Republicans see path forward on reconciliation after administration backs down on anti-weaponization fund

Trump signs scaled-back executive order on AI oversight

The new order appears to be a scaled-back version of the order Trump initially intended to sign recently.

Michigan Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga Introduces 'Deport the Terrorists Act'

Even GOP senators are blasting Trump push to 'weaponize' national intelligence

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump announced that Bill Pulte, a “home-building heir” who currently oversees the Federal Housing Finance Agency, would step in as acting Director of National Intelligence to replace Tulsi Gabbard. The decision has drawn swift bipartisan criticism over Pulte’s total lack of experience and what is viewed as an effort to “weaponize” the U.S. intelligence apparatus. "We don't need a weaponized DNI, we need professionals there," declared Senator Majority Leader John Thune (R-SC). “If he's somebody we want in that position permanently, he's got a lengthy road ahead of him.”Fears over weaponization stem from Pulte’s previous efforts to target Trump’s enemies. As the head of the FHFA, he used his position to suggest criminal charges for mortgage fraud against the likes of New York Attorney General Letitia James, Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook — all of whom drew the president’s ire over various incidents.With all this in mind, Senator Mark Warner, a top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, shared Thune’s sentiments, blasting at length: “This appointment speaks volumes about what this president expects from the nation's top intelligence official. Rather than selecting a respected national security professional capable of delivering independent judgments, the president has chosen an official who has demonstrated not just willingness but eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution.”“Americans have already seen Mr. Pulte use the powers of his office at the Federal Housing Finance Agency to pursue the president's grievances and lend credibility to dubious prosecutions of President Trump's perceived political opponents,” Warner continued. “Elevating him to oversee the Intelligence Community makes clear that this president is not looking for an intelligence leader who will follow the facts or speak truth to power, but rather someone who will be willing to shape intelligence around the president's wishes, regardless of the cost to the American people.”What’s more, Warner took issue with Pulte’s bona fides, or lack thereof, arguing, "The concern is not only that Mr. Pulte lacks the ‘extensive national security experience' required by statute for the job, which was created after intelligence failures led to the deaths of thousands of Americans on 9/11. It is that he appears to have been selected precisely because the White House believes he will provide the narrative it wants, not the intelligence we need. Americans have every reason to worry about what happens when the official charged with overseeing everything from counterterrorism to foreign election threats is chosen for his willingness to advance the president's political agenda rather than his experience. That is how intelligence becomes politicized, how inconvenient facts disappear, how agencies charged with protecting our democracy instead become tools to manipulate it, and how Americans are left more vulnerable to a terrorist attack."Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) put it more simply: “I see no evidence of any qualifications for that job.” And Senator Angus King (Independent-ME), who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, rounded things out, “By any objective assessment — in terms of experience, expertise, background — this appointment makes no sense.”Journalist Chris Hayes summed up the collective assessment well, posting, “This is so utterly insane I’m at a loss. But it makes sense if you want to turn the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus into a tool for domestic persecution and domination.”

Marco Rubio sweats when pressed on secret Trump admin memo: ‘They don’t want us to see’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was pressed Tuesday over the Trump administration’s refusal to grant lawmakers access to an official government memo on the U.S. war against Iran, one that Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) suspected may have “something in there you don’t want us to see.”Rubio testified Tuesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, his first appearance before the body since the war against Iran was launched in late February. Kaine, a member of the committee, asked Rubio why the Trump administration has, to date, refused to share with lawmakers the written opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) on the war against Iran, despite having done so for other recent conflicts.“We can agree with it or not, but the administration presented a legal opinion from the [Justice Department on Operation Southern Spear] that we could review. Absolute Resolve, the effort against [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro, the administration presented a legal rationale that we could review,” Kaine said. “Now, we could review both in classified, they've not been made public. We're 92 days into a war against Iran and the administration will not let Congress look at the OLC legal opinion justifying the war.”Kaine pressed Rubio for answers given the $1.5 trillion defense spending request Congress is being asked to approve, a request that represents an approximate 40% increase of the previous year’s defense spending. He also argued that the Trump administration’s hesitancy to share the OLC opinion on the war against Iran gave lawmakers cause for concern.“Mr. Secretary, you know what kind of thinking we do. If you showed us the legal rationale for two wars and you won't show us the legal rationale for the third... is there something in the rationale they don't want us to see?” Kaine said. “Is there a dissenting opinion that says it's not legal? Are there conditions like you can't strike civilian infrastructure like schools and bridges? Are there factual assertions like the war will be over in two days, or Iran will never close the Strait of Hormuz? By not sharing the legal opinion, you give us the opinion that there's something in there that you don't want us to see.”Kaine then asked Rubio if he would use his “influence” in the administration to press for the OLC legal opinion to be shared with lawmakers.“I can certainly inquire as to why it has not been available,” Rubio said before stumbling his words. “I don't think there's a reason why... I... I am not aware that... I'm – in fact, my understanding is that they have provided documentation to the committee.”Kaine interjected, clarifying that the Trump administration had provided “documentation” to lawmakers but not the OLC legal opinion. Kaine also asserted that Rubio, as a former U.S. senator himself, would “not accept” being denied access to a critical government memo.“Alright, well let me take that back and ask the Office of Legal Counsel,” Rubio conceded. “I'll take that back.”"You give us the opinion that there's something in there that you don't want us to see."Sen. @timkaine presses SOS @marcorubio on why the OLC legal opinion on the Iran war has not been shared with lawmakers."Is there a dissenting opinion that says it's not legal?" pic.twitter.com/vPnGdRufdL— Alexander Willis (@ReporterWillis) June 2, 2026

