Push Notification

Even after rattling off various positive measures of Donald Trump's health in various press conferences, White House physician Dr. Sean Conley has been adamant about not answering one of the most vital questions facing those exposed to Trump in recent days: When was the last time testing showed Trump was not carrying the pandemic virus that would send him to the hospital only a day after the White House admitted he was sick?

That's important, because it would allow those who came into contact with Trump during last Tuesday's presidential debate to know whether they spent 90 minutes in an enclosed space with a COVID-19 carrier shouting at them for most of that time—one of the precise scenarios that experts warn is most likely to result in pandemic spread.

It's also important because all evidence so far points to the White House knowing of Trump's illness at least as of Monday, before the debate. And it's important because the pattern of infections coming out of the White House do not appear to correlate with people who attended the Rose Garden celebration the previous weekend. They appear to more closely correlate with people known to have spent significant amounts of time in proximity to Donald Trump himself.

On Monday, we were treated to a rare sight at the White House: An outdoor press briefing in which Trump spoke at a podium alone, while all other speakers at the pandemic-related briefing used a podium set up on a separate platform well-distanced from Trump's own.

Tuesday's debate featured another unusual sight: Melania Trump alone, among the Trump family, followed debate venue rules and kept her mask on during the full event—only removing it when approaching Donald at his podium for the usual post-debate family visuals. But the Trump family arrived at the debate venue too late to be given COVID-19 tests at the venue, debate moderator Chris Wallace said afterward. "There was an honor system when it came to people that came into the hall from the two campaigns."

There are reasons to believe the White House is lying about the outbreak timeline, and it is absolutely certain that they are hiding key elements of that timeline, as White House doctor Conley did yet again on Monday. The first known illnesses from the White House outbreak are, for the most part, those immediately surrounding Trump himself.

• White House adviser Hope Hicks and assistant Nicholas Luna

• First lady Melania Trump

• Trump's debate prep team member Chris Christie and Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien

• White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and two assistant press secretaries

But what of the multiple Rose Garden guests who tested positive after the Saturday celebration held for Amy Coney Barrett, including Sen. Thom Tillis, Sen. Mike Lee, pastor Greg Laurie, Notre Dame president John Jenkins, and Kellyanne Conway?

All of them were seen in close proximity to Trump in the Diplomatic Room of the White House, during an indoors reception for Barrett that featured a much smaller group of people. Infections during the Rose Garden event were not, as far as we know, spread evenly throughout the outside crowd. They have appeared predominantly among the most important guests, the ones allowed to sit and the first few rows—and who were invited inside for a more personal meet-and-greet hosted by Trump.

The evidence, then, is that Trump himself may have been the source of infection for most of the COVID-19 cases in his orbit. Whether he was or wasn't, the outbreak was in full swing as of Saturday, during the Diplomatic Room event.

The White House, however, is flatly refusing to tell the public, the Biden campaign, the debate staff and others Trump met with when Trump, who is allegedly as president tested daily or near-daily, was last known to be free of the virus. They either don't know—because they haven't been doing the testing—or they're hiding it because they have a reason to hide it. The White House has also announced that it will not be doing contact tracing of Rose Garden guests, nor will they allow the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention to launch that effort itself.

They are quite insistent on not finding out either the true extent of the White House outbreak, or revealing its origins.

It's reasonable to question whether the White House knew Trump was infected, or suspected it, at least as of Monday, when Trump's press event was set up to have the unusual dual-podium arrangement. It's reasonable to question whether the Trump campaign avoided testing at the venue not out of lateness, but because they did not want testing to be done. It's not just reasonable to assume Trump, a malevolent narcissist, would willingly expose others to his illness for momentary gain: It's proven, both from Trump's pointless but self-celebrating joyride around Walter Reed, unnecessarily putting Secret Service agents in an airtight container with him at the likely height of his own contagiousness, and his immediate removal of his mask upon returning to the White House.

There are very good reasons to suspect that the White House knew or believed Trump to be infected with COVID-19 before the debate with Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden took place, and that the White House covered up his infection to allow the debate to go forward. It is possible that, had Trump not become so physically ill two days afterward as to require public acknowledgement, then hospitalization, the White House intended to hide Trump's infection from the public completely.

This would be unconscionable behavior by itself, but exposing a rival presidential candidate to a deadly disease on purpose brings it past unconscionable and into the realm of the unthinkable. But here we are.

