Trumps

US President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as the nation’s top intelligence official, Jay Clayton, evaded directly stating that Trump lost the 2020 election. During his Senate confirmation hearing Clayton said only that Biden had been ‘certified’ as president, adding ‘I am not an election denier’.

Nightly strikes between the US and Iran have been the heaviest since the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement was signed a month ago. A former US ambassador tells Al Jazeera’s ‘This is America’ that Tehran has miscalculated in thinking that Trump would back down.

United States President Donald Trump is promising “really big news” in a rare primetime address on Thursday night, though he won’t say exactly what it is.

The surprise speech was announced on Tuesday. But when pressed by reporters about what he planned to talk about, Trump only revealed that the speech would be about elections and “a couple of other things”.

“It doesn’t get bigger, because without free and fair elections, you don’t have a country,” he told journalists in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

Asked to elaborate, Trump said he wanted to “save it” for the speech.

“We’ll be discussing other things, too,” he added. “It’s going to be a very big announcement.”

The White House has since confirmed that the address will focus on elections, including information related to the 2020 presidential election, which Trump has falsely claimed he won.

The speech is also expected to discuss what the White House describes as vulnerabilities in US voting machines.

Here’s what we know about the upcoming primetime presidential address.

When is Trump’s speech?

Trump is expected to speak from the White House on Thursday at 9pm US Eastern Time (01:00 GMT Friday).

How can you watch it?

Major US television networks are expected to carry the address live. The Trump administration has requested airtime from major broadcasters.

It will also be livestreamed on WhiteHouse.gov and on the White House’s YouTube page.

Why is the timing significant?

Trump’s speech comes three and a half months before the November 3 midterm elections.

At stake is control over the US Congress. Currently, Trump’s Republican Party holds slim majorities in both of Congress’s chambers.

But Democrats are seeking to tip the balance in their favour, leveraging backlash to Trump’s second term.

Critics fear Trump may use his primetime address to erode voter confidence in the upcoming elections, or to assert federal influence over election administration, which is run at the state and local level.

There is also speculation that Trump may be angling to fire up his base amid drooping poll numbers. The research firm YouGov suggested this month that more than 57 percent of US voters disapprove of the president’s second-term performance so far.

What is Trump expected to talk about?

So far, much remains unknown about Thursday’s speech.

Administration officials say Trump will discuss newly declassified intelligence connected to its investigations into the 2020 presidential election.

They have also suggested that Trump will discuss alleged vulnerabilities in voting machines that could allow foreign cyber intrusions.

Trump has revealed little else. When asked this week whether the speech would focus on voting machine integrity, he replied simply: “It will concern that subject.”

What happened in the 2020 elections?

Trump was a first-term incumbent when he ran for a second term in the 2020 presidential election.

He faced Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who had previously served as vice president under Barack Obama.

Biden defeated Trump, winning both the Electoral College vote – which determines the presidency – and the popular vote, an important symbolic metric.

The Democrat scooped up 306 Electoral College votes and more than 81 million individual ballots, compared with 232 Electoral College votes and 74 million ballots for Trump.

Critically, swing states like Georgia, Michigan and Arizona voted in Biden’s favour.

After the election, Trump repeatedly rejected the results, and his supporters attacked the US Capitol during the Electoral College certification on January 6, 2021.

What is Trump’s history of questioning US elections?

Trump has spent years casting doubt on the integrity of US elections, even before 2020.

Before the 2016 election, he refused to say whether he would accept a loss to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

After winning his first term in office, he created a presidential commission to investigate his claims that he lost the popular vote due to widespread fraud. The commission was disbanded after finding no evidence to support those claims.

After losing the 2020 election, Trump repeatedly alleged that the vote had been stolen despite numerous investigations finding no evidence to support those claims.

In Georgia, he urged the state’s secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes”, the number needed to overturn Biden’s victory there.

Trump and his allies later faced two indictments – one on the state level, one on the federal level – over allegations they attempted to overturn the 2020 election results.

The federal case was dropped when Trump was re-elected in 2024, in accordance with Department of Justice norms not to prosecute a sitting president.

The state-level case, meanwhile, fell apart after Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting the case.

Trump, however, has continued to assert he was the rightful winner of the 2020 race, despite there being no evidence to support the claim.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a federal cybersecurity watchdog, has called the 2020 election “the most secure in American history”.

Investigations, including several by Trump allies, have produced no evidence that vote-machine rigging or foreign cyber intrusions changed the outcome.

What has the administration done lately to advance Trump’s 2020 claims?

In January, FBI agents descended upon Fulton County, Georgia, to execute a search warrant to collect election materials related to the 2020 race.

Officials in Fulton County, which contains the state capital, Atlanta, have protested against the search and called for the return of the confidential election materials.

They have also claimed they were not given an inventory of what was taken.

An FBI memo obtained by US media this month indicates the agency has diverted hundreds of agents to the case, which officials say is about “irregularities that occurred during the 2020 presidential election”.

Trump has called on Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, to declassify documents related to the 2020 vote.

What do Trump’s claims have to do with the midterms?

Trump appears to be ramping up his election fraud claims as the November midterms approach.

According to a review published by the Reuters news agency in May, Trump claimed the 2020 vote was stolen more than 107 times over the preceding six-month period.

Already, Trump has suggested that California’s primary vote in June was “rigged”.

Just last week, he invited defeated Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt to the White House after crediting Pratt’s loss to voter fraud. “What they did to that guy was unbelievable,” Trump told Fox News on Sunday.

Trump has expressed fear he could be impeached if his party does not retain control of Congress in the midterms. Major Democratic victories in the midterms could also stymie his legislative agenda for the final two years of his presidency.

What has Trump done to advance his election reform agenda?

Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has pushed to overhaul voting procedures.

Under the US Constitution, election administration falls to the states. It is not within the federal government’s control.

But critics say Trump is attempting to nationalise the election and tighten voter access.

Trump has championed election restrictions like those in the SAVE America Act, a bill that would require voters to produce in-person proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or passport.

Already, non-citizens are barred from voting. But opponents argue that the SAVE America Act would present a hurdle to legal voters who do not have access to such documents. Many states allow voting with other forms of identification, like a state driver’s licence or a Social Security number.

Trump has also sought to limit the use of mail-in ballots through bills like the SAVE America Act and executive orders. But federal courts have repeatedly blocked his attempts.

In June, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that states can continue to count mail-in ballots after election day, so long as they are postmarked on or before that date.

Trump has also faced legal challenges against his attempts to compel states to hand over their voter rolls and create a national voter file. And he has threatened to withhold funds – including from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – if states fail to comply with his demands.

Earlier this month, his administration issued letters to election officials nationwide, warning that they “could be criminally prosecuted” if there are instances of non-citizen voting.

But non-citizen voting is exceedingly rare, as is voter fraud overall.

How have Democrats responded to Thursday’s upcoming speech?

Democrats have warned against giving Trump airtime for his unsubstantiated claims.

“Trump is going to use a primetime address to stoke misleading claims about our elections in order to justify interfering in our midterms,” Senator Mark Warner wrote on social media on Wednesday.

“It’s on all of us to follow the facts and not accept his constant stream of misdirections and lies.”

Another senator, New Mexico’s Ben Ray Lujan, pointed to Trump’s second impeachment as evidence of his willingness to subvert elections.

“This is the same man who was impeached after inciting an insurrection to overturn the election,” Lujan said, calling Trump “corrupt”.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s pick to head the nation’s intelligence agencies struggled to win Democratic support in a contentious confirmation hearing Wednesday where he clashed repeatedly with them over the 2020 election.

Democrats asked Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, over and over again whether former President Biden won the election and defeated Trump. Echoing many of Trump’s nominees, Clayton said many times that the election was “certified” for Biden, declining to say outright that the Democrat won.

“I’m not going to get into this with you,” Clayton told Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, the last of several Democrats on the committee to grill Clayton on the 2020 election. Clayton appeared frustrated and flustered as Ossoff repeated the question several times. “I’ve answered it,” he said.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, who had praised Clayton’s nomination when Trump picked him for the role last month, expressed exasperation with him at the end of the hearing. Democrats say they are concerned that Trump will try to direct intelligence agencies to influence U.S. elections as the president has repeated his false claims that the 2020 contest was stolen.

“I’ve known Mr. Clayton for some time, I worked with him closely when he was at the SEC,” said Warner, the top Democrat on the intelligence panel. “But I am bitterly disappointed.”

While Clayton has broad support among Republicans, the acrimony with Democrats could be a blow to GOP leaders who had hoped to gain their consent for a quick vote to replace temporary intelligence director Bill Pulte, a former housing official with no known intelligence experience and who used his previous administration perch to target perceived adversaries of the president.

Senators in both parties have criticized Pulte, and Republicans had hoped to confirm Clayton immediately after he was nominated in June so Pulte did not take over when Gabbard left office. But Trump delayed Clayton’s nomination, allowing Pulte to take the job temporarily.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said the committee will vote on Clayton’s nomination next week.

