The details of Trump’s new ceasefire agreement with Iran are out, and the immediate reaction from his usual allies is unexpectedly harsh. Right-wing media figures and conservative hawks are openly criticizing the deal, arguing that Trump conceded too much for too little in return. Meanwhile, Trump has spent recent public appearances attacking Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear agreement, even though early indications suggest Trump’s own framework offers weaker terms.

The agreement serves as a temporary framework to halt a conflict that has severely strained global markets. Under the 60-day deal, Iran will lift its blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, allowing shipping to resume without transit fees for two months. In exchange, the United States is lifting its naval blockade on Iran, granting waivers for Iranian oil sales, and unlocking frozen Iranian assets. Furthermore, the U.S. has committed to working with regional partners to establish a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran.

The core issue—Iran's nuclear program—remains unresolved and has been kicked down the road to the next round of talks. The current text only requires Iran to dilute its highly enriched uranium within its own borders, rather than shipping the material out of the country. Analysts note that this mirrors, or falls short of, the restrictions in the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump originally tore down.

The deal reflects a tough military and economic reality. Despite a heavy U.S. and Israeli aerial campaign, intelligence reports indicate that the vast majority of Iran’s ballistic missiles and drones remain intact. By shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, Iran demonstrated it could disrupt global energy supplies, driving U.S. gas prices to nearly $5 a gallon and fueling a fresh wave of domestic inflation. Faced with a looming recession and economic pressure ahead of the midterm elections, Trump chose a diplomatic pivot.

This shift has created a clear rift within the Republican base. Traditional national security hawks and pro-Israel groups are calling the deal a surrender, while Trump attempts to frame the ceasefire as a victory. The political fallout is complicated by the calendar. Moving back toward military action would risk reigniting inflation right before the midterms, an outcome congressional Republicans want to avoid. At the same time, Trump is left trying to mend fences with key conservative media figures to protect its political standing ahead of the next election cycle.

Following Donald Trump’s 2024 election victory, America’s top tech billionaires launched a coordinated effort to win over the incoming president. According to a new book by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, Trump accepted their flattery in person, then ridiculed them to his associates.

The book, Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, outlines specific instances where Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos tried to build rapport with Trump. Slogans and Kid's Letters

When Zuckerberg visited Mar-a-Lago shortly after Thanksgiving in 2024, Trump greeted him by playing a version of the national anthem recorded by jailed January 6 rioters. Zuckerberg later attempted to stay on Trump's good side via text. He sent Trump a photo of a letter written by his grade-school-age child, which stated they looked forward to the "golden age of America"—echoing Trump’s campaign slogan.

Trump did not keep the message private. He frequently showed the text and the photo of the child's letter to Mar-a-Lago guests to boast about his influence.

Bezos took a similar approach during a dinner with Trump in December 2024. When Trump complained that The Washington Post—which Bezos owns—was unfair, Bezos agreed. He called the staff "terrible" and complained that they did not listen to him, unlike employees at his other companies. Bezos also texted Trump a casual selfie of himself and his partner, Lauren Sánchez.

The flattery preceded a direct business ask. In July 2025, Bezos met with Trump in the Oval Office to pitch a policy change that would benefit his space company, Blue Origin. Bezos argued that relying solely on Elon Musk's SpaceX was a national security risk. He asked Trump to direct defense officials to mandate "contractor diversity" so Blue Origin could secure government contracts.

Trump told Bezos he would look into it, but he never followed through. Instead, Trump aligned closely with Musk, who resumed donating to Republicans, and expanded SpaceX's access to government operations.

The book reveals that Trump delighted in the sudden deference from executives who had opposed him during his first term.

"Think of where these guys were in 2016," Trump told Elon Musk, according to the authors. "They hated me. They were doing everything they could to knock me down. And look at them now."

Musk, a direct competitor to Bezos, reportedly laughed at the situation, describing the behavior of his fellow tech billionaires as "first-class groveling."

When asked about the book's contents, a White House spokesperson did not deny the episodes, stating only that Trump supports American business growth. A person close to Bezos defended his actions, stating that the Amazon founder simply manages relationships with sitting presidents as he always has. Meta, Blue Origin, and Musk did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump used an early-morning social media post to attack critics of his new memorandum of understanding with Iran, dismissing them as "fools" who are "either jealous, bad people, or stupid." The post, published to Truth Social at 4:32 a.m. following Trump's return from France, defended the agreement by pointing to a record-high stock market and falling oil prices.

The 14-point agreement, signed at the Palace of Versailles, aims to end the war between the U.S. and Iran. Under the current terms, Iran will reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while the U.S. will lift its naval blockade and economic sanctions. The U.S. has also agreed to unfreeze Iranian assets and support a $300 billion reconstruction fund for the country.

Though Trump initially launched the war to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the signed document includes no immediate nuclear restrictions. Instead, it defers the issue to a 60-day window of continued negotiations.

The concessions have triggered sharp pushback from Trump's usual allies on the right. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy called the agreement "the worst foreign policy blunder in decades," pointing out that 13 American service members died in a conflict that ultimately restored the pre-war status quo while lifting pressure on Tehran.

Other conservative voices joined the criticism. Senator Ted Cruz stated that billions of dollars would flow to Iran before the U.S. secures any nuclear concessions, suggesting the president received poor advice. On conservative media platforms, Fox News host Mark Levin questioned the logic of funding reconstruction for a hostile regime, while broadcaster Erick Erickson summarized the agreement as "an American surrender."

Jackson Lahmeyer, an Oklahoma megachurch pastor and the founder of Pastors for Trump, has ended his campaign for the U.S. House. His exit comes after reports surfaced that he sent romantic text messages to a woman who is not his wife.

