A man was arrested after a statue of late United Kingdom Prime Minister Winston Churchill was defaced with red graffiti in London, the Metropolitan Police noted in a post on X.

Photos show the statue and its base defaced with messages such as ‘NEVER AGAIN IS NOW,’ ‘ZIONIST WAR CRIMINAL’ AND ‘GLOBALISE THE INTIFADA!’

‘Overnight, the Winston Churchill statue in Parliament Square was graffitied with red paint,’ the police noted in the post on Friday.

‘Officers were on scene within two minutes of being alerted shortly after 4am. A 38-yr-old man is in custody having been arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated criminal damage,’ the police added.

A Dutch activist group claimed credit for the graffiti. 

‘On the morning of 27th February, the statue of Winston Churchill at Parliament Square was defaced with red paint. This protest was organised and executed by @freethefilton24nl,’ a post on Instagram claims.

The post features a pre-recorded statement in which a man says, ‘My name is Olax Outis. I am a citizen of the Netherlands.’ 

He identifies himself as ‘part of a Dutch action group called Free the Filton 24 NL,’ explaining, ‘I’ve come to the United Kingdom to deface statue of one of history’s most well-known war criminals, Winston Churchill.’

The ongoing standoff over Homeland Security funding is raising concerns about the potential impact on Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the agency that has helped bring cases against high-profile figures, including Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs and Sinaloa Cartel co-founder Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán.

HSI is one of several agencies under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) threatened by the ongoing government shutdown.

That branch of DHS acts as the investigative arm for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — the agency that Democrats want to rein in and reform — and handles investigations into human and sex trafficking, drug trafficking, immigration-related crimes, child exploitation and several other areas.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., who was anointed the lead negotiator for Senate Republicans in the ongoing DHS funding back-and-forth, told Fox News Digital the agency’s work is ‘critically important.’

‘When you think about interior enforcement, I mean, HSI is a critical component of that,’ Britt said. ‘You look at what they’ve done, you look at the bad actors they’ve been able to hunt down and hold accountable for human trafficking, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, child pornography, trafficking, all kinds of things.’

Other big names whom HSI has played a role in investigating or indicting include R. Kelly, Josh Duggar, Sinaloa Cartel co-founder Ismael ‘El Mayo’ Zambada, and Jared Fogle.

While ICE and other immigration enforcement operations like HSI were funded in part through Republicans’ ‘big, beautiful bill,’ the lapse in ongoing appropriations could threaten supplies in the field and travel, hampering investigations already underway.

A DHS spokesperson told Fox News Digital that HSI was continuing to function during the shutdown, with arrests and investigations still happening. But as the current 14-day shutdown continues, delays in supply procurement and travel for ‘critical personnel to move around the country’ could be impacted.

‘Our national security and ability to get criminals, including pedophiles and other public safety threats, off the streets could be impacted the longer this Democratic shutdown continues,’ they said.

Senate Democrats and the White House have so far tried and failed to reach a deal to fund DHS after trading offers and counteroffers in a slow back-and-forth over the last two weeks.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., charged that ICE had been ‘unleashed without guardrails’ throughout the country.  

‘This is not border security, this is not law and order, this is chaos — created at the top and felt in so many of our neighborhoods,’ Schumer said.

And with lawmakers gone from Washington, D.C., for the weekend, the shutdown is guaranteed to stretch into its third week. Senate Democrats want stringent reforms to ICE, including requiring agents to obtain judicial warrants, unmask and provide thorough identification — all demands that are red lines for the Republicans and the White House, who fear that doing so would increase the chances of ICE agents being doxxed.

While Republicans and the administration raised concerns about HSI and other ICE functions, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., countered that from his understanding, ‘most everybody at HSI is gone.’

‘They’ve all been deployed to the interior,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘Not many, if not most, redeployed to interior enforcement. So the administration has gutted HSI.’

‘My impression is that HSI has been one of the agencies that has been essentially turned into ICE Junior,’ Murphy said.

Rep. Eric Swalwell’s, D-Calif., gubernatorial campaign continues to be bankrolled by Keliang ‘Clay’ Zhu despite concerns over his ties to China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 

Zhu donated another $25,000 to Swalwell’s campaign earlier this month after he had already donated $5,000 to Swalwell’s gubernatorial campaign in November and previously donated over $10,000 to his House campaigns. 

Zhu is a partner at DeHeng Law Offices PC, a top Beijing law firm that has deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and has also donated thousands to Swalwell’s gubernatorial campaign. The law firm’s website shows their lone ‘Silicon Valley Office,’ located in Pleasanton, Calif., appears to only have a single lawyer who works there – Zhu, who has a history of fighting for Chinese interests in the U.S.  

