DISTRESSING CONTENT Rafis Khuzin has been accused of killing and then attempting to dismember his own wife during a brutal attack in Berezovsky, near Yekaterinburg in Russia

Rafis Khuzin allegedly killed and tried to dismember his wife(Image: Social media/east2west news)

Vladimir Putin has sent a man alleged to have killed and skinned his own wife after she refused to cook him chicken soup to the Ukraine frontline instead of a murder trial in a desperate bid to beef up Russian ranks in Ukraine.

Rafis Khuzin, 56, will not face justice for his twisted alleged crimes due to Russian battlefield losses, with the accused murderer set to join troops on the frontlines. The pardon will mean he is exempt from facing a murder trial, with Russian laws rewarding prisoners and would-be convicts conscripted during the war effort.

Khuzin, however, was accused of the particularly gruesome murder of his own wife, Olga Blinova, 49, who he reportedly stabbed to death with a large kitchen knife, before attempting to skin her.

READ MORE: NATO deploys fighter jets as ‘unidentified aircraft’ enters alliance’s airspaceREAD MORE: ‘Unpredictable’ Donald Trump could walk away from Ukraine peace deal, warns sonKhuzin allegedly killed his wife when she refused to help him chop chicken(Image: Social media/east2west news)

According to local reports, after killing Blinova, Khuzin is alleged to have skinned the upper part of her corpse before stashing it in his garden shed. He is said to have waited five days before eventually reporting the killing to law enforcement in Berezovsky, near Yekaterinburg.

The news outlet Baza reported that he had descended on his wife after she refused to cut up pieces of chicken while making a soup. After stabbing her, the outlet added that he had then attempted to dismember her lifeless body, but was unable to do so.

Instead, he was only able to “remove the skin from the upper part of her body”, it was alleged. Police attending the scene were “shocked by what they found” despite having “seen plenty of horrifying scenes over the course of their careers”, a police spokesperson said.

Blinova was allegedly killed by Khuzin as he made chicken soup(Image: Social media/east2west news)

Police spokesman Valery Gorelykh said: “Even the detectives, who have seen plenty of horrifying scenes over the course of their careers, were shocked by what they found when they arrived first at the scene.”

Additional reports claimed Khuzin’s wife had expected him to make the chicken soup while she was out. Alexander Shulga, of the Russian Investigative Committee, said the conflict arose after the woman came home from work and “criticised him for not preparing dinner”.

He demanded that she cut the chicken and make the soup but she refused. A source close to the investigation said the alleged killer had quickly conscripted before the murder trial could begin.

Khuzin took up a conscription deal before his trial began(Image: Social media/east2west news)

They claimed: “He didn’t wait for the trial and signed a contract with the military.” He had already pleaded guilty to a crime which could have seen him jailed for 15 years, but due to Russian laws passed following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, he will not face trial or any prison time.

After serving in the war, he will be a free man. The Russian Investigative Committee in Sverdlovsk declined to comment.

SOURCE PAGE

More than 100 people including 63 children were killed in attacks on a kindergarten and hospital in Sudan, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The attacks on 4 December began with repeated strikes on the kindergarten in South Kordofan state.

It continued even as parents and caretakers rushed to the wounded in a nearby hospital, WHO added.

It comes as Sudan‘s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) said today it had taken control of the strategic Heglig oilfield in the South Kordofan province, two and a half years into the country’s civil war.

WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a post on X: “Repeated strikes in Sudan’s South Kordofan state hit a kindergarten and, at least three times, the nearby Kalogi Rural Hospital, killing 114 people, including 63 children, and injuring 35 people, according to WHO’s Attacks on Health Care monitoring system.

“Survivors from the 4 December attacks have been moved to Abu Jebaiha, in South Kordofan, for treatment, and urgent calls are being made for blood donations and other medical support.

