In his latest commentary, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich argues that the escalating conflict between the United States and Iran represents not a new war, but the continuation of an ongoing crisis—one that was virtually inevitable given the deeply flawed agreements that preceded it.

With renewed attacks from both sides this weekend, including Iranian assaults on U.S. military bases and assets across Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, and Oman, the situation has reached a critical juncture that demands serious examination of how America arrived at this precarious moment.

At the heart of Reich's analysis lies a fundamental critique of the June 17 "memorandum of understanding" between the U.S. and Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. On its surface, the agreement appeared to reopen this critical waterway—through which roughly one-third of the world's seaborne oil trade passes. However, Reich identifies a critical flaw: the memo effectively ceded control of the strait to Iran while offering little in return for American interests.

The agreement stipulated that Iran would "make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels" through the strait, but conspicuously absent was any guarantee that ships could actually sail safely through any portion of it. More problematically, the toll prohibition lasted only 60 days—a temporary measure that left the door wide open for exactly what has now occurred: Iran reasserting control and charging fees for passage.

The memorandum's final line essentially granted Iran formal authority over the strait's administration, stating that "The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz." This was not a victory for American interests; it was a capitulation disguised as diplomacy.

Reich argues that this disaster reflects the fundamental incompetence of Trump's national security apparatus. The administration entered negotiations with a president desperate to lower gas prices before the midterm elections —a politically motivated goal that left no room for strategic thinking. A vice president who "knows nothing about negotiating treaties," a secretary of defense "capable only of ordering more bombs be dropped," and a State Department that "isn't even at the table" created a vacuum where serious diplomacy should have occurred.

This combination of desperation and incompetence produced an agreement that satisfied no one and solved nothing. Reich describes the result of having "a brainless egomaniac in the Oval Office" who decided to attack Iran—a leader guided by political expediency rather than strategic vision or careful deliberation. The decision was negotiated not for long-term strategic advantage but for short-term political optics, and the consequences have been predictably disastrous.

The consequences are already visible. Oil prices have risen approximately 5 percent since the renewed conflict began. While still below spring highs, these increases will translate directly into higher costs for American consumers—not just at the gas pump, but at the grocery store. Food production depends on fertilizer, and many fertilizer components rely on maritime transport through the Strait of Hormuz. The ripple effects will hit household budgets across the country.

Reich pointedly asks: "Didn't Marco Rubio say less than three weeks ago that charging tolls on international waterways violates international law?" Now Trump has announced that the U.S. will charge a 20 percent fee on maritime cargo passing through the strait—mirroring Iran's actions. The irony is stark and suggests that principles are flexible when political calculations demand it.

Reich's conclusion is sobering but offers a potential solution. With Congressional elections three months away, he argues that voters should "vote out the bums in Congress who have supported him." Once a new Congress is in place, it could pass a resolution revoking Trump's power to pursue "this costly and unnecessary war," which Reich identifies as "the only way to end it."

However, Reich's final warning carries the weight of genuine concern: "Unless, of course, he converts us into a dictatorship before then."

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who served in the Senate for over two decades, died on July 12, 2026, at the age of 71. His passing prompted reflection on his long and often controversial political career, including the dramatic shifts in his political positions—most notably his transformation from a vocal critic of Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign to one of the former president's closest allies in the Senate.

Among the most memorable moments of Graham's criticism of Trump was an unusual 2015 incident in which the senator called Trump a "jack---" and responded to having his personal cellphone number publicly revealed by destroying the device on video.

Graham's political career was marked by significant shifts in ideology and alliances. His relationship with Trump exemplified these transformations, evolving from harsh public criticism during the 2016 campaign to a close partnership in the years that followed. The cellphone incident of July 2015 captured Graham at a moment when he was willing to openly challenge Trump's candidacy, a stance he would dramatically reverse after Trump secured the presidency.

In July 2015, during the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign, a contentious exchange between Donald Trump and Senator Lindsey Graham escalated into one of the race's most memorable and bizarre moments. The feud began when Trump criticized Senator John McCain's military record, calling the Vietnam War veteran a "loser" for being captured. Graham, a fellow Republican and McCain ally, responded by calling Trump a "jack---" for his disparaging comments about the war hero.

Trump's retaliation came during a campaign rally in Bluffton, South Carolina, on July 21, 2015. Rather than simply trading insults, Trump took the unusual step of publicly reading Graham's personal cellphone number aloud to the crowd of supporters. The move was shocking and unprecedented in modern political discourse, exposing a sitting senator's private contact information to thousands of people in attendance and, through media coverage, to millions more.

Graham responded to this public humiliation with characteristic wit and humor. In a video that quickly went viral, the South Carolina senator showcased creative methods of destroying his now-compromised cellphone. The video showed Graham blending, chopping, beating, dropping, and setting fire to the phone, treating the moment as comedic material. He concluded the performance by throwing the destroyed device off screen while declaring, "Or, if all else fails, you can always give your number to 'The Donald.' This is for the veterans."

The incident illustrated the chaotic nature of Trump's 2015 campaign, which frequently broke traditional political norms and generated constant media attention through provocative statements and unconventional tactics. For Graham, the moment became emblematic of his early resistance to Trump's candidacy, when he publicly expressed harsh criticism of the businessman.

What made this episode particularly striking was how it foreshadowed Graham's dramatic political evolution. By 2019, Graham had transformed from a vocal Trump critic who called him a "jack---" who says "one dumb thing after another" into one of Trump's closest allies in the Senate. This reversal became the subject of political attacks, with opponents using footage of his 2015 criticisms against him in later campaigns.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

President Donald Trump late Friday night escalated threats against Iran, posting on Truth Social around 11:20 p.m. that he had already ordered military action should Tehran attempt to assassinate him.

"1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran," Trump wrote, "with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!"

The inflammatory posts appeared to respond to a Wall Street Journal report Thursday that Israeli intelligence had shared information with the U.S. suggesting Iran developed a new assassination plot against Trump. Iran has repeatedly vowed retaliation for Trump's 2020 assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps General Qassem Soleimani during his first term.

Trump claimed military orders had already been issued. "Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing, and able, for a one year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran," he stated.

The threat comes as the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict faces renewed scrutiny. A CNN investigation last week revealed that senior U.S. military commanders had bypassed critical intelligence warnings that target data was severely outdated, leading to a strike that killed 168 children in an Iranian school. According to unnamed sources, the commanders made the decision to ignore the warnings for "expediency" at the war's outset, which directly contributed to the strike on the school.

Trump concluded his tirade with the phrase "PRAISE BE TO ALLAH!"

The U.S.-Iran war that began in early 2026 marked a major escalation in tensions between the two nations, stemming from longstanding hostilities that intensified after Trump's first term. The conflict was initiated by U.S. military strikes on Iranian targets, though the exact trigger remains contested. What began as targeted operations quickly expanded into sustained military engagement, with both sides exchanging strikes across multiple fronts.

The assassination of Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 during Trump's first presidency remained a flashpoint for Iranian retaliation efforts. Soleimani, one of Iran's most powerful military commanders, was killed in a targeted drone strike near Baghdad, an action that prompted widespread calls within Iran's leadership for revenge against Trump personally.

The current conflict has already resulted in significant civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. Beyond the school bombing that killed 168 children, reports indicate widespread destruction across Iranian cities. The U.S. military presence has expanded throughout the region, with increased naval deployments and air operations continuing throughout 2026.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict have largely stalled, with both sides hardening their positions. Iran has consistently denied assassination plots while accusing the U.S. of aggression, while the Trump administration has maintained a confrontational stance, threatening further military action and economic measures against Tehran.

Video footage obtained and verified by CNN shows emergency responders loading what appears to be Senator Mitch McConnell onto a stretcher and into an ambulance outside his Washington, D.C., home on the morning of June 14, after the 84-year-old Kentucky Republican was found unconscious.

The clip, filmed from a distance that obscures McConnell's face, depicts responders lifting the senator into the back of the ambulance. A neighbor who witnessed the scene told CNN that when they asked officers what had happened, they were told only that there had been a "medical emergency."

The neighbor added a striking detail: emergency responders showed no signs of urgency in loading McConnell into the vehicle.

"In a situation where perhaps time is of the essence, there seems to be a little bit more urgency, but there was no urgency here," the neighbor said.

Another witness told CNN they observed McConnell's feet protruding from the stretcher as it was being carried from his home roughly 30 minutes after ambulances first arrived at the residence. The witness noted that the feet were "not moving" and that McConnell was not wearing an oxygen mask.

"He's in a stretcher, and he's in some sort of orange foam-looking blanket type thing," the neighbor recalled.

The ambulance departed without activating its sirens, according to witnesses at the scene.

McConnell, who required CPR at the scene, has remained hospitalized for weeks. His office has offered no substantive updates on his medical condition, current treatment, or whether the 84-year-old will be able to resume his Senate duties. The senator has made no public statements since his hospitalization, leaving constituents and colleagues alike in the dark about his prognosis.