‘Once again, Congressman Swalwell got caught with his hand in the CCP cookie jar,’ lamented Michael Lucci, a top China expert and the founder and CEO of State Armor Action. ‘It’s simply outrageous that Congressman Swallwell would take even more money from Keliang Zhu after Zhu’s connections to the CCP were made public.’

A Fox News Digital review in January revealed that the law firm Zhu is a partner in was founded as the China Law Office, which was a subsidiary firm established by the CCP’s Ministry of Justice in the early 1990s before being renamed the DeHeng Law Offices in 1995. 

While the firm, which has over two dozen offices in China, portrays itself as independent, the firm and its lawyers continue to have longstanding cooperation with the Chinese government’s departments and major state-owned enterprises. Many of the firm’s China-based attorneys also have a history of working in Chinese politics.

Zhu, who is originally from China, touts several examples of how he has helped Chinese state-owned enterprises and other Chinese companies get a foothold in the United States, according to his bio on the law firm’s website. 

For example, he touts representing an ‘investment fund of a major state-owned enterprise in acquiring majority shares in one data analytics software company in the Silicon Valley,’ which he valued at $100 million. Another bio for Zhu touts how he ‘has assisted Chinese companies and funds to complete more than $9 billion investments in the fields of chips, unmanned vehicles, new energy, artificial intelligence, industrial automation, and biopharmaceuticals in the United States.’

‘On behalf of Chinese enterprises, he has negotiated with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of Treasury and other organizations for many times and achieved compliance plans, which greatly reduced the compliance risks for Chinese clients in the United States,’ the bio continued.

The bios also indicate Zhu helped advise ‘a governmental investment fund from Shenzhen for its compliance with CFIUS regulations in the U.S.’ and represented ‘WeChat users in a historic lawsuit that sued President Trump and successfully stopped his WeChat ban in 2020.’ 

At the time, Trump’s first administration sounded the alarm over WeChat and said the ‘data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information’ and was concerned that the CCP would use data to stalk dissenters or control messaging inside the United States, such as launching disinformation campaigns. Similar efforts to restrict WeChat have occurred in countries like Australia and India, according to the White House.

Meanwhile, after a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit intended to stop a Texas law banning Chinese nationals from owning or leasing land in the state, Zhu described the legislation as ‘unfair, unconstitutional and un-American,’ according to AsAmNews, a daily news site focused on Asian-American and Pacific-Islander communities. Zhu similarly expressed disfavor with a Florida law meant to prevent individuals from countries that are foreign adversaries to the United States, such as China, from buying up land.

DeHeng Law Office’s other China-based attorneys have a history of working in Chinese politics as well. This has largely been through the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), which is a ‘key mechanism for multi-party cooperation and political consultation’ under the leadership of the CCP, according to the CPPCC website, and is a crucial tool of the United Front strategy to influence U.S. policy.

For example, Zhixu Wu, who is a ‘Director and Senior Partner’ of the Kunming, China-based office of DeHeng Law Offices, is a member of the ‘Standing Committee of the 13th Kunming Committee of the CPPCC’ and a member ‘of the 12th Yunnan Committee of the CPPCC.’ His bio also says he was previously awarded in 2017 with ‘the title of ‘Excellent League Member’ for the second assistance event of the National Lawyers Service Group,’ which was approved by the ‘Eight Bureau of United Front Work Department of CPC Central Committee, Guidance Department of Lawyer’s Notarization Work of the Ministry of Justice.’

Swalwell’s ties to China have come under scrutiny before, particularly after Chinese national, Christine Fang, also known as ‘Fang Fang,’ gained special access to him and his campaign. She was deemed by U.S. officials to be part of a counterintelligence effort linked to China meant to influence and get close to U.S. political figures.

Swalwell has repeatedly claimed he cut off ties as soon as U.S. intelligence officials warned him of the threat and a congressional ethics investigation into the matter eventually found no wrongdoing on Swalwell’s behalf. However, he was ultimately removed by Republicans from his post on the House Intelligence Committee, with then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy citing Swalwell’s past run-in with a suspected Chinese spy.

Fox News Digital uncovered a previously unreported 2013 Facebook post by China’s San Francisco consulate last month showing Swalwell touting ‘great potential’ for U.S.-China cooperation during a meeting with a senior CCP diplomat early in his career, which came during the same time period when Swalwell was allegedly targeted by Chinese espionage efforts.

The Facebook post was also ‘liked’ by Fang Fang, Fox News Digital’s review found.

