French President Emmanuel Macron’s push for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations clashed sharply with Donald Trump’s message — but the two leaders’ rivalry also played out in the streets of New York in an unexpected way.

At the UN General Assembly, Macron formally announced France’s recognition of a Palestinian state, insisting the move was ‘essential to peace.’ Trump, speaking today, blasted the recognition as a ‘reward’ for Hamas’s ‘horrible atrocities, including October 7,’ that would only prolong conflict.

But away from the UN stage, the two presidents collided in an unusual moment when Macron was stopped at a crosswalk by New York police as Trump’s motorcade rolled through Manhattan. ‘Sorry President, everything is frozen, the motorcade moving now,’ one officer told him. Macron, visibly frustrated, replied, ‘If you don’t see it, let me cross.’

With the road blocked, Macron picked up his phone and called President Trump directly. According to a video circulating online, the French president said: ‘Guess what, I’m waiting in the street because everything is frozen for you.’ Only after the call was the road eventually cleared.

Macron then walked through the city for nearly half an hour, trailed by passersby who stopped him for selfies. One person planted a kiss on his head. Macron laughed off the encounter, saying, ‘It’s just a kiss, makes no harm.’

France’s embassy in the U.S official X account leaned into the moment with humor: ‘It’s a good thing our presidents have each other on speed dial… If you’ve ever had to walk through NYC during UNGA, this is 110% relatable content.’

A conservative climate policy group is urging House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to subpoena records from the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project as part of an ongoing probe into the influence of climate advocacy groups in climate policy litigation. 

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, a conservative pro-U.S. energy production policy group, wrote a letter to Jordan last week pointing to evidence from a Sept. 12 Multnomah County v. ExxonMobil et al. court filing that he says suggests ‘covert coordination and judicial manipulation.’

‘This new evidence raises serious red flags about the credibility of both the so-called science being used in climate lawsuits and the judicial training programs behind the bench,’ Isaac told Fox News Digital. 

According to Isaac’s letter to Jordan, the court filing submitted by Chevron Corporation earlier this month reveals that ‘one of the plaintiffs’ lead attorneys, Roger Worthington, had undisclosed involvement in at least two so-called scientific studies that the county is presenting as independent, peer-reviewed evidence.’

One of those studies ‘acknowledged funding from the Climate Judiciary Project in a draft version, but that disclosure was inexplicably removed from the final publication,’ Isaac said in the letter. 

Earlier drafts of the study, labeled ‘DO NOT DISTRIBUTE,’ were found on Worthington’s law firm website, the letter revealed. 

According to the American Energy Institute, the study seeks to ‘attribute global economic losses from climate change to specific oil companies.’ The website also included a ‘pre-publication draft of a CJP judicial training module’ with internal editorial comments, according to the letter. 

Isaac told Jordan this mark-up raises ‘serious questions about how and why a plaintiffs’ attorney had early access to, and possibly editorial influence over, materials being presented to state and federal judges as ‘neutral’ science.’

Another module was designed to ‘educate’ participant judges on how to apply ‘attribution science’ in the courtroom, according to Isaac. 

Attribution science seeks to measure how much human-caused climate change is responsible for certain extreme weather events, per Science News Explores’ definition. 

‘The Environmental Law Institute has claimed neutrality, yet documents suggest coordination with plaintiffs’ counsel who stand to profit from the outcomes,’ Isaac told Fox News Digital. ‘If the same lawyers suing energy companies are shaping the studies and educating the judges, that is not justice; it is manipulation. Congress is right to dig deeper, and the American Energy Institute is proud to support that effort.’ 

Isaac is requesting that Jordan formally request ‘communications, draft documents, funding agreements, and internal editorial notes related to the scientific studies and CJP curriculum.’

While commending Jordan’s leadership, Isaac said, ‘Judges and the public deserve to know whether the courtroom is being quietly shaped by coordinated climate advocacy posing as neutral expertise.’

Isaac said the Environmental Law Institute and Worthington should answer several questions about their involvement in the studies, including the ‘judicial education module on attribution science.’

‘Does ELI regularly seek input from plaintiffs’ attorneys on its judicial education modules?’ Isaac questioned. 

‘ELI did not fund the Nature study, and the Climate Judiciary Project has not coordinated with Mr. Worthington,’ Environmental Law Institute spokesman Nick Collins told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

‘CJP does not participate in or provide support for litigation,’ Collins added. ‘Rather, CJP provides evidence-based continuing education to judges about climate science and how it arises in the law. Our curriculum is fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards.’

