President Donald Trump announced Monday that a key obstacle standing in the way of his administration’s negotiations with Tehran to end the U.S. war against Iran had apparently been addressed, potentially clearing the path to an end to the conflict.“I had a very productive call with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, of Israel, and there will be no Troops going to Beirut, [Lebanon], and any Troops that are on their way, have already been turned back,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. “Likewise, through highly placed Representatives, I had a very good call with Hezbollah, and they agreed that all shooting will stop – That Israel will not attack them, and they will not attack Israel.”Trump’s inability to pressure Israel to halt its bombardment and invasion of Lebanon – which he explicitly demanded in April – has been a key factor in the negotiation stalemate between Washington and Tehran. Iranian officials have demanded that any agreement to end the conflict include Israel halting its bombardment of Lebanon, which since early March has killed more than 3,100 Lebanese and injured nearly 10,000.Whether Israel abides by Trump’s latest request to cease hostilities remains to be seen, with the Middle East nation having flagrantly disregarded the president’s demands in the past.
A federal appeals court ruled on Monday against the Trump administration’s policy of barring transgender troops from the military, finding the policy was arbitrary and implemented with animus. A three judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found 2-1 that the Department of War’s January 2025 policy, which held that […]
President Trump announced on Monday that he spoke with Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah leaders to enforce a ceasefire as fighting between the two stalls US negotiations with Iran. As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier, Iran suspended talks with the US amid Israel's ground invasion of Lebanon. The post JUST IN: Trump Says He Spoke With Netanyahu and Hezbollah to End Fighting as Iran Talks Stall appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
A prominent economist has calculated the overall cost of President Donald Trump’s Iran war on American consumers, boiled it down to how much it is costing each U.S. household, and is issuing a warning on the economy.Dr. Mark Zandi is the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and the co-founder of Economy.com. He puts the total cost of Trump’s war at $100 billion — a conservative estimate to some — which amounts to about $750 per household so far. That $100 billion includes “the additional U.S. military costs and the higher energy and other prices resulting from the war,” says Zandi, who calls it a “big economic blow.” Last week, Zandi told CNBC that if prices stay roughly the same, and the war drags on to a full year, the total cost will jump to about $2,000 for each U.S. household.He warns that while Trump’s “deficit-financed tax cuts have cushioned it” so far, as of the middle of last month, “the bigger tax refunds Americans have received this year no longer cover the higher costs of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel caused by the war.” Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, on May 19 reported that “Americans will be spending $2 billion more on gasoline over the four day Memorial Day weekend compared to a year ago, according to GasBuddy estimates, or roughly $22 million more every hour.”Looking at the “hard-pressed middle and lower-income households,” Zandi found that the financial pressure is “mounting quickly.”He notes that the U.S. consumer’s savings rate is now “about as low as it ever goes,” and warns that “unless the war ends soon and energy prices come down,” Americans “will have little choice but to rein in their spending, weighing further on the already sagging economy.” Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, told CNBC that consumers “are increasingly facing an income squeeze, which is forcing them to use savings, credit and wealth to sustain their spending patterns.”The Trump White House over the weekend offered a different take.Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters that “People are spending more on gas, but they’re also spending more on everything else — not just groceries, but restaurants and so on,” MS NOW reported. “I think that that’s a sign that you would see when people are optimistic about the future.”