McConnell's apparent incapacity creates a significant vacuum in Republican Senate leadership at a critical moment for the GOP. As Senate Minority Leader, McConnell has wielded substantial influence over Republican strategy and messaging, particularly on issues of party discipline and judicial appointments. His prolonged absence raises urgent questions about the succession of power within Senate Republican ranks and the direction the party will take on key legislative priorities.

The lack of transparency from McConnell's office has fueled worry among lawmakers and staffers about who is making critical decisions on the senator's behalf. Senate rules do not require formal notification of incapacity, leaving McConnell's voting power and decision-making authority in an ambiguous state during a pivotal election cycle. If McConnell cannot return to active duty, Republicans may face an internal power struggle to fill the leadership void.

A Politico analysis argues that Trump's second-term foreign policy signifies a fundamental departure from his nationalist messaging, undermining his political brand and effectiveness on the worldwide stage.

The piece contends that Trump, who built his political identity around nationalist principles—particularly his 2016 endorsement of Brexit—has lost sight of the power of national sovereignty and patriotism in other countries. During his first campaign, Trump positioned himself as "Mr. Brexit," championing the principle that nations ought to prioritize self-determination over international institutions.

In his second term, however, Trump has repeatedly attempted to override other nations' sovereignty through aggressive economic and military pressure, failing to recognize that the same nationalist sentiment he once championed would provoke resistance rather than compliance. His strategy of bullying and coercion has backfired consistently:

• Canada's new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, emerged in response to Trump's tariff threats and annexation rhetoric, now leading "middle-power resistance" against American economic domination.
• Ukraine rejected Trump's heavy-handed peace proposals that included demands for mineral wealth, with President Zelenskyy facing no domestic consequences for the refusal.
• Attempts to influence judicial decisions in Brazil, secure control of British and Spanish airfields, and dictate Israeli military strategy all failed.
• Trump's interference in Hungary's election did not prevent Viktor Orbán's landslide defeat.
• His military strategy against Iran resulted in a costly stalemate that spiked global energy prices.

The analysis notes that even Trump's allies on the global right have grown critical. French far-right politician Jordan Bardella publicly rejected Trump's backing, describing the current administration as "extremely unsteady and constantly shifting" and comparing U.S. actions to those of an empire rather than a nationalist ally.

The piece identifies a key strategic change: Trump has obscured the distinction between legitimate nationalist politics—prioritizing national identity over international institutions—and unilateral American imperialism that seeks to impose American will globally. This confusion has weakened his standing with international right-wing movements that formerly admired him, the Politico piece argues.

Trump's strong-arming has succeeded primarily in economically dependent nations like Argentina, Honduras, and Venezuela, but has proven ineffective against stable democracies with great national pride. The example of former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who declared willingness to "impoverish the country" rather than accept annexation, illustrates how patriotic sentiment transcends partisan politics.

The report states that Trump may have permanently lost the political clarity that defined his "Mr. Brexit" era, possibly opening space for alternative nationalist leaders in both American parties who can more accurately understand the universal power of national sovereignty and pride.

President Trump has repeatedly pressured the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, claiming in a recent NBC interview that "there's no reason to raise interest rates." However, according to a recent report from financial site The Motley Fool, economic data and market indicators suggest his seven-word assertion requires a reality check.

Since Trump's inauguration in January 2025, he has publicly criticized former Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the Federal Open Market Committee for not aggressively slashing rates. The FOMC has lowered the federal funds rate six times between September 2024 and December 2025, but the current range of 3.5% to 3.75% remains well above Trump's stated target of 1% or below.

Trump's push for lower rates has multiple motivations. Rate cuts would encourage business borrowing, potentially fueling AI data center investments and job growth. Lower rates would also reduce mortgage costs and make homeownership more affordable. Most significantly, lower borrowing costs would ease the burden of servicing the nation's ballooning federal debt, which has exceeded $1.38 trillion annually since the decade began.

Yet inflation tells a different story, The Motley Fool reports. In February, trailing 12-month inflation stood at a modest 2.4%, aligned with the Fed's 2% target. However, Trump's February military action against Iran disrupted approximately 20 million barrels of daily petroleum production—representing 20% of global supply. This energy crisis has dramatically reshaped the inflation landscape.

Energy prices have soared in response, lifting trailing 12-month inflation from 2.4% in February to an estimated 4.18% in May. Multiple inflation measures reached their highest levels since 2023: Consumer Price Index inflation at 3.8%, Personal Consumption Expenditures at 3.8%, and Producer Price Index inflation at 6%. Services inflation and shelter costs have also climbed to their highest levels since mid-2025.

The effects extend beyond gas pumps. According to The Motley Fool's analysis, energy supply shocks typically unfold in stages, with delayed inflationary impacts on businesses proving particularly problematic. As higher transportation and production costs filter through the economy, inflation can intensify and persist longer than initial price spikes suggest.

These economic realities point toward interest rate hikes, not cuts, The Motley Fool argues. Core Personal Consumption Expenditures—the Fed's preferred inflation measure—continue edging higher despite expectations for modest overall inflation declines. FOMC meeting minutes from April indicate a majority of members favored removing the easing bias statement, a preliminary step toward rate increases.

Futures markets are betting against Trump's position. According to The Motley Fool, the CME Group's FedWatch Tool shows a 71.3% probability of at least one rate hike by December 2026, based on June 8 data. Trump's handpicked Fed successor, Kevin Warsh, has demonstrated hawkish voting tendencies during his previous FOMC tenure.

While Wall Street would prefer Trump's assessment to prevail, The Motley Fool concludes that economic precedent and current data suggest interest rate hikes loom ahead.

A former CIA officer with 28 years of experience has strongly criticized the Trump administration's choice of Bill Pulte to head the nation's intelligence community, arguing the decision reveals a deep disregard for professional, unbiased intelligence work.

In a guest column for the New York Times, John Sipher contends that making Pulte acting director of national intelligence signals something far more troubling than a single bad hiring decision. He believes it demonstrates how the administration views intelligence not as a tool for national security grounded in evidence and careful analysis, but as a collection of secrets to weaponize against political rivals.

The law establishing the DNI position explicitly requires nominees to "have extensive national security expertise." This standard matters because intelligence work operates according to specific standards, skills, legal limits and analytical methods. The DNI is tasked with providing leaders facts, warnings and hard truths—even unwelcome ones. Pulte lacks this background.

Sipher points to Pulte's tenure leading the Federal Housing Finance Agency as evidence of his politicized approach. During his time there, Pulte referred multiple Trump critics—including well-known Democrats—for questionable mortgage fraud investigations, raising concerns that the agency was being used for political retribution.

Sipher warns this appointment reflects a larger decline in intelligence community professionalism. CIA officers are taught from day one that politicizing intelligence is "the cardinal sin." Distorting intelligence to match political objectives undermines the profession's core purpose. History demonstrates the dangers: the Iraq weapons-of-mass-destruction debacle exemplifies what happens when leaders receive the answers they want rather than the truth.

A politically motivated intelligence chief need not fabricate information. The damage operates more subtly and often more effectively through selective document declassification, emphasizing raw reports while burying caveats, highlighting disagreements while concealing consensus, stripping context from reporting, and converting uncertainty into accusations.

Post-1970s intelligence reforms were specifically designed to prevent this kind of abuse. After the Church Committee exposed wrongdoing by the CIA, FBI and other agencies, the U.S. established legal limits, congressional oversight, internal accountability and professional standards. These changes strengthened rather than weakened intelligence by ensuring secret agencies operated within democratic frameworks as tools for national security rather than presidential instruments.

The Trump administration's rhetoric about the "deep state" undermines this foundation. By characterizing professional expertise as disloyalty and treating independent judgment as sabotage, it encourages leaders to dismiss inconvenient facts as enemy action. This institutional damage manifests as top professionals departing, cautious analysts self-censoring, ambitious officials learning misguided lessons, and loyalists gaining promotion.

While intelligence officers can work effectively with demanding leaders who ask tough questions, they cannot function in systems where honest work is twisted or punished for political purposes.

Sipher argues the actual danger of appointing Pulte extends beyond one unqualified person damaging intelligence immediately. The real risk is the message it sends: expertise is dispensable, truth is subordinate to loyalty, and intelligence holds value only when politically useful.

The rapid deployment of artificial intelligence across society is causing a dangerous new form of extremism that is radicalizing individuals across the ideological spectrum, according to a new report from The Guardian.

A pattern of alarming incidents suggests the threat is accelerating. A Texas man was arrested earlier this year with kerosene and a lighter near OpenAI's headquarters and Sam Altman's house, along with an anti-AI manifesto. An Italian Instagram influencer was arrested for plotting anti-tech attacks inspired by Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Two self-described "ecofascists" who attacked a San Diego mosque cited "AI slop" as motivation. An Indianapolis city council member found gunshots fired through his home with a note reading "NO DATA CENTERS."