Trump family IRS immunity quietly moves forward as 'slush fund' pronounced dead: report

The Trump administration is pressing ahead with a legal agreement that permanently shields President Donald Trump, his family members, and his businesses from any IRS probes predating the deal — even as the controversial $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that emerged from the same settlement has been effectively killed off, Bloomberg reported Tuesday.Under the deal, the IRS is "forever barred" from pursuing any claims related to Trump's tax filings that predated the settlement, according to Bloomberg. A person familiar with the matter told the outlet that the decision to shelve the fund does not affect the audit immunity provision.The fund — created last month as part of a settlement of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns — drew immediate bipartisan fire. Critics labeled it a taxpayer-funded "slush fund" that could enrich Jan. 6 defendants who received presidential pardons.Two police officers who defended the Capitol during the riot sued to block the fund, calling it a vehicle "to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name." U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily halted the fund on May 29, barring the administration from transferring money or considering claims.By Monday, an administration source told Axios bluntly: "It's dead for now."Senate Democrats piled on, with Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) introducing legislation dubbed the Drain the Slush Fund Act. Schiff called it "one of the most brazenly corrupt schemes we've ever seen from a U.S. president."The Justice Department said it "disagrees strongly" with the court's ruling but would comply. The White House referred questions to Trump's personal legal team, which did not respond to Bloomberg's request for comment.

Even Republicans Aren’t Buying Trump’s “End” to His Slush Fund

Republican senators are still unconvinced that President Trump is dropping his $1.8 billion anti-weaponization slush fund—and want assurance that Trump won’t use taxpayer funds to pay off his allies. Without it, their own immigration reconciliation bill may also be in jeopardy. On Monday, the Department of Justice announced that it’d be holding back on its plans for the fund after a federal judge ordered them paused until June 12. While the administration promised to abide, Republican senators are unconvinced it’s a permanent end. “If it means it’s completely pulled, then that would satisfy me, but I haven’t heard anybody say that that is actually what is happening,” Senator Lisa Murkowski told Politico. Senator Shelley Moore Capito called for “more investigation” into the fund, while Senator James Langford urged the Trump administration to “say what they actually mean” regarding the fund. “The reconciliation bill looks like a broken arm with the bones sticking out,” Senator John Kennedy added. “They have to abide by the district court decision—that’s in the Constitution. I’d have to know more about their position on the weaponization fund to know whether it would be enough to dislodge the reconciliation bill.”The continued questions about the slush fund suggest that there is much more internal discord among the GOP Senate than initially thought—and less inherent rallying around President Trump. This all comes as acting Attorney General Todd Blanche prepares to testify before the House Appropriations Committee Tuesday, where he will most surely be asked about the future of the slush fund.

Thune on Pulte pick: ‘We don’t need a weaponized’ director of national intelligence

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters “we don’t need a weaponized” director of national intelligence when asked about President Trump’s appointment of Bill Pulte, the homebuilder and director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), to serve as acting head of the nation’s intelligence services. Thune pointed out that Pulte, who has come…

WATCH LIVE: CMS Administrator Dr. Oz Delivers White House Press Briefing – 1 PM ET

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. The post WATCH LIVE: CMS Administrator Dr. Oz Delivers White House Press Briefing – 1 PM ET appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.