Only 1 in 5 Americans support US effort to acquire Greenland, poll finds
A new poll found that only one in five American adults approve of the Trump administration’s efforts to acquire Greenland. Just 17% of those surveyed in the Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this week said they were in favor of U.S. actions to take over the Danish territory. The survey showed 40% of Republicans said they approved of U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland, compared to 2% of Democrats. Both sides were in closer agreement in their opposition to using U.S. military force to seize Greenland. A total of 71% of adults said it would not be a good idea for the U.S. to do so, including 60% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment. HOUSE SPEAKER JOHNSON: ‘NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND’ FOR TRUMP’S GREENLAND ACQUISITION PLANS AMID MILITARY SPECULATION The Reuters/Ipsos poll also found that 66% of American adults believe U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland could hurt relations with NATO and European countries. The poll of 1,217 adults was conducted online from Jan. 12–13, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points for all adults, according to Reuters. President Donald Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday that, “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security.” TRUMP’S GREENLAND PUSH ESCALATES AS GOP LAWMAKER MOVES TO MAKE IT AMERICA’S 51ST STATE “It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it,” Trump continued. “NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES,” he added. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt are meeting Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance at the White House on Wednesday morning. On Tuesday, Greenland’s prime minister declared that, “we choose Denmark,” if it had to decide between remaining a Danish territory or becoming part of the United States.
Hawley expects ‘Trojan Horse’ hearing to reveal dozens of terror-linked Afghan parolees in US
FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said a Senate hearing Wednesday will expose how the Biden administration’s Afghan refugee program allowed scores of individuals with alleged terrorist ties to enter the United States — failures he argues put American lives at risk. “I think we’re going to see tomorrow that pro-Hamas groups, pro-terrorist groups actually got money from the Biden administration to shepherd these parolees. It is a scandal. It’s outrageous,” Hawley told Fox News Digital on Wednesday. BIDEN OFFICIALS GO SILENT WHEN ASKED ABOUT AFGHAN REFUGEE PROGRAM AFTER GUARDSMEN SHOOTING “We’ve got to figure out how many people are here with national security concerns. And I can tell you, I think we’re going to hear testimony tomorrow that there are over 50 folks known in the country with terrorist ties who had hits on terrorist databases and were allowed to come into the country. I mean, over 50,” Hawley said. The Senate hearing is titled, “Biden’s Afghan parolee program — a Trojan Horse with flawed vetting and deadly consequences.” The hearing comes after an Afghan national shot a pair of National Guard members in Washington, D.C., in November, killing one and leaving the other in critical condition. The attack, which the FBI labeled an act of terrorism, raised questions among Republicans like Hawley about whether the administration had done enough to ensure the United States had screened the people it was attempting to help. According to reporting from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. welcomed 76,000 evacuees during its Operation Allies Welcome in 2021, a directive from Biden to resettle vulnerable Afghans. But other experts believe the number of total refugees goes much higher. The Biden administration allowed more than 200,000 Afghan nationals into the country as the U.S. wound down nearly 20 years of military presence in Afghanistan, according to the conservative think tank Center for Immigration Studies. The failed attempt to prevent the Taliban from returning to power left many key American allies in the country worried that they could suffer retribution from a new government hostile to the U.S. SEN TOM COTTON: ALLEGED AFGHAN ATTACK ON GUARDSMEN WAS PREVENTABLE. WE MUST DO BETTER NEXT TIME According to Nayla Rush, a senior researcher with the Center for Immigration Studies, the administration had paid little attention to admitting the Afghans who had assisted the U.S. in their time in Afghanistan — and those who hadn’t. “They were not U.S. ‘allies,’ nor were they ‘persecuted’ individuals in need of refugee resettlement. Lacking immigrant visas, they were granted ‘parole,’ a temporary permission to enter and remain in the United States,” Rush wrote in a report released in December. Although Hawley noted that the U.S. had received assistance from some of them, he said the government neglected its primary responsibility to protect its citizens by fast-tracking their admission to the country. “Nobody has a right to come into this country. If you’re not an American citizen, you have no right to come into the country and just do whatever the heck you want on any basis,” Hawley said. “We have an obligation to protect the country. And so, we ask when we come into the country, ‘Who are you?’ ‘Do you have terrorist ties?’ This is why we do interviews. And none of that happened. None of that happened with tens of thousands of [Afghans.] And listen, now we’re suffering the consequences of that.” SENATE REPUBLICANS LAUNCH INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN IMMIGRATION PROGRAMS AFTER DC NATIONAL GUARD SHOOTING In addition to Rush, the committee will entertain testimony from several other immigration experts, including Craig Adelman, the deputy inspector general at the DHS office of audits, and Arne Baker, deputy inspector general for evaluations at the Department of War. The committee is slated to begin its hearing at 2:00 p.m. EST. Fox News’ Dan Scully contributed to this report.