"AI is becoming this driver of political violence, and that's a very new phenomenon," said Jordyn Abrams, a researcher at George Washington University's Program on Extremism, according to The Guardian's reporting.

The irony is stark: tech industry executives may be inadvertently radicalizing people through their own apocalyptic warnings about AI's potential to transform — or destroy — civilization.

Yannick Veilleux-Lepage, an associate professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, told The Guardian: "To radicalize people, you don't actually need to have theorists or ideologues that are calling people to violence against AI, because the tech CEOs are doing a pretty good case."

What distinguishes anti-AI extremism from previous waves of tech backlash is the sheer velocity of change. "Not only are these whole-of-society changes, and not only are they really disruptive, they're happening really quickly," Veilleux-Lepage explained. "There isn't time for people to build resilience or to inoculate themselves from these changes."

The tech industry's resistance to regulation is intensifying the problem. Donald Trump's executive order blocking state-level AI restrictions, combined with tech billionaires' massive lobbying spending to prevent oversight, has created what researchers call a critical accountability gap.

"When authorities are too busy, or just don't care enough, to regulate and take action, then people affected are going to take action," said Mauro Lubrano, author of Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Technology Extremism, according to The Guardian.

The industry is taking the threat seriously. SpaceX revealed in its IPO filing that it paid $4 million annually to Elon Musk's private security firm last year — double what it spent two years prior. The FBI has vowed to prosecute violent attacks aggressively, and major AI firms are now hiring national security and counter-terrorism experts.

Researchers caution that law enforcement faces a major challenge: distinguishing between legitimate anti-AI activism and violent extremism. Mass surveillance of peaceful protesters and silencing of reasonable regulatory concerns could backfire, potentially pushing more people toward violence."We have this opportunity to be proactive in this while avoiding mistakes that we've made in the past when responding to other forms of extremism," Lubrano warned. "Something tells me that we're not off to a great start."

A federal judge has ordered that President Donald Trump cannot rename the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, nor may he close it for what the Trump administration said were two years of renovations.

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” the judge wrote, CNBC reports. “Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”

The judicial decision arrived on May 29, the day birth of John F. Kennedy, for whom the building was named in honor.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts has been a Washington, D.C. cultural institution since its dedication in 1971, serving as a national memorial to the 35th president following his assassination in 1963. Established by an act of Congress, the Kennedy Center operates under a specific congressional mandate that designates it as a living memorial to President Kennedy. The institution's governing statute, passed by Congress, explicitly establishes the center's name and purpose, making any unilateral changes subject to congressional authority rather than presidential discretion.

Trump's attempt to rename the facility and close it for extended renovations represents one of several recent efforts by his administration to reshape Washington's cultural and institutional landscape. Earlier this year, Trump attempted to add his name to other historic buildings and monuments, prompting legal challenges from government watchdog groups and constitutional scholars who argue the president lacks unilateral authority to alter congressionally-designated memorials.

The Trump administration had not publicly specified what name it intended to give the Kennedy Center, though the timing of the closure announcement—paired with Trump's broader efforts to rebrand federal institutions—suggested the proposed changes aligned with his administration's priorities. The two-year renovation timeline would have effectively removed one of Washington's premier cultural venues from public access during a significant portion of his term.

Federal judges have increasingly scrutinized Trump administration actions that exceed traditional presidential authority. This ruling reinforces the principle that congressional statutes create binding legal constraints on executive power, particularly regarding institutions explicitly established by legislative action. The decision also underscores ongoing judicial resistance to what critics characterize as executive overreach in areas traditionally reserved for congressional authority. The Kennedy Center ruling may establish precedent for other challenges to Trump administration attempts to unilaterally alter federally-designated memorials and institutions.

President Trump's decision to postpone a voluntary artificial intelligence testing executive order has exposed a deepening divide within his administration over governance philosophy and decision-making authority. The postponement, announced shortly before a scheduled White House signing ceremony, revealed fundamental disagreements between officials and highlighted how Silicon Valley figures continue to wield outsized influence over administration policy.

The delay underscores a pattern of internal friction that has increasingly characterized Trump's second term. The president told reporters he was concerned the order "could have been a blocker" to U.S. innovation and technological superiority over China after conversations with tech industry leaders including David Sacks, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. The postponement was also partly due to scheduling difficulties, with major tech CEOs including OpenAI's Sam Altman and Anthropic's Dario Amodei unable to attend on short notice.

The chaos surrounding the delayed signing reflects deeper organizational problems. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett had proposed an FDA-like review process for AI models, signaling a more regulatory posture. Yet Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has emphasized that the administration is "not in the business of picking winners and losers," indicating competing visions for how the administration should approach emerging technology governance. The draft order itself attempted to bridge this divide, explicitly disclaiming any intent to create mandatory requirements—yet even this cautious middle ground proved insufficient to move forward at this time.

Policy analysts have characterized the postponement as symptomatic of broader White House dysfunction. Observers noted that Sacks "seems to have the ear of the president on this topic," raising questions about institutional decision-making processes. Dean Ball, associated with the White House AI Action Plan, suggested the postponement signals that governance of AI development will rest substantially with the private sector rather than through coordinated federal frameworks.

The episode illustrates how Trump's administration continues to struggle with unified messaging. Hassett's regulatory inclinations and Wiles's pro-innovation stance represent genuinely competing philosophies that the White House has yet to reconcile. When even a voluntary, industry-friendly measure cannot proceed as scheduled, observers question whether consensus on any governance question is achievable within the administration's current structure.

What emerges is a picture of a White House where major policy decisions can shift rapidly based on last-minute discussions with industry figures. The postponement occurred shortly before the scheduled ceremony, creating significant logistical complications and raising questions about decision-making processes at the highest levels of government.

The episode also raises questions about the role of unelected tech executives in shaping federal policy. Sacks, Musk, and Zuckerberg did not campaign or stand for election, yet their input apparently carries sufficient weight to delay presidential action. This dynamic—where industry figures can influence the timing and scope of stated administration initiatives through direct access—suggests ongoing tensions between different power centers within the administration.

Meanwhile, the administration's inability to finalize a unified AI governance approach has created a policy vacuum. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an AI-related executive order addressing potential job losses from the technology, proceeding even as the federal government remained unable to establish clear national direction. The administration has expressed desire for federal preemption of state regulations, yet its own internal process challenges have hampered policy development.

The AI order postponement joins a pattern of recent episodes reflecting White House operational challenges: delayed announcements, competing public statements from different officials, and decisions apparently subject to rapid revision based on external input.

Margaret Sullivan, a Guardian US columnist, argues that mainstream media has largely normalized the extraordinary corruption and chaos of President Trump's second term, treating scandals as routine political theater rather than threats to democratic governance.

Sullivan catalogs Trump's disturbing behavior and policies: his admission that he's not thinking "even a little bit" about Americans' personal finances during Iran negotiations, his apparent drowsiness in meetings, his unhinged social media posts, and his constant lies about the Iran war. She also points to larger abuses of power including the $1 billion ballroom project and the controversial $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund" intended to compensate Trump allies, potentially including January 6 rioters, using taxpayer money.

Yet, she argues, these developments receive minimal sustained coverage. Sullivan observes that what would have triggered weeks of headlines and possible impeachment proceedings in previous administrations is now treated as simply "Trump being Trump"—as if his presidency exists outside the normal bounds of journalistic scrutiny. The sheer volume of scandals has created what observers call a normalization effect, where each outrage fades before the next one emerges.

The media's failure to maintain consistent scrutiny reflects a broader pattern of editorial capitulation. Major newsrooms have faced criticism for treating Trump's statements and actions with an evenhandedness inappropriate to the gravity of the issues. Cable news networks, in particular, have been accused of balancing coverage between what Trump says and the factual record, effectively granting credibility to false claims through what media critics call "both-sides" journalism. Meanwhile, network evening newscasts have dramatically reduced investigative reporting in favor of shorter segments that struggle to convey the complexity and severity of institutional corruption.

Sullivan highlights a stark contrast between media treatment of Trump and his predecessor. One observer noted the irony that journalists helped force Biden from his reelection campaign for being too old, yet ignore that Trump, now 79 and turning 80 next month, displays apparent physical and mental decline that hasn't received comparable scrutiny. During Biden's final weeks in office, cable news devoted extensive coverage to his debate performance and calls for his withdrawal. By contrast, reporting on Trump's fitness for office has remained scattered and episodic, with major outlets declining to launch sustained investigations into the president's cognitive state or capacity to govern.

The media's response to the slush fund story exemplifies this pattern. While The New York Times initially led with the story, quoting Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington calling it "one of the single most corrupt acts in American history," mainstream outlets quickly moved on. NBC's evening news shifted focus to other stories within days, while Fox News offered cursory coverage, primarily amplifying Trump allies like JD Vance. More significantly, few major outlets followed up with investigative reporting on how the fund would function, who would benefit, or the legal mechanisms through which taxpayer money would be distributed to Trump associates.