This is not an idle, fringe supposition. Senate Democratic leaders are themselves demanding that the White House explain their secrecy around Trump's initial diagnosis, accusing the White House (correctly) of "deliberately" hiding this information. The press is focusing in on this question as well. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that this White House would cover up a presidential illness even if it caused the possible death of others, and even if it exposed Trump's immediate campaign rival to the same disease. On the contrary, it is the most plausible theory we have as to why the White House is refusing to clarify the timeline of Trump's illness.

White House physician Dr. Sean Conley is explicitly hiding this information—and endangering lives. This is not tenable. If the press cannot scrape an answer from him, Vice President Biden's Secret Service detail might need to go question him directly.

President Donald Trump may be boosting Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Vice President JD Vance because Vance, unlike Rubio, told the truth about the Iran war.

“It’s clear that Trump is displeased with JD Vance,” wrote The Bulwark’s conservative commentator Jonathan V. Last on Wednesday. “Early on, when Trump thought he was winning in Iran, there were leaks about Vance not being onboard with the war. Daddy Trump sent Vance to negotiate with the Iranians when they clearly had all the cards, setting him up for failure—and at the same time took Rubio with him on vacation to fight night. There was a huge dump of leaks designed to show that Trump doesn’t think Vance has the juice.”

Citing Rubio’s recent congressional testimony, in which he parroted Trump’s incorrect claims that "the war is over now” and "[w]e’re going to continue to systematically clear this passageway through the straits to restore freedom of navigation,” Last concluded that Vance fell out of favor with Trump because of his reported reservations about America invading Iran.

“In a rational world, you might expect Trump to see Vance’s correct assessment of Iran as a positive and Rubio’s mistaken assessment as a negative,” Last wrote. “But that’s not how humans work.” Quoting the fictional character Albus Dumbledore from the famous “Harry Potter” literary series, Last observed that “people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right.” He then speculated that “the worse Iran gets, the worse it will be for Vance. Trump will become even more resentful—even if Vance never says told you so. Trump will remember that Vance was the one who told him not to do it.”

Last also mused that if Vance had been incorrect about the Iran war, his standing with Trump would potentially be more secure.

“In a funny way, I suspect Vance’s position inside Trump’s court would be stronger if the war had been successful and he’d been wrong,” Last explained. “In that case, Trump could magnanimously forgive him and chide him for being a worrywart.”

In contrast to Last, ex-GOP presidential aide Steve Schmidt argued on Wednesday that Vance might actually be better positioned to inherit the Republican Party’s presidential leadership than Rubio.

“Marco Rubio will never, ever be the President of the United States, but because of the terribleness of [Vice President] JD Vance, he has become sort of a flavor of the month,” Schmidt, who advised President George W. Bush, said on his Substack. “And because of the corruption of the corporate media, Marco Rubio is taken and treated seriously. He's treated like a statesman.”

Even though Rubio supporters praise his handling of foreign policy, Schmidt pointed out that Trump still seems to invest greater power in Vance.

“At the end of the day, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, is not leading the negotiations in Pakistan — JD Vance is,” Schmidt argued. “And he's accompanied by the President's son-in-law, who may be one ... of the most corrupt individuals in the history of the country. ... These men are raking in billions in corrupt acts around the globe and they're leading the negotiations. The man who the Saudis deposited $2 billion of cash into his investment fund despite him having no investment experience.”

New Fox News polling is showing a top red state may be lost to Republicans.

Former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is eight points above the appointed incumbent Republican senator, Jon Husted. This is a new bent for a state that has remained reliably Republican, with voters there overwhelmingly choosing President Donald Trump in 2024 by about 11 points.

Andrew Desiderio from Punchbowl News said on Thursday that he spoke to Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who was initially fearful that the year would be a disaster for Democrats because of the seats up for election. Now he believes Democrats can win the majority.

"And I was like, okay, yeah, okay, buddy, we'll see," said Desiderio. "We'll see about that. And now, a year later, we are a few months out from the election, and Trump's poll numbers have plummeted. Ohio is seemingly in play."

Trump's approval in Ohio has dropped ten points from Nov 2024 to June 2026.

Overcoming that 11-point advantage Trump had in 2024 was "unthinkable" last year. Voters, Desiderio said, don't merely blame Trump for all their problems; they also believe that Republicans should be fighting for their best interests, particularly on affordability issues.

Jamie Gangel, CNN special correspondent, agreed, it's clear Trump has been a huge benefit to Democrats, but the popularity of Brown can't be overstated.

"He has repeatedly done in Ohio what other Democrats haven't been able to do. I spoke to a Democratic leader this morning, though, who was very happy to talk about Ohio, but did not want to talk about Maine, where they really see a disaster," she noted.

