After 13 years of pursuit, one of the terrorists who murdered four Americans in Benghazi has arrived on U.S. soil to face justice.

Zubayr al-Bakoush was flown to Joint Base Andrews early Friday morning following an FBI overseas operation. Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced that he faces eight federal counts, including murder, terrorism, and arson, for his role in the September 11, 2012, attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, State Department officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

‘For 13 hours, Americans waited for help that never came,’ Pirro said, as personnel defended the nearby CIA annex under sustained attack. ‘Today, American justice has arrived.’

The families of the fallen deserved this moment. But Benghazi was always about more than catching terrorists. It exposed fundamental leadership failures and an administration that prioritized narrative control over accountability.

Security Failures Nobody Owned

The State Department’s own Accountability Review Board delivered a devastating verdict in December 2012. The board found ‘systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies’ that resulted in ‘grossly inadequate’ security in Benghazi. While the board did not assign criminal liability, it made clear that leadership failures in Washington materially contributed to the tragedy.

Despite extensive intelligence warnings about deteriorating security and al-Qaeda’s expanding operations, State Department officials in Washington repeatedly denied requests for additional security from personnel on the ground. The CIA, by contrast, increased security at its Benghazi facilities.

This is what American resolve looks like when clarity replaces spin and persistence replaces defensiveness.

Four State Department officials were cited for their failures by the Accountability Review Board. They were placed on administrative leave with pay, then returned to government service in other roles rather than being dismissed. Two eventually retired voluntarily. More than a year after the attack, no official had been fired, demoted, or otherwise held personally accountable for decisions that left Americans vulnerable.

The YouTube Video That Wasn’t

In the days following the assault, senior Obama administration officials blamed a spontaneous protest sparked by an anti-Islam video. That explanation collapsed under scrutiny. Intelligence agencies understood almost immediately that this was a coordinated terrorist attack by extremist militias, including the designated terror group Ansar al-Sharia.

When Hillary Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 2013, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pressed her on why evacuees who could confirm there was no protest were not immediately contacted. Clinton’s response became infamous: ‘What difference, at this point, does it make?’ To critics, her remark symbolized an administration more focused on managing political fallout than confronting hard truths about security and responsibility.

Those five words crystallized critics’ view that the administration prioritized public messaging in the weeks preceding a national election over candor. Clinton later said, ‘I take responsibility,’ yet she simultaneously distanced herself from operational security decisions, and no disciplinary action followed. President Obama took no steps to remove her from office.

Congress launched multiple investigations. The House Select Committee on Benghazi, after two years and $7 million, found bureaucratic failures and ignored security warnings—but no definitive evidence of personal wrongdoing by Clinton.

That contrast between evasion then and resolve now explains why this arrest matters.

Why This Arrest Matters

The capture of al-Bakoush sends an unmistakable message: America does not forget its fallen, and justice will be pursued regardless of time or politics. As Pirro emphasized, ‘There are more of them out there. Time will not stop us from going after these predators, no matter how long it takes.’

This is what American resolve looks like when clarity replaces spin and persistence replaces defensiveness. The terrorists who attacked Americans that September night made a calculation that they could kill with impunity. Friday’s arrest proves that calculation wrong.

Benghazi remains a painful chapter marked by loss and leadership failures. But this arrest demonstrates something essential: when America commits to justice, we finish what we start. The families who waited more than a decade understand the difference that makes. It also sends a message to adversaries worldwide that America’s commitment to justice—and to its people—does not expire.

President Donald Trump took down an inflammatory post from Truth Social that depicted the Obamas as monkeys after a wave of backlash from some of the president’s top allies on Capitol Hill. 

The post first appeared on Thursday night and went under the radar until Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the lone Black member of the Senate GOP, demanded Trump take it down.

The post in question depicted former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama as monkeys or apes.

‘Praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House,’ Scott said. ‘The President should remove it.’

His reaction opened a floodgate of responses from other congressional Republicans, who didn’t buy the White House’s initial explanation for the video. 

‘This is totally unacceptable,’ Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said on X. ‘The president should take it down and apologize.’ 

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote the post off as a ‘meme’ that was part of a video depicting Trump as the king of the jungle from ‘The Lion King.’ 

‘Even if this was a Lion King meme, a reasonable person sees the racist context to this,’ Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., said in a post on X. ‘The White House should do what anyone does when they make a mistake: remove this and apologize.’

Still, it took several hours for the post to be removed. 

A Trump advisor told Fox News Digital that ‘the president did not see the video before it was posted.’

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., said on X, ‘This content was rightfully removed, should have never been posted to begin with, and is not who we are as a nation.’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., similarly called on Trump to take the post down. 

‘Racist. Vile. Abhorrent. This is dangerous and degrades our country — where are Senate Republicans? The President must immediately delete the post and apologize to Barack and Michelle Obama, two great Americans who make Donald Trump look like a small, envious man,’ Schumer said on X. 