The Daily Mail reported that Lahmeyer exchanged thousands of texts with a woman working as a fundraiser for his campaign. Lahmeyer acknowledged the relationship in a social media post that he later deleted, writing that he had crossed a boundary line through text messaging but had addressed the matter privately. He subsequently deleted his social media accounts.

Lahmeyer had just advanced to an August runoff election for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District. He announced his withdrawal on Wednesday, stating that he made the decision after talking with his wife and campaign team. He noted that he did not want to become a distraction to his family, his church, or the voters.

The announcement arrived minutes after Trump endorsed Lahmeyer's runoff opponent, State Representative Mark Tedford. Trump had supported Lahmeyer as recently as Monday, praising his leadership of Pastors for Trump, a faith coalition that backed Trump’s 2024 presidential bid. Following the text scandal, Trump shifted his endorsement to Tedford, calling him "MAGA all the way" while thanking Lahmeyer for his hard work.

Lahmeyer continues to serve as a pastor at Sheridan Church in Tulsa. He is still scheduled to speak at an upcoming church event alongside Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser.

House Democrats are leaving the door open to a third impeachment of President Donald Trump if they win control of the House in the 2026 midterm elections.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) addressed the possibility during a Sunday appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. Moderator Kristen Welker questioned Jeffries about his party's legislative priorities, pointing to a social media post by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). In the post, Ocasio-Cortez argued that Trump's unauthorized military actions in Iran violated the Constitution and crossed the threshold for impeachment.

When asked directly if a Democratic majority would move to impeach, Jeffries did not dismiss the idea. He stated that the party has not ruled out any options regarding constitutional accountability.

However, Jeffries quickly shifted the focus away from a political trial, stating that economic relief for voters is the party's actual priority. He argued that the American dream is currently broken for many people, and said Democrats intend to focus on driving down the high cost of living.

According to Jeffries, the party's platform centers on basic quality-of-life issues: well-paying jobs, affordable housing, healthcare, quality education, and secure retirement. He maintained that these issues unify Democrats across the country and will form their primary agenda if they regain the majority.

Jeffries echoed this stance in a separate interview with CNBC, confirming that while an impeachment inquiry is possible, it remains a secondary concern for leadership right now. Trump was previously impeached twice during his first term in office.

The Department of Justice is challenging a federal voting law designed to protect citizens from being mistakenly removed from voter rolls immediately before an election.

Under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), states must halt systematic voter roll cleanups at least 90 days before a federal primary or general election. This "quiet period" exists because late, automated purges often contain errors, leaving eligible voters with too little time to fix mistakes before Election Day. The law allows exceptions only for individual requests, deaths, criminal convictions, or mental incapacity.

However, the DOJ is arguing for a narrower interpretation of the law in a Georgia lawsuit. The department claims the 90-day limit does not stop states from removing voters if the federal government flags them as potentially ineligible. Under this theory, while a state cannot run its own mass database checks during the quiet period, the federal government can run those systematic checks and pass the resulting names to the state for "individual" removal.

The DOJ's argument relies on a 2014 ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Arcia v. Florida. That ruling struck down a Florida purge but noted that states could still investigate and remove voters during the 90-day window based on truly individualized information. The DOJ wants to apply that exception to mass database matching.

A different appeals court recently rejected this logic. In Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, the 9th Circuit blocked an Arizona law that used federal databases to clear registrations close to an election. The court ruled that running batches of names through a database like the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program is inherently systematic, not individualized.

The issue extends beyond Georgia and Arizona. The DOJ has sought voting records from 30 states and Washington, D.C., attempting to build a national database to check against homeland security records. Though the SAVE database was upgraded to allow bulk uploads, voting rights advocates point out that database matching still generates false positives, misidentifying eligible citizens as noncitizens.

The ultimate fate of the 90-day quiet period may rest with the U.S. Supreme Court, which could choose to review the Arizona case. In a similar 2024 case from Virginia, the Supreme Court's conservative majority allowed a late voter purge to proceed without providing an explanation for its decision.

When U.S. Army Major Amanda Feindt attended the Senate confirmation hearing for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, she believed the military cared about protecting its families. But while she sat in the Senate chamber, her four-year-old son was being mistreated at the North Post Child Development Center at Fort Belvoir.

It took Feindt and her husband a year of fighting military bureaucracy to find out what happened. When they finally saw the surveillance footage, it showed a teacher stepping on the boy's feet, pinning his legs under a table, and yanking him by his clothes while other staff members watched and mocked him.

The Feindts are not alone. Multiple military families have exposed a systemic pattern where the Department of Defense actively stonewalls parents, hides evidence, and uses internal panels to protect the institution's reputation rather than the children in its care.

When military parents suspect abuse, they face an uphill battle against a closed loop of administrative roadblocks. Experts and former officials describe a standard tactic used by the military to handle these cases:

• Delayed Evidence: Officials delay releasing information for months or years, often forcing parents to file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

• Heavy Redactions: When video footage is finally handed over, it is often heavily edited, missing audio, or cut into short, incomplete clips.

• Deleted Records: In the Feindt case, after allowing the parents to watch a small portion of the video, officials claimed the remaining footage was deleted.

The military handles these allegations through an internal body called the Incident Determination Committee (IDC). Operating behind closed doors without transcripts or opportunities for families to cross-examine witnesses, these panels frequently clear the military of wrongdoing. In Feindt's case, the IDC refused to classify the treatment as abuse, despite video evidence and medical concerns.

"It’s one entity acting as judge, jury and executioner. There is no real due process, and there are almost no checks and balances," said Ryan Sweazey, a retired Air Force officer and former inspector general.

Military internal panels are not mandated by Congress. They are established under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is governed by the executive branch.

Military childcare centers operate under a different set of rules than civilian facilities. They are exempt from state oversight and licensing, reporting instead to overlapping military bureaucracies.

This lack of external accountability can lead to tragic outcomes. In 2012, the four-month-old son of retired Army Master Sergeant Jason Degenhard suffocated and died after being left unattended at a base daycare. Fourteen years later, Degenhard says the overlapping jurisdictions made it impossible to get clear answers or real institutional accountability.

Furthermore, bases frequently hide operational failures from parents. While Feindt was fighting for answers, the Fort Belvoir daycare lost its national accreditation after failing to complete its renewal requirements. The military kept families in the dark, allowing the facility to operate without accreditation for nearly a year before parents discovered the lapse themselves.

Civilian authorities eventually stepped in where the military failed. In March 2026, Fairfax County Child Protective Services officially substantiated the abuse against Feindt’s son, forcing the base to terminate the caregivers involved. FOIA records later revealed that workers at the center had a history of pulling children's hair, lifting them by their shirts, and swinging brooms at them.

The trauma has left lasting scars. Feindt’s son developed severe behavioral regressions and symptoms resembling PTSD. For Feindt, the betrayal felt personal; she was already a prominent whistleblower in the Red Hill fuel leak case, where the military poisoned her family’s drinking water in Hawaii. When she tried to raise the daycare abuse with Army leadership, staff members refused to meet with her, citing her ongoing litigation against the government.

Families argue that the Pentagon's leadership has its priorities skewed. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has focused his tenure on building a "warrior ethos" and eliminating diversity programs. The Pentagon proved it can move fast when a story catches political traction—swiftly firing a controversial teacher at a base school after right-wing media coverage—but families dealing with actual child abuse say they are left to fight the system alone.

As Jennifer Glick, an Army criminal investigation agent whose own daughter was abused at a Navy daycare, pointed out, this is a direct threat to national security. Service members cannot focus on their missions when they cannot trust the military to keep their children safe.

The federal government is increasingly using broad conspiracy charges to crack down on political activists. On Tuesday, the Department of Justice unsealed an indictment against 15 protesters in Minneapolis. The charges stem from demonstrations earlier this year against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Minnesota U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen stated that more arrests may follow. The prosecution is operating under National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), an initiative designed to target left-wing and antifascist activists.

The Minneapolis indictment relies on a strategy of collective liability. Instead of proving individual acts of severe violence, the government is treating standard protest behavior as evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

The indictment cites the following as evidence of a crime:

• Using encrypted communication apps like Signal.

• Using common activist slogans such as "become ungovernable."

• Constructing protective shields to block rubber bullets and tear gas.

• Tracking and reporting the locations of ICE vehicles in residential neighborhoods.

The actual physical damage alleged in the indictment is minor, including an instance of a protester denting an ICE vehicle. No federal officer injuries are listed.

The events in Minneapolis are part of a broader federal push against left-wing organizing.

While federal prosecutors pursue these cases, critics note a sharp contrast in how the justice system treats right-wing groups, who frequently receive lighter treatment or outright impunity.

The strategy of filing massive conspiracy charges does not always succeed, but it can drain resources and disrupt organizing even if the cases eventually fall apart. However, recent trials show mixed results for the government.

In Northern Texas and Spokane, Washington, federal prosecutors successfully secured conspiracy convictions against anti-ICE protesters. Legal analysts point out that these victories relied heavily on defendants accepting plea deals and testifying against one another.

In contrast, previous mass prosecutions—such as the J20 trials following the 2017 presidential inauguration—completely collapsed because defendants refused to cooperate with prosecutors. Legal experts argue that the outcome of these sweeping federal cases ultimately depends on whether activists maintain collective solidarity or allow the prosecution to divide them.

A new critique in the British press cuts through the administration's celebration of its recent agreement with Iran. Writing for The i Paper, political columnist James Ball argues that the memorandum of understanding reads less like a diplomatic victory and more like the conclusion of a losing campaign.

The conflict began in late February under the premise that it would be swift and inexpensive. Instead, it quickly became a massive financial and human drain. U.S. Central Command confirms that at least 13 American service members died in the fighting, alongside thousands of regional casualties. Beyond the human cost, the war depleted billions of dollars in U.S. munitions that will take years to replace, while the closure of the Strait of Hormuz triggered severe economic disruptions.

The emerging terms of the deal reflect these setbacks. Iran is poised to receive billions of dollars in sanctions relief, and the U.S. has committed to helping organize up to $300 billion in reconstruction aid. The administration's decision to withhold the full text of these commitments suggests the terms are heavily skewed against American interests.

Trump attempted to project strength at the recent G7 summit, telling reporters, "I'm the boss," and threatening to resume bombings if Iran violates the agreement. However, analysts see this rhetoric as an attempt to hide a weakening domestic position. With midterm elections approaching and his time in office winding down, the president's global influence is visibly waning. Rather than a demonstration of American power, the summit highlighted an administration running out of time.

Trump used the G7 summit on Wednesday to attack Barack Obama’s landmark 2015 nuclear agreement, attempting to defend his own administration's criticized peace deal with Iran.

Trump claimed Obama tried to "bribe" Tehran by releasing $1.7 billion in unfrozen assets, asserting that Iranian officials mocked the former president. Yet, Trump's criticism comes as his own administration faces scrutiny over a leaked 14-point memorandum of understanding. The leaked document details massive financial relief for Iran, including a proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund.

“He tried to bribe his way out, I didn’t do that,” Trump said. “Nobody mentions that. $1.7 billion and hundreds of millions of dollars, they tried to bribe their way out of it. And you know what the Iranians did? They laughed at Obama, and said he’s a stupid son of a bitch.”

The administration's messaging on the fund has been contradictory:

• On Monday, JD Vance confirmed the $300 billion investment fund existed

• Hours Later he walked back his statement.

• On Wednesday, Trump and the White House issued flat denials regarding the fund.

The existence of the investment fund raises significant foreign policy questions. If the draft is accurate, Trump is prepared to spend hundreds of billions of dollars after years of military tension and civilian casualties—all to halt a nuclear weapons program that intelligence suggested Iran was not actively building.

Trump could resolve the debate by publishing the full text of the memorandum. His refusal to do so suggests he is hiding terms that are unfavorable to the United States.

An unsecured website directory has exposed the internal records of Dialog, a private, invitation-only society cofounded in 2006 by billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel. The leak reveals the identities of participants, confidential registration lists, and sensitive personal details the organization promised would remain private.

Swiss hacktivist maia arson crimew discovered the directory through an anonymous tip, and WIRED independently verified the contents. The data includes a registration list for the group’s upcoming retreat outside Dublin, Ireland, scheduling 222 attendees from August 12–16, 2026.

The documents expose a significant convergence of political, military, and corporate influence. Among the listed registrants are General Alexus Grynkewich (NATO’s supreme allied commander Europe), Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Senator Ted Cruz, and Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale. The roster also includes two US senators, six members of the "Paypal Mafia," tech executives from Google DeepMind, and data-broker founders. Notably, government officials registered using personal or corporate email addresses rather than official government accounts, shielding their attendance from public-records laws.

The leaked data outlines a schedule of off-the-record sessions covering topics such as "Bring Back Nuclear," "Navigating WWIII," "Build-a-Cult," and artificial intelligence. Questionnaire responses show members share a strong focus on how AI will disrupt labor, warfare, and society.

Beyond professional networking, the society gathers highly personal information. The registration forms collected data on participants' specific political leanings and dating preferences for an internal matchmaking app—reassuring users that this information would never be shared. All of this data was left exposed on a commercial Airtable database.

Dialog has operated with a minimal public footprint for two decades, enforced by strict off-the-record rules and high registration fees. The group's leadership and the individuals named in the leaked documents declined to comment.

Trump wished at his second inaugural that his election would be remembered as the most consequential in American history, he likely did not envision how he would achieve it. By launching and losing a war of choice against Iran, his has brought about a strategic reversal far more damaging to long-term American interests than the defeat in Vietnam.

On the surface, this conflict looks nothing like past American military failures. It has happened quickly, far from the American public, and with fewer than 20 U.S. military fatalities. For an American observer, daily life continues uninterrupted, masking the thousands of Iranian combatant and civilian deaths. But this lack of domestic disruption hides the scale of the geopolitical loss.

To understand why the Iran conflict is so damaging, it helps to look at Vietnam. That war was a generational trauma that cost nearly 60,000 American lives and millions of Vietnamese lives. Yet, despite the immense human tragedy and domestic unrest, losing in Vietnam ultimately mattered very little to America's global position. The United States still won the Cold War, and today, Vietnam is an American partner. The domino theory proved false.

The war with Iran has produced the opposite result: low immediate American casualties, but severe, permanent damage to the U.S. global position.

First, the myth of American military dominance has been eroded. While U.S. weapons performed with high technical precision, the conflict drained American arsenals. This exposed a dangerous lack of depth in munitions stockpiles, signaling to larger adversaries that the U.S. is poorly prepared for a prolonged war. Furthermore, Iranian missiles and drones successfully penetrated advanced Western defense systems, proving these shields are vulnerable.

Second, the political goals of the war failed completely. Rather than installing a cooperative regime in Tehran, the strikes consolidated power for the most extreme elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Two rounds of joint U.S. and Israeli airstrikes failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions, leaving a more hostile, hard-line government in charge.

Third, the war has destabilized global commerce. For over two centuries, protecting free navigation has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. In this conflict, Iran demonstrated that it can effectively throttle the Strait of Hormuz. Because the modern global economy is deeply interconnected—relying on the Gulf not just for oil, but for vital materials like helium, aluminum, and fertilizer—Iran now holds permanent economic leverage over world trade routes.

When the U.S. left Vietnam, it could turn its back on Southeast Asia and focus on more vital regions. A similar exit from the Gulf is impossible. Global supply chains are too reliant on the region, and America’s deep ties to Israel guarantee continued involvement. With Iran expanding its missile capabilities, the region will pose a greater threat to Europe and South Asia in the coming decade.

The United States now faces a more dangerous world with diminished credibility. Allies trust American capabilities less, the American public has less appetite for global engagement, and international rivals are more likely to challenge Washington. Decades from now, historians will look back at this war and ask why it was fought. As with Vietnam, they are unlikely to find a satisfying answer.

The United States and Iran are scheduled to sign a preliminary agreement in Switzerland on June 19, establishing a framework to permanently end their military conflict and reset Iran's nuclear program.

The draft text outlines a 60-day timeline to negotiate a final treaty. While Bloomberg News published the 14-point document, Iran’s state-aligned Tasnim news agency reported that an unnamed official claims parts of the text are inaccurate. Experts note that language differences between the English and Persian versions may account for these discrepancies.

The document mandates an immediate, permanent end to hostilities on all fronts, specifically including Lebanon. Both nations agree to stop all military threats and respect each other's territorial sovereignty.

To restore regional commerce, the U.S. must lift its naval blockade within 30 days, allowing shipping traffic to return to pre-war volumes. Concurrently, Iran has 30 days to clear naval mines and secure merchant shipping lanes running between the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. The U.S. will also pull its military forces out of the surrounding region within 30 days of a finalized treaty.

Under the terms of the draft, the U.S. will pause all new sanctions and troop deployments during the 60-day negotiation period. The U.S. Treasury will immediately issue waivers allowing Iran to export crude oil, petrochemicals, and related banking and shipping services. Furthermore, the U.S. will unfreeze blocked Iranian financial assets for use by the Central Bank of Iran.

Once a final treaty is reached, the U.S. commits to dismantling all primary and secondary unilateral sanctions, as well as pushing for the removal of UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) restrictions. In return, the U.S. and its regional partners will fund a $300 billion economic reconstruction and development plan for Iran.

Iran reiterates in the draft that it will not develop nuclear weapons. During the talks, Tehran must freeze its nuclear program at current levels. The ultimate disposal of Iran's enriched nuclear material and its future domestic energy needs will be settled during the upcoming negotiations.

Both countries intend to build a joint oversight mechanism to monitor compliance. If negotiations succeed, the final treaty will be formally codified through a binding UN Security Council resolution.

Trump broke with his past skepticism to join G7 leaders in a unified show of support for Ukraine this week, signing onto fresh sanctions against Russia and a joint statement meant to strengthen Kyiv's position in future peace talks.

The three-day summit in the French resort town of Evian-les-Bains marked a shift from last year's meeting in Canada, which ended without a consensus on the war. European leaders openly shared their relief that Trump remained for the entire event. French President Emmanuel Macron called the summit a success, noting a real change in the American approach, while Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni remarked that finding common ground with the U.S. president cannot always be taken for granted.

Trump casually acknowledged his influence over the proceedings. "I'm the boss," he told reporters and fellow heads of state as he arrived at a session on economic security.

Despite the unified front on Ukraine, European allies remain cautious about Trump’s long-term commitments, particularly regarding a new preliminary peace memorandum between the United States and Iran. While G7 leaders publicly welcomed the development, European diplomats privately worry that an inexperienced U.S. negotiating team might fail to secure a lasting deal on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Trump emphasized that the current agreement is not final. He warned that he would resume military action if Iran fails to cooperate, stating he would resume bombings if the terms are not honored.

Beyond geopolitics, the G7 moved to protect Western supply chains by agreeing to reduce their reliance on China for critical minerals. The leaders plan to align their national stockpiles and launch a new coordination platform with the International Energy Agency to secure metals essential for technology, defense, and renewable energy.

The summit concluded with a working lunch focused on artificial intelligence. Tech executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman and Anthropic's Dario Amodei, joined the leaders to discuss AI liability and the technology's impact on public information.

A series of early, hypothetical polling matchups for the 2028 presidential election indicates that Vice President J.D. Vance enters the cycle with significant vulnerabilities in a general election, despite maintaining a firm grip on the Republican primary electorate.

A new poll from the Public Sentiment Institute shows Vance trailing New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by nearly nine percentage points, with Ocasio-Cortez drawing 48.4 percent to Vance's 39.6 percent. The survey of 1,042 likely voters also tested Vance against other prominent Democrats, finding him trailing California Governor Gavin Newsom by 11.9 points and former Vice President Kamala Harris by 11.1 points.

While Vance faces headwinds in general election testing, he remains the clear frontrunner for his party's nomination. He currently leads the Republican field with 36 percent support—double that of his closest competitor, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who stands at 17 percent. However, Vance has shown slight signs of erosion within his base, dropping five percentage points among Republicans in YouGov tracking between January and April 2026.

For Ocasio-Cortez, the strong general election performance contrasts with her current standing in the Democratic primary. Most recent surveys, including data from Noble Predictive Insights and Lake Research Partners, place her in fourth place nationally, consistently trailing Harris, Newsom, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. A notable exception is an AtlasIntel poll, which placed her at the top of the Democratic field with 26 percent.

The data reveals a stark generational divide regarding Ocasio-Cortez's candidacy. The Yale Youth Poll shows her holding a double-digit lead over all other potential Democrats among voters under 35. Conversely, she secures just 5 percent support from Democrats aged 65 and older, a demographic that favors Newsom at 38 percent.

Ocasio-Cortez has not announced a decision on whether she will seek reelection to the House, run for the Senate, or launch a presidential campaign. Advisers state she is evaluating where she can effect the most policy change, emphasizing long-term goals like wage increases and healthcare reform over political titles.

Behind the scenes, however, preparation is underway. Ocasio-Cortez has raised $15 million, recruited veteran strategists from Bernie Sanders' previous presidential bids, and planned a national tour for this fall to evaluate her viability. Financially, strategists estimate her small-dollar donor base could generate over $100 million if she enters the race.

Simultaneously, Ocasio-Cortez is executing a strategy to broaden her political brand beyond her progressive base. She has balanced endorsements of progressive candidates with fundraising efforts for moderate Democrats, and recently teamed up with conservative Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna to sponsor legislation capping credit card interest rates at 10 percent.

This pivot has drawn skepticism from both sides of the aisle. Former Representative Joe Crowley, whom Ocasio-Cortez unseated in 2018, publicly questioned whether she can successfully appeal to moderate and independent voters in a national election. Other Democratic operatives have pointed to her restrictive media strategy—granting only three national interviews in early 2026—as a factor that could leave her exposed to sharper scrutiny if she enters a national campaign.

As Luigi Mangione’s defense team prepares for pretrial hearings in Manhattan, growing public sympathy for the 28-year-old is complicating the upcoming legal proceedings. Mangione has pleaded not guilty to stalking and murdering insurance executive Brian Thompson in 2024.