“Disturbingly, paramedics and responders came under attack as they tried to move the injured from the kindergarten to the hospital.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

2:18

‘Horrifying’ war in Sudan continues

Heglig, lying along Sudan’s south border, houses the main processing facility for South Sudanese oil, which makes up much of the revenue for South Sudan’s government.

Government forces and workers at the oil field withdrew from the area on Sunday to avoid clashes that could have damaged oil facilities, government sources told the news agency Reuters.

Read more:
Sudan’s RSF says it has captured Babanusa
Genocide unfolding in Darfur, warns Sudan government

As oil is transported through the Greater Nile pipeline system to Port Sudan on the Red Sea for export, it makes the Heglig site essential for Sudan’s hard-currency earnings – and for South Sudan.

The WHO added that a massacre also occurred in October in the city of al-Fashir.

Sudan’s Foreign Ministry condemned the attacks, which it says were carried out by the Rapid Support Forces using drones.

The WHO said a total of 114 people, including 63 children, were killed in the attacks, with heavy weapons used. 35 were also wounded.

The toll combines casualties from the kindergarten strikes, the transfer of patients to the adjacent rural hospital and attacks at the facility itself.

The RSF did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

SOURCE PAGE

NewsFeed

Firefighters evacuated residents and their pets from a nine-storey apartment building in Ukraine’s Sumy region after a Russian drone strike. The strikes come as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with leaders of the UK, France and Germany in London to discuss the US peace plan.

Published On 8 Dec 20258 Dec 2025

Click here to share on social media

share2

Share

SOURCE PAGE

Trump administration argues that decision stopping president from removing officers must be overruled

Arguments in the case that will decide whether Donald Trump can fire officials from independent agencies have started.

First up is solicitor general D John Sauer, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration.

He kicks off his opening remarks by arguing that the key 90-year precedent, known as the Humphrey’s Executor, “must be overruled”.

He describes the ruling as a “decaying husk with bold, and particularly dangerous pretensions” that ultimately creates a “headless fourth branch insulated from political accountability and democratic control”.

Share

Updated at 16.23 CET

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Justice Sotomayor says that most of the original powers of the FTC when Humphrey’s was decided are the same powers that exist today. She points out that the district judge outlined this as well.

The only power she’s identified that might be different is that the FTC’s cease and desist orders now have binding effect immediately, she says.

“So I think your point in response to Justice Alito is, if there’s a power that the FTC is wielding now that trenches inappropriately, the answer is not to do away with the ‘for cause’ removal; the answer is to eliminate that individual power,” she says. “So that should be the answer if there’s been an expansion of the powers inappropriately.”

Agarwal says that is correct and that is their position.

Share

Updated at 18.09 CET

A quick reminder that, in September, the supreme court granted a justice department request to block a lower court’s order that shielded Rebecca Slaughter, from being dismissed from the consumer protection and antitrust agency before her term expires in 2029. She will remain fired until the court issue their decision.

Share

While answering questions from justices today, Agarwal said that the “real world danger” if the administration is successful, is that “everything is on the chopping block”.

He added that there was “absolutely no principled basis” for “carving out” independent agencies from Congress’s purview.

“We’re talking about more than two dozen traditional independent agencies that have been established by statutes enacted by the people’s elected representatives and signed into law, all of them by democratically elected presidents,” Agarwal said.

Share

Updated at 17.44 CET

The bench just wrapped its questions to the administration’s lawyer, solicitor general D John Sauer.

Arguing on behalf of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the fired Democratic member of the FTC, is Amit Agarwal.

“Multi-member commissions with members enjoying some kind of removal protection have been part of our story since 1790,” Agarwal said in his opening remarks. “So if petitioners are right, all three branches of government have been wrong from the start.”

Share

Updated at 17.24 CET

Justice Jackson is now pushing back against the administration’s claims that these independent agencies aren’t answerable to Congress – which delegates their creation, oversight, budgets and laws.