The post has since been removed, and a Trump advisor told Fox News Digital that ‘the president did not see the video before it was posted.’

Scott and Trump have shared a warm relationship since he ran and ultimately dropped out of the Republican presidential race last year. 

He now chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOP’s campaign arm tasked with keeping Republicans’ thin majority in the upper chamber and expanding it during the 2026 midterm cycle. 

Scott has rarely bucked Trump, positioning himself as a top ally to the president — he was on the short list of possible vice presidential picks before Trump ultimately tapped then Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio. 

However, he has recently broken with the president on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Scott, who also chairs the Senate Banking Committee, said during an interview with Fox Business earlier this week that he didn’t believe Powell had committed a crime during his testimony to the committee last year.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

The United States and Russia are entering a new phase of nuclear relations with no treaty limiting their arsenals, as President Donald Trump calls for a sweeping new arms control agreement and Russian officials warn that Washington’s approach would make any deal impossible.

The last agreement that capped U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, known as New START, expired Thursday, leaving the world’s two largest nuclear powers without legally binding limits on their arsenals or an inspection regime.

Trump called New START a ‘bad deal’ that was being ‘grossly violated,’ and said the United States should instead pursue a ‘new, improved and modernized treaty.’

Russian officials quickly pushed back. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of Russia’s security council, said U.S. criticism of New START ‘means one thing: there’ll never be a treaty under these terms,’ arguing Washington is demanding limits that ignore other nuclear-armed states and new weapons systems.

The United States and Russia have entered a new phase of nuclear relations with no treaty now limiting their arsenals, after the last remaining arms control agreement between the two powers expired this week. As the two powers seek to negotiate a new framework, each is seeking to expand restrictions on each other’s allies, with the U.S. aiming to include China, and Russia countering by saying Britain and France should also be covered.

Speaking Wednesday at the Conference on Disarmament, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said New START’s limits no longer reflect today’s nuclear landscape.

‘As of yesterday, New START and its central limits have expired,’ DiNanno said. ‘Even if we could have legally extended the treaty, it would not have been beneficial for the United States — or the world — to do so.’

‘A bilateral treaty with only one nuclear power is simply inappropriate in 2026 and going forward,’ DiNanno said, pointing to Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons and China’s unconstrained buildup.

In practice, New START’s verification regime had already been largely dormant since 2023, when Russia stopped allowing on-site inspections of its nuclear facilities and halted required data exchanges under the treaty, even as both sides said they continued to observe its numerical limits.

But China remains far behind the United States and Russia in overall nuclear warheads and is unlikely to accept binding limits while it is still expanding its arsenal, arms control experts say.

The United States and Russia each maintain roughly 4,000 total nuclear warheads, with about 1,700 deployed on strategic delivery systems, according to expert estimates. China, by contrast, is projected to reach about 1,000 warheads by 2030.

Arms control experts caution that while New START had clear shortcomings, its expiration still removes an important stabilizing mechanism. Lynn Rusten, a former senior U.S. arms control official now at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said the treaty provided a foundation that is now gone.

‘We did lose something,’ Rusten told Fox News Digital. ‘It would have been good to continue that as a foundation and a stabilizing platform on which to negotiate a better deal.’

The growing uncertainty comes as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last month moved its symbolic Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight — the closest it has ever been to global catastrophe — citing rising nuclear risks, the collapse of arms control frameworks, and intensifying great-power competition.

Rusten said the immediate concern is not a rapid buildup of new missiles or bombers, but how many warheads each side could deploy on systems they already have.

‘Both countries have the capacity to increase deployed warheads on their existing strategic delivery vehicles,’ she said. ‘It would take time, but they could add several hundred if they chose to.’

Russia has also developed a number of nontraditional delivery systems that were not limited by New START.

Those systems include a nuclear-powered cruise missile known as Burevestnik, sometimes referred to as Skyfall, and a nuclear-powered underwater torpedo called Poseidon — weapons Moscow has touted as capable of evading existing missile defenses and striking targets at intercontinental range.

‘Those are systems that really should be included in any future treaty,’ Rusten said. ‘They’re troubling because they’re just adding to the number and type of strategic-range nuclear systems that can kill huge numbers of people.’

Separate from those novel strategic systems, experts say one of the biggest unresolved issues in nuclear arms control involves so-called tactical, or non-strategic, nuclear weapons — shorter-range nuclear arms designed for battlefield use rather than long-range strikes against cities.

Russia is believed to possess far more of these weapons than the United States, and they have never been subject to legally binding arms control limits. While Washington drastically reduced its tactical nuclear stockpile after the Cold War, Moscow retained and later modernized many of its own, viewing them as a key tool to offset NATO’s conventional military strength.