Media analysts have pointed to structural factors driving this coverage failure. Advertising-dependent networks benefit from the viewership that Trump generates, creating perverse incentives to cover him constantly but not critically. Editorial decisions at major outlets have increasingly emphasized breaking news cycles over sustained investigations, making it difficult for newsrooms to maintain focus on a single issue long enough to move public opinion or trigger political consequences.

Sullivan identifies what she calls the "flood the zone" strategy—a deliberate technique to overwhelm media capacity for sustained investigation. With constant outrages competing for attention, journalists struggle to maintain focus on any single scandal before the next emerges. Trump threatens Cuba, dismisses Americans' budget concerns, and pursues authoritarian relationships, yet none receives adequate investigation. Critics note that this strategy relies on media outlets' existing bias toward episodic rather than thematic reporting, making sustained coverage of systemic corruption nearly impossible.

Sullivan argues that corporate media remains "highly distractible and largely deferential," not entirely unhappy with Trump's presidency because it generates constant outrage and viewership. Studies of cable news during Trump's second term show that major networks devote significant airtime to Trump-related stories while devoting proportionally less time to investigative reporting or policy analysis. Meanwhile, independent journalists like Terry Moran call the slush fund "plunder" and urge media to abandon euphemistic language like "controversial" in favor of plainly describing the corruption. Moran and others have criticized mainstream outlets for using passive construction and weasel words that obscure agency and accountability.

The contrast between independent and corporate media coverage has become stark. Substack writers, newsletter journalists, and smaller outlets have published detailed investigations into specific abuses—the ballroom project, the tax return shields, the slush fund mechanisms—with minimal competition from major newsrooms. This fragmentation means that critical information reaches only engaged readers who actively seek out independent sources, while mainstream audiences encounter only sanitized summaries.

Sullivan concludes that by the time readers finish her column, mainstream media will have already moved on to the next scandal, continuing a cycle that obscures the systematic dismantling of democratic norms and the abuse of power for personal gain. The result is a public sphere increasingly unable to hold power accountable through the mechanisms of informed democratic participation.

Dr. Rob Davidson, who heads the Committee to Protect Healthcare and has administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, expressed concern about President Donald Trump's public statements regarding the screening test. Davidson appeared on former CNN reporter Jim Acosta's show this week to discuss Trump's repeated claims that he has passed the assessment multiple times.

According to Davidson, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is not a routine evaluation administered to all patients. Instead, it is specifically ordered when a healthcare provider or family member has raised concerns about possible cognitive decline. Typically, the test is administered once and does not need to be repeated.

"It is just not typical, right?" Davidson said. "It isn't typical. It isn't what you would just generally do for any individual when you didn't have a concern."

The MoCA screening is designed to detect mild cognitive impairment rather than measure general intelligence or identify advanced dementia. Davidson characterized it as an assessment for individuals who might be "slipping a little bit" and whose family members or physicians have begun to notice changes. It is not a standard test for healthy adults and is not intended to be taken repeatedly for public validation purposes.

While Davidson declined to diagnose Trump remotely, citing ethical concerns, he acknowledged that the president's public behavior raised questions in his professional assessment.

"I won't make a diagnosis, we don't, it's not ethical to try to diagnose somebody," Davidson said. "And I don't know if the president has a condition, but something just seems not right."

Davidson also highlighted the unusual nature of Trump's pattern of repeatedly requesting and publicly discussing his MoCA results. White House physicians typically do not repeatedly administer the same cognitive screening test to a patient absent clinical concerns, Davidson noted. Trump's apparent desire to continue taking the test is itself noteworthy, he said.

Acosta administered the test on camera during the segment to illustrate the broader concern. After completing the assessment on air, Acosta expressed increased concern about the president's condition.

Trump's medical history has been the subject of ongoing public scrutiny.

During his first term, his then-physician, Dr. Ronny Jackson, declared Trump in "excellent" health following a comprehensive physical examination. However, medical professionals and observers have raised questions about whether a single positive assessment should be sufficient to establish overall fitness for office, particularly given the demands of the presidency.

The Trump White House has released limited additional medical records since that initial evaluation, making independent verification of his current health status difficult.

Medical ethicists have noted that the public nature of Trump's repeated MoCA test-taking represents an unusual approach to cognitive screening, which is typically conducted in private consultation between a patient and their physician. Some health experts have suggested that the frequent public discussion of cognitive assessments may itself warrant evaluation, as repeated testing and public proclamations about results can occasionally indicate underlying concerns that prompted the initial screening.

At the White House congressional picnic on Tuesday evening, as Abba's "Dancing Queen" echoed across a lawn dotted with cornhole games, a ferris wheel, and food stations serving short ribs and apple pie, Donald Trump took time to celebrate a political scalp, according to a new story in The Guardian.

Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican and persistent critic of the president, had lost his primary race and was conspicuously absent from the festivities. "We won the Massie thing," Trump announced to picnic guests. "He was a bad guy. He deserves to lose."

The moment exemplified Trump's ongoing campaign to purge the Republican Party of dissenters, a mission that has accelerated during his second term. Massie became the latest casualty in what observers describe as a revenge tour designed to consolidate Trump's grip on the party and eliminate those he views as insufficiently loyal. Yet this vindictive strategy may carry significant costs, potentially destabilizing the very legislative agenda Trump needs to advance and weakening the Republican coalition heading into November's midterm elections.

Massie's defeat in the most expensive congressional primary in history—orchestrated largely through Trump-backed spending against the president's handpicked challenger, former Navy Seal Ed Gallrein—follows a pattern established during Trump's first term. Republicans including Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Justin Amash faced similar fates. In Trump's second term, the retribution has intensified. Five Indiana state senators lost their seats after resisting Trump's demands on congressional redistricting. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana fell to a primary challenge after voting to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial.

Massie's particular offense included questioning government spending, challenging Trump's war powers assertions, and pushing for transparency regarding files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In his concession speech, Massie signaled defiance, hinting he would intensify his scrutiny during his remaining congressional tenure, particularly regarding the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The strategic problem for Trump is becoming apparent. By decimating the political careers of Republicans whose primary sin was insufficient loyalty rather than substantive policy disagreement, Trump has created a cadre of legislators with nothing to lose. Cassidy, still serving in the Senate, almost immediately threw his support behind a Democratic war powers resolution forcing Trump to end the Iran war, helping push it through after seven previous failures. Similarly, Senator Thom Tillis and former ally Marjorie Taylor Greene have begun breaking ranks, while Trump continues threatening further retribution against Senators Rand Paul and Lauren Boebert for supporting Massie.

With razor-thin majorities in both chambers, Trump paradoxically needs the votes of the very people whose political destruction he orchestrated. Conservative analyst Charlie Sykes observed that Trump's victories benefit the Republican Party rather than undermining Democrats, which should concern strategists. Meanwhile, Trump's national approval rating has plummeted to 37%, while Republicans trail Democrats 39% to 50% on generic congressional ballot polling.

Trump's recent endorsement of scandal-plagued Ken Paxton over incumbent Senator John Cornyn in Texas exemplifies the dilemma. The expensive Paxton race would drain resources from crucial battleground states, potentially sacrificing Republican prospects in November for personal loyalty considerations. Republicans find themselves trapped: Trump remains powerful in primary contests but may prove catastrophic in general elections where independent voters have decisively turned against him

In a striking case of doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) left its most sensitive digital passwords sitting in plain sight on the public internet for months.

Think of it like this: imagine the agency that's supposed to protect America's digital locks accidentally left all the keys to those locks sitting in a public park. And worse, the keys had labels on them that said exactly what doors they opened.

Someone working for a contractor hired by CISA used a website called GitHub (commonly used by computer programmers) to move work files home. Instead of using secure methods, they just uploaded everything — including passwords written out in plain text.

The folder was even named "Private-CISA," as if the label alone would keep it secret. It wasn't.

According to security experts, the exposed files contained administrative passwords to three major cloud servers and login credentials for dozens of internal systems. One file literally listed usernames and passwords in a spreadsheet.

An expert who specializes in finding exposed secrets online called it "the worst leak that I've witnessed in my career." The exposed access could have allowed hackers to break into the agency's most secure systems.

The folder was created in November and wasn't fixed until this month — meaning the passwords were publicly available for about six months.

CISA claims no one actually used these passwords to break in. But that's like leaving your house unlocked for six months and then saying it's okay because you don't think anyone went inside.

This disaster comes as CISA is already struggling. The agency has been described as chaotic and disorganized, with leadership positions unfilled. The Trump administration is also planning major budget cuts to the agency.

It's a stark irony: the government agency responsible for keeping America's digital infrastructure safe just proved it can't even keep its own passwords safe.

The CISA credential leak exposes broader systemic vulnerabilities within federal cybersecurity infrastructure. Security protocols require that sensitive credentials never be stored in unencrypted, plain-text formats, yet this fundamental principle was violated by a contractor employee using unsecured methods to transfer files.