“Part of your argument seemed to revolve around this notion that there’s some kind of thing happening with the independent agency that the reason why the president needs to control it is because they don’t answer to anybody,” she said.

“What I don’t understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress, which makes perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States, why that is subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything.”

Share

Updated at 17.13 CET

As he responds to questions from justices today, Sauer has repeatedly argued that independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are a “headless fourth branch” with limited government oversight.

When responding to questions from justice Brett Kavanaugh, the solicitor general said that these agencies exercise “a great deal of control over individuals and business” but “ultimately do not answer to the president”.

Share

Speaking now is the third liberal justice on the bench, Elena Kagan.

She says that what the administration is asking for would give the president “massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power” over independent agencies. It’s a role that Congress, with its Article I power, has controlled for 9o years.

Share

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, also pushed back on the administration’s premise – in line with justice Sotomayor’s line of questioning.

“I appreciate that Article II has some language in it that you’re pointing to, but as Justice Sotomayor pointed out, the constitution does not speak specifically to removal,” she said. “I don’t know why we’d make that inference when the power to create agencies and set everything up lies with Congress.”

She went on to probe the solicitor general as to why he thought that Congress was “somehow less democratically accountable” for the way in which it constructs agencies and determines the terms of its officers.

“You seem to think that there’s something about the president that requires him to control everything as a matter of democratic accountability, when on the other side, we have Congress saying we’d like these particular agencies and officers to be independent of presidential control for the good of the people,” Jackson said.

Share

Updated at 16.53 CET

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of three liberal justices on the bench, seemed unconvinced with the administration’s argument off the bat.

“You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government,” she told solicitor general D John Sauer. “To take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that a government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.”

Share

Updated at 16.41 CET

Trump administration argues that decision stopping president from removing officers must be overruled

Arguments in the case that will decide whether Donald Trump can fire officials from independent agencies have started.

First up is solicitor general D John Sauer, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration.

He kicks off his opening remarks by arguing that the key 90-year precedent, known as the Humphrey’s Executor, “must be overruled”.

He describes the ruling as a “decaying husk with bold, and particularly dangerous pretensions” that ultimately creates a “headless fourth branch insulated from political accountability and democratic control”.

Share

Updated at 16.23 CET

Supreme court to hear arguments in case testing Trump’s ability to fire officials

In less than an hour, the supreme court will here arguments in a landmark case that tests Donald Trump’s ability to fire officials.

Earlier this year, the president moved to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. Trump actually appointed her to the position back in 2018, and she was re-confirmed for a second term under Joe Biden that was set to expire in 2029.

Rebecca Slaughter during a House judiciary committee hearing in Washington DC, 13 July 2023. Photograph: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

One of the main questions the nine-justice bench will consider today is whether to overturn a key 1938 decision which established that the president requires Congress’ signoff to fire an official from an independent government agency, and it needs to be “for cause”.

Slaughter’s case is the latest emergency appeal that the supreme court will hear from the Trump administration, after a lower court judge blocked her firing, and an appeal court upheld that decision. A reminder that, in May, the court allowed Trump to remove two Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board – despite job protections for these posts – while litigation challenging those removals proceeded. And in September, they deferred action on the Department of Justice’s request to allow Trump to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, at least until it hears oral arguments on the case in January.

Share

Updated at 17.18 CET

My colleague, Jakub Krupa, is covering the latest out of Europe, particularly the London meeting between Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and several Nato allies – France’s Emmanuel Macron, UK prime minister Keir Starmer, and Germany’s chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Jakub notes:

The sombre tone of the opening remarks was highly telling: it’s clear that this was not merely another photo opportunity designed to merely convey solidarity with Zelenskyy, but they face urgent – increasingly so – issues that need to be resolved soon.

A reminder that Donald Trump Jr warned that his father may walk away from the Ukrainian war in a lengthy tirade against the purpose of continued fighting in Ukraine, as he also claimed Ukraine’s “corrupt” rich had fled their country leaving “what they believed to be the peasant class” to fight the war.