‘Russia has thousands of tactical nuclear weapons, and they’ve never been covered by a treaty,’ Rusten said. ‘That’s been a long-standing concern for the United States and our NATO allies, and it’s one of the hardest issues to negotiate.’

Because they are smaller, more flexible, and potentially usable earlier in a conflict, experts say tactical nuclear weapons pose a unique escalation risk — lowering the threshold for nuclear use and complicating efforts to prevent a crisis from spiraling into a broader nuclear exchange.

House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., announced Friday that he’s investigating companies linked to Ilhan Omar’s, D-Minn., husband, citing a dramatic increase in value in a short time and raising questions about whether their success could be tied to widespread fraud schemes uncovered in Minnesota. 

In a letter published Friday morning, Comer said the Oversight Committee would conduct a closer look at the ventures of Tim Mynett, who married Omar in March 2020.

‘We want to know: who’s funding this? And who’s buying access?’ Comer said.

In his letter, Comer described how two of Mynett’s companies, eStCru LL. and Rose Lake Capital LL., went from being worth $51,000 in 2023 to up to $30 million in 2024.

‘Given that these companies do not publicly list their investors or where their money comes from, this sudden jump in values raises concerns that unknown individuals may be investing to gain influence with your wife,’ Comer wrote in his letter to Mynett, citing congressional financial disclosures.

The Oversight Committee is asking Mynett to produce communications regarding the companies’ latest audits, communications with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), correspondence with any other federal agencies and travel records to or from the United Arab Emirates, Somalia or Kenya.

Comer did not explain how the committee is approaching the investigation but hinted that lawmakers were on guard for possible connections to the fraud schemes in Minnesota.

‘The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating widespread fraud in Minnesota’s social service programs,’ Comer told Mynett in his letter.

Mynett and Omar have come under public scrutiny in recent months as financial reports revealed that the pair’s wealth has grown exponentially since Omar arrived in Congress in 2019.

Those concerns overlap with ongoing federal, state and congressional probes into as much as $9 billion in state funding that Minnesota may have lost to fraud. Through scores of schemes, fraudsters allegedly siphoned funding from government programs like daycare centers and health clinics while returning no benefits, greatly exaggerating their services and pocketing government funding.

Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., the House whip and No. 2 Republican in the chamber, said he expects the public will soon secure answers through the Oversight Committee’s demands for additional details.

‘As President Trump said last month: Time will tell all. I’m confident that Rep. Comer’s investigation into Ilhan Omar’s suspiciously exploding wealth will reveal the truth. The truth sets some people free, but it may send Ilhan packing.’

The committee has asked to see its requested information no later than Feb. 19.

Rep. Omar’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that indirect nuclear talks with the U.S. in Oman were ‘a good start’ and that there was a ‘consensus’ that the negotiations would continue.

‘After a long period without dialogue, our viewpoints were conveyed, and our concerns were expressed. Our interests, the rights of the Iranian people, and all matters that needed to be stated were presented in a very positive atmosphere, and the other side’s views were also heard,’ Araghchi said.

‘It was a good start, but its continuation depends on consultations in our respective capitals and deciding on how to proceed,’ he added.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi met with both Iranian and American officials on Friday, the Foreign Ministry of Oman said on X. The ministry said that al-Busaidi held separate meetings with Araghchi and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

‘The consultations focused on preparing the appropriate conditions for resuming diplomatic and technical negotiations, while emphasizing their importance, in light of the parties’ determination to ensure their success in achieving sustainable security and stability,’ the Foreign Ministry of Oman said.

Oman reportedly put out a public statement acknowledging the talks after journalists with The Associated Press saw Iranian and American officials separately visit the palace, the outlet reported. The AP said it was not immediately clear if talks were done for the day, but noted that the palace was empty after the convoys left.

The Iranian representatives reportedly met with al-Busaidi first, and only after their convoy left the palace did another set of vehicles arrive, one of which had an American flag, according to the AP. The outlet said the SUV flying the American flag stayed at the palace for an hour and a half.

The talks were initially set to take place in Turkey, but were later moved, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who confirmed the change in venue on Wednesday.

‘We thought we had an established forum that had been agreed to in Turkey. It was put together by a number of partners who wanted to attend and be a part of it,’ Rubio said when taking questions from reporters on Wednesday.

‘I saw conflicting reports yesterday from the Iranian side saying that they had not agreed to that. So, that’s still being worked through. At the end of the day, the United States is prepared to engage in, has always been prepared to engage with Iran.’

Iranian officials also reportedly tried to limit the talks to a bilateral U.S.-Iran format, excluding other Arab and regional countries, according to Axios.

Tensions between Iran and the U.S. have been high since Washington bombed Tehran’s nuclear facilities in the summer of 2025. Things escalated further as the U.S. condemned Iran’s treatment of anti-regime protesters, with President Donald Trump threatening to act if government actors used violence against demonstrators.

