Fox News RSS Feed

President Donald Trump paused planned U.S. strikes on Iran just hours before a self-imposed deadline, citing diplomatic progress that Tehran immediately denied, even as U.S. forces continued moving into position, a split signal that leaves the next move uncertain.

The move creates a narrow five-day window in which the administration is signaling diplomacy while preserving the ability to strike, raising the stakes for whether talks materialize — or whether the delay simply sets up near-term escalation.

The abrupt shift follows a weekend ultimatum in which Trump warned the U.S. would begin targeting Iran’s power infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz was not reopened, a threat that rattled global oil markets and heightened fears of imminent conflict.

By Monday morning, however, Trump announced a five-day delay, pointing to what he described as "very good and productive conversations" tied to a broader framework that includes nuclear disarmament.

TRUMP’S MIDDLE EAST ENVOY REVEALS WHAT LED TO BREAKDOWN IN IRAN TALKS BEFORE OPERATION EPIC FURY

The rapid shift from ultimatum to pause in less than 48 hours resets the clock, opening a five-day window for diplomacy before a decision on strikes.

The whiplash shift, from strike threat to sudden pause, adds to the uncertainty around Washington’s next move.

The White House and the Iranian mission to the United Nations could not immediately be reached for comment.

Iranian officials quickly rejected the claim that negotiations were underway, dismissing Trump’s comments as "psychological warfare" and accusing Washington of using the appearance of diplomacy to buy time.

Even as the White House points to diplomacy, the Pentagon has continued to expand its military footprint in the region.

In recent days, thousands of U.S. Marines have been deployed aboard amphibious warships, adding rapid-strike and ground-operation capabilities near Iran, with additional naval assets positioned to support escalation if ordered.

The posture suggests the United States is maintaining, and in some cases increasing, its readiness to act, even as Trump signals a potential opening for negotiations.

TRUMP DELAYS XI MEETING AS IRAN CONFLICT LETS US STRONG-ARM CHINA’S OIL SUPPLY

Iranian officials argue the two tracks are linked.

Tehran has accused Washington of using talk of diplomacy to influence oil markets and buy time for military repositioning, deepening uncertainty over whether the pause reflects a genuine diplomatic opening or a temporary delay before further action.

The dual-track approach is also being echoed by key U.S. allies.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that Trump sees "an opportunity to leverage the substantial achievements" of recent military operations to advance war objectives through a potential agreement.

"At the same time, we continue to strike both in Iran and in Lebanon," Netanyahu said.

Some analysts say the approach reflects a strategy of applying military pressure while testing whether diplomacy produces concessions.

"I think that there’s definitely a method to the president’s decision-making here," Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, told Fox News Digital. 

"He is testing to see what concessions the Iranian regime would be prepared to make," Brodsky said. "The president can be testing diplomacy. The president can also be buying time. … All these things can be true at the same time. It’s not either-or." 

Still, Brodsky expressed skepticism that the current moment will produce a breakthrough. 

"I remain skeptical that we’re anywhere near a point where the Iranian regime will make significant concessions," he said.

With the five-day window now underway, attention is shifting to what comes next.

If negotiations fail to materialize, the administration could move forward with the strikes it has already threatened or escalate to a ground operation — with forces now in position to carry them out. If talks do take shape, the pause could mark the start of a broader diplomatic effort.

A central unresolved issue is Iran’s nuclear stockpile, which Trump and Israeli officials have signaled remains a key objective of the operation. Securing or neutralizing highly enriched uranium could prove critical in determining whether the conflict moves toward a diplomatic resolution or further military action.

In the coming days, key indicators will include whether any indirect talks emerge through intermediaries, whether U.S. force posture continues to expand, and whether Iran takes steps to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or signals willingness to negotiate.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/3bM5zY9
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

We call it "Trumpism" for short, the collection of positions, policies and preferences embraced by the president of the United States.

But does all this amount to a coherent philosophy that can be carried out by future Republicans once Donald Trump is no longer in office?