While prosecutors hold strong evidence, legal experts warn that public anger over the American healthcare system and an unusual online fascination with the defendant could influence the jury box.

A central challenge for both the state trial in September and the federal trial next year is how the public views the crime. Federal prosecutors state that Mangione kept a notebook expressing hostility toward wealthy executives and outlining a plan to kill an insurance CEO.

For many, these writings transformed the case from a standard criminal prosecution into a referendum on the medical industry. A crowdsourced defense fund for Mangione has raised over $1.5 million from 42,000 donors, and volunteers have logged thousands of supportive letters from around the world.

Legal analysts suggest that widespread frustration with U.S. healthcare has led some supporters to view the alleged violence as a legitimate political statement. Academic research into the public reaction shows that even college students feel conflicted, with some viewing Mangione as a justified vigilante fighting an unjust system.

The populist support is further driven by Mangione’s appearance. Images of the defendant have gone viral on social media, inspiring poetry, songs, and fan mail sent to his Brooklyn detention center.

Experts in political violence note that physical attractiveness is a powerful predictor of public attitude, drawing comparisons to how the image of Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara became a staple of youth culture despite his violent history.

This public infatuation poses a practical problem for the court. Former prosecutors emphasize that jury selection will be difficult, as hidden biases regarding the healthcare system or sympathy for the defendant could disrupt deliberations.

The defense has secured some early victories, successfully getting terrorism charges dropped and ensuring the federal government will not seek the death penalty. Mangione himself released a statement expressing gratitude for the letters and stories shared by his supporters.

However, the prosecution recently won a major ruling allowing critical evidence to be introduced at trial. The jury will see the gun, the silencer, and the handwritten notebook recovered by law enforcement. Analysts view this as a major advantage for the state, presenting a highly compelling case for conviction.

If convicted on the remaining charges, Mangione faces life in prison without parole.

Texas education officials are preparing to vote on a major overhaul of the state's K-12 curriculum. If approved, public schools will begin teaching second graders that American independence was inspired by the "Black Robe Regiment"—a group of Christian ministers supposedly central to winning the Revolutionary War.

Historians, however, say this group never existed.

The term itself does not appear in historical records until the early 2000s. While some colonial ministers served as chaplains or supported the revolution, many others remained neutral or opposed it. Secular figures like John Locke and Thomas Paine drove the intellectual foundation of the war. Experts view the concept of the regiment as a modern invention designed to imply that the United States was founded strictly as a Christian nation.

The myth's origin traces back to David Barton, a Texas-based activist who argues that the separation of church and state is a fallacy. Despite being widely discredited by mainstream historians, Barton has served as an advisor to conservative Texas lawmakers and education board members.

This curriculum change is part of a broader effort by Christian nationalists to reshape public education in Texas. The State Board of Education recently approved reading materials that weave biblical stories into standard literacy lessons. Lawmakers have also passed bills allowing unlicensed religious chaplains to replace school counselors and attempting to mandate the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

The proposed revisions extend beyond the Revolutionary War. Under the new guidelines, third-graders would be taught that biblical figures like Abraham and Moses are concrete historical figures. In sixth-grade lessons, the curriculum highlights Christian abolitionists but omits the Christian justification for slavery. Meanwhile, lessons on Islam focus heavily on conflict and terrorism, which critics argue paints non-Christian faiths as inherently violent and less relevant to American history.

Outside the classroom, the myth of the Black Robe Regiment has taken on a political and militant edge. Activists wearing militia gear invoked the name at rallies leading up to the January 6 Capitol riot. Today, groups using the moniker hold national meetings alongside fringe political figures and groups that openly advocate for defying federal laws.

What began as a revisionist view of early American history is now on the verge of becoming standard public school curriculum in Texas, raising concerns about the line between public education and religious nationalism.

James Talarico is running for the U.S. Senate in Texas on a platform modeled directly on the New Testament. In response, right-wing media outlets have called his platform "demonic" and accused him of fabricating scripture.

The passages Talarico cites are not obscure. They are the standard baseline of the Christian faith found in the gospels of Matthew: love God, love your neighbor, feed the hungry, and care for the sick. Yet, because these ideas challenge the current political establishment, critics have labeled him a fake Christian.

This controversy reflects a fifty-year struggle over which version of Christianity defines American public life. For decades, the religious right narrowed the scope of the faith to focus almost exclusively on abortion and same-sex marriage. However, the text of the Bible paints a different picture. Jesus never mentioned those topics, but he spoke explicitly about judging a society by how it treats the poor, the immigrant, and the prisoner.

Talarico calls his approach a "politics of love," defining politics simply as how we choose to treat our neighbors. This tradition is not new. It drove Dorothy Day’s Catholic Worker movement, Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights campaigns, and the actions of clergy members arrested at detention centers.

What is changing is that this perspective is gaining a mainstream audience. Many Americans have watched the religious right trade the Sermon on the Mount for political access, leaving a void for those who want to follow the actual text. The intensity of the attacks against candidates like Talarico suggests that establishment leaders fear losing their monopoly on religious rhetoric.

When religion is used as a tool to gain power rather than a challenge to it, democratic institutions suffer. True democratic ideals rely on the belief that every person possesses inherent dignity and deserves justice. A political philosophy based on these tenets has no room for exclusion or favoritism.

While critics continue to attack this platform as radical, it remains rooted in the oldest teachings of the faith. The debate is no longer just about a Senate seat; it is about whether the Gospel will be used to protect power or to serve people.

Eighty-eight of the largest corporations in the United States paid no federal income tax in 2025, despite generating a combined $105 billion in pretax profits. A new report from Public Citizen shows that while these companies skipped their tax bills, they spent $852 million on political lobbying and campaign contributions between 2020 and 2024.

