President Donald Trump may have sunk his standing with Republicans heading into the midterm season after he bullied Kristen Welker of NBC News on Sunday morning, according to one analyst.

Welker interviewed Trump in Wisconsin for "Meet the Press," where the two discussed the ongoing war in Iran, the Trump administration's $1.776 billion so-called "anti-weaponization fund," and the upcoming 2026 midterm election. During the interview, Trump became combative when Welker challenged his assertions about who could receive payments from the weaponization fund. The president became so angry that he abruptly ended the interview and stormed off set.

Saniqua McClendon, president of Vote Save America, told MS NOW's Alex Witt on Sunday that Trump may have pushed more Republicans away with the outburst.

"Donald Trump's a bully. He's been that before, throughout his 2016 campaign, before he got into the White House," she said. "Right now, he's used to manipulating the media to get what he wants. And typically, he spends a lot of time with right-wing media who just kind of praise him all day. That's most of what's in the White House press briefing room. He enjoys that when he can do these press conferences."

"So, if someone challenges him with the truth, he gets upset," she continued. "He's not used to being held accountable. But I think as we get toward the midterms and he gets into a lame-duck position, there are a lot fewer Republicans who are kind of coming around him. And so he's just out there by himself being a bully. And I do think it will start to have an impact, because a lot of these Republicans are going to be asked about his behavior ahead of the midterms. And then as we go into the primaries next year."

Trump's outburst happened at a time when Republicans seem open to going against Trump for the first time in nearly a decade. Last week, the House of Representatives voted to curb Trump's war powers in Iran. Republicans also joined Democrats to approve additional aid to Ukraine in its war against Russian aggression, a measure that Trump publicly opposed.

President Donald Trump was torched on Sunday over what critics labeled his “embarrassing” outburst with NBC News’s Kristen Welker, an outburst that preceded the president ending the interview and storming off.

Aired earlier on Sunday, Trump was pressed by Welker on his false claims of the 2020 election being “rigged.” Trump responded by raising his voice, attacking the media, and declaring the interview to be over before standing up and leaving.

Trump is no stranger to abruptly ending interviews after being challenged on his claims. In 2020, Trump cut an interview with CBS News short after facing what he categorized as “unfair” questions, per Adweek, and in 2022, he ended an NPR interview after being pressed on his false claims of election fraud.

The most recent incident, however, sparked widespread commentary given the intensity with which Trump berated Welker prior to his leaving.

“This man lost his mind a long time ago,” wrote Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) in a social media post on X. “It’s shameful that Republicans in Congress continue to enable him in every way. He’s destroying this country and his mental decline and erratic behavior is a national security crisis.”

Tim Nichols, a staff writer with The Atlantic, called Trump “emotionally unstable,” and described his outburst as a “man [going] on [a] paranoid, babbling rant.”

Neikias Duncan, an analyst, podcast host and writer, described the clip of Trump’s outburst as “such an embarrassing watch.”

And Hemant Mehta, another podcast host, writer and reality television star, used the incident to urge Republican voters to reconsider this November.

“His brain is broken and if you vote for any Republican at any level, this is what you're supporting: being an a------ at every turn, no matter what anyone says, because that's what the party is,” Mehta wrote in a social media post on X.

The Trump administration is dismantling a $368 million deep-ocean monitoring network at the precise moment scientists say the world's oceans are behaving in alarming ways — and a Democratic congressman says the timing is not a coincidence.

Rep. Mike Levin, a California Democrat and environmental attorney who represents San Diego's North County coast, posted a scathing response Saturday to CNN's reporting on the decision, arguing the move serves a hidden agenda.

"The same people killing the monitors want to mine the deep sea for minerals," Levin wrote. "So they are destroying the only tools that could measure what that mining does. That is not an accident. That is the point. You cannot see the damage if you break the instruments first."

The system being dismantled is the Ocean Observatories Initiative, a network of more than 900 instruments positioned throughout the world's oceans that launched in 2016 with an expected 25-year lifespan. It provides continuous real-time data on ocean temperatures, carbon absorption, circulation patterns, and coastal flooding risks. The Trump administration's fiscal 2026 budget cut its funding by 80 percent, and removal of the anchored instruments began this month from sites off Oregon, North Carolina, and the Irminger Sea near Greenland.

Scientists say the timing could not be worse. Ocean temperatures are breaking records. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation — the system of currents that regulates climate across the Northern Hemisphere — is showing signs of potential collapse, a scenario researchers warn could bring severe winters to Europe and accelerating sea level rise on the U.S. East Coast.

The administration described the decision as a "nimbler approach" and "smart lifecycle management." Levin was unimpressed. "That is fancy nonsense for 'we shut it off and hoped nobody would ask why,'" he wrote. "There is no return-on-investment analysis. They cannot show taxpayers save a dime, because the gear is already paid for and the science it produces protects real money and real lives."

His bottom line: "That is not budgeting. That is smashing the gauges while the engine is on fire and calling it efficiency."

Fox News posted a glowing birthday tribute to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday — complete with a saluting photo and celebratory graphics — and the mockery from conservatives was swift.

"HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Secretary of War Pete Hegseth turns 46 today," Fox News wrote. "From serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to leading the Pentagon, Hegseth has spent decades advocating for America's warfighters and national defense."

Douglas Heye, a Republican strategist and former RNC communications director, didn't mince words in responding. "The next time I'm on Fox, I will call this out. Embarrassing." His post was reposted by Gregg Nunziata, the Republican lawyer who had already spent the day publicly criticizing Trump officials' conduct.

Jonah Goldberg, the conservative commentator and co-founder of The Dispatch who left Fox News over its 2020 election coverage, responded with a twist on the network's old slogan: "Fair, Balanced, and Unafraid. Wink."

Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor at National Review, was equally dry: "Is this the kind of thing a news network does? Manifestly (as Bill Buckley would say)."

Former Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger replied without a word — just a photo of President Trump appearing to sleep at a Cabinet meeting.

Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson asked the obvious question: "This is from a news outlet?"

The next time I'm on Fox, I will call this out.

Embarrassing. https://t.co/VHI9N56Qka
— Douglas Heye (@DougHeye) June 7, 2026

The Bush administration’s Justice Department (DOJ) may have played a key role in the unprecedented and “secret” plea deal offered to Jeffrey Epstein in 2007, according to an explosive report from the Miami Herald.

The Herald’s Julie K. Brown, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist whose reporting helped lead to Epstein’s arrest in 2019, spoke with former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter over the course of several months, and on Saturday, had a profile on the veteran law enforcement official published in the Herald that included previously unreported details.

Reiter had initiated the first criminal probe into Epstein’s illegal conduct in the mid-2000s, later working in tandem with federal law enforcement.