And where does that leave conservatism? Trump never pretended to be a classic conservative, which deeply divided the movement.

There are those who quietly abandoned their previous views and have backed virtually everything Trump does, from tariffs to deportations to the war in Iran.

CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST SAYS DONALD TRUMP HAS LOST THE COUNTRY. IT’S COMPLICATED.

And there are those who renounced Trump from the start, who believe he betrayed conservatives – and who tend to have prime spots in cable commentary, so shows can boast they have Republican pundits (who happen to hate Trump).

Some on the right bring a fierceness that eclipses the attacks by liberal critics. Former Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker, a Fox News contributor, said yesterday after the Iranians denied having talks with the White House that the "unsettling reality" is Americans have to "suspect that the enemy’s version of events is more likely to be true than our own. We have become Baghdad Bob."

Talking to reporters before leaving Palm Beach yesterday, Trump said: "My life is a deal. That’s all I do is deals." 

WHY TRUMP IS DENOUNCING THE MEDIA’S IRAN WAR COVERAGE AS TOO NEGATIVE – BOOSTED BY RHETORICAL FCC BACKING

The context was what he insisted were the negotiations with Iran, but the declaration certainly applies to his business pursuits and political career.

I’ve known Trump since 1987, and I can tell you that he basically does whatever works in the moment. If that is inconsistent with his position the previous day or week or month, so be it. Let the pontificators argue about that. 

Trump is immune to corrosive criticism about flip-flops because he views every day as a clean slate, in which his allies may be those he once furiously criticized and his enemies may be former loyalists.

For instance, the president’s first-term position, backed by Congress, was that TikTok was a threat to national security because of its Chinese ownership, and should be banned unless it was sold to an American company.

When I asked him about this before the election, Trump, whose campaign greatly benefited from its use of TikTok, said he was no longer in favor of a ban. This, he said, was because removing TikTok would help Facebook, and he deemed Mark Zuckerberg’s empire more of a threat.

Not a terribly convincing explanation, but with the president, that was then, this is now.

AS AMERICA TURNS 250, TRUMP SHOULD RESTORE WASHINGTON, DC'S ORIGINAL BORDERS

For what it’s worth, a deal was finally reached this year to sell the hugely popular app to a joint venture in which American investors have majority control.

The hot media debate right now is what comes after Trump, and whether future Republicans – JD Vance, Marco Rubio, whoever – must follow his blueprint. This is especially resonant because the America First candidate who crusaded against foreign wars radically changed his approach by attacking Iran.   

Atlantic contributor Pete Wehner, whose specialty is Christian ethics, says that in 2016 he was a lifelong Republican who had served under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

He said in a New York Times op-ed that Trump "would threaten the future of the Republican Party," that he "sought to cultivate and encourage the ugliest passions within the GOP, dousing the embers of hate with kerosene."

Among Republicans, including evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, the president "rewired their moral circuitry… And in the process, he killed American conservatism. MAGA is not just antithetical to conservatism; it is at war with it."

But look at Trump’s record. He sealed the southern border which was utterly porous under Joe Biden. He launched a mass deportation program aimed at illegal immigrants, a major target on the right. He cut taxes, and if most benefits went to the affluent, that’s what Republicans have always done. He slashed regulations at such places as the EPA. He reduced the size of the federal government by at least 300,000 jobs, or 10 percent, despite the mixed record of DOGE. And he was responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade.

Aren’t all these things, from easing tax burdens to restricting abortion to shrinking government, in line with conservative principles?

That’s not to say all these initiatives were handled well – look at the excesses of ICE and the killing of two Americans – or that they were wise decisions. But they’re not exactly at war with the conservative agenda of yore. 

