New York City’s new mayor wasted little time drawing ideological lines, using his swearing-in ceremony to double down on campaign promises filled with government-led solutions — a sharp contrast with free-market principles Republicans warn are increasingly under threat amid an evolving understanding of socialism among younger audiences.

‘We will draw this city closer together,’ Zohran Mamdani, a socialist, said at his ceremony on Thursday. ‘We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism. If our campaign demonstrated that the people of New York yearn for solidarity, then let this government foster it.’ 

His aims were echoed by his supporters at his inauguration — including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., one of the most progressive lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

‘We have chosen that over the distractions of bigotry and barbarism of extreme income inequality,’ Ocasio-Cortez said of Mamdani’s visions for government-led programs like universal child care.

Mamdani’s victory over independent candidate Andrew Cuomo was made possible in part by his stunning success among younger voters ages 18-29. Exit polling from the election’s results indicated he captured as much as 75% of that vote. 

Ronald Suny, professor emeritus of political science and history at the University of Chicago, said the support of younger voters for an openly socialist candidate didn’t come as a surprise.

‘Socialism has now become the catchphrase for the opposition to free-market or neoliberal capitalism, which is the idea that the market can do it all. Huge swaths of the lower and middle classes have not increased their well-being or their real incomes in the last 50 years,’ Suny said.

Suny believes younger audiences have embraced socialism as a way to describe an ideal — even if they don’t have a good sense of what socialism means in practice. That’s dovetailed with the rise of Mamdani and other progressives promising to use the power of government to create a more even playing field on issues like the cost of living, housing, transportation and healthcare.

It’s a semantic change, some argue.

Jason Palmer, co-founder of TOGETHER!, a youth-centered organization that promotes political engagement at the collegiate level, first noticed a change in the way students talked about socialism around three years ago.

‘I started noticing it about 2022 — and it’s really connected to affordability. A lot of young people feel like nothing is affordable to them. They can’t buy a house. One thing that came up a lot on the campaign trail is they can’t even afford to pay the rent deposit,’ Palmer said.

‘I’ve spoken to a lot of them, and I always ask them, ‘What does socialism mean to you?’ They say, ‘Well, I don’t know the official definition, but here’s what it means to me. It means equality, it means fairness, it means an even playing field with higher taxes on the rich, a more equitable society.’’

Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., attributed shifts in how socialism is viewed to shortcomings in education.

‘Our K-12 system — we failed to actually educate people about the implications of economic policy and the way it overlays into cultural frameworks of societies,’ Donalds said. ‘[Socialism] empowers government, makes government be more heavy-handed, driving choices, as opposed to letting people do that.’

Donalds’ concern stems from his conviction that socialism is at odds with the principles of American freedom. In his view, it’s overly reliant on a top-down power structure.

‘It always leads to a destruction of liberties,’ Donalds said. ‘There has to be some omnipotent person at the top who makes all the decisions.’

Donalds pointed to the mass starvation and political repression of socialist regimes in Cuba, North Korea, China and Venezuela. 

Fellow Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, R-Fla., echoed similar alarm as she introduced a bill condemning the horrors of socialism earlier this year.

‘I represent district No. 27 in Miami, Florida — a bastion of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who have fled, who have escaped from despicable horrors you cannot imagine produced by that ideology,’ Salazar said in a floor speech.

But Suny, who studies social change in socialist countries, believes that political framing in the U.S. has inadvertently contributed to a renewed interest in socialism. He argues that younger voters might find themselves unconvinced by a repeated emphasis on socialism’s most grievous failures and don’t see mass starvation in the cards when politicians float government-led child care programs or government-owned supermarkets.

‘[Critics] don’t emphasize elements like turning peasant countries into industrial countries, village countries into urban countries, teaching literacy to the whole population, a number of other things, right?’ Suny said.

Palmer, the co-founder of TOGETHER!, noted that shifting understandings of socialism may vary greatly regionally. He pointed out that Mamdani’s success in New York would likely prove less effective among young voters in Virginia, Pennsylvania or other states.

‘It does play differently with different audiences,’ Palmer said.

