The Trump administration is working quickly to build a large barrier along the southern border, and it is spending billions of dollars on the project. Over the past six months, the Department of Homeland Security has awarded more than $19.4 billion in contracts for the border wall.

By comparison, the government awarded only $2.1 billion for the same purpose between 2016 and 2024. This is a sharp rise in spending that, according to reports, puts the president on a path toward possibly finishing a land and water barrier by the end of his second term.

According to The Washington Post, most of this money is reportedly going to just two companies, both of which have documented ties to the White House and the Republican Party. Fisher Sand & Gravel has secured more than $7.8 billion in contracts since December, while Barnard Construction has earned $4.5 billion since late last year.

Two pre-vetted firms have received the bulk of the recent contracts

These firms are part of a small, pre-vetted group cleared by the Department of Homeland Security to handle the work. While this process is faster than standard procurement, the report says it is raising concerns because it is much less transparent.

According to officials at Customs and Border Protection, crews are putting up five miles of wall every week. The project, which is being called the Smart Wall, includes more than steel bollards. It also covers new access roads, lighting, river buoys, sensors, and cameras. 

The effort has reportedly resulted in 52 separate contracts in 2025 alone, a large jump from the fewer than 10 contracts per year that were typical in the past. Because the government waived a long list of environmental and contracting rules, there is reportedly very little oversight compared to a regular open bidding process. 

This has led to legal trouble, with a New York-based firm named Posillico Civil suing the administration in May. The firm alleges that the process is not fair and that most of the work is being funneled to the two big winners. These claims have not been proven in court.

Costs have also reportedly grown. In some cases, initial contract prices have jumped by hundreds of millions of dollars after the fact because of plan changes. For example, a $574 million contract awarded to Fisher Sand & Gravel last December reportedly grew by $629 million after the government added more roads and barriers.

The Department of Homeland Security has awarded more than $16.3 billion in contracts in the past six months — compared with $2.1 billion from 2016 to 2024.

Most of it has gone to two firms that have ties to the White House and the Republican Party. https://t.co/47WT3tNfSF

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 5, 2026

Another contract in New Mexico for $1.68 billion reportedly saw an extra $108.3 million added just three weeks later. Former federal attorney Charles Tiefer told The Washington Post that the scale of these modifications is highly unusual and suggests that the usual safeguards for taxpayer money might be getting ignored. 

These spending questions come as lawmakers spar over other large federal outlays, including a $1.6 billion taxpayer-funded program that recently faced a Senate hurdle.Fisher Sand & Gravel has held high-profile contracts before and has faced controversy. The firm’s CEO, Tommy Fisher, is a known donor to the Republican Party. 

The company previously faced scrutiny over a project near an Arizona wildlife refuge, and it was also involved in a private border wall project that ended in legal issues for others involved. Timothy Barnard of Barnard Construction and his wife have donated over $1 million to the Trump 47 Committee.

For residents in places like West Texas, the sudden arrival of heavy machinery and construction camps is a major change. Cary Dupuy, a regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association, noted that the cost for two sections of wall in Big Bend alone totals $2.9 billion.

That is the same amount of money allocated to support all 433 national park sites in the 2026 fiscal year. Debates over how federal money is directed have surfaced elsewhere too, such as when Senate Republicans cut funding for a White House ballroom from a budget package. As construction continues, the administration maintains that these decisions are based on finding the best value and getting the job done quickly.

According to AP News, President Donald Trump confirmed he will be in the crowd for Game 3 of the NBA Finals this coming Monday at Madison Square Garden. He said he is looking forward to watching the New York Knicks play the San Antonio Spurs in Manhattan. When asked about fans who cannot afford to attend, he offered a brief response.

Tickets for the game have climbed as high as $8,000 each. When asked about these high costs on Friday, the president offered a simple suggestion for those who cannot pay. “They can watch it on television,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One while traveling to Wisconsin for an event with farmers.

He added that the experience is open to everyone at home. “It’s sorta semi-free to watch it on television,” the president said. “That’s the way life goes.” He also said the high demand is a result of the team’s recent success.

Trump’s comments arrive amid pressure over the cost of living

Trump noted that if the Knicks were not playing well, “you could go very easily.” The team has struggled for most seasons since they last reached the finals in 1999. Trump has attended several high-profile sporting events during his second term, including the 2025 Super Bowl, the Daytona 500, and the Ryder Cup.

A major part of his reelection campaign was built on the promise to lower inflation and reduce the cost of living for everyday Americans. With midterm elections approaching in November, he is facing growing pressure to deliver on that promise. The war in Iran has added to the difficulty, as it has caused gas prices to rise and global commodities markets to become unstable, raising new concerns about the strength of the economy.

Reporter: The cheapest price for the game you’re going to is $8,000. Everyday Americans can’t afford these sporting events.

Trump: No, but they can watch it on television. It’s sort of semi-free to watch it on television. But that’s the way life goes… pic.twitter.com/2xBpsxgmt5

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 5, 2026

Trump said he is a fan of the current Knicks roster. He said he watched Game 1, which the team won 105-95 in San Antonio. “I think the Knicks have an amazing team the way they played,” he said. When asked about his favorite players, he named Jalen Brunson and Karl-Anthony Towns. His Knicks fandom drew attention earlier when a New York governor questioned his team knowledge.

He also praised how the team performed in that first game. “Started off slow and it just got stronger and stronger,” he noted. The president also spoke about the discussion surrounding Spurs star Victor Wembanyama. There was some online frustration after Wembanyama stood with his arms crossed during the national anthem before Game 1. Since Wembanyama is French, his own country’s anthem was not being played at the time.

Trump was complimentary of the athlete, saying he “looks like he’s gonna be a great player.” He did not engage with the controversy and said he had not seen the moment himself. “Is that what he did? What did he mean by that?” he asked, before suggesting that reporters ask the player directly. The president’s attendance has drawn political attention too, as the New York mayor set a condition about attending a game alongside Trump.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver recently said a presidential visit to the finals could be a unifying moment in what he described as “our increasingly divided society.” Silver noted that an appearance like this “creates a sense of connectivity among people” and “creates a sense of belonging, and I feel that every day.” The president is set to be there in person when the series continues on Monday.

President Donald Trump is calling for Major League Baseball to bring in a salary cap, saying the sport cannot work well without one. According to CBS News, he shared his view while speaking to political reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday.

Trump said the league should have made this change a long time ago, pointing out that other professional leagues have already done so successfully. “If you don’t have a salary cap, you don’t have a sport, because they can’t help themselves,” Trump said. 

“Football has a salary cap. They should have done it a long time ago.” He added, “It’s shocking, frankly, that they didn’t put a cap on many years ago.” The president appears to view the 1994-95 strike as a missed chance for the league to have dealt with the issue sooner.

League’s labor deal expires this offseason as cap debate intensifies

The topic is gaining attention because the current collective bargaining agreement is set to end this coming offseason. Talks between team owners and the players union are expected to be tough, as the salary cap remains a major point of disagreement. The owners want a cap, while the players union remains strongly against it. Trump has weighed in on a range of issues lately, including his plans for the 2026 midterm elections.

