Bari Weiss’ CBS News retracts ‘brazen lie’ after false smear of progressive Dem: report

Bari Weiss’ CBS News New York was forced to remove a line from its coverage of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani after journalist Judd Legum identified what he called a “brazen lie” about the progressive Democratic mayor, Legum reported Tuesday.CBS News’ report centered around a petition launched by Giovanni Galante, whose husband died in the 9/11 attacks, calling for Mamdani – who is Muslim – to stay away from the 25th remembrance ceremony of the attacks. As of Tuesday morning, the petition had more than 24,000 signatures.The conservative tabloid New York Post ran a report Sunday about the petition, and with the initial headline, according to Legum: “STAY AWAY: Thousands of 9/11 families demand Mamdani be banned from 25th-Anniversary.” On Monday, Legum said CBS News New York published a similar report, in which it claimed “thousands of 9/11 victims’ families” were asking Mamdani not to attend the ceremony.Writing in a report published Tuesday on Popular Information, his independent news publication, Legum noted that the New York Post’s report directly contradicted its own headline by claiming “at least 300 victims’ families” had signed the petition, despite the headline claiming it to have been “thousands.”To get to the bottom of the discrepancy, Legum conducted an interview with Galante, who went on to admit that no list existed regarding how many of the petition’s signatories were 9/11 victims’ families.“Rather, the 300 figure that organizers shared with the New York Post was an estimate based on how they believe the petition spread before it received much publicity,” Legum wrote.Galante went on to explain how organizers came to the 300 figure.“We all know each other, so…think about it. If you know 10 people and they give it to 10 more people they know that lost,” Galante said, according to Legum. “That’s how we got the 300 number. I don’t go through the list and look at the names.”Legum later contacted CBS News New York for comment regarding the apparent discrepancy, after which, he said, the outlet had amended its report.“After Popular Information reached out for comment, that line was removed,” Legum wrote. “A revised article on the CBS website says the petition has ‘purportedly drawn thousands of signatures, including some victims' families.’”Further supporting Legum’s claim that CBS News New York had amended its report was a Monday post on the publication’s Facebook page, which showed that the original caption retained the "thousands of 9/11 victims’ families” figure before being edited later that same night to “some 9/11 victims’ families.”1. This @nypost cover: “Thousands of 9/11 families demand Mamdani be banned from 25th-Anniversary” is a brazen lie. How do I know? I interviewed the organizer of the petition. pic.twitter.com/m8onBcgAcu— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 28, 2026

Trump obsesses over his own mortality after Lindsey Graham's death: report

Sen. Lindsey Graham's sudden death earlier this month sent President Donald Trump reeling and sunk him into an obsession with his own mortality.Graham, at 71, was nearly a decade younger than the president and had remained visibly active — traveling, campaigning and working — right up until his death, and that contrast has clearly unsettled Trump, reported the Washington Post. In public remarks, he's repeatedly expressed disbelief that someone so energetic could be gone so quickly, telling NBC he "thought he was just going to live forever."“A lot of people can’t do it at all," Trump told “Fox & Friends” on July 13. "A lot of people, when the camera goes on, they’re terrible. I see it all the time. I watch people. Most people aren’t very good, and he did it and he did it with pride and he did it because he loved our country."Privately, according to people familiar with his comments, the 80-year-old Trump has pressed aides on whether Graham's grueling travel schedule — including a return trip from Ukraine shortly before his death — might have played a role, and has turned to genetics and family history for explanations, invoking what he called a "racehorse theory" of inherited strength and stamina.“His father died just about at the same age,” Trump told Newsmax on July 13. The introspection comes at a moment when Trump's own mortality has already been unusually present in his mind. Graham's death fell just before the second anniversary of the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, an event Trump says he still revisits by watching footage of it repeatedly, describing his survival as a "miracle."He has also faced more recent threats, including a reported Iranian-linked threat this month that prompted him to switch planes, and an attempted shooting near a White House correspondents' event in the spring.“Because of the position I’m in, I’ve done quite a bit of research into the word ‘assassination,’ Terrible word. And they go after consequential presidents,” Trump told CBS in April, after an attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. “I wasn’t worried. I understand life. We live in a crazy world.”Those around Trump describe him as subdued in the days following Graham's death — a notable shift for a president known for near-constant motion and activity.Even so, he hasn't fully stepped back from politics: He's called on the Senate to pass a cryptocurrency bill "in honor of" Graham, despite the senator not having sponsored it.

With the Saudi Deal, Trump Risks Aiding and Abetting a Nuclear Arms Race

The agreement appears poised to upend Washington’s decades-long nonproliferation strategy.

Republicans have to ‘counter’ Democratic narrative of Trump family profiting while Americans suffer: Bob Cusack

Washington Examiner executive editor Bob Cusack said Republicans must effectively counter Democrats’ argument that President Donald Trump and his family have financially benefited while ordinary Americans continue to struggle with high costs. Cusack’s comments come after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) argued that Republicans have failed to deliver on campaign promises to lower costs, […]

Trump DOJ's conduct called 'unlawful,' 'unethical' and 'unseemly' by federal judges

Across the country, federal judges are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth or uphold centuries-old legal norms.From Washington, D.C., to Rhode Island to Oregon, federal judges nominated by presidents from both parties, including Donald Trump, have zeroed in on what’s called “the presumption of regularity.” It essentially means that judges must presume that the government — whether it be federal prosecutors, an IRS auditor or an FBI agent — did their jobs according to the rules and in good faith.Until Trump’s second term, which has seen an exodus of veteran DOJ lawyers and a transformative shift in priorities from issues like enforcing civil rights to instead defending a mass deportation agenda, this foundational tenet had rarely been discussed in federal courtrooms, former judges, lawyers and scholars say. But as Trump’s DOJ exhibits behavior that judges have called “unlawful,” “unethical,” “unseemly” or otherwise dishonest, adherence to that bedrock standard is now being questioned.ProPublica reviewed hundreds of cases since Trump retook the White House in which judges criticized the actions of DOJ lawyers and found more than 40 in which they explicitly referenced the presumption of regularity. In many cases, judges have expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word.“Judges simply don’t believe the representations that are being made by United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys and the like,” said John E. Jones, a former federal judge for the District of Pennsylvania, appointed by President George W. Bush.“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.”In Rhode Island in May, Trump-appointed federal Judge Mary McElroy rebuked federal prosecutors’ conduct — saying they withheld information and misrepresented facts — as she quashed their requests for a subpoena in their investigation into a hospital’s care of transgender children. The judge alleged the DOJ had inappropriately claimed its investigation was operating out of Texas to secure subpoenas targeting sensitive medical records of patients in another state and that it falsely claimed the Rhode Island hospital hadn’t communicated with the department.“The discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling,” McElroy wrote. “The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that ‘[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word — with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes — no longer holds.’”Judges have emitted a chorus of condemnations against the legal basis for some of Trump’s political agenda, including the mass firings of federal workers, an immigration dragnet that has imprisoned hundreds of U.S. citizens and retribution campaigns against the president’s political enemies.In doing so, federal judges are imbuing forceful language into their orders in a way that scholars say signals to the Trump administration that the third branch of government is losing trust in the Justice Department.“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.” Former federal Judge John E. Jones, a George W. Bush appointeeFederal judges rarely grant interviews, and none of the judges who criticized the Justice Department in their orders granted interviews to ProPublica.In a statement, a spokesperson for the DOJ said its attorneys are “dedicated public servants who represent the United States with integrity, in accordance with their ethical obligations and the law.”“The Department stands firmly behind the professionalism and good faith of its attorneys,” said spokesperson Kiersten Pels. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.Federal judges have found that the government filed statements generated by artificial intelligence that referenced nonexistent case law, wrote briefs that ignored facts and filed declarations with inaccurate dates, the ProPublica review shows.In one case, the government included documentation claiming a detainee had been convicted of marijuana possession in 2009. That detainee, the judge noted, citing what she called the government’s persistent “sloppiness,” would have been 4 years old.“This Court will no longer blindly accept statements of fact from [the U.S. government] unless they are made under oath by an individual with personal knowledge,” Judge Christine O’Hearn, a President Joe Biden appointee, wrote in New Jersey while reviewing a writ of habeas corpus petition filed by a man who claimed he was unlawfully imprisoned by immigration officers.

WATCH LIVE: Trump meets with Netanyahu at White House

President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning is meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, shortly before the two leaders join a slew of other high-profile figures attending the late Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) funeral in Washington, D.C. Trump and Netanyahu are meeting around 11 a.m. at the White House. Their meeting […]

Living in Michigan Can Be Tough in Election Years. Here's How the Trump-Backed Candidates Are Doing.

Raging swing state voters wallop Trump over 'stupid' war that 'makes life a lot harder'

Voters across battleground states are expressing mounting frustration with the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran that has produced no clear resolution — only rising costs and disrupted lives.In Wisconsin, Robert Edelstein, who runs a window-tinting business, didn't hold back, calling the decision to strike Iran the "stupidest thing that could ever possibly have happened" and comparing it unfavorably to the Iraq War, reported The Guardian.“It’s screwed everything up, as we all know," Edelstein said. "It’s absolutely stupid.” Fellow Wisconsinite Terrence Dahmen, a retiree who typically votes Democratic, called American involvement "a huge mistake," arguing the U.S. wasn't provoked and suggesting the real motive was oil. He said the money would have been better spent on renewable energy.In Georgia, retired teacher Jimmy Carter watched Trump's motorcade pass near his old school with disbelief, dismissing the war as a "dumba-- idea" — a sentiment he said even his Trump-voting brother shared.The frustration isn't purely ideological. Clay Harvison, a Marietta mixed martial artist who voted for Trump, said the war should have ended months ago and warned that younger voters are increasingly questioning why a president who campaigned against foreign wars is now overseeing one.“He should have left it when he had already bombed them,” Harvison said. "Being remembered as being great ... he’s messing with that really bad right now.”Beyond the political anger, the war's costs are showing up in everyday life. Gasoline prices have climbed above $4 a gallon for the first time in years, according to AAA, with lower- and middle-income households absorbing a disproportionate share of the pain.In Maine, logging worker Lydia Stone described being squeezed by rising fuel costs while prices for her product stay flat.“It’s been a huge jump in prices, and makes life a lot harder,” she said.She also connected her frustration over funding the war to cuts in programs like SNAP, noting longer lines at her local food pantry and a friend's husband being deployed with little warning.Not every voter interviewed opposes the war outright — some with military ties expressed conditional or full support, wanting either a clearer exit strategy or full-throated confrontation with Iran. But across party lines and regions, voters are increasingly concluding the war isn't worth the cost.