TOP TSA WATCHDOG BACKS TRUMP’S ICE AIRPORT MOVE AS SHUTDOWN SNARLS TRAVEL

And then there’s all the other stuff, some of it breaking with fiscal orthodoxy, including the vow to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Wehner concedes that many Republicans voted for Trump because they were struggling economically (and, I would add, felt marginalized by the mainstream culture).  He twists the knife by saying "at the core of the MAGA project and Trumpism is disruption and destruction, the delegitimization and razing of institutions, and the brutalization of opponents… The MAGA movement represents the betrayal of the temperamental tradition of conservatism" and "the disfigurement of the Republican Party."

Jonah Goldberg, co-founder of the Dispatch, which has had success as a conservative, anti-Trump site, scoffs at such pointy-headed analysis.

"Trump has no ‘ideology,’" Goldberg writes. "He does have a few ideas. Off the top of my head: take the oil, tariffs are economic Viagra, strength good, never apologize, women won’t resist celebrities when they grab them by their privates, ‘good genes’ matter a lot, allies are whiny b----es, a bunch of romantic convictions about the supremacy of his instincts…"

He says these "gut impulses" and "sentiments" could be turned into an ideology. "But constructing an actual ideology requires thinking about how your various commitments might conflict, where the trade-offs are, what the edge cases might be, etc."

To Jonah, it’s a matter of psychology. "But Trumpism is not just about Trump’s psychology, it’s the psychology of many of his supporters. If Trump is for it, it must be right."

JOHN FETTERMAN SAYS TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME IS THE 'LEADER' OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

I’d just note that our politics is so polarized that many liberals engage in similar behavior, demonizing opponents, spouting the party line and never giving the other side a scintilla of credit. 

Iran has been the world’s leading terror state since 1979, but while raising questions about congressional approval, nearly all Democrats won’t say anything positive about the attack on Iran.

Chuck Schumer, on "Morning Joe" yesterday, repeatedly refused to acknowledge to Joe Scarborough that the U.S. decimating Iran’s military was a good thing. He just kept deflecting.

One notable dissenter, John Fetterman, told CBS that what the president has accomplished in Iran is "remarkable." And the senator said on a podcast that "our party is governed by TDS," Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Of course, Democrats don’t seem as wedded to one ideology because of undeniable splits over Israel, over pronouns, over transgender issues, over the old defund-the-police rhetoric, running the gamut from more moderate lawmakers to the Squad. What’s more, they don’t have a leader ready to denounce them and endorse primary opponents, so there’s little penalty for going off the reservation.

Gavin Newsom, a man of the left, has problems with progressives in his party because he has fought labor initiatives, backed housing deregulation, vetoed a bill allowing colleges to favor descendants of slaves, and opposes trans women playing in men’s sports.

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

There’s no single answer to the future legacy of Trumpism. That depends on the president’s popularity, and the economic picture, and how Iran is viewed, in 2028. Trump the dealmaker is a singular figure, impossible to imitate.

But one thing is certain: the Republican Party will never return to the green-eyeshade stinginess of Paul Ryan, the compassionate conservatism of Bush 43, the NATO embrace of Bush 41, or the bipartisan chumminess of Ronald Reagan with Tip O’Neill. 

The next era may be unclear, but Donald Trump has transformed the GOP forever.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/Sbwlc5z
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

There is nothing wrong with questioning U.S. policy toward Iran. In fact, it is essential. The press should probe, Congress should challenge, and both parties should debate the wisdom of any potential military action. These are not trivial matters, and the stakes—American lives, regional stability and nuclear proliferation—are too high for anything less than serious scrutiny.

What has become troubling, however, is how unserious the conversation has become around a single phrase: "imminent threat."

Following recent testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a number of lawmakers—particularly Democrats—expressed disbelief when she stated that whether a threat qualifies as an "imminent threat" is ultimately a determination made by the president. Some Republican voices, eager to distance themselves from the political risks of escalation, have echoed similar skepticism, suggesting that unless there is clear, near-term evidence of an attack, any preemptive posture is unjustified.

Both sides are missing the point.