However, after gathering evidence and “interviewing two dozen tearful girls and their parents” over the course of 11 months, he was then “stonewalled by state prosecutors and attacked in the media,” and later, “ostracized by federal prosecutors, who took over the case in early 2007,” the Herald’s report reads.

As parents of alleged Epstein victims grew “frustrated” with Reiter, the Palm Beach Police chief “took the unusual step” of requesting a meeting with Alexander Acosta, the Herald reported, who at the time served as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and would later go on to be tapped by President Donald Trump as his Labor secretary.

“I’m here to ask you to live up to the principles that you espoused when you were sworn in,” Reiter told Acosta, he recalled to Brown.

“Who has the authority to make the decision of whether or not to federally prosecute Epstein? We turned it over to you. We did most of the work, and the assistant U.S. attorney told us she usually gets 10 years for each count, and we had maybe 100 counts and probably 24 or so cooperating victims. So whose authority is it?”

Acosta, according to Reiter’s account, “didn’t respond.” Reiter then told Acosta that he suspected Epstein’s legal team was “manipulating” Acosta’s office, the Herald’s report reads, telling Brown in hindsight that he “basically told him to do his job.”

Acosta’s supposed response was telling.

“We have been receiving some guidance from main justice and [Epstein’s] defense attorneys have done a very effective job in stalling the case,” Acosta said, according to Reiter.

Main justice, as Acosta allegedly referred to, is the common shorthand for the DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C. As such, Acosta’s claim was a clear admittance that “guidance” had been issued by the Bush administration’s DOJ as it relates to the probe into Epstein.

That alleged guidance ultimately produced a plea deal in which Epstein pleaded guilty to a single count of soliciting prostitution – despite the FBI having identified at least 40 potential minor victims. The deal also granted broad immunity to Epstein and any potential co-conspirators and allowed him to leave prison on work release for up to 12 hours a day, during which he allegedly sexually abused other victims.

Acosta's supposed remarks were also consistent with statements he made during his vetting to become Labor secretary, when he reportedly claimed he was told that Epstein "belonged to intelligence," that the matter was "above his pay grade," and that he should "leave it alone," The Daily Beast previously reported.

A stated reason for President Donald Trump's repeated cognitive testing is falling apart within his own family.

The testing has been explained by his own health czar as something the president simply enjoys — but Trump's niece, Mary L. Trump, isn't buying it.

The explanation came from Dr. Mehmet Oz, who appeared in the White House briefing room this week to discuss the administration's healthcare agenda. When a reporter pressed on the obvious contradiction — if Trump is as mentally sharp as he claims, why does he keep taking cognitive tests? — Oz offered an unusual defense.

"I think he likes the results," Oz said. "He does really well. He aces the test every single day and I do actually believe that he's curious to make sure everything's going in the right direction. He's a very meticulous person in so many ways that are often underappreciated."

Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist and frequent critic of her uncle, was not impressed.

"I have never heard anything so absurd in my life," she wrote in her weekly Substack newsletter, Trump Trolls Trump.

She noted the inherent contradiction: Trump has repeatedly cited the demands of the Iran war as the reason he can't attend to various obligations — including, she pointed out, his son's wedding. Yet he apparently finds time for repeated trips to Walter Reed for cognitive assessments he has already passed.

"How could he possibly justify going back to Walter Reed repeatedly for tests he's already taken just because he likes the results?" she wrote. "These people are practiced liars, but their lies are getting increasingly unbelievable."

Mary Trump also flagged a separate moment she found telling. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on Fox this week to warn about the effects of excessive screen time on children, citing research linking it to "reading disabilities, math comprehension problems, and cognitive declines." She noted the irony without belaboring it, given her uncle's well-documented habit of spending hours in front of television.

The newsletter also covered Trump's interview with daughter-in-law Lara Trump on Fox, conducted in front of a giant portrait of Trump himself, during which the president unveiled his latest nickname for Democrats: "Dumocrats." Trump explained the etymology at length, crediting House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as his inspiration.

"I said, he's really dumb. Wait a minute, he's a Dumocrat," Trump said during the interview. "I think it works."

Mary Trump had a one-line assessment of the man who came up with that name: "Says the stupidest person ever to draw a breath."

House Speaker Mike Johnson described January 6 insurrectionists as "people who were just there and happened to be walking through the building" — and a White House correspondent who was present that day had a blunt response.

"LIE," wrote Brian J. Karem, the veteran journalist and former Playboy White House correspondent. "I was there. They were walking through the building, destroying property, spreading feces on the walls, stealing things, rioting and threatening to kill the Vice President. But other than that . . ."

Johnson's remarks surfaced through The Intellectualist, which flagged the clip and noted the claim had already been fact-checked as false.

It was not the first time Johnson has minimized the events of January 6. The Speaker has repeatedly downplayed the violence of that day as Trump has worked to reframe the insurrection as a peaceful protest and pardoned the participants.

Karem was among the journalists working in and around the Capitol on January 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters breached the building in an attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 election. More than 1,200 people have been charged in connection with the attack. Before Trump's pardons, hundreds had been convicted.

LIE. I was there. They were walking through the building, destroying property, spreading feces on the walls, stealing things, rioting and threatening to kill the Vice President. But other than that . . . https://t.co/HOTciPUGBO
— Brian J. Karem (@BrianKarem) June 5, 2026

The thought of Alex Vindman winning a U.S. Senate seat makes Donald Trump Jr. physically ill — and Vindman is betting that's good news for his campaign.

The retired Army lieutenant colonel, who blew the whistle on Trump's 2019 Ukraine phone call and is now running for Senate in Florida, is highlighting a string of attacks from Trump world in a new fundraising push. Trump called him "human scum." Trump Jr. labeled him the "Deep State architect" and said thinking of him in the Senate makes him "nauseous." Elon Musk said he should be arrested and prosecuted for "treason" — with the implied penalty being death.

Vindman's response to all of it: fundraise.

"As someone who's served in the Army, I've dealt with my share of so-called 'tough guys' like them," he wrote in the email. "The ones who will bully you into thinking they're so strong — but it's just because they're so insecure. I'm not afraid of the likes of Donald Trump, Trump Jr., or Elon Musk."

Florida is an expensive state for a Senate race, and Vindman acknowledged that Trump's Super PAC has already raised a record $300 million that could be directed against him. But he noted that polls show he can win — and that Florida will likely determine which party controls the Senate majority.

Vindman first came to national attention in 2019 when he reported Trump's pressure campaign on Ukraine to withhold military aid in exchange for investigations into Joe Biden. He was later removed from the National Security Council in what was widely seen as retaliation.

Vindman's email plainly states, "Donald Trump’s son said it makes him 'nauseous' thinking of me in the U.S. Senate. Donate to help us make it a reality."

Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan is raising alarms about an 11th-hour Republican challenger who shares his exact name, accusing Democrats of orchestrating a scheme to confuse voters and hand the seat to Democrat Mary Peltola.

Sullivan, speaking exclusively with CNN's Manu Raju on Inside Politics, said the challenger — Dan Jay Sullivan — is not a genuine Republican but a plant designed to split his vote in Alaska's open primary, where the top four finishers advance to November regardless of party.

"They are trying to cheat," Sullivan told Raju. "There is no plausible explanation what this guy is doing."

Sullivan's team says the evidence points directly at Democratic operatives. When the challenger filed, his campaign logo, letterhead, and website were nearly identical to Sullivan's — which the senator has used for 13 years. "I'd say about 98% similar," Sullivan said. "So why would he do that? To confuse Alaskans on who is me or him."

Sullivan's office also conducted a metadata search on the challenger's press release and says it was written by a Democratic consultant whom the New York Times has described in two separate articles as a Peltola supporter. The challenger also has a documented history of donations to Peltola and left-wing causes, Sullivan said.

"He is a liberal progressive," Sullivan said. "He donated to Peltola. His whole purpose of running is to confuse Alaskans."

The challenger did not respond to CNN for comment but told a local paper he is a "pragmatic Republican centrist."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has publicly identified Alaska as a key pickup opportunity for Democrats in the 2026 midterms. Sullivan acknowledged that reality while expressing confidence he would prevail. "I am going to win," he said. "But they are trying to cheat."

Sullivan said the situation will likely end up in court, citing case law holding that candidates do not have the right to run if their primary intent is to confuse voters and rig the outcome in favor of another candidate. "That is exactly what this guy is doing with support from Democrats and a Peltola campaign supporter," he said.

The United States was issued a dire threat Sunday after a wave of Israeli airstrikes pounded Lebanon’s largest city earlier the same morning with supposed backing from the Trump administration, threats that may materialize as major attacks on U.S. bases and assets in the Middle East.

As Washington and Tehran continue to negotiate terms to end the ongoing Iran war, a key sticking point has been Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon, which since early March has killed more than 3,400 Lebanese and injured over 10,200. Iran has demanded that Israel halt its bombardment as a condition to end hostilities.

And yet, despite multiple attempts by Trump to force Israel’s hand and end its bombardment of its northern neighbor, Israel has defied the president, and has since expanded its military siege of Lebanon, including with the reported use of white phosphorus bombs, which is a potential war crime.

“The naval blockade against the Iranian nation and today's U.S. green light to the Zionist regime turn American and regime bases and assets in the region into legitimate targets,” said Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf on Sunday, according to Axios reporter Barak Ravid. “Our armed forces are ready as always.”

Last week, Trump admitted to hurling expletives at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a phone call over Israel’s refusal to halt its bombardment of Lebanon, telling The New York Post he was “a little bit perturbed” at Israel’s defiance.

The man who Donald Trump wants to be his attorney general is in for a rude awakening, according to one lawmaker.

Rep. Ted Lieu is done being subtle about Todd Blanche.

The California Democrat delivered a blunt message to the acting attorney general late on Saturday night after Blanche announced the DOJ would not be releasing the 2.5 million remaining Epstein files in its possession, saying the department had "moved on."

Lieu wasn't having it.

"Dear Todd Blanche: You don't get to decide to 'move on' from the Epstein Files or from following the congressional law," Lieu wrote. "That decision can only be made by the American people and Congress. You will be disbarred. The files will eventually be released."

Lieu added, "November is coming."

It wasn't Lieu's only shot at Blanche this weekend. The congressman also responded to a report that Blanche had said that he was putting "roadblocks" in place to make it harder for Democrats to hold Trump accountable in the future.

Lieu's response: "Dear Todd Blanche: So what illegal actions by Trump would compel you to think a future Administration would hold Trump accountable? Please do share."

Blanche is already facing serious legal jeopardy on a separate front. As Raw Story reported Saturday, 35 retired federal judges filed a motion accusing Blanche of committing fraud upon the court in connection with Trump's $1.8 billion IRS settlement — a finding that, if verified, could cost him his law license in New York, where he is licensed to practice, according to legal experts.

Scott Pelley, the veteran broadcast journalist who was controversially fired by CBS News last week, revealed new “jaw-dropping” details Sunday about his last meetings before his ousting, one that included, he claimed, false accusations of physical abuse.

CBS Executive Producer Nick Bilton – who was hand-picked by CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss and reportedly vetted by David Ellison, a strong ally to President Donald Trump whose company owns CBS – met with Pelley and proceeded to do “something absolutely jaw-dropping,” Pelley told The New York Times in its report Sunday.

“He pulls out his phone and begins reading a statement off his phone in a room full of 50 heartbroken people,” Pelley recalled Bilton doing, explaining the reasoning behind the mass purge of staff for the network’s “60 Minutes” program. “The callousness, the tone deafness of that, you could hear the groan in the room. They put out a big spread of bagels like we were all going to feel better.”

In a follow-up meeting immediately preceding Pelley’s firing, Tom Cibrowski – president and executive editor of CBS News since last year – leveled a shocking allegation against Pelley, who had been with CBS News for nearly four decades.

“Tom accuses me of physically abusing Nick Bilton. This is a lie,” Pelley told the Times. “I didn’t come within 10 feet of Nick Bilton. In my life, I have never put my hands on anyone in anger. And when he was caught in that lie, he said, ‘well, OK, I take that back.’ And I said, ‘great.’”

Pelley continued: “So I’m thinking that the meeting’s going to carry on. We’re going to have a long conversation. Very quickly after the meeting began, Tom Cibrowski said, this conversation is over. I was stunned. I didn’t have a 60-minute stopwatch in that room. I don’t know how long it lasted really, but I think it was about 10 minutes.”

Pelley said that he left the CBS News office out of frustration, and later the same night, he received an email informing him of his termination “for cause.”

Texas barbecue restaurants are closing at an alarming rate as beef prices surge to historic levels — and economists say the Iran war is one of the factors making it worse.

The U.S. cattle supply has dropped to a 75-year low, according to the Department of Agriculture, sending beef prices soaring and forcing beloved Texas institutions out of business. Closures have already hit Kirby's BBQ in New Caney and Brett's BBQ Shop in Katy, and industry leaders say many more are coming, according to an ABC News report published this week.

"The biggest reason that the price of beef is so high is that the supply of cattle has been diminishing," said Gbenga Ajilore, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "With lower supply, there's going to be higher prices."

Ajilore cited multiple contributing factors: droughts that have limited grazing areas, feed supply problems — and high fuel prices and fertilizer supply disruptions stemming from the Iran war, which has driven up operating costs for ranchers across the country.

