2014 federal budget cuts

The White House is in panic mode, left scrambling and unable to figure out solutions to the Iran war crisis on any level, with one former biographer of President Donald Trump revealing that "they literally do not know what to do."

Trump has attempted to claim on numerous occasions that he has already achieved a decisive victory over Iran, in reality, he and his administration are flailing as they have continually failed to find a peaceful, expedient and smooth way to end the conflict that could not be construed as a defeat. Efforts to reach a ceasefire deal and reopen the Strait of Hormuz have consistently fallen flat, with signs indicating that Iran has the ability to wait out the U.S. for better terms.

All the while, the conflict is inflicting catastrophic damage on the global economy and driving energy costs to historic levels. These issues have only accelerated voter disdain for Trump's presidency, as prices soar despite his insistence that he has created a new "golden age" economy.

Michael Wolff is a journalist and author with close sources within the Trump White House, best known for his books exposing the chaos behind the scenes of his first term. During the latest episode of his Daily Beast podcast, "Inside Trump's Head," he revealed just how panicked Trump staffers are about their complete inability to get a grip on the Iran conflict.

“Everybody within the White House and within the Trump political team... they don’t know what to do about this,” Wolff explained. “They literally do not know what to do.”

He continued: “They don’t know how to get us out of the war, and they don’t know how to manage this on a political basis.”

During his "most recent discussions with White House people," Wolff heard that despite the doom and gloom pervading the situation, Trump is insisting almost every day that everything is fine and that things are proceeding well. Despite the president's evident delusions, among his staffers, "there’s an acknowledgment this is a problem, but that he’s in denial about it," Wolff confirmed.

"He has gotten himself into a situation he cannot get out of. He’s kind of screwed at this point,” Wolff added. “It is just caught in this vise of not looking forward, of not seeing what might happen, of the kind of hubris that so often accompanies foreign adventures."

Wolff concluded that the Iran war is just one of the endless number of issues that are not going well for Trump, arguing that the time in his first year back, when he seemed untouchable, has ended in striking fashion."

"The run that Trump had... for most of the first year of this administration has now come strikingly to an end,” Wolff said. “The economy, ICE, the war, tariffs, the clowns in the administration that surround him, nothing is going well for them. Literally nothing."

On Tuesday, May 5, U.S. President Donald Trump announced, on his Truth Social platform, that he was pausing Project Freedom — his plan for the U.S. Navy to guide ships stuck in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is claiming that the operation is on hold because his negotiations with Iran are going well and a "complete and final agreement" on the war could be coming soon.

But retired U.S. Navy Rear Adm. James E. McPherson is "skeptical."

During a May 6 appearance on MS NOW, the 73-year-old McPherson — who served as acting U.S. Navy secretary during Trump's first presidency — equated Trump's claims with Lewis Carroll's 1865 children's novel "Alice in Wonderland."

When host Ana Cabrera asked McPherson if the Trump Administration's latest Iran war claims sounded like a "real breakthrough" to him, the U.S. Navy veteran responded, "Well, we've heard pronouncements before that we hoped were real breakthroughs, and they eventually broke down in the face of reality."

McPherson told Cabrera, "Ana, a tip of the hat to Lewis Carroll: I think we've slipped down the rabbit hole, and we've now joined 'Alice in Wonderland.' Two days ago, the secretary of state, (Marco Rubio) announced that Operation Epic Fury was concluded. It's over, therefore taking the War Powers Act off the table. And now, we're involved in Project Freedom — which was soon paused by the president."

The retired U.S. Navy rear admiral continued, "Notice the change in wording. We went from an Operation Epic Fury to a Project Freedom. Clearly, operations are military in nature; a project can be anything in nature. And I think it's important to note that wording…. I wish I could be more optimistic, but I'm skeptical."

The Supreme Court "broke democracy" after its latest seismic ruling set off a tidal wave of gerrymandering efforts, and according to a new analysis from Vox, it did so by "saying the quiet part out loud" when it would have best served the world by staying quiet.

In a ruling last week, the conservative majority court effectively struck down a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, allowing states to eliminate "majority-minority" congressional districts, under the guise of strictly partisan-based gerrymandering. This ruling swiftly led several Republican-led states to plot abrupt new redistricting efforts, which critics warn could lead to a historic wipeout of black lawmakers in the House of Representatives. Democrats, meanwhile, began plotting a counterattack with more of their gerrymandering.

