Trump family feud spills out as niece skewers president for wedding snub

Trump's Possible Iran Deal May Be as Divisive as War Itself

A rock legend showed us how to fight Trump — and it's working: analyst

An analyst says a rock legend handed us a roadmap to fighting Donald Trump.Bruce Springsteen's current tour isn't just a concert — it's a masterclass in resistance, and other celebrities should be taking notes, according to a labor journalist who attended one of the Boss's recent shows.Writing in the Guardian, Steven Greenhouse argues that Springsteen has cracked the code that has eluded so many of Trump's celebrity critics: how to speak out powerfully without alienating, lecturing, or losing your audience."He talks to people," Greenhouse writes. "He doesn't talk at them or down to them or lecture them. He voices common concerns, he rallies, he inspires."Greenhouse attended Springsteen's recent show at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, which he describes as "far more than a fabulous, joyous concert" — calling it "an inspiring resistance event." From the opening moments, Springsteen made his intentions clear, telling the crowd that the E Street Band was there "in celebration and defense of the American ideals and values that have sustained our country for 250 years."What followed was three hours of pointed, thunderous anti-Trump messaging woven through classic rock and roll. Springsteen called Trump "a reckless, racist, incompetent, treasonous president and his ship of fools administration." He led the crowd in a rendition of Edwin Starr's "War (What Is It Good For?)" — a barely veiled reference to Trump's conflict with Iran — before launching into "Born in the USA."He also tackled Trump's efforts to rewrite history, telling the crowd: "Our museums are being told to whitewash American history of any unpleasant or inconvenient facts, like the full history of the brutality of slavery. You want to talk about snowflakes? We have a president who can't handle the truth."Central to Springsteen's current tour is "The Streets of Minneapolis," a new song about Trump's deployment of federal agents to the city, written in honor of Renée Good and Alex Pretti — two people killed during ICE operations. At the end of the song, Springsteen led the arena in a chant of "ICE out now!" as photos of Good and Pretti appeared behind the stage.At the No Kings rally in St. Paul in March, Springsteen invoked Good's final words to the agent who would take her life: "That's fine, dude, I'm not mad at you. I'm not mad." He called on the crowd to "find a way to take aggressive, peaceful action to defend our country's ideals" — echoing John Lewis's famous call to "get into some good trouble."Greenhouse argues that Springsteen's effectiveness comes from a credibility built over decades of championing the working class — the same voters Trump has cynically courted while delivering for billionaires. He also has something most celebrities lack: independence. With hundreds of thousands of fans willing to pay $100 or more to see him, Springsteen answers to no corporate overlords.That freedom stands in contrast to Stephen Colbert, whose outspoken Trump criticism Greenhouse suggests may have contributed to the cancellation of his show. Springsteen, he notes, faces no such constraints — only death threats, which have reportedly increased as the tour has progressed.Trump has responded to Springsteen in characteristic fashion, calling him a "total loser," a "dried-up prune," and "not a talented guy." Springsteen has not appeared deterred."So many of our elected leaders have failed us that this American tragedy can only be stopped by the American people — by you," Springsteen told the Brooklyn crowd. "So join us and let's fight for the America that we love."Greenhouse closes with a call for more of the same — and a wish that Springsteen would take his resistance show outdoors, to free concerts that could draw hundreds of thousands."Springsteen is an unarguable leader of the resistance," he writes. "The nation could use more like him."

Trump caught in a 'bear trap' with no easy way out: ex-GOP strategist

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) has been a passionate supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump's war against Iran, while MAGA Republicans and American First proponents like former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson have been highly critical. Trump himself, according to The Lincoln Party's Rick Wilson, is looking for an offramp from the war but is caught in a "bear trap" of his own making. In a "Fast Politics" video with liberal journalist Molly Jong-Fast, Wilson — a Never Trump and former GOP strategist — stressed that neither GOP war hawks nor the Iranian regime is backing down.Wilson told Jong-Fast, "So, there is a memorandum of understanding with the Iranian government right now that gives Iran full control of the Strait of Hormuz, gives Iran $100 billion of their currently seized and frozen assets back, agrees to pay Iran $250-some billion — maybe $250 or $280 — in reparations, pushes American forces out of the gulf essentially. After 60 days after this agreement is signed, Iran and the U.S. will sit down and then negotiate a separate agreement maybe concerning Iran's nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons program."The former GOP strategist continued, "This strikes me, Molly, as not great…. This is really dumb. This is dumb even at levels of dumb for Donald Trump…. But they really are very desperate to get this war done with." Trump, Wilson argued, "wants to get out of this thing" but is having a very hard time doing so."He really needs to get out of this thing," Wilson told Jong-Fast. "He is in a bear trap right now. And nobody's happy."Trump launched the Iran war in late February.When Jong-Fast noted that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) "came out against" the plan that Wilson described to her, the Never Trumper responded, "Well, Ted Cruz and (Sen.) Rick Wilson and Lindsey Graham and the entire conservative apparatus of think tank guys and national security guys, they're like, 'Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We went to Iran, and now, we're going to do what?'.... This will set a precedent that will forever give control of the straits to Iran. And the idea that somehow, there's some last-minute genius negotiation on Donald Trump's part that's going to lead to a deal that's going to make sense for the U.S., it's nuts. It's just Coocoo Town." - YouTube www.youtube.com

Ex-Trump pal Megyn Kelly revives rape allegation against the president

Megyn Kelly used a conservative podcast appearance to unload a series of damaging personal accusations against Donald Trump, claiming he has cheated on every wife he has ever had — and resurfacing a rape allegation made by his first wife, Ivana Trump, that was later retracted."Trump has cheated on every wife he's had," Kelly said on Friday's episode of the Hodgetwins Podcast. "He met Marla Maples while he was still married to the mother of his children, Ivana. It was all over the New York papers. Like he was proud of the affair!"Kelly then went further, telling the hosts, "Ivana, his first wife, accused him of raping her" — before adding that she could not personally confirm the allegation. "I don't know whether that's true or not, but just saying, clearly not a great relationship there."The allegation dates to a sworn deposition Ivana Trump gave during the couple's bitter 1990 divorce proceedings, in which she described a violent sexual encounter with her then-estranged husband. Though she used the word rape under oath, she later walked it back after the claim appeared in a 1993 book, saying she "felt violated" but did not want her words taken "in a literal or criminal sense." When the allegation resurfaced during Trump's first presidential campaign in 2015, she dismissed it as "totally without merit." Trump has long and adamantly denied the accusation.Kelly's remarks were prompted by Trump's recent mockery of former counterterrorism chief Joe Kent for remarrying four years after his first wife, Navy officer Shannon Kent, was killed in combat. Kelly was unimpressed with Trump's moral standing to make that criticism."Talk about a glass house," she said.She closed with a pointed remark about Trump's current marriage to Melania, telling listeners, "If you think Trump's been faithful to Melania, that's great. You've got bigger issues than I can solve here."The comments represent a striking turn from Kelly, who spent years in Trump's orbit after leaving Fox News and had until recently maintained a complicated but largely friendly relationship with the president and his allies. Trump was convicted last year on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels, though he has claimed he was unaware of the arrangement.

Furious Trump names and shames three GOP lawmakers in sprawling early-morning rant

Donald Trump launched a sprawling early-morning attack on Republican critics of his Iran deal Sunday, singling out three GOP lawmakers by name and calling them losers, fools, and sleazebags in a 6am Truth Social post that underscored the growing tension between the president and members of his own party.Trump took aim at Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who he declared would soon be "out of office." He went after Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who last week lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger. And he saved his sharpest words for Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, whom he called "a major sleazebag who lost in a landslide" after Massie was defeated in his own primary following a series of breaks with the president."I laugh at all of the Dumocrats, RINOs, and Fools who know nothing about the potential deal I am making with Iran," Trump wrote, before rattling off the names.The post came amid fierce criticism from both parties over Trump's Iran negotiations, with hawks accusing him of repeating the mistakes of the Obama-era nuclear deal and his own base demanding military action rather than diplomacy. Trump has spent the past several days fielding attacks from former allies including retired General Mike Flynn and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, both of whom publicly urged him to walk away from any agreement with Tehran.Trump dismissed all of his critics as "weak and ineffective people" who "do nothing but create division and loss.""These people should go home and rest," he wrote. "In other words, they are losers."He closed with a warning about the deal itself: it will either be "great and meaningful" or there will be no deal at all — and it will be "the exact opposite of the JCPOA disaster," he claimed.

Trump's Memorial Day message takes a dark turn

Donald Trump marked Memorial Day with a Truth Social post that managed to honor fallen soldiers and attack Democrats in the same breath."Happy Memorial Day to all, including the Dumocrats, who disrespect our Military and all of the tremendous success that it has had over the last year," Trump wrote at 6am on the holiday. Memorial Day is traditionally one of the most unifying moments on the American political calendar, a day when presidents of both parties have set aside partisan conflict to honor the men and women who died in service to the country.Trump did add to his attack, "God Bless those that have made the ultimate sacrifice. I love you all!"But then the president went back to his initial instincts, posting just minutes later and dropping any pretense of holiday sentiment entirely."The Dumocrats have BAD POLICY, AND BAD CANDIDATES," he wrote. "Other than that, they are doing quite well!"The posts came just minutes after Trump had published a sprawling attack on three Republican lawmakers by name, calling them losers and sleazebags over their criticism of his Iran negotiations.