The impact on restaurant menus has been dramatic, the report states. Emily Williams Knight, president and CEO of the Texas Restaurant Association, told ABC News that the cost of brisket for a sandwich has gone from 29 cents four years ago to nearly $6 today. "You add potentially 12 hours of labor, because brisket's very labor-intensive," Knight said. "You add the pickle, the sauce, the bun, the credit card swipe fees — what you're seeing is this sort of incredible increase, almost 40% to 50%, is driving these barbecue restaurants right out of business."

Russell Roegels, the owner of Roegels Barbecue Co. in Houston and a 30-year industry veteran, said brisket alone accounts for 45 percent of his entire monthly food budget. "The biggest concern for us in the barbecue industry is how high is it gonna go," he said. "It's a fear for me on a daily basis."

Ground beef prices at grocery stores are up nearly 15 percent since last year, according to Consumer Price Index data. Economists say meaningful relief is likely years away, given that rebuilding cattle herds takes far longer than restocking other protein sources.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz amplified the ABC report on X Sunday, writing: "Texas BBQ spots are shutting down due to high beef prices."

Spencer Pratt, the reality television personality running as a Republican candidate for Los Angeles mayor, posted a meme over the weekend suggesting that he couldn't understand how votes get counted in the city — and the internet was happy to explain it to him.

Pratt posted a photo of a man staring at a chalkboard covered in complex equations, captioning it: "Me trying to figure out how votes get counted in LA."

The replies were not sympathetic.

Rep. Ted Lieu, the California Democrat, went straight to the math. "Dear Republican Spencer Pratt: Before you spew conspiracy theories, here are some numbers for you in LA," he wrote, listing the approximate number of registered Democrats in the city — 1,224,737 — against the approximate number of registered Republicans — 326,292. "This is why you won't make the top two. #math #occamsrazor."

Journalist Mehdi Hasan, former host at MSNBC and founder of Zeteo, kept it shorter: "Which is why you have no business running for mayor of LA in the first place."

Political commentator Tahra Hoops connected the complaint directly to the job Pratt is seeking. "If this is hard for you to understand maybe you should not be in charge of a 15 billion dollar city budget."

Writer Cody Johnston dispensed with diplomacy entirely: "Some dumba-- doesn't understand s---, wow!!!"

Pratt's post is consistent with a broader pattern of election skepticism circulating in MAGA circles around the LA race. As Raw Story reported Saturday, Rasmussen Reports recently promoted a claim that a ballot drop had produced zero votes for Pratt — a claim that was debunked using actual batch composition data showing Pratt received votes in every single drop.

President Donald Trump abruptly ended his interview with NBC News’ Kristen Welker that aired on Sunday after being pressed on his false claims that the 2020 election had been “rigged,” removing his microphone and leaving the set in a rage.

“You’re a one-sided, crooked network!” Trump shouted at Welker after being told no evidence existed to support his false claims of widespread election fraud. “Let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough! Thank you, darling, have a good time!”

Trump then removed what appears to be a microphone clipped on his suit jacket before Welker pleaded with him to finish the interview.

“Mr. President, please, I traveled all the way to Wisconsin,” Welker said.

“I’ve sat in the rain with you for an hour, on and off in the rain and I’ve given you enough time!” Trump said. “You ought to straighten out your press! Come on, let’s go.”

President Donald Trump told NBC News’ Kristen Welker in an interview that aired Sunday that she would be blown up should his administration fail to achieve its stated war objective.

In an episode of “Meet the Press,” Trump was being pressed on his deeply unpopular war against Iran, which, despite the president having claimed it would be resolved in a matter of weeks, has dragged on for well over three months.

“Remember, you were in Vietnam 19 years because stupid people, you were in so many different countries, every war you were in for years, look at Iraq!” Trump said. “You were there for years!”

Among Trump’s most prominent campaign pledges was to “end the endless wars.” During his acceptance speech in 2024, Trump explicitly said: “I’m not going to start a war.”

And yet, Trump not only authorized the unprecedented attack on Venezuela back in January, but launched Operation Epic Fury in late February, kicking off the largest-scale U.S. military conflict since the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The stakes, however, were great, Trump warned Welker, who he said would be blown up should his administration fail to achieve its goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“Listen, Kristen, we're there for a few months and the threat is largely over – soon it will be over – but you cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon or they will blow you up,” Trump said. “There will be no Kristen, there will be no NBC, there will be no 'Meet the Press,' you will end the 'Meet the Press' string.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reportedly arrives at the Department of Health and Human Services around 10 a.m., leaves by 4 p.m., spends staff meetings scrolling on his phone, and once apologized to colleagues for his "dysfunctional self" — and that's just the management style. The vacancies are a separate problem.

A sweeping New York Times investigation published Sunday by reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg, based on accounts from a dozen people with direct contact with Kennedy, paints a portrait of a health secretary deeply disengaged from the department he runs while an Ebola outbreak spreads and critical positions sit empty.

When the World Health Organization declared the Ebola outbreak in Africa a public health emergency — with six Americans already exposed — a reporter asked Kennedy if he was worried. "Yeah, we're working on it," he said. He has made no public comments about the outbreak in the nearly three weeks since. He has received very few briefings from CDC scientists about the virus, according to the Times.

The report notes that the department's leadership vacuum is stark. There is no surgeon general. Around half of the 27 institutes and centers at the National Institutes of Health are run by acting directors. The acting chief of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases was recently fired. The FDA commissioner quit last month. The CDC director Kennedy fired last August is now run on an acting basis by Jay Bhattacharya — a health economist with no prior public health experience who simultaneously holds the enormous job of NIH director. The nation's pandemic preparedness office is run by a former Los Angeles firefighter who founded an anti-vaccine mandate group during COVID.

Kennedy didn't even know the FDA's top drug regulator had been fired until after it happened, according to three people familiar with the events.

"You would never accept a major corporation operating this way," said Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, who has advised health secretaries of both parties. "If the C.E.O. lacked deep expertise in the company's business and the leaders of its most important divisions were missing, investors would revolt. Here, the stakes are much higher."

The Times found that Kennedy has surrounded himself with a tight circle of loyalists, chief among them longtime adviser Stefanie Spear, through whom all decisions and meeting requests are routed. When Kennedy is asked a question, his frequent response is "just run that by Stefanie." Her control has slowed department operations, colleagues say, and fueled departures — Kennedy is on his third top spokesman and has run through two chiefs of staff.

When a gunman opened fire on CDC headquarters last August, Kennedy was fishing in Alaska. A statement to the media was held up for hours while Spear sought White House approval.

Kennedy reportedly attends a weekly Tuesday briefing with the department's 13 division chiefs about once a month. When he does show up, multiple attendees described him as "checked out" and said he spends the time scrolling on his phone.

Reactions came quickly.

Political commentator Molly Jong-Fast summarized the reaction succinctly after the piece dropped: "We're cooked, I tell you."

"RFK jr is working hard … at the gym but not at his job," she further added.

Dick Cheney's former doctor, Jonathan Reiner, chimed in, "For all intents and purposes, Chris Klomp is the Sec of HHS."

In a pre-recorded interview between President Donald Trump and NBC News’ Kristen Welker that aired on Sunday, a severe downpour of rain disrupted discussions multiple times in what one independent journalist characterized as a form of divine intervention.

Trump was mid-sentence discussing "tractors" and "digging mechanisms" when an audible downpour outside the building drew his attention away from the interview, held at Custer Farms in Wisconsin.

“Is that wind, or what?” Trump asked, abruptly pivoting from his remarks. “What is that?”

A voice off camera – presumably a staffer at NBC News – confirmed the sound was due to rain.

“This would be the first of multiple interruptions due to the weather,” Welker said in a narration recorded after the interview concluded. “Rain, hitting the metal roof, making it difficult for both of us to hear each other.”

Independent journalist Aaron Rupar, who’s been labeled by The Times as “the man who watches Trump all day, every day,” characterized the multiple disruptions as a potential message from beyond.

“The big guy upstairs wasn't pleased with this interview,” Rupar wrote in a social media post on X to his more than 1.1 million followers.

After the disruption, Welker moved to get the interview back on track.

“So as we’re having this conversation we can hear a little bit of rain,” she said.

“No, a lot of rain!” Trump quipped as he began to smile.

A Virginia political organizer and a military veteran filed a federal lawsuit Sunday seeking a court order to halt UFC Freedom 250, the upcoming mixed martial arts event planned for the White House South Lawn and Lincoln Memorial on June 14 — a date that is simultaneously the 250th anniversary of American independence and Donald Trump's 80th birthday.

The suit, reported by CBS News congressional correspondent Scott MacFarlane, calls the arrangement a corrupt transfer of public resources to a private business ally. "This plan is deeply corrupt," the complaint states. "The President is giving White and his company what none have enjoyed before: unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial to stage a private, for-profit sports event, with all the promotional and branding opportunities that accompany such access."

Dana White, the UFC's chief executive and a close Trump friend and ally, has publicly framed the event as a celebration of America's semiquincentennial. But the lawsuit notes that White has also admitted the event "was Trump's idea," and argues that UFC Freedom 250 is in reality "a celebration of the UFC's brand and the 80th anniversary of Donald Trump's birth" — and therefore does not qualify for the special permits that allow use of national monumental grounds.

Federal law tightly restricts private use of the South Lawn and Lincoln Memorial, both of which are national parklands administered by the National Park Service. Under the NPS's standard permitting regime, no special events of any kind, including sporting events, may be held on the South Lawn.

The physical footprint of the event is itself a subject of the lawsuit. The UFC has erected a 92-foot-tall, 600-ton steel structure on the South Lawn it calls "the Claw," which the suit says is "destroying much of the South Lawn in the process." Any structure on national monumental grounds, the complaint argues, must be expressly authorized by Congress and undergo a full National Environmental Policy Act review.

The commercial stakes are not being hidden. One UFC executive recently called the event "the greatest earned-marketing tool of all time." VIP packages are being sold for between $1 million and $1.5 million per head. Sponsors including Singaporean cryptocurrency exchange Crypto.com are among those with a financial interest in the event.

Trump has not indicated any intention to scale it back. In a TikTok video, he suggested the Claw might "never" be taken down, comparing it to the Eiffel Tower. "It was supposed to be taken down immediately after the World's Fair," Trump said of the Paris landmark, "and then they said, you know, we sort of like it."

NEW: Virginia political organizer and a military vet file federal suit, seeking court order to HALT the UFC fight at White House:

"This plan is deeply corrupt.. President is giving (Dana) White & his company what none have enjoyed before: unfettered access to the White House..… pic.twitter.com/RHBI6ZdYZQ
— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) June 7, 2026

While a New Mexico legislative committee began its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s sprawling compound known as Zorro Ranch last week, one veteran journalist warned that the effort is analogous to “the fox guarding the henhouse,” flagging what they described as a major “conflict of interest.”

Established in February by the New Mexico Legislature, the New Mexico Truth Commission was afforded $2 million in spending and granted subpoena power to investigate the potential criminal activity at Epstein’s New Mexico property, the site of which multiple women have claimed to have been sexually abused as minors.

The issue, journalist Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez warned in an analysis published on her Substack Saturday, was that the commission, “in reality,” appeared to be “mostly public relations crisis management and damage control for a political establishment in New Mexico that suddenly realized the world could see just how corrupt they’d been with regards to Epstein for decades.”

“The commission recently selected a law firm to lead its investigation, and when you look hard enough at the firm you start to see that the commission is mostly a PR stunt that doubles as a bag of cash for political donors,” Valdes-Rodriguez wrote.

That law firm was Fadduol, Cluff, Hardy & Conaway (FCHC), an Albuquerque-based personal injury law firm. As flagged by Valdes-Rodriguez, the firm’s founding partners each “donated the maximum allowable contribution of $2,300” to the presidential campaign of former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was accused by prominent Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre of being sexually trafficked to by Epstein. Richardson had also accepted $100,000 from Epstein in campaign contributions in his re-election bids for governor, according to news reports.

“[Richardson] is a central figure in the very conduct the commission is supposed to be investigating. Whoops. Nothing to see here, folks. Keep moving,” Valdes-Rodriguez sarcastically wrote.

“If that seems like a conflict of interest, rest assured the people who selected this firm, who also got political donations from its members, have considered the matter carefully and arrived at the conclusion that it is fine.”

Vice President JD Vance used the murder of an 18-year-old British student to deliver a sweeping attack on European immigration policy, drawing sharp criticism from across the political spectrum — including from a Republican who noted that Vance's own wife is of South Asian descent and that the killer was British.

Henry Nowak, a finance student, was stabbed five times by Vickrum Digwa in Southampton, England in December 2025. Digwa, a British citizen, was convicted of murder on May 28 and sentenced to life with a minimum of 21 years. The case drew widespread outrage in Britain after police handcuffed Nowak as he lay dying from his wounds, despite him telling officers nine times "I can't breathe" and four times that he had been stabbed.

Vance posted a lengthy statement framing Nowak's death as evidence of civilizational decline caused by migration. "He should still be alive today, and he would be if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it," Vance wrote.

Nowak's family pushed back before the criticism even began. His father said: "We do not want Henry's murder to be used to create further hatred, division or tension."

Gregg Nunziata, a Republican lawyer and former Senate Judiciary Committee chief counsel, called out Vance directly — and personally. "The VP, whom I knew a bit in the before times, and I both married women with South Asian roots," Nunziata wrote. "I'm mystified by how he could so quickly jump on an objectively awful story and frame it in an anti-immigrant, here specifically anti-South Asian, way." In a second post, Nunziata went further: "What Vance is doing here, and may God forgive him, is exactly what the Left did around Floyd and other events. He's taking a messy situation, with obvious and shameful mistakes, generalizing and weaponizing them, and exploiting a death in pursuit of political advantage."