GABBARD SIDESTEPS IRAN ‘IMMINENT THREAT’ CLAIM UNDER SENATE GRILLING

The intelligence community’s role is to assess capabilities, estimate timelines and evaluate intent. It provides a range of probabilities and scenarios. It does not—and should not—make the final determination about when a threat becomes an "imminent threat." That responsibility rests with the president, who must integrate intelligence with military readiness, alliance considerations and the broader strategic landscape.

The problem with the current debate is that an "imminent threat" is being treated as if it has a precise, universally accepted definition. It does not.

In a conventional setting, an imminent threat might be easy to identify: troops massing at a border, missiles being fueled, orders being transmitted. But nuclear proliferation does not unfold that way. It is gradual, opaque and often deliberately ambiguous. A regime like Iran’s advances its capabilities in stages—enriching uranium, refining weaponization and expanding delivery systems—without ever presenting a single, definitive moment that clearly signals that the threshold has been crossed.

MICHAEL OREN: IRAN HAS WAGED WAR ON AMERICA FOR 47 YEARS — TIME TO END IT

If the standard for an imminent threat is that the Ayatollah must be on the verge of pressing a launch button, then the United States has already forfeited its ability to prevent the outcome. At that stage, the options available are severely constrained, and the risks multiply dramatically.

A more realistic assessment recognizes that the convergence of capability and intent defines an imminent threat.

And on the question of intent, there should be no confusion.

Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the regime has consistently and openly defined itself in opposition to the United States and its allies. "Death to America" has not been a slogan used in passing; it has been a defining feature of the regime’s identity. Iran has funded and armed proxy groups throughout the region, targeted U.S. interests and worked systematically to undermine stability from Lebanon to Yemen.

DAVID MARCUS: THE MAGA 'CIVIL WAR' OVER IRAN IS A MYTH

This is not a regime whose intentions are unclear or evolving. Its posture has been telegraphed for more than 40 years.

When that long-standing intent is paired with advancing capability, the nature of the threat changes.

TRUMP'S OPERATION EPIC FURY PROVES REAGAN-STYLE PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH IS BACK

If Iran is within one to two years of developing a deliverable nuclear warhead and is simultaneously expanding its ballistic missile capacity, that timeline cannot be dismissed as distant. In strategic terms, it is compressed. The closer those two tracks come to intersecting, the fewer viable options remain for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.

This is not a theoretical concern. It is a question of whether the United States and its allies retain the ability to influence the outcome at all.

Some Democratic critics argue that without concrete evidence of an impending strike, the threshold for an imminent threat has not been met. Their concern, understandably, is that broadening the definition risks justifying unnecessary conflict. That is a legitimate fear, and it deserves to be part of the discussion.

GORDON SONDLAND: NO MORE 'RESTRAINT': EUROPE MUST STAND WITH AMERICA ON IRAN

At the same time, some Republican skeptics suggest that unless the intelligence community can point to a specific, near-term trigger, restraint should be the default. This position, while framed as prudence, risks ignoring the cumulative nature of the threat. Nuclear capability is not built overnight, and waiting for a final signal often means waiting until it is too late to act effectively.

In both cases, the debate is being framed around a false binary: either the threat is immediate and undeniable, or it is speculative and avoidable. Reality lies somewhere in between.

Presidential decision-making in matters of national security rarely benefits from that kind of clarity. It requires evaluating incomplete information, weighing uncertain outcomes and choosing between imperfect alternatives. Acting too early carries costs. Acting too late carries risks that can be far more severe—and irreversible.

WINNING THE BATTLES, LOSING THE WAR? AMERICA MUST DEFINE THE ENDGAME IN IRAN

That is why the concept of an imminent threat cannot be reduced to a soundbite. It is contextual. It depends on trajectory—whether the threat is accelerating or contained. It depends on capability—how close an adversary is to achieving its objective. And it depends on intent—what that adversary has demonstrated over time.

In the case of Iran, that trajectory has been consistent. The regime has steadily advanced its nuclear and missile programs while maintaining enough ambiguity to avoid triggering decisive action. It has also demonstrated patience, exploiting divisions among its adversaries and using time as a strategic asset.