Husted was appointed by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine after JD Vance won the vice presidency on Trump's ticket. In the two years he's been in office, Husted hasn't established himself to the degree that Brown has in public office for nearly 50 years during his combined terms in the U.S. House and Senate.

Voters consistently indicate that economic issues are top of mind, with the affordability crisis at the forefront. The second issue is the Iran War, which has driven up gas prices in Ohio from $3.06 last year to $4.18 on Thursday, the AAA gas prices site says.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

A mixed martial artist and UFC talent once known as a fierce supporter of President Donald Trump tore apart his planned UFC event on the White House grounds, saying that the event is "desecrating" a government and opening the door for it to become more "corrupted,' per a report from The New Republic.

Bryce Mitchell currently competes in UFC's male bantamweight division and boasts an 18-3 professional win-loss record. He was also an outspoken Trump supporter in the past, once claiming that he would take a bullet for the president. But more recently, he has become harshly critical as his second term has played out.

As the New Republic reported on Thursday, Mitchell once again ripped into Trump, this time as his administration is set to cross over fully with the world of MMA. UFC's Freedom 250 is an upcoming card set to take place on June 14 to mark Trump's 80th birthday, at a venue currently being built on the White House grounds. The promotion's CEO, Dana White, has been a longtime friend and supporter of Trump, and a booster of Republican politics overall. The event has drawn widespread criticism and condemnation as a borderline dystopian corruption of the presidency, even as it has also become a hot ticket among MAGA acolytes.

In a post to X, Mitchell warned that the event was opening up the Trump administration to even more grift, and "desecrating" the purpose of the government in American society.

“What I think, personally, is that our government is desecrating its role in society by entertaining sports,” Mitchell said. “Our government is to protect and serve the people, and really should be as minimal as possible."

He also added: “When you’re doing all of this stuff, hosting sporting events, it’s really outside of the goal of what the government was intended to be because our tax dollars and resources are funding this operation... The government is supposed to protect us, not entertain us"

While admitting the show was a no-brainer for the UFC business-wise, he nonetheless stressed that the federal government should not be getting involved in sporting events.

Another ex-Trump supporting MMA fighter, Sean Strickland, the current UFC middleweight champion, has also been speaking out against the Freedom 250 event. Previously claiming that he would not be participating in a show to entertain the "Epstein list," he also alleged more recently that he was blocked from the event over his critical statements against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He also claims to be the only male champion banned from the event due to his Israel comments.

“UFC at the White House with [Netanyahu] in the audience," Strickland wrote about the event on Instagram. "Straight [Israel] slop.”

He added later: “The only male American champ banned at the White House because I said Trump is owned by [Netanyahu]. That’s not public opinion it’s fact.”

On Monday, June 1, Axios' Marc Caputo reported that the Trump administration "plans to drop its controversial" $1.7 billion "anti-weaponization fund," and a White House source told Axios, "It's dead for now." Countless Democrats have condemned the fund, but criticism is coming from the right as well. In a blistering editorial, the conservative National Review applauds the fund's apparent demise and hopes there are no efforts to revive it.

The Donald Trump-era U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said the fund was being created to help people it claims were unfairly targeted for criminal charges by the Biden administration and former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. But the fund's critics on both the left and the right denounced it as a "slush fund" that would force taxpayers to give money to rioters who violently attacked the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.

In the editorial — headlined "The Anti-Weaponization Fund Is Dead. Long Live Its Death" — the National Review editorial board argues, "Well, that didn't take very long. Two weeks after we editorialized against the Trump administration's $1.776 billion 'anti-weaponization fund,' Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told a House subcommittee hearing that the administration is not going forward with the fund. That's good news. It's a sign that Senate Republicans in particular have remembered that they run an independent branch of the federal government, with its own responsibility to voters and its own duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws it writes."

The Review board adds, "They should go two steps further: bar Trump from reviving the idea, and ensure that future presidents are no longer empowered to engage in similar mischief."

The conservative board notes that Republicans on Capitol Hill, especially GOP senators, "had concerns from the start about the fund."

"Its huge and transparently symbolic price tag was obviously not calibrated to any realistic assessment of the government's actual liability for legal wrongs allegedly committed by the Biden administration," the National Review board writes. "Its December 1, 2028 end date was obviously designed to ensure that it served the politics of this administration and not its successors. There were real worries that it would be used not only as a corrupt slush fund to reward political allies, but specifically to pay off January 6 rioters in ways that would be both morally wrong and politically embarrassing to Republicans."