The figures in these proposals are large. Major League Baseball has officially proposed a salary cap of $245.3 million along with a salary floor of $171.2 million. The change would be drastic for some teams. At present, nine teams would be over that proposed cap, and 12 teams would fall under the proposed floor.

For example, the Dodgers are nearly $170 million over the suggested limit, while the Mets and Yankees are also more than $100 million above that mark. At the lower end, teams like the Marlins and Guardians are currently almost $100 million away from the proposed floor.

The players union has come back with a proposal that leaves out a salary cap entirely. They have made clear that a hard cap is a nonstarter for their side. MLBPA interim executive director Bruce Meyer explained their position by focusing on the wider health of the game.

“Our goal is to preserve and improve baseball’s market system, rewarding competition on and off the field,” Meyer said. “Additionally, the players’ proposals provide increased revenue sharing initially guaranteeing every small market club a minimum of $240m in revenue every season.” Player pay has been a recurring topic across the league, as seen in the case of a pitcher who says teams won’t sign him.

Reporter: Do you think it's time for baseball to have a salary cap? 

Trump: Don’t they sort of have one? 

Reporter: It's a luxury tax threshold, but the teams that have the money are willing to spend it.

Trump: You don't have a salary cap, you don't have a sport… I know so… pic.twitter.com/9wLUjOY1CH

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 5, 2026

Meyer also said, “This enhanced revenue sharing includes added protections to ensure clubs prioritize winning over profiteering. Ultimately, our proposals are designed to build upon the incredible momentum and popularity of our sport world-wide.”

The debate comes as the league has seen strong financial success in recent years, setting revenue records season after season. In 2025, the league brought in roughly $12.5 billion, according to estimates by Forbes. With that much money involved, both sides have reason to reach an agreement and avoid a possible work stoppage. The salary cap is expected to remain the biggest story in baseball until a new deal is officially signed.

Dan Greaney, a veteran writer for The Simpsons, officially launched his bid for the 2028 US presidential election at a park overlooking the Silver Lake Reservoir in Los Angeles on Friday afternoon. The crowd was modest, totaling around 30 people, but the message Greaney delivered was earnest. Among those in attendance were a man dressed as Darth Vader and another as Uncle Sam.

Greaney is the writer behind the 2000 episode “Bart to the Future,” in which Lisa Simpson becomes president and tells advisers, “As you know, we’ve inherited quite a budget crunch from President Trump.” As first reported by Wired, the line earned Greaney a reputation as a prophet of sorts once Trump reached the White House. Greaney has said the joke was meant as a warning, pitched because it felt consistent with a vision of America going insane.

Standing at a lectern in front of a row of American flags, Greaney opened with “My fellow Americans,” before adding, “Yeah, let’s go with that. It’s a classic.” Beyond his work in television, Greaney has a background in journalism, law, and served as president of the Harvard Lampoon. Despite the comic framing of his kickoff, he was quick to stress that the campaign is a serious act of conscience.

Greaney is running as a progressive Republican, with a platform that includes expanding the Supreme Court

“It’s not a joke,” Greaney told the crowd, which was largely made up of friends and colleagues from the entertainment industry. He said he believes democracy is under attack, citing what he described as a rogue Supreme Court, a lawless president, and the influence of billionaire cliques. The show’s long-running reputation for predicting real-world events has followed Greaney into this campaign, with TikTokers recently debating another Simpsons episode as a possible real-world forecast.

Dan Greaney, The Simpsons writer who accidentally prophesied Trump would become president of the United States, is now making his own 2028 bid for the White House. https://t.co/oMYspjymE5

— Rolling Stone UK (@RollingStoneUK) May 31, 2026

Greaney is running as a progressive Republican in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. His platform includes expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices, reforming the judicial branch to limit its power, and investigating corruption among sitting justices.

Amid broader debates over SCOTUS’ recent rulings on voting rights, Greaney is also calling for a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. His other policy goals include universal health care, a Green New Deal, and expanded access to affordable housing. He also vowed to refuse corporate PAC money, though he quipped that it isn’t exactly pouring in.

The campaign is being directed by Mieke Marple, an artist and writer who has been friends with Greaney for 15 years. She said she got involved because she saw potential for the campaign to resonate with people and argued that artists often take unexpected things seriously to stir people’s hearts.

Greaney acknowledged that he is still getting the hang of campaigning and had hoped for a better turnout based on his social media messaging. He plans to launch a podcast featuring guests with political experience to help him navigate the road ahead.

He told the crowd, “I love a big swing. I love a big project.” He also expressed interest in reaching Republicans who feel alienated by MAGA extremism and might be looking for a different kind of leadership.

NBC News reports that the Trump administration can still pay money to Jan. 6 rioters by using the existing Judgment Fund, even though the proposed $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund is off the table. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress this week that the Justice Department is not going ahead with that specific fund after pushback from congressional Republicans.

This comes after much controversy about the proposed fund, which was first tied to a deal where Donald Trump would drop his lawsuits against the government. Critics often called the proposal a slush fund for allies of the administration. The anti-weaponization fund faced a temporary court block after a lawsuit from a former Jan. 6 prosecutor and others, but the administration still has a powerful financial tool it can use.

The Judgment Fund works as a bottomless pot of money made to settle legal claims against the government. According to the Treasury, it was created to remove the procedural steps involved in getting money from Congress to pay a particular judgment. It is a huge financial tool that could, in theory, be used to pay people involved in the events of January 6, 2021.

Fund may be stalled, but the push for January 6 payouts continues

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who is the number three official at the Justice Department, said at a news conference last month that he already had the power to settle any claim brought against the United States. 

He argued that the now-stalled anti-weaponization fund would have added accountability by using a five-person commission to review claims. Woodward said officials were trying to correct for the weaponization that was pervasive in the last administration. He also said he would not personally approve settlements involving his own former clients, a list that includes Peter Navarro, Kash Patel, and Dan Scavino.

Even without the “anti-weaponization” fund, the Trump administration has the ability to give payouts to Jan. 6 rioters through an already existing mechanism. https://t.co/Xi3URBHScm

— NBC News (@NBCNews) June 5, 2026

The size of possible payouts has drawn interest for some time. Ed Martin, a Justice Department official with close ties to Donald Trump, reportedly told a GOP ally earlier this year that Capitol riot defendants would receive millions, even if the process took until 2028. So far, hundreds of defendants have already signed up with lawyers to seek money. 

This week, nine participants filed a lawsuit seeking over $1 million each for injuries and losses tied to the January 6, 2021 protest. The fund has faced repeated obstacles, including a moment when six GOP senators voted to block its revival.

The administration has already set an example for such payments. The family of Ashli Babbitt, who was killed after jumping through a window during the riot, received just under $5 million to settle a lawsuit. Trump allies Carter Page and Mike Flynn have also already received payouts. These moves come alongside other large spending decisions, such as when Trump used wartime powers for coal to lower energy prices.

Legal scrutiny stays high over these processes. By the close of business Friday, the Justice Department must explain its position to a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia. A hearing is set for June 12 to decide the next steps for the various lawsuits, including one filed by officers who protected the Capitol during the attack. 