Under those conditions, a one- or two-year window is not a margin of comfort. It is a narrowing corridor.

DNI TULSI GABBARD SAYS THAT TRUMP ACTED BECAUSE HE CONCLUDED THE IRANIAN REGIME 'POSED AN IMMINENT THREAT'

The media’s fixation on whether a threat meets a narrow definition of "imminent" risks obscuring this broader reality. By focusing on the absence of a singular, immediate trigger, it creates the impression that the situation is less urgent than it is.

This does not mean that any particular course of action is correct or inevitable. There are valid arguments for diplomacy, for containment and for pressure short of military engagement. Those options should be debated thoroughly.

But that debate should be grounded in an accurate understanding of the threat, not an artificially constrained definition of when it becomes real.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

The president’s responsibility is not to wait for perfect certainty. It is to determine when the risk of inaction outweighs the risk of action. That determination is informed by intelligence, shaped by history and tested against consequences that no model can fully predict.

After all the intelligence has been gathered, briefed, challenged and debated—after the charts are reviewed and the timelines are modeled—the final decision does not come from a spreadsheet.

It comes down to judgment.

It comes down to real-world experience, to pattern recognition and to understanding how adversaries actually behave. And yes, it comes down to something less tangible but no less real: instinct.

At the end of the day, the commander in chief is not deciding whether a definition has been met. The president is deciding whether the American people are at risk—and whether waiting makes that risk worse.

And in those moments, the decision ultimately rests on judgment—and on the instincts of the president, including those times when the hairs on the back of his neck tell him what the data alone cannot.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM AMB. GORDON SONDLAND

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/xqvieHR
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

I don’t hear any cheering out there.

A federal judge has thrown out the Pentagon’s draconian restrictions on what journalists can report, but most Americans don’t care.

A policy that led to the eviction of major news organizations — from the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, to ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News — has been overturned. It’s a big-time win for free speech.

But the media’s credibility is at an all-time low, the result of years of bias, blunders and boneheadedness. That’s why there’s no sign-waving in the streets or digital high-fiving outside those involved in the business. 

MEDIA UNDER FIRE: JOURNALISTS KEEP QUESTIONING IRAN WAR AS HEGSETH CALLS THEM ‘UNPATRIOTIC’ AND ‘ANTI-TRUMP’

Just compare that with the tsunami of reaction to ABC canceling "The Bachelorette" over violent footage of its star.

Sure, many people may not know about the judge’s ruling, given that it’s hard for civilians to follow the blizzard of court cases involving President Donald Trump. It’s a challenge even for those of us who do this for a living.

But here’s why ordinary folks should care.

If this administration, or a future Democratic administration, can routinely yank the credentials of correspondents who cover defense, then the official version of how great things are going will dominate the news.

And here’s why they should especially care right now.

We’re in the middle of a war with Iran.

In the lawsuit brought by the New York Times, Judge Paul Friedman in Washington said, "those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech." It’s been that way, he said, for 250 years. 

A Pentagon spokesman said the department is appealing.

What news outlet, regardless of political persuasion, could agree not to solicit information that hasn’t been officially approved for release by the Department of War?

Well, there’s MyPillow guy Mike Lindell, who blew up his business to zealously support Trump. He regularly promotes conspiracy theories about how the 2020 election was stolen. His LindellTV is credentialed press at the Pentagon.

PETE HEGSETH CRITICIZES 'FAKE NEWS' COVERAGE OF IRAN STRIKES, SAYS ONLY TRAGEDIES MAKE FRONT PAGE

So is former Congressman Matt Gaetz, whose nomination as attorney general collapsed over accusations of paying an underage girl for sex. He now hosts a show on One America News.

So is Laura Loomer, the far-right activist and Trump confidante who has said a 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo was a hoax perpetrated by the Democrats; suggested that the deep state used weather manipulation in 2024 to cause a blizzard before the Iowa caucus to benefit Nikki Haley; and, during that campaign, that "Joe Biden is dying."

