Escalating claims by Russia that Ukraine tried to hit a residence used by President Vladimir Putin with drones have been dismissed by a top military drone expert, who called the alleged attack ‘hard to fathom’ and tactically implausible.

Cameron Chell’s comments came as Moscow doubled down on accusations Kyiv has flatly denied, with the drone industry leader arguing the alleged strike announced Monday runs counter to Ukraine’s drone tactics.

Chell, the CEO and co-founder of Draganfly, a drone manufacturer that supplies to the U.S. Department of Defense and allied militaries, including Ukraine, said Russia’s claims lack credibility.

‘What really makes things usually very signature about Ukraine is that they’re always incredibly clever about how they use drones,’ Chell told Fox News Digital.

‘They are clever from a cost perspective — let’s call it an efficiency perspective — but also very clever in their tactics,’ he added.

‘I find it hard to fathom that this drone attack even happened on Putin’s residence or that it was something that Ukraine orchestrated for a number of reasons,’ Chell said.

‘To get over the top of Putin’s residence, for one, the drones would not have been launched from a very long distance away,’ he added.

Chell’s comments came as Russia doubled down Tuesday on accusations that Ukraine attempted to strike a presidential palace in the Novgorod region using drones, allegedly to disrupt peace efforts.

Kyiv dismissed the allegation, with the timing also raising questions given the upbeat tone of a recent meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Florida.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed late Monday that 91 drones were intercepted en route to Putin’s residence on the shores of Lake Valdai.

His statement appeared to contradict earlier Defense Ministry tallies, which said 89 drones were shot down over eight regions, including 18 over Novgorod, later adding another 23.

Only after Lavrov spoke did the ministry allege that 49 drones intercepted over Bryansk, nearly 300 miles away, were also targeting Valdai.

Asked about wreckage, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was ‘a matter for our military,’ while calling Zelenskyy’s denial and Western skepticism ‘completely insane.’

Peskov said Russia’s diplomatic stance would be toughened, and Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin vowed there could be ‘no forgiveness’ for Zelenskyy.

Chell said the story simply does not add up. ‘To attack Putin’s residence, you need long-range, very fast-moving drones,’ he said.

He added that for drones that small to reach such a site, they would have had to be launched from a much closer location, likely inside Russia itself.

‘They would have to be within about 10 kilometers [6.2 miles] — or maybe, at most, 30 kilometers — of Putin’s residence,’ Chell said.

‘That facility where Putin lives would also be incredibly secure, and so to have a number of lower-cost, slower-moving drones coming in on that facility would be very un-Ukrainian,’ Chell said.

‘Ukraine also doesn’t announce when they’re going to show up,’ he added.

Chell also noted that night operations would rule out GPS- or AI-based navigation due to jamming and visibility limits, making the launch of dozens of drones even less plausible.

‘Apparently the thing was at night, so that’s very difficult for machine vision or AI mapping software,’ he said. ‘So, you know, it definitely wasn’t using GPS, because it would have been jammed. There are just a bunch of things that don’t add up.’

Politically, Chell argued, Ukraine has nothing to gain. ‘They’re bold, but right in the middle of peace talks — when they need Trump on side — it makes no sense,’ he said. ‘Ukraine is just politically too smart to have done that.’

Zelenskyy on Monday also called the claim a complete fabrication, accusing Moscow of laying the groundwork for further attacks. 

Lavrov warned of retaliation but said Russia would continue talks with Washington.

Trump also said he learned of the alleged attack directly from Putin and was ‘very angry about it.’ Asked whether there was evidence, Trump replied, ‘We’ll find out.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Kremlin for comment.

U.S. and partner forces killed or captured nearly 25 Islamic State operatives in Syria in the days following a large-scale U.S.-led strike on Dec. 19, according to a new statement from U.S. Central Command, underscoring Washington’s assessment that ISIS remains an active and persistent threat inside the country.

CENTCOM said those forces conducted 11 follow-on missions between Dec. 20 and Dec. 29, killing at least seven ISIS members, capturing the remainder and eliminating four ISIS weapons caches. The operations followed Operation Hawkeye Strike, when U.S. and Jordanian forces hit more than 70 ISIS targets across central Syria using over 100 precision munitions, destroying infrastructure and weapons sites linked to the group. 

‘We will not relent,’ CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper said, adding that U.S. forces remain ‘steadfast’ in working with regional partners to dismantle ISIS networks that pose a threat to U.S. and regional security.

The scope of the follow-on raids highlights a reality U.S. commanders and analysts have been warning about for months: ISIS no longer controls large swaths of territory, but it retains the ability to organize, strike and regenerate inside Syria’s fragmented security landscape.

Syria remains divided among competing forces, militias and foreign-backed armed groups, with no single authority exercising full control over large parts of the country. Analysts say that vacuum continues to provide space for ISIS cells to operate quietly, recruit and exploit overstretched local forces.

Analysts note that Syria’s security environment remains shaped by former jihadist networks that were never fully demobilized after the war. The country’s transitional leadership, including President Ahmed al-Sharaa, emerged from armed Islamist factions that relied heavily on foreign fighters and militias, according to regional security assessments. While those groups are not synonymous with ISIS, experts say the incomplete dismantling of extremist networks has left gaps that ISIS cells continue to exploit.

‘ISIS today doesn’t need a caliphate to be dangerous,’ Bill Roggio told Fox News Digital. ‘We’ve always been quick to declare terrorist organizations defeated and insignificant, and that couldn’t be further from the truth.’

Roggio said the group has adapted rather than disappeared, shifting away from holding territory toward smaller, more covert cells capable of carrying out lethal attacks. He pointed to ongoing ISIS activity not only in Syria and Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and other regions, citing United Nations reporting that estimates roughly 2,000 ISIS fighters remain active in Afghanistan alone.

‘That’s not what a defeated group looks like,’ Roggio said, noting that ISIS continues to recruit, indoctrinate and inspire attacks even without the visibility it once had.

One of the most sensitive vulnerabilities remains the network of detention facilities in northeastern Syria holding thousands of ISIS terrorists and supporters. Those prisons are guarded primarily by Kurdish-led forces backed by a small U.S. military presence, estimated at roughly 1,000 troops, according to Reuters.

U.S. and coalition officials have repeatedly warned that any major disruption to prison security could allow hardened ISIS operatives to escape and reconstitute networks across Syria and beyond. Kurdish officials have also raised concerns about funding shortages, manpower strain and pressure from rival militias operating nearby.

While U.S. officials have not publicly linked the recent strikes to prison-related threats, analysts say the broader environment of fragmented control increases the risk of coordinated attacks, insider assistance or prison unrest.

The danger is not theoretical. ISIS has previously staged mass prison break operations in Syria and Iraq, including a 2022 assault on the al-Sinaa prison in Hasakah that required days of fighting to contain.

The U.S. strikes also come amid continued instability inside Syria, where multiple armed actors operate with overlapping authority. Analysts note that clashes among militias, sectarian violence and unresolved command structures have weakened overall security and diverted attention from counterterrorism efforts.

Bombings in neighborhoods of Damascus, including Mezzeh, and unrest in minority areas have further illustrated the gaps ISIS and other extremist groups can exploit, according to regional security assessments and open-source reporting.

‘Syria’s chaos is the accelerant,’ Roggio said. ‘ISIS thrives where no one is fully in charge.’

U.S. officials and analysts stress that ISIS activity in Syria is part of a wider pattern rather than an isolated flare-up.

Sources in the Israeli Mossad told Fox News Digital of continued ISIS-linked activity across multiple theaters, including recruitment networks and small-scale attacks designed to test security responses and maintain operational relevance.

In Turkey, security forces recently clashed with Islamic State militants during counterterrorism operations, wounding several officers, according to Reuters on Monday. Turkish authorities said the raids targeted ISIS cells suspected of planning attacks inside the country.

‘These are signals, not spikes,’ Roggio said. ‘ISIS operates across regions, adapting to pressure and exploiting weak governance wherever it finds it.’

The renewed U.S. military action raises difficult questions for policymakers about how long the current containment strategy can hold.

While U.S. officials say the Dec. 19 strikes delivered a significant blow to ISIS infrastructure, they have also acknowledged that counterterrorism operations alone cannot eliminate the underlying conditions that allow the group to persist.

‘Just because we want to declare the war against terror over doesn’t mean it’s over,’ Roggio said. ‘The enemy gets a vote.’

This year brought us Trump the Sequel and that meant the left had extra motivation to be annoying. Their hatred of President Donald Trump, conservatives and even the late Charlie Kirk defined 2025.

Still, there were some who outdid everyone else in their quest to be, drumroll, please, the Most Annoying Person of 2025. I ignored people who made news saying just one idiotic comment or who are just obscure media personalities. (Like Matthew Dowd who lost his bogus MSNBC job for his comments bashing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk for ‘hate speech’ after Kirk had been murdered.)

1. He was funny 20 years ago

No one deserves the top spot on this list more than ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ host Jimmy Kimmel. Most late-night programs have faded from view as their hosts have turned them into orgies of Trump-bashing. But Kimmel excels at hating conservatives so much that he almost qualifies to be a male cast member of ‘The View.’ (Yep, they’re here, too.)

Kimmel gained more attention for saying vile things and fighting Trump than for anything funny.

Former ‘Late Show’ host David Letterman termed Kimmel, ‘the leader of the resistance,’ and Kimmel later cried millionaire tears because he had a ‘hard year.’ He earned a temporary suspension with one of the worst comments about the Kirk assassination, saying, ‘We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and everything they can to score political points from it.’ He was wrong, of course, but we are used to that. Trump later said, ‘Jimmy Kimmel was horrible,’ and who am I to disagree with my president?

2. You knew they’d make the list

If the annoying people of Earth have a home base, it’s not some secluded island fortress, it’s ABC’s ‘The View.’ The gaggle of hosts — from leftist moderator Whoopi Goldberg to crackpot Joy Behar to pretend conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin — is a reminder that quantity is not quality. 

This year, they pretended radical Islamic Iran wasn’t worse than the U.S. (Goldberg); claimed using the National Guard to stop crime was ‘a pretext to stop the next election!’ (Behar); and compared the election of Trump to … Hitler. (Behar: ‘The Germans voted also. Just saying.’)

The show has become such an embarrassment that the TV show ‘Landman’ mocked it for being a, ‘bunch of pissed off millionaires bitching about how much they hate millionaires, Trump, and men, and you, and me, and everybody else they got a bee up their ass about.’ ‘The View’ has gone from mindless propaganda to a punchline.

3. The first of the pod people

If you’re lucky, you’ve never heard of podcaster Jennifer Welch. Just imagine a ghoul-like figure from your deepest nightmares, then give her blonde hair and a microphone.

She’s one of the two co-hosts for the ‘I’ve Had It’ podcast, and it’s well-named. She and her co-host first appeared in the Bravo series ‘Sweet Home Oklahoma,’ which no one ever heard of. But now, the press loves her because she says hateful things about conservatives. 

CNN’s profile of Welch quotes her calling Trump a, ‘fat, fascist f— who’s ruining everything for everybody.’ The New York Times notes, ‘‘Patriots, gaytriots, theytriots, Blacktriots and browntriots,’ is how Ms. Welch greets the listeners of their primary podcast.’ She left out morontriots who must make up the bulk of her audience.

Welch made news calling Kirk’s widow Erika a ‘grifter’ and TPUSA said that comment was, ‘beneath contempt.’ 

I’m sure Welch will say worse in 2026 because the media reward her bile with support. CNN said she and her co-host are, ‘two women who love their country and aren’t afraid to name and shame people.’ 

See what I mean?

4. More pod-ish people 

Podcaster antisemite Nick Fuentes and Twitch antisemite Hasan Piker showed the world that the worst users of social media have one thing in common — hatred. Both of them have dominated the social world and been everywhere in the media as civilized society reacts in horror. 

Fuentes calls himself an admirer of communist Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and says Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler was ‘really f—ing cool.’ Pretty much on brand.

Piker, when he’s not being accused of giving his dog electric shocks, spends his time saying offensive things, like, ‘America deserved 9/11.’ He later walked it back because of the backlash, but he still has millions of followers on multiple platforms. 

Fox News did an analysis of what he says, and it’s so vile, I don’t want to repeat it. He’s all across major media. The Times called him, ‘A Progressive Mind in a Body Made for the ‘Manosphere.’’ 

The press is desperate to recreate their own Joe Rogan and this is the best they’ve got.

5. Spacey

Singer Katy Perry had not one, but two spacey experiences in 2025. First, she sort-of went into space on a Jeff Bezos rocket. The owner of Amazon and the Washington Post sent his then-fiancée Lauren Sanchez, and five other famous women, into near-space. 

Perry is in the cool kids’ club, so she got to go. The singer actually vowed to ‘put the ‘a–’ in astronaut’ and made a fool of herself when she landed, kneeling and kissing the ground because of an 11-minute rocket trip. She was quoted declaring, ‘I feel super connected to love.’ 

That must have been true. She is now dating her own space cadet, former lefty Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

6. Friday the 13th

Cynthia Erivo is 2025’s it gal. She’s everywhere and impossible not to see. As NBC put it, she’s ‘Proudly Bald and Has No Eyebrows.’ Throw in nails like Freddy Krueger and the bisexual star is everything the media want in a celebrity — weird and alternative. 

She’s the star of the two ‘Wicked’ movies and even played Jesus in the Hollywood Bowl (naturally) version of the musical ‘Jesus Christ Superstar.’ 

Erivo revels in her unusual look, even shaving her own eyebrows, ‘Whenever I’m talking to my makeup artist, I tell her that I just want to look like a pretty thumb.’ 

Yeah, I can’t top that.

7. It ain’t over till it’s over

The 2024 Democratic election debate wasn’t enough for Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris recently declared, ‘I am not done. I have lived my entire career a life of service, and it’s in my bones.’ Harris released her book, ‘107 Days’ and managed to annoy Democrats and Republicans about equally with her alleged recollection of events. 

At least former President Richard Nixon was nice enough to tell us, ‘You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.’ 

Harris will make us endure more garbled responses before she goes gently into that good night of her career.

Lawmakers fought over Obamacare subsidies tooth and nail for the latter part of the year, and ultimately, neither side won.

Senate Democrats thrust the government into the longest shutdown in history in an effort to refocus the narrative in Congress on healthcare, and Republicans agreed to talk about it in the open. And both Republicans and Democrats got a shot to advance their own, partisan plans. Both failed.

Now, the subsidies are set to expire on Wednesday, sending price hikes across the desks of tens of millions of Americans that relied on the credits. 

When lawmakers return on the first week of January, healthcare will be front of mind for many in the Senate. But any push to either revive, or completely replace, the subsidies may, for a time, take a backseat to the government funding fight brewing ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline.

When asked if he was disappointed that lawmakers were unable to, at least in the short term, solve the subsidies issue, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was more concerned about people that would experience higher costs. 

‘I think who it’s most disappointing for are the people whose premiums are going to go up by two, three times,’ Hawley said. ‘So, it’s not good.’

Price hikes on premium costs will be variable for the roughly 20 million Americans that rely on them, depending on age, income and other factors. Broadly, a person’s out-of-pocket cost is expected to double with the credit’s lapse, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The nonpartisan healthcare think tank painted a broader picture of the disparate impact on premium cost increases in a report released late last month that, based on myriad factors, including where a person lives, their age range and where they sit above the poverty line, some could see price hikes as high as 361%.

While Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ separate plans failed to advance — despite four Republicans crossing the aisle to support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., plan — lawmakers are working together for a solution.

There are two plans with traction in the House. The GOP’s plan advanced on the floor earlier this month but doesn’t address the issue of the expiring tax credits. Then there is a bipartisan plan that calls for a three-year extension of the subsidies, similar to Senate Democrats’ plan, that is teed up for a vote.

The latter option, and its bipartisan momentum, has some Democrats hopeful that a three-year extension could get a shot in the upper chamber.

‘I’ll also say that the glimmer of hope is if we’re searching for a bipartisan deal that can pass the Congress, we don’t need to search any further than the three-year extension of the subsidies that’s going to pass the House of Representatives,’ Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital. ‘We don’t need a negotiation any further. That bill can pass, if it can provide relief to the taxpayers, and it can pass, then that’s our vehicle.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, has maintained a deeply-rooted position against just a simple extension of the credits.

He argued that a straight-up extension for three years would be ‘a waste of $83 billion,’ and lacks any of the reforms that Republicans desire, like reinstalling an income cap, adding anti-fraud measures, and reaffirming language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘I mean, I think if nothing else, depending on if the House sends something over here, there would be a new vehicle available,’ Thune said. ‘And if there is some bipartisan agreement on a plan, then you know, it’s possible that we could — obviously it’d have to be something that we think the House could pass, and the president would sign.’

‘But I’m not ruling anything out, I guess is what I’m saying,’ he continued. ‘But you know, a three-year extension of a failed program that’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse is not happening.’

Senate Democrats are open to negotiating on a bipartisan plan, something that is already ongoing after Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, held a meeting with lawmakers before leaving Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

But Democrats are also making clear that they don’t want to budge on some of the Republicans’ demands.

‘Let’s put it this way, Republicans are asking to meet with me, and I’m telling them, I’ll listen, you know, I made it clear what I think is the only practical approach, and I’m certainly not going to go along with selling junk insurance,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

Outgoing Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated to the New York Times Magazine that President Donald Trump, lacks ‘faith’ and does not reciprocate loyalty. 

She also said that she disapproves of ‘MAGA Mar-a-Lago sexualization,’ and indicated that she expects the U.S. to engage in ‘more war’ as the president seeks to maintain his grip on power.

Greene, a once ardent Trump supporter who had a dramatic falling out with the GOP juggernaut this year, is dishing out scathing criticism of the president she once lauded.

Here are some takeaways from her comments reported by the New York Times Magazine:

Greene says Trump ‘does not have any faith’

Earlier this year, during remarks at the memorial service for slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump said of Kirk, ‘He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent. And I don’t want the best for them.’