Polling by Gallup last year showed that approval surrounding capitalism sank nationally with younger audiences, while socialism’s standing rose. Only 31% of Democrats under 50 have a positive view of capitalism, a drop from 54% in 2010. 

Inversely, Gallup’s findings also showed that the favorability of socialism climbed among younger audiences. Notably, 49% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 said they held a positive view of socialism, while 46% said they held a negative view. 

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) said Friday that federal agencies have terminated or reduced 55 contracts over the last three days with a combined ceiling value of $1.6 billion, claiming $542 million in savings.

DOGE, whose name nods to Elon Musk’s high-profile involvement, was launched during the opening days of President Donald Trump’s second administration as part of a broader effort to reshape federal spending and bureaucracy.

While Musk has since stepped back from the project, elements of the DOGE framework remain active across federal agencies.

In a post on X, the department wrote: ‘Contracts Update! Over the last 3 days, agencies terminated and descoped 55 wasteful contracts with a ceiling value of $1.6B and savings of $542M.’

The post listed several examples, including what it described as ‘a $47M State Dept. program support contract for ‘Africa / Djibouti, Somalia armored personnel carriers and Somalia National Army crew’,’ and ‘a $19.5M HHS IT Services contract for support for National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in designing, creating, updating, maintaining, and archiving online communications.’

DOGE also referenced ‘a $151k DoW education services contract for ‘Director’s Development Program in Leadership – Partnership course to be held at Northwestern University’,’ according to the post.

Screenshots shared with the DOGE post show federal contract records matching the descriptions and dollar amounts cited.

One screenshot shows a contract record tied to Somalia, listing professional program management support under a federal services code and identifying the country of service origin as Somalia. The contract description references support related to armored personnel carriers and Somalia National Army crews in Djibouti and Somalia.

A second screenshot shows an IT management support services contract based in the United States, categorized under computer systems design services. The description outlines work for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences focused on maintaining and managing online communications, including websites, webpages, mobile tools and social media platforms.

The DOGE post did not provide additional details about when the contracts were originally awarded, how much funding had already been obligated or spent, or which agency actions produced the savings figure cited in the post.

The announcement comes amid heightened scrutiny this week over several Somali-owned, government-funded daycare facilities in Minnesota that have been accused of fraudulently collecting millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House, DOGE, the State Department and HHS for additional information.

Ukraine orchestrated a fake hit on one of Russia’s enemies who has fought alongside Ukrainian forces, tricking the Kremlin into paying out a $500,000 bounty Kyiv used to fund its war effort. 

The subject of the supposed Dec. 27 assassination was Denis Kapustin, also known as ‘White Rex,’ the leader of the right-wing Russian Volunteer Corps, a group fighting for the overthrow of Vladimir Putin, Metro UK reported. 

However, Kapustin is alive despite claims from the Ukrainian Armed Forces last week that he was killed by an FPV drone in the southern Zaporizhzhia region.

‘We will definitely avenge you, Denis. Your legacy lives on,’ the RVC group wrote on Telegram last week. 

On Thursday, the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine (GUR) confirmed this was part of a special operation to save Kapustin’s life and, in the process, earn $500,000.

‘Welcome back to life,’ HUR General Kyrylo Budanov, who heads Ukraine’s military intelligence agency, said while congratulating Kapustin and his team on a successful intelligence operation, News.com.au, an Australian news website, reported. 

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Kapustin founded the RVC to fight alongside the Ukrainian army.

The group, which was banned in Russia as a terrorist organization, was known for staging cross-border attacks in Russia’s Belgorod and Kursk regions. He had twice been sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment by kangaroo courts in Russia, The Sun reported. 

In March 2024, the RVC stormed into Russia and clashed with security forces before capturing Russian soldiers.

Ukraine and Russian are in the middle of peace talks mediated by President Donald Trump. The deal is close, but Ukrainian leaders have said the sticking point remains the issue of disputed territories.  

Former special counsel Jack Smith used a closed-door deposition with House Republicans last month to defend his investigations into Donald Trump’s alleged effort to subvert the 2020 presidential election and his alleged retention of certain classified documents, using the hours-long testimony to forcefully dispute the notion that his team had acted politically, and citing what he described as ample evidence to support the indictments that had been levied against Trump. 