The six-month window during which credentials remained exposed raises serious questions about CISA's internal monitoring and code repository scanning practices. Standard industry tools can automatically detect exposed secrets on GitHub, suggesting CISA either lacked such monitoring or failed to implement it effectively.

A striking photograph of President Donald Trump emerged Monday, reigniting debate about the president's physical health after images showed severe bruising across both of his hands.

The image, captured during a White House health care affordability event where Trump appeared alongside Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., revealed deep purple discoloration that the president has previously attempted to conceal with cosmetic products.

When questioned about the visible injuries to his hands, Trump has attributed the bruising to the physical toll of constant handshakes with supporters and world leaders. However, medical professionals and observers have questioned whether such an explanation adequately accounts for the extent and persistence of the injuries now being documented in recent photographs.

The president's apparent efforts to hide the condition — rather than address it directly — have drawn scrutiny from commentators across the political spectrum who wonder what underlying health issues might be responsible.

Social media erupted with commentary following the image's circulation. Political analyst Nicole Sandler described the sight as "downright nauseating," while journalist Gavin Aronsen labeled it a "graphic image."

Others offered critiques that questioned both the president's transparency and what the bruising might indicate about his overall health status. The incident underscores ongoing concerns about Trump's fitness for office and his willingness to be forthright with the American public about his medical condition.A pattern of health questions

Trump's physical appearance has become an increasingly frequent topic of public discussion throughout his presidency. Medical professionals have speculated that such symptoms could indicate circulatory problems, lymphedema, or other underlying conditions that warrant clinical evaluation.

The bruising on his hands represents yet another visible health concern that Trump has chosen to address through concealment rather than transparency. Unlike previous presidents who have made their medical records publicly available, Trump has resisted calls for comprehensive health disclosures, citing privacy concerns.

At nearly 80 years old, Trump is among the oldest individuals to serve as president. Questions about his cognitive and physical fitness have intensified as he approaches his birthday in June. A recent poll showed that 59 percent of Americans believe Trump lacks the mental sharpness needed to lead the country effectively.

The White House has not issued any official statement regarding Trump's hand injuries or what may be causing the persistent bruising. Medical experts note that without a formal diagnosis from Trump's personal physicians, the public can only speculate about the underlying causes based on visible symptoms and the president's own contradictory explanations.

Meghan McCain called out SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly on her podcast Citizen McCain on Friday, blasting her former Fox News colleague for what she described as "ugly" and "hateful" comments about female celebrities' bodies.

McCain, 41, took particular issue with Kelly's post-Met Gala commentary. "One thing that gets me really, really, really upset in general is body-shaming. I don't like it," McCain said. She directly addressed Kelly: "Honestly, find better content. If you're scraping the bottom of the barrel talking about women's bodies, there's a lot going on in the world."

During her recent remarks, Kelly, 55, described Girls creator Lena Dunham as "homely" and said she had "gained more weight" during her time away from public view. Kelly made crude physical comments, stating: "She's got calves that look like thighs. She's the one leaning into her obesity. And we're just being subjected to it."

Kelly similarly targeted actress Demi Moore for her appearance at the Cannes Film Festival red carpet, this time attacking her for being too thin. "She's shockingly thin. She looks truly anorexic," Kelly said. "She looks like a Holocaust victim."

McCain highlighted the double standard in Kelly's criticism: "Both of these women are being body-shamed, one for being too thin and one for being too fat. This is how women exist in the world. We are either fat-shamed or thin-shamed, and there's really nothing in between."

McCain, who has been publicly vocal about experiencing body-shaming throughout her career, said Kelly's comments deeply affected her. "I've been fat-shamed my entire career, literally since I emerged on any kind of public forum in any way," McCain explained. "My heart was really breaking watching these clips because I think it's an indicator of where we're going back to."

In 2018, Kelly made controversial remarks about wanting to be body-shamed on Megyn Kelly Today. McCain responded via Twitter, writing: "I was publicly fat shamed early on in my career, and it sent me to therapy. Trust me, there are real-life ramifications for fat shaming of any kind, it is NEVER acceptable."

McCain emphasized the need for empathy when discussing people's appearances. Referencing actor Chadwick Boseman, she noted: "Sometimes when people look skinny, they may be having health issues. We need to be very careful about how we talk about people."

She expressed concern about cultural implications, telling her co-host: "I have two daughters, you have two daughters. I'll be damned if I'm going to raise them in a culture that we're going to go back to this."

This is not the first time McCain has called out Kelly. In November, she criticized Kelly for defending Jeffrey Epstein, calling the remarks "disgusting."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Airline industry executives are bracing for a worst-case "Armageddon" scenario under President Donald Trump as the Iran war is threatening critical shortages of jet fuel — and they expect that if things get worse, the industry could see more liquidations similar to what happened to Spirit Airlines earlier this year.

According to the Daily Beast, European budget carrier Ryanair's CFO Neil Sorahan told CNBC, "Do we have plans for some kind of Armageddon situation? Of course, we do, but I don't see that coming to pass. As things stand, we're operating a full schedule this summer, and plan to operate a full schedule into the winter period."

He did acknowledge that "I think we will see some of the weaker carriers who were already struggling before the war possibly go to the wall in the winter," pointing particularly at carriers in Europe.

The Iran war has resulted in a near-shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping lane at the Persian Gulf through which 20 percent of the world's oil transits. The most visible impact has been a surge in gas prices, but all petroleum products, including jet fuel, have been affected.

The closure of this vital waterway represents one of the most significant disruptions to global energy markets in recent history. Jet fuel prices, which are directly tied to crude oil prices, have surged dramatically since Iran's blockade began. Airlines operating on thin profit margins — particularly budget carriers — face unprecedented fuel costs that threaten their viability. Major carriers with more diversified revenue streams and financial reserves can absorb these increases, but smaller operators lack such cushions.

The Spirit liquidation, which came after years of struggles and multiple bankruptcies, was resisted by the Trump administration, which tried to secure a bailout for the ultra-low-cost carrier that would have seen the federal government acquire up to 90 percent stake. This deal ultimately did not go through because some of Spirit's major creditors objected.

Spirit's collapse highlighted the vulnerability of budget airlines, which operate with minimal profit margins and depend heavily on fuel efficiency and low operating costs. The carrier had struggled for years with aging aircraft, customer service complaints, and debt obligations. However, the final blow came from external pressures — including fuel costs and reduced travel demand — that tipped the already-fragile airline into liquidation.

Analysts warn that if the Iran war continues indefinitely and jet fuel remains scarce or prohibitively expensive, the airline industry could face a cascade of failures similar to what occurred during the 2008 financial crisis. Industry observers note that while legacy carriers like American, United, and Delta have diversified business models and access to capital markets, regional carriers and ultra-low-cost operators face existential threats.

There is no current end in sight to the Iran war, which has seen unsteady periods of ceasefire but no major move toward reopening the Strait of Hormuz to its previous capacity. Aviation experts say prolonged disruption could fundamentally reshape the global airline landscape, potentially consolidating the industry further and reducing competition on key routes.

In one of his final shows before The Late Show ends on May 21, Colbert opened by noting he had only five episodes remaining. He then pivoted to criticism of CBS News anchor Tony Dokoupil, who failed to secure a visa to cover President Trump's summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.

According to The Daily Beast reporting, Dokoupil was forced to cover the historic event from Taipei, Taiwan—over 1,000 miles away—while his competitors at NBC and ABC covered the summit from Beijing without apparent issues. The 45-year-old anchor, who is only five months into his controversial tenure anchoring the primetime CBS show, reportedly faced visa complications that prevented him from traveling to China for the major story.

Colbert highlighted this disparity in his monologue, stating: "All the news teams are on the ground in China to cover this epic and historic summit. All except one." He then delivered a joking critique of CBS News, quipping: "Well, that is disappointing, but it does fit in with their slogan. 'CBS News: when events happen, we're at most one country away."

Dokoupil was hired to anchor CBS Evening News by the network's controversial editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, who has publicly expressed her desire to push CBS in a more Trump-friendly direction. The hire has proven contentious, with Dokoupil facing criticism over his editorial approach during his first five months on the job. The visa issue represents another setback for the anchor, who has already faced increasingly dire ratings in the role.

The reason for Dokoupil's visa denial remains unclear. According to Semafor reporting, it is uncertain whether the failure stemmed from a late visa application or some other separate issue. However, the timing proved particularly problematic given that competing news anchors—NBC News's Tom Llamas and ABC News's David Muir—both successfully secured visas and covered the Trump-Xi summit directly from Beijing.

The monologue came during Colbert's final stretch of episodes and continued his pattern of publicly criticizing CBS since his show's cancellation was announced in July 2025. That announcement came mere days after Colbert had criticized his parent company, Paramount, for settling a lawsuit brought by President Trump. Colbert called the $16 million settlement a "big fat bribe."

Although CBS's decision to cancel Colbert was reportedly made before that critical monologue and motivated primarily by financial concerns related to a broader corporate restructuring, critics have characterized the move as another example of the company capitulating to the Trump administration.

Since the cancellation announcement, Colbert has grown increasingly bold in his criticisms of CBS. In February, he called out the network for pressuring him not to air an interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico. He also criticized CBS for failing to push back against pressure from the Trump administration, stating: "I am grateful to have worked for CBS for the last 11 years. I'm just so surprised that this giant global corporation would not stand up to these bullies."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Natalie Harp has become one of the most influential figures in shaping President Trump's public messaging, yet few Americans know her name. The executive assistant operates largely behind the scenes, serving as the critical filter between the president's impulses and the millions of followers who consume his Truth Social feed each day.

Her role has expanded dramatically since Trump's return to the White House, according to a new, wide-ranging report in the Wall Street Journal, making her instrumental in the nearly 8,800 posts published to the president's account since the start of his second term. While Trump personally approves all content, Harp controls much of what reaches his desk for approval in the first place.

Each evening, Harp arrives with stacks of printed-out draft posts—material she and other advisers believe will appeal to the president. These proposed messages often recycle content from fringe social media accounts, partisan commentators, and anonymous users across X and other platforms. According to people familiar with the process, Harp scours the internet for videos, images, and text that align with Trump's grievances and worldview.

Once Trump approves the selections, Harp logs into the president's account—often during late-night and early-morning hours when most White House staff have gone home. She then posts batches of messages in rapid succession, contributing to the frenetic posting patterns that have characterized Trump's Truth Social presence.

On a single night in December, Trump's account posted nearly 160 times between 8:17 p.m. and midnight. Such bursts have occurred 44 times since Trump returned to office, with dozens or more posts frequently published between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m., according to the Journal's analysis.

Harp's influence extends to some of the most controversial content to appear on Trump's account. Earlier this year, at the president's direction, she posted a video containing racist imagery depicting former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama as apes, as well as an AI-generated image portraying Trump as a Christ-like figure. Both posts were later deleted after bipartisan backlash.

Trump later told reporters he had not seen the offensive portion of the video before approving it, blaming an editing error. However, the episode raised questions about how thoroughly the president reviews content before it reaches his followers.

What distinguishes Harp's role is her apparent autonomy in the process. Unlike typical White House operations, she does not share draft posts with the chief of staff's office, communications aides, or national security officials before they are posted. When questioned about this lack of coordination, Harp has told colleagues she works directly for Trump and only answers to him.

This approach has frustrated some White House officials who worry about the absence of institutional checks on the content being published under the president's name.

The lack of broader review means that some of the most divisive presidential messaging bypasses traditional White House communication channels entirely. The posts often amplify conspiracy theories, including false claims about the 2020 election being stolen. They describe migrants as existential threats, call for the arrest of political opponents, and mock critics—all without input from seasoned communications professionals or policy experts.

Much of the content Harp selects comes from obscure or anonymous accounts. The Wall Street Journal found that significant portions of Trump's Truth Social feed consist of reposts from accounts like @TheSCIF, @WallStreetApes, and @NathanielSami—users whose identities and motivations are largely unknown to the general public.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung defended the arrangement, stating that "Truth Social has never been hotter" because it allows Trump to offer "unfiltered and direct thoughts to the American people, without the biased media taking him out of context." He declined to discuss internal deliberations about how the posting process works.

The FBI has begun interviewing current and former CIA employees as part of a Department of Justice investigation into ex-CIA director John Brennan over his role in a 2017 intelligence assessment concluding that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election to help Donald Trump.

Employees were questioned last week by FBI agents from the Miami field office at CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia, with interviews expected to continue throughout the coming weeks. About a dozen current and former CIA officers who worked on the 2017 assessment have been questioned so far, according to a Reuters exclusive report.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida has been investigating whether Brennan made a false statement to Congress in 2023 when discussing the intelligence assessment. The core conclusions of that assessment—which examined Russia's cyber-espionage and influence efforts to boost Trump's candidacy—were later affirmed by the Justice Department, a bipartisan Senate committee, and a CIA review.

Prosecutors are examining the extent to which the assessment's conclusions were shaped by the Steele dossier, a controversial document of unverified claims about Trump's ties to Russia. The dossier was authored by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and funded by Trump's political opponents. Brennan has maintained that the CIA opposed including the dossier in the report and that its classified summary was only included as a compromise with the FBI.

President Trump, who has called the Russia investigation a "hoax," has pushed prosecutors to investigate those he believes were involved in spearheading the probe, including Brennan. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, referred Brennan to the DOJ in October, alleging he lied during congressional testimony by saying the CIA was "not involved at all" with the Steele dossier.

Brennan's lawyer told a federal judge in Miami that prosecutors identified his client as a target of the investigation. The lawyer claimed prosecutors were "judge shopping" by attempting to steer the case to a Trump-appointed judge in Fort Pierce, Florida, who previously dismissed a criminal case against Trump. Sources expect any charges would be filed in Washington, D.C., where Brennan's congressional testimony occurred.

Recent staffing changes have intensified concerns within the intelligence community. Attorney General Todd Blanche helped oversee the investigation when it was run by Pam Bondi, whom Trump fired in April. The Justice Department then removed the veteran Miami prosecutor leading the Brennan investigation and installed Joe DiGenova, a former federal prosecutor and conservative legal commentator who has been critical of Brennan, to oversee the probe.

DiGenova's appointment has alarmed current and former CIA employees who worry he will pursue anyone in the intelligence community whom Trump perceives to have been involved in politically motivated investigations. In an unusual development, prosecutors withdrew several subpoenas for witnesses to testify before a federal grand jury in Washington in mid-April, shortly after the subpoenas were issued.

The Brennan investigation is one of several Trump administration probes targeting officials from the prior administration.

Since returning to office, Trump has directed the Justice Department to investigate figures he views as adversaries in the Russia probe, including former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Intelligence community officials express concern that investigations are being weaponized for political purposes rather than driven by prosecutorial merit.

The withdrawal of grand jury subpoenas and replacement of veteran prosecutors with Trump loyalists has fueled suspicions among current and former intelligence employees that the investigations prioritize political retribution over justice. These developments have raised questions about the independence of the Justice Department and the politicization of federal law enforcement.

President Donald Trump attacked The New York Times in a lengthy overnight post on Truth Social after the newspaper reported that the real cost of his Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation was significantly higher than he initially claimed.

The president posted his response shortly after 1 a.m. on Tuesday morning, responding to reporting that the Interior Department plans to pay a contractor $13.1 million for the project, far above the $1.8 million figure Trump publicly announced when unveiling the plan last month.

Federal records reviewed by The Times show the Interior Department increased the contract by $6.2 million beyond the original estimate, bringing the project total to roughly $8 million before additional costs are included. The records also revealed that the administration awarded the no-bid contract to Atlantic Industrial Coatings, a firm that had previously completed work at Trump's Virginia golf club.

The renovation includes repairing leaks in the Reflecting Pool, located beneath the Lincoln Memorial, and repainting portions of the structure "American flag blue."

In his Truth Social post, Trump blamed former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the project's challenges, claiming The Times was "trying to justify Obama and Biden's expensively botched attempt at fixing the long broken, unsightly, and unsanitary" pool.

"They squandered at least 55 Million Dollars haplessly trying, with no chance of success, to get the Reflecting Pool to work," Trump wrote. "Instead, they made it worse, keeping it closed for years, and ending up with a leaking, smelling, ode to both of their failed Administrations. It was and embarrassment to Washington, D.C., and to our Country, itself. Despite the vast sums of money spent, they never got the pool to work, and cosmetically it was a total mess for all to see."

Trump presented himself as the solution to the project's failures: "Now, along comes 'TRUMP,' who is asked by many patriots if I can fix it. The answer is a resounding, YES, and for a 'tiny' fraction of the cost!"

He stated that he instructed the Department of the Interior to approach the work as a "highly sophisticated swimming pool" renovation that could be completed "in 2 weeks rather than 4 years."

Trump also criticized Times journalist David Fahrenthold, calling him a "lowlife" for characterizing the project as a "paint job."

"It is a deeply complicated work of smart and beautiful construction," Trump countered. "It won't leak, it will shine, and be the pride of Washington D.C. for decades to come. I saved more than 390 Million Dollars, and 4 years of no 'mess,' and was, of course, given no credit by the biased New York Times."

Trump concluded his post with a clarification: "Also, I didn't give out the contract, 'Interior' did, to a contractor I did not know, and have never used before."

A bestselling author has detailed the indifference Jeffrey Epstein displayed toward the criminal charges pursued against him between 2006 and 2008.

In a new column for his Substack, HOWL, Michael Wolff described how "unconcerned" and "uncaring" the disgraced financier was about the investigation. The years-long investigation began after a report was filed with Palm Beach police regarding alleged abuse at his Florida residence.

Wolff alleged on Monday that he met with Epstein, who died in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019, on multiple occasions during that period. At each meeting, Wolff described Epstein's remarkably composed demeanor.

