Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham stands by her comments about transgender athletes competing: She says she just ‘wants to protect’ women’s sports.
Despite her views that were expressed in an ESPN article published Tuesday, Cunningham insisted the next day that she doesn’t have anything against the transgender community.
“I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans. And I’m like, ‘I never once said that,’” Cunningham said in the article. “I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”
The article became fodder for questions Wednesday before the Fever’s 123-88 victory against the Connecticut Sun.
“I think it’s kind of common sense,” Cunningham told reporters. “And I think I’ll always believe in that. I think it’s really important to protect children, and that’s little girls who are also involved in that category. And so I’ll stand on what I said, and I’ll always believe that.”
She reiterated that her feelings on the matter don’t stem from hatred.
“I think there is room for absolutely everyone here, and I think there is room to love everyone,” Cunningham said. “I truly think when you get people in the same room and you have conversations, you actually have a lot in common with a lot of people. And so I’m there to love.
“But I’m also there to love biological women, and I think that there are rights that need to be protected. And, like I said, I’m gonna stand true to that. I’ll never falter in my beliefs in that. But I have never once said that I hated the trans community. Like I said, I think there’s space for everyone.”
Cunningham appeared to triple down on her comments Thursday morning on Instagram, writing simply, “I said what I said.”
The topic of transgender athletes participating in women’s sports has become a polarizing issue in recent years. In February 2025, President Trump signed an executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” that looked to ensure that entities receiving federal funding abide by Title IX in alignment with the administration’s view that a person’s sex is the gender they were assigned at birth.
Last month, the Supreme Court upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho that banned transgender athletes from competing on girls’ sports teams. Days later, two transgender girls who were the first to challenge Trump’s executive order dropped their lawsuit in New Hampshire.
“Men should not be playing in women’s sports. It’s completely ludicrous that anyone could support that,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday. “It’s even more ludicrous that you do have [Sophie] Cunningham — a female athlete herself, very accomplished in her own right — coming forth and speaking that truth that men shouldn’t play in women’s sports, we want to protect women and girls, and the backlash she is receiving from Democrats and left-wing figures across the country is astonishing.”
The league’s collective bargaining agreement states that “only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA,” but does not specifically exclude transgender women. When reached for comment, a WNBA representative referred The Times to a statement released by the Fever on Wednesday.
“Our players are thoughtful adults with their own perspectives and voices, and those views are their own,” the team said. “We are committed to welcoming fans from every background and treating everyone with respect, and that’s what guides us as an organization.”
Cunningham has been called “MAGA Barbie” since her college days at Missouri, according to Complex, because some of the people she follows and engagement with conservatives on social media.
In 2022, when Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas became the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I national championship, Cunningham reposted a since-deleted tweet stating that “female collegiate athletes deserve so much better than this.”
Soon after, Cunningham posted a statement saying that she stands “with all people, especially my fellow athletes.”
“I do not judge, but support all races, religions, sexual preferences and gender equity,” she wrote. “We all have a place in this world to compete and I hope we are able to grant everyone that opportunity fairly.”
Even with a seeming endorsement from the White House and a nickname that’s followed her, Cunningham says her political views are “very much in the middle.”
“I agree with things on both sides, disagree with things on both sides,” she said in the ESPN article. “And that’s all I’ve ever said about my political beliefs. But people love to assume.”
On Wednesday, Cunningham went into more detail, telling reporters “I’m not a very political person.”
“But I do have beliefs, I have morals, and I’ll always stand on those and be true to who I am,” she added. “… And so when it comes to just protecting young girls in sport and women in sport, I feel very strongly about that.
“That’s why you have Title IX. That’s why you have some of the greats in women’s sports. If Title IX and women’s sports weren’t protected, then you wouldn’t hear about any type of women in sport.”
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has agreed to work with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program, a watershed moment following a years-long effort to curb the proliferation of nuclear technology in the Middle East.
The announcement comes as President Trump has vowed to continue executing a war against Iran over its own nuclear ambitions. On Wednesday, the president warned he would target a bridge or power plant for every commercial vessel Iran fires upon in the Strait of Hormuz, after earlier this week threatening to strike a new facility Tehran is reportedly building to conceal its continued nuclear work.
The Saudi deal stoked surprise and immediate concern across Washington, where lawmakers are expected to have a vote on the matter, as well as in Israel, itself a nuclear power that has long feared an atomic arms race could grip the region.
A Saudi nuclear program has long been tied to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear work, which successive U.S. administrations have said extends beyond civilian purposes. After Iran struck a nuclear deal with world powers in 2015, Saudi Arabia vowed to match whatever nuclear capabilities Tehran was allowed to keep.
In the decade since, U.S. officials had tried to keep Saudi Arabia from developing its own program, fearing it would fuel nuclear competition across the Middle East. But it became a consistent and central point of negotiation between the two allies.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations ultimately offered to support a limited, monitored program as part of a broader deal to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, hoping that a diplomatic breakthrough would mitigate the risks of an arms race.
But the agreement secured this week left skeptics in Washington and the region unclear what the United States had secured in return.
The deal comes after Trump told reporters this week that the goal of resuming war with Iran was to prevent them from ever obtaining nuclear weapons, a challenge that has vexed the international community since the outset of the century.
U.S. presidents have long sought to prevent Middle Eastern countries from acquiring technologies that could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 invasion of Iraq over false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs prompted Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi to abandon his nuclear work. Over the next two decades, the United States and Israel also targeted Syria’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs under Bashar al-Assad.
But Iran’s slow march to nuclear weapons capability, enriching uranium near to weapons-grade with no clear civilian or scientific ends, has prompted other countries in the region to question whether they, too, might need similar capabilities to counterbalance a historic foe. Israel, which views the Islamic Republic and its nuclear program as existential threats, is widely believed to possess its own nuclear weapons.
Hours after the nuclear deal was reported by the Wall Street Journal, the White House was silent on the details and Trump administration officials were left scrambling when asked by lawmakers and reporters for answers.
While traveling in Manila, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters he was aware of the news reports, but deferred to the White House to provide more public information.
When pressed about the risks of such a deal, Rubio said he would not “opine directly on the agreement,” but said the United States “is not going to reach any agreement with any country in the world that leads to the risk of proliferation.”
The White House confirmed the deal Wednesday afternoon.
Back in Washington, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he has not yet seen the agreement with Saudi Arabia.
The deal, which would last 30 years and involve American firms developing the program, is expected to be submitted for review to Congress. Lawmakers will consider the deal as they grow increasingly uneasy about the Trump administration’s handling of an expanding Iran war, which Trump and Israel launched, arguing for the need to wipe out Tehran’s capabilities to build nuclear weapons.
As the war enters its fifth month, Trump has continued to defend the military efforts and has dismissed the idea that war is unpopular among Americans as they feel the economic effects.
“Americans aren’t against the war,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “Americans don’t want high gasoline prices but they’re not against the war.”
Trump’s remarks were made as he traveled to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to attend a dignified transfer of U.S. service members killed in the war. Asked what he would say to the families who lost their loved ones, Trump said he’d tell them they’re loved.
“All I’m going to say is, we love you. We love your child, and that’s what they are to them. They’re their children. There’s no games, no nothing,” Trump said. “That’s their child, and all you can do is throw out your heart.”
Earlier in the day, Trump said the United States will destroy a bridge or power plant in Iran each time it shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for the global energy supply.
Trump’s threat to target bridges and power plants would mark yet another escalation that could affect civilians in the region.
Hasan Ghashghavi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, denied Trump’s claim on Tuesday that Iran was requesting negotiations, saying in a statement on X that it was “in no way consistent with the facts.”
“It seems that Trump, in order to extricate himself from the quagmire he’s trapped in, should seek better paths,” he wrote. “Repetitive lies no longer even bring about short-term market relief.”
Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.
Bryson DeChambeau thought he had finished Day 2 of the British Open in second place and just one stroke off the lead.
He apparently thinks that should still be the case — but it’s not.
After a lenghty, and at times animated, discussion involving DeChambeau, his caddie and officials, the U.S. golfer was assessed a two-stroke penalty that dropped him into a fifth-place tie and three strokes back.
Grant Moir, executive director of governance for The R&A, told reporters that DeChambeau was penalized “for inadvertently improving the area of his … intended backswing on the fifth hole when he was playing his second shot.”
Moir added that the penalty “applies even when the action is accidental, as it was in Bryson’s case.”
DeChambeau sent his tee shot 257 yards but far off to the right into tall fescue grass. He needed to step high to get to the ball but was able to hit it out of the area, eventually making bogey on the par-four hole. That score was later changed to triple-bogey, and DeChambeau officially finished the day at two-under 68.
