Secretary of State Marco Rubio and New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are both hopeful about becoming their party’s presidential nominee in 2028. They both have a shot. Odds-makers place the New York congresswoman second only to California Gov. Gavin Newsom in the race to be the Democratic nominee, while President Trump, asked whether Vice President JD Vance is his chosen successor, has more than once suggested that Rubio is also in the running.

Recently, both spoke at the Munich Security Conference. While Secretary of State Rubio earned well-deserved applause from policymakers at home and abroad for his speech, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez showed she was not ready for prime time — not even close.

In what may prove a preview of the presidential race two years from now, Rubio and Ocasio-Cortez squared off on geopolitics. For Rubio, the occasion was another opportunity to articulate President Trump’s foreign policy vision — one that embraces American leadership powered by a strong military, a forceful trade agenda, energy independence and a robust economy. And, as we have seen, the Trump White House is not shy about using that military.

Trump has also declined to surrender national sovereignty to global treaties such as the Paris Climate Accord or institutions such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization — bodies he has deemed anti-American. In the case of the United Nations, the recent elevation of Abbas Tajik, Iran’s representative to the United Nations, to serve as vice chair of the 65th Session of the Commission for Social Development — a group purportedly ‘tasked with promoting democracy, gender equality, tolerance and non-violence,’ as one critic described it — proves once again the debasement of the institution’s integrity. Iran, which only recently crushed protests and slaughtered tens of thousands of its own innocent, unarmed citizens, should be thrown out of the U.N., not rewarded. And certainly not congratulated by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution — which he did even as his own Human Rights Council passed a resolution condemning the mass murders.

Rubio’s speech was challenging, calling out European allies for succumbing to climate zealotry, encouraging mass migration, exporting industrial self-sufficiency and investing ‘in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves.’ But it was also conciliatory, emphasizing that ‘we are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally,’ and reviewing the many bonds that link the United States and Europe. It was an inspiring call for unity and progress, assuring the appreciative audience that ‘our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours.’

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board described Rubio’s speech as drawn from Ronald Reagan’s playbook, arguing that Trump’s ‘greatest failure as president is that he won’t, or can’t, articulate his larger principles.’ I would argue that Trump is putting those principles into action, coherently and consistently, and that Rubio brilliantly summarized the Trump doctrine.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez delivered remarks at a forum on the sidelines of the Munich conference and reminded us why she should not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Former Vice President Kamala Harris introduced Americans to the magic of word salads — the endless spewing of language that says nothing while helpfully obscuring vast pits of ignorace — but AOC has perfected the art.

Ocasio-Cortez is known as a fierce critic of Israel but otherwise is not known for her geopolitical views, having largely spent her career railing against corporations and the evil rich. But if she wants to run for president, it is important for her to demonstrate some basic foreign policy chops. Hence, the trip to Munich. Unhappily for her, the foray into the world of diplomacy did not go well. Even The New York Times had to admit that she had some ‘shaky moments.’

Asked whether the United States should come to Taiwan’s aid if China attempted to seize the island, Ocasio-Cortez hesitated for several uncomfortable minutes. Even the  description from anti-Trump left-wing Bloomberg, whose reporter had posed the question, said the response was ‘flubbed,’  and wrote: ‘Normally quick to respond, Ocasio-Cortez was at a loss for words, saying, ‘this is such a, a, you know, I think that, this is a, um, this is of course, a, ah, a very longstanding, um, policy of the United States.’’ Hilariously, the piece added that AOC regrouped with what it called a ‘cogent response,’ saying the United States should ‘avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise.’ That’s cogent?

The Times, too, admitted the Munich outing ‘demonstrated the relative foreign policy inexperience of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’, and that she ‘struggled at times to formulate succinct answers’. But the Times excused her incapacity, describing the questions posed as ‘probing and specific.’ Asking her policy vis-à-vis Taiwan is hardly ‘probing’; this issue is, along with our relationship with Israel, fundamental.