Meanwhile, the president said on Sunday that Russia is “fine” with the peace proposal (although he didn’t elaborate if this was the same framework that Moscow seemed initially unhappy with during Steve Witkoff’s visit). Trump added: “But I’m not sure that Zelenskyy’s fine with it. His people love it. But he isn’t ready.”

Share

A quick update, a White House official confirms to the Guardian that the president’s roundtable will be to unveil an assistance package for American farmers. He’ll be joined by treasury secretary Scott Bessent and agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins.

Share

Updated at 15.14 CET

Donald Trump is in Washington today. At 2pm ET he’ll host a roundtable event at the White House. Bloomberg reports that he will unveil a much-anticipated $12bn support package for American farmers who have been hit by the president’s sweeping tariff policies. We’re waiting from confirmation from the White House, but will bring you the latest lines as they come in.

Share

More than 2,000 national guard soldiers have been in Washington since Donald Trump’s initial deployment in August, part of the president’s contentious immigration and crime crackdown targeting Democratic-led cities.

In what was seen by many as an example of federal overreach, the president federalised DC’s Metropolitan police department for the first time in its history over the summer.

Trump said he was declaring a public safety emergency and putting the police under the control of the attorney general, Pam Bondi.

This was despite violent crime in Washington DC actually having fallen sharply since 2023.

Share

Updated at 14.09 CET

Smith says ‘there comes a time when you just know it’s time’ to step down

Axios broke the news of Pamela Smith’s resignation. Speaking to the outlet, she said: “There comes a time when you just know it’s time.”

Smith, who has 28 years of law enforcement experience, said her decision is not related to the deployment of national guard troops to the city.

Speaking to Fox 5 about her decision to resign, the outgoing police chief said it was a “tough” decision and was made to spend more time with her family.

She said:

I have been going nonstop. I have missed many amazing celebrations, birthdays, marriages, you name it, within our family.

And being able to come home for thanksgiving two years after my mum passed really resonated with me and has allowed me to make a decision that I think is necessary not just only for me but also for my family.

Smith is expected to step down on 31 December and the mayor’s office will name an interim chief shortly, according to Axios.

Share

Updated at 14.02 CET

SOURCE PAGE

Natalie ShermanBusiness reporter

Warner Brothers Discovery

Warner Brothers Discovery is owner of HBO, known for shows like Sex and the City

Paramount Skydance has made another offer to buy Warner Bros Discovery as it seeks to trump a rival plan from Netflix to buy the company’s studio and streaming networks.

Paramount, which is backed by the billionaire Ellison family, said it was making a direct offer to shareholders of $30 per share to scoop up the whole of Warner Bros, including its traditional television networks.

It said its proposal was a “superior alternative” to Netflix’s, delivering more cash upfront to shareholders and greater prospect of approval by regulators.

President Donald Trump has said “there could be a problem” with Netflix’s purchase, pointing to competition concerns given the size of the companies.

The hostile bid from Paramount, a smaller player than Netflix which is known for brands such as CBS News, Nickelodeon and Mission Impossible, is the latest twist in a saga that started a few months ago, when Paramount started submitting offers to buy Warner Bros.

That eventually prompted Warner Bros, owner of HBO and classics from Looney Tunes to Harry Potter, to formally open a bidding process.

Warner Bros declared Netflix the winner of that auction on Friday, announcing a deal that valued its studio and streaming networks, including HBO, at about $83bn, including its debt.

It said the sale would proceed after a planned spin-off of other parts of Warner Brothers’ business, including CNN, into an independent company.

Paramount’s offer values the entire company at $108.4bn, which it said was a better deal.

In an interview on CNBC, Mr Ellison also talked up the benefits of his plan for the media industry, arguing that Netflix’s takeover of Warner Brothers Discovery would give one firm too much power over actors and other players in the industry.