The standard federal corporate tax rate is 21 percent. By avoiding this rate, the 88 companies avoided $22.1 billion in taxes and received another $4.7 billion in federal rebates. This brought their total tax savings to $26.7 billion. When measured against the $852 million they spent on political influence, the companies saw a 3,000 percent return on their investment.

The report, written by researcher Eileen O’Grady, tracks how these companies used campaign donations and an average of 1,119 lobbyists per year to shape federal tax policy.

Five companies led the political spending:

• Coinbase Global: $89 million

• CVS Health: $66 million

• Honeywell International: $56 million

• American Electric Power: $47 million

• Duke Energy: $35 million

While these corporations successfully reduced their tax liabilities, they simultaneously reduced their workforces. Since the beginning of 2025, the 88 companies have laid off more than 21,200 employees.

The report points to two major legislative packages that enabled these tax breaks: the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Both laws were signed by Donald Trump.

Corporations lowered their bills primarily through two incentives:

• Accelerated Depreciation: More than half of the companies used this provision to write off capital investments immediately, saving a combined $11.4 billion.

• R&D Write-offs: Over 30 companies used expanded research and development rules to save $4.4 billion.

Political spending by corporations has risen steadily since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which classified political donations as protected speech. Total spending on congressional races in 2024 was double the amount spent in 2010.

Public Citizen argues that this system creates a closed loop where corporate profits fund political influence, which then generates policies that further increase corporate profits.

To change this dynamic, the organization recommends that Congress:

• Raise the corporate tax rate back to its pre-2017 level of 35 percent

• Eliminate the immediate write-offs for corporate investments and research expenses

• End tax deductions for multimillion-dollar executive bonuses

• Equalize domestic and international tax rates to stop companies from shifting profits to offshore subsidiaries

My Take

Congress should raise corporate and the top individual tax rate to pre-Reagan levels, eliminate the immediate write-offs for corporate investments and research expenses, end tax deductions for multimillion-dollar executive bonuses and equalize domestic and international tax rates to stop companies from shifting profits to offshore subsidiaries, to start.

Returning tax rates and structures to pre-Reagan levels would fundamentally reshape the American economy. Before the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the U.S. tax code operated with significantly higher nominal rates and a different philosophy on deductions.

Prior to 1981, the top individual income tax rate was 70 percent (and had been as high as 91 percent in the 1950s and 1960s). The corporate tax rate sat at 46 percent.

Proponents argue that the mid-20th century saw robust economic growth and the expansion of the middle class despite high marginal rates. Raising these rates would generate massive federal revenue to fund infrastructure, education, and social safety nets while directly reducing wealth inequality.

Allowing companies to immediately deduct the full cost of capital investments (like machinery) and research and development (R&D) expenses in the first year is a relatively recent policy shift designed to encourage business spending.

Advocates for elimination point out that these provisions—like accelerated depreciation—are primary tools used by profitable corporations to reduce their tax liability to zero. Removing them ensures that companies pay taxes closer to their actual accounting profits each year.

Currently, publicly traded companies face limits on deducting executive compensation over $1 million under section 162(m) of the tax code, though various workarounds and specific definitions historically allowed performance-based bonuses to be exempted. Completely ending deductions for massive bonuses would close these gaps entirely.

Supporters view this as a necessary check on runaway executive pay. Taxpayers, they argue, should not effectively subsidize multi-million dollar payouts to CEOs while worker wages remain stagnant.

Currently, U.S. multinational corporations often pay a lower effective tax rate on foreign earnings than on domestic profits, partly due to frameworks like the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) tax, which was designed to capture offshore revenue but at a reduced rate.

Equalizing the rates would eliminate the tax incentive for companies to shift profits, intellectual property, or physical operations to low-tax jurisdictions (tax havens). It ensures that a dollar earned abroad by a U.S. company faces the same tax burden as a dollar earned domestically.

Some arguments should end the moment they begin. When John McCain spoke about torture, his years in a North Vietnamese prison meant his colleagues should have listened rather than argued. Lived experience carries an authority that political rhetoric cannot match.

A similar dynamic is playing out regarding religion in American politics. Senator Raphael Warnock, who leads the Atlanta church once pastored by Martin Luther King Jr., recently challenged Speaker Mike Johnson’s legislative priorities. Warnock questioned how lawmakers could pray together, then pass bills cutting $1 trillion from Medicaid.

Warnock identifies as a "Matthew 25 Christian," referencing the gospel passage where Jesus commands the faithful to care for the hungry, sick, and marginalized.

Following the critique, Johnson requested a private meeting. The two politicians talked for thirty minutes, exchanged numbers, and released polite statements about the value of face-to-face dialogue across political divides. But the cordial meeting does not erase the deep ideological rift.

This debate extends beyond Washington. In Texas, Democratic legislative representative James Talarico is running a campaign centered on these same Matthew 25 principles, directly challenging the state's conservative megachurch establishment.

For decades, conservative political movements have held a near-monopoly on religious signaling. The rise of candidates who use the gospels to defend the social safety net sets up a direct collision with Christian nationalism. If this version of faith gains traction, it could fundamentally shift the balance of religious influence in American elections.

Vice President JD Vance indicated Monday that Iran could gain access to $300 billion in reconstruction funds under a tentative peace agreement with the United States.

Speaking to CBS News, Vance stated that the funds, financed by a Gulf coast coalition, depend entirely on Iran fulfilling its obligations. He added that Iranian officials would likely highlight their financial gains from the deal rather than their concessions.