Ocasio-Cortez also mixed up the trans-Atlantic partnership, referring to it as the ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership,’ and scoffed at Rubio’s claim that American cowboy culture came from Spain. (It did.) But the corker was another response she gave, enthusiastically endorsed by the Times, about President Trump’s foreign policy, ‘They are looking to withdraw the United States from the entire world so that we can turn into an age of authoritarians that can carve out a world where Donald Trump can command the Western Hemisphere and Latin America as his personal sandbox, where Putin can saber-rattle around Europe.’

Yes, AOC, Trump is withdrawing the U.S. from the ‘entire world’ by trying to end the war between Ukraine and Russia, deliver the people of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba from authoritarian regimes, confront China, protect Christians in Nigeria, strengthen Western defense capabilities and pursue peace in the Middle East. Former President Joe Biden declared that ‘America is back,’ but did nothing to protect our interests around the globe.

Under President Trump, the U.S. is not only ‘back,’ it is also in the lead and moving persuasively forward.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a longtime civil rights leader, two-time Democratic presidential candidate and founder of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, died Tuesday morning at the age of 84, his family said in a statement.

‘It is with profound sadness that we announce the passing of civil rights leader and founder of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Honorable Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson Sr. He died peacefully on Tuesday morning, surrounded by his family,’ the statement said.

‘Our father was a servant leader — not only to our family, but to the oppressed, the voiceless, and the overlooked around the world,’ the Jackson family said. ‘We shared him with the world, and in return, the world became part of our extended family. His unwavering belief in justice, equality, and love uplifted millions.’

A cause of death was not mentioned, but Jackson had suffered from multiple health problems in recent years. In 2017, Jackson revealed that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. He was also treated for progressive supranuclear palsy, a rare degenerative neurological disorder. Despite health setbacks that weakened his voice and mobility, he continued advocating for civil rights and was arrested twice in 2021 while protesting the Senate filibuster rule.

Born Oct. 8, 1941, in Greenville, South Carolina, Jackson grew up in a segregated community. As a teenager, he excelled academically and earned a football scholarship to the University of Illinois before transferring to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College, where he graduated in 1964.

He became involved in civil rights activism as a teenager and was arrested at 18 for participating in a sit-in at a segregated public library. The protest marked the beginning of his rise in the student-led movement challenging segregation across the South.

After graduation, Jackson left his studies at Chicago Theological Seminary to join the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, Alabama, and later became a key figure in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. With King’s support, he led Operation Breadbasket in Chicago, a campaign aimed at expanding economic opportunities for Black Americans.

Jackson was in Memphis in 1968 when King was assassinated. In the years that followed, Jackson founded what became the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, an organization focused on civil rights, voter registration and economic empowerment. Over decades of activism, he received dozens of honorary degrees and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000 by President Bill Clinton.

Jackson ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988. In 1984, he won 18% of the primary vote. His campaign faced controversy over an antisemitic remark he made about New York’s Jewish community.

In 1988, Jackson won nearly 7 million votes — about 29% of the total — and finished first or second in multiple Super Tuesday contests. Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ultimately secured the nomination.

Though he never held elected office, Jackson remained an influential political figure, advocating for expanded voter registration, lobbying for Washington, D.C., statehood, and at times serving as a diplomatic envoy, including efforts to secure the release of Americans held overseas.

In 2001, Jackson publicly acknowledged that he had fathered a daughter, Ashley, with a woman affiliated with his advocacy organization. He later apologized.

Jackson is survived by his wife of more than 60 years, Jacqueline; their children — Santita, Jesse Jr., Jonathan, Yusef and Jacqueline — daughter Ashley Jackson; and grandchildren.

Public observances will be held in Chicago with final funeral arrangements yet to be announced. 

The Senate inched closer to striking a compromise on a Homeland Security (DHS) funding deal as the partial government shutdown entered its fourth day Tuesday.

Whether Senate Democrats and the White House can reach a deal this week while lawmakers are out of town remains an open question.