Trump issues stern warning to NATO ahead of Vance’s high-stakes Greenland meeting
President Donald Trump sent a warning to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ahead of Vice President JD Vance’s high-stakes meeting with Danish and Greenlandic officials. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Wednesday. He added that the acquisition was “vital for the Golden Dome that we are building.” The “Golden Dome” is a cutting-edge missile defense system meant to intercept threats targeting the American homeland, similar to the Iron Dome used in Israel. “NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent — not even close! They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES. Anything less than that is unacceptable,” Trump added. JOHNSON: ‘NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND’ FOR TRUMP’S GREENLAND ACQUISITION PLANS AMID MILITARY SPECULATION Trump and his administration’s push for the U.S. to acquire Greenland has caused tension with NATO allies who assert that the semiautonomous Danish territory should determine its own future. The post comes ahead of Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s meeting with the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers at the White House on Wednesday morning. Vance and Rubio will be meeting with Denmark’s foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt. WHITE HOUSE SAYS ‘RANGE OF OPTIONS,’ INCLUDING US MILITARY, ON TABLE AS TRUMP RENEWS PUSH TO ACQUIRE GREENLAND In a follow-up post on Truth Social on Wednesday morning, Trump shared a report by Just The News stating that the Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) issued a warning regarding Russian and Chinese military ambitions toward and expansion around Greenland in a recent assessment. “NATO: Tell Denmark to get them out of here, NOW! Two dogsleds won’t do it! Only the USA can!!!” Trump wrote. “Danish intel warned last year about Russian and Chinese military goals toward Greenland and Arctic.” “In recent years, the United States has significantly increased its security policy focus on the Arctic, while Russia continues its military build-up, and China continues to develop its capacity to operate both submarines and surface vessels in the region,” DDIS reportedly said in its Intelligence Outlook 2025. The DDIS noted that, “Neither the war in Ukraine nor the increased US focus on Greenland and the Arctic has altered Russia’s long-term interests and objectives in the region.” Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen told a news conference in Copenhagen on Tuesday that “if we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark. We choose NATO. We choose the Kingdom of Denmark. We choose the EU,” the AP reported. Trump later responded to Nielsen, saying “I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. I don’t know anything about him. But, that’s going to be a big problem for him,” according to the AP. Vance’s office and the Embassy of Denmark in the U.S. did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
House GOP launches probe into alleged climate group influence on federal judges
FIRST ON FOX: The House Judiciary Committee has opened an investigation into whether a climate law group is improperly influencing federal judges on environment-related cases. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the panel’s subcommittee on Courts, sent four letters to varying judicial groups and lawyers asking for more information on communications with the Environmental Law Institute. “The Committee on the Judiciary is investigating allegations of improper attempts by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) to influence federal judges. Public reports have documented concerns around apparent efforts by ELI and CJP to influence judges who potentially may be presiding over lawsuits related to alleged climate change claims,” the letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS) read. “These efforts appear to have the underlying goal of predisposing federal judges in favor of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the manufacturing, marketing, use, or sale of fossil-fuel products.” TOP ENERGY GROUP CALLS FOR PROBE INTO SECRETIVE ‘NATIONAL LAWFARE CAMPAIGN’ TO INFLUENCE JUDGES ON CLIMATE Jordan and Issa argued that existing JCUS policy acknowledged risks of allowing privately funded education programs to distribute material to courts, but that its policy was also “leaving the door open for groups like ELI and CJP to exert influence through program content and contact between judges and those who litigate before them.” A separate letter to David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, alleged that “evidence has emerged that raises questions about whether ELI, CJP, or one or more of its ‘experts’ coordinated with you on judicial training materials while you simultaneously litigated climate-related cases pending before federal courts.” Jordan and Issa