"He was matter-of-fact, blithe, incapable of not making a joke about his situation, and as well, resigned to people not understanding or refusing to accept the nature of his desires. ('I'd be in much better shape if this were a gay thing.')," Wolff wrote.

At the same time, Epstein was also a strategic strategist regarding his legal defense, according to Wolff.

"He coolly laid out the field of play: the various characters both in Palm Beach and in the Justice Department; the legal maneuvers on his part and against him; his dream-team lineup of lawyers; and a defense of his own position," the author alleged.

Wolff recalls Epstein showing little concern about the outcome of his legal battle or its impact on his reputation—until he was taken into custody.

"Epstein, who seemed to remain unconcerned, if not uncaring, about the accusations against him and the legal efforts to punish him, and entirely confident that all would be settled and dealt with, suddenly accepted his plea in 2008 and immediately entered prison in Palm Beach," Wolff wrote.

It would not be until 2010 that Conchita Sarnoff's investigation, published by the Daily Beast, revealed the plea agreement that allowed Epstein to avoid more serious charges and federal prosecution despite extensive evidence of criminal conduct. Much of Epstein's sentence was served through a work-release program.

Wolff, who is co-host with Joanna Coles of the Daily Beast's podcast Inside Trump's Head, has faced scrutiny over his correspondence with Epstein. In his latest Substack, Wolff explained his multiple meetings with Epstein as an effort to understand how the financier was managing the investigation.

"I had never known anyone to be the subject of a criminal investigation and was, I confess, a curious witness to how he would handle this disgrace and humiliation," Wolff said.

The journalist has previously stated his goal was to document his interactions with Epstein, covering only what he says he "personally saw or heard."

Despite months of aggressive legal action, social media ranting, and pressure on Republican lawmakers, President Donald Trump has accomplished remarkably little in his quest to seize control over U.S. elections, according to a new report from States Newsroom. Six months before the November midterms, his administration's sweeping campaign to restrict voting has been stymied by courts, rebuffed by state officials, and opposed by key Republican senators.

"There is a vast chasm between wanting to do something and trying to do something and actually successfully doing it," said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research.

Trump's legislative centerpiece, the SAVE America Act, remains dead in the water despite passing the House in February. The bill, which would require voters to prove citizenship and impose strict ID requirements, failed a Senate vote 48-50 in April when Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) attempted to attach it to a budget measure. Federal courts have already blocked a similar executive order Trump signed last year attempting the same proof-of-citizenship requirement unilaterally.

The Justice Department's litigation strategy has been equally unsuccessful. Despite filing 30 lawsuits demanding that states and D.C. turn over sensitive voter data, the DOJ hasn't secured a single court victory. Only 13 Republican states have voluntarily provided the information. A bipartisan coalition of state secretaries of state is actively fighting the administration in court.

An executive order Trump signed in March limiting mail-in voting now faces five federal lawsuits. Election law experts call the directive illegal and unconstitutional. Federal agencies haven't even begun finalizing implementation plans—a telling sign of the legal jeopardy surrounding the order.

What Trump hasn't accomplished legislatively, he's pursuing through intimidation. The FBI seized ballots from Fulton County, Georgia in January 2026, and the Department of Justice subsequently subpoenaed the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of election workers and poll volunteers who worked the 2020 election. Similar DOJ actions are targeting election officials in Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Fulton County Board of Commissioners Chair Robb Pitts responded bluntly: "This whole thing is designed to harass, intimidate and chill participation in our election process. It's not going to work, it's not going to happen."

A pro-democracy analysis released by Issue One likened America's election system to a resilient patient fighting a virus. The Trump administration, it concluded, acts as that virus—attacking three critical safeguards: Congress, internal checks within the executive branch, and the information ecosystem.

Democratic states are mounting counteroffensives. New Mexico passed legislation making it a felony to obstruct polling places and prohibiting military or armed federal personnel from voting locations. Connecticut went further, establishing 250-foot buffer zones around election sites where federal agents, including immigration officers, cannot conduct warrantless arrests, searches, or use of force.

When asked directly whether troops could be deployed to polls, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth deflected: "It's yet another gotcha hypothetical." Such evasions have only intensified state-level concerns.

Election experts warn that Trump could escalate efforts as the midterms approach, particularly if Republican losses appear likely. The combination of failed legislation, blocked executive orders, and unsuccessful lawsuits hasn't deterred the administration—it's merely forced it toward increasingly brazen tactics.

Yet the system, while under unprecedented strain, continues to hold. Courts remain willing to block overreach. State officials resist federal pressure. Republican senators, despite party pressure, have blocked Trump's most radical proposals.

As Connecticut state Rep. Matt Blumenthal said: "I have great confidence that the American people will stand up against it." For now, that confidence appears warranted—but with six months until the midterms, and a president unwilling to accept electoral outcomes, that confidence will be tested repeatedly.

Michael Tomasky argues that Republicans have abandoned any pretense of offering healthcare solutions, choosing instead to dismantle the Affordable Care Act's subsidies with devastating real-world consequences. The result is a cautionary tale about what happens when ideology trumps governance.

The central irony is stark: Republicans spent over 70 attempts to repeal Obamacare without ever producing a credible replacement. When expanded ACA subsidies—implemented during the pandemic and set to expire in 2025—became a flashpoint in last year's government shutdown, Republicans refused to renew them. Democrats warned that millions would lose coverage. Republicans didn't care.

They were right to warn. According to the Wall Street Journal, nearly one in 10 people with ACA plans dropped coverage entirely after premiums spiked. In Georgia alone, enrollment plummeted 37 percent, from 1.5 million to 950,000 people. For those earning above $64,000, premiums more than tripled. Similar catastrophes unfolded across the country.

Obamacare's track record tells the story Republicans refuse to acknowledge. From 2013 to 2016, the number of uninsured Georgians dropped by 537,000—a 29 percent decline. Similar gains appeared in Alabama (down 32.5 percent) and Florida (down 34 percent). The program worked. It reduced the uninsured rate dramatically, exactly as promised.

Trump's answer? TrumpRX.com—a discount drug website covering 43 medications out of approximately 24,000 patented drugs on the market. It's performative healthcare theater masquerading as policy.

Meanwhile, Republican-controlled states reveal the depths of their indifference. Texas caps Medicaid eligibility at 15 percent of the poverty level, disqualifying families earning more than $4,098 annually. ACA-participating states set the bar at 138 percent, with federal funding backing most of it. Six states refusing Medicaid expansion are former Confederate states, a pattern that speaks volumes.

Tomasky raises a provocative question: Are Republicans more stupid than cruel? The cruelty is undeniable—millions losing coverage while facing inflation and rising gas prices. But the stupidity compounds it. These policies hurt their own states economically. Hospitals forced to provide uncompensated care have less money for equipment and technology, degrading care quality. Employers struggle to retain healthy workforces. The economic damage radiates outward.

Yet Republicans knowingly pursue policies they should recognize as self-destructive, worshipping a president who proudly admits ignorance about public policy. That's a particular kind of dumb—choosing loyalty over competence, ideology over reality.

The outcome is inevitable: people will go without healthcare. Some will die from treatable conditions. Emergency rooms will overflow with preventable complications. Families will declare bankruptcy over medical bills. And Republicans will offer nothing but TrumpRX and grievance.

Tomasky's conclusion is damning but fair: when cruelty and stupidity collide, the American people suffer. Republicans had a chance to offer healthcare solutions. Instead, they chose to destroy one that worked.

Immigration lawyers representing the global elite are warning their clients to steer clear of Trump's "gold card" visa program, calling it legally dubious, financially risky, and potentially worthless, according to a report in the Washington Post.

The program, which Trump has promoted as a fast-track to residency for wealthy foreigners willing to invest $1 million to $2 million, has become a cautionary tale in the immigration law community. Seven immigration attorneys told the Washington Post they have either steered clients away from applying or refused to help clients who already have applied, citing fundamental legal problems with the program.

The skeptics include Michael Wildes, the immigration lawyer who represented first lady Melania Trump and her parents, and secured visas for Miss Universe contestants when Trump ran the pageant. When potential clients call about the gold card visa, Wildes has made his position clear.

"It would be unethical of me to retain them," Wildes said.

The core problem: the gold card visa has no congressional authorization and exists only through an executive order that faces ongoing litigation. That means it could be eliminated with a single presidential signature—or struck down by courts at any moment.

The numbers tell the story. Out of 338 requests for the gold card visa, only 165 people have paid the nonrefundable $15,000 filing fee to proceed. Just 59 have advanced to filling out Department of Homeland Security paperwork. And despite Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's claim in late April that "one person" had been approved, administration officials have provided no details—leading immigration attorneys to speculate whether Lutnick was referring to rapper Nicki Minaj, who posted a photo of a gold card visa as a "memento." An official confirmed that was the case: it wasn't a real visa.