‘First, Swalwell had a fiery romance with Fang Fang, a CCP honeypot. Then he was caught taking campaign money from China’s favorite big law firm. Congressman Swalwell is either totally oblivious to the dangers of flirting with CCP operatives, or he doesn’t care and would take a check from Xi Jinping himself,’ Lucci told Fox News Digital. ‘Congress should pass a law to prohibit campaign cash from Communist China before Swalwell’s sweet tooth has him hunting for another CCP honey pot or cookie jar.’

The Swalwell campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

President Donald Trump warned that Iran is working to build missiles that could ‘soon reach the United States of America,’ elevating concerns about a weapons program that already places U.S. forces across the Middle East within range.

Iran does not currently possess a missile capable of striking the U.S. homeland, officials say. But its existing ballistic missile arsenal can target major American military installations in the Gulf, and U.S. officials say the issue has emerged as a key sticking point in ongoing nuclear negotiations.

Here’s what Iran can hit now — and how close it is to reaching the U.S.

What Iran can hit right now

Iran is widely assessed by Western defense analysts to operate the largest ballistic missile force in the Middle East. Its arsenal consists primarily of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles with ranges of up to roughly 2,000 kilometers — about 1,200 miles.

That range places a broad network of U.S. military infrastructure across the Gulf within reach.

Among the installations inside that envelope:

• Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, forward headquarters for U.S. Central Command.
• Naval Support Activity Bahrain, home to the U.S. 5th Fleet.
• Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, a major Army logistics and command hub.
• Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, used by U.S. Air Force units.
• Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.
• Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.
• Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, which hosts U.S. aircraft.

U.S. forces have drawn down from some regional positions in recent months, including the transfer of Al Asad Air Base in Iraq back to Iraqi control earlier in 2026. But major Gulf installations remain within the range envelope of Iran’s current missile inventory.

Multiple U.S. officials told Fox News that staffing at the Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain has been reduced to ‘mission critical’ levels amid heightened tensions. A separate U.S. official disputed that characterization, saying no ordered departure of personnel or dependents has been issued.

At the same time, the U.S. has surged significant naval and air assets into and around the region in recent days. 

The USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group is operating in the Arabian Sea alongside multiple destroyers, while additional destroyers are positioned in the eastern Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian Gulf. 

The USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group is also headed toward the region. U.S. Air Force fighter aircraft — including F-15s, F-16s, F-35s and A-10s — are based across Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, supported by aerial refueling tankers, early warning aircraft and surveillance platforms, according to a recent Fox News military briefing.

Iran has demonstrated its willingness to use ballistic missiles against U.S. targets before.

In January 2020, following the U.S. strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at U.S. positions in Iraq. Dozens of American service members were later diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries.

That episode underscored the vulnerability of forward-deployed forces within reach of Iran’s missile arsenal.

 Can Iran reach Europe?

Most publicly known Iranian missile systems are assessed to have maximum ranges of around 2,000 kilometers. 

Depending on launch location, that could place parts of southeastern Europe — including Greece, Bulgaria and Romania — within potential reach. The U.S. has some 80,000 troops stationed across Europe, including in all three of these countries.

Reaching deeper into Europe would require longer-range systems than Iran has publicly demonstrated as operational.

Can Iran hit the US?

Iran does not currently field an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of striking the U.S. homeland.

To reach the U.S. East Coast, a missile would need a range of roughly 10,000 kilometers — far beyond Iran’s known operational capability.

However, U.S. intelligence agencies have warned that Iran’s space launch vehicle program could provide the technological foundation for a future long-range missile.

In a recent threat overview, the Defense Intelligence Agency stated that Iran ‘has space launch vehicles it could use to develop a militarily-viable ICBM by 2035 should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.’

That assessment places any potential Iranian intercontinental missile capability roughly a decade away — and contingent on a political decision by Tehran.

U.S. officials and defense analysts have pointed in particular to Iran’s recent space launches, including rockets such as the Zuljanah, which use solid-fuel propulsion. Solid-fuel motors can be stored and launched more quickly than liquid-fueled rockets — a feature that is also important for military ballistic missiles.

Space launch vehicles and long-range ballistic missiles rely on similar multi-stage rocket technology. Analysts say advances in Iran’s space program could shorten the pathway to an intercontinental-range missile if Tehran chose to adapt that technology for military use.

For now, however, Iran has not deployed an operational ICBM, and the U.S. homeland remains outside the reach of its current ballistic missile arsenal.

US missile defenses — capable but finite

The U.S. relies on layered missile defense systems — including Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Patriot and ship-based interceptors — to protect forces and allies from ballistic missile threats across the Middle East.

These systems are technically capable, but interceptor inventories are finite.

During the June 2025 Iran-Israel missile exchange, U.S. forces reportedly fired more than 150 THAAD interceptors — roughly a quarter of the total the Pentagon had funded to date, according to defense analysts.