Clayton emphasizes national security experience

Clayton did not mention Pulte in the hearing. But he emphasized his own government and national security experience, attempting to assuage senators in both parties.

“I saw firsthand how a strong national security apparatus depends on decisive judgment, discipline, integrity, and effective communication and cooperation across different branches of the government,” Clayton said in his opening statement. “If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I will commit to upholding these principles every day.”

Cotton expressed frustration last month when the hearing was delayed. He said in his opening statement Wednesday that Clayton has a reputation for operating with “morality, decency and integrity” in his previous positions and that he hopes his nomination will win bipartisan support.

Democrats press Clayton on Gabbard’s election activities

Democrats also pressed Clayton on former National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard’s visit to a Georgia election office earlier this year during an FBI search related to the 2020 election. Trump administration officials have given varying explanations for Gabbard’s involvement in the search, which appeared to be outside of her intelligence role.

Clayton declined to say whether Gabbard’s visit was appropriate or how he would handle the same situation. At one point he said he wasn’t aware of Gabbard’s visit before this week, then later appeared to backtrack, saying “it wasn’t something on my mind” before he started to prepare for the hearing.

Warner said it “strains credibility” that Clayton wasn’t aware of Gabbard’s election activities.

Democrats also asked Clayton about Trump’s announcement that he will deliver a primetime address on Thursday with a focus on elections, after the president suggested he could revisit long-debunked conspiracy theories about his 2020 defeat. Clayton said he had has no involvement with that speech.

As U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Clayton oversees vast portfolio

Clayton is currently the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, one of the most prestigious of the Justice Department’s prosecution offices. His cases have ranged from terrorism and espionage cases to security fraud and public corruption.

Democrats pressed Clayton on subpoenas of four New York Times journalists after they reported on security concerns involving the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One. The Committee to Protect Journalists has called the subpoenas “an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations and have a chilling effect on the work of journalists across the country.”

Clayton said he was not able to discuss the details of the subpoenas and declined to elaborate on whether he spoke to the White House before they were issued. He said he is “confident in procedures we have in place to protect freedom of press.”

Under Clayton, the office also facilitated the unsealing of thousands of pages of court records from the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell — documents that were made public as part of the Justice Department’s release of records related to the late sex offender and his longtime confidant.

Clayton has also overseen the prosecution of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores, on drug trafficking charges.

Confirmation vote could unlock renewal of surveillance authority

Clayton’s confirmation could potentially clear the way for bipartisan legislation to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which stalled last month when Democrats had said they would not provide the necessary votes to pass the bill unless Pulte’s temporary appointment was withdrawn.

The law, which aims to prevent terrorist attacks by monitoring the communications of targeted foreigners located outside the United States, expired in June.

Even if Democrats relent, it is unclear if Trump would sign the bill. He said in his June social media post delaying Clayton’s nomination that he would not sign the FISA renewal without his legislation to require proof of citizenship for all voters. The voting bill does not have enough support to pass the Senate.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

July 15 (UPI) — The U.S Mint will begin producing $1 gold-colored coins featuring President Donald Trump‘s face, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant announced Wednesday.

The coins are meant to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary. They will have Trump’s face and “In God We Trust” on one side, with “Liberty” and “1776-2026” on the border. The reverse side features the presidential seal with “250” on a shield.

Bessent said on social media that the coin honors “the enduring legacy of liberty and a lasting symbol of patriotism.”

“Featuring President Trump, it celebrates the strength of American values, and the promise of a nation dedicated to preserving freedom for all,” he said.

Federal laws generally prevent the image of a living president from appearing on currency. U.S. code says that “[o]nly the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on United States currency and securities.”

In addition, a 1866 law prohibits living people on paper currency, Politico reported. The 2007 Presidential Coin program included the rule that no living president or those who’d died in the past two years could be featured.

U.S. Congress passed a law in 2020 that gave the Treasury Department the power to mint 2026 coins with designs “emblematic of the U.S. semiquincentennial.” That law says that no person living or dead can be on the reverse side of thecoin.

Bessant has said the design is legal, The Washington Post reported. Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the U.S. Mint office of design management, said in January that “the legal research has been done both at the Mint and up into Treasury, and they have determined that [the proposed coin design] does not violate any laws.”

This is not the first design for the coin. An earlier proposal showed Trump standing with a clenched fist in front of an American flag with the words, “Fight Fight Fight” above him.

The Treasury said there is no actual gold in the coin, which will be available for purchase in the fall.

This is not Trump’s first attempt to have his image on currency. There have been proposals for a $250 bill and 24-karat gold coins featuring the president, and his signature has been added to $100 bills.

U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened a strike on a very hardened Iranian facility known as Pickaxe Mountain, saying it is ripe for a “nice big fat shot right in the front door.” Trump’s comments underscore the challenges involved in holding this extremely deeply-buried site, which is tied to Iran’s nuclear program, at risk. The installation notably went untouched during the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes on Iran in June 2025, and was not struck in the course of Operation Epic Fury this year, either. So, here is what Pickaxe Mountain is, why it matters, and why it would be so hard to destroy.

Trump spoke about Pickaxe Mountain, also known as Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, during a phone interview yesterday with Hugh Hewitt on the Salem News Channel network. This came amid renewed fighting between the United States and Iran, which broke out last week and has continued to escalate. The regime in Tehran has now declared the highly strategic Strait of Hormuz closed again to all maritime traffic, while the U.S. military is moving to reimpose a blockade of Iranian ports. This is all despite the signing of a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) last month that included the extension of an already fragile ceasefire. Readers can get caught up on the broader situation in the Middle East with our recent reporting here.

“Before you enter into another deal, will you insist that IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors get down into that deep, deep, deep tunnel and find out if they got a doomsday machine down there?” Hewitt asked Trump during their conversation yesterday.

“They don’t have it because we have eyes with Space Force, and everything else. We have a lot of eyes on it [Pickaxe Mountain],” Trump said in response. “But Pickaxe is a possible target for a nice big fat shot right near the front door, and I think that maybe you’ll see that.”

“We see no activity there. They’re not doing well with their nuclear situation. Every time we hear about it, we blow it up. So they don’t like talking about it,” Trump added. “But we’ll probably give Pickaxe a shot relatively soon.”

What is Pickaxe Mountain?

It should be noted here up front that there are actually assessed to be two independent tunnel networks under Pickaxe Mountain. One was built circa 2007, and the construction of the other began around 2020. The entire complex, which is contained within a single large security perimeter, is situated immediately to the southwest of Iran’s nuclear facility at Natanz, as seen in the satellite image we obtained from Vantor below. As an aside, Natanz was one of the facilities that U.S. forces struck during Operation Midnight Hammer. Natanz and Pickaxe Mountain are roughly in the center of Iran.

In the past, Iran has openly discussed plans to produce centrifuges to support its nuclear enrichment efforts at the newer facility at Pickaxe Mountain. It is also estimated to be large enough to house an actual enrichment plant, as well as other nuclear infrastructure, but exactly what is inside remains unconfirmed. Hewitt’s question yesterday reflected the fact that international inspectors have not been given any access to the overall site to date.

In light of strikes on other Iranian nuclear sites since last year, there is also the possibility that Iran may have relocated nuclear assets from other facilities to the more extensively hardened ones under Pickaxe Mountain.

In terms of activity, satellite imagery TWZ has obtained from Vantor, seen below, does show dump trucks and other vehicles moving in and out of one of two entrances to the newer tunnel network on the western side of Pickaxe Mountain on June 21. There are also two other entrances on the eastern side.

Previous satellite imagery had shown Iran taking steps to at least partially block access to the newer facility after the start of U.S. and Israeli strikes on February 28, according to the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) think tank. Before the conflict erupted, Iran was also observed to have buried and hardened the entrances to the tunnel network built in 2007, again per ISIS’ assessments.

Last year, TWZ had called attention to efforts to at least partially seal up Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow before Operation Midnight Hammer. Similar activity has been observed in the past year at Natanz, Isfahan (also written Esfahan), and other hardened nuclear sites in Iran. As we have explored in detail in the past, sealing tunnel entrances and other access points creates an important deterrent to ground raids, as well as potentially offering additional hardening against standoff strikes. We will come back to this later on.

“Unlike the situation at both the Fordow and Esfahan tunnel entrances, this material [at the eastern entrances to the newer facility at Pickaxe Mountain] does not provide complete tunnel entrance obscuration at either portal,” ISIS noted in an assessment back in May. “Nonetheless, this material would appear to be sufficient to significantly hinder rapid ingress/egress by vehicles and would require the use of heavy earth moving equipment to gain such access and clear an unobstructed path inside. At present, we do not yet see evidence of such blockage having been undertaken at the two western tunnel portals of the larger complex.”

A shot in the door and not from above?