“The player mustn’t move, bend or break any growing or attached natural object,” Moir said. “A player is allowed to fairly take their stance by taking reasonable actions to get to the ball and take a stance if in some situations that improves the condition affecting the stroke, but when doing so the player must take the least intrusive course of action to deal with the particular situation and is not entitled to normal stance or swing.”
At one point during his discussion with Moir, DeChambeau appeared to state that he might not play the next day. He did not speak with reporters afterward, other than to say he thought he played great and that he was going to hit balls on the driving range.
His agent, Brett Falkoff, said DeChambeau was told he was “not careful enough walking around a sensitive area,” adding that his client “certainly feels he was unfairly penalized.”
Asked if DeChambeau would play Saturday, Falkoff said, “Your guess is as good as mine.”
DeChambeau reportedly stayed out on the driving range until after dark, at times whistling, humming and singing while hitting balls and offering reporters snacks.
Lucas Herbert leads after the second round at eight-under, two strokes ahead of Jackson Suber, Cameron Young and Ryan Gerard.
WASHINGTON — Kathryn Ruemmler, the former top lawyer at Goldman Sachs who was White House counsel to President Obama, said Wednesday in testimony to Congress that it “was a mistake to deal with” Jeffrey Epstein but insisted she never witnessed criminal activities.
“I can see now that he used me and other respectable people to legitimize his standing,” Ruemmler told members of the House Oversight Committee, according to a copy of her opening remarks.
Ruemmler is the latest prominent figure called before the House Oversight Committee as lawmakers investigate the network of powerful people connected with Epstein. The bipartisan inquiry has already included testimony from more than a dozen high-profile witnesses, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former President Bill Clinton, as lawmakers examine how Epstein’s wealth and influence may have helped shield him from scrutiny.
Ruemmler served as White House counsel under Obama from 2011 to 2014 and was briefly considered for attorney general. She served as Goldman Sachs’ general counsel for the past six years before announcing in February that she would step down amid backlash over her correspondence with Epstein.
Although she said she would step down on June 30, she remains employed by Goldman Sachs.
Entering Wednesday’s hearing, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters that Ruemmler will provide unique insight as one of the few people who was “very close in the last phase of Jeffrey Epstein’s life.”
“I think some of the emails that are in the files are very concerning about how she communicated with Jeffrey Epstein,” he added.
The two were close years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction on sex crimes
While Ruemmler has tried to downplay their relationship in more recent statements, thousands of documents released by the Justice Department showed that Ruemmler and Epstein had an extensive relationship. The files included personal emails, social plans and gifts that extended beyond formal legal work. Documents showed she had called Epstein “Uncle Jeffrey” in emails and said she adored him.
Ruemmler said in her opening remarks that she first met Epstein in 2014 regarding potentially working with him and Gates “to set up a large donor advised fund.” Soon after, according to Ruemmler, she learned about Epstein’s 2008 conviction on sex crimes, when he became a registered sex offender.
She said Epstein expressed remorse about it, and that he did not know the women were underaged. She said she “relied on the resolution reached by federal and state prosecutors and validated by a judge as being a proportionate and final resolution of his criminal conduct.”
House Oversight Chair James Comer told reporters Wednesday that the “most concerning” part of Ruemmler’s communications with Epstein is how she “tried to rehabilitate his image after he was convicted of solicitation of a minor.”
Ruemmler’s interview is part of a broader investigation
Comer said Wednesday that Ruemmler is the 18th person to testify as part of their broader investigation.
Billionaire investor Leon Black was subpoenaed last month after lawmakers said he refused to answer some questions about his yearslong relationship with Epstein.
Comer said Wednesday that Black will appear for a formal deposition on Sept. 3 but that he expects to have Black’s nondisclosure agreements by “the end of the week.”
The committee has also expressed interest in questioning acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose nomination to permanently lead the Justice Department is pending before the Senate. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi identified Blanche as the department’s point person on the release of the Epstein documents, a process that has drawn bipartisan scrutiny.
“Hopefully Blanche will come in as soon as his confirmation is over,” Comer said.
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has subpoenaed New York Times journalists after they reported on security concerns involving the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One, marking a dramatic escalation of President Trump’s campaign against the media that has drawn condemnation for eroding a fundamental freedom of American democracy.
The new jet, a present from the U.S. ally on which the administration spent $400 million to retrofit and upgrade, entered service this month. But Trump used an older model Air Force One jet to leave a NATO summit in Turkey and later referenced threats against him made by Iran.
The subpoenas seek to force the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan next week, the New York Times said, adding that federal agents delivered some subpoenas to the reporters at their homes.
They were issued after FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials met at the White House on Friday to talk about the matter, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The journalists subpoenaed included Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt, the Times reported.
“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, said in a statement.
Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Trump’s “war on the press is looking for another victim.”
He said in a statement that the subpoenas “break from long-standing Justice Department practice to protect the public interest and press independence by requiring prosecutors to only seek information from reporters as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted.”
The department said that “to be clear, reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”
Its statement said that “we value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country, but DOJ also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation’s secrets do what they’re supposed to do with that information, which means not sharing classified information.”
While recognizing “there may always be natural tension there,” the department said, “we are not going to ignore the law and stop investigating the people who work in the administration and think it’s OK to leak classified information impacting national security.”
Pattern of anti-press actions
Issuing subpoenas represents a further ramping up of Trump’s effort to threaten independent new organizations by leveraging the power of the federal government against them. It is also part of a systematic pattern by the Republican president to attempt to undermine press freedom in order to shield him from negative coverage.
Earlier this year, the Justice Department issued subpoenas seeking to compel testimony from reporters at the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the department later withdrew the subpoenas.
In January, FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who has been covering Trump’s transformation of the federal government, as part of a leak investigation into a Pentagon contractor accused of taking home classified information.
Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said Friday’s subpoenas and the prospect of “hauling reporters before grand juries sends a chilling message to journalists and whistleblowers alike: Watch what you say, or expect a knock on the door.”
“These tactics are becoming more common,” Steinbaugh said in a statement. “That doesn’t make them normal.”
During his first term, Trump suggested that the press constituted an “enemy” of the American people. Since returning to the White House, he has waged an aggressive campaign against the media unlike any in modern U.S. history.
Trump’s attacks against news outlets and media figures he believes are overly critical of him has included filing lawsuits against outlets whose coverage he dislikes, threatening to revoke TV broadcast licenses and seeking to bend news organizations and social media companies to his will.
The Justice Department over the years has developed and revised internal policies governing how it will respond to news media leaks.
Though the department across presidential administrations has periodically seized the phone records of individual journalists in hopes of identifying sources for national security stories, it is extremely rare for the government to attempt to compel reporters to reveal their sources before a grand jury.
In April 2025, then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi rescinded a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.
Doing so again gave prosecutors the authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.
A memo Bondi issued said members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo stated.
Security issues with new Air Force One
The president flew the new Air Force One to Turkey during this week’s visit. But he departed Wednesday on one of the older-model Air Force One jets for Mildenhall, a Royal Air Force base in Suffolk, England.
The newer plane also flew to Mildenhall. Trump then switched to that plane for the flight home to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.
The abrupt swap came as a shaky ceasefire with Iran had collapsed, with the U.S. launching airstrikes on Iran and Tehran attacking three gulf Arab states. Iran and Turkey share a border, sparking speculation that the new jet lacked certain sophisticated security and countermeasure systems.
The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that the switch had come at the urging of the Secret Service, and that the newer plane lacked some of the advanced security features of the older aircraft, including antimissile capabilities.
Trump denied any security concerns, posting on social media that the stop in Mildenhall was so that service members there could view the new jet. During the flight, Trump denied to the reporters accompanying him that security concerns involving Iran were a factor in flying two planes home.
Still, asked if he was aware of any credible threats against Air Force One by Iran, Trump responded, “I have a threat all the time. I’m No. 1 on their list.”
The White House did not answer messages seeking comment about the subpoenas of the Times journalists.
Weissert and Khalil write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer, Michelle L. Price and Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.
She was standing behind her husband, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, at a February press conference to celebrate a new bill that would give Planned Parenthood emergency funds. A throng of women’s advocates, including herself, had spoken about how the law would help women access healthcare. But now reporters were asking a barrage of off-topic questions, from the California High Speed Rail to the 2028 Olympics.
She paced, she swayed, she laughed with displeasure. Finally, she stepped closer to her husband and gently nudged him aside. She found it “incredulous,” she said, that they had assembled all these allies only for the reporters to ask about other issues.
“This happens over and over and over and over again,” she said as Newsom smiled awkwardly. “You wonder why we have such a horrific war on women in this country and that these guys are getting away with it. Because you don’t seem to care. So I just offer that with love.”
The scene underscores Siebel Newsom’s predicament as her husband positions himself as Trump’s chief antagonist and prepares for a possible 2028 White House run.
Jennifer Siebel Newsom with California Surgeon General Diana Ramos.
