Iran’s internet blackout has hardened into a permanent system of digital repression, with the regime treating citizens’ access to the outside world as an ‘existential threat,’ according to digital rights monitors.

Internet monitoring group NetBlocks reported Monday that Iran’s connectivity landscape had shifted dramatically as the country entered its 22nd day of unrest, following several days of almost total nationwide internet shutdown.

‘On the twenty-second day, after several days of an almost complete internet shutdown, reports emerged of limited and unstable internet connectivity in some parts of the country,’ NetBlocks reported.

‘Indications are that we’re seeing a move toward a kind of ‘filternet plus’ censorship scheme in Iran,’ NetBlocks CEO Alp Toker told Fox News Digital before pointing to ‘a rapid decline into a darker kind of digital darkness.’

‘The key difference from the pre-protest filternet arrangement is that, while internet platforms were extensively censored before, the regime is selectively whitelisting only a handful of services it deems critical for business needs.

‘Even this selective access is sporadic, which means the censorship is likely still in the test phase,’ he added. ‘In practice though, ordinary users remain offline.’

Toker described how the digital darkness ‘is in fact getting darker because the information controls are getting tighter.’

‘Where international links were tolerated as a window to trade, the regime is approaching each of these as potential threats,’ he said before adding that the regime ‘sees its own citizens’ ability to communicate with the rest of the world as an existential threat because the people are disaffected.’

According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) at least 2,571 people were killed as of Monday, with additional deaths reported but not yet fully verified amid the communications blackout.

The internet blackout began Jan. 8 amid escalating demonstrations since Dec. 28, as authorities sought to prevent protesters from organizing, sharing videos of crackdowns and communicating with the outside world.

Since then, connectivity has remained inconsistent, with frequent outages and throttling even when partial access is restored.

Iran International reported the blackout was expected to last until at least late March, with IranWire saying government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani told media activists that access to international online services would not be restored before Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, on March 20.

‘Having internet access was always a window to the outside and a lifeline for many Iranians,’ Toker added. ‘It allowed for personal expression and culture that is banned by the regime.’

‘These online freedoms can be as simple as online gaming, watching foreign movies or women’s ability to participate equally in spaces that would otherwise be barred by the Islamic Republic,’ he added.

‘With the internet blackout continuing, the curtain has been drawn on that window,’ Toker said. ‘This is angering many Iranians, particularly Gen Z, who stand to lose a part of their identity.’

The blackout has also coincided with cyber incidents targeting Iran’s state infrastructure.

As previously reported by Fox News Digital, anti-regime activists hacked Iran’s national broadcaster, briefly interrupting state television to air protest messages and calls from Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah and a prominent opposition figure.

‘We aren’t able to see the specific hack here,’ Toker explained. ‘The lack of up-to-date security is an issue for Iran.’

‘It is caused directly by the country’s digital isolation,’ he said. ‘Iran’s internet systems are outdated, and security tools aren’t available due to internet restrictions.’

Toker added that embargoes force widespread use of pirated software, which often contains hidden vulnerabilities that can be exploited to breach critical networks.

He said cyber warfare played a major role during the June 2025 clashes between Israel and Iran, prompting the blackout as a defensive measure against digital attacks. Israel, he noted, also restricted parts of its own network at the time.

‘In 2026, we haven’t seen the same focus on cyber incidents, but it’s clear there’s an ongoing battle between state actors as well as individual hackers,’ Toker said.

President Donald Trump has spent the bulk of his second White House term testing the limits of his Article II authorities, both at home and abroad – a defining constitutional fight that legal experts expect to continue to play out in the federal courts for the foreseeable future.

These actions have included the U.S. capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, who was deposed during a U.S. military raid in Caracas earlier this month, and Trump’s continued fight to deploy National Guard troops in Democrat-led localities, despite the stated objections of state and local leaders.

The moves have drawn reactions ranging from praise to sharp criticism, while raising fresh legal questions about how far a sitting president can go in wielding power at home and abroad.

Legal experts told Fox News Digital in a series of interviews that they do not expect Trump’s executive powers to be curtailed, at least not significantly or immediately, by the federal courts in the near-term.

Despite near-certain challenges from Maduro – who would likely argue any U.S. arrest in Venezuela is illegal, echoing Manuel Noriega’s failed strategy decades ago – experts say Trump’s Justice Department would have little trouble citing court precedent and prior Office of Legal Counsel guidance to justify his arrest and removal.