So is James O’Keefe, founder of the conservative group Project Veritas, which used undercover video to capture biased conduct and embarrassing comments by those in the mainstream media. He once pleaded guilty to entering a senator’s office under false pretenses, and was removed by his board in 2023, over allegations of financial improprieties.

Trump has long been engaged in legal and rhetorical combat against the media, especially in the last year. He has successfully sued CBS and ABC for settlements worth at least $16 million apiece. He has denounced journalists he views as unfair and major news outlets as corrupt. Trump has said some media outlets should be prosecuted for treason over their "lies" about the Iran conflict.

At the same time, Trump provides previously unthinkable levels of access, holding constant news conferences and gaggles, and repeatedly taking brief calls from reporters and anchors on his cellphone. 

At the Department of War, Secretary Pete Hegseth has also accused "dishonest" media outlets of deliberately playing up American casualties and other negative war news to make Trump look bad. 

But such criticism, even if it’s warranted, is a far cry from the secretary’s move last October, giving his department sweeping power to classify reporters as "security risks" and revoke their credentials. What’s more, journalists, who regularly rely on unnamed sources, had to agree to seek information only from those authorized to speak for the Pentagon. 

That, said the judge, would allow only stories "favorable to or spoon-fed by department leadership." He said the evidence shows that the department targeted "disfavored journalists" and sought to replace them with those who are "on board and willing to serve."

Imagine the reaction on the right if Gavin Newsom was president and his defense secretary went after journalists with conservative viewpoints.

WHY TRUMP IS DENOUNCING THE MEDIA’S IRAN WAR COVERAGE AS TOO NEGATIVE – BOOSTED BY RHETORICAL FCC BACKING

Friedman tied his 40-page ruling to the current military environment and even the midterms.

"Especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing — so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."

Journalists have been asking plenty of probing questions about the war. How can the U.S. break Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which has choked off a chunk of the world’s oil supply? How can Americans in the surrounding Arab countries be protected from Iranian drones? What about soaring gas prices at home?

The president addressed such questions at a news conference the other day without attacking the press. He’s upset with our European allies who refuse to protect the strait. He thought the rise in oil prices would be much worse. He initially projected a timetable of four to six weeks, but now says he can declare victory and end our "incursion," as he calls it, at any moment.

Trump keeps stressing that our military has decimated Iran’s defenses, and of course he’s right, a reality that sometimes gets lost in the coverage.

The point is that journalists have to ask these questions in wartime. But it is harder for Pentagon correspondents, who tend to be specialists, to do their jobs without credentials. They’re not "in the room," as they say in "Hamilton," but outside the massive building looking in.

If the judge’s injunction stands, that will change. Defense reporters will no longer be excommunicated for doing their jobs or holding certain political views. 

The vast majority of Americans may not care, but the press corps — for all its flaws and excesses — is making sure they get the full story when the stakes are life and death.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/Fz2Rhqw
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

An Air Canada Express regional jet crashed into a Port Authority vehicle on the ground after landing at New York's LaGuardia Airport late Sunday night, forcing the airport to close.

The CRJ-900 plane, which was arriving from Montreal, struck the vehicle at about 24 miles per hour shortly before midnight, according to flight tracking website Flightradar24.

The jet was operated by Jazz Aviation, Air Canada's regional partner. Air Canada and Jazz Aviation confirmed the incident to Fox News Digital.

"Flight 8646 was en route to LGA from Montréal (YUL)," Jazz Aviation said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "The preliminary passenger list indicates the aircraft was carrying 72 passengers and 4 crew members, although this is subject to confirmation. The incident occurred at approximately 11:47PM on March 22, 2026."

DEAD PASSENGER ALLEGEDLY STORED IN HEATED GALLEY FOR 13 HOURS ON BRITISH AIRWAYS FLIGHT, 'FOUL SMELL’ REPORTED

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued a ground stop for all planes at the airport, saying there was an emergency without offering specific details.

LaGuardia's website showed arriving planes had been diverted to other airports or returned to where they took off from.

