James Dolan reveals one thing Knicks ‘cannot’ do to run it back with entire roster for repeat bid
Bringing back such a deep and capable team to “run it back” certainly won’t be easy.

When patients face long waits and limited options, euthanasia looks more like a policy response to a floundering health-care system.
Bringing back such a deep and capable team to “run it back” certainly won’t be easy.
President Trump denied that the United States would be part of a $300 billion rebuilding fund for Iran and argued that his agreement was better than the one Barack Obama struck in 2015.
President Donald Trump's claim that wealthy donors will fund the White House ballroom continues to unravel, as reports unearth the real cost to taxpayers."Trump has been lying the whole time with full knowledge of the cost and the cost to taxpayers," political analyst Brian Tyler Cohen said, pointing to new reporting by The Washington Post.The Post looked at early project cost estimates by the contractor tasked with building the ballroom and found that it will cost about $600 million, with about half of that coming from taxpayers."Why would Trump try to screw something that he claims to love?" Cohen asked, jabbing at Trump's claims of loving America. "At a time when Americans are hurting as a result of his failed policies, this president has chosen to stick us with the bill."Cohen also pointed out that the list of the 27 ballroom donors so far includes Amazon, Apple, Google, Lockheed Martin, Meta, and Palantir, and that more than half of the donors have received huge government contracts since making their donations."Hey, not a bad deal," Cohen joked. "It's sort of like if at Christmas time, he donated a little bit of money to Santa and then in January he returned the favor by giving you all the money he collected."
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proactive defense in the face of multiple federal investigations — the governor is accusing President Trump of lawfare and rampant corruption — is starting to draw pushback, as the California leader’s own record has frequently raised questions of pay to play.
The right is seething over the details of President Trump’s memorandum of understanding with Iran, seeing the decision as a massive capitulation to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.The full text of the 14-point agreement was released Wednesday, revealing the United States will end its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, work with other countries to give Iran access to $300 billion to rebuild its infrastructure, and cease sanctions, among other concessions.“I’ve heard from the president. I have tremendous respect for him. I’d like to hear from Marco Rubio, and I’d really like to hear from John Lee Ratcliffe on the intelligence of whether or not Iran thinks they got the better of us. Because I guarantee, we got the best intelligence community in the world. I’d be really interested in what [Iran’s] reaction to this MOU is. It might be. ‘I can’t believe we got this, because we were losing,’” former Republican Representative Trey Gowdy said on Fox News after the MOU was released. “We had an economic stranglehold on that country. So, when you go back to the status quo ante before the blockade, how are we better off? What did we get?”Gowdy then claimed the pressures of low approval ratings and incoming midterm elections may have gotten to the president.“Don’t we have midterms coming up? Are gas prices high? I mean, I hate to be cynical, but I don’t think it’s a national security document,” he said.Gowdy: How are we better off? What did we get? pic.twitter.com/VEBx6IZE1d— Acyn (@Acyn) June 17, 2026“Make no mistake: This MOU is a capitulation to the Iranian terrorist regime, potentially more dangerous than Obama’s JCPOA,” wrote Joel Griffith, a senior fellow at the conservative American Advancing Freedom and co-chair of Young Jewish Conservatives. “This will rejuvenate a terrorist regime with nuclear ambitions committed to global ideological domination through terrorism.”“This is an American surrender,” MAGA commentator Erick Erickson said.“This MOU with Iran does smack of the kind of appeasement that our administration rejected in the Obama-Iran nuclear deal and also when Joe Biden attempted to return to the politics of appeasement during his administration,” Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, posited. “I would urge the President to take a step back, continue the blockade and pursue a negotiated settlement that commits Iran to dismantling their nuclear program, dismantling this missile program, ends support for terrorist proxies and opens the strait. Failing that, we should let our Armed Forces finish the job on our terms.”“Reagan is rolling over in his grave,” Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy wrote. “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future.… Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive. Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.” “This MOU appears to be … a disaster that does not achieve any of the actual signal goals that were set by the administration at the beginning,” commentator Ben Shapiro said on Fox News. “There are effectively five goals that were set by the administration at the beginning. One was ending the nuclear program: not just nuclear weapons; no nuclear enrichment, zero enrichment, that is not in the deal. Ballistic missiles ended, that is not in the deal.… In my opinion, the vice president of the United States, the chief negotiator on this particular project, has not well served the president.”Ben Shapiro: This MOU appears to be a disaster that does not achieve any of the actual goals set by the administration at the beginning. The Vice President, the chief negotiator on this project has not well served the president. pic.twitter.com/pQWgnZOBLe— Acyn (@Acyn) June 17, 2026
As information emerges about President Donald Trump’s peace deal to end his war with Iran, there has been no shortage of criticism about the many concessions it offers from the American side. According to longtime Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, Trump’s surrender has not only been a major loss for the U.S., but its greatest irony may be that it validated the actions of one of the president's predecessors and top adversaries: Barack Obama.On Wednesday, Schmidt explained what he asserts are the three looming ironies to Trump’s failed “excursion” to Iran.First was the very fact that “the president who thundered that there would be nothing less than ‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!’ now appears prepared to conclude his war by accepting an agreement that bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the diplomacy he once condemned as treasonous. If the reported Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is signed this week, the United States will have spent months at war, exhausted enormous military resources, suffered American casualties, destabilized the global economy, and emerged not with the destruction of the Iranian regime, but with another negotiated framework. That’s not ‘unconditional surrender.’ It’s negotiation. It’s compromise. It’s the very thing Donald Trump spent a decade telling the American people was weakness. The irony is staggering.”Then Schmidt raised Trump’s assertions regarding Obama’s previous deal with Iran.“There is another irony that deserves attention because history has a wicked sense of humor,” wrote Schmidt. “Donald Trump built much of his foreign policy identity around destroying Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. He called it ‘the worst deal ever negotiated.’ Republicans spent years portraying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as an act of appeasement. The accusation was simple. Obama negotiated with terrorists. Obama rewarded aggression. Obama was weak.”Now in the aftermath of Trump’s war, says Schmidt, it is clear which president had the wiser approach.“Barack Obama negotiated before there was a war,” writes Schmidt. “Donald Trump fought the war first — then he negotiated. Obama’s critics promised that strength would produce a dramatically better outcome. Instead, America appears poised to arrive at another agreement centered on sanctions, inspections, nuclear limitations, implementation timelines and economic incentives — the very architecture that Republicans spent years condemning.”And according to Schmidt, “The road between those two agreements is measured not simply in dollars, but in blood. The cost and destruction have been immense. Entire regions have been destabilized. American military stockpiles have been depleted. Strategic deterrence has been tested. Global markets have been shaken. The prestige of American power has been diminished because maximalist promises created expectations that reality could never satisfy.”Finally, according to Schmidt, “The greatest irony of all may be this: Barack Obama was vilified for negotiating with Iran. Donald Trump may ultimately be remembered for fighting a costly war only to negotiate over many of the same questions. History has a cruel way of exposing the distance between rhetoric and reality. That distance is measured in lives, treasure and broken promises — and it is measured by the judgment of history, which has never accepted slogans as substitutes for success.”
"This way, if it works out, I'm going to take the credit. If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming JD. You better be careful, JD," Trump joked at a press conference.
Family members of two men in the alleged White House UFC attack plot saw warning signs before arrests, including a mother who alerted police to her son’s weapons stockpile and behavior.