(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)
She came to Sacramento with a mission to speak up for women, calling herself “first partner” to signal she would carry on the theme of her work as a documentary filmmaker and nonprofit leader: dismantling gender norms. But as her husband raises his national profile with a podcast, a memoir and daily trolling of President Trump, she finds herself under mounting scrutiny.
In June, Newsom accused Trump of weaponizing the Department of Justice to launch a politicallymotivated attack on his spouse after federal agents knocked on the doors of the Newsoms’ friends and former employees, asking about Siebel Newsom’s taxes and nonprofit businesses.
“To get me, he’s coming after my wife,” Newsom said.
A federal source said the investigation began not with Trump, but after federal officials spoke to whistleblowers in Sacramento. Whatever the origin or merits of the probe, Siebel Newsom has long faced questions about her finances — specifically her nonprofits’ partial reliance on donations from companies that lobby the governor, a strategy that does not violate California law but raises concerns about the influence of large corporations in Sacramento.
Her decision to use the title “first partner” and her work “deconstructing” gender are also attracting criticism from the right in the post-#MeToo era as many Americans chafe against what they perceive as radical attempts to undermine traditional values and policing of what they say and do.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom looks on at his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom.
(Mario Tama / Getty Images)
To Siebel Newsom, the critiques of her work and the federal probe are part of a broader hounding of women who enter the public sphere. When federal agents targeted her associates, she was promoting “Miss Representation: Rise Up,” her new film examining the role technology plays in fueling what she describes as “the rising backlash against women’s progress.”
“We are seeing young women hold themselves back from wanting to pursue careers … not just political leadership, and it’s extremely disturbing,” Siebel Newsom told CNN in June. “It is a backlash, a backslide, and it is happening at an unprecedented scale, where ultimately we are silencing women’s voices.”
She disagreed with those who say scrutiny is the price of admission for being in public life. “Women and girls deserve to be protected,” she said. “Anyone aspiring to a public service career deserves to be safe. It should be fundamental.”
Untangling legitimate political criticism from deeply ingrained gender bias is not easy. Women in the public eye are frequently held to a different standard than men. But some political experts question whether a woman who refuses to stand on the sidelines — raising her voice on radioactive culture war issues and benefiting in part from her marital status to fund her nonprofits — can reasonably expect to be excluded from the rough and tumble of her husband’s political life.
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and political commentator, said Siebel Newsom had been subjected to heightened public scrutiny for years. “That I think is likely fair,” she said, “in the sense that she has said that she’s very much a partner of the governor, and she has used this platform to advocate for causes that she cares about.”
Still, Levinson said, Siebel Newsom’s availing herself of the public forum did not mean she had violated the law.
“Does the fact that she has created and run nonprofits that receive behested contributions from Gov. Newsom put her and her actions in a different spotlight?” she said. “Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean that she’s doing anything nefarious. It just means that their life and their finances and their jobs are a little bit more complicated than other first families.”
Raised in an affluent suburb in Marin County, Siebel Newsom, 52, grew up in privilege. Her father was an investment manager and prominent GOP donor, her mother a co-founder of the Bay Area Discovery Museum.
After studying Latin American studies at Stanford and volunteering in Ecuador and Africa, she returned to Stanford to earn an MBA. Then she moved to L.A. to try to break into Hollywood. She got small parts in “Mad Men” and “Rent,” but has said she “was typecast as a trophy wife and kind of put into this box.”
That sparked her interest in getting behind the camera.
Around the time she married Newsom in 2008 and got pregnant with her first child, she began work on “Miss Representation,” her debut 2011 film that examines how mainstream culture limits female potential and power by focusing on youth, beauty and sexuality.
When Newsom was elected governor, she announced she would eschew the traditional title of “first lady.”
The “first partner” title, she has said, is not just gender inclusive and gender expansive. “It disrupts some of the male-coded language we associate with leadership, versus a ‘lady’ who sits on the sidelines.”
“She walks the walk,” said Amy Ziering, a documentary filmmaker whose films Siebel Newsom helped produce. She did not take the role lightly, Ziering said, noting she watched cuts and took notes, made introductions and brought people to screenings. The fact that Siebel Newsom kept pressing women’s issues as her husband became governor, Ziering said, reflected her integrity.
“She’s not diminishing her beliefs, her values, her principles or any other kind of long-term goals” Ziering said. “She shows up, ‘This is what I believe,’ and maybe it’s not politically efficacious to believe this right now, or to say ‘I believe it’ … but she does.”
“She did not have to do that, she could have been Jane Doe,” Ziering said. “That’s about showing up for other women and for all sexual assault survivors.”
Cristina Garcia, a former assemblywoman who represented southeast L.A. and worked with Siebel Newsom on women’s legislation, said she thought Siebel Newsom would be a target no matter what.
“But I think she sees the power that she has, and it’s like, why should she just sit in the background?” Garcia said. “Why shouldn’t she use her power to uplift women and children … these things she’s been really passionate about?”
In Sacramento and across liberal California, Siebel Newsom’s ideas on women and gender are relatively mainstream.
But as the 2028 election looms, conservatives have dredged up old clips, highlighting Siebel Newsom’s comments about parenting and deconstructing gender roles to portray her as “radical” and “woke.”
In one video, Siebel Newsom said that when she reads to her children she changes the protagonist’s gender from “he” to “she” to show women matter and can center a story.
In another, she raised concerns about boys being exposed to “alt-right socialization online that we know is very, very dangerous.” She and her husband, she noted, were alarmed to find their son had encountered misogynist influencer Andrew Tate while watching sports online.
Some conservatives have noted, with glee, that Siebel Newsom could be a liability for her husband as he seeks national office.
“Jennifer Siebel Newsom is the very avatar of Democrat Woman,” a New York Post columnist wrote. “Haughty, hectoring and pleased with herself, she is single-handedly wrecking her hen-pecked husband Gavin’s lofty political ambitions.”
But former state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Oxnard) pushed back on the idea that Siebel Newsom was some kind of strident activist or woke scold. After working with Siebel Newsom on equal pay and bringing more women onto corporate boards, she said Siebel Newsom was adept at working with corporations to find common ground and recognize what businesses need to be successful.
The scrutiny of Siebel Newsom comes as her husband tries to stake out a more centrist stance on some issues.
Last year, Newsom inspired the ire of some Democrats by launching a podcast in which he chatted with right-wing figures, such as Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk and Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon. On its debut episode, Newsom distanced himself from his party’s left flank, calling the dismantling of police departments “lunacy.” Allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports, he said, was “deeply unfair.”
Asked why, Newsom told The Times his party had become out of touch with ordinary Americans. “They think we’re elite,” he said. “We talk down to people. We talk past people. They think we just think we’re smarter than other people, that we’re so judgmental and full of ourselves.”
On this point, it’s not clear whether the Newsoms are in sync.
For all her talk of women as allies, Siebel Newsom portrays conservative women who criticize other women as dupes manipulated by MAGA leaders.
“What’s interesting is that the far right really is using women to go after other women,” she said in June on the “Hysteria” podcast. “So I find it very intentional on their part that they have essentially sent the women out to humiliate, demean, ridicule, mock, silence another women. But that’s just the patriarchy, right? … And that’s what we have to fight.”
Still, she has voiced doubt about whether she would continue to go by “first partner” if her husband were elected president.
Asked in 2023, Siebel Newsom said she didn’t know if Americans were ready for a “first partner.”
“Sadly,” she said, “I don’t know if they are.”
But even as conservatives mock Siebel Newsom’s patrician “girl power” message and activist jargon, she shows few signs of backing down.
As she has taken “Miss Representation: Rise Up” to film festivals in New York and Washington, D.C., she has upped her call for more Big Tech regulation.
An advisor from the first partner’s office said Siebel Newsom had been an advocate for women and girls before she met Newsom. That was unlikely to change, they said, as she faced growing right-wing scrutiny or a federal investigation.
WASHINGTON — The leaders of Europe are bracing for another turbulent summit with President Trump this week as NATO members gather for their annual meeting in the Turkish capital.
European diplomats view Trump’s decision to attend as a positive sign of his continued commitment to the alliance. But the president’s grievances with several European governments over their refusal to join the U.S. war with Iran have cast a pall over a summit already strained by Trump’s wavering support for the continent.
The secretary-general of the transatlantic alliance, Mark Rutte, told reporters on Monday that Trump had aired his resentments in a recent phone call. But Rutte countered with a mix of flattery and countervailing facts that has thus far kept Trump engaged.
While Trump has accused European leaders of denying U.S. forces access to allied bases for takeoffs and refueling during the war, Rutte noted that about 5,000 sorties supporting Operation Epic Fury launched from European airfields. And last Friday, France and Britain committed to a joint military mission with Oman to support freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz — “an extremely important development,” Rutte said.