"Meanwhile, lefty groups are already plotting to overcome rigged Republican maps with equally rigged Democratic ones," Vox legal journalist Ian Milihiser explained. "Fair Fight Action, an advocacy group founded by former Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, has a plan to turn 10 US House seats blue right away — and to turn as many as 22 districts into gerrymandered Democratic seats if Democrats pick up enough seats in the right state legislatures."

Prior to this latest ruling and others, Millhiser explained further, the Supreme Court had "maintained a kind of strategic ambiguity," whereby it never struck down a gerrymandered map for being too overtly partisan, but "also kept open the possibility that it might strike down a truly egregious gerrymander in the future." That dynamic "mattered," because before this latest ruling, lawmakers tended not to go as far as they might have liked with their rigged redistricting, but now, the John Roberts conservative court has given "bad actors explicit license to engage in anti-social behavior, when the Court had previously kept the law more ambiguous."

"Sometimes, in other words, the best thing that the Court can do is say nothing at all," Millhiser surmised. "It could have continued to uphold individual gerrymanders without stating definitively that there are no rules."

He continued: "Now there is an arms race where states where states throughout the country are drawing mid-cycle gerrymanders. States like California or Virginia that previously banned gerrymandering are bypassing those bans to participate in this arms race. Unless the Supreme Court changes course, it now seems inevitable that those bans will be permanently repealed, and that every state will redraw its maps whenever control of the state government changes hands — assuming that such a thing is still possible in an era when state lawmakers can redraw their own maps to lock themselves in power."

The Roberts' Court, he concluded, should have realized it was best to keep some things close to the chest, and in other words, "shut up." Instead, their "big mouths" have left American democracy in a spiraling state of "turmoil."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared in the White House press room on Tuesday, where he touted the plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The same plan came from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. However, President Donald Trump decided he didn't like it, the New Republic reported Wednesday.

Rubio touted the plan as being "key" to a final end to the war.

“Operation Epic Fury is concluded. We achieved the objectives of that operation,” Rubio said. “We’re not cheering for an additional situation to occur. We would prefer the path of peace. What the president would prefer is a deal.”

Hegseth too championed the new plan in his press conference, bragging, “Two U.S. commercial ships, along with American destroyers, have already safely transited the Strait, showing the lane is clear.

He claimed, "We know the Iranians are embarrassed by this fact. They said they control the Strait. They do not." He pledged that “hundreds more ships from nations around the world are lining up” to leave the strait with U.S. help.

“We maintain the upper hand," said Hegseth. That faltered late Tuesday afternoon as Trump announced the blockade was back on.

On Tuesday, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “We have mutually agreed that, while the Blockade will remain in full force and effect, Project Freedom (The Movement of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz) will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the Agreement can be finalized and signed."

Then he "changed his mind, hung his surrogates out to dry," wrote The New Republic.

By Wednesday morning, Trump was using another tactic that had failed in the past: declaring victory for a third time.

In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote, "Assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to, which is, perhaps, a big assumption, the already legendary Epic Fury will be at an end, and the highly effective Blockade will allow the Hormuz Strait to be OPEN TO ALL, including Iran. If they don’t agree, the bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before."

Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for parliament's foreign policy and national security committee, disputed the reports, posting on X.

"The Axios text is more of an American wish list than a reality; Americans will not gain anything in a war they are losing that they have not gained in face-to-face negotiations," he said about the plan that Trump has flip-flopped on.

On Sunday, May 3, U.S. President Donald Trump announced "Operation Project Freedom" — a plan for the U.S. Navy to guide ships stuck in the Strait of Hormuz, a Middle Eastern waterway vital to the flow of oil. But only two days later, on Tuesday, May 5, Trump announced that Project Freedom was on hold.

In an article published by the UK-based i Paper on May 6, journalist James Ball emphasizes that Trump's sudden "U-turn" or "about face" with Operation Project Freedom "shows his growing desperation and just how few options he has right now in trying to end the unpopular war he started two months ago."