charged that Bookbinder had “pre-publication access and provided peer review” for documents prepared for ELI while he was representing the Boulder County, Colo., Board of County Commissioners in a climate change-related lawsuit. They noted that he’s no longer the board’s lawyer, however. JIM JORDAN PRESSED TO SUBPOENA CLIMATE GROUP ACCUSED OF ‘JUDICIAL MANIPULATION’ “In other words, this document seems to suggest that at the same time you were representing a private party in climate-related litigation, you were also helping to develop climate-related training materials for federal (and state) judges,” the letter said. A third letter to the Federal Judicial Center noted that while both climate groups say they provide impartial information for judges, Republicans believe those materials “appear to be designed to bias judges in climate-related cases.” “The materials that ELI and CJP used at judicial seminars are generally not made public, which itself is a cause for concern,” the third letter said. “The limited portions of CJP’s ‘Climate Science and Law for Judges Curriculum’ that are publicly available seem designed to improperly influence judges in favor of plaintiffs.” ELI is a nonprofit promoting climate science-based policy across academic, public, and legal spheres. CJP is a project within ELI specifically aimed at creating curricula for “judicial education,” according to its website. Fox News Digital reached out to ELI and the four letter recipients for comment.
Supreme Court says Illinois congressman can sue over state mail-in voting laws
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that federal candidates have the right to challenge state election laws that govern the counting of ballots in their states, clearing the way for an expected flurry of new lawsuits in the run-up to this year’s midterm elections. Justices ruled 7-2 that candidates running for federal office have the standing to sue state election boards over their counting of ballots — including challenging laws that allow for the counting of late-arriving mail-in ballots. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The ruling from the high court is expected to be hailed as a victory for Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, and comes as the high court is slated to consider a case more directly involving mail-in ballots later this year. INSIDE THE SCOTUS HEARING BOUND TO BE TURNING POINT IN CULTURE WAR OVER TRANS ATHLETES IN WOMEN’S SPORTS At issue in the case is a lawsuit Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.), filed against the Illinois State Board of Elections in 2022 over its mail-in ballot policy, which allows for the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day. READ THE SUPREME COURT OPINION – APP USERS, CLICK HERE: A U.S. district court had originally concluded that Bost, who won the election, lacked the standing under Article III to challenge the election law. Federal courts require candidates to show that they have been individually harmed by the law. SWING STATE’S SUPREME COURT ISSUES PIVOTAL RULING ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS SENT WITHOUT POSTMARK That ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, prompting Bost to appeal the case to the Supreme Court for intervention. Bost and Republican plaintiffs urged the high court during oral arguments to allow candidates to sue even in cases where they cannot cite an individual grievance, or that the voting procedure caused them “concrete and particularized injury in fact.” Bost’s lawyer Paul Clement urged the Supreme Court to also allow plaintiffs to consider broader, more general grievances that expand their view of “harm.” Candidates, he said, are not “mere bystanders” in an federal election. Clement noted they spend “untold time and energy” on their campaigns, thus adding untold additional amounts of money needed to cover the 14-day time period. “If the campaign is going to be two weeks longer, you’ve got to keep the campaign staff together for two weeks longer, and that’s going to be more expensive,” he said. JUSTICE ALITO PINS DOWN LAWYER WHO WON’T DEFINE BOYS, GIRLS IN COURT Clement told the high court that preventing the case from moving forward risked turning “federal courts into federal prognosticators.” Though the ruling itself is somewhat narrow, it comes as the Supreme Court is slated to other, more consequential cases this year — including a case centered squarely on the issue of mail-in voting. That case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, which centers on states’ ability to count mail-in ballots that are received within five days of an election. The RNC and state GOP have argued that these laws break with federal voting laws — a point vehemently disputed by other states and the DNC, which noted the widespread use of mail-in votes across the country, and the fact that similar laws are in place in some 31 states, including the District of Columbia.