U.S. presidents have long enjoyed a wider degree of authority on foreign affairs issues – including acting unilaterally to order extraterritorial arrests. Like other U.S. presidents, Trump can cite guidance published in the late 1980s to argue Maduro’s arrest was made within the ‘national interest’ or to protect U.S. persons and property.

Even if an arrest were viewed as infringing on another country’s sovereignty, experts say Trump could cite ample court precedent and longstanding Office of Legal Counsel and Justice Department guidance to argue the action was legally sound.

A 1989 memo authored by then-U.S. Assistant Attorney General Bill Barr has surfaced repeatedly as one of the strongest arguments Trump could cite to justify Maduro’s capture. That OLC memo states that ‘the president, pursuant to his inherent constitutional authority, can authorize enforcement actions independent of any statutory grant of power.’ It also authorizes FBI agents to effectuate arrests ordered by the president under the ‘Take Care’ clause of the U.S. Constitution, and says the authority to order extraterritorial arrests applies even if it impinges ‘on the sovereignty of other countries.’

Importantly, federal courts have read these powers to apply even in instances where Congress has not expressly granted statutory authorization to intervene.

‘When federal interests are at stake, the president, under Article II, has the power to protect them,’ Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

That’s because Article II, at its core, is ‘the power for a U.S. president to protect [its] people,’ Blackman said. 

‘The reason why we detained Maduro was to effectuate an arrest. DOJ personnel and FBI agents were there to arrest him and read him his rights. And the reason why we used 150 aircraft, and all the other military equipment, was to protect the people who were going to arrest Maduro,’ he added. ‘It was a law enforcement operation, but [with] military backing to protect them – so Article II does factor in here, indirectly.’ 

Though Trump himself has not cited a legal justification for the invasion, senior administration officials have, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who described Maduro’s arrest respectively, as a mission to indict two ‘fugitives of justice,’ and as a ‘joint military and law enforcement raid.’

In Minnesota, next steps for Trump are a bit more fraught. 

Trump’s National Guard deployment efforts were stymied by the Supreme Court in December, after the high court halted Trump’s National Guard deployments under Title 10. 

Trump had deployed the federalized troops to Illinois and Oregon last year to protect ICE personnel. But the high court issued an interim order rejecting Trump’s bid, noting that under Title 10, the administration could not federalize the National Guard until it first showed they tried to authorize the regular military to enforce the laws but could not do so. 

Some court watchers have noted that the ruling essentially closes off alternatives for Trump to act.

Instead, Trump could opt to enact his Article II ‘protective powers’ domestically via a more sweeping and extreme alternative.

This includes the use of the Insurrection Act to call up active-duty U.S. troops and order them deployed to Minnesota and elsewhere. 

The Insurrection Act is a broad tool that gives presidents the authority to deploy military forces in the U.S. when ‘unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion’ make it ‘impracticable to enforce the laws.’ 

Critics note it is a powerful, far-reaching statute that could grant Trump an expansive set of powers to act domestically in ways that are not reviewable by Congress or by the courts.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former U.S. Assistant Attorney General, noted this possibility in a recent chat with former White House counsel Robert Bauer. By ‘closing off this other statute,’ he said, the Supreme Court ‘may have, some argue, driven the president in the direction of the Insurrection Act because this other source of authority was not available.’

Trump allies, for their part, have argued that the president has few other options at his disposal in the wake of the Supreme Court’s interim ruling.

Chad Wolf, the America First Policy Institute’s chair of homeland security and immigration, told Fox News Digital last week that Trump could have ‘little choice’ but to invoke the Insurrection Act.  

‘If the situation on the ground in Minneapolis continues to grow violent, with ICE officers being targeted and injured as well as other violent acts … Trump will have little choice,’ he said. 

Experts are split on to what degree there is a through-line between the two issues.

Blackman, the South Texas College of Law professor, said the ‘point of connection’ in Trump’s actions is the presidential ‘power of protection’ under Article II, which he said applies both abroad and at home. ‘The president can protect his law enforcement domestically, and he can protect his law enforcement abroad, both under Article II.’

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump warned that he no longer feels obligated to think ‘purely of peace’ as he argued the United States must have ‘complete and total control’ of Greenland.

In a text exchange with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, Trump wrote: ‘Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.’

‘Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also,’ he wrote. 

‘I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States,’ Trump wrote. ‘The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT.’

Støre confirmed the text message, first reported by PBS, to Fox News. 

