Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado said she presented President Donald Trump with her Nobel Peace Prize medal, describing it as a historic gesture recognizing his commitment to freedom and the fight against tyranny.

Machado spoke with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol Thursday, when she was asked whether she offered her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump.

‘I presented the president of the United States the medal … the Nobel Peace Prize, and I told him, ‘Listen to this, 200 years ago, General Lafayette gave Simón Bolívar a medal with George Washington’s face on it,’ Machado said. ‘He kept that medal for the rest of his life. Actually, when you see his portraits, you can see the medal.’

She said Lafayette gave the medal to Bolívar as a symbol of the partnership between the people of the U.S. and the people of Venezuela and their shared fight for freedom against tyranny.

‘Two hundred years in history, the people of Bolívar are giving back the heir of Washington, a medal, in this case the medal of the Nobel Peace Prize, as a recognition for his unique commitment with our freedom,’ Machado said.

Machado’s meeting with Trump came nearly two weeks after the U.S. captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and amid lingering questions about her political future. The meeting also followed comments from Trump casting doubt on Machado leading the country rather than endorsing the Venezuelan opposition leader.

‘I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader,’ Trump told reporters Jan. 3. ‘She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.’

The Washington Post previously reported Trump was annoyed Machado won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025, an award he had hoped to receive and that Machado dedicated to him, though the White House said the president’s decisions were based on ‘realistic decisions.’

Still, Machado floated the idea of transferring the prestigious award to Trump last week during an appearance on Fox News’ ‘Hannity.’

‘Did you at any point offer to give him the Nobel Peace Prize?’ Sean Hannity asked. ‘Did that actually happen?’

Machado responded, ‘Well, it hasn’t happened yet.’

‘I certainly would love to be able to personally tell him that we believe — the Venezuelan people, because this is a prize of the Venezuelan people — certainly want to give it to him and share it with him,’ Machado continued. ‘What he has done is historic. It’s a huge step toward a democratic transition.’

Despite her intent, the Norwegian Nobel Institute shut down the idea last Friday.

‘Once a Nobel Prize is announced, it cannot be revoked, shared or transferred to others,’ the institute said in a statement. ‘The decision is final and stands for all time.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for a reaction.

Fox News Digital’s Michael Sinkewicz contributed to this report.

The Biden administration purchased a pulsed energy weapon suspected of being the type that may have caused ‘Havana Syndrome’ which caused a series of mysterious ailments for U.S. diplomats and government workers in Cuba. 

The weapon was bought at the end of the Biden Administration and has since been tested by the Pentagon, Fox News has learned. House Republicans are demanding answers amid reports of the purchase of the device.

In a letter to Homeland Security Kristi Noem, House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., is asking for information on the procurement process for the weapon, its costs and the findings associated with its year-long testing related to Havana Syndrome, officially known as Anomalous Health Incidents (AHI). 

‘The device in question is described as capable of producing pulsed radio waves and containing Russian components, though it is supposedly not entirely Russian in origin,’ the letter states. ‘Following HSI’s successful acquisition of the device, it was reportedly transferred to DoW, which spent more than a year testing the device and its capabilities.’

Some U.S. intelligence agencies have said a foreign adversary could be behind the mysterious ailment. 

Fox News Digital previously reported that Adam, a former government employee whose identity Fox News agreed to protect, is considered to be ‘Patient Zero.’

He was first attacked in December 2016 while living in Havana on assignment. During his time on the Caribbean island, Adam experienced multiple attacks and described pressure to the brain that led to vertigo, tinnitus and cognitive impairment.

‘While assessments from the Intelligence Community (IC) do not conclusively identify the factors causing AHIs or any foreign actor responsible, an assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) presented a majority view concluding that it was ‘very unlikely’ that a foreign actor ‘used a novel weapon or prototype device to harm even a subset of the U.S. Government personnel,’ with five out of seven agencies agreeing with that assessment,’ Garbarino wrote in his letter. 

‘However, two agencies dissented from the majority view and assessed that there was a chance that foreign actors may have developed some sort of ‘novel weapon or prototype device’ that could have harmed U.S. personnel,’ he added. 

However, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released the report and held a background call with reporters on Friday explaining that new reporting ‘led two components to shift their assessments about whether a foreign actor has a capability that could cause biological effects consistent with some of the symptoms reported as possible AHIs.’

‘This shift consequently led two IC components to subtly change their overall judgment about whether a foreign actor might have played a role in a small number of events,’ the agency said. 

Fox News’ Liz Friden contributed to this report. 

Former Rep. Billy Long, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to be ambassador to Iceland, has apologized after privately joking to House lawmakers that the Arctic island would become the ’52nd state’ with him as its governor.

Long, a Republican who represented Missouri from 2011 to 2023 and served a brief stint as IRS commissioner last year, said he was just joking with his former congressional colleagues.

‘There was nothing serious about that, I was with some people, who I hadn’t met for three years, and they were kidding about Jeff Landry being governor of Greenland and they started joking about me and if anyone took offense to it, then I apologize,’ Long told Arctic Today.

‘I apologize and that’s my only comment, I look forward to working with the people of Iceland and I apologize it was taken that way, I was with a group of friends and there was nothing serious about it,’ he added.

Trump recently named Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry as a special envoy to Greenland.

This comes as Trump heats up his threats to acquire Greenland, a Danish territory, saying he plans to take the island ‘one way or the other.’

‘We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not,’ Trump said last week. ‘Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.’

Trump administration officials are openly weighing options such as military force to take Greenland, a move that would violate NATO’s Article V, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all of them and could end the alliance of more than 75 years.

Denmark and other European countries have made moves, including sending additional troops to Greenland in case of a U.S. invasion, backing the territory as it reaffirms its position that it does not want to join the U.S. Iceland is among the NATO members that have expressed opposition to Trump’s repeated threats to take Greenland.

On Capitol Hill, most Democrats and even some Republicans have opposed the idea of taking Greenland, while other Republicans have voiced support for pursuing closer ties with the territory, including Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., who introduced legislation to make it the 51st U.S. state, although he said the best way to acquire Greenland is voluntarily.

Trump has also said he wanted to make Canada the 51st U.S. state.

Long was visiting former colleagues on the House Floor earlier this week when he made the controversial comment about Iceland, sparking some minor diplomatic backlash, with Iceland’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs demanding answers from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavík.

‘There is no doubt that this is very serious for a small country like Iceland,’ Icelandic Parliament member Sigmar Guðmundsson told MBL. ‘We need to understand that all the security arguments made by the U.S. regarding Greenland, also apply to Iceland.’

Some Icelanders also launched a petition drive calling on their government to reject Long as ambassador if he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The petition has obtained 2,000 signatures.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Politico that Long was ‘probably having some fun’ and ‘I wouldn’t read too much into that.’

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who visited with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem less than a month ago, said in a Thursday post on X he was going to Israel to meet with the foreign leader and his team.

‘I am traveling to Israel to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his team at this crucial time in the history of the Middle East. The goal is to build on the historic opportunities created by President Trump’s unprecedented leadership, to stand up to evil, and to support the people who are sacrificing for freedom,’ Graham wrote in the post.

‘The Trump-Netanyahu alliance has thus far been one of the strongest partnerships in the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and I am hopeful it will pay dividends in the near future. We live in a time of great consequence with the Middle East on the verge of previously unimaginable change. Standing together and following through on our commitments only makes us stronger,’ he added.

Graham’s announcement comes less than a month after he met with Netanyahu in Israel in December.

In a video posted to X on December 21, Netanyahu welcomed the senator, calling Graham ‘a great friend of Israel’ and ‘great personal friend.’

The lawmaker has been advocating for U.S. President Donald Trump to attack Iran.

‘President Trump’s resolve is not the question: Question is, when we do an operation like this, should it be bigger, or smaller? I’m in the camp of bigger,’ Graham said in footage he highlighted in a Thursday post on X. ‘Time will tell. I’m hopeful and optimistic that the regime days are numbered.’

In a Wednesday post on X, Graham wrote, ‘People often ask me what should we do next when it comes to the murderous, religious Nazi regime in Iran. It’s pretty simple. Stand by the protesters demanding an end to their oppression. But it’s going to take more than standing by them. We must stop those who are responsible for killing the people by any means necessary ASAP. Make The Iranian People Safe Again.’