‘I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,’ Smith told members of the House Judiciary Committee in the Dec. 17 interview.

The interview was Smith’s first time appearing before Congress since he left his role as special counsel in 2024. And while much of the information was not new, the exchange was punctuated by sharp exchanges with Republicans on the panel, both on the strength of the case, and on his own actions taken during the course of the probe — most recently, on the tolling records his team sought from a handful of Republican lawmakers over the course of the investigation. Republicans have assailed the records as being at odds with the speech or debate clause of the Constitution.  

‘I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,’ Smith told the committee. ‘We took actions based on what the facts, and the law required — the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.’

Republicans on the panel ultimately opted to publish the redacted transcript on New Year’s Eve, a decision that may have helped dull the impact of any news the 255-page document may have generated amid the broader hustle and bustle of the holiday season.

Here are some of the biggest moments and notable exchanges from the eight-hour hearing. 

New political tensions 

Smith was tapped by former Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to investigate the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump’s keeping of allegedly classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach after leaving office in 2020. Smith had brought charges against Trump in both cases.

The charges were dropped after Trump’s election, in keeping with a longstanding Justice Department policy that discourages investigating sitting presidents for federal criminal charges, and Smith resigned from his role shortly after.

If nothing else, Smith’s Dec. 17 testimony underscored just how much has changed since Trump’s reelection in 2024. 

Trump, for his part, has used his first year back in office to follow through on his promises to go after his perceived political ‘enemies,’ including by revoking security clearances of many individuals, including employees of a D.C.-based law firm that represents Smith, and taking other punitive measures to punish or fire FBI agents involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, investigation.

During his testimony last month, Smith fiercely disputed the notion that Trump’s remarks about the 2020 election results would be protected by the First Amendment. 

‘Absololutely not,’ he said in response to a lawyer for Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee.

The lawyer then ticked through a ‘long list of disputed elections’ in U.S. history and former presidents who have spoken out about ‘what they believed to be fraud,’ or other issues regarding election integrity. ‘I think you would agree that those types of statements are sort of at the core of the First Amendment rights of a presidential candidate, right?’

‘There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case,’ Smith said immediately. 

‘Powerful’ evidence

Smith told members that the special counsel ultimately gathered evidence against Trump that was, in his view, sufficient to secure a conviction.

‘He made false statements to state legislatures, to his supporters in all sorts of contexts and was aware in the days leading up to Jan. 6th that his supporters were angry when he invited them, and then he directed them to the Capitol,’ Smith said of Trump’ actions in the run-up to Jan. 6. 

‘Now, once they were at the Capitol and once the attack on the Capitol happened, he refused to stop it. He instead issued a tweet that, without question in my mind, endangered the life of his own vice president,’ Smith added. ‘And when the violence was going on, he had to be pushed repeatedly by his staff members to do anything to quell it.’

Other possible co-conspirators had not been charged, as Smith noted at one point during the interview. 

But Smith said in the testimony that his team had developed ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ that Trump ‘engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.’

They’d also developed what he described as ‘powerful evidence’ that Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after leaving office in January 2021 at his private Mar-a-Lago residence, and was obstructing the government’s efforts to recover the records.

Smith’s team had not determined how to proceed for possible ‘co-conspirators’

Smith said that, when the special counsel wound down in the wake of the 2024 elections, his team had not determined whether to charge the key Trump allies who may or may not have acted as co-conspirators, including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and John Eastman.

‘As we stated in the final report, we analyzed the evidence against different co-conspirators,’ Smith said. Smith reiterated his allegation that Trump was ‘the most culpable’ and ‘most responsible’ person for the alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election results. 

He said the special counsel had ‘determined that we did have evidence to charge people at a certain point in time.’ 

But at the time the investigation was wound down, they had not made ‘final determinations about that at the time that President Trump won reelection, meaning that our office was going to be closed down.’

He lamented the ousting of DOJ, FBI officials 

Smith used his opening remarks to lament the ousting of FBI agents and Justice Department officials involved in the Jan. 6 investigations.

