Politics
Opinion: Christopher Wray just broke a prime rule of dealing with Donald Trump
For someone who played a tough-talking executive on TV — “You’re fired!” — Donald Trump sure goes out of his way to avoid such confrontations. The real-life Donald, as president, typically had a hireling do the deed, sent a letter to the media or simply tweeted the news.
But with FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, the president-elect took his passive-aggressive routine to a new level of humiliation.
Just after Thanksgiving, Trump posted 159 gushing words to announce that uber-loyalist grifter and fellow revenge seeker Kash Patel was his choice to be FBI director, and zero words acknowledging that Wray, Trump’s first-term pick for the job, had more than two years remaining on a 10-year term. For 11 excruciating days Wray twisted, until on Wednesday he accepted Trump’s unspoken invitation to go: Wray told FBI staff that he’d resign by Trump’s inauguration “to avoid dragging the bureau deeper into the fray.”
Opinion Columnist
Jackie Calmes
Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.
He shouldn’t have done that. For the good of the bureau and the nation, Wray should have stayed past Jan. 20, forcing Trump to fire him and bear full responsibility for brazenly politicizing an institution that, given its police powers, must be above partisanship. By quitting, Wray is complicit in normalizing what is anything but normal.
As Yale history professor Timothy Snyder advised citizens in the opening of his book “On Tyranny,” when dealing with would-be authoritarians, “Do not obey in advance.” That, Snyder argued, only teaches the power grabber what they can get away with.
The shameless Trump immediately sent out a fundraising email on the news of Wray’s surrender. “A great day for America,” he gloated in the solicitation and on social media.“
Hardly. Trump isn’t president yet and for the second time he’s starting by sacking an FBI director expressly because Wray, like James B. Comey before him in 2017, would not profess loyalty and drop well-deserved criminal investigations of Trump and his allies. And in an especially egregious example of the projection for which Trump is so well known, in each case he accused the FBI directors, both Republicans, of being the ones who politically weaponized the bureau — against him.
Just because Trump’s norm shattering no longer surprises doesn’t mean it shouldn’t shock. Yes, he’s entitled to fill his Cabinet with people of his choice — with the Senate’s approval, a constitutional hurdle he’s tried to duck — or to fire them. But federal law and Justice Department policies since the Watergate era put some unique guardrails between presidents and the FBI, given the proven potential for abuse of its vast law enforcement powers.
The director’s term — just one, of 10 years — was meant to be a primary constraint. Congress set the limit in 1976 in response to a confluence of FBI abuses: first by Director J. Edgar Hoover, whose dictatorial 48-year reign and wanton violations of Americans’ civil liberties ended only with his death in 1972, and then by President Nixon, who resigned in 1974 amid the Watergate scandals, including his use of the FBI to target those on his enemies list.
The point of the law was expressly to avoid directors-for-life such as Hoover, but also to keep the term long enough to overlap presidents’ four- or eight-year tenures and thus help insulate the director from White House political pressures.
As the Senate report on the law stated, an FBI director “is not an ordinary Cabinet appointment which is usually considered a politically oriented member of the President’s ‘team.’“ The combination of the value of the FBI’s criminal investigative powers together with their danger if perverted, the report added, “makes the office of FBI Director unique.”
Yet now we have a once and future president who insists that all his appointees be “team” players. To that end, Trump has now twice ignored the statutory 10-year term, unlike President Biden, who kept the Republican Wray in office without question. Trump seeks to install someone, Patel, who published a “Deep State” enemies list for Trump’s guidance — something of a resume sweetener in Trump world, it turns out — and has vowed “to destroy” the bureau and the Justice Department. And who, on the side, sells Trump-branded merch under the logo “K$H,” including children’s books depicting “King Donald” and Patel himself as the monarch’s avenging wizard.
Every FBI director since Hoover has been a Republican, and Democratic Presidents Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden either chose them or kept them on to symbolize that the job is above politics. Before Trump’s two defenestrations, the only dumping of an FBI chief was Clinton’s firing of William Sessions after taking office in 1993. But Clinton acted on findings of Sessions’ ethical infractions after a probe begun under President George H.W. Bush.