Actor James Woods escalated rather than recoiled. "The Second Amendment is fast becoming our only means of survival," he replied to Vance. "Carry, carry, carry. Nobody is going to be there in time to save you. Talk is lovely, but a bullet is faster."

Ed Davey, leader of the UK Liberal Democrats, pushed back from abroad: "We all need to resist attempts like this to politicise Henry Nowak's death and divide our country — whether they come from MAGA politicians like Vance or their cronies here in the UK."

British commentator Tan Smith redirected the argument against the VP. "Your ICE agents shot an unarmed US citizen in the head. A mother. Then they shot another man for standing in the street. The US government murders its own citizens."

Rep. Lauren Boebert had a blunt message for a Fox News Digital reporter who asked her about affair allegations Saturday: "F--- you, first of all."

The Colorado Republican was asked about unverified allegations from Cynthia West, described as the ex-girlfriend of Rep. Thomas Massie, claiming an encounter between Boebert and Massie shortly after his wife's death in 2024. Massie, a Kentucky Republican and frequent Trump critic, lost his primary race last month after Trump backed his opponent.

Boebert didn't stop at the opening expletive. "If you're going to bring me into this, the sexist stuff is out of control," she continued, visibly agitated and gesturing toward the reporter outside what appeared to be a Capitol area building. "So there's your clickbait that you were looking for and I don't want to talk about anybody's exes and their crazy s--- they do."

She then walked away.

The exchange was posted by Fox News itself, which noted the confrontation in a clip running just over 13 seconds. The allegations have not been verified and Boebert did not address their substance, framing the question itself as the problem rather than offering a denial.

It is hard to be on left-leaning social media and not hear the panic screams directed at Congressional Democrats for not "doing something" amidst the chaos and corruption bursting forth from the reactor breach within the administration. As for actually stopping or holding up the legislation powering through all three MAGA branches, one can somewhat sympathize with Democratic pols, given how little they can do under our form of government.

But Democrats can and must fire back when holding the floor in oversight, especially during committee hearings going out to screens everywhere. And on that issue, we see signs of life — and none too soon.

This administration's flaunting of its breathtaking corruption continues to poison the nation's foundation, and if Democrats lack the power to arrest right now, at least establish a record, something on which to build, a message, and thus the movement to stop it. History gets recorded moment to moment, and this administration bets that no one has a moment to spare to stop them.

Seen from afar, perhaps Trump and Co. have read it right; the country's incuriosity over the corruption is stupefying. One of this regime's only true successes is fully absorbing the maxim about the cover-up being bigger than the crime. The guy who could shoot somebody on Fifth Ave. and not lose a vote will have to just hire someone to do it because his time is dedicated to the floor of the NYSE, using inside information, indeed creating the information hour to hour, to profit off the latest developments.

No deep throat "follow the money." No — just follow the news.

Senator Professor Elizabeth Warren has had it and took Treasury Secretary and hedge fund manager Scott Bessent to the shed over Trump's day trading, noting that any private entity with such success and activity would have regulators knocking at the door with warrants. Instead, Bessent got Warren, wondering how the hell this happens right in front of us. Bessent had nothing because there's nothing to be had, only retorting that Congress should "get its house in order first," as if A.) It's his job to tell Congress what to do B.) Congress being almost as bad somehow gives Trump a license to commit crime in daylight, and C.) any self-respecting government couldn't do both.

Over in the House came the hopelessly inept and one of the uniquely dull members of the Cabinet, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who got his Okie handed to him by Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA). Mullin apparently believes that DHS is a part-time position he can do primarily working out of his house, jetting back and forth to Washington twice weekly after making sure everything's okay in Oklahoma rather than, literally, "everywhere else."

It is right there. Trump making millions, Mullin jetting around in Kristi Noem's jet, doing whatever one does in bed 35,000 feet over the country, working on a COVID schedule rather than planning for the next pandemic. Whatever is to come of it is up to the country, whether we even care enough anymore, remains to be established; what's up to the Dems is making sure that it's at least known, addressed, and fought against.

So fight they do. (And, please, remember this particular moment, because when Hurricane "Macho" hits Houston with 145 mph winds this summer, bringing millions of people's lives to a standstill, requiring a herculean effort from, well, literally everywhere else, remember if Mullin seemed at all "engaged" about whether his Department remained secure, never mind the nation's security.)

Yes, when conditions crater all around, screaming at your Democrats to "do something" is as much a cry for help as it is an instruction, never mind insurrection. But we shouldn't take for granted these days, the ones that quickly constitute the history of this regime, that someone took the flag and demanded answers, accountability, something.

As for Trump, Bessent, Mullin, the entire lot of them. They must see a nation of suckers. There's nearly no other explanation as to how Trump can trade seven-figure NVIDIA stock in the same week he opens China to their chips. Instead of shooting someone on the street, Trump took the gun to the bank and simply walked out with a bag. Money doesn't create itself out of thin air; there are victims. Trump bought that stock from someone who thought it more likely to go down, given everything known at the time, the seller not knowing what Trump did, that he alone was about to improve NVIDIA's fortunes. Get invested, so to speak.

It's just all so awful. But we need so much more of this. The statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five years, and whether anyone will ever be fully held accountable depends greatly on where our priorities go as history unfolds from here, moment to moment — at least Democrats appeared to capture this one.

Jason Miciak is a Rawstory Columnist and former Editor at Occupy Democrats, an author, political consultant, attorney, and single parent girldad. Follow on Bluesky and can be reached at jasonmiciak@gmail.com.

Tesla CEO and Trump administration ally Elon Musk expressed disbelief Saturday regarding a GOP proposal to reshape the U.S. military in an “unprecedented” fashion, going as far as to flag his own generative artificial intelligence chatbot for verification.

“Congress is hiding the U.S.-Israel military relationship in the defense bill,” wrote Democratic congressional candidate Ethan Wechtaluk in a social media post on X. “There is a second bill that goes further. It makes it law that a president can't pull intelligence sharing back without clearing a legal hurdle, even if you elect one who wants to.”

Wechtaluk was referring to a provision buried within the House Republicans’ defense budget proposal for fiscal year 2027, a memorandum that would “fuse the U.S. and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas” in an “unprecedented” manner and integrate the Israeli military with the United States’ more so than “with any other country in the world,” the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft reported recently.

Wechtaluk also flagged a separate bill sponsored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) that would prohibit the United States from suspending, reducing or limiting aspects of U.S.-Israeli intelligence and security cooperation arrangements “except on the basis of a specific and identifiable national security concern determined by the President.”

