Connect with us

World

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who investigated Russia-Trump campaign ties, dies

Published

on

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who investigated Russia-Trump campaign ties, dies

WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert S. Mueller III, the FBI director who transformed the nation’s premier law enforcement agency into a terrorism-fighting force after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and who later became special counsel in charge of investigating ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, has died. He was 81.

“With deep sadness, we are sharing the news that Bob passed away” on Friday night, his family said in a statement Saturday. “His family asks that their privacy be respected.”

At the FBI, Mueller set about almost immediately overhauling the bureau’s mission to meet the law enforcement needs of the 21st century, beginning his 12-year tenure just one week before the Sept. 11 attacks and serving across presidents of both political parties. He was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush.

The cataclysmic event instantaneously switched the bureau’s top priority from solving domestic crime to preventing terrorism, a shift that imposed an almost impossibly difficult standard on Mueller and the rest of the federal government: preventing 99 out of 100 terrorist plots wasn’t good enough.

Later, he was special counsel in the Justice Department’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign illegally coordinated with Russia to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential race. Mueller was a patrician Princeton graduate and Vietnam veteran who walked away from a lucrative midcareer job to stay in public service, and his old-school, buttoned-down style made him an anachronism during a social media-saturated era.

Advertisement

Trump posted on social media after the announcement of Mueller’s death: “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead.” The Republican president added, “He can no longer hurt innocent people!”

The FBI did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment. The FBI Agents Association cited Mueller’s “commitment to public service and to the FBI’s mission.“

Advertisement

A second act as an investigator of a sitting president

The second-longest-serving director in FBI history, behind only J. Edgar Hoover, Mueller held the job until 2013 after agreeing to Democratic President Barack Obama’s request to stay on even after his 10-year term was up.

After several years in private practice, Mueller was asked by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to return to public service as special counsel in the Trump-Russia inquiry.

Mueller’s stern visage and taciturn demeanor matched the seriousness of the mission, as his team spent nearly two years quietly conducting one of the most consequential, yet divisive, investigations in Justice Department history. He held no news conferences and made no public appearances during the investigation, remaining quiet despite attacks from Trump and his supporters and creating an aura of mystery around his work.

All told, Mueller brought criminal charges against six of the president’s associates, including his campaign chairman and first national security adviser.

His 448-page report released in April 2019 identified substantial contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia but did not allege a criminal conspiracy. Mueller laid out damaging details about Trump’s efforts to seize control of the investigation, and even shut it down, though he declined to decide whether Trump had broken the law, in part because of department policy barring the indictment of a sitting president.

Advertisement

But, in perhaps the most memorable language of the report, Mueller pointedly noted: “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

The nebulous conclusion did not deliver the knockout punch to the administration that some Trump opponents had hoped for, nor did it trigger a sustained push by House Democrats to impeach the president — though he was later tried and acquitted on separate allegations related to Ukraine.

The outcome also left room for Attorney General William Barr to insert his own views. He and his team made their own determination that Trump did not obstruct justice, and he and Mueller privately tangled over a four-page summary letter from Barr that Mueller felt did not adequately capture his report’s damaging conclusion.

Mueller deflated Democrats during a highly anticipated congressional hearing on his report when he offered terse, one-word answers and appeared uncertain in his testimony. Frequently, he seemed to waver on details of his investigation. It was hardly the commanding performance many had expected from Mueller, who had a towering reputation in Washington.

Over the next months, Barr made clear his own disagreements with the foundations of the Russia investigation, moving to dismiss a false-statements prosecution that Mueller had brought against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, even though that investigation ended in a guilty plea.

Advertisement

Mueller’s tenure as special counsel was the capstone of a career spent in government.

FBI transformed into a national security agency

His time as FBI director was defined by the Sept. 11 attacks and its aftermath, as an FBI granted broad new surveillance and national security powers scrambled to confront an ascendant al-Qaida and interrupt plots and take terrorists off the street before they could act.

It was a new model of policing for an FBI that had long been accustomed to investigating crimes that had already occurred.

When he became FBI director, “I had expected to focus on areas familiar to me as a prosecutor: drug cases, white-collar criminal cases and violent crime,” Mueller told a group of lawyers in October 2012.

Instead, “we had to focus on long-term, strategic change. We had to enhance our intelligence capabilities and upgrade our technology. We had to build upon strong partnerships and forge new friendships, both here at home and abroad.”

Advertisement

In response, the FBI shifted 2,000 of the total 5,000 agents in the bureau’s criminal programs to national security.

In hindsight, the transformation was a success. At the time, there were problems, and Mueller said as much. In a speech near the end of his tenure, Mueller recalled “those days when we were under attack by the media and being clobbered by Congress; when the attorney general was not at all happy with me.”

Among the issues: The Justice Department’s inspector general found that the FBI circumvented the law to obtain thousands of phone call records for terrorism investigations.

Mueller decided that the FBI would not take part in abusive interrogation techniques of suspected terrorists, but the policy was not effectively communicated down the line for nearly two years. In an effort to move the FBI into a paperless environment, the bureau spent over $600 million on two computer systems — one that was 2½ years overdue and a predecessor that was only partially completed and had to be scrapped after consultants declared it obsolete and riddled with problems.