“It’s a horrible deal for Hollywood,” he said.

Mr Ellison said he had had “great conversations” with Trump about the deal and believed the president cared about competition.

Any takeover is expected to face scrutiny from competition regulators in the US and Europe.

Analysts said Netflix’s plan would likely raise concerns about dominance in streaming, while Paramount’s proposal would prompt a review of the impact on advertisers and local television distributors, given the power of a combined company over sports and children’s networks.

Paramount had been seen by many on Wall Street as a strong suitor for Warner Bros, in part because the relationship between David and Larry Ellison, who is a Republican megadonor, and Trump was expected to help ease that process.

Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is among the financial partners Paramount is working with as part of the deal, according to paperwork submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Paramount’s plan to buy all of Warner Bros was also seen as a chance to achieve both scale and potential cost-savings, putting the traditional television networks owned by both companies on a better footing.

Mr Ellison said he thought Warner Bros’ plan to spin-off its traditional networks into an independent company would set them up to fail and ultimately prove a mistake for shareholders.

“I think [its shares are] going to be worth a lot less than people are claiming,” he said.

Shares in Warner Bros jumped more than 6% in opening trade on Monday, while Paramount shares were also up.

Shares in Netflix, however, dropped more than 3%.

Netflix is the biggest streaming company in the world, with more than 300 million subscribers. It said on Friday it believed the takeover would help supercharge its business and expressed confidence in winning approval from regulators.

Analysts said the move was also defensive, aimed at making sure rivals did not get their hands on the decades of content owned by Warner Bros and turn into more viable competitors.

More than 70% of HBO Max subscribers in the US also have Netflix, according to analysts at Raymond James, who said in a report on Friday that they expected further twists in the takeover story.

Ben Barringer, head of technology research at Quilter Cheviot, said he thought the deal made more sense for Paramount than for Netflix, calling it simply a “nice-to-have” for the streamer.

“Paramount ultimately needs this deal more than Netflix,” he said. “Paramount remains a legacy entertainment provider that lacks the scale required for the modern age.”

SOURCE PAGE

It’s long been a key slogan for Donald Trump, but ‘America First’ appears closer to reality than ever, after the release of a key US strategy document outlining the administration’s foreign policy.

“In everything we do, we are putting America first,” reads an introductory letter signed by the president in a recently-released 29-page document, titled ‘National Security Strategy of the United States of America.’  

It sets out the US strategy as being “pragmatic without being ‘pragmatist,’ realistic without being ‘realist,’ principled without being ‘idealistic,’ muscular without being ‘hawkish,”’and restrained without being ‘dovish.’”

What is Donald Trump’s new National Security Strategy?

The National Security Strategy (NSS) does not determine policy but rather sets out the government’s foreign policy vision. It can, of course, be overtaken by world events. For example, as US foreign policy expert Andrew Payne points out, the 2022 version released during Joe Biden’s tenure made no significant mention of the Middle East.

US releases national security strategy

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

But the NSS has a clear impact on how government resources are allocated and gives foreign governments a steer on US intentions.

“Whether or not the administration itself follows the principles and priorities laid out here, it is about the best source available to policymakers overseas seeking clarity on the direction of travel of an administration that has so far been inconsistent and unpredictable,” Payne, a research director at the international affairs think tank Chatham House told DW.

What does the National Security Strategy document say?

As well as plenty of self-congratulation and a rejection of traditional US foreign policy, Trump lays out a much stronger ‘America First’ blueprint than he did in his first NSS in 2017.

“After the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that permanent American domination of the entire world was in the best interests of our country,” the introduction states. “Yet the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests.”

As such, the broad strokes of the strategy are a move away from American intervention abroad, multilateralism and international bodies, and towards national self-determination, at least where that suits the US.

The NSS calls for the US to have full control of its borders, the “world’s most powerful, lethal, and technologically advanced military” and “the most dynamic, most innovative, and most advanced economy” as well as keeping a “soft power” grip across the world for its own gain.