When 23 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter last month to Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin calling on him to cancel funding to the Environmental Law Institute, Collins told Fox News Digital that the Climate Judiciary Project’s projects are far from ‘radical.’

‘The programs in which the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) participates are no different than other judicial education programs, providing evidence-based training on legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily choose to attend,’ Collins said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Jordan and Worthington for comment on the letter but did not immediately hear back. 

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this story. 

President Trump just fired a top federal prosecutor because he failed to bring charges against two despised opponents, New York Attorney General Letitia James and ex-FBI chief James Comey.

The ouster of Erik Siebert, U.S. attorney for Virginia’s Eastern District — and Trump’s own appointee — came after he couldn’t find sufficient evidence to charge James with mortgage fraud.

The president blamed the firing on Siebert having been put forward by two Democratic senators – hardly a secret – under the archaic ‘blue slip’ requirement that should be abolished.

‘Yeah, I want him out,’ Trump said after ABC broke the story. Tish James is ‘very guilty of something.’

What’s more, ‘he didn’t quit, I fired him!’

It’s a blip of a story, compared to Trump and his team naming a special prosecutor to again investigate Russiagate allegations from 2016; dropping corruption charges against New York’s Mayor Eric Adams, and suspending security clearances for the law firm that Robert Mueller left four years ago (later blocked by a judge).

The larger point is that perhaps we’ve become inured to the serious spectacle of a president not just interfering with the Justice Department but literally dictating who should be charged and who should be protected.

Trump told Pam Bondi over the weekend, ‘They impeached me twice, and indicted me (five times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!’ 

He said he believes James, Comey and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff are ‘all guilty as hell’ but that nothing is being done.

As someone who used to roam the halls of the Justice Department — and covered three independent counsels involving Ronald Reagan’s AG, Ed Meese — I am acutely aware of the ethical boundaries. 

After the Watergate scandal, which included Attorney General John Mitchell going to prison, led to reforms, the idea of a wall between the White House and DOJ was further cemented. 

Joe Biden saw any involvement in criminal probes as radioactive, and no evidence of his tampering has surfaced (though he did pardon a bunch of allies, including his son).

There was a huge uproar back when Bill Clinton had a chance tarmac meeting with his AG, Loretta Lynch, while his wife was under investigation over her private email server. She said they talked about grandchildren and travel. A CBS reporter called the meeting ‘absolutely shocking.’ 

But you don’t have to rely on unnamed sources to learn about Trump giving his attorney general marching orders. He broadcasts it, even boasts about it.

Of course, Trump stretching his executive powers goes well beyond DOJ. There are his funding freezes against universities, dispatching of the National Guard in D.C. and elsewhere, and attempting to fire members of supposedly independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve.

The escalation against the media has been nothing short of stunning. Trump cheered ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel against the backdrop of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatening to take action against its local licenses. ‘We can do this the easy way or the hard way,’ he said, prompting some conservatives to say he sounded like a mafioso.

Trump won a $16 million settlement from ABC over George Stephanopoulos saying Trump had been held liable for ‘rape,’ not sexual abuse. He also won $16 million from CBS over the biased editing of a ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris. 

It just so happens that Nexstar, which preempted Kimmel and owns many CBS affiliates, needs administration approval to take over Tegna, another media conglomerate.

Trump filed suit against the Wall Street Journal for reporting he’d sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a silhouette of a naked woman–and when that surfaced with what closely resembled his signature, continued to deny he had done it.

And then there is his $15 billion suit against the New York Times, which a judge threw out after just four days for its ‘inexcusable’ breaking of the rules in a filing filled with ‘vituperation.’ It’s a strange suit because it wasn’t triggered by any particular story, just a general charge that the Times campaign coverage was illegal, including a Harris endorsement that ran on the front page.

Even the largest corporations have to spend big bucks to defend such suits, which is sort of the point.

But nothing is as sensitive and powerful as law enforcement, whose officials can shield allies and prosecute opponents.

The president’s position is that DOJ was weaponized against him during the Biden administration, and therefore he’s entitled to payback.

The latest news just broke. The Justice Department was investigating border czar Tom Homan for allegedly offering to help win federal contracts to businessmen — who were actually undercover FBI agents — in exchange for $50,000.

But as MSNBC reports, Trump’s DOJ dropped the case after he took office.
Since the hidden-camera encounter took place before Trump was elected, when Homan was a private citizen, I could argue he was just doing what hundreds of lobbyists do. Except for one nagging detail — Homan took the 50K in cash, in a Cava fast-food bag. No paper trail.