The board continues, "To the extent that there's an argument for creating new rights of compensation for government misconduct beyond those already on the books, that's the job of Congress…. It is also heartening to see that the power of the purse still works…. The fund was publicly indefensible, and election years have a way of putting a stop to indefensible things."

Former Trump Department of Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor is warning that President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an order that roughly “triples” the number of federal employees the president can dismiss at will, for any reason, or none.

“The White House quietly issued an order turning 8,000 top ‘civil service’ jobs into roles that serve at the pleasure of the president,” Taylor explained, noting that these are the federal government’s “top lieutenants,” the “most senior career officials.”

These “are the people serving right under Trump’s political appointees (the ones he assigns to run federal departments and agencies). Presidents get ‘their people’ to reshape policy priorities.” The list of political appointees in any administration ordinarily runs about 4,000 people.

By making the next level down essentially political appointees, Trump “just tripled the size of his personal army inside government,” says Taylor, calling it “a breathtaking takeover of the machinery of state.”

“These aren’t rando’s,” Taylor added on social media. “They’re the directors, chiefs of staff, and the people who write the rules or decide who gets federal money, i.e. the lieutenants right below his political appointees. Until yesterday, they answered to the law. Now they answer to him.”

The federal civil service exists to carry out the wishes of the administration, but its duty, as he said, is to the law, not to any one president. That’s how a new administration can enter the White House while the government continues to run.

As Taylor noted, as DHS chief of staff, he too was a political appointee — someone who could be fired at any time.

“I wasn’t protected by anything other than the president’s favor,” Taylor says. “That’s why — when you make a decision to speak out about wrongdoing — you’ve got to be prepared to quit or be fired. You have no protections if you fall out of favor with the president. Unfortunately, that’s why you see so many Pam Bondis and Todd Blanches, eagerly doing whatever Trump wants. They know how easy it is to lose their job.”

That’s why the “top lieutenants” should not be political appointees, Taylor argues.

“Everyone underneath those positions, some two million civil servants, has historically been insulated from political whim by removal protections dating to the reforms that ended the spoils system back in the 1800s,” he writes. “What just happened is almost certainly illegal. A coalition of federal employees unions are, I hope, prepared to fight hard.”

President Donald Trump's war with Iran seems to be causing a seismic change in the Middle East, but according to a new break down from The i Paper, it is happening in just about the exact opposite way he intended.

Writing for the outlet on Thursday, foreign affairs reporter Kieron Monks relayed the news of the recent address given by Iran's Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. There, he claimed that the country's war with the U.S. and Israel was bringing about a change in the region that the Iranian government has long been working towards.

"The nations and lands of the region will no longer serve as shields for American bases,” Khamenei said. “America will no longer have a secure foothold for its mischief or military presence in the region.”

"For decades, Iran’s clerical regime has made the expulsion of US forces from the Middle East a central aim," Monks explained. "Tehran believes that Trump’s war is bringing that vision closer to reality."

The U.S. has so far balked at peace demands from Iran requiring it to withdraw military forces from the region. Now, however, with Iran targeting numerous U.S. military bases in the region, Monks said that Middle Eastern nations "are wondering if they have become liabilities rather than assets."

Dina Esfandiary, an Iran specialist and Middle East lead for Bloomberg Economics, told The i Paper that the nation "100 percent" sees an opening with this war to try and force the U.S. out. Andreas Krieg, a Gulf security expert at King’s College London, added that the current political dynamics in the U.S. might actually bear out in Iran's favor.

“As a lot of people in the MAGA world are saying do we actually need to be there, a lot of voices in the Gulf are saying, why are we paying for the Americans to be here?” Krieg observed.

“I think it’s obvious that the war in Iran has not gone well,” Kristian Ulrichsen, a Middle East scholar with a focus on the Persian Gulf at Baker University’s Rice Institute, told the outlet, concurring with Krieg's observations. “The objectives were not achieved and it has created a situation where the US cannot force a decisive breakthrough. That may give talking points to the groups in D.C. who make the argument that actually we should leave the region.”

"It is extremely unlikely that the US military would pull out entirely," Monks explained. "But the Trump administration is under increasing domestic and international pressure over its role in the region."

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to include new reporting disputing RadarOnline's report.

In addition to his work on CNN since the early 2000s, broadcast journalist Anderson Cooper spent more than two decades on CBS' News' "60 Minutes" — an association that ended with his farewell broadcast on May 17. CBS News is looking for a replacement for Cooper on "60 Minutes," and according to the Austin American-Statesman and RadarOnline, execs may be considering a prominent figure in the Manosphere: podcaster Joe Rogan.