Voters sharply split along party lines over ICE agent’s fatal shooting: poll
One week after video of a fatal shooting of a Minnesota woman by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent went viral, sparking protests and a national debate, a new poll shows a wide partisan split over whether the shooting was justified. Fifty-three percent of registered voters nationwide questioned in a Quinnipiac University survey said they think the shooting was not justified, with 35% saying it was and 12% offering no opinion. While 92% of Democrats surveyed said the shooting was not justified, more than three-quarters of Republicans (77%) said it was. Independents, by a 59%-28% margin, said the shooting was not justified. An ICE agent shot and killed the 37-year-old Renee Good last Wednesday during a federal enforcement operation in south Minneapolis. Federal officials have said agents were attempting to make arrests when the woman tried to use her vehicle as a weapon against officers, prompting an ICE agent to fire in self-defense. NEW VIDEO SHOWS MINUTES LEADING UP TO DEADLY MINNEAPOLIS ICE SHOOTING President Donald Trump and leading members of his administration have strongly defended the shooting. TRUMP PLEDGES TO UNCOVER LEFTIST GROUPS COUNTERING ICE But top Democrats, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, criticized the federal account of the incident and rejected the claim that the officer acted in self-defense. Minnesota has since sued the Trump administration, claiming the immigration enforcement surge in the state is “unlawful” and “unprecedented.” Good’s death sparked widespread protests in Minneapolis and across the nation, with demonstrators calling for changes to federal immigration enforcement. According to the Quinnipiac poll, which was conducted Thursday through Monday and released on Tuesday, 82% said they have seen video of the shooting. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ARGUES ‘NO BASIS’ FOR CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION INTO ICE SHOOTING Men questioned in the survey were divided, with 42% saying the shooting was justified and 44% disagreeing. Sixty-one percent of women surveyed said the shooting was not justified. Four in 10 said they approve of the way ICE is enforcing immigration laws, while 57% gave the agency a thumbs down on how it’s handling its job. That was largely unchanged since Quinnipiac University’s poll from last July. Quinnipiac questioned 1,133 self-identified registered voters in their new survey, which had an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. Fox News’ Greg Wehner contributed to this report.
Iran protests LIVE: Tehran says Trump encouraging political destabilisation
blinking-dotLive updatesLive updates, Iran says US seeking to ‘manufacture a pretext for military intervention’, as US President Trump warns of ‘strong action’ over protest crackdown. Published On 14 Jan 202614 Jan 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share Adblock test (Why?)
US senators introduce bill to stop Trump seizing Greenland
The bipartisan bill would bar funding for any move to occupy or annex the territory of a NATO member state. US senators have introduced a bill aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from seizing NATO territory, including the self-governing Danish island of Greenland. The bipartisan NATO Unity Protection Act introduced on Tuesday would bar the Department of Defense and Department of State from using funds to “blockade, occupy, annex or otherwise assert control” over the territory of any NATO member state. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list The bill, authored by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Lisa Murkowski, comes amid growing concerns over Trump’s repeated insistence that Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, must be brought under Washington’s control, using force if necessary. “This bipartisan legislation makes clear that US taxpayer dollars cannot be used for actions that would fracture NATO and violate our own commitments to NATO,” said Shaheen, who represents the state of New Hampshire, in a statement. “This bill sends a clear message that recent rhetoric around Greenland deeply undermines America’s own national security interests and faces bipartisan opposition in Congress,” the Democratic senator said. Murkowski, a rare Republican critic of Trump who represents Alaska, said the 32-member NATO security alliance was the “strongest line of defence” against efforts to undermine global peace and stability. “The mere notion that America would use our vast resources against our allies is deeply troubling and must be wholly rejected by Congress in statute,” Murkowski said. Trump’s threats to take control of Greenland have alarmed Washington’s European allies and prompted warnings about the end of NATO, which is built on the principle that an armed attack against any one member is considered an attack against all. Advertisement Trump, who claims that control of the vast Arctic territory is crucial to US national security, has brushed aside concerns about splitting the alliance, which has been a cornerstone of the Western-led security order since the end of World War II. Trump has also claimed that China or Russia would take control of Greenland, which is home to vast reserves of fossil fuels and critical minerals, if the US does not. “I’d love to make a deal with them. It’s easier,” Trump said on Sunday of his plans for the territory. “But one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.” In a rebuke to Trump, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, on Tuesday offered some of their most forceful comments yet in defence of Copenhagen’s sovereignty over the territory. “If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Nielsen said at a joint news conference in Copenhagen. “We choose NATO. We choose the Kingdom of Denmark. We choose the EU,” he said. Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs Lars Lokke Rasmussen and his counterpart in Greenland, Vivian Motzfeldt, are on Wednesday set to meet with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Vice President JD Vance in Washington, DC, for talks on the escalating crisis. A bipartisan delegation of US lawmakers, including Democratic Senator Chris Coons and Republican Senator Thom Tillis, is set to arrive in Denmark on Friday for talks with local officials. The vast majority of Greenland’s 57,000 residents have expressed opposition to US control of the territory, according to polling. In a survey commissioned by the Danish paper Berlingske last year, 85 percent of residents said they did not wish to join the US, with just 6 percent in favour. Adblock test (Why?)
Venezuela’s top lawmaker says more than 400 prisoners have been released
The announcement contradicts claims from local rights groups that no more than 70 prisoners have been freed in recent days. Published On 14 Jan 202614 Jan 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share Venezuela’s top lawmaker says more than 400 people have been freed from prison, contradicting claims from rights groups that only between 60 to 70 prisoners have been released in recent days, amid calls for freeing those imprisoned for political reasons. Jorge Rodriguez, the president of the National Assembly, made the announcement during a parliamentary session on Tuesday. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list “The decision to release some prisoners, not political prisoners, but some politicians who had broken the law and violated the Constitution, people who called for invasion, was granted,” Rodriguez told parliament. He said more than 400 prisoners had been released, but did not provide a specific timeline. Both Rodriguez and United States President Donald Trump have said that large numbers of prisoners would be freed as a peace gesture following the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3 by US forces. The release of political prisoners in Venezuela has been a long-running call of rights groups, international bodies and opposition figures. The Venezuelan government has always denied that it holds people for political reasons and has said it has already released most of the 2,000 people detained after protests over the contested 2024 presidential election. Human rights groups estimated there are 800 to 1,200 political prisoners in Venezuela and have said that the number of prisoners freed since last week ranges between 60 and 70, and have denounced the slow pace and lack of information surrounding the releases. Advertisement Bloomberg News has reported that at least one US citizen was released from prison on Tuesday. Venezuela’s Ministry of Penitentiary Services said that at least 116 prisoners were released on Monday. US to control Venezuela’s oil resources Opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado has been one of the leading voices demanding the release of prisoners, some of whom are her close allies. She is expected to meet with Trump on Thursday in Washington, DC. On the same day, acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez plans to send an envoy to the US capital to meet with senior officials, Bloomberg News reported. Meanwhile, the US is continuing to take control of oil shipments in and out of Venezuela following its abduction of Maduro. The US government has filed for court warrants to seize dozens more tanker vessels linked to the Venezuelan oil trade, according to a Reuters report. The US military and coastguard have already seized five vessels in recent weeks in international waters, which were either carrying Venezuelan oil or had done so in the past. Trump imposed a naval blockade on Venezuela to prevent US-sanctioned tankers from shipping Venezuelan oil in December, a move that brought the country’s oil exports close to a standstill. Shipments have now resumed under US supervision, and, as the Trump administration says, it plans to control Venezuela’s oil resources indefinitely. Adblock test (Why?)
Australia puts India in ‘highest-risk’ category for student visas: What does it mean?
The changes came into effect on 8 January, with an official statement saying: “This change in Evidence Levels will assist with the effective management of emerging integrity issues, while continuing to facilitate genuine students seeking a quality education in Australia.”