In global terms, it calls for a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, established in 1823 and concerned with self-determination for the US amid European intervention. It references preventing “an adversarial power from dominating the Middle East” and notes that ending the Russia-Ukraine war is a key goal, along with fighting drug trafficking in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, while calling for other nations to take on more of the burden in global matters.

The targeting of suspected drug boats in the Caribbean is conentious for some, but Donald Trump plans to continueImage: Dave Decker/IMAGO

The document also says Europe faces the “prospect of civilizational erasure,” that some European countries will be “unrecognizable in 20 years or less” and questions whether they are “strong enough to remain reliable allies.” 

The overall message of American isolationism is not always consistently applied. The NSS calls for US “preeminence” in the Western Hemisphere, and Latin America in particular, stating that: “We will reward and encourage the region’s governments, political parties, and movements broadly aligned with our principles and strategy.”

Is this a new foreign policy direction for the US?

While these strategic goals will not necessarily become policy, the explicit stating of them marks a sea change from the NSS released by Biden in 2022. Payne said it “represents a fundamental and explicit rejection of the national security strategies that have been developed since at least the end of the Cold War,” before adding that: “It is clearest in what it is not: the traditional liberal internationalist orthodoxy that has sustained US grand strategy for decades.”

It is, naturally, closer to Trump’s last attempt in 2017. But for Dr. Rubrick Biegon, an international relations lecturer at the Universtiy of Kent in England, that’s consistent with the broader changes in his second term.

“It does seem in keeping with the kind of shifts from Trump to Trump 2.0. I think that the strategy document is closer to Trump’s idiosyncratic worldview than the 2017 one,” he told DW, adding that this was partly because “Trump is more comfortable in his position this time around and has more of his own team around him, rather than establishment figures.”

European reactions to US strategy: ‘to the right of the extreme right’

In Russia, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov welcomed the document as “largely consistent with our vision” and a “positive step.”

Others in Europe were considerably more troubled. Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt said the document “places itself to the right of the extreme right”.

US security plan: Kallas says US remains EU’s biggest ally

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

The reaction from active European politicians has generally been to downplay the document. This is despite it doubling down on Trump’s attacks on Europe at his UN speech earlier this year when he said: “Europe is in serious trouble. They have been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody has ever seen before.”

Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said his country does not need “outside advice” after the NSS was released but that the US remained “our most important ally in the [NATO] alliance” before adding that: “I believe questions of freedom of expression or the organization of our free societies do not belong [in the strategy], in any case at least when it comes to Germany.”

EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, struck a similar tone.

“I think we haven’t always seen eye to eye on different topics, but I think the overall principle is still there,” Kallas said. “We are the biggest allies, and we should stick together.”

Edited by: Carla Bleiker

SOURCE PAGE

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Trump administration has reportedly ordered U.S. consular officers to apply heightened scrutiny to H-1B visa applicants and reject anyone found to have participated in “censorship or attempted censorship” of protected speech in the United States, according to an internal State Department cable.

Reuters reported that the directive, sent to all U.S. missions on Dec. 2, instructs consular officers to review resumes, LinkedIn profiles and any publicly available information to determine whether an applicant — or family members traveling with them — previously worked in areas including misinformation, disinformation, content moderation, fact-checking, compliance or online safety. 

According to the cable cited by Reuters, officers should “pursue a finding that the applicant is ineligible” if they uncover evidence the individual was “responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the United States.”

LABOR UNIONS SUE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVER SOCIAL MEDIA MONITORING OF VISA HOLDERS

New State Department policy adds speech-related roles, including fact-checking and content moderation, to the criteria for visa denial. (iStock)

While the directive applies to all visa categories, the cable calls for special scrutiny of H-1B applicants because they “frequently work in the technology sector, including in social media or financial services companies involved in the suppression of protected expression.” The vetting requirements apply to both new and repeat applicants.