All of this brings us back to Trump’s comment about the possibility of a “nice big fat shot right in the front door” at Pickaxe Mountain. For years, experts have talked about the likelihood that the main caverns under the mountain are beyond the reach of even the largest known conventional bunker buster bomb in U.S. inventory, the 30,000-pound-class GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). The MOP was developed, at least in part, specifically to hold underground facilities in Iran at risk. Construction at Pickaxe Mountain, especially in the past five years, is a clear response to U.S. threats.

GBU-57 MOP test

MOPs were the centerpiece during the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes, with 12 being dropped on Fordow and another two on Natanz. To get at the actual targets at Fordow, six MOPs were dropped on two specific ventilation shafts, with each successive bomb burrowing deeper down into the complex below. This underscores the challenges that would be involved in attempting a similar operation against Pickaxe Mountain.

The available stockpile of MOPs was also understood to be relatively limited even before Operation Midnight Hammer, and it is unknown how many are currently in inventory. The U.S. Air Force is now in the process of acquiring a successor to MOP, called the GBU-76/B Next Generation Penetrator (NGP), but that is not expected to enter service for some time.

The United States does also have Earth-penetrating B61-11 gravity bombs in its nuclear stockpile, specifically to prosecute extremely deeply buried strategic targets. However, there is next to no chance the U.S. government would initiate the use of nuclear weapons against Iran absent anything approaching a proportionate, imminent threat or attack. Doing so would be a beyond massive escalation with serious worldwide ramifications, and there is no indication that American authorities are at all considering taking that step.

As with the strikes on Fordow, multiple bombs could be dropped on the same impact point to try to penetrate further down into Pickaxe Mountain. Whether there might be similar ventilation shafts or other weak points that could be exploited at Pickaxe Mountain is unknown. Trump’s remarks to Hugh Hewitt would certainly seem to suggest otherwise.

A strike “right in the front door” on the tunnel entrances at Pickaxe Mountain would be another option to at least hamper access to the facility inside for a time. This could be combined with strikes aimed at sections of the tunnel networks that run deeper inside the facility, but that are still close enough to the surface to be reachable by available conventional munitions. For instance, MOPs may not be able to hit the main cavern areas, but they could possibly hit certain tunnels that might lead to them.

Even a combined strike on entrances and shallow tunnels at Pickaxe Mountain could still present certain challenges. Firm intelligence on exactly where the tunnels snake under the mountain could be limited, making it difficult to select the best impact points. This is exactly why the U.S. military has been investing heavily in advanced, void-sensing fuzes for MOP and other bunker buster bombs for decades now. These fuzes detect when a munition has penetrated into a sufficiently large space, such as a room or tunnel in an underground facility, to help maximize damage. Fuzes that can effectively ‘count’ floors also help to ensure the munition has burrowed sufficiently deep before detonating.

It is possible that additional tactics, techniques, and procedures could be brought to bear to increase the effectiveness of any strikes on Pickaxe Mountain and further complicate any efforts to dig out the site afterward. Just last month, TWZ explored in detail the benefits of near-horizontal strikes on fortified targets, as well as of ‘skipping’ munitions into tunnel and cave entrances. The Pentagon’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget proposal had revealed interest in enhancing the capabilities of 2,000-pound-class Joint Direct Attack Munition-Extended Range (JDAM-ER) precision-guided glide bombs in the bunker-busting role, which could further enable these kinds of lateral strikes. If appropriate funding is allocated, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) would be responsible for leading this work. DTRA is a multi-faceted organization focused on responding to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) threats, and notably played a critical role in the development of the MOP.

As noted earlier, the U.S. military could conduct follow-on strikes on the entry points at Pickaxe Mountain to disrupt any attempt to regain access, as well. Trump’s conversation with Hugh Hewitt yesterday indicates that the site is, unsurprisingly, already under heavy surveillance, including by regular spy satellite passes. Currently, this is the tactic being employed at other critical sites, like the similar mountain bunker facility in Isfahan, where it’s thought that much of Iran’s enriched uranium is buried. By striking any equipment or personnel attempting to access the collapsed tunnels, the problem could theoretically be ‘maintenanced’ indefinitely.

Limited access to underground sites for a protracted period of time might have second-order impacts, too. This would depend on whether the equipment or anything else contained therein requires regular maintenance or other attention to remain usable or otherwise prevent degradation.

Other considerations

Mounting a major operation against Pickaxe Mountain of any kind could entail additional complexities and risks. A total of 125 aircraft, including seven B-2 bombers, as well as fighters, tankers, and other supporting platforms, took part in Operation Midnight Hammer. U.S. Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea also conducted Tomahawk cruise missile strikes and otherwise supported the operation. At the same time, Iranian forces, including the country’s air defense capabilities, have been significantly degraded by U.S. and Israeli strikes since then.

Even so, there is still always the possibility of an aircraft going down due to a technical fault or some other issue. Combat search and rescue (CSAR) assets need to be in position, whether they are used or not. CSAR operations are risky and require immense resources themselves. This was put on full display during the race to rescue the crew of an F-15E Strike Eagle that went down in Iran in April, which resulted in the loss of several additional aircraft and helicopters.

On several occasions in the past, TWZ has highlighted the overall limits of conventional standoff strikes against especially deeply buried facilities, including in Iran. This has been a key driver in discussions about the potential for the United States or Israel to conduct ground raids on Iranian nuclear facilities, either to cause more definitive damage inside or to try to extract key assets, like enriched uranium. Any ground operation would pose its own immense challenges and risks, as we have also explored in detail previously.

“Going after the fissile material, I think, is a bigger operation. Again, I think we have the capabilities to do this. Within our Special Operations community, we have people that are trained to do this and have the right relationships and connections and other things to allow us to get in and do that,” retired U.S. Gen. Joseph Votel, who previously served as head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), told TWZ‘s Howard Altman when asked about this in an interview in March. “So you’d have to be able to project that force onto the ground. This would be going to a place like Natanz or Isfahan – probably one of those locations. Those are well inland – several hundred miles into Iran, a country of the same size as the state of Alaska. So it’s big and it’s diverse. It’s largely in an open plain, so you don’t have a lot of natural terrain protection there. That would have to be taken into consideration.”

Getting into sites where Iran has deliberately sealed entry points would require heavy machinery and skilled operators, as well as time to do that work. That, in turn, has impacts on the force protection requirements for an operation that could be expected to last days, if not weeks. These forces would be well within the reach of Iranian artillery, drones and other weapons, as well as ground forces and direct fires. It is also interesting to consider here that if at least some of the entrances to the facilities underneath Pickaxe Mountain are not currently completely sealed off, the raid package could be lighter and the operation faster. In September 2024, Israeli ground forces were notably able to destroy an underground missile factory in Syria after gathering significant amounts of intelligence in an overnight operation. That being said, one would expect a site as sensitive as Pickaxe Mountain to be better defended on the ground, even if the ‘doors are open.’

100 Shaldag soldiers raid and dismantle Syrian missile factory in secret operation

There is a question here of the relative value of strikes on Pickaxe Mountain, especially depending on what U.S. planners think they could reasonably achieve. As noted earlier, exactly what is under the mountain at this point is not clear.

“It remains unclear when it could be operational, based on assessing satellite imagery,” David Albright, President and Founder of the ISIS think tank, wrote in a post on X just yesterday. “Recently, we were told that the site was not attacked in the two previous wars [the 12-Day War in 2025 and operations this year] because nothing of sufficient value was inside it.”

“Perhaps that assessment has changed,” Albright continued. “But just as likely, Trump does not want to leave Iran with a deeply buried nuclear-related site as the regime appears to be sending signals it is starting to rebuild its nuclear weapons capabilities aimed at making nuclear weapons.”

President Trump’s response yesterday to Hugh Hewitt’s specific mention of Pickaxe Mountain does point to there being some degree of concern about this target within the current administration. Trump being so familiar with the site and its weaponeering challenges is particularly notable.

Still, how soon a U.S. strike on Pickaxe Mountain might actually come, if at all, and what that might entail, remains to be seen. Though destroying the facility would be an extremely tall order, there are still other options to make it hard for Iran to make use of it, at least in the near term.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over his leaked tax returns was filed for an “improper purpose,” a judge said Monday in a scathing decision that referred one of his lawyers for discipline and characterized the $10-billion complaint as an exercise in self-dealing.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused Trump of having manipulated the court system when he sued a federal agency under his control, bypassing a requirement that parties in a lawsuit must have adverse interests and laying the groundwork for a settlement last spring that granted him immunity from tax audits and created a fund to compensate allies of the president who say they were unjustly persecuted.

Though the practical impacts of the ruling may be limited given the administration’s public pronouncements that the so-called $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund has been abandoned, the judge’s ruling nonetheless amounts to a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration and resurfaces a politically damaging storyline for acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche just as he prepares to face the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing Wednesday.

“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” Williams wrote in her ruling.