‘I am both saddened and angered that President Trump has sought revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff simply for doing their jobs and for having worked on those cases,’ Smith said.

His remarks came after the FBI in recent months ousted a handful of personnel involved in the Jan. 6 investigations, an effort individuals familiar with the action described to Fox News at the time as an act of ‘retaliation.’

Thousands of FBI personnel in February were forced to fill out a sprawling questionnaire asking employees detailed questions about any role they may have played in the investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riots — ranging from whether they had testified in any criminal trials to when they last participated in investigation-related activity.

Smith’s team didn’t tell the courts that subpoenaed phone records belonged to lawmakers

Smith was grilled during the deposition about the highly scrutinized subpoenas his team issued to phone companies for data belonging to House and Senate lawmakers as part of his investigation, saying they aligned with the Justice Department’s policy at the time.

Smith said the Public Integrity Section signed off on the subpoenas, a point corroborated by records previously released by Grassley’s office. 

Those records also showed that the Public Integrity Section told prosecutors to be wary of concerns lawmakers could raise about the Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which gives Congress members added protections.

The subpoenas to the phone companies were accompanied by gag orders blocking the lawmakers from learning about the existence of the subpoenas for at least one year. Smith said the D.C. federal court, which authorized the gag orders, would not have been aware that they applied to Congress members.’I don’t think we identified that, because I don’t think that was Department policy at the time,’ Smith said.

Asked during the deposition about who should be held accountable for lawmakers who felt that the seizure of a narrow set of their phone data was a constitutional violation, Smith said Trump should be held accountable.

‘These records are people, in the case of the Senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings,’ Smith said.

‘He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic Senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic Senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them, that’s — that lies with Donald Trump,’ he said.

A super PAC aligned with President Donald Trump has nearly $300 million in its war chest heading into the 2026 midterms, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Thursday.

MAGA Inc. reported $294 million in cash on hand in its latest campaign finance disclosure, which the super PAC said will be used to support candidates aligned with the president’s agenda.

‘Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, MAGA Inc will have the resources to help candidates who support President Trump’s America First agenda of securing our border, keeping our streets safe, supercharging our economy, and making life more affordable for all Americans,’ a MAGA Inc. spokesperson said in a statement, according to the New York Post.

The super PAC raised $102 million in the second half of 2025, including 25 donations of at least $1 million.

The largest contribution came from OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman, who donated $25 million in September.

Brockman said in a post on X this week that he had become more politically active in 2025, including through political contributions that reflect ‘support for policies that advance American innovation and constructive dialogue between government and the technology sector.’

The fundraising haul came even though Trump is not on the ballot this year, underscoring the super PAC’s focus on supporting Republicans in upcoming races.

MAGA Inc. did not play a significant role in the 2022 midterms, opting instead to save its money for Trump’s 2024 campaign.

The super PAC spent $456 million supporting Trump’s bid to return to the White House, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit organization that tracks campaign finance data.

MAGA Inc. launched ads in November backing Republican candidate Matt Van Epps, who was endorsed by Trump and went on to defeat Democrat Aftyn Behn in a Tennessee congressional race.

Elon Musk, the billionaire technology entrepreneur and chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla, has signaled an openness to supporting Republican candidates in the midterms.

‘America is toast if the radical left wins,’ he posted on X on Thursday. ‘They will open the floodgates to illegal immigration and fraud.’

Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump spent the first year of his second White House term signing a torrent of executive orders aimed at delivering on several major policy priorities, including slashing federal agency budgets and staffing, implementing a hard-line immigration crackdown and invoking emergency authority to impose steep tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.

The pace of Trump’s executive actions has far outstripped that of his predecessors, allowing the administration to move quickly on campaign promises. But the blitz has also triggered a wave of lawsuits seeking to block or pause many of the orders, setting up a high-stakes confrontation over the limits of presidential power under Article II and when courts can — or should — intervene.

Lawsuits have challenged Trump’s most sweeping and consequential executive orders, ranging from a ban on birthright citizenship and transgender service members in the military to the legality of sweeping, DOGE-led government cuts and the president’s ability to ‘federalize’ and deploy thousands of National Guard troops.