At last year’s summit, held in The Hague, all NATO member states — with the exception of Spain — agreed to spend 5% of their GDP on defense by 2035, marking a significant increase in historic spending goals for modern Europe. The pledge is divided into two categories, with 3.5% of spending allocated to core military requirements, and the rest committed to a broad set of security-related investments.
Trump’s tough love on the alliance “is, I think, bringing NATO closer together,” the secretary general told reporters.
“You could argue that he is the first president of the U.S. since Eisenhower who was able to come to this situation where the Europeans and the Canadians will spend the same as the Americans” on security, Rutte said. “This equalization was a wish for 50, 60 years, and now it’s happening — I think in large part due to his leadership.”
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte speaks to reporters Monday ahead of the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey.
(Hussein Malla / Associated Press)
In a video message posted on social media Monday, Trump’s ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, said the summit this week would serve as a “report card” to determine whether countries were beginning to fulfill their commitments from last year.
He offered a note of optimism and suggested the president’s goal is to enhance, rather than undermine, the alliance.
“The United States will be here, but we also need our allies to be here. We cannot do it alone, and the American taxpayer should no longer bear the burden,” Whitaker said.
A White House schedule for Trump’s trip lists bilateral meetings with Rutte and the leaders of Turkey, Syria and Ukraine, in between alliance-wide meals and conferences.
Ukraine will remain at the top of the agenda, Trump told reporters Monday, expressing hope that the war could soon come to an end after four brutal years of fighting.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused the greatest loss of life in Europe since World War II, resulting in more than 1 million casualties, including an estimated 600,000 dead. Since Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion in 2022, following his covert invasions of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula and eastern regions in 2014, Russian forces have captured roughly 12% of Ukraine’s territory.
The war has settled into a deadly stalemate since a 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive failed to break Russian defensive lines. While Russian forces have occasionally advanced, they have only managed to hold marginal gains along the front, at tremendous cost.
In recent weeks, however, expanded Ukrainian drone and missile capabilities have shifted the dynamic, striking military production sites deep inside Russia and targets near Moscow, bringing the war more directly into the Russian public consciousness and raising questions in the Russian capital whether the war effort is sustainable.
Ukraine’s boldness has impressed the Trump administration, Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland, told the Financial Times this week.
“I think he does feel pressure,” Trump said of Putin, addressing reporters in the Oval Office before departing for Turkey on Monday.
The president referred to an ongoing U.S. effort to end the war, a goal that has remained elusive for Trump since returning to office.
“I think we’re getting much closer than people realize,” he said. “President Putin wants it to end, I will tell you that. Very strongly. Had a good call. And President Zelensky actually wants it to end now.”
“We’re going to be going to NATO, and we’re going to be talking about it,” Trump added. “And I think we’re going to get it ended. It’s been terrible.”
July 1 (UPI) — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Defense Department from enforcing its escort policy, at least for reporters with The New York Times, dealing another blow to the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict media access at the Pentagon.
It was not entirely clear whether the order applied to all credentialed reporters or just those associated with The New York Times.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in D.C. issued his preliminary injunction Tuesday, finding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the escort policy was retaliatory and infringed on their First Amendment rights.
“This Court has spoken at several points about the critical importance of protecting the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, and that evergreen principle bears repeating: ‘Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by government suppression of political speech,'” Friedman said in his Tuesday opinion, quoting from one of his previous opinions in the case.
“‘That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years.'”
The ruling comes in a protracted case that began when the Defense Department announced a new policy in October permitting the revocation of Pentagon credentials for collecting and reporting information it deemed unauthorized.
After Friedman ruled in March that the policy was unconstitutional, the Department of Defense came back with a new policy that, among other restrictions, mandated reporters be escorted by Defense Department personnel at all times within the Pentagon.
The Trump administration has argued that the new requirements are for national security purposes. By limiting access and requiring escorts, the Department of Defense said it could prevent the gathering and public disclosure of what it calls classified national security information and controlled unclassified information.
The Times then challenged the revised policy, with the court again siding against the Defense Department, which appealed, seeking only a limited stay pending appeal to allow the implementation of only the escort requirement.
In late April, a divided three-judge appeals panel granted the Trump administration’s emergency request, finding that it was likely to succeed in showing that the escort requirement was not within the scope of the lower court’s original order, without weighing the merits of the case. The Times then filed a new, second lawsuit challenging the Pentagon’s escort policy.
The Pentagon on Wednesday said it “strongly disagrees” with the court and will appeal the decision.
In a statement, Sean Parnell, chief Pentagon spokesperson, argued that the removal of the escort policy will make it easier for “sensitive and classified information to reach our adversaries.”
“Unescorted access to the Pentagon allowed journalists to observe activity patterns and develop relationships that contributed to repeated unauthorized disclosures of operational plans and intelligence,” Parnell said.
“The court’s order effectively restores that risky environment at a time when protecting our military’s secrets is more critical than ever.”
The Times argued that the policy was not only a restriction on its reporters’ First Amendment rights, but also retaliatory, an argument that Friedman said would likely succeed in court, pointing to numerous instances of Trump administration officials, including President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, insulting the newspaper and other news organizations.
UPI has contacted The Times for comment.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation celebrated the ruling online, while calling for punishment if the Trump administration tries to find another workaround to enforce its media-restriction policies.
“The DoD can’t be allowed to punish journalism or evade court orders without consequences,” it said in an online statement.
“If the Pentagon keeps trying to avoid this ruling, the court should respond with sanctions or contempt.”
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday took his maiden voyage on a new Air Force One — a retrofitted Boeing 747 worth $400 million gifted by Qatar that embeds his personality more deeply into the institution of the American presidency.
Gone is the trademark light blue hull that helped Air Force One blend into the sky. The refurbished jet is painted to Trump’s preferred color scheme of a navy blue belly and red and gold stripes. It has the luxury features that the president believes a commander-in-chief’s entourage should have — plush carpets, lie-flat seats, wood paneling and a presidential seal on the seat belts, according to reported tours of the plane.
Trump told reporters that he was proud of the luxurious plane. “You can do two things: You can low-key it, or you can show it,” he said.
Reporters are generally not permitted to take photos on the plane unless Trump is present. But on Wednesday, Trump administration staffers posted images of the plane’s interior on social media.
White House communications director Steven Cheung posted a photo of aides gathered around a circular table that had off-white place mats and leather captain’s chairs. Monica Crowley, the chief of U.S. protocol, posted a picture of herself perched on a leather couch between a pair of Air Force One throw pillows. Mounted on the wall behind her was a framed photo of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial.
The jet carried Trump to North Dakota to see the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library, its first official visitor ahead of its opening on the nation’s 250th anniversary.
The gift from the Middle Eastern power raised ethical concerns, but Trump saw the plane as a necessary replacement to the 35-year-old planes that had previously ferried him as president.
“This is a gift from a country that has treated us very well,” Trump said.
The new jet will only temporarily be in the nation’s service, as Boeing is expected to deliver in 2028 long-delayed planes that will permanently serve as Air Force One. Trump, a Republican, has said in the past that the Qatar plane would end up in a presidential library.
The Air Force has said that it did little to change the cabin layout of the plane and that it spent less than $400 million on security upgrades.
Nikhinson and Boak write for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — U.S. retaliatory strikes against Iran will continue after its forces shot down an American helicopter, President Trump said Wednesday, accusing the Islamic Republic of stringing him along over months of negotiations to end the war.
The prospect of a renewed U.S. air campaign cast fresh doubt on the viability of a ceasefire between the United States and Iran that has largely held since April, when the two sides reached a tenuous truce, pausing weeks of fighting. Trump’s decision to resume attacks comes after an exchange of fire between Israel and Iran threatened to spiral into open war over the weekend.
The administration has presented Trump with options to expand U.S. targets beyond the immediate area around the Strait of Hormuz to Iranian power plants across the country, an escalation that will open the president up to accusations he is targeting civilian infrastructure, according to a defense official familiar with the matter.
Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump encouraged the Iranians to accept a framework agreement negotiated between the two sides, and suggested that additional military action might compel Tehran to accept a final truce.
“We hit them hard yesterday, and we’re gonna hit ‘em again hard today,” Trump said. “And we’ll see what happens with the deal. We were really close to a deal, but they keep tapping us along — they keep playing us for suckers.”
The president’s remarks came a few hours after Trump posted on his social media website that Iran “will have to pay the price” for taking too long in negotiating a peace deal.
When pressed by reporters to elaborate, Trump said he meant that bombing would resume but declined to say whether that would include strikes on Iranian power plants and bridges, a threat he has repeatedly issued during the war.
The ongoing conflict, which is in its fourth month, has left a mark on the global and domestic economy. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday that inflation accelerated in May, driven by a surge in energy prices linked to the war with Iran.
The consumer price index rose 0.5% on a seasonally adjusted basis — the largest monthly increase in three years — pushing the annual inflation rate to 4.2%.
Asked whether he was concerned about the inflation numbers, Trump told reporters that the “numbers were great.”
“You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why? Because as soon as this war is over…,” Trump said, without finishing the thought.
The remark prompted near instantaneous news releases from Democratic operatives, as well as the party war room, which sent out a statement accusing Trump of mishandling a reckless war that has devastated the economy in the process.
“Donald Trump’s disastrous economic agenda and deadly and costly war with Iran have made life unbearable for millions of Americans,” Kendall Witmer, the Democratic National Committee’s rapid response director, said in a statement.
“Working families are shouldering skyrocketing costs for basic goods, with their wages being eaten up by Trump’s soaring inflation,” she added. “On the campaign trail, Trump promised to ‘defeat inflation,’ and to lower costs on ‘Day One,’ but two years later, Trump can’t get a handle on his war of choice with Iran as he tanks the economy back home.”
Trump then told reporters about a secret military mission to ensure safe passage for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important commercial waterways. He said the operation had secured the passage of more than 100 million barrels of oil through the strait since it began.
“We took out, the other night, 22 ships late at night with no lights because they don’t have any radar because we blasted the crap out of it,” Trump said.
A couple of hours later, Trump wrote in another post that the military operation had been “wildly successful,” and that it proved the United States — not Iran — was in control of the Strait of Hormuz.
“Their military is defeated, and their economy is lost,” he wrote. “It’s over for Iran!”
Over months of diplomacy with Iran, Trump has sought to avoid a return to conflict, often seeking de-escalation when fighting has flared — and repeatedly pressuring Israel to minimize its attacks in Lebanon, where it continues to battle the militant group Hezbollah, a proxy of Iran.
Israeli strikes continued Wednesday, according to local news reports, while Hezbollah said it carried out attacks on Israeli troops stationed in southern Lebanon.
Speaking to journalists in the Oval Office, the president implied he was losing patience with Iranian tactics at the negotiating table.
“I gave them a break, at the request of Pakistan,” he said. “They still are working on trying them to do what’s right. But we want a deal that’s meaningful. We want a deal that works.”
“It was just tap, tap, tap,” the president added. “I don’t know what they’re doing.”
As President Trump pushed unfounded allegations that California’s elections are rigged, the security of the ballot box became a major flash point in the state’s 2026 race for governor on Tuesday.
Republican Steve Hilton called for major reforms to how Californians cast ballots and how their votes are tallied, while sidestepping questions about the president’s claims that the state’s elections officials “were cheating.” Democrat Xavier Becerra defended the integrity of the state’s elections and argued that proposed restrictions would disenfranchise many voters.
The men appeared less than 20 miles apart in Southern California one week after a contentious primary election that prompted Trump to repeatedly make unfounded claims about the integrity of California’s slow vote-counting process, allegations triggered as Democrat Nithya Raman was about to overtake Republican Spencer Pratt for second place in the race for Los Angeles mayor.
Hilton, whose endorsement from Trump pushed him to the front of the GOP gubernatorial field, said he has not seen any evidence of impropriety in this month’s election results.
“We’re very, very focused on making sure that everything’s OK,” Hilton told reporters in Norwalk. “We’ve got teams standing by, we’ve got lawyers standing by, very focused on that. We don’t want to let anyone down, we don’t want to let anything slip away, and we’ve seen nothing.”
The two men emerged from a crowded field of candidates in the most unpredictable governor’s race in more than a quarter of a century. While Becerra on Friday nabbed a spot in the June 2 primary and will advance to the November general election, Hilton has not officially been declared a victor by the Associated Press, as of Tuesday afternoon.
Hilton, however, appears on the cusp of clinching the second spot on the ballot. Billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer is in third place in the current ballot tally, and the odds of him overtaking Hilton appear increasingly unlikely.
“I’m very pleased to say that we remain confident that I will make it into the top two and that California will have a real choice for change in November,” Hilton said at a news conference outside the Los Angeles County elections headquarters. “We’re not popping the champagne yet, but we’re very confident.”
Hilton called for electoral reform, including supporting a voter identification requirement that will appear on the November ballot, ending mail ballots being sent to every registered voter, no longer counting ballots that are received after election day — all of which are being pushed by Trump — and increasing resources at county vote counting centers.
“Voter ID [is] not the only thing, but it’s the biggest, quickest, simplest thing we can do to restore faith in the system and to have these elections completed quickly in a way that inspires confidence, and that’s why I hope that Xavier Becerra will join me in campaigning for it, so we can have a united front,” the former Fox News commentator and British political strategist told reporters.
Hilton did not directly address Trump’s unfounded claims of voter fraud in California. However, he noted that Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, has the full resources of the Department of Justice and has found no proof of wrongdoing.
Essayli said Monday on NewsNation that his office is investigating voter fraud but doesn’t have a case. However, the voter rolls need to be audited, Essayli told host Chris Cuomo.
“That, to me, is the best way to alleviate most of people’s suspicion. We have a system that breeds skepticism and distrust,” Essayli said. “We should have a little transparency and confidence in our system.”
Becerra, a longtime elected official and a former Biden administration Cabinet secretary, questioned whether Hilton could be trusted to protect the state against Trump’s fraud claims.
“That’s who’s endorsing Steve Hilton,” Becerra told reporters at a South Los Angeles food hall, referring to Trump. “That’s who Steve Hilton is aligning himself with.”
Becerra, who was met with cheers of “Si se puede!” from diners, criticized the proposed voter ID ballot measure, arguing that it would create hurdles for many Californians to participate in the democratic electoral process. Led by Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio from San Diego and others, the measure would require elections officials to verify that voters are U.S. citizens to be eligible to cast ballots.
“I’m against voter suppression. I’m against anything that would try to limit a Californian’s right to vote,” said Becerra, who formerly served as California’s attorney general.
Told by reporters that Hilton wanted Becerra to campaign for the ballot initiative, Becerra responded, “Come join me here, where the real people are,” gesturing toward the packed food hall.
Becerra acknowledged his concern over the lengthy time that it takes to count votes in California. He suggested one issue is a lack of workers and equipment at county vote-counting centers.
Another problem is that the “votes get backlogged” because so many people wait until the end of the election to cast ballots, he said, likening last-minute voters to shoppers who go to Costco at the end of the day.
“If you wait till 7:00 p.m. when they’re getting ready to close, you’re probably gonna find more people there,” Becerra said.
The attacks on the elections process by Trump and his supporters appear to have a major effect on people’s confidence in the system. For years, Trump has made baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, which led his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were scheduled to certify the election results. Additionally, Trump’s allegations about California’s elections, as well as an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling about ballot tallying, could have a significant effect on the midterm elections that will decide which party controls Congress for the final two years of Trump’s presidency.
A poll released Friday by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley found that 41% of California voters were “not confident” that this year’s elections would be free of federal interference. Although 48% had confidence that there would be no meddling, the concerns expressed were still significant, said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the institute.
Among Democratic registered voters, 79% said they trusted elections officials to provide an accurate vote count. Among Republicans, 55% said they were not confident that would occur, the survey found.
After a complete shakeup at CBS’ “60 Minutes,” ousted correspondent Cecilia Vega said she had been facing pressure to insert political bias into her stories and dealing with censorship.
“I very much fear what comes next for … the future of the legendary broadcast,” Vega said in a social media post on Thursday referring to “60 Minutes.”
The latest shakeup follows multiple controversial moves by Weiss, who’s set on remaking the institution long defined by tradition. She arrived at CBS News in October with no television experience, installed by Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison after he acquired her digital news outlet, the Free Press, with a mandate to change the network.
Ellison’s pronouncements that CBS News needs to move more to the political center has led to the perception that the network is trying to placate Trump with more positive news coverage, even as “60 Minutes” has remained tough with its White House reporting.
“Our responsibility is to preserve that legacy and vital mission by building a show that thrives in the 21st century,” wrote Weiss in her note to staff. “That requires a new approach: expanding ’60 Minutes’ beyond a one-hour television broadcast, deepening its role across CBS News.”
Vega claims, in her statement, that “in recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories.” She also said that reporting teams are holding back on submitting specific story pitches, due to the “fear of the internal repercussions.”
“Let’s call this what it is: censorship, both imposed and self-driven,” Vega wrote. “It is dangerous for the show and dangerous for democracy.”
She said that in working at “60 Minutes” she’s had to keep stories rooted in fact and away from “questionable editorial suggestions.”
“I know from many conversations with colleagues that many producing teams and correspondents working on the show today have had to fight to maintain editorial independence with regularity,” Vega said. “I am far from the only ’60 Minutes’ correspondent who has asked herself, ‘What is my personal red line? How much can I push back before I pay the price?’”
In a statement, a CBS News representative said, “We respect Ms. Vega and her contributions, but her claims are not based in reality.”