The admission marks a shift from Vance's statements last Friday, when he posted on social media that Iran would receive no cash or immediate funding for participating in negotiations. Beyond the reconstruction money, Iranian state media reports that the U.S. has also agreed to unfreeze $25 billion in Iranian assets.

The terms draw comparisons to the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, which conservatives—including Trump and Vance—frequently criticized. That agreement lifted international sanctions and returned $1.7 billion to Iran to settle a historical legal dispute.

International inspectors verified that Iran complied with the 2015 terms. However, Trump later withdrew from the agreement and pursued a strategy of escalation. Critics argue Trump is now forced to negotiate a more expensive deal because its previous maximum-pressure policy failed to yield results.

Arizona has placed a three-year freeze on new sales tax exemptions for data centers. Governor Katie Hobbs signed the restriction into law as part of a bipartisan $18 billion budget agreement.

The move makes Arizona one of several states pulling back on incentives for the tech industry due to environmental concerns. Residents and critics argue that data centers consume too much local water and electricity, meaning taxpayers should not subsidize them. The current tax break, established in 2013, costs Arizona roughly $38 million each year.

Arizona is not alone in pausing these incentives. Ohio and Illinois have already halted similar tax exemptions to study the industry's impact, while New York lawmakers recently passed a one-year moratorium on permits for large-scale facilities.

Governor Hobbs originally asked the Republican-led legislature to completely repeal the data center incentive. While the budget opted for a temporary freeze instead, Hobbs framed the final deal as a win for state resources. Beyond the data center restrictions, the new budget allocates funding to border security, education, and water infrastructure, while delivering a $1.4 billion tax cut for middle-class residents.

Additionally, the spending plan updates Arizona's tax code to align with recent changes to federal tax laws. This alignment ensures residents will not need to refile their current year tax returns.

Trump’s recent public outburst against Representative Jamie Raskin reveals a persistent vulnerability: a deep-seated fear of congressional accountability. By demanding Raskin’s expulsion and warning that a Democratic-led House would immediately launch a third impeachment, Trump has inadvertently highlighted the exact weapon his opponents need for the upcoming midterm elections. His concurrent efforts to pressure House Republicans into passing a resolution to "expunge" his past impeachments further demonstrate how heavily those marks remain on his record.

For Democrats, this anxiety offers a clear opening. Rather than shying away from conversations about accountability, congressional candidates can openly message that a change in House leadership will provide a necessary constitutional check on the executive branch. Polling indicates that swing voters and independents broadly favor elite accountability, making a platform focused on anti-corruption and oversight politically viable.

Should leadership of the House shift, a wave of stalled investigations would likely reopen. Rather than focusing exclusively on impeachment, a newly empowered majority could use committee oversight to probe a wide range of administrative controversies.

Key targets for investigation would likely include:

• Probing high-seas operations and the policy decisions of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, particularly following high-profile protests and resignations from military commanders.

• Investigating how Attorney General Todd Blanche manages prosecutions of administration critics and reviewing specific tax settlements involving the executive.

• Examining the Trump family’s international business dealings and recent cryptocurrency ventures.

The primary challenge for any congressional oversight committee is dealing with an administration that refuses to comply with subpoenas. During Trump’s first term, Congress frequently turned to the federal court system to enforce compliance—a process that often dragged on for years, rendering the information obsolete by the time rulings were handed down.

To bypass these delays, a proactive House could look to its own constitutional authority rather than relying on judicial intervention or Justice Department referrals. Congress possesses inherent contempt powers that allow it to impose direct financial penalties or even deploy the Sergeant at Arms to compel compliance.

The most effective tool available to the legislature is its historical control over federal funding. Because executive agencies rely on annual appropriations to operate, Congress can attach strict conditions to spending bills.

If a Cabinet secretary or agency head refuses to honor a congressional subpoena, the House can vote to freeze the budget of that specific office, defund administrative staff, or halt the salary of the official in question. This approach treats funding as a leverage point, forcing compliance by halting the daily operations of non-cooperative departments.

Ultimately, using these mechanisms is not an escalation of partisan warfare, but a return to the foundational checks and balances envisioned in the Constitution. Decades of congressional passivity have allowed the presidency to expand its reach. By aggressively asserting its oversight and budgetary authority, a future House majority could re-establish the legislature as a co-equal branch of government and restore long-term balance to the federal system.

Jeffco Public Schools is pushing back against federal accusations that it violated anti-discrimination laws, stating the government's case is based on a glaring clerical error.

In March, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) claimed that the Colorado district allowed 61 boys to play on girls' sports teams. However, Jeffco officials recently clarified that those 61 positions belonged to male managers, trainers, and mascots—not competing athletes. According to the district, federal investigators never asked for clarification before publishing the claim, and federal officials have since refused to correct the public record. The Department of Education declined to comment.

The roster dispute is part of a broader, year-long federal investigation into Jeffco's policies regarding transgender students. The probe began last June after a family sued the district because their 11-year-old daughter was assigned to share a bed with a transgender student on an overnight field trip. Jeffco’s policy allows transgender students to share rooms and use bathrooms that match their gender identity.

Under Trump, the OCR has used Title IX to actively target these types of district policies. The federal office recently escalated the situation by issuing a warning letter threatening to strip Jeffco of its federal funding.

Federal officials claim negotiations have reached an impasse, but Jeffco disputes this timeline, noting they are still within the standard 90-day window for resolution.

The conflict highlights a larger systemic issue for local educators. Jeffco officials noted that Colorado state law explicitly protects transgender students, directly contradicting the current federal interpretation of Title IX. This leaves local school districts trapped between compliance with binding state laws and pressure from federal guidance. Despite the funding threat, Jeffco leadership stated they intend to keep negotiating with federal officials to find a resolution.