The 1974 Senate report justifying a mandated 10-year term acknowledged that a president’s power to remove a director within that time “is formally unlimited.” But it suggested that the Senate, given its power to confirm a successor, would act as a check on that removal power — “and will tolerate its exercise for good reason only” and “not merely for the reason that a new President desires his ‘own man’ in the position.”
Alas, the authors didn’t anticipate today’s Senate Republicans, whose servility to the wrathful Trump exceeds their respect for the Senate’s prerogatives and independence. Not one has publicly opposed Patel’s confirmation. Never mind that when Trump, in his first term, tried to make Patel the FBI deputy director, then-Atty. Gen. William Barr said “over my dead body,” according to his memoir.
Now Barr is on the Patel-Trump enemies list. It was Wray’s turn to stand up to Trump and against Patel’s ascension, and to underscore by his inevitable firing how transgressive Trump’s action is. That Wray instead backed down is yet another bad omen for the next four years.
@jackiekcalmes
Politics
Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Iran launched missile and drone strikes targeting U.S. military facilities in multiple Middle Eastern countries Friday, retaliating after coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear-linked sites.
Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, according to regional officials and state media accounts. Several of those governments said their air defense systems intercepted incoming projectiles.
It remains unclear whether any U.S. service members were killed or injured, and the extent of potential damage to American facilities has not yet been confirmed. U.S. officials have not publicly released casualty figures or formal damage assessments.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) described the operation as a direct response to what Tehran called “aggression” against Iranian territory earlier in the day. Iranian officials claimed they targeted U.S. military infrastructure and command facilities.
Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, pictured above. (Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Adelola Tinubu/U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet )
The United States military earlier carried out strikes against what officials described as high-value Iranian targets, including IRGC facilities, naval assets and underground sites believed to be associated with Iran’s nuclear program. One U.S. official told Fox News that American forces had “suppressed” Iranian air defenses in the initial wave of strikes.
Tomahawk cruise missiles were used in the opening phase of the U.S. operation, according to a U.S. official. The campaign was described as a multi-geographic operation designed to overwhelm Iran’s defensive capabilities and could continue for multiple days. Officials also indicated the U.S. employed one-way attack drones in combat for the first time.
IF KHAMENEI FALLS, WHO TAKES IRAN? STRIKES WILL EXPOSE POWER VACUUM — AND THE IRGC’S GRIP
Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)
Iran’s retaliatory barrage targeted countries that host American forces, including Bahrain — home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet — as well as Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base and the UAE’s Al Dhafra Air Base. Authorities in those nations reported intercepting many of the incoming missiles. At least one civilian was killed in the UAE by falling debris, according to local authorities.
Iranian officials characterized their response as proportionate and warned of additional action if strikes continue. A senior U.S. official described the Iranian retaliation as “ineffective,” though independent assessments of the overall impact are still developing.
Smoke rises over the city after the Israeli army launched a second wave of airstrikes on Iran in Tehran on Feb. 28, 2026. (Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Regional governments condemned the strikes on their territory as violations of sovereignty, raising the risk that additional countries could become directly involved if escalation continues.
The situation remains fluid, with military and diplomatic channels active across the region. Pentagon officials are expected to provide further updates as damage assessments and casualty reviews are completed.
Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report.
Politics
Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes
Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.
The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.
Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”
But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.
“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.
Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”
Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.
Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.
Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.
Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.
“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”
We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons
— President Trump
The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.
The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.
After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”
Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.
“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.
Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.
This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.
(Uncredited / Associated Press)
“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.
Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”
There are other signs an attack could be imminent.
On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.
A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.
The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.
Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.
Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.
Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.
“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.
At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.
But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.
After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.
Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.
In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.
“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.
“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”
Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.
“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”
Politics
Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
transcript
transcript
Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.
-
“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”
By Jackeline Luna
February 27, 2026
-
World3 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT