Japan is on track to get its first female prime minister after the leading conservative party elected Sanae Takaichi as its new leader. 

Takaichi, the former economic security minister of Japan, beat Agriculture Minister Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of popular former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, in a runoff in an intraparty vote on Saturday by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

Takaichi is replacing Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba as the party looks to regain public support and stay in power. 

Despite suffering major election losses, the Liberal Democratic Party remains by far the largest in the lower house and determines Japan’s leader because opposition groups are highly splintered.

In the first round of voting, Takaichi finished first with 183 votes and Agriculture Minister Shinjiro Koizumi placed second with 164. Because neither candidate reached a majority in the first round, the winner was determined in an immediate two-way runoff. 

The LDP, whose consecutive losses in parliamentary elections in the past year have left it in the minority in both houses, sought a leader who can quickly address challenges both domestic and international, while seeking cooperation from key opposition groups to implement its policies.

Takaichi, a hard-line conservative who’s cited former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as her hero, has called for strengthening Japan’s military, and taking a tougher stance against China and North Korea. She also opposes same-sex marriage and retains ties to nationalist groups. 

Takaichi also faces a possible summit with President Donald Trump, who could demand that Japan increase its defense spending. A meeting is reportedly being planned for late October. Trump will travel to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea starting Oct. 31.

The LDP also needs help from the opposition, which it has long neglected. The party will likely look to expand its coalition with the moderate centrist Komeito with at least one of the key opposition parties, which are more centrist.

A parliamentary vote is expected in mid-October.  

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Iran reportedly executed six prisoners Saturday who the regime claimed carried out deadly attacks in the country’s oil-rich southwest on behalf of Israel, marking the latest surge in executions that rights groups say have reached levels unseen in decades.

The six executions were reported by The Associated Press, as well as Iranian news agency Mizan. 

A seventh prisoner, accused of killing a Sunni cleric in 2009, along with other crimes, was executed in Kurdistan province. 

Saturday’s executions follow the 12-day Iran-Israel war in June, which ended with Tehran vowing it would target its enemies at home and abroad.

According to Amnesty International, Iranian authorities have executed more than 1,000 people so far in 2025, the highest annual figure recorded by the group in at least 15 years.

Iran said the six men linked to Israel killed police officers and security forces, as well as orchestrated bombings targeting sites around Khorramshahr in Iran’s restive Khuzestan province. Iranian state television aired footage of one of the men talking about the attacks, saying it was the first time the details were being made public.

A Kurdish group called the Hengaw Organization for Human Rights said the six were actually Arab political prisoners who had been arrested during the 2019 protests. Hengaw said Iran accused them of having links to the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz, a separatist group blamed for pipeline bombings and other attacks in the region.

The group insisted the men were tortured and forced into giving televised confessions under duress.

The seventh prisoner, Saman Mohammadi Khiyareh, a Kurd, was convicted over the 2009 assassination of Mamousta Sheikh al-Islam, a pro-government Sunni cleric in the Kurdish city of Sanandaj.

Activists have questioned Khiyareh’s case, noting he was only 15 or 16 at the time of the assassination, was arrested at 19 and was held for more than a decade before his execution. His conviction, they said, relied on confessions extracted under torture — a practice activists accuse Iranian courts of using regularly.

The number of state executions has drastically escalated since President Massoud Pezeshkian took office in July 2024. At least 975 people were executed in 2024, according to figures from the United Nations. Pezeshkian answers to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds ultimate authority in the country.

Iran has been putting prisoners to death at a pace unseen since 1988, when it executed thousands at the end of the Iran-Iraq war.

Independent U.N. human rights experts have sounded the alarm about the sheer number of executions, calling it ‘a dramatic escalation that violates international human rights law,’ according to a recent press release from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

‘With an average of more than nine hangings per day in recent weeks, Iran appears to be conducting executions at an industrial scale that defies all accepted standards of human rights protection,’ the body said.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report

President Donald Trump has an almost flawless record on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket this year, a streak that has delivered crucial moments of relief to the government as it fights hundreds of lawsuits challenging the president’s agenda.

The Supreme Court has ruled in Trump’s favor on government cuts, nationwide injunctions, immigration policies and more, leading the White House to tout what it recently counted as 21 victories before the high court.

Those victories are, however, temporary. The upcoming term, which begins Monday, will allow the justices to begin weighing the full merits of some of these court disputes and ultimately cement or undo key parts of the Trump agenda.

Jonathan Adler, a William & Mary Law School professor, attributed the interim wins to the Supreme Court’s desire to narrow the judicial branch’s role in policymaking.

Speaking during a Federalist Society panel this week, Adler said the high court’s thinking might be that ‘lower courts are doing too much. We’re going to scale that back because it’s not our place, and it’s for the executive branch and the legislative branch to figure that out.’

The Trump administration has only challenged about one-fifth of the adverse rulings it has received from the lower courts. Adler said Solicitor General John Sauer, who represents the government, is strategically selecting which cases to bring to the high court. 

‘If you go through them, setting Humphrey’s Executor stuff slightly to the side, what they all have in common is that there’s a kind of clear argument that … district courts were a little too aggressive here,’ Adler said.

He acknowledged that some might have a different view, that the Trump administration has been ‘too muscular’ and that court intervention is a necessary check.

The emergency docket, sometimes known as the shadow or interim docket, allows the Trump administration or plaintiffs to ask the Supreme Court to quickly intervene in lawsuits and temporarily pause lower court rulings. The process can take a couple of days, weeks or months, and is viewed as a much speedier, albeit temporary, way to secure court relief than if the high court were to fully consider the merits of a case, which can include a long briefing schedule and oral arguments.

The Supreme Court’s emergency docket this year has been extraordinarily active. Attorney Kannon Shanmugam, who has argued dozens of cases before the high court, said Trump’s high volume of executive actions is partly the reason for that.

‘[An increase in emergency motions] coincides with the rise of executive orders and other forms of unilateral executive action really as the primary form of lawmaking in our country with the disappearance of Congress, and that has posed enormous challenges for the court,’ Shanmugam said.

Through the emergency docket, the Supreme Court has greenlit Trump’s mass firings of career employees and high-profile terminations of Democratic appointees. It has curtailed nationwide injunctions and cleared the way for controversial deportations and immigration stops. The high court has said the government can, for now, withhold billions of dollars in foreign aid and discharge transgender service members from the military.

In other instances, parties on both sides in a court fight have construed Supreme Court outcomes as wins.

In one such order, the Supreme Court said the Trump administration must attempt to return Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government admitted in court to improperly deporting to a Salvadoran prison. But at the same time, the high court noted that district court judges must also be deferential to the executive branch’s authority over foreign policy.

Similarly, the high court said the administration must allow deportees under the Alien Enemies Act a reasonable chance to fight their removal through habeas corpus petitions. The justices have not yet weighed in on the merits of Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, one of his most aggressive deportation tactics, which the president employed to swiftly remove alleged Tren de Aragua members.

Conservative lawyer Carrie Severino, president of the legal watchdog JCN, said one criterion the Supreme Court considers when making fast decisions is whether parties are at risk of irreparable harm.

As an example, Severino pointed to the Supreme Court recently allowing Trump to fire Biden-appointed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a case that the high court is now using as a vehicle to revisit in the coming months the 90-year precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Severino said, ‘If one assumes, ‘Okay, if Trump’s right,’ then this is a serious burden on the government to have a good chunk of their four years being taken up with not being able to actually staff the government as they want to. If Trump’s wrong, then Commissioner Slaughter should have been in that position, and they can remedy that by providing her back pay.’

‘When you’re balancing those types of harms, this is the kind of case where the government’s going to have a leg up,’ Severino said.

In a small defeat for Trump on Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to allow the president to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and instead said it would hear her case in January. The move was a deviation from the court’s typical posture and underscored its unique view on the Federal Reserve compared with other agencies.

The Supreme Court’s majority has often split along ideological lines and offered little reason for its emergency decisions. This differs from final orders from the court, which can be lengthy and include numerous concurring opinions and dissents.

Attorney Benjamin Mizer, who served as a top DOJ official during the Biden administration, cautioned during the panel that the Supreme Court could reverse its shadow docket positions down the road.

‘As cases reach the court on the merits, we shouldn’t presume that the administration will win them all,’ Mizer said.

A federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan has made headlines this year for penning some of the most blistering opinions against President Donald Trump’s executive orders — including in one case where he was criticized by two Supreme Court justices for failing to adhere to the high court’s emergency guidance. 

U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, has spent nearly four decades on the federal bench. He most recently authored a scathing, 161-page opinion on Tuesday in a case involving Trump’s attempts to deport and crack down on pro-Palestinian protesters and activists on college campuses.

Young said the Trump administration’s actions were illegal and an unconstitutional violation of free speech protections under the First Amendment. He also used the decision to criticize, at some length, Trump’s broader conduct, which he described as ‘bullying.’

Trump, Young argued, is a president who fundamentally misunderstands the country he was elected to serve. Young described Trump as focused largely on ‘hollow bragging’ and on ‘retribution’ at all costs.

‘Yet government retribution for speech (precisely what has happened here) is directly forbidden by the First Amendment,’ Young quipped.

It’s not the first time Young has raised eyebrows for his public dressing-down of the commander in chief. 

Young in June ruled that the Trump administration acted illegally when it slashed funding for research grants at the National Institutes of Health, siding with the grant recipients and ordering the funding be restored. He also used the opinion to describe the cuts as ‘appalling’ evidence of what he said was ‘racial discrimination’ and ‘discrimination against the LGBTQ community.’

‘That’s what this is,’ Young said at the time, adding that, in his decades on the federal bench, he had ‘never seen government racial discrimination like this.’

‘I would be blind not to call it out,’ he said, adding later, ‘Have we no shame?’

The Trump administration appealed Young’s injunction to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to stay the ruling while the case continued to play out.

However, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in August to lift the injunction — and two justices took that opportunity to chastise Young, at least to some degree, for the manner in which he went about issuing the opinion.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh chastised Young for failing to adhere to an emergency ruling the court granted in April, which allowed Trump to follow through with slashing tens of millions of dollars in education grants for funding so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 

 ‘When this Court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts,’ Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in the August opinion.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in writing the dissent, appeared to sympathize with Young’s view, noting at one point: ‘Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules,’ she said. ‘We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.’

Young, for his part, apologized for the error. But it appears to have done little to quell his desire to speak out on what he argued Tuesday is Trump’s apparent disregard for free speech protections. 

‘I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected,’ Young said Tuesday, before adding: ‘Is he correct?’

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., accused the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of endangering women’s health, saying the agency approved another chemical abortion drug without the thorough safety review it had promised.

Hawley argued the move shows both regulatory failure and the influence of a company that refuses to define ‘woman’ in its materials.

‘This is shocking. FDA has just approved ANOTHER chemical abortion drug, when the evidence shows chemical abortion drugs are dangerous and even deadly for the mother. And of course 100% lethal to the child,’ he wrote on X on Thursday afternoon.

Hawley added, ‘FDA had promised to do a top-to-bottom safety review of the chemical abortion drug, but instead they’ve just greenlighted new versions of it for distribution. I have lost confidence in the leadership at FDA.’

Evita Solutions describes its mission as to ‘normalize abortion’ and make it ‘accessible to all.’ On its website, the company says it ‘believes that all people should have access to safe, affordable, high-quality, effective, and compassionate abortion care, regardless of their race, sex, gender, age, sexuality, income, or where they live.’

It adds, ‘We know that you can make the best choice for your body.’

According to the FDA, Evita received approval in a Sept. 30 letter obtained by Reuters.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Hawley said the FDA’s decision was even more troubling given that its promised safety review has barely begun.

‘I just, I can’t figure out what’s happening at the FDA. I’m totally baffled by it,’ Hawley said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the FDA and Evita Solutions for comment on the matter.

In another post, Hawley blasted the FDA for partnering with a company that ‘doesn’t even believe there is such a thing as a ‘woman.’’

Evita Solutions now joins GenBioPro in producing the generic version of Mifepristone, the abortion pill originally made by Danco Laboratories. Mifepristone blocks progesterone, a hormone needed to sustain pregnancy, and is followed by misoprostol to complete the process.

The approval comes as abortion drugs face mounting opposition from conservative lawmakers, religious organizations, and pro-life groups.

Religious groups like Inspire Investing and Alliance Defending Freedom have campaigned against the drug, while the Restoration of America Foundation (ROAF) has pressed lawmakers for accountability.

Last month, ROAF called on the Senate Finance Committee to hold Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accountable at a hearing, demanding answers about the removal of safety protocols for the abortion pill Mifepristone.

In a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, ROAF warned that the rollback leaves women more vulnerable and shifts costs to taxpayers. The group said the Biden-era changes endanger women by allowing abortion pills to be prescribed via telehealth and sent through the mail.

Hawley said the FDA should restore the safeguards put in place under the Trump administration.

‘What needs to happen is the FDA needs to get in line with the president’s policy and put back into place the safety regulations President Trump had. Ditch the Biden approach and go back to President Trump’s approach,’ Hawley said.

Under the Biden administration, the FDA for the first time allowed telehealth prescribing and mail-order delivery of abortion pills. Previously, the agency required Mifepristone to be dispensed in person to screen for complications such as ectopic pregnancy.

Fox News Digital’s Jasmine Baehr and Reuters contributed to this report.