Many of those questions remain unresolved. Only a few legal fights tied to Trump’s second-term agenda have reached final resolution, a point legal experts say is critical as the administration presses forward with its broader agenda.

Trump allies have argued the president is merely exercising his powers as commander in chief. 

Critics counter that the flurry of early executive actions warrants an additional level of legal scrutiny, and judges have raced to review a crushing wave of cases and lawsuits filed in response.

WINS:

Limits on nationwide injunctions

In June 2025, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, a closely watched case centered on the power of district courts to issue so-called universal or nationwide injunctions blocking a president’s executive orders. 

Though the case ostensibly focused on birthright citizenship, arguments narrowly focused on the authority of lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and did not wade into the legality of Trump’s order, which served as the legal pretext for the case. The decision had sweeping national implications, ultimately affecting the more than 310 federal lawsuits that had been filed at the time challenging Trump’s orders signed in his second presidential term.

Justices on the high court ultimately sided with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who had argued to the court that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, telling justices that the injunctions ‘transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,’ and ‘create a host of practical problems.’

The Supreme Court largely agreed. Justices ruled that plaintiffs seeking nationwide relief must file their lawsuits as class action challenges. This prompted a flurry of action from plaintiffs in the weeks and months that followed as they raced to amend and refile relevant complaints to lower courts.

Firing independent agency heads 

The Supreme Court also signaled openness to expanding presidential authority over independent agencies.

Earlier in 2025, the justices granted Trump’s request to pause lower-court orders reinstating two Democratic appointees — National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, two Democrat appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration. It also suggested the Supreme Court is poised to pare back a 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that prohibits certain heads of multi-member, congressionally created federal regulatory agencies from being fired without cause.

It is not the only issue in which the justices appeared inclined to side with Trump administration officials and either overturn or pare back Humphrey’s protections.

In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a similar case centered on Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. Justices seemed likely to allow the firing to proceed and to weaken Humphrey’s protections for similarly situated federal employees, though the extent that justices will move to dilute an already watered-down court ruling remains unclear.

The high court will also review another case centered on Trump’s ability to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook early in 2026.

LOSSES:

Tariffs 

While it’s rarely helpful to speculate on how the Supreme Court might rule on a certain case, court watchers and legal experts overwhelmingly reached a similar consensus after listening to oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump, the case centered on Trump’s use of an emergency wartime law to enact his sweeping tariff plan. 

At issue in the case is Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his steep 10% tariffs on most imports. The IEEPA law gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. But it’s unclear if such conditions exist, as voiced by liberal and conservative justices in their review of the case earlier in 2025.

Several justices also noted that the statute does not explicitly reference tariffs or taxes, a point that loomed large during oral arguments.

A ruling against the administration would deliver a major blow to Trump’s signature economic policy. 

Court watchers and legal experts said after arguments that a Trump administration win could be more difficult than expected, though each cautioned it is hard to draw conclusions from roughly two hours of oral arguments, a fraction of the total time justices spend reviewing a case.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, said in a blog post that the justices ‘were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers.’

‘However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration,’ Turley added.

Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the CATO Institute, told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement that members of the court seemed uncomfortable with expanding presidential power over tariffs.

‘Most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch ‘discovering’ new powers in old statutes,’ Skorup said.

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court has agreed to review Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, one of the most legally consequential actions of his second term.

At issue is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to most children born to illegal immigrant parents or parents with temporary legal status, a sweeping change critics say would upend roughly 150 years of constitutional precedent.

The order immediately sparked a flurry of lawsuits in 2025 filed by dozens of U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups. Opponents have also argued that the effort is an unconstitutional and ‘unprecedented’ one that would threaten some 150,000 children in the U.S. born annually to parents of noncitizens and an estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 who are living with an illegal immigrant parent, according to data from the Pew Research Center. 

To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, though multiple district courts have blocked the order from taking force.

While it’s unclear how the high court might rule, the lower court rulings suggest the Trump administration might face a steep uphill battle in arguing the case before the Supreme Court in early 2026.

The court said in early December it will hold oral arguments in the case in 2026, between February and April, with a ruling expected by the end of June.