And yet Pam Bondi’s department gave him a pass.

Prosecutors in every administration must make difficult judgment calls about whether they have enough evidence to convict, especially against government officials or high-profile figures. 

And next time there’s a Democrat in the White House, what’s to stop that person from playing the same kind of hardball, saying their party was entitled to payback? The cycles could be endless.

As for now, it would be easier to have confidence in these prosecution decisions if the president wasn’t openly calling the shots. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer met with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and Commerce Minister Li Chenggang in Madrid last week. They announced a ‘framework agreement’ over TikTok, the Chinese-owned app used by millions of Americans. 

But the story isn’t only about TikTok. It’s also about how America uses TikTok as a lever – and why that lever is more necessary than ever.

TikTok is an important issue in and of itself: control over data, algorithmic influence, foreign ownership – all of which are critical for national security. In addition, however, TikTok is a tool the U.S. can and should use in ongoing trade engagement, as well as to counter China’s growing leverage in rare earths, critical minerals and semiconductors.

When I served in President Donald Trump’s first administration (‘Trump 45’), the core issues we confronted included a massive trade imbalance, intellectual property theft, cyber-theft and China’s Belt and Road infrastructure expansion. These were predatory practices in trade, tech and finance. Today, in ‘Trump 47,’ the battlefront has broadened – but one thing that hasn’t changed is the psychological warfare the Chinese employ any time negotiations are underway.

I was at the center of one of the most dramatic examples of this during Trump 45… 

After an exhausting month of prep work, I boarded my flight to Beijing in March 2018 with wary optimism. I had worked intensively leading up to this trip, drafting a comprehensive framework document outlining a new trade deal with China, a proposal that would overhaul virtually every aspect of the U.S.-China economic relationship.

We’d sent the proposal to our Chinese counterparts several days earlier, and now our high-level trade delegation was en route to Beijing to negotiate the largest change to trade relations in at least 10 years. The cast of characters illustrates just how significant this trade deal could be. It included Secretary Steven Mnuchin (head of the delegation), Under Secretary David Malpass and me (Treasury), Secretary Wilbur Ross (Commerce), U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and several of his deputies, NEC Director Larry Kudlow, Under Secretary Ted McKinney (Agriculture), and Peter Navarro (special assistant to the president and director of trade and manufacturing policy).

We arrived at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing with about an hour to review our plans one more time before we had to depart for Diaoyutai – the state guest house where Mao and every leader since has entertained foreign dignitaries. But there was a surprise waiting for us at our embassy:a brand-new proposal, drafted by the Chinese, which they were putting forth at the eleventh hour, and which we had never seen. It was about 15 pages long – and completely in Chinese!

I was one of the few people in the room who could read it. After a quick scan, I told the group: ‘This is wholly unacceptable. This document doesn’t say anything – they’re just messing with us.’ A heated debate ensued over how to respond, and how the Chinese were likely to react. But there was no time to reach a consensus; it was time to leave for Diaoyutai.

There was a mass exit from the secure room where we met at the embassy, and, almost like a well-choreographed ballet with a hundred moving parts, we all shuffled to our designated cars. As Secretary Mnuchin stepped into the limousine to take us to the meeting, Malpass insisted that I ride with the secretary and pushed me into the seat next to Mnuchin, saying, ‘We need to know exactly what this says – can you translate it on the way?’

As we sped through the streets of Beijing, I sat in the back seat, literally shvitzing as a technical term in Chinese got the better of me, and furiously translated as I read out loud, in English, what the Chinese had dropped in our laps.

Even as we climbed the stairs into the building and entered the meeting room, none of us was quite sure how Mnuchin was going to handle this hot potato. After Vice Premier Liu He’s flowing stream of diplomatic pleasantries welcoming us to China, the secretary calmly stated in response, ‘We received your draft. Thanks for sending it over – but we’re going to use our draft for today.’ It wasn’t the preamble they expected. But it was entirely consistent with the new tone that President Trump had set from the day he took office.

Today, China has moved from using tariffs and IP theft to controlling choke points – especially in rare earth elements, critical minerals, semiconductors and advanced manufacturing capacity. The numbers are clear indicators of China’s leverage. 

China accounts for about 70 % of global rare earth mining and about 90 % of the world’s rare earth refining and separation capacity. In 2023, China controlled 61 % of global mining of rare earth magnet elements and 92 % of refining capacity for those magnets. 