Senators Cory Booker and Bill Cassidy recently filed a brief arguing that the anti-weaponization fund is an end-run around Congress’s institutional authority. Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said the lawmakers recognize the danger of a scheme that would let the executive branch bypass Congress and hand out public money through a corrupt political rewards program.

Donald Trump spoke about the status of the anti-weaponization fund on Wednesday. He said he was unsure if it was “dead” or simply on hold, but he said it was a “beautiful thing” that he “loved” and thought was “so important.” As the legal battles go on, the existing Judgment Fund stands as the main path for possible future payouts.

A recent lawsuit filed in California has raised new questions about the Kennedy Center. According to the Financial Times, the lawsuit alleges that the center accepted a $2 million donation from a man accused of pretending to be a CIA operative. Gaurav Srivastava, a 35-year-old investor, is accused of using the large gift to win favor with the White House during a legal dispute with his former business partner.

The complaint, which was amended this week, was brought by sanctioned Dutch oil trader Niels Troost. Troost is currently suing Srivastava, alleging that Srivastava cheated him out of more than $43 million by falsely claiming to have ties to the CIA. 

Srivastava has dismissed the legal filing as entirely false, but he has not given specific details about the donation. A spokesperson for the Kennedy Center confirmed that the center received a private donation for the space once known as the Africa Lounge. The spokesperson noted that the details are not yet finalized.

The donation comes amid wider questions about the center’s leadership

The case adds to ongoing controversies about leadership at the Kennedy Center. Since Donald Trump was elected chair of the center in February 2025, the venue has faced accusations of cronyism and poor management. Richard Grenell, who served as interim president during that time, has been at the center of these claims.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse previously alleged that the institution was being run as a slush fund for political allies. In November, Whitehouse said, “The nation’s premier arts centre is being used as a slush fund and private club for Trump’s friends and political allies.”

Grenell has consistently rejected these accusations. He has described the claims as false, partisan, and careless, and he has argued that his leadership ended a period of financial trouble at the center. Despite his defense, a federal judge recently stepped into the institution’s operations. 

FT Exclusive: The Trump-run Kennedy Center accepted a $2mn donation from an alleged 'fake CIA operative' who made the gift to curry favour with the White House during a dispute with a former business partner, a lawsuit has asserted. https://t.co/ezWQPIaJle pic.twitter.com/uKHNQI8CXc

— Financial Times (@FT) June 5, 2026

The judge ordered that the president’s name be removed from the building after an attempt to rebrand the venue under Trump’s name. The court also blocked plans to close the concert hall for a two-year renovation project. 

Trump responded to the judge’s order to remove his name from the building. The donation from Srivastava involved an agreement to sponsor an area that was previously dedicated to African artworks. After the space was cleared of its original exhibits, a bronze plaque was installed in February. As per FT, it read, “A Tribute to America’s Intelligence Community, donated by Gaurav Srivastava.” 

Reports indicate that Srivastava planned to use the lounge for a permanent exhibition honoring US intelligence agencies. He has previously claimed that recordings cited in the lawsuit, where he allegedly identifies himself as a non-official cover operative, are deepfakes.

This is not the first time the center has faced questions about its naming rights under its recent leadership. The former Russia Lounge was renamed the SyberJet Lounge after a donation from a company led by Trevor Milton. This move drew attention because Milton received an unconditional pardon from Donald Trump in March 2025, following a conviction for defrauding investors.

Srivastava has a history of making large political contributions. Records show he donated at least $1.6 million to Democratic groups and candidates during the presidency of Joe Biden, often securing photo opportunities with well-known politicians. In June 2025, he attended a performance of Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center, where he posted a photo on social media with Vice President JD Vance. 

A spokesperson for the vice-president noted that Vance took photos with many of the thousands of people who attended that evening. As the legal battle continues, Srivastava has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, describing the allegations as a baseless attempt to harass him.

According to The Washington Post, a whistleblower disclosure has come forward alleging that President Donald Trump’s administration planned to mark 2.7 million living people as dead. The proposal was reportedly part of efforts led by Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative. The stated intent was to pressure immigrants to self-deport by cutting off their access to the financial system.

Jeremiah Schofield, a former senior Social Security executive with more than 20 years at the agency, brought these claims forward in a 49-page disclosure to the Senate. According to the document, the plan aimed to make life so difficult for immigrants that they would choose to leave the country. If they tried to fix these problems at Social Security offices, the goal was reportedly to have them arrested.

Schofield says he found the potential scale of the plan after taking a sample of the 2.7 million names and finding that every person was alive. The list included U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, teenagers, and senior citizens. One person in the sample was a widow and legal permanent resident who was receiving survivor benefits at the time.

Former executive describes the meeting where the plan was explained

Schofield described the mood inside the agency during this period as chaotic. He recalled a meeting where a DOGE official working with the Department of Homeland Security explained the strategy. He told reporters the experience was deeply upsetting, saying, “That call was one of the most disappointing calls I’ve been in in my 25-year career.” He added, “I was shocked. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.”

When faced with these allegations, Schofield reportedly refused to help carry out the plan. He took this position after agency lawyers warned that falsely declaring living people as dead would likely break federal law. The disclosure comes amid wider concern over how the courts are handling deportation cases more quickly.

New whistleblower allegations: The Trump admin had plans to classify 2.7 million living people — including some U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents — as dead as part of its immigration enforcement efforts, according to a former senior Social Security executive.…

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 5, 2026

The Social Security Administration responded to the allegations through an unnamed spokesperson. The spokesperson said the agency “did not add a list of 2.7 million names to the Death Master File,” which is the main database used to track deaths. The spokesperson said the agency keeps strong internal controls to make sure its records are accurate.

Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Lauren Bis did not directly address whether the plan existed. Instead, she focused on the value of agencies sharing data. She said such efforts are essential to identify people in the country, including those who may pose public safety or terror threats, and to determine what public benefits are being used at taxpayer expense. 

The claims add to ongoing scrutiny of immigration enforcement, including reports that the administration removed immigration judges over their rulings. This is not the first time DOGE’s activities have come under scrutiny. 

Earlier this year, another whistleblower alleged that a former staffer claimed to have access to sensitive databases such as Numident and the Master Death File. According to that disclosure, the staffer allegedly kept “God-level” security access and agency credentials long after leaving the organization, and reportedly claimed to have data on a thumb drive for use at a private company.

Donald Trump appeared to nod off during a high-profile Oval Office event on Thursday, the latest in a string of incidents that have drawn public attention to the president’s alertness in official settings. As detailed by Nine News, the incident occurred during a meeting centered on a major funding announcement for the coal industry. While the energy secretary was actively speaking and gripping the president’s chair, Trump’s eyes grew heavy and remained shut for extended periods.

At one point, the president’s head was turned away from the speaker, his eyes firmly closed while the event continued around him. This follows a similar episode from just the previous month, when he appeared to drift off during an Oval Office event promoting maternal health and fertility.

The occasion for Thursday’s meeting was the announcement of $980 million in grants directed toward the coal industry. The administration is utilizing the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era statute originally enacted on September 8, 1950 and requested by President Harry Truman following the outbreak of the Korean War, to push the funding through. Over the decades, the definition of national defense under the law has expanded to cover emergency preparedness, energy production, and construction.