The economics also highlight the imbalance: open-source estimates suggest Iranian short-range ballistic missiles can cost in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece, while advanced U.S. interceptors such as THAAD run roughly $12 million or more per missile.

Precise inventory levels are classified. But experts who track Pentagon procurement data warn that replenishing advanced interceptors can take years, meaning a prolonged, high-intensity missile exchange could strain stockpiles even if U.S. defenses remain effective.

Missile program complicates negotiations

The ballistic missile issue has also emerged as a key fault line in ongoing diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Iran’s refusal to negotiate limits on its ballistic missile program is ‘a big problem,’ signaling that the administration views the arsenal as central to long-term regional security.

While current negotiations are focused primarily on Iran’s nuclear program and uranium enrichment activities, U.S. officials have argued that delivery systems — including ballistic missiles — cannot be separated from concerns about a potential nuclear weapon.

Iranian officials, however, have insisted their missile program is defensive in nature and not subject to negotiation as part of nuclear-focused talks.

As diplomacy continues, the strategic reality remains clear: Iran cannot currently strike the U.S. homeland with a ballistic missile. But U.S. forces across the Middle East remain within range of Tehran’s existing arsenal — and future capabilities remain a subject of intelligence concern.

President Donald Trump has lost his tariff case in the Supreme Court. However, with careful and prudent use of the tariff powers he does have, he can turn this into a win for his policies and for America.

The Supreme Court has just ruled in Learning Services v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. While the act unquestionably gives him the power to regulate imports in the event of unusual and extraordinary emergencies, the dispute was whether tariffs – a kind of tax – are legally and constitutionally ‘regulation.’

While there were reasonable arguments on both sides, six of the nine justices ruled they are not, and that the IEEPA does not empower the president to impose tariffs. What are the likely economic consequences of this ruling, and what should it imply for future Trump trade policy?

First, note that as economic policy, tariffs are a bad idea. International trade raises incomes and promotes economic growth in every country that trades. Trade is mutually beneficial, win-win for all trading parties. It is a popular myth that trade destroyed American manufacturing. American manufacturing has steadily increased since 1970, more than doubling, as shown by data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

On the other hand, roughly 90% of the costs of the ‘liberation day’ tariffs have been borne by American businesses and consumers, as shown in analysis by economists at the New York Federal Reserve. The American economy has had solid growth and low unemployment under Trump, but this is owing to his excellent energy and deregulation policies, which have reduced regulatory burdens. Tariff costs are another burden on the economy. Removing this drag should further encourage economic growth and employment.

It is also a popular myth that a trade deficit is a loss for a country. The trade deficit, or current account, is balanced the capital and financial accounts, that is, foreigners investing in America. There are two reasons why foreign investment flows into America. One is that America’s security and dynamism make it an attractive place to invest, a good thing. The other is the Federal government’s growing appetite for borrowing to cover its burgeoning deficits, a bad thing. Tariffs and trade restrictions make America’s economy less dynamic and do nothing to curb the government’s fiscal irresponsibility. There is no good economic argument for tariffs.

However, for foreign policy and national security purposes, tariffs can have an important role. Numerous other laws authorize the president to impose such tariffs. For example, the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122 (under which Trump has now imposed 10% tariffs) authorizes tariffs in the event of severe balance-of-payments deficits. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232, authorizes tariffs on goods for national security purposes.

Numerous other laws authorize the president to impose tariffs. However, all of these include various reasonable conditions and limits. For example, if the president imposes a national security tariff, Section 232 gives the administration 270 days to develop a study justifying the tariff. Trump still holds broad power to impose tariffs, but now it is more constrained and requires transparent reasons for any particular exercise of this power.

While this constrains Trump somewhat, he can turn this into a win for his presidency. Tariff power can be useful as a foreign policy tool, and by using a more nuanced and targeted approach to tariff policy, he can accomplish a lot of good for the American economy.

For example, the European Union is attempting to impose its ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards on American firms doing business in Europe, via the EU’s Corporate Due Diligence and Sustainability Mandates. EU mandates would apply to all of a firm’s activities everywhere, not just those in Europe.

Similarly, the EU has attempted to impose its Digital Services Act on American media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and Meta. This would require firms to monitor and censor free speech, despite America’s First Amendment protections. Targeted tariffs could be a very useful tool for punching back at this, protecting free commerce and defending American firms from such attacks. This would have the effect of strengthening America’s economy and position in the world.

President Trump has lost a round in the Supreme Court and his ability to impose tariffs is constrained. But with judicious use of the powers he retains, he can turn this into an opportunity to make America stronger and his presidency a greater success.