Reuters also reported that the cable, not previously disclosed, instructs consular officers: “You must thoroughly explore their employment histories to ensure no participation in such activities.”

A senior State Department official told Fox News Channel’s Gillian Turner, “While we do not comment on allegedly leaked documents, make no mistake, the Administration has made clear that it defends Americans’ freedom of expression against foreigners who wish to censor them. We do not support aliens coming to the United States to work as censors muzzling Americans. In the past, the President himself was the victim of this kind of abuse when social media companies locked his accounts. He does not want other Americans to suffer this way. Allowing foreigners to lead this type of censorship would both insult and injure the American people.”

OVERWEIGHT FOREIGNERS SEEKING VISAS MAY BE REJECTED TO SAVE HEALTHCARE COSTS, TAXPAYER EXPENSE

The move comes as the administration intensifies its criticism of censorship in Europe. Vice President JD Vance responded on Dec. 4 to reports of a potential EU fine against X, posting on his official account: “Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage.”

Further underscoring the administration’s determination to fight censorship, Undersecretary of State Sarah Rogers posted a video on X responding to a European member of parliament stating she was “revisiting some remarks for which people in Europe and also the U.K. have been investigated or arrested or jailed by their governments over the past few years,” and listed examples from Germany, the U.K. and Sweden.”

The new screening rules target applicants who often work in the tech sector, including in content moderation and online safety roles.

She stated in part, “A German woman notoriously received a harsher jail sentence than a convicted rapist after the woman called the rapist ‘a disgraceful pig.'”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In May, Rubio threatened visa bans for people who censor speech by Americans, including on social media, and suggested the policy could target foreign officials regulating U.S. tech companies. (Reuters)

The administration has already tightened vetting procedures for student visas by instructing officers to screen applicants’ social-media activity for posts hostile to the United States. President Donald Trump also imposed new H-1B fees in September as part of a broader immigration overhaul. The enhanced censorship-related screening represents the latest step in the administration’s effort to tie U.S. visa policy to its free-speech agenda.

Fox News Channel’s Gillian Turner and Reuters contributed to this report.

Efrat Lachter is an investigative reporter and war correspondent. Her work has taken her to 40 countries, including Ukraine, Russia, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan. She is a recipient of the 2024 Knight-Wallace Fellowship for Journalism. Lachter can be followed on X @efratlachter.

SOURCE PAGE

The latest headlines from our reporters across the US sent straight to your inbox each weekday

Your briefing on the latest headlines from across the US

Your briefing on the latest headlines from across the US

A former court clerk who worked on Alex Murdaugh’s double murder trial has admitted to showing sealed court exhibits to a photographer and lying about it in court.

Former Colleton County Clerk of Court Mary Rebecca “Becky” Hill pleaded guilty Monday to four charges including obstruction of justice and perjury for showing a reporter photographs that were sealed court exhibits and then lying about it.

She also admitted to two counts of misconduct in office for taking bonuses and promoting through her public office a book she wrote on the trial.

Judge Heath Taylor sentenced Hill to a year of probation. The judge told Hill her sentence would have been much harsher if prosecutors had found that she had tampered with the Murdaugh jury.

Hill read a short statement where she asked the judge for a chance to do better.

open image in gallery

Former Colleton County Clerk of Court Mary Rebecca ‘Becky’ Hill awaits a court hearing on Monday, Dec. 8, 2025, in St. Matthews, S.C. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)

“There is no excuse for the mistakes I made. I’m ashamed of them,” she said.

Hill was in charge of taking care of the jury, overseeing exhibits and helping the judge during Murdaugh’s six-week trial that ended with murder convictions for killing his wife and son. Murdaugh’s family had lorded over his small South Carolina county for nearly a century.

Hill has played a prominent part as Murdaugh appeals his convictions and a sentence of life without parole. His lawyers said Hill tried to influence jurors to vote guilty and that she was biased against Murdaugh for her book.