She added: “The President may be the functional ‘dominus litus’ of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the matter before it. ”

The judge pointed to Blanche’s congressional testimony in early June in which he revealed that the “anti-weaponization” fund was no longer moving forward amid intense bipartisan backlash. Though nothing had been filed in court, Blanche appeared confident in his testimony that he “could speak for, and bind, both sides of this matter,” the judge wrote.

“Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case,” the judge wrote.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Fatima Hussein and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

Based on the words of President Trump, America is well on the way to becoming a “global superpower in manufacturing” — indeed, as he declared in a Father’s Day social media post, we are already experiencing the “BEST ECONOMY EVER.” (Capitalization’s his.)

Here’s what the government’s own statistics tell us: Manufacturing investment has crashed during his watch, with construction spending in the manufacturing sector down 26.4% from Trump’s inauguration through May, to $174.8 billion. That’s the lowest figure since February 2023, when the economy was in the midst of a post-pandemic recovery.

White House spokesman Kush Desai told me by email that “the last two jobs reports” showed manufacturing job growth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a seasonally-adjusted decline of 2,000 manufacturing workers in May and a gain of 3,000 in June. But the June 2026 figure was 38,000 jobs, or about 0.3% below the level in June 2025, and 75,000 or about 0.6% below the level in January 2025, when Trump took office.

Desai said that “thanks to President Trump’s proven agenda of tariffs, deregulation, and tax cuts, American manufacturing will continue to rebound.”

There’s little mystery about what has come between Trump’s ambition and the real world. To a large extent it’s Trump’s economic program, particularly his tariff policies and, more recently, his war with Iran. Those have injected a level of uncertainty for corporate managements pondering whether to spend money on expansion that they haven’t had to confront in years.

The tariffs and the war have driven up manufacturers’ costs for raw materials and overseas shipping. The general economic atmosphere doesn’t help. U.S. gross domestic product growth came in at a 2.1% annualized rate in the first quarter of this year, but the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta expects it to have fallen to 1.3% in the second quarter ended June 30.

Meanwhile, the University of Michigan consumer confidence index reached 44.8 in May, its lowest level ever (though it improved to 49.5 in June). Wages have been rising modestly, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but those gains have been eaten up by higher prices, especially for gasoline and food.

To put things another way, the actual figures show the U.S. economy to be sputtering, and the “vibe economy” as measured by consumer confidence is doing even worse.

Now that Trump’s second term is about to reach its 18-month mark, let’s unpack the factors causing the discrepancy between his ambitions and claims, and the reality.

Trump declared economic victory just as his term was starting. On March 20, 2025, he proclaimed a “manufacturing renaissance” in the U.S. That was based on what he said were “trillions of dollars in new investments” he had “already secured in tech-based manufacturing.”

A White House statement said “the list of manufacturing wins is endless.” The provided list was a roster of announcements, not groundbreakings, much less completed ventures.

Business executives quite properly have taken these pledges with mounds of salt. “Announcements are what people say they’re going to do, but dollars spent is what’s actually happening,” Didi Caldwell, chief executive of a firm that helps companies find factory sites, told the Financial Times. “From where we’re standing, we are not seeing signs of a manufacturing renaissance in the U.S.”

Indeed, at least some of these announcements have had the flavor of performative efforts to satisfy Trump’s amour propre and extract government concessions.

For example, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook appeared with Trump at the White House in August to announce a $600-billion U.S. spending plan to take place over four years. That was a $100-billion increase over its previously-announced program.

More to the point, however, it incorporated spending with suppliers that Apple had been working with for years. Mentioned in the news announcement was a commitment to buy cover glass for iPhones from Corning. But Corning has been supplying that glass since the first iPhone appeared in 2007. In any case, the announcement appeared to secure a commitment from Trump to exempt Apple from tariffs imposed on imported chips.

Apple’s announcement Wednesday that it will spend $30 billion to buy chips from Broadcom was similarly ambiguous. The announcement didn’t provide details about the terms of the commitment or the timing of its expenditures. I asked Apple for details and whether the deal was related to a desire to remain in Trump’s favor, but didn’t hear back.

A similar phenomenon occurred during Trump’s first term; Trump had built much of his 2016 presidential campaign on a promise to increase manufacturing jobs in the United States. He blamed shrinkage in the manufacturing sector on trade agreements such as NAFTA and the policies of the Chinese, and took credit when an American manufacturer agreed to create or save jobs in the United States.

As I reported in 2019, many of those arrangements turned out to be exaggerated or bogus, or predated Trump’s claim. Some disappeared as soon as public attention turned elsewhere, or were outweighed by job cuts made elsewhere by the same companies.

Trump’s tariffs appear to have had a direct effect on manufacturing employment in the U.S. Since Trump’s inauguration, the manufacturing sector has shed about 75,000 jobs, or 0.6%. After April 2, 2025, when he announced global “liberation day” tariffs supposedly as a response to years of unfair treatment of American exports, the decline picked up pace, with a shrinkage of 68,000 manufacturing jobs.

The Supreme Court invalidated those tariffs in February, but others are still in place, including tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and on goods from China. Nor has he ceased threatening partners with trade wars. As recently as Tuesday, he said he would cut off all trade with Spain because of that country’s disagreement with him over its defense spending and its criticism of his Iran war.

As it happens, Spain is one of the few countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus. That means that any cutoff, which trade experts think will be unlikely, would come at a cost to the U.S.

One might have hoped that Trump had learned a lesson from his first-term trade war with China. That conflict provoked a sharp contraction in the manufacturing economy, with the Institute for Supply Management’s purchasing managers index falling to 49.1 by mid-2019. (A reading below 50 signifies contraction.)

The ISM index began to recover toward the end of Trump’s term but fell again during the pandemic. Lately it has been falling again, to 53.3 in June from 54 in May.

The Iran war is another deadweight on domestic manufacturing. That’s partially the consequence of blockages of the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial thoroughfare not only for middle eastern oil, but also for such industrial inputs as fertilizer and aluminum. Cement, concrete, olive oil and spices are also among commodities produced in the region that use the strait as an outlet to reach the outside world.

Uncertainties in the region, tensions between the U.S. and China, and heightened concerns over the safety of shipping overall have driven up shipping costs between the far east and the U.S. The price of shipping a benchmark 40-foot container from China to the West Coast has nearly quadrupled to $6,687 now from about $1,700 just before the Iran war began, according to an index maintained by the cargo firm Freightos — even though shipping prices typically decline during this time of year.

There can be little doubt that the U.S. would benefit from an industrial policy — if it’s coherent. China supplanted America as the world’s leading exporter of manufactured goods in 2010, and the gap has only widened since then. China’s dominance may be hard to reverse, as it’s built on lower labor costs and transport infrastructure that enjoys focused government investment.

Tariffs could be a component of a new industrial policy, but Trump’s tariffs aren’t rationally geared to protecting domestic industries that need protection. They’re expressions of his whims, and as such they’re totally ineffective. If there are government investment policies targeting industries that need assistance, they’re not apparent to economists or industrialists.

Trump can talk as much as he likes about a golden age for U.S. manufacturing, but from his first term through this one, it’s nothing but talk. And talk, of course, is cheap.

July 11 (UPI) — A housing bill passed by Congress became law at midnight Saturday when President Donald Trump refused to sign it, but didn’t veto it.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is a comprehensive law that was designed to make housing more affordable and increase housing supply. Trump refused to sign it because he wanted Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, an election reform bill that would require those registering to vote to provide proof that they are U.S. citizens.

But Congress doesn’t have the votes to pass the SAVE Act.

On Friday, Trump announced that he again would not sign the ROAD to Housing bill.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,” he said on Truth Social.

The housing bill includes measures that modernize building standards, encourage renovating older homes, encourage communities to build more housing with funding and grant programs, local governments to reform restrictive zoning policies around building housing and effectively ban private equity from buying up single-family homes. Critics of the bill say it doesn’t go far enough, but they acknowledge it’s a good first step.

“This bill becoming law is a genuine milestone — and I don’t use that word lightly,” Dennis Shea of the Bipartisan Policy Center told the BBC. “Getting Congress to move on housing supply and affordability has been a long time coming, and the American people made clear they were ready for it.”

Earlier this year, a BPC survey found that 89% of voters wanted congressional action to make housing more affordable.

Congressional leaders had planned a bill signing ceremony last month, ready to show voters that they are trying to bring down costs, a key issue to Americans. But hours before it was scheduled to begin, Trump canceled it.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., criticized Trump’s ongoing refusal to sign Friday.

“At the stroke of midnight, a huge bipartisan bill to lower housing costs became law without the President’s signature. Why did President Trump sit on the landmark housing bill for more than 2 weeks? Maybe because there was nothing in it for him personally – no gold-encrusted ballroom, no Qatari jet, no $2 billion crypto deal. Nothing in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing except ways to make housing more affordable,” she said in a statement. “Donald Trump couldn’t pick up the pen because he just isn’t interested in lowering costs for American families.”

At 4 a.m. Saturday, she posted on X: “BREAKING: the clock struck midnight and our bipartisan housing bill is now law. Trump refused to sign it, but he couldn’t stop it.”

“This law is GROUNDBREAKING. It will build more housing, bring down costs, and for the first time, stop private equity from buying up homes,” she said.

Trump had called the housing bill “so unimportant” and “a yawn.”

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., defended the bill without criticizing Trump’s comments.

He said, “the president has a lot going on, and I think it’s safe to say he’s not read through every line of that piece of legislation.

“What he was saying is in comparison to ensuring election integrity, which is now represented by the SAVE America Act, nothing is as important,” Johnson said. “That’s not to say that there are not also incredibly important issues, and the cost of living and affordability is among them. It’s top of mind.”

“So I hope he does sign it. If he doesn’t, it’s still law; we’ll still celebrate it,” Johnson said. “But he’s trying to make a point and I think he’s making it very effectively.”

The Trump administration finalized a rollback of the Endangered Species Act on Friday, paving the way for drilling, mining and other human development across protected wildlife habitats.

The move redefines “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, the landmark conservation law that protects threatened and endangered plants and animals. For years, “harm” meant actions that injure or kill wildlife, as well as actions that destroy protected habitats.

Under the new rule, destroying those habitats is no longer illegal.

The decision aligns with the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to slash regulations in the name of economic growth. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose department finalized the move, said the prior definition of harm “interfered with private property rights” and “turned routine activity into a regulatory trap.”

Environmental groups called the decision a disaster, saying it puts protected species on a path to extinction.

The move seems especially poised to hit California, the most biodiverse state in the country, where more than 6,700 species are spread across mountains, forests, deserts and oceans. Of the roughly 2,300 species protected by the Endangered Species Act, nearly 300 are found in California.

These species include amphibians such as tiger salamanders and Yosemite toads; birds such as California condors and northern spotted owls; fish such as Little Kern golden trout and Santa Ana suckers; insects such as Franklin’s bumble bees and Mission blue butterflies; mammals such as gray wolves and Santa Catalina Island foxes; and reptiles such as desert tortoises and green sea turtles.

The Endangered Species Act is widely credited with saving the California condor, which almost went extinct in the 1980s due to several factors, including habitat destruction. Thanks to a recovery program under the act, the condor population has since soared to several hundred. But under the new law, the logging and human development that led to their near demise is now allowed.

A handful of California species recoveries have been championed as success stories under the Endangered Species Act, including southern sea otters, peregrine falcons, humpback whales, bald eagles and green sea turtles.

According to a report from the Center for Biological Diversity, the El Segundo blue butterfly lost 90% of its oceanside habitat due to the construction of LAX and beachfront housing developments. The population dwindled to about 1,000 butterflies in the 1970s, when it was named an endangered species. Now, the population has climbed above 120,000.

In California, the rollback could pave the way for more farming, mining, logging and drilling in areas that were once forbidden due to the potential for wildlife habitat destruction. A report from Earthjustice estimates that expanded oil drilling in California could threaten five marine species including humpback whales, sea otters, leatherback sea turtles, marbled murrelets and wild salmon.

Several environmental groups are planning legal challenges to the ruling.

“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Kristen Boyles, attorney for the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support. We will see the Trump administration in court.”

Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club, called the decision “an unlawful attempt to open the door for corporate polluters to degrade vitally important habitats.”

“For more than four decades, the definition of ‘harm’ recognized a simple truth: if you destroy the places wildlife need to survive, you are putting species on a path to extinction,” Greuel said in a statement.

It’s not the first time Trump has taken aim at California environmental regulation.

Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom, along with the governors of Washington and Oregon, submitted a formal opposition to the Trump administration’s plans to expand drilling off the Pacific Coast, with Newsom saying it leads to “dead wildlife.” In June, the Trump administration ordered a review of the California Coastal Commission, claiming the state’s “environmental extremism” obstructs spaceport development and offshore oil production.

A day before the Endangered Species Act decision, the Trump administration signed off on a controversial plan to use an old oil pipeline to pump water from the Mojave Desert into cities. Environmental groups said the plan threatens springs and local wildlife, since six pumps would need to be built in desert tortoise habitats.

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.

WASHINGTON — Crews are again draining the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool as President Trump’s problem-plagued efforts to revamp the waterway pushes well past his initial goal of having it ready by July 4 to mark the nation’s 250th birthday.

The president at first suggested his renovations would last a century. But within weeks of the project originally reaching completion last month, the water was beset by an algae bloom and pieces of the new coating appeared to be peeling off the bottom.

Trump has blamed the peeling on vandals, though critics allege it’s from shoddy repair work.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose agency oversees the National Park Service, told conservative podcaster Katie Miller in an interview released earlier this week that the new round of draining was planned. He also said that the water might still contain debris from an extensive Independence Day fireworks display over the National Mall.

“Drain the water, clean up the fireworks stuff,” Burgum told Miller, who is the wife of deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller. “Repair the vandalism that was done. Fill it back up again.”

The work on the Reflecting Pool is just one of a number of projects Trump has spearheaded across the nation’s capital. Most prominently, he demolished the White House’s East Wing to build a $400-million ballroom and plans to build a towering arch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.

He initially announced his intentions to beautify the Reflecting Pool this spring, saying he wanted it completed before the nation’s 250th birthday celebrations.

Water was drained and Trump directed that the bottom be painted what he called “American flag blue.” In May, the president posted on his social media site of the pool: “The goal is to have it done, at this higher level, prior to July 4th — We are ahead of schedule!”

But problems began quickly after the initial work was finished. Trump blamed vandals, and court documents later showed that the National Park Service reported to the U.S. Park Police a June 9 incident in which a sharp knife or razor cut the pool’s new liner.

On Thursday, former Olympic canoe racer David Hearn pleaded not guilty in D.C. Superior Court to deliberately damaging the Reflecting Pool. Hearn has said he reached inside the pool to examine the peeled sealant and let go of a chunk when he was told to by a park worker.

His attorneys and other Trump administration critics have derided the case as an abuse of prosecutorial power and maintain he is being scapegoated for the poor job done fixing up the Reflecting Pool.

At least three other people have been charged in the same court with misdemeanors for allegedly removing pieces of paint from the Reflecting Pool, according to online court records. All three pleaded not guilty during their initial court appearances Wednesday.

The pool was closed for the Independence Day celebration, which featured what Trump said was the largest fireworks display in the world. The president had said that the pool would have to be drained anew as part of the new round of repairs.

Burgum has also said that the Trump administration won’t seek bids for the new rounds of repairs. He told CNN’s “State of the Union” last weekend: “We’ll use the same company because they did a fantastic job.”

Ohio-based Green Water Solutions, also known as Greenwater Services, was given a $1.7-million contract to install a water-purification system in the Reflecting Pool, while Virginia-based Atlantic Industrial Coatings was awarded $14.7 million to repaint and waterproof the pool’s concrete floor.

Democratic senators and House members are investigating the pool project, including seeking answers about how much taxpayer funding is involved.

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

July 9 (UPI) — A federal Washington, D.C., planning agency advanced plans Thursday night for President Donald Trump‘s 250-foot triumphal arch, clearing a key procedural hurdle toward construction despite staunch opposition from historic preservation groups.

The National Capital Planning Commission approved preliminary site and building plans in an 8-1 vote, with three members voting present, during a meeting at its Washington headquarters.

The sole objector, Evan Cash, representing D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson on the panel, said he would not vote in its favor. He said the plans would “have the effect of upending decades of NCPC practice and thee century-old height framework.”

According to the proposed plans, the arch would be constructed across the Potomac River in Virginia. At 250 feet tall and 166 feet wide, it would be twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial.

Rob Nieweg, senior vice president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, also objected to the project.

Nieweg told the commission that the arch would “overwhelm” nearby historic landmarks, including the Lincoln Memorial, Arlington House and Memorial Bridge, while being inconsistent with “the solemn character of Arlington National Cemetery.”

“Each new rendering submitted for this proposal is totally inappropriate in its scale and location,” he said.

“The new images clearly show that the arch blocks the view of the Lincoln Memorial from vantage points on the Virginia side. It looms larger on the skyline than everything other than the Washington Monument. From the District side, placing the arch in the foreground completely overpowers the sacred rolling wooded hills and rows of white grave markers at Arlington National Cemetery.”

The vote comes after the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts approved a modified design of the arch in May. A final vote on the plan will take place at the September commission meeting, NCPC Chair Will Scharf said.

“It’s disappointing that the NCPC approved the preliminary site and building plans for the Monumental Arch today, and we remain strongly opposed to its scale and locations,” the National Trust for Historic Preservation told UPI in an emailed statement.

Trump proposed the arch as he has sought to remake the capital in his own image, including plans for a new White House ballroom and renaming the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to include his name, among others. Several of those efforts have been met with lawsuits.

Turkey emerged as one of the biggest diplomatic winners from the NATO summit in Ankara after President Donald Trump lavished praise on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, promised to lift U.S. sanctions and signalled openness to restoring Turkey’s access to the F-35 fighter jet programme.