By contrast, Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk announced that she forgave the suspected killer.

 ‘It just shows where his heart is. And that’s the difference, with her having a sincere Christian faith, and proves that he does not have any faith,’ Greene opined, according to the Times.

Greene on ‘MAGA Mar-a-Lago sexualization’

Greene objected to what she referred to as ‘sexualization’ among MAGA women.

‘I never liked the MAGA Mar-a-Lago sexualization. I believe how women in leadership present themselves sends a message to younger women,’ she noted, according to the Times. 

‘I have two daughters, and I’ve always been uncomfortable with how those women puff up their lips and enlarge their breasts. I’ve never spoken about it publicly, but I’ve been planning to,’ she noted.

Greene says Trump lacks loyalty

The New York Times Magazine reported that Greene said regarding loyalty and Trump, that it is ‘a one-way street — and it ends like that whenever it suits him.’

Last month, after President Donald Trump issued posts lambasting Greene on Truth Social, the congresswoman announced that she would resign from office, noting that her last day would be January 5.

Greene suggests ‘more war’ on the horizon

Greene suggested that the U.S. is headed for ‘more war.’

‘In my opinion,’ Greene opined, according to the outlet, ‘we’re going to see more war. Because what do you do when you really lose power, when you become a lame duck? How do you cling to power? You go to war.’

Greene indicates House Speaker Mike Johnson is following orders from the White House

Greene suggested that House Speaker Mike Johnson is just taking orders from the White House.

‘I want you to know that Johnson is not our speaker,’ Greene asserted, according to the Times. ‘He is not our leader. And in the legislative branch — a totally separate body of government — he is literally 100 percent under direct orders from the White House. And many, many Republicans are so furious about that, but they’re cowards.’

White House responds

The White House pushed back against Greene’s comments about Johnson, asserting to Fox News Digital, ‘We have a very collaborative relationship with Speaker Johnson just like we do with Leader Thune, which is why we’ve had so much success this year.’

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle accused Greene of ‘petty bitterness.’

‘President Trump remains the undisputed leader of the greatest and fastest growing political movement in American history — the MAGA movement. On the other hand, Congresswoman Greene is quitting on her constituents in the middle of her term and abandoning the consequential fight we’re in — we don’t have time for her petty bitterness,’ Ingle noted in a statement. 

The Trump administration announced a $2 billion pledge for United Nations humanitarian aid Monday and warned agencies must ‘adapt, shrink, or die’ under its overhaul, according to a statement from the Department of State.

The new package comes as the administration reins in traditional foreign assistance and pushes humanitarian organizations to meet stricter standards on efficiency, accountability and oversight.

‘Individual U.N. agencies will need to adapt, shrink, or die,’ the statement said after outlining what it called ‘several key benefits for the United States and American taxpayers.’

‘The United States is pledging an initial $2 billion anchor commitment to fund life-saving assistance activities in dozens of countries,’ the State Department said.

The administration also said that the contribution is expected to shield tens of millions of people from hunger, disease, and the devastation of war in 2026 alone, with a new model significantly reducing costs. 

‘Because of enhanced efficiency and hyper-prioritization on life-saving impacts, this new model is expected to save U.S. taxpayers nearly $1.9 billion compared to outdated grant funding approaches,’ the statement said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the approach is intended to force long-standing reforms across the U.N. system and reduce the U.S. financial burden.

‘This new model will better share the burden of U.N. humanitarian work with other developed countries and will require the U.N. to cut bloat, remove duplication, and commit to powerful new impact, accountability, and oversight mechanisms,’ Rubio said in a post on X.

The pledge is smaller than previous U.S. contributions, which officials said had grown to between $8 billion and $10 billion annually in voluntary humanitarian funding in recent years.

Administration officials said those funding levels were unsustainable and lacked sufficient accountability.

Jeremy Lewin, the State Department’s senior official overseeing foreign assistance, underscored the administration’s position during a press conference in Geneva.

‘The piggy bank is not open to organizations that just want to return to the old system,’ Lewin said in the statement. ‘President Trump has made clear that the system is dead.’

The funding commitment is part of a newly signed Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

The agreement replaces project-by-project grants with consolidated, flexible pooled funding administered at the country or crisis level.

Tom Fletcher, the U.N.’s top humanitarian official and head of OCHA, welcomed the agreement, calling it a major breakthrough. ‘It’s a very significant landmark contribution,’ Fletcher said, according to the Associated Press.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz also said the deal would deliver more focused, results-driven aid aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests, while the State Department warned future funding will depend on continued reforms.