Vega joined the newsmagazine in 2023, becoming the program’s first Latina correspondent. Before that, she worked for over a decade at ABC as the network’s chief White House correspondent and co-anchoring “Good Morning America.”
Several journalists like ABC’s John Quiñones and former Univision anchor Jorge Ramos offered words of support for Vega’s remarks. Quiñones commented, “Journalism is stronger because of your voice, your courage and your story-telling, Cecilia,” and Ramos wrote in Spanish that he respects and admires her.
WASHINGTON — For much of President Trump’s second term, Republican senators have largely stayed in line, wary of the consequences of defying a president with a history of targeting those who cross him. This week, that dynamic noticeably shifted.
Senate Republicans blocked two of Trump’s legislative priorities, angered by the push to create a $1.8-billion federal fund to compensate people who claim to have been politically persecuted, including rioters who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The revolt forced Republican leaders to pull a planned vote on legislation to fund the president’s immigration crackdown and security features for the president’s White House ballroom project.
In response, the president defended the fund and lashed out at its critics.
“I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE”!
The president also called Republican senators who broke with him quitters who are “screwing the Republican Party.”
The friction, which has been building for weeks, is being watched as potential test to the limits of Trump’s grip on his party amid an already tense political environment heading into the midterm elections.
“This is kind of a perfect storm,” former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It may be that this time you can point to it and say this is when the great migration begins, away from some of the president’s policies and away from the fear that the president can target you.”
Whether this week marks the beginning of that moment — or simply another episode of political turbulence that fades — is the central question now handing over Trump’s second term.
Not the first break — but an escalation
This is not the first time Republicans have broken with the president. In November, Congress overwhelmingly voted to force the Justice Department to release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, an effort that Trump unsuccessfully tried to thwart for months.
The Epstein vote showed that on the right issue, under the right circumstances, Republicans could be moved to defy Trump. This week, the creation of the fund changed the circumstances again, and the number of Republican senators willing to act quickly grew.
This moment comes after months of rising costs during the war in Iran, efforts by the president to oust members of his own party and now a set of proposals that are proving hard to defend in an election year.
“What you have is basically a bunch of people who feel a bit under siege,” said Bob Olinksy, the senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress. “At the same time, they know that most of what the president is doing is unpopular, and they’re the ones who are going to be standing for reelection in November.”
Republicans push back
Senate Republicans leaders are now asking the Department of Justice to reconsider the terms of the fund, underscoring just how politically toxic the idea has become within the president’s own party.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told reporters that the politically speaking, the fund is “unexplainable.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told the New York Times the fund should be in real trouble. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) called the fund “utterly stupid” and “morally wrong.”
Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican whom Trump has singled out for going against him, was equally unsparing, saying he opposed “using billions of taxpayer dollars to compensate convicted felons and thugs who attacked police.” He also criticized the administration for pushing domestic and foreign policy issues that he says are bad for housing and the military.
“If opposing these things makes me a RINO [Republican In Name Only], then I gladly accept that nickname,” Tillis wrote on X. “We need Republicans to do well in November, but the stupid stuff is killing our chances!”
The Republican push back comes as the concern about self-dealing runs deep across the electorate.
A recent poll Economist/YouGov poll found that 59% of Americans believe Trump is using his office for personal gain, though that belief is sharply divided among partisan lines. A CNN poll found that 37% of Americans say Trump puts the good of the country above his personal gain, while 32% say he is in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans.
Asked if the political environment influenced the actions this week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that there is a “political component to everything we do around here.”
Funds and tax immunity clauses
Senate Democrats are wondering if the fund will mark a watershed moment for Republicans.
“Have Republicans finally found a bridge too far?” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters after Republicans left Washington without funding Trump’s priorities.
Democrats have called the fund an illegal abuse of power designed to line the pockets of Trump’s allies with taxpayer dollars. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) called it a “pure theft of public funds.”
The fund was created as part of a settlement resolving a $10-billion lawsuit Trump personally brought against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Alongside it, the deal says the IRS is “forever barred and precluded” from pursuing any tax claims against Trump and his businesses.
The fund, however, has been the target of most of the bipartisan ire. Mostly because Trump and administration officials have not ruled out that it could stand to benefit people who carried out violence during the Jan. 6 riot.
The public funds, if disbursed, would come from the federal judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payouts. In the past, Republicans have taken issue with the fund. The GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee characterized it an abuse in 2017.
Several of the president’s allies have already talked about tapping into the fund.
Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and later pardoned by Trump, told CBS News he would seek a payout from the fund.
“I was targeted,” Tarrio said. “And I do believe that this fund does apply to me.”
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s grip on his party slipped on Thursday as anger boiled over among Senate Republicans about a growing list of issues.
In a striking display of defiance, GOP senators abruptly derailed plans to vote on legislation to fund Trump’s immigration crackdown amid deep disagreements over security funding for a White House ballroom and a $1.8-billion fund to pay people who claim to have been politically persecuted.
The discontent had been building for weeks. Many senators had grown frustrated over Trump’s decision to endorse candidates running against longtime Republican incumbents.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged the concerns over the fund Thursday after a reportedly contentious private meeting about it between Senate Republicans and acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. He also conceded midterm politics had added to the tension.
“It’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us,” Thune told reporters. “You can’t disconnect those things.”
A day earlier, Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who lost his primary race on Saturday to a Trump-backed challenger, expressed strong disagreement with the creation of the fund, which would be controlled by appointees without congressional oversight.
“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” Cassidy wrote on X. “If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also had harsh criticism for the fund.
“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick,” he said in a statement.
The discord was striking, partly because Republicans have largely steered clear of checking the president’s power, and Congress has been largely sidelined under the second Trump administration on the war in Iran and other issues.
“I don’t think the Republicans had any choice but to pull the plug until we come back in June, because they’re facing a bit of a mutiny within their conference,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times, saying he had heard that the meeting between Blanche and Republicans “didn’t go well.”
As tension simmered on the background, Trump seemed unbothered by the group of Republicans’ public rebellion against his agenda. When asked whether he was losing control of the Senate, he said he didn’t know.
“I only do what is right,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.
However, he expressed annoyance at lawmakers who would not support $1 billion in federal funding for security costs related to the ballroom project. He said the structure is being privately funded by him and other “great patriots.”
“We are making a gift to the United States,” Trump said. “This is being made as a gift from me and other people that are great patriots and spent a lot of money. We are building what will be the finest ballroom anywhere in the world.”
The $1 billion for security funding would be “very much a good expenditure,” he said. If Congress does not sign off on the money, Trump said the “White House won’t be a very secure place.”
Trump did not immediately comment on Thursday about the Senate’s delaying of the funding bill. The White House declined to comment on the matter.
Trump’s second-term actions have frequently tested the loyalty of Republican lawmakers, who have largely stayed in line. The settlement fund, with its ethical questions, appears to have crossed a line for some senators in a party that has traditionally opposed wasting taxpayer funds.
The money comes from the judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payments.
Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump, told reporters at the White House that the $1.8-billion settlement was “just a small measure of the justice” that many people are owed after being targeted by the federal government. Miller declined to say whether the White House was reaching out to senators to ease concerns about the fund.
Republicans in Congress decried the use of similar third-party settlements during the Obama administration, with House lawmakers repeatedly passing a bill aimed at stopping settlement slush funds, noted Molly Nixon, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Though the Trump administration’s plan is novel because the settlement money isn’t going to a third party, the general concept has been offensive to Republicans in the past; the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee termed it an abuse in 2017.
“If you’re taking a consistent view, you’d be at least equally as opposed to this settlement,” Nixon said of Republican lawmakers.
That could be driving some of the opposition now, along with concerns about who is going to get the money and whether it could be distributed to people who wouldn’t have been able to make a successful case before a court of law, Nixon said.
“The fund is going to plaintiffs who were victims of lawfare or weaponization. … Those are pretty ambiguous terms. They’re sort of in the eye of the beholder,” Nixon said. “It’s pretty easy to see how this could very easily become a quiet political claims process.”
Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot have already filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the creation of the fund, arguing in part that it would compensate extremist convicted of committing violent crimes.
“The fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches,” the lawsuit says.
When Trump returned to office in January 2025, one of his first acts was pardoning or commuting the prison sentences of the 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack. Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday did not rule out that settlement money could go to those rioters, saying the money would be given out on a “case-by-case basis.”
Thune told reporters on Thursday that the Justice Department would have to come up with some guardrails to ease concerns among senators.
“We need to get some clarity,” he said.
Though the number of Republicans angry with Trump is significant enough to make or break legislation, the caucus appeared far from falling apart.
Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Thursday to pass a bill to prohibit federal funds from reaching Jan. 6 rioters, an attempt to prevent the fund from being used to compensate them.
“I’m encouraged hearing some of my Republican colleagues agreeing with me,” Padilla said on the Senate floor. “Let’s stand up for congressional oversight as a unified Senate.”
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) objected to Padilla’s bill, later writing on X: “PROUD to object today to Senator Padilla’s RIDICULOUS bill and stand up for ALL FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS.”
Schiff, who is working on an amendment that would target the fund, said other Republican colleagues he spoke to Wednesday evening were unhappy with the position Trump has put them in. He said Trump’s actions have helped underscore Democrats’ arguments against his party.
“All [it’s] doing is helping us make the case that the Republicans couldn’t care less about people’s cost of living … that there’s plenty of money for golden ballrooms for the president, there’s plenty of money for the president’s cronies, but there’s no money for the average family,” Schiff said.
NEW LONDON, Conn. — President Trump told the U.S. Coast Guard Academy’s graduates on Wednesday that they show “unbelievable heroism and exceptional selflessness” but that the cadets will “be tested further” as they embark on their military careers.
Trump’s remarks to the class of 2026 were the first time he has given a commencement address at one of the nation’s military academies after sending U.S. troops to fight a new war.
He told the cadets that they will be America’s “first defenders” and “first responders.”
“You’ve all been tested. You’ll be tested further and probably at higher levels as your career goes on,” Trump said.
During his address, Trump quickly touched on the war with Iran, now in its 12th week, as a sign of U.S. success from “the hottest country anywhere in the world.”
“The only question is, do we go ahead and finish it up or are they going to be signing a document? Let’s see what happens,” Trump said.
The Republican president had threatened to launch renewed strikes on Iran this week as talks with Tehran seemed to have stalled and a fragile ceasefire appeared to be teetering. But Trump on Monday said he was giving Iran a few more days because “serious negotiations” were underway.
He has not offered details and has in the past backed away from following through on threats to Iran, citing breakthroughs in talks that have not publicly materialized.
Earlier Wednesday, he told reporters that he’s “in no hurry” to strike a deal to wrap up the war because of political concerns and the November midterm elections.
The commencement was held on a day with scorching heat and there was little shade available as the crowd waited for the ceremony to begin.
At least one person required medical attention after passing out. Others pleaded with organizers for elderly attendants to sit in the shade under tents. Chilled water bottles were distributed freely but quickly became warm.
Trump, who spoke at the academy’s graduation in 2017 during his first term, said he was proud to be the first president to give two commencement addresses at the school.
“We’re going to have to try it maybe a third time, too, to keep that record intact,” Trump said Wednesday.
The president and vice president traditionally speak at one of the military service academies every year. Vice President JD Vance is set to give the commencement address on May 28 at the U.S. Air Force Academy.
Before he flew to Connecticut, Trump told reporters that his message to the cadets would be, “Just enjoy your life.”
“You know, you don’t really realize how important Coast Guard is until you have a hurricane,” Trump said as he praised the maritime service.
Price and Kruesi write for the Associated Press. Price reported from Washington.
WASHINGTON — Shouting over the banging and clanging sounds from heavy construction equipment, President Trump on Tuesday gave a group of reporters a closer look at the construction for the White House ballroom he’s building on the site of the former East Wing to mount a defense for the project that has hit a speed bump in Congress.
The administration has asked for $1 billion from taxpayers for security additions on the White House campus, including for the ballroom. But the Senate parliamentarian ruled the proposal could not be included in a bill to fund immigrant enforcement agencies for three years, and several Republican lawmakers have balked at the price tag in an election year where voters are grappling with gasoline, grocery and other prices spurred to new heights by the Iran war and the disruption in oil supplies.
So Trump, ever the pitchman, surprised White House reporters by bringing them to a platform overlooking the construction site on a hot and breezy morning as workers in hard hats and fluorescent yellow vests milled about below.
Easels were set up to display renderings of the ballroom building and at least one of them blew off in the wind. “Give that to me, I’ll hold it,” Trump told an assistant.
“There will never be another building like this built, that I can tell you,” Trump told reporters.
He highlighted the security aspects of the building, notably its “dead flat” roof made of “very strong steel” and said it is “drone-proof” because “if a drone hits it, it bounces off, it won’t have any impact — but it’s also meant as a drone port, so it protects all of Washington, the roof of the building.”
He said the military will “stay on it” to keep watch over the city.
There’s no air conditioning or other equipment on the roof for safety reasons, Trump said, explaining that all duct work and equipment like it was hidden within the walls of the complex, which will serve as a “shield” for a military hospital, research facilities, offices for the first lady and her staff, and a full-service kitchen — in addition to a ballroom big enough for 1,000 people.
He said the ballroom building goes down six stories underground and is really “complex” because “everything is intertwined.”
“The roof goes with the ground floor, the ground floor goes with the roof. The roof also goes down into the basement,” the president said. “This is one well-knit building. One thing doesn’t work without the other.”
Trump says the ballroom is a ‘gift’ to the country
He reiterated that the $400-million ballroom cost will be covered by donors, including him, and that the work is being done “in strict coordination” with the military and U.S. Secret Service.
“This is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer,” Trump said. “This is a gift to the United States of America.”
But it’s somewhat of an unwanted present as polling shows most Americans oppose the ballroom, which is embroiled in litigation in federal court. A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted in April found that a majority, 56%, of U.S. adults oppose Trump’s decision to tear down the East Wing to make way for the ballroom, while only 28% are in support.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to halt construction until Congress approves plans for the building.
Trump insisted he will have “very little” time to use the ballroom. He recently announced that it will be ready in September 2028, less than six months before his term ends.
“This is really for other presidents,” he said.
Trump sidestepped a question about whether he’ll kick in any more of his own money if Congress rejects the $1-billion funding request.
White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said Trump’s tour was not in response to the difficulties brewing in Congress. “President Trump is the most transparent president of all time and was excited to showcase to the press and American people the amazing gift he is giving to the White House and generations of future presidents to come,” Ingle said.
Trump also touched on some of the other beautification projects he’s undertaking across the city, such as restarting dormant park fountains. He claimed to be spending much less to clean up the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool than did his immediate predecessors — both Democrats.
“I’m doing a job on the Reflecting Lake for a fraction of what they paid,” Trump said. He’s having the surface coated in a shade of blue and wants to reopen it by July 4. A separate nonprofit group, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, has sued to halt this project.
BEIJING — President Trump arrived in Beijing on Wednesday for his hotly anticipated talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the Iran war, trade and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
The meat of the summit doesn’t start until Thursday, when the leaders hold bilateral talks, visit the Temple of Heaven, where Chinese emperors once prayed for bumper crops, and take part in a formal banquet. But the Chinese offered Trump a pomp-filled welcome, literally rolling out the red carpet for him after Air Force One landed in the Chinese capital.
The president was greeted by Chinese Vice President Han Zheng; Xie Feng, China’s ambassador to Washington; Ma Zhaoxu, executive vice minister of foreign affairs; and the U.S. envoy to Beijing, David Perdue.
The welcoming ceremony included a military honor guard, a military band and some 300 Chinese youths waving Chinese and American flags and chanting, “Welcome, welcome! Warm welcome!” as Trump made his way to his waiting limousine. The youth greeters were decked out in white and robin’s egg blue outfits that matched the paint job of the iconic presidential plane.
President Trump walks with China’s Vice President Han Zheng during an arrival ceremony Wednesday at Beijing Capital International Airport, as Eric and Lara Trump, Elon Musk, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer follow.
(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)
“We’re the two superpowers,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House on Tuesday for the long flight to Beijing. “We’re the strongest nation on Earth in terms of military. China’s considered second.”
While Trump likes to project a sense of strength, the visit occurs at a delicate moment for his presidency as his popularity at home has been weighed down by the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran and rising inflation as a consequence of that conflict. The Republican president is seeking a win by signing deals with China to buy more American soybeans, beef and aircraft, saying he’ll be talking with Xi about trade “more than anything else.”
The Trump administration hopes to begin establishing a Board of Trade with China to address differences between the countries. The board could help prevent the trade war ignited last year after Trump’s tariff hikes, an action China countered through its control of rare earth minerals. That led to a one-year truce last October.
But Trump is visiting Beijing when Iran continues to dominate his domestic agenda. The war has led to the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, stranding oil and natural gas tankers and causing energy prices to spike to levels that could sabotage global economic growth. The U.S. president declared that Xi didn’t need to assist in resolving the conflict, even though Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was in Beijing last week.
Fellow rescuers carry the coffins of two members of the civil defense who were reportedly killed in Israeli airstrikes in Nabatieh the previous day, during their funeral in the southern city of Sidon on May 13, 2026. Israel hammered south Lebanon with strikes on May 12 ahead of talks between the two countries in Washington, as Beirut reported 380 people killed in Israeli attacks since an April 17 ceasefire took effect.
(Mahmoud Zayyat/AFP via Getty Images)
“We have a lot of things to discuss. I wouldn’t say Iran is one of them, to be honest with you, because we have Iran very much under control,” Trump told reporters Tuesday.
Taiwan high on the agenda
The status of Taiwan also will be a major topic as China is displeased with U.S. plans to sell weapons to the self-governing island, which the Chinese government claims as part of its own territory.
Trump told reporters on Monday that he would be discussing with Xi an $11 billion weapons package for Taiwan that the U.S. administration authorized in December but has not yet begun fulfilling. The arms package is the largest ever approved for Taiwan.
But Trump has demonstrated greater ambivalence toward Taiwan, an approach that’s raising questions about whether the U.S. leader could be open to dialing back support for the island democracy.
The Taiwanese flag at Democracy Boulevard is lowered at the end of the day as the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is seen in the background in Taipei on May 13, 2026.
(I-Hwa Cheng/AFP via Getty Images)
At the same time, Taiwan — as the world’s leading chipmaker — has become essential for the development of artificial intelligence, with the U.S. importing more goods so far this year from Taiwan than China. Trump has sought to use Biden-era programs and his own deals to bring more chipmaking to America.
The Chinese Communist Party’s news outlet, People’s Daily, published a strongly worded editorial ahead of Trump’s arrival underscoring that Taiwan is “the first red line that cannot be crossed in China-U.S. relations” and is “the biggest point of risk” between the two nations.
Trump was already portraying the trip as a success before he even left White House grounds. He openly mused about Xi’s planned reciprocal visit to the U.S. later this year, lamenting that the White House ballroom under construction would not be completed in time to properly fete the Chinese leader.
“We’re going to have a great relationship for many, many decades to come,” Trump said of the U.S. and China.
Counter snipers and other security forces watch over Air Force One while refueling at Joint Base Elmendorf during a trip with US President Donald J. Trump in Anchorage, Alaska, on May 12, 2026. Donald Trump was due in Beijing on May 13, 2026 on the first visit to China by a US president in nearly a decade, as he seeks to ramp up trade despite potential friction over Taiwan and Iran.
(Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
Trump embarked on Air Force One for the big meeting with a coterie of aides, family members and business world titans, including Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Tesla and SpaceX’s Elon Musk. While en route to Beijing, he posted on social media that his “first request” to Xi during the visit will be to ask the Chinese leader to bolster the presence of U.S. firms in China.
“I will be asking President Xi, a Leader of extraordinary distinction, to ‘open up’ China so that these brilliant people can work their magic, and help bring the People’s Republic to an even higher level!” Trump wrote.
Tajikistan’s President Emomali Rahmon and China’s President Xi Jinping attend a welcoming ceremony at the Great Hall of the People on Tuesday, in Beijing.
(Maxim Shemetov—Pool / Getty Images)
Despite Trump’s outward confidence, China appears to be entering the meeting from “a much stronger place,” said Scott Kennedy, a senior adviser on Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
China would like to reduce tech restrictions on accessing computer chips and find ways to reduce tariffs, among other goals.
“But even if they don’t get much on any of those things, as long as there’s not a blow-up in the meeting and President Trump doesn’t go away and look to re-escalate, China basically comes out stronger,” Kennedy said.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng met on Wednesday to discuss economic and trade issues at Incheon International Airport, just west of the South Korean capital of Seoul, according to the Chinese state run Xinhua News Agency.
Bystanders are kept back by police tape as they film the motorcade of President Donald Trump as he arrives at the Four Seasons Hotel on Wednesday in Beijing.
(Kevin Frayer / Getty Images)
Trump wants 3-way nuclear arms deal
Trump also intends to raise the idea of the U.S., China and Russia signing a pact that would set limits on the nuclear weapons each nation keeps in its arsenal, according to a senior Trump administration official who briefed reporters ahead of the trip. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House.
China has previously been cool to entering such a pact. Beijing’s arsenal, according to Pentagon estimates, exceeds more than 600 operational nuclear warheads and is far from parity with the U.S. and Russia, which each are estimated to have more than 5,000 nuclear warheads.
The last nuclear arms pact, known as the New START treaty, between Russia and the United States expired in February, removing any caps on the two largest atomic arsenals for the first time in more than a half-century. As the treaty was set to expire, Trump rejected a call by Russia to extend the two-country deal for another year and called for “a new, improved, and modernized” deal that includes China.
The Pentagon estimates China will have more than 1,000 operational nuclear warheads by 2030.
Madhani, Weissert and Boak write for the Associated Press. Boak reported from Washington. AP writers Darlene Superville in Washington, Huizhong Wu in Bangkok, Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul, South Korea, and Kanis Leung in Hong Kong contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — More than 60 days into his war with Iran, well past public deadlines he had set for its end, President Trump sat through a briefing from U.S. Central Command outlining yet another set of options for a fresh round of strikes.
On offer Thursday were unpalatable choices for a president eager to move on from the conflict he started. Renewed U.S. attacks risk inflaming the war beyond Trump’s control, undermining a fragile ceasefire for which American allies fought hard. But the very need for such a briefing underscored how difficult a position the president has found himself in.
A legal deadline for congressional authorization arrived Friday that threatens to increase pressure on the administration — and underscore lagging support for the most unpopular U.S. war in modern times. Global oil prices remain above $100 a barrel entering the midterm election season. And a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran appears nowhere in sight.
Signs pointed to another U.S. military buildup in the region this week that could portend a fresh round of fighting. A U.S. Defense official familiar with the matter said the U.S. military has used the weeks-long pause to replenish its munitions. So, too, have the Iranians, who have reportedly increased their efforts to dig out stockpiles of missiles and drones buried by U.S. and Israeli strikes.
“Amateurs look at strategy; pros look at logistics,” said Robert Pape, a professor of international relations at the University of Chicago. “I have seen more buildup of force — actual firepower, with the addition of a third aircraft carrier, and logistics — than we’ve seen since the beginning of the war in February. So there’s been a notable change in the past week.”
The logistical surge appears to be a stream of Boeing C-17 military transport aircraft making their way to the region, alongside the addition of a third aircraft carrier. Only two carriers were in place when Trump first launched the war Feb. 28.
“That’s a pretty good sign that they’re mobilizing,” Pape added. “These are strategic and operational indicators. I would imagine they’re looking for a sharp knock.”
More than 10,000 Marines from expeditionary units are now in theater, giving Trump the option to launch limited ground operations, such as seizing a small stretch of coastline or initiating an assault on Kharg Island, the hub of Iran’s oil industry.
Occupying Iranian territory could provide the Trump administration with leverage in negotiations with Tehran. But it would also carry significant domestic political risks. A clear majority of Americans — including many Republicans — oppose a ground war.
More troops would be necessary to hold ground for any substantial period of time, experts said.
“I do have the impression, from some of the briefings that I have received as well as other sources, that an imminent military strike is very much on the table,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, told CNN.
Departing Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters that a “very disjointed” Iranian government, torn internally over whether to agree to a nuclear deal with the Americans, had put his administration “in a bad position,” uncertain whom to negotiate with or whether any agreement it might strike would be enforced.
“Right now we have negotiations going on. They’re not getting there,” Trump said. “They want to make a deal, but I’m not satisfied with it. So we’ll see what happens.”
And yet, the longer talks continue, the more pain Americans can expect to feel as global energy and fertilizer prices continue to skyrocket over disrupted commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, affecting the costs of pocketbook items ranging from food and fuel to airfare.
Trump hopes a brief new round of powerful strikes, potentially targeting Iranian infrastructure, will force Iran’s hard-liners to support a negotiated settlement — a gambit that could backfire, after an inaugural volley of strikes in the war killed off the government’s moderate voices, empowering the militant leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“Do we want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish them forever, or do we want to try and make a deal?” Trump asked, speaking with reporters on the South Lawn. “I mean, those are the options.”
In a letter addressed to Congress, Trump dismissed a 60-day deadline for congressional authorization for the war set forth in the War Powers Act, claiming the ceasefire with Iran had effectively stopped the clock on the administration’s legal responsibilities. Democrats argue that an ongoing U.S. blockade of Iranian ports constitutes an act of war that, absent a formal diplomatic agreement, requires congressional approval.
Speaking with reporters, Trump offered a less nuanced explanation.
“It’s never been used, it’s never been adhered to,” Trump said of the act. “Every other president considered it totally unconstitutional, and we agree with that.”
The internal debate over resuming the war comes after Pentagon officials informed Congress this week that the conflict, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, had cost taxpayers $25 billion thus far.
Pete Hegseth, the president’s secretary of Defense, defended the effort at a congressional hearing Wednesday, telling lawmakers that the United States was “absolutely” winning the war.
“Militarily,” Hegseth said, “on the battlefield, it’s been an astounding military success.”
He declined to say whether he had advised the president to launch the war in the first place.