Musk, who spent $290 million “of his own money” to support President Donald Trump and Republicans in 2024 – and at least another $73 million in 2025 – appeared to be in disbelief at Wechtaluk’s claim.

“Is this accurate?” Musk wrote in a response to Wechtaluk’s social media post, while also tagging his own chatbot known as Grok.

“Yes, accurate on the key facts,” reads the written response from the Grok chatbot.

Ed Martin, the former Trump Justice Department official who served as interim U.S. Attorney for Washington and later led DOJ's "weaponization" working group before being removed from that role earlier this year, posted a message over the weekend that drew sharp pushback from Republicans and journalists alike.

"They killed Charlie. They shot President Trump. They put hundreds into the DC gulag by lying," Martin wrote on X. "It's not a battle of ideas — they want us dead. Know the fight we are in."

Gregg Nunziata, a Republican lawyer and former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, was direct in his response.

"Whether this is deluded or malicious, it's terribly dangerous that people who practically long for political violence serve in positions of authority." His comment was reposted by Norman Ornstein, the longtime congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Investigative journalist Scott Stedman kept it shorter: "Braindead Ed."

Conservative author John A. Daly was equally terse: "This is stupid."

Not everyone was critical. Actor Randy Quaid, a prominent MAGA figure, replied with a target emoji. Joshua Reid of Redpills.tv echoed Martin's closing line approvingly: "Know the fight we are in."

Martin's post fits a pattern of his DOJ career. During his tenure at DOJ, he oversaw reviews of prosecutions of January 6 defendants and the department's broader effort to investigate what it called the "weaponization" of government against Trump allies. He was stripped of that role this year but remained at the department in an advisory capacity, according to reports.

President Donald Trump vowed back in January that his administration’s takeover of Venezuela would “benefit” Americans, and yet, just over six months later, that promise appears to be imploding after key players have reportedly gotten cold feet, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

In the immediate aftermath of the unprecedented U.S. attack on Venezuela earlier this year, the Trump administration took control of the nation’s oil revenue, which Trump claimed at the time would be “used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.” The Trump administration had hoped U.S. companies would invest $100 billion into the South American nation’s energy infrastructure.

“But businesses don’t want to spend big on capital-intensive projects to extract heavy crude, which take decades to pay off, if there’s a high chance the government will backslide,” the Post’s report reads.

“ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance said recently that Venezuela has ‘a lot more work to do on their side of the equation.’ He said the overhaul of the hydrocarbon law was insufficient ‘to attract a whole lot of investment’ because it could amount to a ‘95 percent government take.’ Chevron CEO Mike Wirth has expressed similar sentiments.”

The Trump administration was recently in hot water over its handling of Venezuela’s oil revenue. Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) pressed Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week during a congressional hearing on whether the administration was concealing lucrative private contracts related to Venezuela’s oil.

“The Venezuelan government’s illegitimacy raises the risk of investing capital,” the Post’s report reads. “Once real elections are held, U.S. companies will gain a clearer sense of whether it’s worth pouring in money.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used the 82nd anniversary of D-Day to compare migrants crossing the Mediterranean to the Nazi invasion of Europe — and the backlash was immediate and bipartisan.

Speaking at the Normandy ceremony, Hegseth departed from solemn remembrance to deliver an anti-immigration political statement. "Sadly, today different European beaches are stormed by different dangerous ideologies," he said. "In Spain and Italy and Greece and Bulgaria, boats and men arrive. When will European capitals do something about that invasion? Or is it too late?"

Greg Bagwell, a retired British Air Marshal and former senior RAF commander, was among the first to respond. "The commemoration of the bravery, tragedy and importance of D-Day is not ever the place to try and score cheap political points. What an ignorant and disrespectful dumba--."

Tom Nichols, a national security expert and staff writer at The Atlantic, noted a glaring historical problem with Hegseth's framing — one that multiple people picked up on. "Making an analogy where the West is the defender of the beaches — you know, where the Nazis were — is not the smartest speechifying," Nichols wrote, "even for the man some inside the Pentagon refer to as 'Dumb McNamara.'" His post was reposted by former Republican congresswoman Barbara Comstock.

Reed Galen, a Republican strategist and co-founder of the Lincoln Project, was less clinical about it. "If you've been to the American Military Cemetery in Normandy, and you've looked out over those rows of crosses and stars of David, you'll know how odious this man is," he wrote. "Those men didn't die for this ideology or a------- like Pete Hegseth."

British attorney Jessica Simor pointed to Hegseth's "Deus Vult" tattoo — the 1095 Crusader rallying cry of Pope Urban II to expel Muslims from Jerusalem, which has since been adopted as a symbol by far-right extremists. "As a far-right Christian nationalist, likely of the kind that favoured the Final Solution, he should have been banned," she wrote.

Political commentator Anna Neumann put it plainly: "The heroes of Normandy deserve remembrance, gratitude and humility. Using D-Day commemorations as a platform for culture-war politics is shameless."

Occupy Democrats noted the core absurdity: Hegseth had compared migrant boats to the Allied invasion — placing Europe's governments in the rhetorical position of the forces that were trying to stop it.

Tim Kaine also weighed in, saying, "Apparently our nitwit Secretary of War(drobe) thinks a D-Day commemoration is an appropriate time to push his far right ideology in Europe."

Podcast host Matthew Yglesias chimed in with a question:

"Why did he construct an analogy in which he is on the side of the Nazis?"

A former U.S. official offered a bizarre explanation as to why the Trump administration has yet to sign off on a deal with Ukraine on a “major drone production agreement” that the two nations have actively discussed since at least last September, a holdup that may very well be “kneecapping the U.S. military,” The Hill reported Sunday.

Last August, President Donald Trump was hammered by two of his own officials for making “one of the biggest tactical miscalculations” of his presidency – turning down an offer from Ukraine to accept a package of interceptor drones, a package that could have significantly helped the United States combat Iran’s drones, which posed a “bigger problem than anticipated” to Trump’s war effort.

And last September, Ukraine reportedly offered to enter into an agreement with the Trump administration to partner on producing a counter-drone defense system. However, the Trump administration had responded with “hesitancy,” The Hill reported, “slowing the U.S. military down in an area where it’s already trying to play catch-up.”

“Even with senior Pentagon officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll lauding Kyiv’s drone abilities, the Trump administration is still biding its time on taking full advantage of the Ukrainian capabilities, a delay that experts say is potentially kneecapping the U.S. military,” The Hill’s report reads.

“One former official who spoke to The Hill on the condition of anonymity had a more blunt assessment, calling the holdup ‘lethargy’ on the part of the Trump administration and ‘a certain amount of hostility towards Ukraine coming from the very top.'"