On semiconductors: while U.S. companies remain strong in chip design and advanced R&D, China’s share of the semiconductor industry’s value-added has surged (from about 8 % in 2001 to over 30 % by 2016), and China is pushing aggressively to become self-sufficient in mature node production.

These are not passive metrics. They are active levers China already uses in the trade negotiations through export restrictions, licensing controls or by threatening disruptions. For example, in April 2025 China – clearly in response to President Trump’s bold tariff moves – added export licenses and restrictions for seven heavy rare earth elements, including dysprosium, terbium, samarium, plus rare earth magnets—materials critical to EV motors, wind turbines, electronics and defense systems.

The challenges faced in Trump’s first term have only evolved – not eased. The trade deficit is large, IP and tech theft are growing more dangerous, predatory development finance practices continue and China’s leverage in rare earths, semiconductors and control over supply chains threatens global development and American autonomy.

TikTok is a headline issue impacting critical issues of data, influence and national security. But it is also an essential lever to counter the new pressure points China is pressing. Madrid and Friday’s Trump–Xi call offer a chance to reshape this broader contest. 

As I demonstrate in ‘A Seat at the Table,’ President Trump’s strategy and policies during his first administration allowed us to exert maximum pressure on our counterparts and to stay the course with firm negotiating positions and clear red lines. Last week’s dialogues demonstrate that Trump will continue to insist on substance over symbolism, an approach critical to our national interest. 

When President Donald Trump took the stage at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the teleprompter didn’t work. But no matter — he was about to deliver a series of points he knew well, and one that shattered the typical U.N. script.

At times, world leaders shifted uncomfortably in their seats, particularly when he charged that the U.N. had failed to help the U.S. end wars and joked that all he ever got from the institution was being stuck on an escalator and a broken teleprompter. Yet in his trademark style, Trump also drew laughter from the room, managing to be both affable and scolding at the same time.

‘What is the purpose of the United Nations?’ Trump asked, after recounting how he — not the U.N. — had ended seven wars. 

From there, he launched into a wide-ranging address that touched on every one of the U.N.’s modern priorities — climate change, Ukraine, refugee resettlement and Palestinian statehood—and rejected each of them outright, unsettling many in attendance.

Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže told Fox News Digital world leaders took note of Trump’s blunt style and sweeping agenda. She emphasized that his remarks spanned ‘a whole set of international issues,’ from Ukraine to Gaza. She highlighted his criticism of Russia, saying it was clear he wanted the war to end and was openly disappointed in President Vladimir Putin.

Former U.S. diplomat Hugh Dugan noted that while Trump hammered the U.N., he did not press the case for reform as forcefully as expected. 

‘As for U.N. reform and criticizing and guiding it through financial crises and endemic dysfunctionality, surprisingly he left a vacuum instead of a narrative,’ Dugan said. ‘He neither validated nor criticized the U.N. as expected, except pointing out the obvious views of its administrative and diplomatic passivity shared widely.’

Climate change

For the U.N., climate change is an existential threat requiring global action. Trump mocked the entire concept as ‘the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,’ deriding green energy as ‘all bankrupt’ and declaring the carbon footprint ‘a hoax.’ Dismissing decades of climate change work at the U.N., he said: ‘No more global warming, no more global cooling, whatever the hell happens, it’s climate change.’

Braže noted that European nations still see the U.N. as the central forum for tackling global problems, even if reforms are overdue. ‘We might differ in our opinion where we still think the U.N. is a valuable organization and the U.N. charter is a basis of [the] international system,’ she said, adding: ‘Of course it needs change… stepping up efficiencies.’

Ukraine

Trump and the international body are largely aligned on wanting the war in Ukraine to come to an end, but Trump criticized its European members sharply for continued reliance on Russian oil.

Trump argued the war ‘would never have started if I were president’ and accused NATO allies of hypocrisy and said some NATO allies were ‘funding the war against themselves’ by buying Russian oil.

‘They’re buying oil and gas from Russia while they’re fighting Russia. It’s embarrassing to them… they have to immediately, immediately cease all energy purchases from Russia.’

He threatened tariffs unless Europe cut off energy purchases from Moscow, but blamed India and China as the ‘primary funders of the war’ through Russian fuel purchases. The president also once again promised a ‘very strong round of powerful tariffs’ if Russia refuses peace.

Braže said Latvia welcomed Trump’s commitment to ending the war, even as she underscored Europe’s reliance on the U.N. system. ‘He also explained, of course, his efforts to achieve peace in various regions which we welcome,’ she said.