During Monday’s hearing, solicitor Rick Hubbard told the judge that a journalist told investigators that Hill showed graphic crime scene photos to several media members. He did not name the journalist.

Murdaugh is also serving a separate sentence of decades in prison for admitting to stealing millions of dollars from settlements for clients who suffered horrible injuries or deaths — and from his family’s law firm.

An initial appeal by Murdaugh’s lawyers was denied. But Judge Jean Toal said she wasn’t sure Hill told the truth about her dealings with jurors and was “attracted by the siren call of celebrity” status.

Some of Hill’s charges concern Murdaugh’s murder trial. The arrest warrant said Hill violated a judge’s order to keep sealed photographs from the public. A second warrant said Hill lied to Toal during a January 2024 hearing when the judge asked: “Did you allow anyone from the press to view the sealed exhibits?”

One of the charges — misconduct in office — involved money that investigators said Hill took for herself. They said that included nearly $10,000 meant for bonuses from federal money meant to improve child support collection and about $2,000 in money from the Clerk of Court’s office.

The warrant on the other misconduct charge said Hill used her public role as clerk of court to promote her book on the Murdaugh trial on social media.

Hill was also accused last May of 76 counts of ethics violations. Officials said Hill allowed a photo of Murdaugh in a holding cell to be taken to promote her book on the trial and used county money to buy dozens of lunches for her staff, prosecutors and a vendor.

Hill also struck a deal with a documentary maker to use the county courtroom in exchange for promoting her book on the trial, which later she admitted had plagiarized passages, according to the South Carolina Ethics Commission complaint.

Hill resigned in March 2024 during the last year of her four-year term, citing the public scrutiny of Murdaugh’s trial and wanting to spend time with her grandchildren.

SOURCE PAGE

Joshua Michals, 26, has been found guilty of murdering Zhe Wang on March 20 last year – this is a breaking story



SOURCE PAGE

Paramount has launched a $108.4bn hostile bid for Warner Bros, challenging Netflix, which had reached a $72bn takeover deal with the company.

Paramount said on Monday that it was going straight to Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) shareholders with a $30 per share in cash offer for the entirety of the company, including its Global Networks segment, asking them to reject the deal with Netflix.

On Friday Netflix struck a deal to buy WBD, the Hollywood giant behind “Harry Potter” and HBO Max

Image:
The agreement means Warner Bros Discovery’s library of film and TV successes including Harry Potter and Game Of Thrones will come under the same roof as Stranger Things and Squid Game.

The cash and stock deal is valued at $27.75 per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7 billion, including debt.

But Paramount says its deal will pay $30 cash per share, representing $18 billion more in cash than its rivals are offering.

In a statement, Paramount said it was making a “strategically and financially compelling offer to WBD shareholders” and a “superior alternative to the Netflix transaction”.

Image:
File pic: iStock

David Ellison, chairman and CEO of Paramount, said: “WBD shareholders deserve an opportunity to consider our superior all-cash offer for their shares in the entire company.

“Our public offer, which is on the same terms we provided to the Warner Bros. Discovery Board of Directors in private, provides superior value, and a more certain and quicker path to completion.

“We believe the WBD Board of Directors is pursuing an inferior proposal which exposes shareholders to a mix of cash and stock, an uncertain future trading value of the Global Networks linear cable business and a challenging regulatory approval process.

“We are taking our offer directly to shareholders to give them the opportunity to act in their own best interests and maximize the value of their shares.”

Paramount said it had submitted six proposals to WBD in the course of 12 weeks, but that they were never “meaningfully” engaged with.

It’s not the first difficulty the proposed Netflix deal has run into, with Donald Trump raising the spectre of government intervention on Sunday.

The US president said the combined market share of the resulting company “could be a problem” and that he would be involved in the decision about whether to approve the deal.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

SOURCE PAGE