The Port Authority confirmed that the jet collided with a Port Authority Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting vehicle.

"At approximately 11:40 p.m. on Sunday, a Jazz Aviation flight operating on behalf of Air Canada was involved in an incident on Runway 4 at LaGuardia Airport in which the aircraft struck a Port Authority Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting vehicle that was responding to a separate incident," a Port Authority spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

"Emergency response protocols were immediately activated," the statement continued. "The Port Authority Police Department is on scene along with the agency’s Chairman and Executive Director. The airport is currently closed to facilitate the response and allow for a thorough investigation."

The spokesperson added: "This is a developing situation based on preliminary information. The Port Authority Police Department is working closely with our airline partners as well as federal authorities, and will provide additional updates as more details become available."

The New York Fire Department said in a statement that it was responding to an incident involving a plane and a vehicle on the runway at LaGuardia Airport, although it did not provide additional details.

SOUTHWEST FLIGHT DIVERTED AFTER PASSENGER SCARE AS SECURITY INCIDENTS RATTLE US AIRPORTS

The New York City Police Department confirmed the collision but did not offer further information.

Multiple videos taken at the scene showed the jet with severe damage to the front of the aircraft.

Fox News Digital reached out to the FAA and LaGuardia Airport for additional information.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/6yvgwc3
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

EXCLUSIVE - Former Vice President Mike Pence says his fight to keep the Republican Party from drifting too far from its conservative roots and principles, amid a rise of populism in the GOP and big government creep in President Donald Trump's second administration, is "the calling of my life right now."

And Pence takes issue with the conventional wisdom that Trump, since he first won the White House a decade ago, has upended and completely transformed the Republican Party.

"I'm convinced that while President Trump has changed some aspects of the agenda of the Republican Party, he hasn't really changed the Republican Party," Pence argued in an exclusive interview this past week with Fox News Digital, a couple of months ahead of the release of a new book promoting the conservative agenda.

Sitting in his Washington, D.C., office at Advancing American Freedom, his policy and advocacy organization that has been expanding in recent months, the former vice president emphasized, "We intend to be a voice for what conservatives believe and have always believed, and that's fiscal responsibility, traditional values, strong defense and American leadership."

ONLY ON FOX NEWS: PENCE SAYS TRUMP ‘TURNED A DEAF EAR’ TO ISOLATIONISTS IN GOP

Pence is a former congressman and Indiana governor who served as vice president during Trump's first term in office before breaking with his boss amid the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as he oversaw congressional certification of the 2020 election results.

The former vice president gave a thumbs up to some of what Trump's accomplished in his second term.

"I've been very proud of the fact of what this administration accomplished in securing our border. I was pleased that the administration turned aside from those that were talking about raising taxes on top marginal earners. They extended all the Trump Pence tax cuts," he highlighted.

PENCE URGES SENATE TO ‘RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE’ WITH NATIONWIDE VOTER ID LAW

But Pence took issue with the second Trump administration for "embracing more big government programs and solutions, price controls on pharmaceuticals and credit companies, taking a position in private companies, the nationalization trend that has emerged, as well as marginalizing the right to life in so many ways and ignoring the scourge of mail order abortion pills around the country."

"I am hopeful those advising the president are reminding him that it... was the conservative agenda that we governed on in our four years...that led to great prosperity for American families, for our economy and for strength in the world," Pence said.

But the former vice president warned that "the Republican Party today is experiencing a scourge of some ‘-isms.’ We've seen protectionism show itself in unilateral tariffs that the Supreme Court of the United States recently turned back. We've seen some voices of isolationism that question our support for Israel, that would leave allies like Ukraine defend for themselves."

And Pence added, "I think that the on the fringe and on the margins, voices of antisemitism in the party all need to be confronted, because none of those things represent what conservatives believe."

But many Republicans would take issue with the former vice president's argument that Trump hasn't transformed the GOP.

"Donald Trump has tremendously altered the make-up of the Republican Party and the issues that it focuses on," veteran GOP strategist and communicator Ryan Williams told Fox News Digital.