The president’s coal funding push is facing sharp criticism from Democrats and environmental groups

By invoking the Defense Production Act, the administration plans to keep 14 coal plants open while funding the construction of two additional ones. During the event, Trump stated, “Coal’s a great business,” and added, “In terms of power, there’s really nothing like it.” He also noted that the grants would go to states he won. Coal production in the United States has been cut roughly in half since 2008, largely as renewable energy and natural gas have become more cost-effective alternatives.

The move drew immediate criticism from environmental groups. Patrick Drupp of the Sierra Club said the administration was “giving away our taxpayer dollars to deadly and expensive coal plants that will make Americans sicker and drive up electricity prices even more.” He further said the move “betrays everything Donald Trump promised and only serves his Big Coal buddies.” Amid wider political battles over how federal money is being directed, six GOP senators recently moved to block Trump’s $1.6 billion anti-weaponization fund from being revived.

Democratic lawmakers also pushed back hard. Senator Ed Markey said, “While your electricity bills are going up and taking cash out of your budget, Trump is stealing out of our national wallet, using taxpayer dollars to pay for polluting, expensive, and unnecessary coal plants.” He added, “We need to save Americans’ money, not give it to Trump’s fossil donors.”

The question of Trump’s alertness had already come up in a congressional setting just days earlier. During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on June 3, 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted he had never seen the president fall asleep, saying, “On the contrary, the guy doesn’t sleep, which is a big problem.”

Democratic congressman Ted Lieu then played a video appearing to show the president asleep next to Rubio during a prior cabinet meeting. Lieu told Rubio, “You are literally talking about issues of war and peace and Donald Trump is sleeping right next to you.” Trump, who has been in the news separately for his Freedom 250 rally lineup after several artists pulled out, has not publicly responded to Lieu’s remarks.

Lieu also said the incidents were affecting how other countries perceive the president’s leadership, stating that foreign nations “mock him” over his inability to stay awake on the job. Rubio did not directly address the video footage during the hearing.

The fight over the administration’s controversial $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund reached a boiling point early Friday morning. In a high-stakes legislative showdown, six Republican senators joined forces with Democrats to support an amendment aimed at blocking the fund, which was designed to provide payments to MAGA allies who claim they were prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Despite this bipartisan push, the measure ultimately failed to clear the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a procedural hurdle. The motion to waive the budgetary point-of-order objection ended with a vote of 52 to 47, leaving the future of the fund in a state of uncertainty, The Hill reported.

The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the proposal since acting Attorney General Todd Blanche first introduced it shortly before Memorial Day. Cassidy’s plan was to strip the funding away from the proposed anti-weaponization project and instead redirect $100 million toward law enforcement officers who were injured or faced financial losses while protecting the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. To cover these costs, the proposal would have reduced appropriations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, capping individual payments to eligible officers and their families at $1 million.

Cassidy’s frustration with the fund has been clear from the start

The drama unfolded over a grueling 14-hour period as part of a marathon session known as a vote-a-rama. Cassidy spent much of Thursday working behind the scenes, repeatedly redrafting his language in hopes of securing a ruling from Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough. He was looking for a way to classify his amendment as compliant with the Byrd Rule, which would have allowed it to pass with a simple majority rather than the typical 60 votes.

This process, often referred to by lawmakers as a Byrd Bath, is crucial for determining what can be attached to a budget reconciliation package. Throughout the day, the parliamentarian consistently signaled that the proposals would likely require the higher 60-vote threshold, which made the path to victory incredibly difficult.

The Trump administration will scrap its nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund amid pushback from GOP members of Congress and a lingering court battle demanding an explanation for the arrangement. https://t.co/HwwLuKyxUH

— WGNO-TV (ABC) New Orleans (@WGNOtv) June 2, 2026

Bill Cassidy has publicly questioned the legal standing of the entire concept. Back on May 18, he told reporters, “I don’t actually see any legal precedent for that. We are a nation of laws, you can’t just make up things whole-piece.” He even compared the setup to a bizarre legal scenario, noting, “Somebody explained it to me this way, an attorney. … It is as if somebody sued themselves and agreed upon a settlement with themselves that’s going to be funded by the rest of us. If that’s the case: What?”

The political pressure was palpable throughout the session. Earlier in the day, a separate motion from Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer attempted to send the entire reconciliation package back to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to bar the fund. While that measure failed 49 to 50, it highlighted the deep divisions within the Republican caucus.

Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Jon Husted of Ohio, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined Cassidy in the final vote, signaling that even within the GOP, there is significant resistance to the administration’s plan.

The confusion surrounding the fund’s status only added to the tension. While acting Attorney General Blanche recently told House lawmakers that the administration had abandoned the idea, President Trump later undercut those comments. When asked about the proposal in the Oval Office on Wednesday, he refused to declare it dead and suggested he would “have to ask the lawyers.” He even defended the concept, stating, “The weaponization fund, as far as I’m concerned, was a beautiful thing.”

For Cassidy, the goal has been to maintain a delicate balance. He has expressed support for the primary objective of the reconciliation package, which is to fund border control and operations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement through 2029, but he remains adamant about stopping the anti-weaponization fund. As he noted during the negotiations, “I would like to fund control of the border but also do something about the weaponization fund. I’m trying to strike that balance.”

Even with the amendment failing to pass on Friday, the intensity of the debate shows that this issue is far from settled, and the administration’s insistence on keeping the fund on the table ensures that the friction between the White House and these GOP senators will continue to impact the legislative agenda.

President Donald Trump has officially unveiled the new musical lineup for the upcoming Freedom 250 rally, which is set to take place on June 24 in Washington, D.C, The Hill reported. This announcement arrives shortly after a wave of previously scheduled performers distanced themselves from the event, which is being organized by the Trump-backed Freedom 250 organization. It is clear that the administration is moving forward with a revised vision for the kickoff of the Great American State Fair.

The event, which is being billed as a massive celebration for the country’s 250th anniversary, will be held at 7:00 PM. In a message posted to his Truth Social account, President Trump described the rally as a truly special occasion. “On Wednesday, June 24th, at 7 P.M., in magnificent Washington, D.C., now totally beautified, and one of the Safest Cities anywhere in the World, and in celebration of our Country’s 250 Year History, we will be bringing you, LIVE, the Greatest Rally, EVER! It will be special at every level — A Rally to end all Rallies!”

It is interesting to see how the president is handling the recent departures of the initial musical acts. He made his feelings on the situation quite clear in his recent social media post. “We don’t want singers with no talent, but big fees to put you to sleep, we’ve told them all to stay home,” he stated. “All we want is you, me, a few speakers, and the Greatest Music ever played, the same Music you have listened to for years!”

The new lineup features performers who are already quite familiar with the president’s events

Lee Greenwood, famous for his patriotic anthem “God Bless the USA,” is slated to introduce the president. Trump referred to the 1984 song as “one of the Greatest Hits of All Time.” Additionally, opera singer Christopher Macchio is set to perform a variety of classics, including “Nessun Dorma,” “Hallelujah,” “Ave Maria” and “God Bless America.” The president spoke very highly of Macchio’s vocal talents, noting, “Not since the legendary Luciano Pavarotti has there been such a voice!”