The public display of warmth contrasted sharply with Trump’s criticism of several NATO allies during the summit and highlighted improving U.S.-Turkey relations after years of tensions.

Turkey rolls out high-profile welcome for Trump

Turkey spared little effort in welcoming Trump to Ankara.

The visit featured a red, white and blue aerial display by Turkish jets, while a newly opened airport terminal was named after the U.S. president. Erdogan personally greeted Trump at the airport before the two leaders walked together, exchanged warm remarks and held talks ahead of the summit.

Trump later described Erdogan as a close friend and repeatedly praised the Turkish leader during the two-day gathering.

Trump says Erdogan convinced him to attend

For Turkish officials, securing Trump’s attendance was itself considered a diplomatic achievement.

Trump, who has frequently criticised NATO and questioned the alliance’s value, said he attended the summit because Erdogan was hosting it.

Erdogan welcomed the remarks after the summit.

“It was valuable that Trump emphasised the importance he places on myself and our friendship,” Erdogan said.

US signals shift on sanctions and F-35 fighter jets

The most significant outcome for Ankara was Trump’s indication that he intends to remove U.S. sanctions imposed after Turkey purchased Russia’s S-400 missile defence system in 2019.

Trump also said he was willing to consider allowing Turkey back into the F-35 stealth fighter programme, although he later clarified that he had not made a final decision.

If implemented, both moves would reverse major elements of U.S. policy that had severely strained bilateral relations during Trump’s first presidency.

Congress and Russia remain potential obstacles

Despite Trump’s promises, significant hurdles remain.

U.S. lawmakers have previously insisted Turkey cannot participate in the F-35 programme while retaining the Russian-made S-400 system, making congressional approval uncertain.

Turkey could also face complications with Russia because agreements governing the S-400 purchase include end-user obligations that may limit Ankara’s options.

As a result, the announcements currently represent political commitments rather than guaranteed policy changes.

Erdogan strengthens Turkey’s position inside NATO

The summit reinforced Turkey’s ambition to play a larger role within NATO.

As the alliance’s second-largest military, Turkey has increasingly promoted itself as an indispensable security partner while seeking greater participation in European defence initiatives.

Trump also publicly defended Erdogan against criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposed potential U.S. sales of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey.

The episode underscored Ankara’s growing diplomatic influence within the alliance.

Trump overshadows summit with disputes involving allies

While relations with Turkey improved, Trump generated fresh tensions elsewhere during the summit.

He threatened to halt U.S. trade with Spain over defence spending disputes and repeated claims regarding Greenland, drawing criticism from fellow NATO members.

Despite those disagreements, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte later described the summit as demonstrating alliance unity.

Human rights concerns receive limited attention

The summit also highlighted how Turkey’s strategic importance has reduced public Western criticism over democratic issues.

The gathering took place amid arrests of opposition figures, journalists and a prominent comedian in Turkey, prompting questions about democratic freedoms.

Rutte reiterated that democracy includes freedom of expression, free media and the right to protest.

Opposition figures argued Erdogan’s increasingly close relationship with Washington reflects growing political dependence on the United States, while critics contend Western governments have become less vocal about human rights as Turkey’s military and geopolitical importance has grown.

Future outlook

The NATO summit could mark a turning point in U.S.-Turkey relations if Trump’s pledges on sanctions relief and the F-35 programme translate into policy. However, congressional resistance, Turkey’s continued possession of the Russian S-400 system and wider geopolitical considerations remain significant obstacles. Ankara is also expected to continue pushing for greater influence within NATO and broader participation in European defence initiatives.

Analysis

The NATO summit marked one of the strongest public displays of U.S.-Turkey relations in years, with President Donald Trump using the gathering to signal a willingness to reset ties with Ankara after years of friction over Turkey’s purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile defence system. For President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, simply hosting Trump and receiving repeated public praise from him represented a significant diplomatic victory that reinforced Turkey’s strategic importance within the alliance.

Trump’s promises to lift sanctions and reconsider Turkey’s return to the F-35 fighter jet programme address two of Ankara’s longest-standing demands. However, turning those pledges into reality will be far more difficult. U.S. law and congressional opposition remain major obstacles, particularly while Turkey continues to possess the Russian-made S-400 system. Moscow could also object if Ankara takes steps that undermine agreements linked to the missile purchase.

The summit also highlighted a broader shift in Western priorities. During previous U.S. administrations, especially under Joe Biden, democratic backsliding and human rights concerns were central issues in relations with Turkey. This time, those concerns received relatively little attention as NATO focused on defence spending, military cooperation and regional security, reflecting Turkey’s growing value as a defence producer and a key NATO member on the alliance’s southeastern flank.

Trump’s warm embrace of Erdogan contrasted sharply with his confrontational approach toward several other NATO allies, including Spain and Denmark. That dynamic allowed Turkey to emerge from the summit with enhanced diplomatic standing even as broader alliance tensions persisted.

Whether this diplomatic momentum produces lasting policy changes will depend on decisions in Washington after the summit. If sanctions are eased and progress is made on the F-35 issue, bilateral ties could enter their most constructive phase in years. If congressional or legal barriers prevent those moves, however, the summit may ultimately be remembered more for its symbolism than for delivering concrete strategic gains.

With information from Reuters.

Trump’s name was removed from the centre’s facade and signage last month, after a judge ordered its removal.

A US appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s name must remain off the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, while the organisation appeals an earlier ruling that found a name change illegal.

Trump’s name was removed from the centre’s facade and signage last month after US District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the removal and blocked Trump’s plans to close the centre for renovations. An appeal against this ruling was struck down by a three-judge panel on Wednesday.

It is another setback for the centre’s board of trustees, of which Trump is chairman, in a saga that began earlier this year when the Kennedy Center became: “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

The conspicuous addition, and ensuing legal battle, became symbolic of Trump’s broader push to imprint his legacy – and, in this case, his actual name – on the nation’s capital in his final term.

The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court order in a lawsuit brought by Democratic Representative Joyce Beatty, a Kennedy Center board member.

“Today’s ruling again affirms that this administration’s efforts to rename the Kennedy Center were unlawful,” Beatty said in a statement.

“His name no longer desecrates this sacred memorial, which belongs to the American people.”

The panel of judges wrote on Wednesday that the board of trustees’ request “failed to show how they will be irreparably injured” if Trump’s name remains off the building through the appeal process.

The board had argued that the removal “threatens to impede” fundraising efforts, but the judges found that claim came without the support of “specific facts or evidence”.

The Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment from the Associated Press news agency.

When Trump first took office in 2025, he replaced the Kennedy Center’s board of trustees, who then named him chairman. His name was quickly added to the building, but a federal judge then ruled that the name change was illegal, prompting the ensuing legal battle.

A three-judge panel on Wednesday denied a request from the Kennedy Center’s board to keep President Trump’s name on the institution while the board appeals an earlier ruling that dubbed the name change illegal and had it rescinded.

It’s another setback for the board of trustees, of which Trump is chairman, in a saga that began earlier this year when the Kennedy Center became: “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

The conspicuous addition, and ensuing legal battle, became symbolic of Trump’s broader push to imprint his legacy — and, in this case, his actual name — on the nation’s capitol in his final term.

The panel of judges wrote Wednesday that the request “failed to show how they will be irreparably injured” if Trump’s name remains off the building through the appeal process.

The board had argued that the the removal “threatens to impede” fundraising efforts, but the judges found that claim came without the support of “specific facts or evidence.”

The Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

A federal judge earlier this year ruled that the name change was illegal, and Trump’s name was removed from the building’s white marble facade in June.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

SEATTLE — Is everybody happy now? You good, Mr. President?

Put our boys in a blender, President Trump did, with those phone calls to FIFA President Gianni Infantino. Messed with their mojo by politicking to get American striker Folarin Balogun’s red card rescinded.

We’ll have to check VAR, but it might be the first time Trump succeeded at having a decision overturned.

Probably because this time what he sought to overturn — discipline stemming from Balogun’s accidental contact in the United States’ victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina — actually was unjust. Balogun should not have received a red card.

The problem is, having our President butt in here was a joke. Unfunny and out of bounds, offsides, an own goal — all of the things.

It put the U.S. team at the center of a geopolitical maelstrom, which is exactly what they did not need in the hours before the biggest match of their lives and the biggest match in the history of the U.S. men’s soccer program.

Some 40 or 50 million viewers were expected to tune in; how many of them watched for the first time? And what sort of impression did Monday’s 4-1 blunder-filled meltdown against Belgium make? That we stink at soccer — still?

If you were one of them, please, believe your soccer-fan friends when they tell you the Americans played much better in previous matches.

But so much for a magical run. On their home turf, the Americans pulled up lame before the finish line (aka, for the U.S. team’s purposes, its first quarterfinals since 2002).