For the nation’s top law enforcement agency, it was a rocky trip through rough terrain.

Advertisement

But there were many successes as well, including thwarted terror plots and headline-making criminal cases like the one against fraudster Bernie Madoff. The Republican also cultivated an apolitical reputation on the job, nearly quitting in a clash with the Bush administration over a surveillance program that he and his successor, James Comey, considered unlawful.

He famously stood alongside Comey, then deputy attorney general, during a dramatic 2004 hospital standoff over federal wiretapping rules. The two men planted themselves at the bedside of the ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft to block Bush administration officials from making an end run to get Ashcroft’s permission to reauthorize a secret no-warrant wiretapping program.

In an extraordinary vote of confidence, Congress, at the Obama administration’s request, approved a two-year extension for Mueller to remain at his post.

A Marine who served in Vietnam before becoming a prosecutor

Mueller was born in New York City and grew up in a well-to-do suburb of Philadelphia.

He received a bachelor’s degree from Princeton and a master’s degree in international relations from New York University. He then joined the Marines, serving for three years as an officer during the Vietnam War. He led a rifle platoon and was awarded a Bronze Star, Purple Heart and two Navy Commendation Medals. Following his military service, Mueller earned a law degree from the University of Virginia.

Advertisement

Mueller became a federal prosecutor and relished the work of handling criminal cases. He rose quickly through the ranks in U.S. attorneys’ offices in San Francisco and Boston from 1976 to 1988. Later, as head of the Justice Department’s criminal division in Washington, he oversaw a range of high-profile prosecutions that chalked up victories against targets as varied as Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and New York crime boss John Gotti.

In a mid-career switch that shocked colleagues, Mueller threw over a job at a prestigious Boston law firm to join the homicide division of the U.S. attorney’s office in the nation’s capital. There, he immersed himself as a senior litigator in a bulging caseload of unsolved drug-related murders in a city rife with violence.

Mueller was driven by a career-long passion for the painstaking work of building successful criminal cases. Even as head of the FBI, he would dig into the details of investigations, some of them major cases but others less so, sometimes surprising agents who suddenly found themselves on the phone with the director.

“The management books will tell you that as the head of an organization, you should focus on the vision,” Mueller once said. But “for me there were and are today those areas where one needs to be substantially personally involved,” especially in regard to “the terrorist threat and the need to know and understand that threat to its roots.”

Two terrorist attacks occurred toward the end of Mueller’s watch: the Boston Marathon bombing and the Fort Hood shootings in Texas. Both weighed heavily on him, he acknowledged in an interview two weeks before his departure.

Advertisement

“You sit down with victims’ families, you see the pain they go through and you always wonder whether there isn’t something more” that could have been done, he said.

___ Associated Press writer Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

Advertisement

World

Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a ​handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump: report

Published

on

Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a ​handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump: report

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Pope Leo XIV said Saturday that remarks he made this week in which he said the “world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants” were not directed at President Donald Trump, a report said. 

The pope, speaking onboard a flight to Angola during his 10-day tour of Africa, said reporting about his comments “has not been ‌accurate in all its aspects” and his speech “was ⁠prepared two weeks ago, well before the president ever commented on myself and on the message of peace that I am promoting,” according to Reuters.

The news outlet cited the pope as saying his comments were not aimed at Trump.

“As it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to debate the president, which is not in ​my interest at all,” the pope reportedly said.

Advertisement

’60 MINUTES’ ACCUSED OF USING LEFT-LEANING CARDINALS TO BAIT TRUMP INTO FEUD WITH VATICAN

Pope Leo XIV answers journalists’ questions during his flight from Yaoundé, Cameroon, to Luanda, Angola, Saturday, April 18, 2026. (Luca Zennaro/Pool Photo via AP)

Vice President JD Vance later took to X to thank the pope for clearing the record.

“While the media narrative constantly gins up conflict — and yes, real disagreements have happened and will happen — the reality is often much more complicated,” Vance wrote. “Pope Leo preaches the gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the moral issues of the day.

“The President — and the entire administration — work to apply those moral principles in a messy world,” he continued. “He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we’ll be in his.”

Advertisement

The vice president’s comments came days after he told Fox News’ Bret Baier on “Special Report” that it would be best for the Vatican to “stick to matters of morality.”

“Let the President of the United States stick to dictating American public policy,” Vance said Tuesday.

Trump last Sunday accused Pope Leo XIV of being “terrible” on foreign policy after the pontiff criticized the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

“He talks about ‘fear’ of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 

“I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon.”

Advertisement

POPE LEO SLAMS THOSE WHO ‘MANIPULATE RELIGION’ FOR MILITARY OR POLITICAL GAIN, TRUMP RESPONDS

Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump (Simone Risoluti/Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images; Salwan Georges/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a speech in Cameroon on Thursday, the pope said, “We must make a decisive change of course — a true conversion — that will lead us in the opposite direction, onto a sustainable path rich in human fraternity.