The musical program will also include appearances by the U.S. Army Band, the Armed Forces Choir, the U.S. Marine Band, and the Joint Armed Forces Chorus. These groups are expected to provide the soundtrack for the evening, which will conclude with a speech by “a fine and highly dignified gentleman known as, President DONALD J. TRUMP!”

Trump announces musical acts for Freedom 250 rally: ‘We don’t want singers with no talent’https://t.co/FnnRD6VJbj

— The Hill (@thehill) June 5, 2026

The initial announcement last week had included names like Martina McBride, C+C Music Factory, Vanilla Ice, Milli Vanilli, Young MC, The Commodores, Morris Day and The Time, Flo Rida, and Bret Michaels. However, many of these artists pulled out after learning about the political nature of the rally. For instance, Young MC claimed the artists were never told about any political involvement.

While some, like Vanilla Ice, expressed a desire to perform regardless of politics, the current status of those remaining artists remains a bit unclear. Vanilla Ice recently mentioned on Fox News that he was unsure if he was still involved but expressed that he would be in attendance regardless.

It is worth noting that Freedom 250 is an organization created via executive order by President Trump to oversee the 250th birthday festivities. The rally is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. The administration has several other events planned, including a Grand Prix race in the nation’s capital this August and the Great American State Fair, which will span June and July. There is also a UFC fight scheduled for June 14 on the South Lawn of the White House. The 90ft UFC arena is already set up, and the president has even suggested it might become a permanent fixture.

Donald Trump has officially announced a massive $700 million investment aimed at reviving the coal industry, utilizing his wartime authority to push this plan forward, The Guardian reported. This move is being framed by the administration as a strategic effort to lower energy costs and reduce the overall cost of living for Americans.

The president invoked the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era law that allows for broad executive power to support industries deemed essential to national security, to secure the necessary funding for this initiative. “So today we’re taking historic action to bring down the price of energy and the cost of living for all Americans with the power of clean, beautiful coal,” Trump said at the White House on Thursday.

The volatility in energy prices follows the ongoing war with Iran and the resulting closure of the Strait of Hormuz. According to data from the AAA motoring group, the average price of a gallon of petrol in the US hit $4.24 on Thursday. This is a significant jump from the $2.98 recorded on the day the US and Israel began striking Iran. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that overall energy prices for consumers rose by 17.9% in the year leading up to April.

This financial injection is coming at a time when energy prices have been climbing steadily

The $700 million package is split across several specific projects. According to the president, $500 million of federal funds will be directed toward keeping 14 existing coal plants operational while also funding a new export terminal in California. The Department of Energy is providing an additional $200 million to build two brand-new coal plants in Alaska and West Virginia. These will be the first new coal plants constructed in the US since 2013.

“As a result of the $700m investment that I’m announcing today, we will protect 14 coal plants and 42 coalmines, a tremendous number, and build two new coal plants and one massive new export terminal,” Trump said.

Trump delivers $700M boost to coal, including wartime authority fundshttps://t.co/AfYLTXpnmZ

— The Hill (@thehill) June 4, 2026

The scope of this plan reaches across 10 states, including Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Trump noted that these states are ones he won in the election. The administration expects the project to support around 14,000 jobs in total, with the new export terminal in Oakland, California, accounting for more than 1,400 of those positions.

The administration’s messaging around this policy is very specific. “You’re not allowed to say ‘coal’ within the Trump administration unless it’s preceded by the words ‘clean, beautiful’,” Trump said on Thursday. “Complicates our life, but it’s good.” This rebranding effort has even included the creation of a mascot named Coalie, which has been featured in social media posts wearing sunglasses.

However, the reality of the industry remains a point of contention. While the president claims that his actions will save consumers $50 billion in energy generation costs, many experts point out that coal is the most carbon-dense fossil fuel and is a primary contributor to the climate crisis. Research indicates that air pollution from coal plants was responsible for approximately 460,000 deaths in the US between 1999 and 2020.

Environmental organizations have been vocal in their opposition to the new funding. Patrick Drupp, the climate policy director of the Sierra Club, called the move “disgusting and reprehensible,” arguing that the funds are being directed toward plants that increase health risks and costs for citizens.

Similarly, Kit Kennedy from the Natural Resources Defense Council expressed disbelief at the allocation of taxpayer money. “What’s next, a taxpayer bailout to build new phone booths?” Kennedy asked. “This is going to mean higher bills and dirtier air. What a waste.”

Despite the criticism, the National Mining Association has welcomed the news. Rich Nolan, the chief executive of the organization, stated that increased coal production would provide a necessary buffer against volatile energy prices and help meet the growing electricity demands of the artificial intelligence sector. Trump also used the announcement to criticize his predecessors, claiming that his administration has already approved 76 permits for coal projects in just over a year, contrasting that with what he characterized as a lack of progress under Joe Biden.

As the administration moves forward, it remains clear that coal will continue to be a central part of their energy strategy.

President Trump announced on Thursday that he would be honored to meet with Iran’s supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, provided that a formal deal is reached to bring an end to the ongoing conflict, The Hill reported. This development comes as the U.S. and Iran remain locked in a war that has now persisted for four months, creating significant instability in global markets and pushing domestic fuel prices to uncomfortable levels.

During a session with reporters in the Oval Office, following an announcement regarding coal, the president clarified his stance on potential diplomacy with the Iranian leadership. The president is keeping his options open regarding direct communication with the new supreme leader. When asked if he might be concerned about lingering hard feelings given the U.S. military actions, specifically the strikes that resulted in the death of the former supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with members of his family during Operation Epic Fury, the president remained pragmatic.

He noted that while he is likely not the leader’s favorite person, he expects a level of professional conduct from the Iranian side. Trump stated, “I would say I’m not his favorite person, but with that being said, he’s probably a professional.” He further suggested that the new leader maintains a positive standing in certain areas, remarking, “In some circles he has a very good reputation actually.”

Trump is only willing to meet Khamenei after a broader agreement is reached

Trump explained his thought process by saying, “I don’t want to meet, but if I did meet, I’d be honored to meet him.” He continued by emphasizing that the primary objective remains the finalization of a deal. “I’d like to see if we make a deal, but if we make a deal, it’s possible I would meet him,” he said, adding, “I’d be OK with that.”

This cautious optimism follows recent comments made during a Pod Force One podcast interview on Wednesday, where the president mentioned that the new supreme leader is actively involved in the ongoing talks. He noted that there appears to be significant respect for the new leader, stating, “I think they have a lot of respect for him.”

Acknowledging that Mojtaba Khamenei's father (former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) was killed in the opening US.-Israeli military strikes of the war, President Trump said, "I would say I'm not his favorite person".

However, he expects the new Ayatollah in Iran to act as a… pic.twitter.com/W66678p6rE

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) June 5, 2026

Despite these statements, the reality on the ground remains complex. The new supreme leader has not made a public appearance since the war began, which adds a layer of uncertainty to the negotiations. Furthermore, the U.S. has maintained a firm position that Iran must not possess a nuclear weapon and that the Strait of Hormuz must be opened to international shipping.