But according to Senafor's Max Tani, CBS News is disputing that report.

On X, Tani posted a link to the American-Statemen's reporting and wrote, "A CBS News spokesperson tells me this is false."

The American-Statesman's Faith Bugenhagen explains, "RadarOnline, a celebrity and entertainment news site, reported that CBS considering Rogan, who boasts 20.9 million subscribers on his YouTube channel, 'PowerfulJRE,' and millions of viewers of his podcast, 'The Joe Rogan Experience,' would be 'strategy,' not 'stunt casting.' Rogan would bring 'a core connection to over 50 percent of the country,' an unnamed media executive told RadarOnline, saying the 58-year-old media mogul speaks to 'viewers who feel ignored or mocked by legacy media' — a viewership that, if reengaged, would solve the network's ratings and credibility problems."

During the United States' 2024 presidential election, Rogan's endorsement of Trump underscored the gains he was making with the Manosphere, independents and swing voters.

Although the 58-year-old Rogan leans to the right politically, he isn't ultra-MAGA in his views. Rogan has often been described as libertarian, and he considers himself socially liberal — supporting same-sex marriage and the legalization of recreational drug use. Rogan, however, is critical of liberals and progressives on gun control.

Rogan, as a broadcaster, is sometimes compared to others in the "hot talk" genre, including Howard Stern and Tom Leykis (who also appeal to a largely male audience). However, Stern and Leykis opposed Trump in the 2024 election, while Rogan supported him.

Trump appeared on Rogan's show during the 2024 race — an appearance that, Bugenhagen points out, is credited with helping increase Trump's appeal to young Generation Z men and the Manosphere. The Austin, Texas-based Rogan, however, has recently criticized some of Trump's policies, including mass deportations, the Iran war, and his campaign against late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

"Austin-based actor Matthew McConaughey, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Texas native country star Miranda Lambert and state Rep. James Talarico (D-Austin) are among those who have been featured on the podcast," Bugenhagen notes.

Cooper, now 59, announced his retirement from "60 Minutes" in February. Post-CBS News, Cooper is still hosting the long-running "Anderson Cooper 360°" on CNN.

"60 Minutes" has been on even longer, debuting on CBS in 1968.

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins struggled on Thursday during a House Agriculture Committee hearing when asked basic questions about her department's own data.

Rep. Angie Craig, a member of the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party in Minnesota, probed Rollins about allegations of fraud involving recipients of SNAP benefits, formerly known as food stamps. Rollins tried to parrot conservative talking points, but got a little mixed up with the data coming from her own department.

Craig hammered Rollins on how many farms have failed in the past year

She then moved on to ask whether Rollins knows that "farmers say they can't afford fertilizer as a result of the president's war in Iran?"

Rollins claimed that it differed by geographic region, implying that some farmers have one demand while others have another.

A frustrated Craig asserted, "Oh, my gosh! Seventy percent is the answer."

Then she pivoted to SNAP benefits, with the committee's top Democrat asking whether Rollins knew the fraud rate among SNAP recipients.

Rollins said that the data is based on information that is "missing from the states that we can't verify. That's the whole point of this is with no ability to verify California, Minnesota—"

Craig cut in, "1.6 percent according to USDA."

Rollins claimed that Minnesota is reporting a low fraud rate, which she considers "an absolute joke."

"I'll say it again. The USDA's own data found 1.6 percent," Craig said.

Rollins tried to cut in and claim that Craig's data showed that. In fact, a 2025 fact sheet from the USDA confirms the data.

The release goes so far as to say that fraud "occurs relatively infrequently."

"I don't think you understand the difference between an error rate and a fraud rate. I honestly don't. It is one of the lowest programs — the lowest fraud rate in any program in America, is the SNAP program," Craig explained.

"You can't be serious," Rollins responded.

"Your own data says 1.6 percent," Craig said.

Rollins claimed that the reason it's so low is that states don't allow the federal government to "confirm" the information, presumably with their own investigations. That same 2025 fact sheet from Rollins' own office brags about the department's efforts to reduce "infrequent" fraud.

After a back and forth, Craig cut in, "Look, Madam Secretary, I'm asking you these questions because these issues are personal," Craig said.

Rollins accused her of not asking for legitimate answers.