Negotiations between the Trump administration and Senate Democrats were seemingly at an impasse through much of Monday after little activity over the weekend. The White House provided a counteroffer to Democrats’ list of demands midway through last week, which they summarily rejected and, in turn, blocked attempts to fund DHS.

But that changed when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., office announced that Senate Democrats had sent their counterproposal to the White House late Monday night. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was wary of whether Schumer and his caucus would actually put forth a response, but remained hopeful that negotiations would continue. 

‘We’ll see if they are at all serious about actually getting a solution to this, or whether they just want to play political games with these really important agencies,’ Thune told Fox News Digital. 

He also noted that lawmakers went through the same exercise last year when Senate Democrats slow-walked negotiations during the 43-day shutdown.  

‘It’s wrong, in my view, for Democrats to use these folks as collateral in yet another harmful government shutdown,’ Thune said.

The administration wants to keep the dialogue going, a White House official told Fox News Digital.

‘The Trump administration remains interested in having good-faith conversations with Democrats,’ the White House official said.

The official noted that Senate Democrats’ refusal to extend DHS funding is affecting several key functions under the agency’s umbrella, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Secret Service.

‘President Trump has been clear — he wants the government open,’ the official said.

The partial government shutdown, which went into effect over the weekend, stems from Schumer and Senate Democrats’ demands for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

ICE operations are unlikely to be significantly affected by the lapse in DHS funding, as legislation backed by President Donald Trump allocates billions of dollars to immigration enforcement.

Both sides remain at odds over how far those changes should go. Senate Republicans have signaled willingness to cede some ground but have drawn a red line on certain demands, such as requiring ICE agents to obtain judicial warrants or prohibiting them from wearing face coverings during enforcement actions.

Senate Democrats, however, describe their 10 demands as straightforward reforms designed to ensure federal immigration agents adhere to standards similar to those governing local and state police.

‘There’s not much we need to figure out,’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told Fox News Digital. ‘Either you think ICE agents are special, and they get to own our streets with no accountability, or that ICE agents should follow the same rules as everyone else — that’s all Democrats are asking for.’

Senate Republicans now have enough support within their conference to pass Trump-backed voter ID legislation, but a major hurdle remains.

The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has secured the backing of 50 Senate Republicans, following a pressure campaign by the White House and a cohort of Senate conservatives over the past several weeks.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has led the charge in the upper chamber, ramping up his efforts last week as the bill moved through the House.

Lee told Fox News Digital that he was ‘ecstatic’ about the progress made in shoring up support for the legislation and hoped the Senate would move as quickly as possible to consider it. 

‘I would love to see us turn to it next week, perhaps the day after the State of the Union address,’ Lee said. ‘I think that would be good timing. But I think this needs to get done sooner rather than later.’

That multifaceted campaign — both on social media and behind closed doors in the Senate — proved successful, drawing support from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and several others.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, became the 50th senator to back the bill. That gives Republicans the internal support they need to advance the legislation procedurally, but only if they turn to the standing, or talking, filibuster.

Before leaving Washington, D.C., for a weeklong break last week, Lee and other supporters, including Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rick Scott, R-Fla., pitched the voter ID proposal and potential pathways to pass it to colleagues.

‘We had some good senators stand up and say, ‘No, we got to fight for this,’’ Johnson told Fox News Digital. ‘I’m with them. We need to fight for this.’

Still, the effort faces heavy resistance from Senate Democrats, who are nearly unified in their opposition.

The only potential outlier is Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who has pushed back against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., characterization of the bill as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ but has not said whether he would ultimately support the SAVE America Act.

Despite that possibility, Schumer and most of his caucus plan to block the legislation.

‘We will not let it pass in the Senate,’ Schumer told CNN’s Jake Tapper. ‘We are fighting it tooth and nail.’

Not every Senate Republican is onboard, either. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has announced she will vote against the measure, while Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., have not signed on as co-sponsors.

One option to bypass Democratic opposition would be nuking the filibuster and its 60-vote threshold — a move some congressional Republicans argue has effectively become a ‘zombie filibuster,’ since legislation can be blocked simply by withholding votes rather than holding the floor.

Despite previous pressure from President Donald Trump to eliminate the filibuster, the move does not have the votes among Republicans to succeed — a point Thune underscored last week.

‘There aren’t anywhere close to the votes — not even close — to nuking the filibuster,’ Thune said.

That leaves a return to the standing, or talking, filibuster — the precursor to today’s procedural hurdle. Under that approach, Senate Democrats would be required to hold the floor and publicly debate their opposition, as senators did for decades before the modern filibuster became standard practice.

The idea appears to be gaining traction among some Republicans, though critics warn it could effectively paralyze the upper chamber for days, weeks or even months, depending on Democrats’ resolve.

Lee said that many senators he’s spoken with are open to the idea, and that those who were reluctant didn’t believe it wouldn’t work. 

‘I understand why people might have questions about a procedure that we’re not familiar with,’ Lee said. ‘It doesn’t mean we don’t have to do it, because we do.’

Meanwhile, Trump has suggested he could take matters into his own hands if Congress cannot pass the SAVE America Act.

In a Truth Social post last week, Trump called the legislation a ‘CAN’T MISS FOR RE-ELECTION IN THE MIDTERMS, AND BEYOND.’

‘This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW! If we can’t get it through Congress, there are legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted,’ Trump wrote. ‘I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.’

The State Department’s allegation that China conducted a yield-producing nuclear test in 2020 is reigniting debate in Washington over whether the United States can continue its decades-long moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. 

U.S. officials warned that Beijing may be preparing tests in the ‘hundreds of tons’ range — a scale that underscores China’s accelerating nuclear modernization and complicates efforts to draw Beijing into arms control talks.

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said recently that the United States has evidence China conducted an explosive nuclear test at its Lop Nur site.

‘I can reveal that the U.S. government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons,’ DiNanno said during remarks at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament.

He added that ‘China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22 of 2020.’

DiNanno also accused Beijing of using ‘decoupling’ — detonating devices in ways that dampen seismic signals — to ‘hide its activities from the world.’

China’s foreign ministry has denied the allegations, accusing Washington of politicizing nuclear issues and reiterating that Beijing maintains a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing.

But the accusation has sharpened questions about verification, deterrence and whether the U.S. stockpile stewardship program — which relies on advanced simulations rather than live detonations — remains sufficient in an era of renewed great-power nuclear competition.

Why small nuclear tests are hard to detect

Detecting small underground nuclear tests has long been one of the thorniest problems in arms control.

Unlike the massive atmospheric detonations of the Cold War, modern nuclear tests are conducted deep underground. If a country uses so-called ‘decoupling’ techniques — detonating a device inside a large underground cavity to muffle the seismic shock — the resulting signal can be significantly reduced, making it harder to distinguish from natural seismic activity.

That vulnerability has been debated for decades in discussions over the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which China signed but never ratified. Even a relatively small underground detonation can provide valuable weapons data while remaining difficult to detect.

‘If you detonate a device inside a large underground cavity, you can significantly attenuate the seismic signature,’ said Chuck DeVore, chief national initiatives officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a former Pentagon official. ‘That makes it much harder to detect with confidence.’

Are simulations enough?

China signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996 but has not ratified it, and the treaty has never entered into force. It has maintained a voluntary testing moratorium — a commitment that a yield-producing detonation would contradict.

As China expands its nuclear arsenal and major arms control frameworks falter, the Cold War principle of ‘trust but verify’ is under growing strain.

‘The arms control community should feel thoroughly discredited at this point,’ DeVore said, arguing that policymakers should not assume Western restraint will be reciprocated by Beijing.

For decades, the U.S. has relied on the Stockpile Stewardship Program — advanced computer modeling and simulations — to ensure its weapons remain reliable without explosive testing. DeVore warned that this approach may no longer be sufficient if competitors are conducting live detonations.

‘The question presupposes that we only live in a technical world,’ he told Fox News, arguing that relying solely on simulations while rivals ‘cheat at every treaty they’ve ever signed’ risks leaving the United States behind.

DeVore also pointed to what he described as a growing institutional challenge.

‘Virtually everyone who had direct experience with live testing is now retired,’ he said. ‘Rebuilding that expertise would take years.’

But not all nuclear experts agree that resuming testing is the answer.

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, cautioned that a return to live detonations would be far more complex and costly than critics of the current system suggest.

‘Yield testing isn’t a magic switch,’ Sokolski said. ‘If you want meaningful reliability data, you don’t do one test — you do many.’

He noted that the United States conducted more than 1,000 nuclear tests during the Cold War, building a deep database that now underpins the program. Restarting that process, he argued, would likely require years of preparation and significant funding before yielding strategic benefits.

‘The debate isn’t pro-nuclear weapon versus anti-nuclear weapon,’ Sokolski said. ‘It’s about what’s technically necessary and what’s economical.’

A debate inside the weapons complex

Sokolski said the disagreement extends even within the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.

‘Certainly at one of our major labs that likes using calculations — that’s Livermore — they would say you’re home,’ he said, referring to confidence in advanced simulations and hydrodynamic modeling.

Others place greater weight on empirical validation and preserving the option of live testing.

The dispute, he said, is not ideological but technical — centered on confidence levels, cost and long-term strategic planning.

Allies and the credibility question

The implications extend beyond Washington and Beijing. 

Sokolski warned that the credibility of ‘extended deterrence’ — the U.S. commitment to defend allies under its nuclear umbrella — could come under strain if doubts grow about American resolve or capability.

‘Do they think you’re going to come to their defense?’ Sokolski said. ‘If they don’t, it doesn’t matter how reliable your weapons are, extended deterrence isn’t going to work very well.’

Allies such as Japan and South Korea long have relied on U.S. nuclear guarantees rather than pursuing independent arsenals. Any perception that the balance is shifting could complicate regional stability and long-standing nonproliferation efforts.

The policy crossroads

For now, U.S. lab directors continue to certify that the American arsenal remains safe, secure and reliable without explosive testing. But Heather Williams, director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said sustained testing by competitors — particularly absent transparency — could alter that calculus.

‘If Russia and China continue their nuclear testing activities without providing some sort of transparency, then the technical community might make a different assessment,’ she said.

The debate confronting U.S. policymakers is not simply whether to test, but under what conditions testing would meaningfully strengthen deterrence rather than accelerate competition.

Trump previously has suggested the U.S. should ensure testing ‘on an equal basis’ with competitors, though his administration has not formally announced a policy shift.

Trump in October 2025 suggested the U.S. should consider resuming nuclear weapons testing ‘on an equal basis’ with other powers, and at one point said that if others were testing, ‘I guess we have to test.’ 

The president did not clarify whether he meant full nuclear explosive detonations, which the U.S. has not conducted since 1992,  or other forms of testing such as delivery system evaluations that do not involve nuclear explosions. Any return to explosive testing would represent a significant shift in U.S. policy.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. 

A new report from the far-left Human Rights Campaign shows a remarkable shift: a 65% drop in Fortune 500 companies publicly communicating commitments to diversity and inclusion initiatives. Just a few years ago, corporations raced to outdo one another with ever-expanding DEI pledges. Today, many are quietly stepping back.

This is not a retreat from fairness. It is a return to sanity.

For years, corporate America embraced an ideological experiment that blurred the line between equal opportunity and preferential treatment. What began as a push for broader inclusion morphed into quota-driven mandates, demographic scorecards and internal political signaling exercises that often had little to do with business performance.

Now, the legal system — and increasingly federal regulators — are pushing back.

Consider the recent lawsuit against Starbucks, where Missouri’s attorney general alleged ‘systemic discrimination’ in hiring and promotion practices tied to DEI goals. While a federal judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds, the filing itself signaled growing scrutiny over whether corporate diversity initiatives cross into unlawful discrimination.

Nike is currently facing a federal investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over allegations that certain DEI-related employment practices may have resulted in race-based discrimination against White employees. Whether the agency ultimately finds wrongdoing or not, the investigation underscores a new reality: DEI programs are no longer insulated from legal challenge.

And JPMorgan Chase has been sued over allegations of ‘systemic’ race bias, including claims that the bank conducted ‘fake interviews’ to satisfy internal diversity targets. That allegation — that a company might go through the motions of interviewing candidates solely to hit demographic benchmarks — illustrates how performative compliance can undermine both fairness and trust.

But the scrutiny does not stop at employment law.

In recent weeks, the Federal Trade Commission reportedly sent letters to 42 of the largest and most profitable law firms in the United States, warning that racially discriminatory hiring practices — even if adopted under the banner of DEI — could constitute unfair or anti-competitive conduct. According to reporting, the firms were participating in a program overseen by the Diversity Lab that required at least 30% of leadership candidates to come from underrepresented groups.

That kind of industry-wide coordination raises serious questions.

First, there is the obvious Civil Rights Act concern: employment decisions cannot be made on the basis of race, period. But there is also a broader antitrust dimension. When competitors collectively adopt demographic quotas or coordinated hiring mandates, they may be engaging in collusive conduct — effectively setting industry standards through cooperation rather than competing freely for the best talent.

This theory is not new. Federal antitrust authorities have previously warned climate and ESG coalitions that there is no ‘ESG exception’ to the antitrust laws. As former FTC Chair Lina Khan stated plainly: competitors are not permitted to coordinate with one another simply because the coordination is framed as socially beneficial. The same logic applies here. There is no DEI exception to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

For years, corporate America embraced an ideological experiment that blurred the line between equal opportunity and preferential treatment. 

The implications are enormous.

Retailers such as Nordstrom, Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Ulta and Sephora signed the ‘Fifteen Percent Pledge,’ committing to reserve 15% of shelf space exclusively for Black-owned brands. More than seventy major corporations — including competitors like Nike, Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren and American Eagle — signed the ‘Count Us In’ pledge, coordinating around policies that include funding transgender surgeries for employees and engaging in shared lobbying efforts.

The legal question is no longer just whether these initiatives are politically popular. It is whether they create exposure under antitrust law by reducing competition or creating coordinated market standards among competitors.

Corporate America is beginning to recognize the risk.

Public companies exist to create shareholder value — not to serve as enforcement arms for shifting social movements. When executives adopted DEI mandates that required race-based hiring targets, demographic quotas, or coordinated pledges with competitors, they exposed their companies to multi-front liability: discrimination claims from employees, regulatory investigations, shareholder lawsuits and now potential antitrust scrutiny.

The 65% drop in DEI messaging suggests something important: boards and CEOs are recalibrating.

That recalibration is healthy. 

There is nothing wrong with expanding opportunity, recruiting broadly, or fostering a respectful workplace culture. But the law demands equal treatment — not equal outcomes engineered through quotas or industry collusion. When companies forget that distinction, they risk violating both civil rights statutes and competition laws designed to protect markets.

Markets function best when companies compete — for customers, for innovation, and, yes, for talent. The moment competitors coordinate around hiring mandates or collective pledges, they drift away from competition and toward centralized standard-setting. That is precisely what antitrust law exists to prevent.

The pendulum is swinging back toward merit.

Employees want to know they were hired because of their ability. Shareholders want disciplined capital allocation. Customers want quality products at fair prices. None of those priorities require demographic quotas or public virtue declarations.

The retrenchment we are witnessing is not an attack on diversity. It is a rejection of coercion and coordination masquerading as virtue. It is a reminder that equal opportunity under the law applies to everyone — White, Black, male, female — and that industry competitors are not allowed to suspend antitrust principles simply because the goal sounds noble.

Corporate America is finally rediscovering a simple truth: treat people equally, compete vigorously, and let merit determine outcomes.

That is not only legally sound. It is economically sound. And it is long overdue.

Taiwan’s foreign minister says China has ‘clearly become a troublemaker that is maliciously attempting to disrupt the cross-strait status quo and intimidate peaceful countries.’

In exclusive comments to Fox News Digital, Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung said China’s intensifying ‘authoritarian expansionism not only directly threatens Taiwan’s security and democratic system but also poses significant challenges to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world.’

‘Last June,’ Lin said, ‘[Chinese] aircraft carriers Liaoning and Shandong maneuvered beyond the second island chain, marking China’s first simultaneous, dual-carrier deployment into the Western Pacific. These developments demonstrate that Beijing’s expansionist ambitions extend far beyond Taiwan and pose an increasingly serious threat to the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific region and the world.’

Communist China was founded in 1949 and has not ruled Taiwan for a single day. Officially known as the Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan is currently recognized by eleven small countries, plus the Holy See. Beijing nonetheless rejects the reality of nearly 80 years of separate rule, describing Taiwan as a ‘sacred and inseparable part of China’s territory.’

China’s posture toward independently ruled Taiwan has hardened in recent years as President Xi Jinping removed term limits and consolidated near-total power. While earlier Chinese statements included talk of ‘peaceful unification,’ Beijing now openly threatens to use force. 

In 2024, Xi directed the Chinese military to complete preparations for a Taiwan operation by 2027. Most defense analysts agree that an invasion would be costly, bloody and highly risky for China, Taiwan and any countries that come to Taiwan’s aid, such as the United States or Japan.

Lin echoed those warnings that a conflict in the Taiwan Strait would reverberate worldwide. ‘Peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait are vital to global security and prosperity,’ Lin said, noting that approximately 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors are produced in Taiwan and that roughly 50% of global commercial shipping passes through the strait. He added that Taiwan is grateful to the United States and other partners for resisting China’s efforts to unilaterally alter the status quo.

The foreign minister said Taiwan’s central role in geopolitics, technology and supply chains ensures that Washington places a high priority on cross-strait stability. He said U.S. policymakers understand that Taiwan’s semiconductor industry and related supply chains are critical to American economic security.

‘There is clear strategic continuity between the policies of President Trump’s first and second terms,’ said Lin, adding that Taiwan’s government will seek ways to coordinate with the United States ‘through values-based, alliance and economic diplomacy.’

Commenting on Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy, Lin said, ‘The Trump administration and U.S. Congress continue to demonstrate a steadfast commitment to safeguarding peace and security across the Indo-Pacific region,’ Lin said, ‘which was emphasized in the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS).’ The foreign minister also noted that ‘the recent NSS released by the Trump administration underscored Taiwan’s geopolitical importance as a link between the Northeast and Southeast Asian theaters.’

Lin said Taiwan is working to rebalance trade with the United States while strengthening strategic cooperation on AI. ‘The Trump administration’s AI Action Plan,’ he said, ‘underscores the importance of innovation, infrastructure and international cooperation for AI development.’ 

He also touted Taiwan’s growing investments in the U.S., including a $165 billion commitment by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) in Arizona, and said Taipei is working to make it easier for Taiwanese companies trying to invest in the U.S.. ‘Against the backdrop of U.S.-China strategic competition and the restructuring of global supply chains,’ said Lin, ‘Taiwan’s enterprises understand the remarkable potential of investing in the United States.’

The foreign minister said Taiwan appreciates increasing American military support, highlighting that ‘Last December, the United States approved an arms sales package to Taiwan totaling $11 billion as well as signing the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. These measures underscore the firm bipartisan support for Taiwan in the U.S. government.’

But he stressed that Taiwan is accelerating its own defense investments. ‘Last year, [Taiwan] President Lai Ching-te announced that Taiwan’s defense budget would increase to over 3% of GDP by 2026 and rise to 5% by 2030,’ he said. While parts of that plan have faced resistance in the opposition-led legislature, both major parties have publicly backed closer security cooperation with the United States and a stronger deterrence posture.