The closure of the strait, a vital artery for approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil supply, has been a major point of contention and a primary driver for the current economic strain. As of Thursday, the national average price for a gallon of gas reached roughly $4.24, illustrating the tangible impact these geopolitical tensions are having on everyday life for people across the country.

The negotiation process itself has been characterized by conflicting signals. Earlier this week, on Monday, Iranian state media reported that their negotiators intended to halt discussions and completely shut down the Strait of Hormuz. However, the narrative shifted on Wednesday when the president claimed that Iran had reached an agreement to refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons.

The situation is currently governed by a fragile, tenuous ceasefire that has held for several weeks, though it remains vulnerable to the competing demands of both nations. The U.S. is pushing for the immediate opening of the waterway, while the Iranian side is seeking an immediate cessation of hostilities on all fronts and the removal of the U.S. naval blockade currently targeting Iranian ports.

Navigating these demands is a massive undertaking, and the president’s openness to a meeting suggests a desire to break the stalemate. While the path forward is anything but clear, the willingness to entertain a high-level diplomatic summit indicates that the administration is looking for ways to resolve the issues surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear question.

Whether this leads to a lasting peace or remains a point of contention depends on the next few steps in these high-stakes negotiations. For now, the administration is prioritizing the security of the strait and the prevention of nuclear proliferation as the cornerstones of any potential deal that could eventually lead to the president sitting down with the supreme leader.

President Trump has called Justice Brett Kavanaugh his “new hero” on the Supreme Court, even after the court struck down his sweeping global tariffs. Kavanaugh was the only Trump-appointed justice to side with the White House in the ruling on Friday, which prompted the praise.

“My new hero is United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and, of course, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito,” Trump declared on Truth Social. He added, “There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” On Friday, Trump also said Kavanaugh’s “stock has gone so up” and praised his “genius and his great ability.”

According to Politico, the Supreme Court’s decision blocked Trump from using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose his global tariffs. Three Republican-appointed justices, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice John Roberts, joined the court’s liberal justices in the ruling against the tariffs.

Kavanaugh’s dissent gives the White House a clear path to pursue tariffs through other legal means

Trump saved his sharpest criticism for Barrett and Gorsuch, both of whom he appointed in his first term. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families,” he told reporters at a press briefing on Friday, shortly after the ruling. “You want to know the truth, the two of them.” Trump’s presidency has seen several controversial moves that critics have labeled as overreach, and this ruling was no exception.

Kavanaugh’s dissent has given the White House a potential roadmap for future tariff efforts. In his minority opinion, he wrote that the majority’s decision “might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” He also listed several other federal laws the White House could use to impose tariffs.

My new hero is United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and, of course, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

(TS: 21 Feb 09:32 ET)​​​‍​​‌‍​​‌‍​​​​​​​‌‍​​‌‍​‌‍​​​​​​​​​​‌‍​​‌‍​‌‍…

— Commentary: Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) February 21, 2026

The White House moved quickly after the ruling. Trump signed an executive order imposing a new temporary 10 percent global tariff, citing a section of the Trade Act of 1974 that allows a president to impose tariffs when facing a “large and serious balance-of-payments deficit.” These new tariffs are set to take effect on Tuesday and are expected to face legal challenges. It is worth noting that Trump’s praise for justices has not always lasted.

In July 2021, he criticized both Kavanaugh and Barrett for siding with the court’s liberals in a challenge to Obamacare. “I was disappointed, and that’s the way it goes. Very disappointed, I fought very hard for them,” he said after that 7-2 ruling. Trump has also made headlines recently for his off-script remarks causing chaos at public meetings. So while Kavanaugh is Trump’s “new hero” today, that could change depending on future rulings.

President Trump made an unexpected move by sharing a video on Truth Social featuring Kaitlan Collins, a reporter he has publicly criticized. In the video, Collins discusses a large new banner displaying Trump’s face at the Department of Justice. Collins argues the banner symbolizes an “erased” separation of powers between the White House and the DOJ.

Work crews used a cherry picker to hang the massive banner over the entrance to the Department of Justice. According to Mediaite, Collins noted that while similar banners with Trump’s image have appeared at other departments like Labor and Agriculture, this one at the Department of Justice carries a different meaning.

Historically, administrations have tried to maintain a clear line of independence between the White House and the Justice Department, with the idea that politics should not influence who gets prosecuted. Collins argues that this line has been blurred since Trump began his second term, pointing out that he has directly pressured the Attorney General to prosecute individuals he sees as political enemies or those who have led prosecutions against him.

The banner’s “Make America Safe Again” slogan makes Collins’ argument harder to ignore

The Justice Department stated that the banner is meant to honor America’s upcoming 250th birthday celebration. However, the banner also echoes a slogan Trump himself has used: “Make America Safe Again,” which adds weight to Collins’ interpretation. Some Republicans have also been pushing back on Trump’s use of executive power, with one GOP lawmaker breaking ranks to limit Trump’s pardon authority.

What makes Trump’s decision to share the video particularly strange is his very public treatment of Collins earlier this month. During a press moment when Collins was trying to ask about the victims of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Trump cut her off and called her out directly.

“You are so bad, you know? You are the worst reporter. No wonder [her previous employer] has no ratings, because of people like you. You know, she’s a young woman. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you smile. I’ve known you for 10 years. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a smile on your face,” Trump said.

WATCH: President Trump just shared Kaitlan Collins reporting on CNN about his banner outside the Justice Department.pic.twitter.com/azfgeP7xHv

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) February 22, 2026

Despite that exchange, Trump chose to repost her video on Truth Social, where it can still be viewed. The repost is notable given that the video contains a direct critique of his administration’s actions and the symbolism behind the DOJ banner.

Trump has also faced scrutiny on other fronts, as a new poll reveals an economic nightmare for millions of Americans despite his claims of financial progress. It is unclear why Trump shared a video from a reporter he openly criticized, especially one that raises serious questions about the independence of the Justice Department under his administration.

President Trump has announced a 15% baseline tariff on imports from every single country. The move comes directly after a major Supreme Court ruling that struck down his previous trade strategy. This is not a small adjustment; it is a significant shift that reveals deep problems in his trade agenda.

According to The Conversation, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s previous “reciprocal tariffs,” imposed under an emergency powers act, were unauthorized. This new 15% rate is an increase from a 10% global baseline tariff put in place shortly after that initial ruling. The president is now using a different law that appears to clearly allow tariffs up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days.

Speaking after the ruling, Trump called the Democratic justices who voted against his tariffs a “disgrace to the nation” and said he felt “ashamed” of the conservative members who also voted against his use of emergency powers. He admitted he had been trying to “make things simple” with the emergency powers act, and acknowledged that other options exist but would take more time.

A potential $175 billion refund bill now hangs over the administration

The Supreme Court’s ruling means that all tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawfully gathered. An estimated US$175 billion (A$247 billion) could potentially need to be refunded. Trump called the decision “terrible” and “defective,” and his emotional reaction to the Supreme Court ruling drew widespread attention beyond just the tariff debate.

The US Court of International Trade has previously stated it has the authority to order these refunds. Several large companies, including Costco, had already sued the administration proactively to recover payments if the tariffs were ruled unlawful. Trump himself suggested the dispute could keep the country “in court for the next five years.”