Trump recently said in an interview with NBC News that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ‘should be very worried,’ though the president acknowledged that the two countries were ‘negotiating.’

When pressed about why he has not followed through on threats to take action if the regime used violence against protesters, Trump said that the U.S. ‘had their back’ and that the ‘country’s a mess right now because of us,’ referring to the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Trump also told NBC News that the U.S. had learned that Iran was attempting to build a new nuclear site in a different part of the country.

The president said that he issued a threat that if Iran were to build a new nuclear facility, the U.S. would ‘do very bad things.’

It is not immediately clear whether there will be more discussions over the course of the weekend or if there are any plans for direct discussions between Iranian and American officials.

The State Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., swiftly pulled the plug on a meeting with Lebanese Chief of Defense Gen. Rodolphe Haykal after the Lebanese official refused to confirm that the Iranian regime-backed Hezbollah movement is a terrorist organization.

Graham posted to X a blunt message about his frustration with the state of Lebanon in particular and Mideast power politics in general.

 ‘I just had a very brief meeting with the Lebanese Chief of Defense General Rodolphe Haykal. I asked him point blank if he believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. He said, ‘No, not in the context of Lebanon.’ With that, I ended the meeting. They are clearly a terrorist organization. Hezbollah has American blood on its hands. Just ask the U.S. Marines,’ 

He continued, ‘They have been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by both Republican and Democrat administrations since 1997 – for good reason. As long as this attitude exists from the Lebanese Armed Forces, I don’t think we have a reliable partner in them. I am tired of the double speak in the Middle East. Too much is at stake.’

Haykal’s refusal to recognize that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization set off security alarm bells among leading experts on the movement.

Matthew Levitt, a leading scholar on Hezbollah from the Washington Institute, told Fox News Digital that, ‘Gen. Haykal’s comment is only going to further concerns that the LAF sees Hezbollah as an actor with which it should deconflict, rather than disarm. The ceasefire agreement is clear that Hezbollah must be disarmed, in both the south and north of the country. In several instances to date, the LAF appears to have shared with Hezbollah targeting intelligence obtained from Israel through the US-led mechanism rather than acting on it.’

He added, ‘At a time when the LAF is seeking international aid, purportedly to disarm Hezbollah, failing to recognize the group as an adversary not only of Israel but of Lebanon as well undermines the case for further funding.’

Fox News Digital sent multiple press queries to Lebanon’s embassy in Washington, D.C.

Sarit Zehavi, a leading Israeli security expert on Hezbollah from the Israel Alma Research and Education Center, told Fox News Digital that, ‘I was not surprised by what Haykal said. This is exactly the problem. Hezbollah is not designated as a terrorist organization in Lebanon. The Lebanese army… is not willing to clash with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not willing to voluntarily disarm. It will not happen as long as there is no clash.’

Zehavi claimed the Lebanese Armed Forces has ‘helped Hezbollah to conceal is military activity and weapons storages in south Lebanon.’

The U.S. brokered a ceasefire in Nov. 2024 between Hezbollah and Israel. In August, Lebanon’s government accepted an American plan to disarm the group by the end of 2025. That deadline does not seem to have been met.

U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Thomas Barrack, who also serves as envoy to Syria, said at a recent Milken Institute event that Lebanon is a ‘failed state.’ 

Barrack said, ‘The confessional system does not work. A Maronite president, a Sunni prime minister and a Shia speaker; 128 parliamentary seats split equally between Islam and Christians; everything is a deadlock.’

He said, ‘Hezbollah is a foreign terrorist by U.S. standards,’ and ‘it also happens to be a large political party within Lebanon that has blocking rights… This idea of saying you have to disarm Hezbollah … you’re not actually gonna do it militarily.’

Barrack said, ‘The U.S. is saying Hezbollah needs to be disarmed, Hezbollah is a foreign terrorist organization, it cannot exist. My personal opinion is you kill one terrorist, you create 10. That can’t be the answer.’ He urged the Lebanese political leadership to ‘run to Israel and make a deal…there is no other answer.’

Walid Phares, an American academic expert on Hezbollah and Lebanon who has advised U.S. presidential candidates, told Fox News Digital that ‘The disarming of Hezbollah is not just a U.S. and international request but also and most importantly a request by a majority of Lebanese since at least the Cedars Revolution in 2005, when 1.5 million Lebanese Christians, Druze and Sunnis rallied against the Syrian occupation and the Khomeinist militia.’

He added, ‘While the Assad forces withdrew, Hezbollah remained armed. In May 2008, the radical Shia militia conducted an urban military coup against the pro-Western government and seized full power until the Israel-Iran war, known as the 12-day war of 2025. The latter was provoked by Hezbollah siding with Hamas during the Oct. 7 war.’

Fox News Digital reported in November that the Trump administration ramped up pressure on the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah.