US Sen. Susan Collins on Monday faced backlash, including from the Democratic candidate trying to unseat her, for falsely stating that the Supreme Court ruling overturning the federal right to abortion was decided 6-3 and that Justice Brett Kavanaugh was not a pivotal vote.

In a newly aired Fox News interview, Collins (R-Maine) said she “disagreed with the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, but the fact is, whether Justice Kavanaugh were confirmed or not, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned, given the 6-3 vote.” The vote to overturn Roe, ending the constitutional right to abortion, was in fact 5-4, with Kavanaugh joining the majority despite Collins’ repeated insistence during the judge’s Senate confirmation process that he would not support toppling critical precedents.

“Susan Collins is lying through her teeth,” Graham Platner, the Republican incumbent’s Democratic challenger, said in a statement.

“Roe v. Wade was not overturned 6-3. That is a lie. It was 5-4. Brett Kavanaugh was the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and Susan Collins was the deciding vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.”

“And let’s be very clear: Everyone knew that Brett Kavanaugh would overturn Roe,” Platner continued. “She can lie and say she was misled. She can claim she’s disappointed. But the reality is, she knew exactly why Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh—and she voted to confirm him anyway.”

Collins said last week that she doesn’t regret voting to confirm Kavanaugh in 2018, despite the devastating impact of the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. A new analysis by the National Partnership for Women & Families found that “more than 47 million women of reproductive age live in states with clinic closures” or “states that have attacked access to medication abortion” in the aftermath of Dobbs.

Earlier on Monday, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) endorsed Platner’s campaign to deny Collins a sixth Senate term, noting that “in the four years since the Supreme Court ended the federal right to an abortion, the Trump administration and its backers in Congress and the states have repeatedly weaponized Dobbs and attacked reproductive healthcare.”

“President Trump and his allies are using every lever of power at their disposal to make it harder for people to get the care they need, including by attempting to permanently ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, PPAF’s president and CEO. “Mainers deserve a senator they can trust to have their backs at every turn. It is clear that is not Susan Collins.”

A White House spokesman went on the record to deny a report suggesting that President Donald Trump was granted access to an experimental obesity drug not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

STAT reported the FDA and Eli Lilly allowed one individual – a 79-year-old man – to gain access to retatrutide through a “compassionate use” program typically reserved for patients with serious and immediately life-threatening medical issues, and reporter Lizzy Lawrence asked the White House whether that patient was the president.

"White House spokesperson Kush Desai directed STAT’s inquiry to the Health and Human Services Department," Lawrence wrote. "In response to STAT’s question about whether Trump has obstructive sleep apnea and pulmonary hypertension, Desai said a White House memo detailing Trump’s most recent medical evaluation 'covers this.' The memo makes no mention of obstructive sleep apnea or pulmonary hypertension."

Speculation swirled on social media that Trump was the man given access to the unapproved drug, but the White House weighed in officially with a stronger denial than what was previously offered to Lawrence.

"Because this has to be spelled out for @LizzyLaw_, who has proven herself to be an unserious gossip columnist, this application was not for the President," Desai posted on X, tagging Lawrence's account.

The reporter followed up by asking why that unequivocal statement had not been provided before publication.

"Thank you for clarifying," she said. "I asked you, the FDA, and HHS multiple times yesterday whether this application was for the President. No one answered my question directly."

The White House spokesman again attacked her personally and professionally.

"We shouldn't have to bat down baseless speculation for you to not print it," Desai said. "Any reporter with standards would understand this. Are you going to now go ask this idiotic question to the ~4 million Americans in this age cohort and then speculate about them being the application?"

Three sources familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation, told STAT the request by National Institutes of Health senior clinician Ranganath Muniyappa drew the interest of top health officials, who suspected the person receiving the drug was well connected.

He also happens to be the same age as the president, who is overweight and has expressed interest in obesity drugs.

A Senate hearing devolved into chaos when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) clucked like a chicken at Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) for refusing to let her answer his own question.

The confrontation erupted Tuesday during a Senate Banking Committee hearing on housing and consumer affordability. Tillis had been pressing a witness on whether credit card rate caps had ever succeeded anywhere in the world.

"Point to the one time in the whole history of the world at credit cards globally where it's worked once," Tillis demanded, offering to yield his remaining time. "I got forty-five seconds left. I want somebody who has expertise in this field to explain it to me right now."

Warren took him up on it.

"I got it!" she fired back. "And that is when the giant corporations —"

"No! You didn't answer my question!" Tillis cut her off.

"No! No! I'm not finished!" Warren shot back.

Tillis talked over her again, then declared his time expired, prompting the gallery to laugh.

Warren snapped back at Tillis by clucking at him like a chicken.

"Ranking Member!" Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) exclaimed. "Ranking Member! Ranking Member! Ranking Member! Ranking Member! I'll give the ranking member 30 seconds."

"I just wanted to remind my colleague that back during the COVID crisis, the financial institutions all were given free access to overdraft their accounts at the Fed," Warren said. "It saved them literally billions of dollars because they could get free access to money when they didn't have money in their accounts, and the government politely asked them to extend the same courtesy to their own customers — which they refused to do — and they raked in billions more in profits."

"So it worked for the big boys," she added. "It just didn't work for the little guys."

"So it's never worked before," Tillis replied, "but I look forward to somebody presenting the first successful implementation."

After yet another 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that handed Donald Trump’s administration one more victory, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called out her conservative colleagues over their betrayal of existing green card holders.

According to The Independent, the ruling came down in Blanche v. Lau, which agrees with the administration that, if a green card holder leaves the U.S. and then returns, a border official can arbitrarily declare they may have committed a possible crime and therefore can revoke and confiscate their green card without evidence, putting them in a "legal limbo."

The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who returned from a short trip to China in 2012. A border officer placed him on immigration parole after he was accused of counterfeiting crimes. Lau later pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey, but argued the officer had overstepped authority in triggering deportation proceedings, the report notes.

The conservative majority Supreme Court disagreed, with Thomas reasoning that, "Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude."

Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, unleashed a fierce counterattack, writing that the majority's ruling "cavalierly swept aside" the rights of green card holders and handed the government a "massive blank check" to rewrite immigration law as it sees fit at the moment.

The decision allows the government to upend a green card holder's status upon return to the U.S. "so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted," Jackson noted— calling it an astonishing reversal of the "burden of proof" standard.

"That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the relevant statutory scheme, which guarantees that lawful permanent residents will not be 'regarded as seeking an admission' at the border unless certain exceptions apply," she added.

Even if a person is ultimately acquitted and the government's deportation attempt is thrown out, those decisions offer only "cold comfort" to the green card holder, "who by then might have spent years in legal limbo (with only the protection of a temporary green card) or worse, in detention," she then warned.

Elon Musk spent Monday night on social media defending his role in orchestrating massive U.S. foreign aid cuts that research at UCLA suggests could cause over 14 million preventable deaths by 2030.

After Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) accused him of causing these deaths through USAID defunding, Musk responded by calling the Congressman a liar, demanding his imprisonment, and threatening legal action.

On X, Musk denied any deaths resulted from the cuts, writing, "There is not even a single dead child!"

“If there were, it would be worldwide headline news!” He added.

Critics and humanitarian experts continue denouncing Musk, as several deaths have been reportedly tied to recent USAID cuts.

Physician and podcast host Nick Mark accused the trillionaire of killing millions by halting food and medical shipments on X.

Humanitarian policy expert, Jeremy Konyndyk, criticized Musk, vulgarly claiming he is backpedaling and accusing the Department of Government Efficiency of eliminating over 80% of USAID programs without assessing potential harms.

Watch the video below.

The Tennessee Young Republicans – a Tennessee GOP-affiliated group of young conservatives – issued a statement Monday night distancing themselves from remarks and mailers issued by one of its chapter presidents that included openly white supremacist messages.

Austin Lee, the apparent president of the Tennessee Maury County Young Republicans chapter, uses the slogan “Save White America,” and on Tuesday, admitted to having sent out mailers to “thousands of conservatives” in his area. His remarks were flagged Tuesday by the progressive outlet the Tennessee Holler.

In one mailer, Lee calls for local residents to join the Maury County Young Republicans to help halt “wars for Jews,” place “men in charge,” work to “expel the invader,” and “stop the Great Replacement,” a far-right theory that suggests powerful figures are enacting immigration policies to purposely shrink and “replace” the white population.

In another mailer, Lee urged his “fellow American patriots” to “solve” the “problem” of “nonwhite foreigners” who had “invaded our country and are replacing White Americans.”

In its statement, the Tennessee Young Republicans (TYRF) claimed it had not authorized the mailers to be sent out and did not review its contents.

“The views expressed therein DO NOT constitute the views or an official position of the TYRF,” the statement reads, signed off on by the TYRF executive committee.

In a bizarre remark, Lee also referred to Tennessee Republican state Rep. Scott Cepicky as a “Jewish representative," despite Cepicky not being Jewish. In another social media post published Monday, Lee touched on what he referred to as the “Jewish issue,” flagging what he considered to be “one way in which Jews are bad for us.”

President Donald Trump has turned his focus from the Iran war to the ongoing setbacks in his renovation of the Reflecting Pool, but it's clear the project won't be ready in time for the July 4 celebration.

The $14 million renovation has been bedeviled by issues from the start, and CNN's Kevin Liptak provided an update to "The Situation Room" on the continued issue that Trump has tried to blame on vandals.

"It is becoming clear that the president is now consumed with what can only be described as a botched renovation of this Reflecting Pool," Liptak said. "We have seen you know over the last several days the algae growing, the liner pulling up, the president sort of continuing these accusations that this was the work of vandals, although he has not backed up any of that with evidence."

"He has just posted on Truth Social that six people now have been arrested and seven people have been cited for the damage that he has said has been done to this facility," Liptak added, "describing a 350-foot gash, which we should note, is 100 feet longer than he said it was a couple of days ago that he said was conducted by very sharp knife or razors, and that it was numerous slashes."

Liptak said the president has provided other conflicting statements about the project.

"Now in early May, President Trump was at an event saying that there was not possible to cut this lining with a knife because it was so strong and so powerful, now suggesting that vandals had gone in and slashed that very bright blue liner that you have seen being pulled up from the bottom," Liptak said. "He also says that a small area at the bottom of the pool was cut and lifted off the surface, leaving uneven edges, and then the president went on to write, 'In any event, even prior to fixing those areas, the Reflecting Pool is as beautiful as it can be.'"

Then he says we will drain some of the water either immediately, before or after Fourth of July to do the permanent repair," the reporter added. "So essentially confirming here that the Reflecting Pool will not be in tip-top shape by Fourth of July, which was his own sort of self-imposed deadline to get this up and in working shape."

- YouTube youtu.be

Rapper Talib Kweli is not interested in stepping into a ring with a man who has been publicly daring him to fight, but the online standoff between them has only escalated, with each accusing the other of stoking threats.

It began when a Facebook user named Jay Artem posted what he billed as "day one of tagging Talib Kweli and challenging him to box me until he accepts," signing off with "Let's throw hands" and a fist emoji. Kweli, the veteran Brooklyn MC who has spent years feuding publicly with figures across the right, did not let it slide.

In a lengthy response, Kweli labeled Artem "a white nationalist" who "hates Black people" and "hates gay people," a characterization that is Kweli's alone. There is no public record establishing that Artem holds those views, and the rapper offered no documentation beyond his own assertion. Kweli has a long history of confronting white nationalism, including a 2018 essay on free speech and hate, alongside an equally long history of combative social media battles.

Kweli said he would not accept the boxing challenge, then issued a warning of his own. "I do not agree to participate in a contest of physical dominance with this creepy racist weirdo," he wrote, adding that "the quickest way to lose the use of their hands is to try to place one on me" and "He gonna learn today."

By his next post, Artem claimed the feud had spilled onto his family, writing that Kweli "couldn't take a challenge and asked his fans to come after me and now he's got people threatening my 5 year old." He paired that grievance with a threat of his own, warning that "anyone who comes on my property will cease to exist," and gave Kweli "til the end of today to tell his fans to stop this."

The claim that Artem's young child has been threatened could not be independently verified, and it is his account alone. But it marks how quickly a boxing dare curdled into something uglier: two men trading menacing language online, each casting the other as the aggressor, with a five-year-old now invoked in the crossfire.

Reacting to reports that Donald Trump has given the okay from Iran to start selling oil to the United States, handing the extremist leadership an immediate source of billions of dollars, MS NOW host Stephanie Ruhle admitted she was dumbfounded.

On her “Money Power Politics" morning show, Ruhle, a former Wall Street executive, reported, “We learned the administration will allow Iran to sell their oil for US dollars. Why is this a big deal? It is a decision that upends decades of US policy that was meant to make it harder for them to develop their nuclear program.”

“Well, now it's on,” she pronounced. “It can export oil to the open market and this time be paid in dollars. According to [Wall Street analyst] Steve Ratner, that could bring in as much as 10 billion bucks for Iran in the next 60 days and, granted it is only 60 days. But do we really believe that these negotiations are going to be done by then, or are they going to be extended? I sure think they are. So the administration is giving Iran one of the things that it has desperately wanted for years and years before Iran has delivered on the number one goal the United States had going into the war: ending its nuclear weapons program.”

Introducing her guests, analysts Ron Insana and RiskReversal Advisors executive Dan Nathan, she prompted them with, “I want to talk about who benefits from this move? First, what are like — it blows my mind that we would offer such a concession.”

“Well, yeah, and Stephanie, if there's also an unfreezing of assets, the total somewhere in the neighborhood $12 to 24 billion in round benefits distinctly by this,” Insana replied. And there are some military analysts and others who are concerned that Iran will use this to reconstitute its military force, build more missiles, build more drones and maybe even maintain a certain portion of its nuclear program going forward.”

“So they're the direct beneficiary of this," he continued before adding, “We are not in any way, shape or form.”

- YouTube youtu.be

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to announce a new detail of the tentative peace agreement between Washington and Tehran.

“The Money and/or Sanctions that the U.S. Treasury is releasing goes into escrow, controlled by the U.S.A., and will be used for the purchase of food and medical supplies, exclusively from the United States, including Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans from our great American Farmers,” Trump wrote.

“These are things that are desperately needed by Iran. This is a humanitarian crisis, and I feel it is necessary to help, NOW, before it is too late. Talks are going well!”

Despite the President's announcement, the actual 14-point memorandum of understanding contains no such provision.

Point 11 explicitly states, the U.S. would make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU, indicating Iran retains control of its funds.

Legal experts warn Trump's unilateral announcement of terms absent from the signed agreement could jeopardize ongoing peace negotiations with Iranian officials, potentially creating disputes over the deal's implementation and conditions.

Watch the video below.

A GOP analyst and former White House insider revealed that as President Donald Trump has shown signs of "dictatorial dementia," energetic "young henchmen" around him are in a hurry to reshape the government — even rushing to conduct mass firings.

Bill Kristol, the editor at large for The Bulwark and a former chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, described how 80-year-old Trump has surrounded himself with young men. Acting director of national intelligence Bill Pulte is 38 years old, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is 40, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and FBI Director Kash Patel are all 46 years old. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is 51, and Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought is 50.

"A sense of impending mortality seems to be making our president even more unhinged than ever," Kristol wrote.

Kristol described how Trump might not have "the patience to carry out a thoroughgoing subversion of the rule of law, of our political and civil liberties, or of our elections," or the ability to enact a full authoritarian takeover.

"On the other hand, there’s no doubt he would like to see such a takeover," Kristol wrote.

"And he does have young men with a lean and hungry look in positions of authority and power in the executive branch who are committed to making his dream of power without limits a reality," Kristol wrote.

These men have something in common, Kristol explained.

"They’re young, but they’re as determined as the old man they work for not to hand their positions over to anyone other than fellow loyalists after their terms in office, if they intend to leave office at all," Kristol wrote. "They’re as determined as the old man they work for not to step aside from their powers and allow political opponents to look into what they have done. And like the old man they work for, they aren’t committed to the peaceful and democratic transfer of power after an election, or to the political norms or lawful procedures of a liberal democracy."

"None of these men should be in a position of power and authority in the government of the United States," Kristol added. "Yet here they are, hiring and firing at will, abusing their authority and politicizing their agencies in unprecedented ways."

The Justice Department has withdrawn extraordinary grand jury subpoenas issued to reporters from two newspapers after they challenged the demands in federal court, marking a rare retreat from an exceedingly aggressive tactic against the press.

The DOJ had sought to compel Washington Post national security reporter Ellen Nakashima and three Wall Street Journal journalists to testify before a federal grand jury regarding their reporting on sensitive national security matters, but the Post reported that both orders were pulled back.

Both news organizations fought the subpoenas in sealed proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Justice Department rescinded Nakashima's subpoena before the judge ruled on the Post's motion to quash it, and the Wall Street Journal subpoenas were similarly withdrawn after the outlet challenged them in the same court. None of the journalists testified before the grand jury.

The Washington Post condemned the action in a statement, calling Nakashima's subpoena "a clear violation of constitutionally guaranteed press freedom" and stating it represented "the government seeking to compel journalists to become instruments of its investigations."

The withdrawal signals a potential limit to the Trump administration's otherwise aggressive assault on press freedom. The DOJ had previously raided a Post reporter's home in January as part of a leak investigation, Trump and his allies have sued media outlets for allegedly defamatory coverage and the administration has used the Federal Communications Commission to threaten broadcast license revocations over Iran war coverage deemed "unpatriotic."

Press freedom advocates highlighted the danger grand jury testimony poses to journalists. Gabe Rottman of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press warned that prosecutors could compel journalists to identify confidential sources, potentially resulting in contempt charges or obstruction of justice convictions if reporters refused to cooperate.

The Trump administration has also rescinded Biden-era protections for journalists' phone and email records, allowing law enforcement to search reporters' communications when investigating government leaks — with only attorney general approval required.

While the withdrawal represents a rare victory for press freedom, the administration's broader pattern of targeting journalists reporting on Trump administration actions continues, with experts warning of a dangerous erosion of press independence and the public's ability to access reporting on matters of significant national interest.

President Donald Trump doubled down on his theory Tuesday that vandals were responsible for his failed Reflecting Pool renovations, suggesting that “razor blades” may have been used to create a “gash” in the pool’s bottom longer than a football field “in the dark of night.”

“The 350 foot gash, made by a very sharp knife or razors, is actually numerous slashes over a very long 350 foot length,” Trump claimed on his social media platform Truth Social.

“It was purposefully and criminally done, and somebody had to work very hard, probably in the dark of night, to create such a condition. Likewise, the small area at the bottom of the Pool was cut and powerfully lifted off the surface leaving very jagged, uneven edges.”

The $14 million restoration project has become a headache for Trump. Just days after the restoration's completion, the pool became filled with green algae and paint from the pool's bottom appeared to be peeling off. Trump has claimed that vandals were responsible for the project’s failures, and threatened would-be vandals with 10 years imprisonment on Monday.

"Six people have been arrested, and seven people have been cited, for the damage they did to our Country’s now beautiful Reflecting Pool,” Trump wrote.

“In any event, even prior to fixing those areas, the Reflecting Pool is as beautiful as it can be. We will drain some of the water, either immediately before or after the Fourth of July, to do the permanent repair.”

CBS News and other news organizations have investigated President Donald Trump's claim that vandals left a 350-foot gash in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and have found that there is "no sign."

On Monday, Trump doubled down on his assertions about how the Reflecting Pool fiasco happened, saying it "has been given a 300-foot-long gash." The president told CBS News that he would present the evidence in court.

"I can't help it if somebody goes in with a knife and starts hacking it up," Trump has told reporters.

On Tuesday, however, CBS correspondent Ed O'Keefe said the network had inspected the Reflecting Pool and could not substantiate the president's accusations.

"We checked again and still no sign of a 350-foot gash as President Trump alleges," O'Keefe wrote on X.

The correspondent went further in his report that was broadcast on CBS Mornings, noting that he "did a lap around the pool a little earlier to check on things."

"There are far more National Guard troops, local police, even US marshals out here keeping an eye on things," O'Keefe said. "But the one thing we still can't find is that alleged 350-foot gash along the floor of the pool that the president says is there."

"Despite that, the interior department is getting ready to drain the pool again and make repairs again," O'Keefe told anchor Errol Barnett. "The president previously claimed the pool was impenetrable with a blade."

"But Monday, he said that's exactly what happened, claiming someone cut a long gash in the pool's lining and pulled at its edges."

O'Keefe added that other "reporters have been down there today looking for that slit that you mentioned, and there's no evidence of it."

"So many more questions," Barnett concluded. "I'm sure taxpayers will be encouraged to know they at least paid for something with a warranty."

President Donald Trump has become desperate to "erase the sting of defeat," an analyst argued on Tuesday.

Salon's Heather Digby Parton described how the Iran negotiations and failed foreign policy maneuvers have left Trump in a position where he needs a "big win." And now, he has turned his attention to Cuba and Greenland in an attempt to restore his MAGA base after a "profound defeat."

"For his part, Trump has already declared victory," Digby Parton wrote. "He is clearly eager to move on from what is undoubtedly the worst foreign policy failure of his presidency — and one of the worst in U.S. history. But since his psyche is so fragile, he will not be able to admit that to himself. Trump will need to bag himself a 'win' as soon as possible to erase his defeat in the minds of the MAGA faithful — and to quiet the voices in his head screaming that he has screwed up once again."

Trump has been influenced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, "whose politics were fermented in that anti-communist petri dish — and who tells him that this one will be easy," Digby Parton explained.

And since "Trump is a Florida man now," there's another reason he could be eyeing Cuba.

"And let’s talk about beachfront property: Nothing would thrill Trump more than to fulfill the Mafia dream of a gambling resort on the island 90 miles off the coast of Florida without all those pesky laws and regulations," Digby Parton wrote. "He saw 'The Godfather Part II,' and he knows he could pull it off, unlike those losers JFK and Michael Corleone."

"If he does, it’s pretty clear that he’ll anoint Rubio as his successor, even over his own vice president. (Vance made the mistake of being right about Iran, which Trump will find unforgivable.) According to 'Regime Change,' the new book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, when Trump was asked if he thought his successor would keep all the gilt trappings in the Oval Office, he replied, 'Cubans like gold.' Rubio, it appears, is already on track," Digby Parton added.

Vice President JD Vance’s becoming the face of the Iran peace negotiations has all the appearances of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Donald Trump leaving the veep out to dangle in the wind by defending a deal that will go nowhere.

That is according to MS NOW’s Jake Traylor, who told host Stephanie Ruhle on Tuesday morning that one administration insider called Vance’s hyping up the negotiators' efforts a “complete capitulation” to Iran and characterized Trump’s initial praise of it as “salesmanship,” before adding, “That’s putting lipstick on a very ugly pig.”

Traylor reported on Tuesday that Rubio has artfully “sidestepped” becoming involved in the negotiations, effectively dumping them on Vance.

“I was told by a White House official that initially Rubio sort of strategically sidestepped this role as the lead of negotiations, this official told me that Rubio knew, Rubio had the foresight and awareness to say, ‘This deal is not going to be successful. I don't want my name attached to it,'” Traylor told the host.

“Another White House official told me that they thought Vance was the wrong person for the job but Rubio didn't really want it. It kind of fell in Vance's lap and, as the Vice President, he had to sort of play a long.”

“Probably the most illuminating moment for how difficult this uphill battle is for Vance right now comes from over the weekend,” he reported. “During the negotiations, we saw Vice President Vance touting progress, saying they were going to turn over a new leaf, a new relationship between the US. And Iran, and literally minutes later, we have a Truth [social media post] from President Trump that is threatening to restart military strikes again.”

“It just it just shows the juxtaposition here that ultimately Vance can be the face of this thing, but it doesn't mean he has the control here,” he added.

“Yeah, so Marco Rubio sidesteps this thing, noting that it's putting lipstick on a very ugly pig and maybe more importantly, Donald Trump lets him do it,” the amused Ruhle observed.

- YouTube youtu.be

As President Donald Trump's favorability among Americans continues to reach record lows, so too has the number of infants given the name “Donald,” a review of Social Security Administration data by NOTUS found Tuesday.

“The federal agency received fewer than 400 Social Security card applications for baby Donalds last year, making ‘Donald’ the nation’s 690th most popular baby name amid Trump’s return to the White House for a second term,” NOTUS’ Dave Levinthal wrote.

“‘Donald’ did tick up a few notches in 2017, Trump’s first year in office, but continued its nearly unabated free fall for the next eight years, losing more than 200 popularity places by 2025.”

The name “Donald,” according to NOTUS’ review of federal data, saw its popularity peak in 1934, with more than 30,400 babies receiving the name.

The name 'Donald' would remain among the 100 most-popular baby names in the United States through 1990, just as Trump’s tabloid fame exploded after Vanity Fair published its explosive profile of Marla Maples, who was revealed to be the president’s “hidden” girlfriend amid his crumbling marriage to Ivana Trump, who today is buried at one of Trump’s golf clubs.

“Even in Florida, Trump’s new home state and a Republican stronghold, parents minted just 21 baby boy Donalds last year, at par with the names ‘Abner,’ ‘Enoch,’ ‘Neythan,’ ‘Ariun,’ ‘Eros,’ ‘Stone’ and ‘Westley,’ and slightly behind the likes of ‘Mohammad,’ 'Kash,’ ‘Brandon,’ ‘Maximus,’ ‘Keanu’ and ‘Truce,’ among hundreds of others,” NOTUS’ report reads.

“Parents haven’t been influenced by the first lady, either. ‘Melania’ once cracked the top 1,000 most popular baby girl names – in 2017 – but did not appear before or after Trump’s first year in office, according to Social Security Administration records.”

Speculation swirled around a report that a single patient – a 79-year-old man – was given access to a powerful new obesity drug that's still awaiting federal approval.

STAT has learned that Eli Lilly and the Food and Drug Administration allowed one individual to gain access to retatrutide, which has demonstrated the ability to cut weight at comparable levels to bariatric surgery, through a “compassionate use” program typically reserved for patients with serious and immediately life-threatening medical issues.

"Sources told STAT that application drew interest from top health officials," said STAT reporter Lizzy Lawrence. "Given the demographics and the peculiar nature of the application, I asked the [White House] if this patient was President Trump, who turned 80 a week ago. I did not get a direct answer."

Ranganath Muniyappa, senior clinician at the National Institutes of Health, requested the drug to treat the unidentified patient for refractory obesity with obstructive sleep apnea and pulmonary hypertension, which can be life-threatening, but three sources familiar with the matter told STAT the unusual request caught the attention of top health officials – and suggested the individual was well connected.

"White House spokesperson Kush Desai directed STAT’s inquiry to the Health and Human Services Department," Lawrence reported. "In response to STAT’s question about whether Trump has obstructive sleep apnea and pulmonary hypertension, Desai said a White House memo detailing Trump’s most recent medical evaluation 'covers this.' The memo makes no mention of obstructive sleep apnea or pulmonary hypertension."

"HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard did not address the retatrutide application or the patient’s identity when responding to STAT’s questions," the reporter added.

Social media users gathered around a similar conclusion about the patient's identity.

"I mean this couldn’t possible be anyone else, right?" speculated the widely followed Bluesky user Michah.

"Author asks if the patient was Trump — the White House won’t say," said Lawfare's Eric Columbus.

"Really jaw-dropping," goggled Wired editor Tim Marchman. "STAT can’t say with 100% certainty that Donald Trump got a compassionate use exemption—usually reserved for the terminally ill—for an experimental drug to treat 'refractory obesity with obstructive sleep apnea and pulmonary hypertension.' They got a lot of non-denials, though!"

"Interesting to note the difference between the URL and the current title," pointed out Bluesky user Brendan Keefe, who noticed Trump's name in the URL.

"Compassionate use you say," wondered HuffPost's Paul Blumenthal.

"I resent how this administration makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist," huffed author Elizabeth Bear.

Human rights diplomat Mohamad Safa, who’s currently working on an “upcoming human rights report” on the “Epstein files,” accused trillionaire and owner of the social media platform X Elon Musk Tuesday of “censoring” him on the platform and throwing him in “X jail.”

Writing on X, Safa accused Musk, a fierce ally to President Donald Trump, of having “flagged” his account to reduce his posts’ engagement online. The alleged censorship began, he said, after Musk reposted one of Safa’s social media posts about files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

“Elon joined my call for a global revolution over the Epstein files,” Safa wrote. “I responded to that with, ‘You’ll be included in my upcoming Human Rights report on Epstein files and complicity in Gaza genocide through Starlink and X.’ Elon flagged my account so that all my posts are sent directly to /dev/null.”

Like a number of Trump allies, Musk was exposed in the millions of Epstein-related files first released by the Justice Department last year. In one email dated Nov. 25, 2012 – several years after Epstein had been convicted of soliciting sex from a minor – Musk asked the disgraced financier “what day/night will be the wildest party on your island?”

In another email, Musk asked Epstein in 2013 on Christmas Day “when should we head to your island,” likely referencing Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands known as Little Saint James.

“Not enough people are talking about the relationship between Elon Musk and Jeffrey Epstein!” Safa, a former permanent representative to the United Nations for a major human rights organization, wrote.

“We do, but Elon is censoring this content and anyone who posts it. Can you please do whatever you want to let him see this tweet as I am in X jail. Or better yet, make this tweet one of the most liked tweets ever. Send him the message that he can't manipulate the public anymore.”

The secrets Stephen Miller has kept about his role in the Trump administration may finally be revealed after a judge was handed a key FBI report.

Miller, President Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff, has long shielded his White House communications from disclosure under executive privilege. Now, a court filing in federal court in Alabama threatens to crack that wall open.

The Southern Poverty Law Center — a civil rights organization the Trump administration indicted on fraud charges — obtained the FBI report through the normal discovery process. It shows the government's case against the SPLC appears to trace directly back to Miller.

The report reads almost word-for-word like a letter conservative groups sent Miller complaining about the SPLC's "Hate Map," which tracks hate groups across America. Six passages match so closely they're sometimes identical.

Miller's ire at the SPLC dates back to 2019, when the organization published a series of pieces on hundreds of emails Miller sent to Breitbart News showing he had promoted white nationalist websites and literature.

After conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated, Miller vowed to use "every resource" at the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to "identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy" liberal activist networks. Federal agencies then piled onto a local investigation of a retired activist who had posted flyers near his Arlington home. His communications about that were kept secret under executive privilege.

National security journalist Marcy Wheeler wrote on Emptywheel that the government handed SPLC — represented by attorney Abbe Lowell — proof that "Stephen Miller's grievance about being exposed as an extremist somehow led a prosecutor to test a theory whether pointing that out is itself inherently fraudulent."

The SPLC's lawyers are now asking the court to hand over all communications between Miller and the Justice Department about the organization.

Marjorie Taylor Greene attempted to drive a wedge between a MAGA voter bloc that once counted her as an adherent and President Donald Trump.

The former Republican congresswoman posted a video Tuesday morning revealing the lengths taken by the Trump campaign to stifle QAnon conspiracists at campaign rallies, even as the 80-year-old president continues to court their support with social media posts winking and nodding in their direction.

"You know, I used to follow Q back in 2017, when those posts were actually made," Greene said. "The whole 'trust the plan' thing, the White House is posting Q propaganda on its social media accounts, and I want you guys to know something, I think you should know this."

"Back during the 2020 campaign and the 2024 campaign, where, by the way, I spoke at more Trump campaign rallies than any other elected Republican," she added.

Greene was one of Trump's strongest allies in Congress until she broke with him over the Jeffrey Epstein files and foreign policy, and she warned after retiring from the House that the president shows no loyalty to his allies.

"The Trump team would throw out people, any rally attendee," Greene said, "if they had a Q shirt, QAnon, 'storm has arrived,' 'where we go one we go all' – if they were wearing a shirt, a hat, a button or had a flag or anything – they were kicked out or they were made to change their shirt, take off that hat. During a Trump speech in 2024, when it was the nation in decline part of the speech, with the really sad music, any time these attendees would put their finger, like, make a number one and they pointed it to the sky, security was sent around and they were forced to take their finger down and told not to do that. You want to know why?"

"Because Trump team didn't want to be associated with the QAnon crowd and they were embarrassed of the Q people and embarrassed of all of that, and that's how they treated them," Greene added. "But now flash forward to 2026, when it's Trump himself that has betrayed the America first wing of MAGA and turned MAGA into Israel first, and he has totally flipped on a bunch of his campaign promises, well, now they're trying to throw out the Q slop and propaganda to get you guys sucked back in, to get you guys sucked back in. Never forget how you were treated – never forget."

Vice President JD Vance had no qualms about releasing all mention of Donald Trump in the Jeffrey Epstein files when he convened a Situation Room “war room” with other members of the president’s inner circle.

According to New York Times’ Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, during an appearance on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe,” White House chief of staff Susie Wiles had to forcefully tell the veep that there was no way that everything was going to be released, including an “unsubstantiated” accusation that Vance insisted should be included.

Appearing on MS NOW to promote their “Regime Change” Trump administration tell-all being released on Tuesday, the pair of White House reporters were asked about the use of the Situation Room and why the secretive meetings were convened there.

“So this meeting comes to try to figure out how to deal with something they cannot get away with, and that Donald Trump keeps getting asked about it,” Haberman explained. “The problem for them is the President doesn't want to hear Epstein, he would say, he would snap at anybody who would bring it up, and so they have several meetings in the Situation Room.”

“We capture just a few of them and the ones that we capture were almost exclusively about how to handle this in a way that deals with their boss, that protects him, that doesn't stoke further conspiracies, that doesn't hurt themselves, frankly, politically, so we describe,” she elaborated. “You know, this is a huge meeting. The first one that we describe it's the vice president, it is the White House chief of staff, it is the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, White House counsel, comms officials. I mean. The list is long and they are talking about what to do now.”

“Deputy White House Chief of Staff James Blair, says something to the effect of, with all due respect, it's the comms strategy of this group that got us into this, and you know there needs to be an actual plan here on how to how to get out of this,” she added.

"JD Vance, the whole time, wanted to release everything, including unsubstantiated Information, including unsubstantiated information about Donald Trump,” she continued to explain as co-host Joe Scarborough interrupted and pointed out, “Which was abusing a woman.”

“There was a second-hand allegation that was, I want to be clear, was already public,” Haberman replied.

“And I want to be clear that I'm not saying he abused a woman,” Scarborough pointed out. “What I'm saying is, what shocked me was that JD Vance had this unsubstantiated charge of Donald Trump abusing a minor and told Susie Wiles in the group, in your book, told Susan Wiles, ‘Oh, we need to release it all, he'll be fine releasing it,’ and Susie was, ‘No, he won't.'”

“Yeah, and that's just one of the moments of many where JD Vance seems to be strangely disconnected from Donald Trump inside this book,” Scarborough observed.

- YouTube youtu.be

Last Saturday, the White House shared the iconic “Saying Grace” painting by famed artist Norman Rockwell in a social media post, edited to include the caption “WORTH PROTECTING,” but on Monday, Rockwell’s own granddaughter fired off at the Trump administration for “completely” misunderstanding the painting’s meaning.

“Curtis Publishing holds the rights to that painting but I am willing to bet they didn’t request them since they never follow copyright law,” Daisy Rockwell told The Bulwark’s Catherine Rampell. “It goes without saying that they have completely misunderstood the meaning of the painting, which is tolerance for others and peaceful coexistence."

Completed in 1951, “Saying Grace” depicts a woman and boy praying while at a restaurant. Above the edited painting as posted by the White House’s official X account is the message “The values that shaped America,” just the latest example of what former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan has called the Trump administration’s leanings “into fascist aesthetics.”

Rockwell's work has previously drawn controversy among conservatives, with some Tennessee parents in 2021 objecting to school books featuring his depictions of desegregation because the images purportedly made white students "feel discomfort."

The Trump administration has frequently used Rockwell’s art in its social media posts, and Rockwell’s family argued that the iconic painter would “be devastated” if he were alive to “see that his own work has been marshalled for the cause of persecution toward immigrant communities and people of color.”

In most Republican primaries, President Donald Trump's endorsement settles the race. In one state, it barely moves the needle.

The 80-year-old president has backed Rep. Celeste Maloy on Truth Social — the same blanket endorsement he gave two other Utah GOP incumbents, one of whom doesn't even have a primary opponent, but Brigham Young University political scientist told NPR the backing won't hurt those candidates but won't provide the decisive advantage it might have elsewhere.

"There's many Republican voters in Utah who have sort of made their peace with Donald Trump enough to vote for him," said Chris Karpowitz, a BYU political science professor. "But that doesn't mean they necessarily support either his style of politics or some of the policies that he pursues."

"They are loyal to the party, not the president," he added.

Utah gave Trump his narrowest margin of any Republican state in 2016, under 50 percent, and even after gains in 2020 and 2024, he's never cracked 60 percent there. By April, his approval rating in the state had fallen to an all-time low of 44 percent, with support among Utah Republicans specifically dropping 10 points.

Voters have made peace with Trump enough to back him at the ballot box, but that tolerance doesn't extend to embracing his style or his signature policies — particularly on immigration and his past remarks about Islam and other faiths, which have grated in a state shaped by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its history of religious-freedom advocacy.

That dynamic is playing out directly in Utah's new 3rd Congressional District primary, where Maloy faces Phil Lyman, a Trump-pardoned former state legislator running as an anti-establishment, Freedom Caucus-aligned candidate. Both men are unquestionably Trump supporters, but neither is running on it.

Maloy touts her work on tax cuts and committee assignments without invoking the president's own branding for the legislation; Lyman centers his campaign on rooting out government corruption and decentralizing power, not on MAGA loyalty.

Utah State University political scientist Damon Cann described the pattern as a careful balancing act: Republicans there run as Republicans who happened to have had Trump's support, not as Trump Republicans, and not as candidates hostile to him either.

The result is a primary fight that doubles as a test case for the party's future. As national Republicans eventually confront life after Trump, Utah suggests one possible shape that takes a base still nominally loyal to the president, but one whose actual allegiance, when push comes to shove, belongs to the party brand he temporarily leads.

"Republicans in Utah are ambivalent enough about Donald Trump that I don't think it carries quite the same weight that it might in other states," Karpowitz said.

Iran is moving unilaterally to tighten its grip on the Strait of Hormuz — and to start collecting revenue from it – even as it negotiates with the U.S. and its Gulf neighbors over future management of the waterway.

Iran's top insurance regulator, Mousa Rezaei, announced Sunday that a new insurance company has been created specifically for the strait, according to Iranian state media, and days earlier, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority — an entity Iran established in May — began requiring vessels to register and carry a new mandatory Iranian insurance policy, reported the New York Times.

For now, that coverage is free, but shipping experts say the 60-day free period is telling. That matches the length of the cease-fire and free-passage guarantees in last week's U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding ending the war and reopening the strait.

Once that window closes, maritime historian Salvatore Mercogliano said, Iran could begin charging vessels for "insurance" against risks — attacks, detained mariners — that didn't exist before Iran itself created them by striking commercial ships earlier this year.

Richard Meade, editor of Lloyd's List, called the arrangement effectively a toll by another name, designed to get ahead of the broader negotiations over the strait's security framework that Vice President JD Vance said are still to come.

International law generally bars charging tolls for mere passage through a strait, though fees for actual services — like tugging waste disposal — can be legitimate. Iran has not specified what services its new insurance would provide, and the International Maritime Organization said the scheme has not been submitted to it and carries no basis in international law allowing mandatory fees or tolls.

The maneuver also creates a trap for shippers. The U.S. Treasury sanctioned the Persian Gulf Strait Authority in May, accusing Iran of trying to monetize attacks on vessels through extortion, and has warned that paying the authority could itself trigger sanctions — leaving companies caught between Iranian demands and U.S. enforcement.

The result, Meade said, is that shippers remain stuck in limbo, unable to return to how transit worked before the war and unable to know what rules will govern it next. The Persian Gulf Strait Authority did not respond to a request for comment by the outlet.

During an appearance on MS NOW to promote their new book “Regime Change“ about Donald Trump’s current term, the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan recalled a meeting they had with the president in the Oval Office where they were surprised by his demeanor when asked about wielding power.

Haberman took the lead in answering the question about the president’s current “state of mind.”

“When we went in, first, he greeted us with pictures of maple trees, which was what he was looking at, and the amount of time that he is spending on decor and remaking the White House, Washington in his image and sort of trying to make sure that people can't take his name out of commission the way it happened before,” she recalled.

“And then we asked him a question about power and how he sees his own power, because we knew that he had been talking about this,” she continued. “And he tells Natalie Harp, who is his ever-present aide, who sits on the side of the wall in the Oval office in almost every meeting, go get the printouts and then he says ‘Do you do you know who Gary Player is?'"

”We weren't really sure where this was going, because Gary Player is a golfer and a very well-known one and so she comes back with these sheets of paper and she hands each of us a two-pager,” she recalled. “And he tells this story about how Gary Player introduced him to a historian and the historian had this theory of the case about Trump, and this paper begins that Donald Trump is the most powerful person who has ever walked the Earth. More than Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, Caesar, yeah, he calls them ‘the top 10, these are the top 10,’ and the people he's naming are the top 10 of sort of the well known influencers of history, so to speak, and that Trump is more powerful than any of them because he has the might of the US military.”

She added, “And Trump is sort of reveling in this. You know, he's reading, he's reading the names and I wasn't reading them along with him. I don't think Jonathan was either, and hearing him say it out loud was actually sort of jarring — of Hitler, Stalin. It turned out that this was not a historian, this was Jonathan went down a rabbit hole and tracked him down. We were asking what the name was David King, he was Gary Player’s, business associate and caddy.”

- YouTube youtu.be

A U.S. fighter jet pilot described a seemingly extraterrestrial sight before he ejected from his aircraft during hostilities in Iran.

The downed F-15 pilot told intelligence officials during a debriefing after the April incident that he saw multiple Iranian drones hovering in air in a formation resembling a jellyfish, four sources familiar with the matter told CNN, and one source said the pilot described the formation as a “minefield of drones."

"It immediately set off a firestorm of debate within the US intelligence community that has yet to be resolved," CNN reported. "If the airman really saw what he described — a formation moving in unison — it would be an alarming advance in Iranian drone capabilities."

The downing remains under investigation, but initial reports indicated the formation had allowed Iran to shoot down a U.S. fighter jet for the first time during the war, two of the sources said.

“Multiple drones interconnected and moving as one with smaller drones below the bigger drones like legs,” one of the sources told CNN. “Real alien s---.”

The pilot was rescued hours later, but the weapons systems office on board the two-person craft evaded capture for more than a day in the mountains of Iran before also being rescued.

A second aircraft, an A-10, was also downed during the rescue effort but that pilot ejected safely outside Iranian airspace.

U.S. intelligence officials disagreed on their interpretation of the pilot's recollection, and some cast doubt on his account, pointing out he was concussed in the crash – his second time being shot out of the sky during the Iran conflict.

"Had he witnessed a mature capability that U.S. intelligence wasn’t aware of? A beta test? A mirage in the desert?" CNN reported.

The technical term for what the pilot purportedly described is “one-to-many meshed networking,” according to the sources, and U.S. intelligence agencies had not been aware Iran was capable of using.

Multiple reports have indicated that Iran received assistance in developing its drone technology from China and Russia, which are both believed to possess that capabbility.

Abelardo De la Espriella, a right-wing lawyer who used to practice law in Florida, appeared to win his presidential bid in Colombia this week after securing an endorsement from President Donald Trump, and the journalists at Zeteo opted to shed light on his “eye-opening” background in a scathing report.

“He Tied Firecrackers to Cats. Yes, you read that right,” reads Zeteo’s report published on Monday.

“On a television show, De la Espriella confessed that when young, he tied firecrackers to cats to try to make them fly, but they ended up exploding. He first said he was an ‘innocent’ child at the time, then walked the story back, saying it was a bad joke. Sure.”

Also a businessman, De la Espriella has “made a brand of flaunting his wealth,” Zeteo’s report reads, and is “often seen wearing tailored suits, fedoras, and fancy watches.” He practiced law in Miami, Florida as a defense attorney and “came to prominence” defending right-wing paramilitaries and "politicians accused of corruption.”

De la Espriella also “sexually harassed” a journalist during an appearance on a popular radio show, Zeteo reported.

On a popular radio show, De la Espriella made a crude boast about his anatomy, claiming it would win him women's votes, then showed a female reporter a suggestive photo of himself in sweatpants. The reporter said she felt "violated, harassed, and disgusted." A court ordered him to apologize publicly.

De la Espriella received a "congratulatory call” from Trump after his apparent election victory, Reuters reported, with the president touting his endorsement record after De la Espriella’s election win Tuesday morning. De la Espriella’s victory represents a recent “shift to the right” in Latin America.

Eight activists convicted of terrorism-related charges and rioting for their role in a noise demonstration outside an ICE facility, at which a local police officer was shot, face up to life in prison when they go before a federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, for sentencing on Tuesday.

Another, the last of the nine convicted in March, will be sentenced on July 1.

The Trump administration has hailed the case as a watershed in its campaign to dismantle “antifa” as a domestic terrorist threat. But as they await sentencing, the defendants are seeking to overturn the convictions based on the claim that the government suppressed evidence showing that the officer drew first, and based on potential juror misconduct.

Defendants have also argued that they should be acquitted or granted new trials because the evidence shows they went to the Prairieland Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility on July 4 last year to set off fireworks and cheer up the detainees. They argue there was no riot and no violence, with the exception of one or two individuals who committed vandalism at their own initiative — and the exchange of gunfire when the police showed up.

“They weren’t doing anything wrong," Amber Lowrey, the sister of one of the defendants, told Raw Story. "They’re just human beings. Some of them knew each other, and some didn’t. They did similar volunteer work. People say, ‘It won’t happen to me, because I’m not involved with groups like that.’ Oh, but it will!"

The first to respond to the scene when detention officers called to report a disturbance with fireworks on July 4, 2025 was Lt. Thomas Gross with the Alvarado Police Department. Gross’ dash camera, which was reviewed by Raw Story, shows him accelerating down the lane towards the facility. As he approaches the entrance, two figures in black can be seen running past the guardhouse, which is defaced with graffiti reading, “F--- ICE.”

“Hey, stop!” Gross yelled.

His body-worn camera video shows that he jumped out of his car and pursued the individuals on foot.

Almost immediately, gunfire erupted and a bullet grazed Gross’ neck.

“F---!” he said as his body landed on the wet pavement. “I’m hit.” Additional footage shows Gross seated in the back of a police vehicle as other officers arrive on the scene. “I’m hit — my back,” Gross says as another officer renders first aid.

Later, as Johnson County Sheriff’s deputies arrived on the scene and searched defendant Meagan Morris’ car, they discovered a rifle and ammunition.

“This is like a straight coordinated terror attack on Prairieland,” one of the officers commented.

One of the first of the protesters to be arrested was Nathan Baumann, one of the men Gross had seen running past the guardhouse.

“If there’s anything y’all need, like, listen, I’m all for peaceful protest — if you want me to point out people’s vehicles to you, anybody doing dumb s---, I got you, sir,” Baumann said as an officer adjusted his handcuffs and detained him in the back seat of a cruiser.

The charges against defendants linked to the noise demonstration initially focused on the shooting, although the shooter remained at large.

Benjamin Song, a former Marine who provided firearms training to left-wing activists in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, would not be apprehended for another 11 days.

The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10 — more than two months later — brought the government’s case into focus.

Later that month, President Donald Trump issued an executive order naming “antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization, followed by National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, which described “antifascism” as an “umbrella” for “recurrent motivations and indicia uniting” a “pattern of violent and terrorist activities.” The memo runs down a laundry list of characteristics commonly associated with the left, including “support for the overthrow of the United States government” and “extremism on migration, race and gender.”

The Prairieland defendants, who were protesting federal immigration policies and two of whom are transgender, appeared to present the Trump administration with an embodiment of the new threat straight out of central casting.

When a new indictment was returned in October 2025, it described the defendants as members of an “antifa cell” and “militant enterprise.”

As evidence that the defendants were planning violent action at the ICE facility, the government highlighted a statement by Song in a Signal planning chat: “Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle so it tends to make them back off.”

Last week, when the White House announced an indictment against 15 “antifa” defendants in Minneapolis for conspiracy to obstruct immigration enforcement, it cited the Prairieland case as part of its “relentless campaign to eradicate Antifa’s domestic terrorism threat.”

The indictment against the Minneapolis 'antifa' defendants reflects a precedent set by the Prairieland case, Xavier T. de Janon, an attorney with the National Lawyers Guild, told Raw Story. By declaring that the defendants were members of a 'North Texas antifa cell,' and then obtaining a verdict, the government created a playbook for future prosecutions of anti-Trump protesters, he said.

The White House said the Prairieland defendants, described as “members of a North Texas antifa cell,” were convicted of terrorism-related charges “for their violent, armed ambush on an ICE detention facility.”

But motions for acquittal and for a new trial filed by the defendants challenge the Trump administration’s characterization.

Maricel Rueda, one of the defendants, argues in her motion that the government’s case “relies on association, speculation, and the independent actions of others” rather than proof of the defendants’ “individual conduct and intent.”

Even Judge Mark Pittman questioned the government’s effort to use the defendants’ alleged antifascist beliefs to prove criminal misconduct.

“Whether it’s antifa or the Methodist Women’s Auxiliary of Weatherford, why does it matter?” he reportedly asked prosecutors before giving jury instructions.

Ines Soto, another defendant, said in his motion that he showed up at the noise demonstration with two other defendants, his wife Elizabeth Soto and Savanna Batten, about 15 minutes late, and left as soon as ordered to do so by corrections staff.

“Soto was not part of the ‘core chat’ that planned the noise demonstration, he was not present for the ‘gear check’ the night before, he was not in the ‘affinity group,’ he did not purchase fireworks, he did not shoot fireworks,” the motion reads. “He was — at best — merely present for the fireworks.”

Batten similarly argues in her motion that “she did not participate in key preparatory activities, including the alleged ‘gear check,’ and did not engage in any relevant group communications.” The fact that she was the backseat passenger in the Sotos’ vehicle can’t be considered an overt act in furtherance of a riot, the motion argues.

The government argues in response that by shutting off her phone when she arrived at the protest, Batten demonstrated “extreme operational security measures,” or “opsec,” that prove she was trying to hide her identity, and planning an involvement in an “attack.”

Batten’s motion for a new trial cites “potential juror misconduct and irregularities” that she argues “compromised the integrity of the verdict and deprived her of a fair trial.”

The motion alleges that members of the public overheard jurors shouting over one another on the final day of deliberations, adding that “there is reason to believe that jurors engaged in a heated confrontation inside the jury room and that certain jurors may have been subjected to intimidation or coercion during deliberations.”

The government has dismissed the claim as “speculation,” while noting that none of the jurors reported being coerced or intimidated while the judge polled them individually after reading the verdict.

Rueda’s motion argues that the only evidence presented by the government showed that she used a megaphone to communicate with the detainees. Rueda’s motion asserts that “the shooting was carried out independently by Mr. Song to the surprise of all witnesses.”

Baumann, the activist who offered to help the police identify other protesters’ vehicles when he was arrested, pleaded guilty to material support to terrorists while the other defendants went to trial.

Baumann testified during the trial, according to Rueda’s motion, “that his vandalism was spontaneous and undertaken on his own initiative.”

Rueda and Batten, along with five other defendants, face sentences ranging from 10 to 60 years in prison.

Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, Rueda’s partner, was convicted of corruptly concealing a document or record by transporting a box of zines described as “antifa materials” that the government contends were evidence of an insurrectionary plan. Sanchez Estrada faces up to 40 years in prison.

Lowrey, Batten’s sister, told Raw Story she expects the sentences to have a chilling effect on dissent against the Trump administration, adding that it's up to every person individually to determine how much they allow the government to make them afraid.

“They’re going to get a publicity bump,” she said, “and people are going to see how terrible the sentences are. And it will make people afraid to stand up to the Trump administration.”

From the start, Song’s role in the events at Prairieland on July 4, 2025 has been the most controversial.

When the trial began on Feb. 23, it had been less than a month since two U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officers fatally shot Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse protesting immigration enforcement in Minneapolis. Pretti had been legally carrying a firearm, and Department of Homeland Security officials claimed that the officers shot Pretti because they feared for their lives, in contradiction to video evidence, while White House aide Stephen Miller described Pretti as a “domestic terrorist.”

Midway through the Prairieland trial, Judge Mark Pittman issued an order barring self-defense claims in relation to Song’s shooting of Gross.

But under cross-examination, Gross reportedly admitted that he may have drawn his firearm before Song raised his rifle.

Song is challenging his conviction for attempted murder by arguing in a motion for acquittal that the government failed to produce any evidence that he or anyone else intended to take Gross’ life.

Song’s motion claims that the government failed to share evidence with him that Gross admitted he was the first to draw his weapon. Song also claims that he fired into the ground, and the bullet ricocheted before striking Gross in the neck. His motion argues that the government failed to turn over “pictures taken of the ground-strikes on the concrete.”

The government doesn’t dispute that the evidence Gross drew his weapon first wasn’t disclosed until the trial, while arguing that Song “has only himself and his counsel to blame for failing” to examine crime scene photos and learn for himself that the investigators didn’t take any photos that would show ground-strikes.

Song faces a sentence ranging from 20 years to life in prison.

Lowrey believes that had Song not fired, Gross would have fatally shot Baumann and the other protester running from the scene.

“They told you that Renee Good and Alex Pretti were domestic terrorists,” Lowrey said on the 817 Podcast. “And you know what? They would have done the same thing to these guys if they could have caught them that night. If Ben Song hadn’t been there, two families would have buried their sons. And however you feel about having guns at a protest, I’m sorry, but in the end it feels to me that that was what the Second Amendment was made for.”

As the defendants await sentencing at the Eldon B. Mahon courthouse in Fort Worth on Tuesday morning, the court has not ruled on the defendants’ motions for acquittal and for new trials.

That contrasts with a similar case in Spokane, Washington, in which a judge scheduled hearings on post-verdict motions, de Janon said.

"To get to sentencing without an order is challenging, to say the least, because the motions are challenging the verdict, and the defendants have to go to sentencing against this very verdict," he said. "To ask that you argue against your punishment is hard, because then you're giving validity to your verdict."

Meanwhile, Pittman, the judge who presided over the trial in February and March, issued an order last week reassigning the cases to another judge, without offering any explanation.

"The factors in sentencing are all based on the trial, so a judge having only a trial transcript to consider the facts and evidence to determine the punishment is another concerning aspect of this case," de Janon said. "It's a parade of horrors."

President Donald Trump faced a wave of scrutiny for agreeing to lift sanctions on Iran and unfreeze Iranian funds as part of the tentative peace deal between Washington and Tehran, but on Tuesday, the president announced a new detail regarding the agreement, one that could risk jeopardizing peace talks going forward.

“The Money and/or Sanctions that the U.S. Treasury is releasing goes into escrow, controlled by the U.S.A., and will be used for the purchase of food and medical supplies, exclusively from the United States, including Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans from our great American Farmers,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

“These are things that are desperately needed by Iran. This is a humanitarian crisis, and I feel it is necessary to help, NOW, before it is too late. Talks are going well!”

There is no mention in the 14-point memorandum of understanding of unfrozen Iranian funds or sanction relief being controlled by the United States. On the contrary, point 11 states that the United States would “make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU.”