The White House could not be reached to weigh in on the exchange. 

‘Norway’s position on Greenland is clear. Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and Norway fully supports the Kingdom of Denmark on this matter,’ the prime minister said in a statement. ‘We also support that NATO in a responsible way is taking steps to strengthen security and stability in the Arctic. As regards the Nobel Peace Prize, I have clearly explained, including to President Trump what is well known, the prize is awarded by an independent Nobel Committee and not the Norwegian Government.’ 

In a prior message to the U.S. president, Støre, on behalf of himself and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, had conveyed opposition to Trump’s proposed tariff increases on Norway, Finland and other countries and requested a phone conversation to de-escalate. 

The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, but she offered the prize to Trump in a White House meeting Thursday. 

The prize is awarded by the Nobel Committee, which is made up of members appointed by the Norwegian parliament and intended to operate independently. 

After Machado handed over her award to Trump, the Nobel Committee released a statement saying: ‘A laureate cannot share the prize with others, nor transfer it once it has been announced. A Nobel Peace Prize can also never be revoked. The decision is final and applies for all time.’

Trump on Saturday said he would impose an additional 10% tariff on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland, starting Feb. 1, increasing to 25% on June 1, until an agreement is reached for the purchase of Greenland.

Members of the European Union debated the prospect of retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. in Brussels Sunday, but diplomats insisted on the need to seek de-escalation measures with the U.S. first. 

The president has not ruled out the use of force to take the icy, 836,000 square mile island. 

Trump and his advisors have pointed to Greenland’s position between North America and Europe as critical to U.S. missile defense, early-warning systems and Arctic surveillance. The island sits along key air and sea routes that U.S. military planners view as increasingly important as melting ice opens new shipping lanes and expands the theater of great-power competition.

The administration has also warned that China and Russia have sought to expand their influence in the Arctic through infrastructure investments, scientific outposts and military activity, raising concerns that Greenland could become a foothold for adversaries if the U.S. does not take a more assertive role.

Greenland’s government and Denmark, which retains sovereignty over the territory, have rejected any suggestion of U.S. control, though the U.S. already maintains a military presence there through Pituffik Space Base, a key hub for missile warning and space surveillance.

Fox News’ Madeleine Rivera and Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report.

The latest bipartisan campaign to rein in President Donald Trump’s war authority in Venezuela may have failed, but the lawmaker behind the push has no intention of stopping his pursuit.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., plans to continue his goal of corralling Trump’s policing power across the globe, and believes that he can find support among Republicans to pass a war powers resolution out of the Senate.

‘The other thing we’re going to do is this: We’re going to be filing a whole lot more war powers resolutions,’ Kaine said after the unsuccessful vote to advance his resolution.

He argued that this resolution, though unable to make it out of the Senate this time, was similar to a war powers resolution he filed shortly after the strike ordered by Trump in 2020 that killed Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani.

The resolution garnered eight Republican votes in a GOP-controlled Senate at the time.

‘When you do it, and you get Republican votes, it sends a message to the White House,’ he said.

Kaine and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who co-sponsored the latest war powers resolution, previously suggested that later attempts to rein in Trump’s war authorities could be focused on Greenland, Iran and Cuba.

Kaine’s optimism comes from the successful vote to curtail Trump’s war powers in Venezuela earlier this month, where five Senate Republicans splintered from their colleagues to advance a resolution that would have required the president to confer with Congress before future military action in the region.

Still, that same cohort was unable to survive a pressure campaign from Senate Republican leadership, Trump and administration officials.

The two lawmakers who reversed their position, Sens. Todd Young, R-Ind., and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., did so because of guarantees from the administration, chiefly Secretary of State Marco Rubio, that no boots would be on the ground in Venezuela.

Young received the assurance from Rubio in a letter the day of the vote, when he said that should Trump ‘determine that he intends to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities in major military operations in Venezuela, he would seek congressional authorization in advance (circumstances permitting).’

Kaine said that while the outcome was disappointing, and Trump and Senate Republican leadership engaged in a ‘full-court press unlike any I’ve seen in 13 years here’ to stop the resolution from succeeding, the cracks in the foundation were still there. And Kaine believed they were ripe to fracture even further.

‘The way cracks grow is through pressure and the pressure campaign that I sort of decided to launch by use of these privileged motions. I’m going to file every one I can to challenge emergencies, to challenge unlawful wars, to seek human rights reports, arms transfers if they’re wrong,’ he said.