The Supreme Court is poised to rule soon on President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency wartime law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. countries — and which brought to the fore key questions over the ‘major questions doctrine,’ or the limiting principle by which courts can, in certain circumstances, move to curb the power of executive agencies.

During oral arguments over Trump’s tariffs in November, justices honed in on the so-called major questions doctrine — which allows courts to limit the power of executive agencies on actions with ‘vast economic and political significance’ — and how it squares with Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping global and reciprocal tariffs.

Plaintiffs told the court that Trump’s use of IEEPA to unilaterally impose his steep import duties violates the major questions doctrine, since IEEPA does not explicitly mention the word ‘tariffs.’ Rather, it authorizes the president to ‘regulate … importation’ during a declared national emergency — plaintiffs noted, arguing that it falls short of the standard needed to pass muster for MQD.

‘Congress does not (and could not) use such vague terminology to grant the executive virtually unconstrained taxing power of such staggering economic effect — literally trillions of dollars — shouldered by American businesses and consumers,’ they told the court in an earlier briefing.

Lawyers for the Trump administration countered that text of the IEEPA emergency law is the ‘practical equivalent’ of a tariff.

‘Tomorrow’s United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country,’ Trump posted on Truth Social back in November.

‘With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us,’ Trump continued.

‘Our Stock Market is consistently hitting Record Highs, and our Country has never been more respected than it is right now,’ he added. ‘A big part of this is the Economic Security created by Tariffs, and the Deals that we have negotiated because of them.’

While U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer acknowledged to the justices that IEEPA does not explicitly give an executive the power to regulate tariffs, he stressed in November that the power to tariff is ‘the natural common sense inference’ of IEEPA.

But whether the high court will back his argument remains to be seen.

That was the conclusion reached by the U.S. Court of International Trade last year. Judges on the  three-judge panel voted unanimously to block Trump’s tariffs from taking force, ruling that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have ‘unbounded authority’ to impose tariffs under the emergency law. 

‘The parties cite two doctrines—the nondelegation doctrine and the major questions doctrine—that the judiciary has developed to ensure that the branches do not impermissibly abdicate their respective constitutionally vested powers,’ the court said in its ruling.

The doctrine was also a focus in November, as justices pressed lawyers for the administration over IEEPA’s applicability to tariffs, or taxation powers, and asked the administration what guardrails, if any, exist to limit the whims of the executive branch, should they ultimately rule in Trump’s favor.

Though it’s not clear how much the court will rely on the MQD in its ruling, legal experts told Fox News Digital that they would expect it to potentially be cited by the Supreme Court if it blocks Trump’s tariff regime.

The high court agreed to take up the case on an expedited basis last fall, and a ruling is expected to be handed down within the coming days or weeks.

There’s very little precedent for major questions as a formal precedent cited by the courts, as noted by the University of Chicago College of Law in 2024.

The doctrine was cited formally by the Supreme Court for the first time ever in its 2022 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, when the court’s majority cited the doctrine as its basis for invalidating the EPA’s emissions standards under the Clean Power Plan. 

Prior to that, the doctrine existed as a more amorphous strand of statutory interpretation — a phenomenon that Justice Elena Kagan noted in her dissent in the same case.

‘The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it,’ Kagan said then. ‘When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.’

One factor that could play in Trump’s favor is the fact that the tariffs case is to some degree a foreign policy issue, which is an area where executives enjoy a higher level of deference from the court. 

Still, if oral arguments were any indication, the justices seemed poised to block Trump’s use of IEEPA to continue his steep tariff plan. 

Justices pressed Sauer as to why Trump invoked IEEPA to impose his sweeping tariffs, noting that doing so would be the first time a president used the law to set import taxes on trading partners.

They also seemed skeptical of the administration’s assertion that they did not need additional permission from Congress to use the law in such a sweeping manner, and pressed the administration’s lawyers on their contention that EEPA is only narrowly reviewable by the courts.

‘We agree that it’s a major power, but it’s in the context of a statute that is explicitly conferring major powers,’ Sauer said. ‘That the point of the statute is to confer major powers to address major questions — which are emergencies.’