A GOP lawmaker argued on Monday that Americans who are unhappy with President Donald Trump's Iran war should leave the United States — prompting people to mock the remarks online.Rep. Sheri Biggs (R-SC) was speaking to Newsmax during a live broadcast following reports that Iran had suspended talks with the U.S. after Israeli strikes and an increased military offensive in Lebanon, which Iran had set as a condition for any ceasefire.Biggs claimed that Americans need to trust the president on what comes next with the ongoing conflict."I think we have to trust him. The American people elected President Trump for a reason, and it's because he has the backbone, the intelligence to get things done," she said."We have to put America first, and as I've said before, if you don't love this country, get out," Biggs said.People online had plenty of things to say in response to Biggs' comments."Republican Rep. says if you don't support Trump's Iran War you should leave America," Ron Filipkowski, editor in chief of MeidasNews and former Marine who has more than 782,000 followers, wrote on X."The bleaker things get, the more outrageous their bootlicking becomes," Zach Halper, Senior Media Strategist at Momentum Communications Group, wrote on Bluesky."They can't stop drinking the Kool-Aid... and people will remember," True Blue, an account that self-describes as "blue dot in the red state of Utah" and frequent progressive commentator with more than 23,000 followers, wrote on Bluesky."Historians will recall how Rep. Sheri Biggs chose to ignore her oath of office to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic is broken by this treasonous member of Congress. Being on the wrong side of history as a loyal MAGA Nazi sycophant is definitely your grand legacy, Sheri," Dwight Miller, Navy veteran and frequent political commentator, wrote on Bluesky.Republican Rep. says if you don't support Trump's Iran War you should leave America. https://t.co/EzkgGYOcFf— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) June 1, 2026
President Trump met with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) at the White House on Monday to discuss the Justice Department’s controversial $1.776 billion antiweaponization fund, sources in the Speaker’s office confirmed to The Hill and to NewsNation’s Joe Khalil. The meeting comes as Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have voiced frustration over the fund,…
As the war with Iran has eased into something of a hot ceasefire, with the two sides exchanging occasional blows as a peace deal is negotiated, the American Conservative has a dismal assessment of President Donald Trump’s performance: the outcome he’s arriving at appears to be “beyond parody.”Citing recent reports from Axios on the state of Trump’s peace deal negotiations, the American Conservative contributor Anik Joshi notes that “the deal will have the same core ingredients as the one negotiated by President Barack Obama and signed in 2015 that the U.S. later left — some kind of financial/sanctions relief in exchange for verification of promises not to pursue a weapons program.” These two aspects are vital, but ignore many other considerations that are essential to the war, like the activities of regional proxies. But to bring these other elements into the debate risks sidelining the core nuclear issue, which could tank efforts for a deal altogether. “This was exactly what helped nearly sink the original JCPOA in Congress,” writes Joshi. “There was significant opposition to all the things the deal didn’t do. There was also much opposition to what it actually did — contempt for sunset clauses, for the fact that the deal would require some level of trust in addition to verification, and for arguments against any kind of financial relief for a regime some saw as illegitimate.”His conclusion is not optimistic: “Nearly a decade later, with oil prices sky-high, it is beyond parody that we are back to where this all began, except this time with a massive war as a kickoff rather than negotiations.”Joshi is quick to note that negotiations are still worth pursuing as “the goal remains a quick end to the war before it has a chance to become another quagmire and cause sustained economic damage.” He does warn, however, that “that window closes more with each passing day.” With that in mind, he argues that the administration should focus on the most pressing issues and be willing to leave “nice-to-haves” on the table for a later date while addressing the “must-haves” now. While Joshi does think that the US is arguing from a position of power — an assessment that many analysts do not share — he does warn that “the country is still not in a position to impose its will on the Iranian government, and any kind of agreement will need to be give-and-take. As a function of that, it will contain the same key ingredients as the JCPOA with differences of degree far more than differences of type. There has been no unconditional surrender, and as such it is effectively impossible to impose unilateral terms, especially when the Iranians have shown what they’re capable of doing to maritime passage through the Strait of Hormuz.”At the moment, Trump is walking a tightrope between Iran hawks who demand maximal concessions and Republicans who just want the war to end. To bring about the latter, says Joshi, the president will likely have to anger the former. “If the government is serious about a deal,” notes Joshi, “it will require disappointing hawkish supporters, and the administration should steel itself for that sooner rather than later.”
As the war with Iran enters its fourth month and President Donald Trump struggles to reach a peace deal to end the conflict he started, the Hill reports that Senate Republicans have become deeply divided over how to proceed. This ‘messy debate’ comes as the GOP is already at odds over several key legislative priorities. According to the Hill, several hawkish Senators led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-MS), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) reject the deal that has been emerging with Iran, urging the president “not to agree to any deal that would allow Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program or ease sanctions while it continues to support Hezbollah and Hamas.” American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Danielle Pletka typifies this view, “arguing that it would be even weaker than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that the Obama administration negotiated with Iran in 2015 — a deal Trump abandoned in his first term.”“The reporting on it suggests that it’s a terrible deal, that the president has gotten basically nothing that he said he was getting, and that his negotiators have embarrassed him,” she said. “Anything that ends with Iran believing that it can open and close Hormuz at times of its choosing is a loss for the United States.”For the senators’ part, Wicker has warned that the deal would be a “disaster,” Graham argues that it would make Iran the region’s “dominant force,” and Cruz asserts that giving Iran billions in sanctions relief while allowing the country control over the Strait of Hormuz would be a “disastrous mistake.” According to Republican strategist and ex-Trump National Security Council spokesperson John Ullyot, however, “They will certainly make their feelings clear, and loudly, but it’s hard for the Senate to stand in the way of a deal by any president in an ongoing military operation since it’s not subject to a vote that would block it.”But the views of other GOP lawmakers have the party further divided, as “a growing number of Republican senators are losing patience with the lack of a clear plan for ending the conflict, which has caused gas prices to rise by nearly $1.40 per gallon since late February.” Four Republican senators recently voted to discharge a war powers resolution that would have directed Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from the war. These include Republican senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Bill Cassidy (R-LA), and the measure advanced because three Republicans were absent. It would have passed if just one more Republican had voted for it, “sending a loud rebuke to Trump over his handling of the conflict.”“The Senate is expected to vote this week on a motion to proceed to the resolution to end the war, but Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) need to work out a time agreement,” explained the Hill. “The measure is close to having enough support to pass the House as well, though Trump is certain to veto it.”According to the Hill, Republican senators on both sides of the divide will likely extend Trump some latitude as the deal is negotiated, but that once details are revealed, the backlash could be pronounced. Many are watching how Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) votes as he just lost a primary race to a Trump-endorsed opponent. Now that Cornyn knows he’s leaving office, he has little incentive to bend to Trump’s will, who has recently accused the senator of being “very disloyal.”
Last night at 1 am ET, President Donald Trump bragged that Iran “really wants to make a deal.” This morning, however, Iran announced that it is suspending talks over Israel’s ongoing bombing of Lebanon. This setback is the latest in a string of embarrassments as Trump desperately tries to extract the U.S. from the economically devastating war he started over three months ago.As the Daily Beast reports, in the early hours of the morning, Trump posted, “‘Iran really wants to make a deal, and it will be a good one for the U.S.A. and those that are with us.’ He went on to attack Democrats and ‘various seemingly unpatriotic Republicans’ for making it harder for him to negotiate an agreement with ‘negatively “chirping,” at levels never seen before.’”Trump ended with a word of advice: “Just sit back and relax, it will all work out well in the end — It always does!”Just hours later, an Iranian state news made a statement that didn’t bode well for the president’s assertion, declaring, “Given the continuation of the Israeli regime’s attacks in Lebanon, and considering that Lebanon had been one of the preconditions for a ceasefire — which has now been violated on all fronts, including Lebanon — the Iranian negotiating team is suspending ‘talks and exchanges of texts through mediators.’” Iran has consistently maintained that any peace deal would be contingent on the cessation of Israeli attacks on Lebanon. According to the Associated Press, however, Israeli forces have made their deepest incursion into Lebanon in over 25 years. While Israeli leadership says it is attacking Iranian-backed Hezbollah groups, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has accused Israel of “implementing a policy of total destruction of cities and towns.” So far, over 3,300 people, including many children, have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli forces, and about 1 million people have been displaced. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Iran have been exchanging strikes over the weekend and into Monday.Wrangling over the war’s aims and end has caused sharp fractures in the Republican Party between hawks who demand maximum concessions from Iran and those who are feeling the electoral backlash from the conflict’s disastrous economic impacts and want it to end as quickly as possible. As things stand now, many Republicans are beginning to admit the bad position into which the president has gotten himself.According to Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, “The reporting on it suggests that it’s a terrible deal, that the president has gotten basically nothing that he said he was getting, and that his negotiators have embarrassed him.”Other experts have pointed out that the president now faces many of the same challenges former President Barack Obama grappled with while negotiating the Iran nuclear deal that Trump later tore up, and that at best, any new deal is going to look very similar to the old one. “Nearly a decade later, with oil prices sky-high,” wrote Anik Joshi in the American Conservative, “it is beyond parody that we are back to where this all began.”