a harder time than many expected in its fight against the Ukrainian military. It was forced to withdraw its armies from around the capital city of Kyiv after failing to capture it during the initial invasion, and instead had to reinforce its soldiers on the southern and eastern fronts that include the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk.

Following its failures on the battlefield, fewer Americans began to see the Russian military as a ‘critical threat’ to the U.S.

After the 2022 midterm election, political observers thought many congressional Republicans would finally abandon former President Donald Trump.

If anything, a pending indictment of the former president seemed to only solidify the resolve of many Republicans to align themselves with Trump. 

After Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., finally secured the House speaker’s gavel on the 15th ballot in a post-witching hour vote, the former president was one of the first people he thanked.

A cadre of House Republicans is now backing investigations into the 2020 election. Others want a probe into the Jan. 6 riot and the treatment of Jan. 6 defendants. The release of additional video footage from Capitol security cameras reignited a debate about what went down that day.

But word that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg may indict the former president really prompted House Republicans to close ranks around Trump.

‘It’s very concerning,’ said Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Texas. ‘I think that Kevin McCarthy will have an investigation on this.’

McCarthy infused the House into the prospective indictment of the former president shortly after Trump suggested that authorities would ‘arrest’ him on Tuesday. McCarthy quickly sent out a tweet asking the House to probe the motivations and potential communications by Bragg.

By Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, demanded answers from Bragg about money spent on a possible prosecution. 

‘The Federal District of New York (said) this wasn’t something they were going to pursue. The previous District Attorney (said) this is something they weren’t going to pursue. And even this District Attorney said (he) wasn’t going to pursue it. And then what happened? President Trump announces he’s running for re-election and, ‘Shazam!’, now we’re going to pursue it,’ thundered Jordan.

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., sought two audiences with Trump in recent days — including a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. Alford’s view of Trump is emblematic of Republicans who stand foursquare behind the former president. 

‘We need the president back behind that Resolute Desk. Who’s going to take control? Who’s going to steer us to greatness?’ asked Alford. ‘I think President Trump is going to do that. I think (the possible indictment) is going to be a minor distraction.’

This is the challenge facing congressional Republicans. How much do they align themselves with Trump for their own political benefit — or even to gin up the base and Trump loyalists? And how much do they try to put distance between themselves and the former president?

Some Republicans concede privately that Trump’s possible legal troubles are bad for the GOP. But few will say much about that publicly. Silence is apparently golden. A Trump prosecution again makes the former president the center of attention. His gravitational political pull remains unmatched, sucking in other political star systems, even if they think it’s better to head the other way.

And so, what is the political universe talking about? Trump and how Bragg may wrong him — even if some Republicans think it’s best to move on.

House Republicans buzzed privately behind closed doors about a possible indictment during their annual policy retreat this week in Orlando, Florida. However, McCarthy tried to downplay the rhubarb about a possible indictment, attempting to steer the conversation to energy production and how he was reforming the House. The speaker lectured reporters when they asked about Trump’s shadow looming over the conference. 

‘I know you have asked me this question several times all during this issues conference. And then you’ll come back (with) ‘It dominates the conference.’ No. We are not talking about this in our conference. You’re just asking about it. So it only dominates your asking,’ he said.

Other Republicans tried to focus on policy, suspecting the Trump saga will blow over — even if most Trump sagas never truly blow over. 

‘This will be the kind of thing that gobbles up the political headlines for a week. Maybe a month. Or maybe longer,’ said Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D. ‘We can be more focused on securing the border. Balancing the budget and getting ready for our strategic competition with China.’ 

A week? A month?

While the former president’s latest legal issue may pose an internal conundrum for Republicans, the GOP knows a possible indictment riles up Trump loyalists and ignites the GOP base. Most Republicans continue to follow the ’12th Commandment’ of Republican politics. Late President Ronald Reagan created what GOPers christened the ’11th Commandment’ during his 1966 campaign for California governor: ‘Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.’ The ’12th Commandment’ for Republicans might be not crossing Trump, lest he excoriate you at a rally or call you ‘Ron DeSanctimonious.’ 

Considering the present political environment, most Republicans are willing to stand behind the former president.

‘If the defendant wasn’t Donald Trump, this wouldn’t be brought by a DA,’ said Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D. ‘I think we understand unfairness. We understand politicization.’

Republicans also converted the latest legal battle facing Trump into a political wedge issue. GOPers often harp on crime problems in big cities run by Democrats. The party targets what it believes are lenient prosecutors who are ‘soft on crime.’ 

The fact that New York, the biggest city in the nation, is run by Democrats and sees spiking crime is a political trifecta for Republicans — to say nothing of their opportunity to target Bragg.

‘We see crimes not being prosecuted not only in New York City, but across the country by progressive prosecutors,’ said House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wisc.

‘You have a highly partisan DA in New York who refuses to prosecute crimes in his own areas but is going after a former President five years past the statute of limitations,’ said De La Cruz.

‘This is just the Manhattan-borough DA,’ said McCarthy, suggesting that Bragg should focus his attention on local issues rather than Trump, who is seeking office again.

‘It is political persecution. It is quite simple that this DA does not want President Trump to be president again,’ said Alford. ‘They’re going to even go after his parking tickets if they can try to disqualify him from becoming president again.’

Republicans also use the possible prosecution to artfully suggest their concern isn’t about the former president.

‘We’re not coming to defend President Trump. What we’re coming to defend is equal justice in America,’ argued McCarthy. 

So Republicans don’t want to talk about the possible indictment of former President Trump. But circumstances forced them to talk about former President Trump. This is exactly what Democrats want — and why many political analysts and some Republicans thought the GOP would finally cut the former president loose after the midterms. Democrats and many middle-of-the-road voters see him as toxic. But the more the GOP discusses the former president, that means they’re talking less about President Biden, the economy or other issues which bedevil Democrats. 

That’s why Democrats generally clam up on this issue.

Reporters asked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., if he had confidence in Bragg. 

‘I think it’s premature to comment on what’s happening, and we’ll have to wait and see what he does,’ said Schumer. 

So for now, Republicans are rallying around Trump. It’s unclear if that’s good politics in the long run, but that’s where the party stands. 

Democrats also hope Republicans remain committed to the former president. They saw how Trump hamstrung Republicans in the midterms.

You need a foil in politics, and Democrats certainly believe they have one in Trump.