Donald Trump says he is raising his new global tariff from 10% to 15%, effective immediately.

This follows the Supreme Court’s ruling that most of his previous tariffs were illegal. pic.twitter.com/bcwtsdUUUG

— Pop Base (@PopBase) February 21, 2026

For longer-term solutions, Trump mentioned using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs on countries that violate US rights under international trade agreements or unfairly restrict US commerce. However, it requires a detailed process including consultations with affected countries and could take years to implement at any significant scale. This section was notably used against China in 2018.

Another option is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which applies to specific economic sectors and was used to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018. However, it cannot be used for sweeping tariffs on all foreign imports and requires a national security investigation. Trump has also been making headlines for unrelated reasons, including his unusual comments about Nicki Minaj’s appearance during a recent public appearance.

For countries like Australia, the new 15% rate levels the playing field for the next 150 days, though Australian exporters may face pressure to absorb some costs. The White House did list exceptions, including beef, critical minerals, energy products, and pharmaceuticals.

President Trump has demanded that Netflix remove Susan Rice from its board, threatening the streaming company with “consequences” if it does not comply. This comes as Netflix is in the middle of a high-stakes attempt to acquire Warner Bros Discovery, a deal that would need federal regulatory approval. Trump had previously suggested he would stay out of this acquisition.

According to Financial Times, the situation was set off by MAGA influencer Laura Loomer, who holds no official role in the administration but appears to have significant influence over Trump. She urged him to “kill the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger now,” and Trump then posted about it on his Truth Social platform.

Trump wrote, “Netflix should fire racist, Trump Deranged Susan Rice, IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences. She’s got no talent or skills, Purely a political hack!” He also added, “HER POWER IS GONE, AND WILL NEVER BE BACK. How much is she being paid, and for what???” 

Rice’s own comments appear to have sparked the pressure campaign

Susan Rice served as national security adviser and US ambassador to the UN under Barack Obama, worked on Joe Biden’s domestic policy council, and has been on Netflix’s board from 2018 to 2020 and again since 2023.

She recently appeared on a podcast and warned that it “would not end well” for companies that “take a knee to Trump” if Democrats were to regain power in Washington. She predicted that Democrats would implement an “accountability agenda,” telling companies to “preserve their documents” and “be ready for subpoenas.”

Netflix should fire racist, Trump Deranged Susan Rice, IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences. She’s got no talent or skills – Purely a political hack! HER POWER IS GONE, AND WILL NEVER BE BACK. How much is she being paid, and for what??? Thank you for your attention to this… pic.twitter.com/4Mem2zd503

— Commentary: Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) February 21, 2026

Rice stated, “If these corporations think that Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to play by the old rules, I think they’ve got another thing coming.” This kind of political tension is not unlike the high-stakes diplomatic standoffs Trump is navigating on other fronts as well.

Loomer then expanded on her reasoning in a lengthy social media post, questioning whether Netflix supports a board member who she claims is “threatening half of the country with weaponized government and political retribution.” She labeled Netflix an “anti-American, WOKE company” and suggested the Warner Bros Discovery acquisition would benefit the Obamas by filling the service with “positive messaging” for Democrats.

Trump Says Netflix Should Fire Board Member Susan Rice "Immediately, or Pay the Consequences" https://t.co/1Pi4PrSP8I

— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) February 22, 2026

Netflix currently has an agreed $83 billion takeover deal with Warner Bros Discovery. However, Paramount Skydance is attempting a hostile bid, backed by Oracle founder and known Trump donor Larry Ellison, with a $108 billion offer that recently cleared a key US antitrust hurdle. Warner Bros Discovery’s board has repeatedly rejected Paramount’s approach and is sticking with Netflix’s offer.

Both deals are under scrutiny from federal regulators. Netflix’s proposed acquisition is currently going through an early-stage review by Trump’s Justice Department to determine whether it would be anti-competitive. Trump has also made headlines recently for his unusual remarks about a celebrity’s appearance, showing a pattern of unconventional public behavior.

President Trump gave an unexpected compliment to the mainstream media at a White House event during the National Governors Association dinner. He opened his speech by acknowledging the journalists in the room, saying, “Now we’re with some very special reporters tonight.” He then added, “I often say the fake news, but I will not say that tonight. Even though I’m on live television, I will not call you fake news!”

According to Mediaite, Trump went on to explain his rare praise shortly after. “I said to myself the press has been relatively fair to me over the last year, meaning they’ve been bad, but not horrible,” he said, which got a few laughs from the crowd. For a president who regularly criticizes the media, even “bad, but not horrible” is a notable shift in tone.

The evening also featured entertainment, including a performance by violinist Rusanda Panfili, whom Trump called the “greatest violinist in the world.” Trump put it to a vote among the governors whether the press should be allowed to stay and watch the performance, then raised his own hand, saying, “I’m in favor.” The crowd cheered, and Trump gave the media members the green light to stay.

Trump’s history with the media makes this moment all the more striking

This moment stands out because Trump’s relationship with the media has been highly contentious for over a decade. He has frequently criticized major news organizations and has been involved in several high-profile legal battles with them. His comments at the dinner were a clear departure from his usual stance.

Trump has also been making bold moves on the global stage lately, including giving Iran a tight deadline to reach a deal, which experts say may carry more complexity than it appears.

Currently, Trump is suing the Wall Street Journal over a story claiming he sent Jeffrey Epstein a “bawdy” birthday letter in 2003. The lawsuit shows how seriously he takes media reports and his willingness to pursue legal action over them.

LMAO! President Trump just had the room DYING at the Governors Dinner!

“We’re with some very special reporters tonight. I often say the FAKE NEWS! But I will not say it tonight even though I’m on live television.”

“I will NOT call you fake news, OK?! As the cameras are… pic.twitter.com/ri5hoOJGeS

— Gunther Eagleman (@GuntherEagleman) February 22, 2026

Trump is also suing the BBC for $10 billion, alleging the network “doctored” footage to make it appear as though he urged supporters to “fight” before the January 6 Capitol Riot. The BBC program Panorama, which aired in October 2024, reportedly showed Trump saying, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

However, Trump maintains that his actual words were, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” He argues this is a significant difference in how his words were presented to the public. Beyond legal battles, Trump has also been pledging billions toward Middle East peace efforts, though the broader details of those plans remain uncertain.

More recently, Trump publicly supported the merger of Nexstar and Tegna, explaining, “We need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks.” Given this ongoing hostility toward the press, his “bad, but not horrible” remark at the National Governors Association dinner was a genuinely rare moment.

The Department of Justice has quietly removed records of four separate FBI interviews with a woman who accused President Trump of sexual assault when she was underage. These records were part of the Jeffrey Epstein files and are supposed to be publicly available under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The woman, identified as one of Epstein’s victims, accused President Trump of forcing her to engage in oral sex sometime between 1983 and 1985, when she was in her early teens. She described a violent encounter where she bit Trump’s exposed penis, after which he allegedly punched her in the head and kicked her out. She also told the DOJ that Jeffrey Epstein first introduced her to President Trump in 1984.