GOP insiders sound the alarm as Trump throws fellow Republicans under the bus

A little over five months from now, U.S. voters will decide control of Congress. President Donald Trump isn't literally on the ballot, yet a wide range of 2026 midterms elections — from the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives to governor's offices to state legislatures — will become referendums on Trump's presidency. And according to the GOP insiders interviewed by the New York Times, Trump is doing a lot of things to make it harder for them to maintain control of Congress.Times journalist Shane Goldmacher and Patricia Mazzei, in a report published on Memorial Day, explain, "Republicans know that their party's fate rests with the president, according to interviews with numerous officials in recent weeks. Yet they also know there is not much any of them can do to make him help them. "Goldmacher and Mazzei cite Trump's endorsement of far-right State Attorney General Ken Paxton in Texas' U.S. Senate race and his $1.7 billion "anti-weaponization fund" as two examples of things that could make it harder for Republicans to hold Congress in November. Many Republican insiders believe that incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) would perform better than Cornyn against Democratic nominee James Talarico. GOP pollster Whit Ayres described the fund as "a whole new level of brazenness," while outgoing Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) called it "stupid on stilts."Ayers told the Times, "The president was elected to juice the economy, to bring down inflation, to stop illegal immigration and to get away from woke culture. If his highest goal were to maintain control of Congress, he would not be doing what he is doing." On X, Tillis posted, "We need Republicans to do well in November, but the stupid stuff is killing our chances!Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is expressing his frustration with Trump as well, attacking the fund as a "slush fund to pay people who assault cops."Goldmacher and Mazzei note, however, that Trump "certainly brings some advantages, including a super PAC with a $350 million war chest that allies are anxious for him to start spending.""He has also shown an ability to get out the vote unlike anyone else, though the party has suffered in the last decade when he has not been on the ballot," the Times journalists explain. "But even some of Mr. Trump's Republican allies are growing frustrated by what they see as his Trump First agenda, though most are skittish of openly crossing a president with thin skin and a long memory, according to interviews with multiple Republican officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid the president's ire."

Trump found his weapon to cripple enemies — but missed one big thing

We know the Trump Department of Justice has threatened individuals it considers political opponents. Echoing authoritarian regimes worldwide, they’ve now indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In response, major Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs), including Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab, have prevented clients from donating to SPLC, cutting the organization off from funding without even a shred of due process. If the DAFs follow this precedent, it could eliminate a key source of funding for any nonprofits this—or any future—administration chooses to attack.The funds claim their action is necessary because, according to the administration, it constituted fraud for SPLC to have paid hate group informants. But federal and state law enforcement agencies have known about the infiltrations for years, using information they provided to help secure indictments and convictions. So the charges are spurious.Fidelity justified its actions by citing a policy of pausing DAF giving if an organization “is being investigated for alleged illegal activities…such as terrorism, money laundering, hate crimes or fraud,” or if “state and federal agencies” are investigating a charitable organization. Schwab’s fund quietly removed SPLC from its list of eligible nonprofits, and a representative read me similar boilerplate, saying the fund was deciding on next steps. The danger is far larger than the SPLC case. The listed criteria would let federal or state authorities cripple any nonprofit they choose, simply by launching an investigation. The organization doesn’t have to be convicted, or even indicted. They just have to be investigated, which makes this a perfect way to target political opponents. The administration has already issued a memorandum promising investigations of groups that promote “anti-fascism,” “anti-Christianity,” or “hostility” toward “traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” It’s threatened Wikipedia, the Vera Institute for Justice and the governmental watchdog Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics in Washington, not to mention major universities. All the federal government, or even a state government, would need to do to launch a DAF freeze is to open an official public investigation. And these major DAFs would then block the targeted organization from receiving funding. The implications aren’t confined to the Trump administration. Under this precedent, Democrats holding power could do the same to disfavored nonprofits. Just launching an investigation would cut off a significant part of a targeted organization’s money flow. The defunding or banning of targeted NGOs is exactly what Vladimir Putin did in Russia, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, and Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. It’s a classic way to eliminate opposition and consolidate power. And the anticipatory compliance of Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab is the exact kind of response that empowers would-be dictatorships, whatever their politics.If a nonprofit is convicted of fraud or money laundering, it’s of course legitimate to remove or suspend their 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. But SPLC has neither been tried nor convicted, so the DAFs are letting a hostile administration’s mere accusation of wrongdoing become an excuse to block funding. The $326 billion of money that DAFs hold is part of the lifeblood of nonprofits. The actions of these DAFs directly undermine democracy by excluding a group the administration has targeted and potentially denying funding to other targeted groups. That’s true whatever you think of SPLC.If there’s a nonprofit that could weather this, it’s SPLC, with its $786 million endowment. I don’t give to them because I think other groups are more impactful for the money they spend. But if the Trump administration and its enablers can do this to SPLC, they can do it to far smaller and more vulnerable nonprofits. For instance, they could target nonpartisan voter engagement groups, drying up funding (including pledged contributions) at the point when these groups need it the most to engage citizens in democracy. Damaging attacks on nonprofit funding also don’t have to come from the federal Department of Justice. Under Fidelity’s criteria, attacks could come from state governments as well, with potential targets including either conservative or liberal groups depending on which party runs a particular state. But ordinary citizens have the power to change this. The campaigns that got ABC to reinstate Jimmy Kimmel offer a model. This issue has less visibility, but for the nonprofits it could affect is equally critical. If we have money in a DAF, our calls or emails could well make the difference. Schwab told me that they’d been getting lots of critical responses. But even if we don’t have a DAF, nearly 60% of us have retirement or other investment accounts, with most housed at the major affiliated brokerages.