During Donald Trump's second presidency, many of his top appointees — from former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to FBI Director Kash Patel to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — have faced aggressive grilling from Democratic lawmakers in congressional hearings. Journalist Brian Beutler examined this type of grilling during an early June appearance on The New Republic's podcast, "The Daily Blast," emphasizing that lawmakers can do some valuable debunking when they ask not only tough questions, but also, the right questions.

During their conversation, guest Beutler and host Greg Sargent — a former Washington Post columnist — examined Rep. Ted Lieu's (D-California) forceful questioning of Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. Lieu highlighted the fact that President Donald Trump has been falling asleep in meetings, and Beutler and Sargent pointed to his grilling as a prime example of the type of thing Democratic lawmakers should be doing when they have a chance to question Trump administration officials.

Beutler told Sargent, "Part of the reason he's falling asleep in Cabinet meetings is that he's this erratic person who is outraged all night, stays up all night tweeting, and then is too exhausted for the work that he actually finds boring — the work of the president that happens during mostly normal business hours. But I think that the point here is to put Rubio, or whoever happens to be testifying before Congress, in a bind and make them say ridiculous things under oath that are contradicted right there by video evidence, so that they make the rounds on social media and you and I talk about them on this podcast."

Beutler and Sargent's conversation went way beyond Lieu grilling Rubio, and they brought out the role that Democratic lawmakers can play in debunking false claims from Republicans.

Beutler told Sargent, "I mean, even before Donald Trump kind of took it to this insane level where everything he says about his opponent, you can count on to be a lie and abusive and maybe libelous — with the goal being to make them look small and easily squashed like a bug, and he's the strong person who's setting the terms of the political argument — Republicans would do this. They did this to (Democratic presidential nominee) John Kerry in 2004. He was a war hero. And so, they said, 'Nah, you faked your injuries, and you didn't deserve your purple heart.' And the idea wasn't just to convince people of the lie — it was to put Kerry in a bind, to make Kerry reveal that he didn't know how to fight back, to defend himself, and thus appear weak."

Sargent noted that Republicans, similarly, are "attacking" James Talarico, the Democratic nominee in Texas' 2026 U.S. Senate race, "as transgender, as someone with low testosterone, as a vegan — basically as a wimp."

Beutler told Sargent, "I guess the through line here is that there's a lot of political value in putting your opposition in a bind that, at least at a glance, feels impossible…. Think through what your opposition is likely to throw at you and how you’re going to respond. And so, this is why I write a lot about how Democrats can prepare to counter Republicans or set their own traps for Republicans. And what was so sharp about what Lieu did is, in a sort of more aboveboard and honest way, it required Rubio to make a choice: I either have to lie and debase myself, or tell the truth and lose my job."

The journalist continued, "And if Democrats on Capitol Hill grilling Republicans before committees can try to keep that binary in mind, then their questions are going to be a lot sharper, a lot better. And there will be people who aren't quite as adept as Rubio, and they will start to flounder."

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) is under fire again about his Florida residency as he runs for governor in Alabama. While his campaign put out new documents to prove his residency, it inadvertently exposed him to two possible crimes.

For years, Tuberville has been plagued by allegations that he actually lived in Florida while running for office in Alabama. Now he's facing off against renewed allegations from Republican primary challenger Ken McFeeters. To prove he was an Alabama resident, his team recently produced seven years of tax documentation and property tax records. Still, there are questions as to how Tuberville can prove he was a resident of Alabama.

The question from Alabama Reporter journalist Josh Moon is why it took so long for Tuberville's staff to produce documentation in his defense.

"Then again," Moon wrote, "lots of things make no sense. And like those things, there is no quick answer. I’m certain we will discover many answers down the road, but for now, the best we can do is analyze what we’ve got."

Researchers are sifting through Tuberville's documents to prove authenticity and ensure that the taxes weren't refiled and paid retroactively. If they are accurate, McFeeters would be forced to prove that Tuberville never actually lived in his house.

If McFeeters wants to probe the Tubervilles on the three-bedroom, one-bath house and "under the rules established by the Alabama Republican Party," he can. "He, or his attorneys, can subpoena up to five people and question them for up to two hours each in an under-oath deposition" about the matter.

The larger mystery is about Tuberville's voting records and whether he committed voter fraud.

Tuberville included his 2018 tax filings in the tax records, which aren't required, since he only has to prove seven years of residency, not eight. The problem is that Tuberville voted in Florida in Nov. 2018 while claiming to be a resident of Alabama, AL.com reported.

"According to records from the Walton County, Florida, registrar’s office, Tuberville registered to vote in Florida on May 24, 2017, and voted by mail in the 2018 general election," Moon reported. "The earliest he could have received a mail-in ballot was October 2, 2018, according to the Division of Elections at the Florida Department of State."

Tuberville's wife and son also voted in Florida that year. Suzanne declared a homestead exemption for the Alabama house in October 2018. To get the exemption, you have to claim the house as your primary residence. Tuberville has been fighting over the issue because the homestead exemption wasn't on the Alabama House until 2024.

"That means there is now both a homestead exemption and a tax filing that shows the Tubervilles were Alabama residents when they voted in Florida, after swearing a year earlier that they were Florida residents," Moon wrote. "That seems … not good."

Tuberville has argued in favor of severe voter restrictions, alleging there is rampant voter fraud across the country.

It's not the only legal problem, however.

The Lagniappe Daily reported on Tuesday that McFeeter has questions about Tuberville's "reimbursements from his Senate office account and his various political action committees for food, transportation and flights to the Florida coast."

Tuberville's attorney called them "vacation escapes." The problem with that claim is that it's illegal to accept reimbursement from his official taxpayer-funded account for vacation travel. Rules for political action committees (PACs) are not as restrictive, but they still have to be tied to campaign purposes and using donations to fund his "vacation escapes" wouldn't be legal either.

McFeeters filed an ethics complaint about the matters already.

With the 2026 midterms only five months away, many GOP strategists are sounding the alarm about President Donald Trump's low approval ratings in poll after poll. Outgoing Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) fears that his party, in November, could suffer the "inverse of 2010" — meaning a midterms wipeout not unlike the one Democrats experienced during Barack Obama's first presidency. But Never Trump conservative Bill Kristol, in The Bulwark, warned that Trump's unpopularity won't discourage his "power grabs."

Kristol predicted that Trump, rather than feeling discouraged, is "intensifying" and ramping up his "power-grabbing efforts."

"Just yesterday," the journalist explains in the conservative Bulwark, "Trump signed an executive order converting some 8000 career, non-partisan civil service positions into political appointments, making those employees hirable and fireable at will. We all should be 'really, really freaked out.' Because it's clear that Trump's power grab over the executive branch is not just proceeding apace, but is intensifying. Yes, Trump is less popular than he used to be, and he has less of an absolute sway over Republican members of Congress than he once did. But this seems to be causing not hesitation on Trump’s part, but an intensification of his power-grabbing efforts."

Kristol continues, "He seems no longer to care much about political backlash, or electoral consequences. As he said last week, 'I don't care about the midterms.' It's almost as if he doesn't expect elections to matter because he's not going to do everything he can to allow them not to matter."

Trump's "power-grabbing," according to Kristol, is asserting itself with recent appointments — including Todd Blanche as acting U.S. attorney general and Bill Pulte as acting national intelligence director.

"Trump has been a fantastically successful demagogue, a master flatterer of the people," Kristol argues. "But at some point in an authoritarian takeover, one has to explain why one is taking over power despite or against the wishes of the people. What we are seeing is a president who is going full steam ahead on his centralization of power in a way that should make one doubt he intends to give it up — whether over the next two years, whatever a Democratic Congress tries to do, or in 2028, whatever the people try to do at the polls."

Trump, the Never Trump conservative observes, is claiming that he's trying to protect the U.S. from "communists."

"Over the past century, in many nations, fascist movements and authoritarian coups have sought justification in the need to save their respective countries from the communists," Kristol notes. "One hopes and trusts that American exceptionalism will win out, and that we will not go down in history as merely another chapter in this sad story. We're in no way destined to succumb to such a fate."

President Donald Trump is reportedly set to announce an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars for a dying industry, after he already paid out billions to try and kill off one of its biggest competitors, prompting online observers from across the political spectrum to rake his questionable "art of the deal" over the coals.

On Thursday, CBS senior White House reporter Jennifer Jacobs took to X to report, based on sources close to the matter, that Trump was set to announce a $700 million investment "for 13 current coal plants plus two new ones," continuing his obsession with propping up the long-suffering American coal industry. Despite coal making up an increasingly minuscule portion of energy production and consumption in the U.S., Trump has spent significant political capital on propping up the industry, possibly on account of the support he gets from its workers and business leaders.

To that end, earlier this year, it was announced that his administration had nearly a billion dollars to get the French energy conglomerate, TotalEnergies, to halt the production of new wind farms off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, in order to promote further investments in fossil fuels and coal. This particular move also fit with Trump's longstanding hatred of wind turbines, an animosity that seems to relate, at least in part, to when a wind farm went up off the coast of his golf course in Scotland.