Independent journalists Roger Sollenberger and Nina Burleigh brought this to light, noting that DOJ records clearly showed the FBI spoke to this woman at least four separate times. According to The New Republic, Sollenberger found records of these interviews, which took place in the summer and fall of 2019, in a separate document database that was originally provided to Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers for her trial.

The timeline of these disappearing records raises serious questions about accountability

The interview records spanned from July 24, 2019, to October 16, 2019, and have since been removed from public access. The first interview took place on July 24, 2019, but was not entered into the FBI’s case files until August 9, 2019, a 16-day gap. This is unusual, as FBI agents typically have a five-day deadline to file interview write-ups. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell just one day after that first interview was finally filed.

Despite these documented interviews and the allegations, Attorney General Pam Bondi recently stated there was “no evidence” President Trump had committed any crime. Lawmakers have also accused the DOJ of failing its final obligation under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, adding to concerns that the department is not being fully transparent. Many see this as part of a broader effort to shield the president from scrutiny connected to the Epstein scandal.

The FBI interviewed one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims four times over her allegation that Donald Trump assaulted her when she was underage—but most accusations against the president appear to have been removed from the government’s documents. https://t.co/jmRc4QZylS pic.twitter.com/bnrXMI1WgT

— The New Republic (@newrepublic) February 21, 2026

In the U.K., Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former British prince, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, directly tied to the Epstein files. This development has drawn attention to the question of whether equally powerful figures connected to Epstein in the U.S. are being held to the same standard.

Some observers have noted that the rule of law should apply equally to everyone, and that justice should not stop with one imprisoned accomplice while others with more influence avoid scrutiny. The truth, no matter how “politically explosive,” needs to be fully examined.

The disappearance of these interview records, given the broader context of the Epstein case, has added to concerns that certain powerful individuals are not being treated the same way as others under investigation. This comes alongside other controversies involving the department, including reports of the DOJ displaying a pro-Trump banner inside its offices after Trump had previously sued the department for $230 million.

President Trump has given Iran a 10 to 15-day window to come to the negotiating table, or face significant consequences. This tight timeline has put nuclear diplomacy in the spotlight, but experts say this deadline may not be as simple as Tehran believes.

Trump’s deadlines have historically worked as both a warning and a strategic tool. Back in June, he said he would decide on a strike against Iran “within the next two weeks,” but made that decision just two days later. According to Fox News, Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, points out that the Iranian regime has been “deluding itself, thinking they can treat President Trump like President Obama.”

There is also significant skepticism within the administration that these talks will lead to any real breakthrough. Brodsky believes the talks may serve a dual purpose, sharpening the choices for Iranian leadership while buying time for the U.S. to position military assets in the region. The presence of the USS Gerald R. Ford in the Mediterranean Sea supports this idea of strategic positioning.

Iran’s red lines and stalling tactics make a genuine deal look unlikely

From Iran’s side, a Middle Eastern source familiar with the negotiations says Tehran understands how close the risk of war feels right now and is unlikely to deliberately provoke Trump. As Iran firmly rules out any submission in ongoing talks, Iran cannot accept limitations on its short-range missile program, a firm red line set by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. For Iranian negotiators, conceding on missiles would be seen internally as the equivalent of losing a war.

Brodsky believes Iran’s core positions have not changed much. He thinks they are throwing out “shiny objects” and distractions to avoid making the concessions Trump is demanding, including zero enrichment, dismantling nuclear infrastructure, limiting missiles, and ending support for terror groups.

A senior administration official told USA Today that Trump could decide to strike Iran as soon as this weekend. He could also strike Iran next weekend or never. – USA Today

— WW3 Monitor (@WW3_Monitor) February 21, 2026

Behnam Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warns that Tehran may be preparing a proposal that simply puts the current situation on paper, making the U.S. “pay for something it already achieved.” He says Iran wants three things: to prevent a strike, to use negotiations to undermine Iranian dissidents, and to secure sanctions relief and financial stabilization.

Taleblu also notes that while the administration clearly does not want a nuclear Iran or a prolonged war in the Middle East, the military assets being moved into the region signal they are prepared for one anyway. Reports show that a second carrier strike group is already moving into position as diplomacy continues.

BREAKING: Iran says US officials have accepted their red line of continuing to enrich uranium and both sides are seeking a “fast deal," per Bloomberg.

After recent talks in Geneva:

1. Idea that Iran would completely stop nuclear enrichment was dismissed

2. Negotiations are…

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) February 21, 2026

Jacob Olidort, chief research officer at the America First Policy Institute, adds that the scope of any potential military action remains unpredictable, whether it would serve as a new layer of diplomatic pressure or achieve what diplomacy could not.

On the ground in Iran, public sentiment is deeply divided. Many Iranians view a foreign military invasion as unacceptable, but widespread anger over the killing of young protesters continues to fuel domestic tensions and uncertainty inside the country.

President Donald Trump recently made an unusual claim at a press conference, saying a “very powerful” man wanted to kiss him. The story came up while Trump was lashing out at the Supreme Court, calling the justices a “disgrace to our nation” and “lap dogs,” after they struck down his tariff policies.

According to The Daily Beast, while venting about the ruling, Trump suddenly shifted to an unrelated story about Andrew Seville, the president of Kusa Steel in Rome, Georgia. Trump claimed Seville expressed a desire to kiss him during a visit to the factory.

“We were in Georgia, and I said to the owner, I made a speech at a factory that makes steel products, and I said, ‘How are you, nice to meet you, how’s business?'” Trump recalled. He then claimed Seville responded with, “President, I’d love to kiss you.”

Trump’s unusual kissing anecdote points to a pattern of strange comments in recent days

Trump told the press, “This is a very powerful man. I don’t want to be kissed by that man.” He added that Seville is “a very powerful, strong man” who has been in the steel business for many years. He then quoted Seville again, saying, “Sir, I want to kiss you so badly.’ And I said, ‘No thank you.'” The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Trump’s tariff policies was clearly the trigger for the press conference outburst.

According to Trump, Seville’s unusual expression of gratitude came because Trump had helped the factory boost production from just one hour a day to nearly 24 hours a day. When asked about the comments, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said that “it’s no secret that President Trump is the most loved and admired figure in American politics, and it should not come as a surprise that people want to show their appreciation for him.”

Trump shared that a steel magnate wanted to kiss him over the tariffs

“They produce steel products, and I said, 'How’s it going? Nice to meet you. How’s it going, Mr. President?' He said, 'I’d like to kiss you.'

This is a very influential man — a very strong man. I don’t want… pic.twitter.com/X2IcM0Q4ih

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) February 21, 2026

This was not the first time Trump shared this story. He told a similar version the day before to a crowd at the same Georgia factory. On that occasion, Trump quoted Seville saying, “President, if I didn’t have all these cameras running, I would grab you and start kissing you violently.”

Earlier that same Thursday, Trump also paused his “Board of Peace” meeting to comment on Paraguayan President Santiago Peña’s appearance. This meeting came amid broader foreign policy developments, including reports on Trump’s ongoing Iran nuclear negotiations.

As he welcomed the 47-year-old leader, Trump said, “It’s always nice to be young and handsome,” before quickly adding, “It doesn’t mean we have to like you. I don’t like young, handsome men. Women, I like. Men, I don’t have any interest.”