"For Trump, the clock is ticking," Ball explains. "The rising price of petrol and the cost-of-living crisis comes at an awful time, with November's U.S. midterm elections on the horizon. He is clearly desperate to declare victory — which he has tried to do on several occasions already, including by saying there has been regime change in Iran since the former supreme leader's son is now in charge — and move on. The latest about-face for Trump is embarrassing, but it will only become worse if the conflict with Iran drags on."

Ball continues, "At the moment, it is unclear if the White House has any exit strategy that is remotely feasible, or if it is just relying on wishful thinking and aggressive posturing on the part of the president."

Trump is claiming that he decided to pause Operation Project Freedom because his negotiations with Iran are going well and a "complete and final agreement" could be coming soon. But Ball argues that his claims don't hold up.

"He has claimed this several times before, without anything to show for it," Ball writes. "In fact, neither the U.S. nor Iran even bothered to turn up to the last round of negotiations, which were set to take place in Pakistan. Trump tried to argue that future negotiations would take place by 'telephone' to save on 15-hour flights."

Ball adds, "Across the world, experts have warned of economic catastrophe and major shortages if the Strait (of Hormuz) is closed even for a few weeks…. Iran's leaders will have taken note of his latest climbdown. Trump has taught them not to take his announcements seriously. With the life-and-death stakes at play, few things could be more dangerous than that."

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman calls right-wing politics “deadly” — and predicts that “MAGA Will Kill Many Americans,” by the thousands, driven by greed and willful ignorance.

Krugman goes one step further, arguing outright that this is not by accident:

“Does MAGA want to see thousands of Americans die prematurely from smoking and refusal to get vaccinated? Yes,” he writes.

He argues that the right’s decades-long opposition to health care is driven by greed, especially from “wealthy donors unwilling to pay taxes to help others in need.”

Krugman points to Tuesday’s decision by Trump’s FDA to allow blueberry and mango-flavored vapes, which critics warn will increase use among the young.

Why?

“Trump is reportedly hoping that support for vaping will win back support from young men,” Krugman writes — a constituency the president has been losing during his second term in office.

There’s also the recent decision, again by Trump’s FDA, to block the release of studies finding the COVID-19 and shingles vaccines safe, with side effects rare.

“Beyond this,” he continues, “right-wing politics in America often goes hand in hand with hostility to science in general and medical science in particular. The deadly linkage between reactionary politics and rejection of science was obvious during the Covid pandemic.”

Krugman also implicates greed in the anti-vaccine movement, saying that “quack medicine is big business.”

“Right-wing radio and social media have long relied on peddlers of snake oil for a large part of their revenue. So much of the attack on medical science can be seen as financially motivated,” he writes.

Ideological willful ignorance plays a part as well — driven by the alliance between oligarchs and white Christian nationalism, the latter of which is “deeply hostile to Enlightenment values, modern science very much included.”

To prove his point, Krugman points to the widely-reported resurgence of measles, that was seen as eliminated from the United States decades ago, thanks to vaccines. Now, many parents are choosing to forego vaccinating their children against this highly contagious and potentially deadly disease.

He adds to that the refusal of many red states to expand Medicaid, a program largely paid for by the federal government under the Affordable Care Act.

The data bear him out. Life expectancy in “Trump-leaning” states trails blue states significantly.

There’s “a strong, clear negative correlation between Trump-leaning orientation and low life expectancy at the state level,” Krugman writes. “Deep red states like Alabama and West Virginia have life expectancy comparable to, say, Kazakhstan.”

Markets were elated on Wednesday morning with reports that the war with Iran could end soon.

Axios reported on Wednesday that the U.S. and Iran were closing in on a one-page deal, but there was reason for skepticism, as this is the same claim that has been made several times over the past 60-plus days.

Citing the Axios piece, The Kobeisi Letter, a commentary newsletter on the global capital markets, parroted the report, telling its 1.8 million X followers that "U.S. oil prices were experiencing a sharp reversal on Wednesday, now up +8 percent in 60 minutes, as doubts grow over an Axios-reported potential deal to end the Iran War."

It didn't go over well with observers who have already been fooled more than once by such claims.

Douglas A. Boneparth, president of Bone Fide Wealth and CNBC advisor, commented: "Last month, we won the war and the market went higher. This month, we won the war again and the market goes higher. I can’t wait for next month when we win the war once more and go even higher."

“'Axios-reported.' You guys really can’t be this gullible?" mocked geopolitical analyst Aidan Simardone.