To their credit, after the debacle, members of the U.S. team didn’t complain about anything being rigged. They didn’t use the distraction as an excuse. And they didn’t point fingers at anyone — anyone at all.

U.S. striker Folarin Balogun (20) walks to the locker room at halftime against Belgium in the World Cup on Monday at Lumen Field in Seattle.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“We’re playing on home soil,” defender Chris Richards said. “So the only pressure we put on ourselves is to perform for our country, and ultimately didn’t feel the way we wanted to today. But I don’t think the antics of the last 24 hours had anything to do with it.”

No, they said the “debate,” or “outside noise” or “political manipulation” — as Tim Ream, Alex Freeman and coach Mauricio Pochettino described what others are calling “Balogate” — were not to blame for the gut-punch that answered the question: Why not us?

Because the U.S. is not yet good enough to beat the world’s great teams. Especially not when their pregame preparation includes having to try to block out an international uproar.

To have any hope against the Belgians in the round of 16 — a matchup between FIFA’s Nos. 9- and 17-ranked sides — the Americans needed to be going full-tilt, to be focused and ferocious and probably also a little bit lucky.

Instead, they looked shook, rattled. And they got rolled.

They were the worst version of themselves at the worst time, which was so weird from a team that had been on its front foot from the first whistle against Paraguay.

Not Monday. Against Belgium, they were on their heels from the outset. Heavy touches, slow afoot, playing like they had the weight of the World Cup on their shoulders.

And all that White House maddening meddling — for what?

Balogun started and played most of the match, but it could just as well have been reserve striker Ricardo Pepi. Or you or me, Balogun was that ineffective.

His play of the day came postmatch, when he approached Belgian coach Rudi Garcia and the two had a respectful exchange. A real diplomat, that Brooklyn-born, Britain-raised American by birthright.

This loss was a real team effort, of course. Christian Pulisic came off in the 59th minute after twisting his right ankle — leaving this World Cup without a goal in the four matches he appeared.

Matt Freese, the Harvard-educated starting goalkeeper, had a brain cramp of epic proportions when he stepped outside of the box and failed to corral a ball. Belgium’s Charles De Ketelaere kicked it loose and set up Hans Vanaken, whose shot traveled behind Ream for an easy score that made it 3-1 in the 57th minute.

There was a lot of poor decision-making with this match, on and off the pitch.

In the end, Trump’s appeal to Infantino did more harm than good. But what if some good could come from it?

Hey, FIFA, what about giving teams a process to appeal cards, like our American athletes in the NBA, NFL and MLB have?

Offering a suggestion box wouldn’t be opening Pandora’s box, not if it were a transparent and regular part of the game that would, hopefully, offer increasingly fair outcomes in a tournament where every match is so monumental — as our President recognized, much too enthusiastically.

U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino waves to the crown after a 4-1 loss to Belgium at the World Cup on Monday.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

WASHINGTON — Over the past year and a half, the Trump administration has turned repeatedly to the Supreme Court for clearance on its sweeping immigration enforcement plans. While the administration lost its bid this week to do away with birthright citizenship by executive order, its strategy has, in large part, been a success.

In a White House news release listing 60 actions the administration has taken as part of its America First agenda to restrict immigration, the first four actions were decisions by the Supreme Court.

After the court ruled in June that President Trump can, without judicial review, end temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, his administration celebrated the ruling as a “major victory for American sovereignty.”

The list of accomplishments also noted that the high court had granted immigration officers greater leeway to remove green card holders who are accused but not convicted of crimes; allowed the administration to limit how many people can apply for asylum; and gave it the green light to continue deporting immigrants to third-party countries where they have no connection.

The decisions raise significant consequences for immigrants who have made their lives in the U.S., and stand to reshape public views over the country’s historic position as a place of refuge. The administration has not only tried to restrict illegal immigration, it has also targeted people residing in the country legally and stepped up efforts to drive them out.

The court’s term that ended last week is the most robust judicial affirmation of executive power over immigration in the court’s history, said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. Chishti said the rulings signify that future presidents could continue to change immigration policies at their discretion.

“The biggest impact is that we have now fully understood the power of the presidency, especially in immigration matters,” Chishti said. “Where there is any discretion left to the president or the executive, this Supreme Court has widened the limits of that authority.”

One of Trump’s earliest wins since returning to the White House came last September, when the Supreme Court affirmed that immigration agents can stop anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally on the basis of their perceived race and ethnicity, job or the language they speak.

Afterward, federal officials launched enforcement operations in Chicago, North Carolina and Minneapolis, using increasingly aggressive tactics until two U.S. citizens were shot and killed by immigration agents in January and the administration shifted course.

The Supreme Court’s rulings have landed with particular force in South Florida, which is home to the largest share of Venezuelan immigrants in the country.

The end of Temporary Protected Status — a program intended to protect people in the event of a natural disaster — heightened concerns about deportation to a country that is reeling after twin earthquakes from June 24. More than 100 Venezuelans deported from the U.S. hours before the disaster are among those missing.

Some Florida Republicans called on the administration to renew the legal protections for Venezuelans in the U.S.

“Congress specifically included earthquakes in the TPS statute for moments exactly like this,” said Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.). “I urge the Administration to redesignate TPS for Venezuelans already in the United States because sending them back after this catastrophe is simply not the right thing to do.”

The White House did not respond to a request seeking comment on whether Trump would authorize humanitarian relief for Venezuelan immigrants.

Immigrants from El Salvador are now holding their breath for an upcoming decision on their TPS designation, which is set to expire Sept. 9.

About 1.3 million people from 17 countries were enrolled in the program when Trump took office last year. The administration has already terminated TPS for many of them, and the Supreme Court’s decision last week, which concerned Haitians and Syrians, clears the way for federal officials to continue.

“The implication of this is that at least most of the claims that have been litigated to challenge this administration’s illegal war on TPS are now foreclosed,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, who presented arguments for the Syria case.

The concern among advocates took on greater urgency after The New York Times and other outlets reported on Thursdaythat immigration officials, seeking to reach a goal of 2,000 arrests per day, had detained more than 10,000 people in less than a week.

Arnulfo De La Cruz, who leads a California union representing thousands of home care workers with temporary protected status, said he is alarmed by the Supreme Court’s many immigration rulings.

“We’re getting into really dangerous territory with, in some ways, the Supreme Court almost legislating the priorities of the administration,” said De La Cruz, who is president of SEIU California and SEIU Local 2015. “That’s the responsibility of Congress.”

In a blow to a centerpiece of the administration’s immigration agenda, the divided Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship — that, with few exceptions, a person born in U.S. soil is citizen.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired Cornell University immigration law professor, called the ruling one setback among Trump’s largely successful restructuring of how the U.S. treats immigrants. He pointed to a tracker led by a Stanford University law professor that lists more than 700 immigration policy actions by the Trump administration so far.

“Despite this seemingly historic loss, the Trump administration is winning its war on immigrants,” Yale-Loehr said.

And now some Republicans, including Trump, are saying Congress should lead the attack on birthright citizenship.

“You can’t have the kinds of immigration programs other countries have when you can just have a baby here, and now that child is an American citizen,” said Stephen Miller, a Trump aide who is behind much of his immigration agenda.

But Chishti, of the Migration Policy Institute, said in reality, “Congress can’t do anything — it was left powerless by the Supreme Court.”

Other conservatives called on the administration to lean on the considerable authority it already has.

Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a hard-line restrictionist group, said the birthright decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”

Democrats, meanwhile, cheered the win while acknowledging that their fight against the administration’s immigration policies continues.

“We cannot rest,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy, and the notion of what it means to be American.”

More immigration-related cases are among those in the Supreme Court’s docket starting in October and could offer further expansions of executive power.

One case concerns more than 50,000 petitions filed in federal courts in hopes of obtaining the release of detained immigrants. Those petitions ballooned after the administration began limiting the ability of many immigrants to seek release through bond hearings in immigration court.

The administration is expected to put up a fierce defense.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s plans to commemorate America’s 250th anniversary of independence with a rally on the National Mall were complicated on Saturday by severe storms that gathered near Washington, forcing event organizers to order an evacuation.

“Freedom 250 will share updates on programming and doors reopening,” Freedom 250 spokesperson Danielle Alvarez said in a statement that encouraged participants to seek shelter at museums and federal buildings near the National Mall. Washington’s metro system also said several of its underground stations were available for shelter.

Plans for fireworks were still moving forward in other cities including Chicago and New York, where tall ships passed the Statue of Liberty earlier in the day, recalling the fanfare around America’s 200th anniversary in 1976.

Anticipation for the milestone holiday has been building for much of the year, serving as an opportunity for Americans to reflect on their complicated history as onetime colonists of an empire who became a superpower of their own. Organizers of celebrations months in the making had to adjust or cancel activities entirely as much of the East Coast sweltered under heat that approached and in many cases surpassed triple digits.

Heat is defining the big weekend in many places

The disruption was particularly acute in Washington, where signs at the Great American State Fair posted an alert shortly after 7 p.m. ET encouraging participants to leave the area. As the order to evacuate was played over loudspeakers on the National Mall, some people appeared to be standing in place, talking with those around them and not exiting the area, while others were walking toward exits. National Guard troops told people to leave.

The U.S. Secret Service announced it had temporarily closed checkpoints to screen attendees ahead of Trump’s speech, which was scheduled to begin around 10 p.m. ET.

Crowds were building in the area several hours before Trump’s speech. Tina Hale, 58, of Cohoes, New York, watched three of her grandchildren children dip their hands into a pool of water near a museum. Hale pointed toward the sky and urged them to look up as three military jets roared above the crowd.

“If that doesn’t make you proud to be an American,” she said.

David Koshko, 42, and his wife, Jennifer Koskho, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, came to Washington for a baseball game but planned to stay for the city’s fireworks show. After baking in the heat for hours during the Pittsburgh Pirates’ win over the Washington Nationals, they took a break in the shade of an overpass near the National Mall to plot their next stop.

“Just to be a part of the 250 years (anniversary) is an amazing thing,” said David Koshko, a commercial driver and veteran of the Marine Corps reserves.

In Philadelphia, fireworks began to crack as early as midday in the birthplace of the nation near the site where the Declaration of Independence was adopted by delegates to the Second Continental Congress. Hundreds of visitors were gathering at Independence Hall in the sweltering heat to await the celebrations coinciding with the France-Paraguay World Cup knockout game at Philadelphia Stadium, which began with commemorations of the holiday.

“It’s one big party in here,” Carlos Alban, who traveled to Philadelphia from Chicago to watch the match, said as he arrived at the stadium, adding that he spotted a fan in the parking lot dressed as one of the Founding Fathers.

About 45 minutes before another World Cup match in Houston, a message from astronauts aboard the International Space Station noting the holiday was beamed into the stadium.

In New York, tall ships, with their masts, rigging and white sails outlined against a blue sky, made a procession around the Statue of Liberty and up the Hudson River.

The 43 ships were followed by a display of aerial might with a stealth bomber and the Navy’s Blue Angels. Patrouille de France, the French Air Force’s acrobatic teams, flew over New York Harbor with their red, white and blue trails, evoking images of the American flag.

“We got up early and just rode our bikes about a mile down here to come see the scene,” said Oona Moore, a Jersey City, New Jersey, resident who took in the New York festivities. “We saw the tall ships and we saw the planes, you know, all different manner of military aircraft. I’ve never seen it so close and in the sky at the same time.”

At George Washington’s Mount Vernon, people took the Oath of Allegiance to become U.S. citizens. They stood with eyes closed and hands over hearts for the national anthem.

An uneasy nation gets ready to celebrate

Trump spoke Saturday with world leaders including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who both congratulated the U.S. as they engage in a war. The president has also heard from Britain’s King Charles III and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent days.

Inside the U.S., The celebrations are unfolding against the backdrop of a deep divide this election year that has been expanding for years, visible in everything from political expression to cultural norms to age-old questions over race, class and immigration.

At Mount Rushmore on Friday, Trump spoke of communism as a “mortal threat to American liberty” with the Republican president saying it was more dangerous than either World War or 9/11.

Without naming Trump, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a Democrat who is also a democratic socialist and recently backed several successful congressional candidates in their primaries, appeared to reference Trump during a speech Friday.

“Those ideals upon which our nation was built — they are strong enough to endure any authoritarian regime, but only if we reach for them,” he said.

Vice President JD Vance said small but loud voices would speak on America’s birthday about its imperfections instead of its greatness.

“They will tell you that America is just another country, where the weak struggle against the strong,” Vance said speaking aboard the USS Kearsarge in New York Harbor.

Sloan writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Emily Wang in New York, Luis Andres Henao in Philadelphia, Kristie Rieken in Houston, Sarah Rankin in Richmond, Va., Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, S.C., Safiyah Riddle in Los Angeles and Jesse Bedayn, Anna Johnson, Will Weissert and Michael Kunzelman contributed to this report.

Ethics experts sounded the alarm Wednesday after new financial disclosure reports revealed that President Trump’s income ballooned to $2.2 billion in 2025, with $1.4 billion coming from various new cryptocurrency-related businesses.

“It’s bribery. It’s graft. It’s exploitation of public power for private financial gain,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and an expert in government ethics. “Trump has — with the acquiescence of a somnolent, GOP-controlled Congress and the active assistance of John Roberts’ Supreme Court — transformed the presidency into a massive corruption racket.”

Trump reported income of over $600 million in 2024. But after he entered the White House in 2025, he reported that his income had soared to more than $2.2 billion.

The 2025 annual disclosure report filed with the Office of Government Ethics shows that Trump ramped up his real estate business in countries across the globe, particularly in the Middle East, at a time when his government was negotiating over vital issues of military aid and economic tariffs. The president also expanded his dealings in the relatively new realm of cryptocurrency.

According to the 927-page report, Trump made $635 million in royalties from Celebration Coins and more than $500 million from his World Liberty Financial crypto firm. He drew in millions from a raft of Trump-branded merchandise including God Bless the USA Bibles and sneakers depicting him with his hand raised in a fist. He also brought in $10.4 million from a property in the United Arab Emirates and $9 million from a property in Saudi Arabia.

Noah Bookbinder, an ethics expert and former president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a nonprofit watchdog group in Washington, described Trump’s business dealings while in the White House as “entirely unprecedented, certainly in modern history, but I think by most ways of measuring, in all of American history.”

“This is corruption,” Bookbinder said. “You have a president who has been quite transparently using the presidency in ways that benefit his business interests and intertwining the presidency and business interests.”

But the president and the White House brushed aside ethics concerns about the money Trump is making.

Trump told reporters Wednesday that he made a lot of money before he came to the White House, he had “big institutions” run his money, and that he had benefited, like every other American, as the stock market went up.

“We’re all profiting,” he said. “I’m profiting because I have a lot of money and a lot of cash.”

In a statement, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: “Neither the President nor his family has ever engaged — or will ever engage — in conflicts of interest. … All actions by President Trump and his administration are taken in the best interest of the American people.”

Although the report does not show exactly how much Trump is earning — it provides details of revenue, rather than profit — the scale of the president’s cryptocurrency dealings elevated ethics watchdogs’ long-standing concerns.

Jordan Libowitz, a vice president at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, said the most concerning detail of the new report is the hundreds of millions of dollars coming in from various crypto ventures partnered with companies that the American public knows little about.

“At a time when his own administration itself is setting regulation for these types of companies,” Libowitz said, “there’s just this massive opportunity for corruption when foreign governments and foreign nationals can pour tens of millions of dollars into the president’s pocket.”

As a real estate mogul, Trump has long invested in hotels, condominiums and golf courses. But cryptocurrency, Libowitz said, offers vastly more potential for corruption.

“There’s only so many hotel rooms you can book, so many rounds of golf, but there’s no limit with crypto,” Libowitz said. “You can just buy his meme coin and he gets a cut, so you kind of take out the middleman, but also the cap or the amount of money you can funnel to the president.”

Libowitz said it was also problematic for Trump to expand his real estate empire in foreign countries, particularly the Middle East.

“Now it seems that almost all his new developments are in foreign countries, and that opens up, if you’re building this giant resort, you’re going to need help from the local government, whether it’s tax breaks or utility issues, or building a road, or speeding up permits,” Libowitz said. “These are ways that foreign governments can do favors for the American president.”

In the half a century before Trump was elected, ethics experts say, presidents from Nixon to Obama publicly released their tax returns, sold properties or put the proceeds in a blind trust managed by someone they did not know.

“They weren’t doing it because they legally had to, but because they thought it was the right thing to do,” Libowitz said.

Ever since Trump was first elected in 2016 and opted to not sell his businesses or put them in blind trusts, ethics experts have urged Congress to impose more aggressive financial oversight over money in politics.

“Congress needs to update the law, and basically, mandate blind trusts and sale of assets and disclosure of tax returns,” Libowitz said.

Noting that the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause explicitly states that the president cannot accept things of value from foreign or domestic governments, ethics experts say Trump is flouting the law and Congress has chosen to not enforce it.

Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said Congress needed to close loopholes that exempt presidents from federal conflict of interest laws as well as enforce the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

“Nobody holding a position of trust with the United States government can accept emoluments, profits and benefits from foreign governments, and that is flatly prohibited under the United States Constitution,” Painter said. “Now, if the United Arab Emirates put money into Liberty Financial, as I understand they did … and then Trump makes money off Liberty Financial, that’s a Foreign Emoluments Clause problem.”

Congress, he said, should empower an independent prosecutor to investigate such conflicts.

“The problem with the Foreign Emoluments Clause is how do we enforce it?” Painter said. “The founders and head of the Congress enforced it by impeaching anybody who took a bunch of foreign government money, but I guess that system’s not working. That’s a serious problem.”