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna echoed Trump’s point that Russia’s war effort is not unstoppable. ‘As for the president’s speech, it was good to hear that Trump is dedicated to peace in Ukraine, and he also hinted that Russia is defeatable. We believe that as well,’ Tsahkna said. ‘Estonia has long said that Russia’s energy exports are its main source of revenue, and the engine behind its war in Ukraine. That’s why we must do more to cut off this funding.’

Migration

Where the U.N. sees migration as a shared humanitarian challenge, Trump painted it as an ‘invasion.’ He accused the U.N. of bankrolling illegal immigration into the U.S., citing U.N. cash and food assistance for migrants, and warned that uncontrolled migration was ‘ruining’ Europe.

‘The U.N. is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them,’ Trump said. ‘Your countries are being ruined. Europe is in serious trouble. They’ve been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody’s ever seen before.’

He claimed migrants in London want to impose ‘Sharia law.’

‘I look at London where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor. And it’s been so changed, so changed. Now they want to go to Sharia law, but you’re in a different country. You can’t do that.’

Braže said the Baltic States share skepticism about uncontrolled migration, rooted in their history under Soviet rule. ‘In some European countries, political correctness overcame the need to limit immigration. For us in the Baltics, immigration has always been something that we are quite skeptical about,’ she said. ‘That is due to the fact when the Soviet Union occupied us for 50 years we were not able to define our own rules… so today we are very clear that our borders are our borders, we control them.’

Palestinian statehood

While the U.N. pushes for recognition of Palestinian statehood as part of a two-state solution, Trump blasted such efforts as ‘a reward for Hamas.’ He argued it would encourage terrorism and instead demanded the immediate release of Israeli hostages — and made calls for peace. 

Dugan said the White House calculated carefully how to handle the Palestinian issue. ‘He denied added publicity for the Palestinian statehood matter, while robbing his critics of a snarky quotable they depend upon. His team would say that they opted not to throw more gas on that fire, I suppose.’

‘We have to stop the war in Gaza immediately. We have to immediately negotiate peace,’ Trump said.

But French President Emmanuel Macron said that if Trump really wants peace, he has to put pressure on Israel to end the war. 

‘There is one person who can do something about it, and that is the U.S. president. And the reason he can do more than us, is because we do not supply weapons that allow the war in Gaza to be waged. We do not supply equipment that allows war to be waged in Gaza. The United States of America does,’ Macron told France’s BFM TV after the speech. 

Macron went on: ‘I see an American president who is involved, who reiterated this morning from the podium: ‘I want peace. I have resolved seven conflicts’, who wants the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize is only possible if you stop this conflict.’

Behnam Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said Trump’s handling of Iran, where the president touted the U.S.’s offensive strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, in particular stood out. ‘The calmness and even casualness with which President Trump spoke about the elimination of the Islamic Republic’s military leaders at the UNGA today shows an understanding and willingness to embrace America’s superpower status against its adversaries not often seen,’ Taleblu said.

The broader UN message

Beyond individual issues, Trump’s message was that the U.N. itself was failing. He ridiculed its reliance on ‘strongly worded letters’ and its expensive renovation projects, portraying the body as corrupt and ineffective.

‘I’ve attended UNGA a few times. Never have I heard a speech like this. Trump was right on one thing: the UN is paralyzed,’ Tobias Ellwood, a former British member of Parliament, shared on X. But he warned major conflict is ‘likely to follow’ if the UN dissolves like the League of Nations did.

But Dugan suggested Trump stopped short of offering a roadmap. ‘He went to tier-2 topics (immigration and green energy) because they are tier-1 with MAGA,’ he said. ‘Given the teleprompter and the escalator, he seems resigned to the fact that the place is not teachable when it comes to organization turnaround — certainly not while [Secretary General Antonio] Guterres continues.’

Trump launched a review of the U.N. six months ago, and Dugan said he’d hoped to hear more about its findings in the speech. It’s ‘not evident’ that the review was ‘deep, good or even completed.’ 

Looking ahead, Dugan warned that Trump’s silence on deeper U.N. reform left space for rivals. ‘Next: let’s see if China is editing its speech now to swoop down to fill the missing narrative vacuum,’ he said.

Behnam Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said Trump was also making a point about the U.N.’s lack of engagement. ‘The President also foot-stomped the fact that he has received relative silence from the U.N. system and its leaders in the face of numerous ceasefires and deconfliction agreements he helped broker in warzones around the world. For an organization aimed at stemming or resolving conflict, the silence is deafening.’