Former Republican operative Tim Miller made similar comments, conveying his skepticism.

"Surprised that investors are not convinced by Axios' 19th pre-market report that a deal is right around the corner. Eventually, it will be correct but so far shooting 0 percent from the field," Miller wrote on X.

Energy markets expert Vandana Hari, of Vanda Insights, issued a reality check: "IF the Axios report about the US expecting a one-page MOU with Iran to end the war is true... And IF Iran confirms... And IF it is indeed signed... And IF it is honoured... And IF negotiations to reopen SoH succeed in the 30-day period... And IF the agreement works to indeed reopen it.. And IF nothing derails the process again... We MIGHT see some more oil starting to come out of the Persian Gulf in several weeks. See how far we are?"

"How many times now [has] Axios reported the war is ending?" asked David Scutt, senior market analyst.

Trump posted on Truth Social on Wednesday morning, "Assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to, which is, perhaps, a big assumption, the already legendary Epic Fury will be at an end, and the highly effective Blockade will allow the Hormuz Strait to be OPEN TO ALL, including Iran. If they don’t agree, the bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

An advisor to Supreme Leader Ebrahim Raisi disputed the report, Reuters said.

"The Axios text is more of an American wish list than a reality; Americans will not gain anything in a war they are losing that they have not gained in face-to-face negotiations," Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for parliament's foreign policy and national security committee, posted on X.

There is ultimately one factor that 'decides elections,' and according to a new op-ed from The Hill, the GOP's other wins cannot save it from the ground it is losing when it comes to that factor, as Democrats prevail "where it matters most."

Michael Kapp is a veteran member of the Democratic National Committee, currently serving on its Rules and Bylaws Committee. On Wednesday, he published a piece for The Hill, tackling the emerging narrative about Republicans' massive fundraising hauls equating to a secret political weapon and a troublesome weakness for Democrats. This, he argued, ignores the key realities of "what is actually happening on the ground."

"Political media have developed a bad habit of confusing financial reporting with political strength," Kapp wrote. "Fundraising totals, cash-on-hand figures, and quarterly comparisons are useful data points, but they are increasingly being treated as a proxy for overall party performance. Today, they are being used to construct a narrative of Democratic weakness that does not reflect what is actually happening on the ground."

Kapp tackled the emerging notion that the DNC is facing a fundraising "crisis" due to the gap that currently exists between it and the RNC, arguing that these claims ignore some key context about Trump's fundraising system.

"One of the most persistent misconceptions in media coverage is that the DNC is facing a fundraising crisis or operating from a position of financial weakness. That is not accurate," Kapp explained. "In 2025, the Republican National Committee raised about 16 percent more than the DNC. This gap is often presented as evidence of structural weakness, but it is frequently reported without the broader political context in which it occurs."

He added: "Republicans currently control the White House. They have an administration openly operating with a corrupt kind of transactional politics where major donors fear their licenses, mergers and regulatory approvals may suffer if they don’t stay on President Trump’s good side. Democrats do not have that leverage, nor would we want to operate that way."

Kapp further argued that a true crisis of fundraising might lead to a situation in which Democrats are underperforming in elections. In fact, he countered, they are overperforming, either winning outright or coming much closer to Republicans in unexpected areas, giving the party a real edge in concrete electoral success.

"In Iowa, Democrats broke the Republican legislative supermajority and elected multiple firsts in state legislative history," Kapp detailed. "In Nebraska, Democrats flipped the Omaha mayor’s office after nearly two decades. In Mississippi, Democrats broke the Republican supermajority in the state Senate. In Texas, Democrats achieved a stunning 31-point swing in a district Trump had won comfortably just a year earlier. And in Florida, Democrats flipped the House District that includes Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago. These are not symbolic victories. They are measurable electoral outcomes tied directly to Martin’s and the DNC’s investments in staffing, recruitment, organizing and long-term state party capacity."

He concluded: "At its core, this is not a debate about whether Democrats should raise more or spend less. It is a debate about whether Democratic power must be rebuilt from scratch every cycle, or whether the party finally invests in the infrastructure needed to win consistently over time. And on that question, constant Democratic overperformance in elections speaks for itself. You can measure Democratic success in fundraising or you can measure it in wins, but only one of those decides elections. "