Williams emphasized that Trump "has altered the voter base of the Republican Party" and taken "the values and trajectory of this party in a different direction... It’s never going back to the way it was before."

FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE: PENCE CHARGES DEMOCRATS' HOLDUP OF DHS FUNDING ‘UNCONSCIONABLE’  

While not aiming to return the party to its pre-Trump image, Pence said his mission is to remind people that Republicans believe in a strong national defense of American leadership in the world. We believe in free market economics and limited fiscally responsible government. We believe in the right to life and traditional values."

"It's been those principles that have guided our party for more than a half a century and have been to the betterment of the American people," he added.

Pence said his hope is that "we'll see not only this administration hew back to our roots of conservatism, but that we'll see candidates for the House and Senate and statehouse around the country come back to those core conservative principles."

Republicans are battling stiff political headwinds as the party in power in the nation's capital traditionally loses seats in the midterm elections, and a rough political climate fueled by economic concerns amid persistent inflation and Trump's underwater approval ratings.

But Pence said that pushing a conservative platform is "not only a pathway toward American prosperity and the vitality of freedom, but it's also a winning agenda."

Likely boosting the former vice president's push will be his new book, "What Conservatives Believe: Rediscovering the Conservative Conscience," which is expected to release in June.

Pence ran on a traditional conservative platform, framing the future of the Republican Party against what he called the rise of "populism" in the party, as he bid for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, as part of a large field that unsuccessfully challenged Trump.

While Pence, who became the first running mate in over 80 years to run against their former boss, regularly campaigned in the crucial early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, his White House bid never took off.

Struggling in the polls and with fundraising, he suspended his campaign just four and a half months after launching it.

"It was clear to me that there's a portion of the Republican Party today that's being drawn aside by the siren song of populism unmoored to conservative principles. I spoke out against that as a candidate. Our foundation, Advancing American Freedom, has been championing that conservative agenda and will continue to," Pence noted.

Asked if there's another White House run in his future, Pence didn't rule anything out.

"I will tell you, I'm not a long-term planner," he answered. "We'll let the future take care of itself."

But he added, "For me, for my family, it really is all about the issues and values that first drew me to the Republican Party. Those are conservative values. And reminding our party and sharing with people across the country what conservatives believe and why it will make America stronger and more prosperous is really the calling of my time."

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/47kPhxZ
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

No. 12 High Point put everyone on notice for the second time in as many games this March Madness, but could not find the same success.

After advancing to the Round of 32 following an upset victory over No. 5 Wisconsin, the Panthers' season ended after No. 4 Arkansas ran away from them late Saturday night.

High Point led by as many as five early in the game, and they were up 56-52 with 14:17 to go after going on a 12-2 run. 

Both teams exchanged buckets for several minutes, with no one expanding their respective leads by more than three points for a little while.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM 

With 7:04 to play, the Panthers took a 72-71 lead, to which the Razorbacks responded with a 10-2 run, putting them up by seven and giving them their largest lead of the night.

The game was then quickly tied at 83 after a wild run by High Point, but over the final 3:19, Arkansas outscored High Point, 11-5, to snatch the victory, despite a valiant effort from the Panthers.

VANDERBILT'S HAIL MARY SHOT MISSES BY NARROWEST OF MARGINS AS NEBRASKA ADVANCES TO SWEET 16 IN EPIC FASHION

Arkansas was favored by 11.5, and while they couldn't cover, it was another Sweet 16 appearance for legendary head coach John Calipari.

Two Panthers, Rob Martin (30) and Cam'Ron Fletcher (25), combined for 55 points, but Darius Acuff Jr. of Arkansas trumped everyone by dropping 36.

Arkansas will face the winner of No. 1 Arizona and No. 9 Utah State in the Sweet 16.

High Point's victory over Wisconsin on Thursday marked their first ever in March Madness after making the tournament last year for the first time.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/C9jLsrg
via IFTTT