Immigration attorney Mona Shah, who has two clients applying for the gold card, said court filings revealed that Trump administration promises of speedy processing were "false advertising." The filings also showed that gold card applicants won't necessarily get approval ahead of people applying for the established EB-1 or EB-2 visas—meaning wealthy applicants could wait just as long as everyone else, while having paid $15,000 for the privilege.

"They want me to say 'Yes, you are going to get it,' and I can't say that to them," Shah said.

Ron Klasko, one of the few attorneys who has taken a gold card case (for a Ukrainian businessman), created a comparison chart for clients. His conclusion: the existing EB-5 visa—requiring an $800,000 investment and providing family residency—is far safer because it's grounded in statute. The gold card, by contrast, requires $1 million per person, can be eliminated by executive order, and faces litigation risk because no statute or regulations validate it.

When clients see the chart, they typically choose EB-5. "Typically they get back to me and say 'We decided to go EB-5,'" Klasko noted.

At the Invest In the USA conference last week in Washington, the gold card visa "barely came up at all," according to conference organizers. Members have been "met with eyerolls" by lawmakers when raising the program, and told there is no interest in codifying the executive order into law.

Immigration attorney Rosanna Berardi summed up the professional consensus: "As immigration counsel, our obligation is always to protect our clients' interests, and we do not believe it is appropriate to recommend a program with such significant legal uncertainty and financial risk, even when clients express a desire to proceed."

Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton ripped into his own party this week, declaring that Democrats have surrendered the role of leadership and become little more than a reactive force against Donald Trump—a strategy he says is a guaranteed loser.

"It's not enough just to get on TV and complain. You got to give people a vision of the future," Moulton told John Avalon on the Bulwark's "How to Fix It" podcast. "I think that's something that Democrats especially need to do right now."

Speaking as he campaigns for U.S. Senate against 80-year-old incumbent Ed Markey, Moulton hammered his party for what he called reflexive opposition masquerading as strategy. The problem, he argued, starts at the top: a gerontocracy in Congress completely unequipped to lead on the issues that will define the next generation.

"I don't think people look at the gerontocracy in the Senate right now and say, okay, they're going to figure out AI," he said bluntly. "The running joke in the Senate is that half the Senate can't even spell AI."

But Moulton's indictment went much deeper. He torched the Trump administration's Iran war as a catastrophic strategic disaster that has weakened America while strengthening adversaries. The Pentagon has burned through missile inventories at precisely the moment it should be building capacity to deter China. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's purge of military leadership during wartime has created a climate of fear that destroys military excellence.

"That is a hallmark of the Soviet military. That's a hallmark of the Chinese Communist Party," Moulton said of Hegseth's loyalty purges. "Ideological loyalty. It's the opposite of that that has always made America the best country on Earth and made our military far and away the best military on Earth."

When pressed on Democratic policy alternatives, Moulton laid out a sweeping domestic agenda. Housing, healthcare, and education should be declared non-negotiable human rights, he argued. Universal pre-K would solve multiple crises at once: it improves outcomes, cuts crime decades later, and unlocks workforce participation for working parents.

On healthcare, he proposed a public option that would offer genuine competition to private insurers without forcing anyone off their current plans. "It's essentially like Medicare for all who want it," he explained.

Perhaps his most passionate pitch centered on high-speed rail as an economic justice issue. Morocco—with one-third of Massachusetts's GDP—has built trains reaching nearly 200 mph. Yet Boston to Springfield remains slower by train than by car. Building connected rail corridors across America would revitalize dying Rust Belt cities while making housing affordable by expanding where people can live and work.

But Moulton saved his harshest criticism for his party's complete abandonment of immigration policy. Democrats can describe what Republicans are doing but cannot articulate their own position on the issue that cost them the 2024 election.

"In town halls across Massachusetts, I ask everyone in the room: how many of you are opposed to Trump's immigration enforcement? Every hand goes up," Moulton said. "Then I say: how many of you Democrats can describe to me what Democrats' immigration policy is? Not a single hand."

His alternative is straightforward: prosecute ICE for illegal actions, create a system that incentivizes legal immigration over border crossing, and provide pathways to citizenship for longtime residents and DACA recipients.

"That's called leadership," Moulton concluded. "And I think that when Democrats lead, Democrats win."

Republicans are sitting on a $300 million war chest but facing growing anxiety about how and when that money will be deployed ahead of the critical midterm elections, according to a new report from Politico.

GOP donors and operatives are growing increasingly restless as Trump's team remains tight-lipped about its overall campaign strategy and spending allocation. Michigan GOP Chair Jim Runestad expressed the sentiment shared across the party: while state officials want resources deployed sooner, they acknowledge that "the resources are just going to be like we've never seen before," but specifics remain unclear.

However, the massive war chest may not be enough to overcome the fundamental challenges facing Republicans. The ongoing Iran war, rising inflation, and high gas prices are creating headwinds that money alone cannot solve. Donors privately acknowledge that these economic and geopolitical challenges pose greater threats than campaign spending can address. As one donor bluntly stated: "Their concern is first and foremost not, 'Am I going to get $2 million in my race?' but, 'Is gas $6?'"

The tension reflects a deeper strategic disagreement. GOP operatives are urging the White House to adopt more aggressive, negative messaging against Democrats—what they view as the optimal time to define their opponents. Yet the administration's messaging remains muddled, and donors fear this window of opportunity is closing. "If June comes and goes and still no plan — that becomes a real problem," one concerned donor warned.

While MAGA Inc. controls the $300 million fund, the Republican National Committee is operating independently with nearly $117 million on hand. The RNC has pledged to be "disciplined and strategic with every dollar," claiming sufficient resources to defend House and Senate majorities.

The disconnect between massive fundraising capacity and actual campaign execution illustrates a broader GOP vulnerability heading into the midterms. Republicans have historically relied on superior spending to overcome structural disadvantages, but the combination of an unpopular war, economic headwinds, and strategic confusion suggests that even record-breaking campaign budgets may prove insufficient to protect Republican congressional control.

The GOP's spending challenges highlight a structural vulnerability in Republican electoral strategy.

Historically, Republicans have relied on superior financial resources to compensate for demographic disadvantages and messaging difficulties. However, the current political environment presents obstacles that traditional campaign spending cannot easily overcome. The Iran war has become increasingly unpopular, with voters expressing frustration over rising gas prices and economic uncertainty. Additionally, internal GOP divisions over strategy have slowed decision-making, leaving state parties and candidates uncertain about resource allocation timing.

Meanwhile, Democrats have demonstrated improved fundraising capacity and organizational efficiency in recent cycles. The combination of these factors suggests that even with record-breaking budgets, Republicans face an uphill battle to maintain congressional control, particularly if economic conditions continue deteriorating or the Iran conflict drags on through November's midterm elections.

In his New York Times opinion column, Jamelle Bouie argues that Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative Supreme Court majority operate under a fundamental misunderstanding of American reality, pursuing a "colorblind Constitution" that ignores the nation's persistent racial inequalities.

Bouie traces the history of the Voting Rights Act since its 1965 passage, when President Lyndon Johnson called it "a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any battlefield." The landmark legislation transformed Black political participation, particularly after a 1982 amendment and a 1986 Supreme Court decision enabled the creation of majority-minority districts. By 1995, there were 43 Black voting members of Congress—a dramatic increase from just six in 1965.

However, Bouie contends that the Roberts court has systematically dismantled these protections through a series of decisions beginning with Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, culminating in last week's Louisiana v. Callais decision.

In Louisiana v. Callais, the court permitted Republican-led Southern states to dismantle majority-minority legislative districts by allowing partisan gerrymandering as a legitimate state objective. Bouie argues this represents a perversion of the 14th and 15th Amendments, which were ratified specifically to end Black subordination and ensure representation. Instead, the court has weaponized these same amendments against minority interests under the guise of colorblindness.

The columnist criticizes what he calls the "racial entitlement" framing adopted by conservative justices, arguing that colorblind constitutional interpretation fundamentally cannot address group inequality in a nation defined by centuries of racial subordination. A constitution that refuses to "see color" becomes, paradoxically, a tool for perpetuating the very discrimination it was meant to remedy.

Bouie invokes historical warnings from Frederick Douglass and Justice Thurgood Marshall, both of whom cautioned against courts that manipulate constitutional doctrine to enable racial discrimination. He suggests the current court is guilty of precisely this offense—using neutral language to achieve discriminatory outcomes.

The immediate consequences are already materializing. Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi are planning special legislative sessions to erase majority-minority districts in their states, potentially triggering the largest reduction in Black political representation since Reconstruction.

Bouie concludes with a call for action beyond the courts themselves. He argues that Americans must reclaim constitutional interpretation as a democratic enterprise rather than ceding it entirely to judicial authority. Court reform through congressional action, combined with renewed public engagement in constitutional meaning-making, represents the only viable path forward.

The column's central thesis—that Roberts "believes in an America that doesn't exist"—reflects Bouie's argument that the chief justice operates from a fictional premise of racial neutrality that ignores observable American reality, where racial polarization remains endemic and historical discrimination continues shaping political landscapes.