Phillips O’Brein, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, warned that not only was the Trump administration’s refusal to close a deal jeopardizing the U.S. military’s effectiveness, but that it was actively putting U.S. servicemembers at risk.

“The US is putting its own troops in danger by not working as closely as possible with the Ukrainians on drone development,” O’Brein wrote recently in a social media post on X. “To stay close to Putin, Trump is showing once again how little he cares about US soldiers.”

Friends,

I detest him and everything he does or says. Ditto his despicable aides and Cabinet members, his unprincipled sycophants and suck-ups.

But it’s possible that someday we’ll look back on this horrendous era and say we needed Trump. We needed to see how horrible it could get before America was able to revive its ideals.

Please hear me out.

Even before Trump, we were barreling down the wrong road. Inequalities of income, wealth, and opportunity were worsening. Legalized bribery was soaring in the form of mounting campaign contributions from big corporations and the wealthy. Workers were getting shafted. On Wall Street and in C-suites, fealty to the rule of law was giving way to “greed is good” selfishness. Giant corporations were monopolizing ever more of the economy. America was losing its moral authority in the world (think Abu Ghraib and the torture memo).

We couldn’t have remained on that road. Even if we didn’t know it then, most of us understand that now. Trump has opened our eyes to the consequences of extreme greed, corruption, cruelty, and utter disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law. His brazenness and shamelessness have awakened us to much that we took for granted.

He and his regime are still dangerous as hell, of course. But the American public is catching on. His polls are in the cellar; they continue to fall.

It’s as if the nation has been through basic training in democracy, a stress test in civics, a crash course in the importance of having a decent and good government.

Before Trump, how many Americans understood the importance of “checks and balances” among the three branches of government, as envisioned by the Founders?

Now nearly everyone knows, because we’ve seen what happens when the head of the executive branch usurps the power of Congress and defies the federal courts.

How many of us really knew what “due process” meant when it came to giving people accused by the government an opportunity to defend themselves?

By now most of us have seen videos of people dragged out of their homes in the dead of night by masked agents of the U.S. government and thrown into detention camps without so much as a hearing. And we’ve seen government agents murder American citizens in cold blood on the streets of our cities.

Did we understand the meaning of corruption, bribes, self-dealing, and pay-to-play before Trump extorted corporations and billionaires to contribute millions to his campaign, his PAC, his inauguration, his ballroom, and his 250th birthday party? Now, we surely do.

Did we really know the importance of professional civil servants before Trump fired tens of thousands of them and substituted brainless loyalists? Before he got rid of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because it published truthful jobs data he didn’t like?

Did we understand the importance of expertise before Trump turned his back on career diplomats at the State Department, doctors and epidemiologists at the Centers for Disease Control, and experienced lawyers at the Justice Department and replaced them with loyalist hacks?

Or the meaning of “equal justice under the law” before Trump turned the Justice Department into his own private law firm to prosecute political enemies and pardon supporters?

Did we comprehend the true meaning of freedom of speech and expression before Trump attacked our universities for allowing demonstrations he disliked? Before he got CBS to fire Stephen Colbert for satirizing him and muzzle “60 Minutes” for criticizing him?

Did we know the dangers of oligarchy before Trump authorized Elon Musk to destroy entire federal agencies? Before Trump suck-up Jeff Bezos prohibited the editorial board of The Washington Post from endorsing Kamala Harris? Before Trump turned over to Larry and David Ellison much of how Americans learn what’s going on — CBS’s broadcast network, its news division, and over 28 local television stations, as well as CNN, TikTok, Comedy Central, Discovery, HBO and HBO Max, and Warner Bros. Studios?

Did we understand the importance of the federal government keeping us safe and healthy before Trump eviscerated health and safety regulations? Before he decimated the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control, and much of the Department of Health and Human Services? Before he authorized a crackpot with no medical background who opposes vaccines to run the world’s largest and most powerful health agency?

Did we understand why the Federal Reserve needs to be independent of politics? Did we know why the Federal Trade Commission needs to crack down against monopolies? Did we appreciate why the National Labor Relations Board must protect workers’ rights to form unions?

I venture to say, in answer to all of these questions: No, we did not know.

Now, most of us do.

It’s a terrible time. I share your sadness, anger, and fear. But prior to this daymare, too many of us had fallen asleep at the wheel. We had let America barrel down a road that was compromising too many of the ideals we hold in common.

Maybe we needed this horrific wakeup call in order to get back on the road we should have been on. We needed to see how fragile the institutions of self-government are in order to know why we must strengthen them. We needed to be reminded of what America is all about — what it should be about — in order to revive it — and reclaim it, for and by the people.

We will use what we’ve learned. We will fight for a stronger democracy. We’ll demand equal justice and the rule of law. We’ll commit ourselves to the common good. And we will assign Trump and his regime to the dustbin of history.

• Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

President Donald Trump's decision to abandon his $1.8 billion IRS settlement didn't defuse the legal crisis surrounding it — it just shifted the target, according to a federal trial attorney who has been tracking the case.

Sabrina Haake, a 25-year federal litigator and political analyst who writes the Substack newsletter The Haake Take, argues that Trump dropped the so-called anti-weaponization fund not because of political pressure ahead of the midterms, but to avoid forcing the appointment of a third attorney general. The real threat, she writes, came from an extraordinary intervention by 35 retired federal judges.

On May 27, those judges — spanning both parties — filed a motion to reopen Trump's IRS case on suspicion of fraud against the court. Their motion accused the Department of Justice of deceiving U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams by announcing a settlement publicly without notifying the court, then using that settlement as legal justification for transferring $1.776 billion in taxpayer money to Trump, his family, and his businesses while purporting to release all federal claims against them.

The judges called it "most egregious conduct involving a corruption of the judicial process itself," writing that the parties "used the proceedings before this Court as a legal pretext" while working to prevent the court from determining whether a legitimate case even existed. If Trump controlled both sides of the same case and personally profited from the outcome, the judges reasoned, there was no legal controversy — only theft.

At the center of it all is Attorney General Todd Blanche. Haake notes that Blanche moved to dismiss the case two days before a brief outlining the court's jurisdiction was due, and that he failed to assert basic defenses the DOJ was legally obligated to raise — defenses the department had previously asserted in a nearly identical prior case involving the same IRS contractor. His failure to mount any defense at all, the judges wrote, "only emphasizes the fraudulent nature of the settlement reached here" and "strengthens the conclusion that the litigation was collusive from the start."

Judge Williams ordered the DOJ to respond to the fraud accusations by June 14. Blanche will be editing that brief knowing that in New York, where he is licensed to practice law, committing a fraud upon the court is considered grounds for immediate suspension or permanent disbarment, according to Haake.

Stripping the larceny from the equation, Haake concludes, does nothing to resolve the underlying fraud finding. The money may be off the table. The judges' accusations are not.