In response to Jacobs' scoop, users across X were unsparing in their derision, ripping Trump for continuing to waste precious tax dollars to keep the U.S. from joining the rest of the world in pursuing green energies.

"Trump cancelled less expensive, less pollution from clean energy. Now Trump is forcing tax dollars into more expensive, toxic coal plants instead," Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson posted about the news. "You pay more AND you get more toxins. Art of the deal."

"The art of the deal: pay billions of dollars to take offshore wind farms offline," reporter Sam Stein wrote in a post. "Then pay hundreds of millions of more to prop up coal plants."

"Stupidity breeds more stupidity," Arizona politician Dennis Kavanaugh wrote in response to Stein.

"The whole entire world is moving to green energy," Joanne Carducci, a popular left-wing online commentator, wrote in response to Jacobs' original post. "We’re so f——."

Liberal and left-wing users were far from the only ones taking issue with the news, as Marc Short, the former chief of staff for Vice President Mike Pence, ripped Trump for making yet another move in defiance of free-market principles.

"Just another step toward a managed economy and away from a free economy," Short posted.

Federal funding for President Donald Trump's massive ballroom was on the line before Congress on Wednesday, but the chief of the project was readying for an annual Russian economic conference, which some are calling "Putin's Davos." This is the first time the U.S. has attended since Russia attacked Ukraine.

Rodney Mims Cook told the Russian press that Trump and the State Department permitted him to travel to Russia for the economic forum in St Petersburg. BBC News Moscow reporter posted on X that Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he was "unaware" that Cook was attending the forum.

Cook was nominated by Trump to take over the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. All of the members of the board were fired in 2025 and Trump appointed their replacements. They then voted to approve the ballroom project and Trump immediately bulldozed the East Wing of the White House during 2025's government shutdown.

According to his conversation with Russian media, Cook said that his presence at the forum had nothing to do with his position in the Trump government; rather, he was there as a Christian to help restore churches in Russia, Reuters reported.

Yet, according to Max Seddon, Moscow Bureau chief for the Financial Times, Cook brought graphics showing off the ballroom.

"Cook, it turns out, is an ardent Russophile. He has been involved [in] restoring medieval Russian churches for decades. His own house in Georgia is designed in the Russian style. He says he is friends with many senior Russian elite figures. He seems absolutely thrilled to be there," added Seddon.

He was also photographed with Russian religious leaders.

Others who attended the forum include Andrew Tate and his brother, along with far-right streamer Candace Owens. Tate is facing criminal charges in Romania for sexual assault, human trafficking and establishing an organized crime group to exploit women.

President Donald Trump's former National Security Advisor John Bolton intends to plead guilty to Justice Department charges related to classified information cited in his book, CNN reported.

Bolton, a loud opponent of Trump's, was charged in 2025 with 18 felony counts for mishandling classified information. At the end of Trump's first administration, Bolton published a book that Trump claimed wasn't authorized and likely contained classified information in it.

CNN crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz said explained, "This is a man that Trump very much hates and very much wanted to see prosecuted."

Bolton was also accused of sending more than 1,000 pages of diary-like emails and encrypted app messages to his wife and daughter that contained top secret or "SCI level" classifications.

While he was charged with 18 counts, Bolton will plead guilty to one count of illegal retention of sensitive national security documents and pay a more than $2 million fine, sources told CNN.

The docket shows that Bolton's hearing is scheduled for June 26.

CNN law enforcement analyst John Miller explained that Bolton was always "caught between a rock and a hard place."

"This guilty plea is John Bolton saying, 'Let's get a recommendation from prosecutors on a sentence. Let's get a deal with the government. Let's boil this down to one count and try to get out of it,'" said Miller.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said that it's different from other cases in which Trump has gone after his foes in that the ones against New York Attorney General Letitia James and FBI Director James Comey are part of a political agenda.

"I think the Bolton case is entirely separate for a couple of main reasons. One, as Katelyn Polantz just told us, the reporting is that this investigation goes back to the Biden administration and predates the current Trump administration. And two, the conduct that John Bolton has been charged with and now apparently will be pleading to some of it is quite serious. It's quite straightforward."

He agreed with Miller's assessment, saying that it "is not some manufactured crime."

"John Bolton took the highest level sensitive and classified information, which he got in his capacity as a key White House adviser, and he disseminated it to others," Honig said. "That is a straightforward crime. And so I do not categorize the Bolton case along with those other cases. I think it's fundamentally different."