“The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants, yet it is held together by a multitude of supportive brothers and sisters.

Pope Leo XIV speaks as he meets with the community of Bamenda at Saint Joseph’s Cathedral in Bamenda on the fourth day of an 11-day apostolic journey to Africa April 16, 2026. (Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth.”

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

Fox News Digital’s Landon Mion contributed to this report. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Bulgaria votes in eighth election in five years

Published

on

Bulgaria votes in eighth election in five years

Bulgarians headed to the polls Sunday for the eighth time in five years, with anti-corruption candidate and former president Rumen Radev’s bloc tipped to win.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The European Union’s poorest member has been through a spate of governments since 2021, when large anti-graft rallies brought an end to the conservative government of long-time leader Boyko Borissov.

Eurostat data shows Bulgaria consistently ranks last in the EU by GDP per capita. In 2025, Bulgaria (along with Greece) was at 68% of the EU average.

Radev, who has advocated for renewing ties with Russia and opposes military aid to Ukraine, was president for nine years in the Balkan nation of 6.5 million people.

Advertisement

He stepped down in January to lead newly formed centre-left grouping Progressive Bulgaria, with opinion polls before Sunday’s vote suggesting the bloc could gain 35% of the vote.

The former air force general has said he wants to rid the country of its “oligarchic governance model”, and backed anti-corruption protests in late 2025 that brought down the latest conservative-backed government.

“I’m voting for change,” Decho Kostadinov, 57, told reporters after casting his ballot at a polling station in the capital, Sofia, adding corrupt politicians “should leave — they should take whatever they’ve stolen and get out of Bulgaria”.

Polls are forecasting a surge in voter participation, with more than 3.3 million Bulgarians expected to cast ballots according to the Bulgarian News Agency.

Voting will close at 1700 GMT, with exit polls expected immediately afterwards. Preliminary results are expected on Monday.

Advertisement

‘Preserve what we have’

Borissov’s pro-European GERB party is likely to come second, according to opinion polls, with around 20%, ahead of the liberal PP-DB.

“I’m voting to preserve what we have. We are a democratic country, we live well,” said Elena, an accountant of about 60, who did not give her full name, after casting her vote in Sofia.

Front-runner Radev has slammed the EU’s green energy policy, which he considers naive “in a world without rules”.

He also opposes any Bulgarian efforts to send arms to help Ukraine fight back Russia’s 2022 invasion, though he has said he would not use his country’s veto to block Brussels’ decisions.

Pushing for renewed ties with Russia, Radev denounced a 10-year defence agreement between Bulgaria and Ukraine signed last month – drawing fresh accusations from opponents of being too soft on Moscow.

Advertisement

The ex-president also stoked outrage online for screening images at his final campaign rally of his meetings with world leaders including Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

“We need to close ranks,” he told around 10,000 cheering supporters at the rally, presenting his party as a non-corrupt “alternative to the perverse cartel of old-style parties”.

Borissov, who headed the country virtually uninterrupted for close to a decade, has dismissed suggestions that Radev brings something “new”.

At a rally of his party earlier this week, he insisted GERB had “fulfilled the dreams of the 1990s” with such achievements as the country joining the eurozone this year.

‘No one to vote for’

Radev is aiming for an absolute majority in the 240-seat parliament.

Advertisement

A lack of trust in politics has affected voter turnout, which slumped to 39% in the last election in 2024.

But with Radev rallying voters, high turnout is expected this time, according to analyst Boryana Dimitrova from the Alpha Research polling institute.

Miglena Boyadjieva, a taxi driver of about 55, said she always votes, but the “problem is that there is no one to vote for”.

“You vote for one person and get others. The system has to change,” she told reporters.

Political parties have called on Bulgarians to show up for the polls, also to curb the impact of vote buying.

Advertisement

In recent weeks, police have seized more than one million euros in raids against vote buying in stepped-up operations.

They have also detained hundreds of people, including local councillors and mayors.

Continue Reading

World

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Published

on

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.

Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s

Advertisement

Carries 110 pounds of explosives

One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.

Advertisement

Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.

Note: Estimated price of munitions per unit. In practice, multiple interceptors are fired when targeting a drone. For instance, with the $80 bullet fired by the Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM), 75 rounds are fired in a second. Sources: Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Open Source Munitions Portal, SRC Inc, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

Advertisement

Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.

Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.

Advertisement

In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.

Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.

Air-based strikes

Advertisement

In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Two to three interceptors fired per drone

Advertisement

Source: U.S. Navy, Department of Defense

Advertisement

These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.

The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.

Advertisement

Anti-drone defense systems

One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.

When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.

Advertisement

Ship-based anti-missile defenses

Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.

Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.

Advertisement

“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.

Ground-based anti-missile defenses

The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Patriot missile defense system

Advertisement

Advertisement

Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.

But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.

Advertisement

Ground-based guns

Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar

Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds

Advertisement

Advertisement

Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.

Interceptor drones

Advertisement

There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Merops system: Surveyor drone

Advertisement

Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.

The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.

Advertisement

Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.

The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.

Advertisement

Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.

“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending