New York Post
Mexico fans keep throwing World Cup reporters in the air on live TV
The World Cup is lifting the spirits of Mexican fans — literally.
Right
Latest Political News on Fox News
Explosive report unearths prominent union money trail labeled a 'stunning betrayal' of MAGA members
Right
A major railroad union is accused of funneling money to Democratic causes while sidelining MAGA members, according to a new accountability report.
Compare Perspectives
Found 8 stories
Raw Story
Conservative economist predicts Trump will spur 'massive money printing' and soaring costs
Economist Peter Schiff is warning that the federal government's yawning budget gap will be papered over with a flood of newly printed money, and that ordinary Americans will pay for it through prices that could eventually double.The chief economist and global strategist at Euro Pacific Asset Management laid out the math in a post on Saturday. In May, he wrote, the government spent $628 billion while collecting just $335 billion in taxes, a shortfall so large that balancing the budget would require tax revenue to nearly double. Schiff does not believe that will happen, and his prediction for what comes instead is blunt. "Since that won't happen," he wrote, "massive money printing will cover the shortfall, sending consumer prices doubling instead."In other words, Schiff is arguing that the administration faces a politically impossible choice and will take the path of least resistance. Rather than impose a tax increase steep enough to close the gap, which he later estimated at roughly 50 percent once seasonal revenue is accounted for, he expects the government to monetize the debt. The cost of that decision, in his telling, does not disappear. It simply shows up at the grocery store and the gas pump instead of on a tax bill.The thread drew agreement from others who share Schiff's hard-money outlook.Where Schiff went further than some observers was on the political fallout. When one user argued that doubling taxes was "virtually impossible" and would "absolutely cause massive unrest," recommending spending cuts instead, Schiff agreed the unrest is coming either way. "Yes, but they won't" cut spending, he replied, predicting that the government "will still get unrest, but they will blame it on inflation." The implication is that the administration will treat rising prices as an external force to be managed rather than the predictable result of its own fiscal choices.
Far Left
‘You Close It And You Won’t Have A Country’: Trump Reportedly Says US Could Become ‘Guardian Angel’ Of Strait Of Hormuz
'You Close It And You Won't Have A Country': Trump Reportedly Says US Could Become 'Guardian Angel' Of Strait Of Hormuz
Right
Raw Story
JD Vance 'humiliated' by Iranian negotiators in stunning spectacle: 'Never looked weaker'
The ongoing peace talks in Switzerland between American and Iranian officials got off Sunday to a rocky start, according to one Emirati political analyst who went on to describe the spectacle as nothing short of “humiliation” for Vice President JD Vance, who’s leading the U.S. delegation.“This was humiliation. No one in modern history has made America wait and beg for negotiations. This was the moment JD Vance should have returned to Washington. The Islamic regime did this on purpose,” argued Emirati political analyst and author Amjad Taha in an analysis published on social media.Taha flagged several key details from the meeting between the two delegations that made it, he argued, “easy for the world to draw its own conclusions” on “who looked confident and who looked desperate.” Chief among them was the U.S. delegation entering the venue “well before the Iranians,” according to Taha.“In diplomacy, the side with leverage doesn't wait in the room,” Taha wrote. “You claim to be leading and winning, yet you arrived first. First mistake.”Taha also flagged a telling moment from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghci, who Taha claimed “entered last and refused to shake hands,” a claim supported by reporting from the Iranian news outlet Tasnim News Agency.Ron Filipkowski, the editor-in-chief of the progressive media organization MeidasTouch, reacted to Taha’s analysis with a bleak assessment of the United States’ global standing.“The US has never looked smaller or weaker on the world stage,” Filipkowski wrote in a social media post on X to his more than 1 million followers.The US has never looked smaller or weaker on the world stage. https://t.co/HPfRhyBbJa— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) June 21, 2026
Far Left
Raw Story
MAGA national security expert questions if Trump is 'bipolar' or being blackmailed
A right-leaning national security commentator is openly questioning President Donald Trump's stability and motives after he threatened to resume strikes on Iran, even asking whether the president is "bipolar" on foreign policy or being pressured into it.The reaction followed a Truth Social post in which Trump demanded that Tehran rein in its allies in Lebanon. "Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble," Trump wrote. "If they don't, we'll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!" The threat landed days into a fragile arrangement meant to wind down the conflict, and it struck some of Trump's own ideological allies as a reckless reversal.David Pyne, an America First analyst who posts under the handle @AmericaFirstCon, argued the threat amounted to a betrayal of the agreement Trump had just signed. He accused the president of violating "the armistice agreement by refusing to stop Israel from bombing Lebanon" while simultaneously threatening Iran if it does not order Hezbollah to stand down. Pyne warned that restarting the war would return Trump to being what he called a "Deep State America Last president," then floated a darker explanation for the whiplash. "Is Netanyahu threatening to release the Epstein Files again," he asked, "or is Trump just bipolar when it comes to foreign policy?"That suggestion of blackmail is Pyne's own speculation, presented as a rhetorical question rather than backed by evidence, and it taps into a recurring conspiracy theory among some on the right about leverage over the president. It is worth noting that neither Pyne nor anyone else quoted is in a position to diagnose Trump's mental health, and the "bipolar" framing functions as a rhetorical jab rather than a clinical assessment.Pyne was amplifying military analyst Daniel L. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow at Defense Priorities, a think tank that advocates for foreign-policy restraint. Davis, an early Afghanistan war whistleblower whose "Daniel Davis Deep Dive" commentary reaches a substantial audience, offered his own stark characterization of the president's posture. "President Trump simply does not know how to exit this war he started," he wrote, arguing that the abrupt shift "reveals something close to schizophrenia." Davis pointed to the apparent contradiction in Trump's recent maneuvering, noting the president had spent roughly 48 hours trying to box in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pressure him to halt attacks in Lebanon, only to pivot immediately to threatening Iran over the same conflict.The criticism is notable because it comes from the anti-interventionist wing of the right rather than from Trump's usual opponents. Both Pyne, who posts under an "America First" banner, and Davis, a vocal critic of "forever wars," built their followings opposing the kind of escalation Trump is now threatening, and their alarm reflects growing frustration in that faction that his Iran policy has lurched between threats, deals, and renewed threats without a coherent endgame.The episode underscores the strain Trump's handling of the Iran conflict has placed on his coalition. After a war that ended in a memorandum widely panned across the political spectrum, even allies who share his stated aversion to "America Last" foreign policy are now publicly wondering whether the president has a strategy at all, or is simply reacting from one post to the next.Trump violates the armistice agreement by refusing to stop Israel from bombing Lebanon and threatening to hit Iran "very hard" with bombing strikes if they dont tell Hezbollah to stop defending themselves against Israeli attacks. If he restarts the war, he will go back to being… https://t.co/J3U9YZiMss— David Pyne 🇺🇸 (@AmericaFirstCon) June 21, 2026
Far Left
Bloomberg Politics
Iran Says Trump’s Threat Halted Talks With the US, Fars Reports
Talks in Switzerland between the US and Iran were still ongoing despite Iranian media reports that negotiators had left the venue, according to people familiar with the matter.
Center
Raw Story
Trump's 'unhinged' phone call to foreign leader leaves critics stunned: 'Brazenly illegal'
President Donald Trump's account of a phone call he says he had with Iranian officials, in which he reportedly threatened to wipe out their country, take over the Strait of Hormuz, and more, has set off a wave of disbelief, ridicule, and alarm across the political spectrum.The threats were relayed by Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, who said he spoke with Trump for more than 20 minutes and came away with what he called "new insight" into the president's posture as nuclear talks opened in Switzerland. According to Yingst, Trump described what he told the Iranians about the strait in blunt terms. "You close it and you won't have a country," Trump said he warned them. "You won't even make it back to your f------ country." Yingst added that Trump said, "We may take over the Strait, if we have to."The response from Trump's critics was immediate and caustic. Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci, who served briefly in Trump's first term before becoming a frequent antagonist, summed up his reaction in three dry words. "Normal Presidential behavior," he wrote, sharing a MeidasTouch post that reported Trump had told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, after Pezeshkian said Iran would not give up enrichment, "He better watch his mouth ... or we will take over the rest of the country."Journalist Aaron Rupar, who posted Yingst's full segment, catalogued the threats without restraint. "We'll take over the rest of your country ... I'll blow the s--- out of them," Rupar quoted, describing the "bonkers phone call" as one that "apparently included threats to assassinate Iran's leadership, impose draconian US tolls in the Strait of Hormuz, and occupy Iran with the US military."Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California zeroed in on the practical and legal emptiness of the threats. "US troops would die during any ground invasion of Iran," Lieu wrote. "It would also be brazenly illegal without Congressional authorization." He warned that seizing the strait would trap American forces in a quagmire, adding that "Iran would try to kill them every day in a forever war." His conclusion was that Tehran is not impressed: "Iran knows these are empty threats by Trump."Some questioned whether the call even happened as described. Author and Iran expert Hooman Majd, who has written extensively about the country and served as an informal interpreter for past Iranian presidents, flatly disputed the premise. "President Trump did not speak with an Iranian official and say anything of the sort directly to him," Majd wrote. He then floated a mocking theory about how Trump might be staging these confrontations: "Is it possible the WH staff has arranged for a Persian-accented staffer to man a phone for Trump to call whenever he wants to yell at an 'Iranian official'?"Notably, the criticism was not confined to the left. David Pyne, a self-described America First analyst who posts as @AmericaFirstCon, called the president "completely unhinged" and accused him of "threatening to assassinate Iran's diplomatic representatives and invade, conquer and occupy all of Iran." Pyne, who opposes new wars, argued the bravado was hollow. "His threat to take over all of Iran is a bluff since he's reportedly afraid to invade Iran knowing that it would lead to thousands of US military servicemembers being killed in action," he wrote, adding that even committing the entire active-duty Army and reserves "likely wouldn't be enough to conquer all of Iran without a US nuclear first strike."The threats were also amplified, approvingly, by right-wing accounts. Commentator Nick Sortor, whose post was boosted by conservative legal activist Mike Davis, framed the same language as a triumph. "HOLY CRAP! President Trump issued a DIRECT THREAT to Iranian negotiators in Switzerland," Sortor wrote, presenting "You close [the Strait] and you won't have a country" as evidence of strength rather than instability.US troops would die during any ground invasion of Iran. It would also be brazenly illegal without Congressional authorization.And if US troops took over the Straight, Iran would try to kill them every day in a forever war.Iran knows these are empty threats by trump. https://t.co/x3ZDeY52Zt— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) June 21, 2026
Far Left
Raw Story
Iran's clerics — not MAGA voters — may decide Vance's future in politics: expert
JD Vance's path to the presidency may run through Tehran, and not in a way that helps him. That is the striking implication of a new analysis by Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour, who argues in The Atlantic that the vice president's political future now depends heavily on whether hardline Iranian officials decide to play along with Donald Trump's latest gamble.Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, lays out how Trump handed Vance responsibility for an enormous and unlikely task: not merely striking a new nuclear deal, but engineering a wholesale transformation of US-Iran relations after a war that Sadjadpour says ended in humiliation for the president. The memorandum that paused the fighting, he writes, is so lopsided that it reads as if Tehran drafted it, with 13 of its 14 provisions amounting to boilerplate or favoring Iran outright.That is the project Vance has been told to deliver, and Trump has been remarkably candid about who absorbs the blame if it fails. "If it works out, I'm going to take the credit," the president said, according to the piece. "If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming J.D."The expert's sharpest observation is about where that leaves the vice president. Vance's prospects, Sadjadpour writes, "may rest as much on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers as on Republican-primary voters." In other words, a man eyeing the 2028 nomination has tied his standing to the cooperation of the very military and clerical figures who built their careers on resistance to the United States.Vance is reportedly pinning hopes on Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, a former IRGC general and current speaker of Iran's Parliament, with whom he spent more than 20 hours in Islamabad and supposedly developed a rapport. Sadjadpour is skeptical that private warmth means anything. He notes that Qalibaf's public appearances, where he mocks America, praises Hezbollah, threatens Israel, and celebrates partnership with China, are a far more reliable guide to Tehran's intentions than any backroom assurances.The broader picture Sadjadpour paints is of an Iranian regime that thrives on isolation and treats sabotaging American presidents as a point of pride. He traces that pattern back to the 1979 revolution and the hostage crisis that helped sink Jimmy Carter's reelection. This time, he suggests, Tehran stands to claim an unusually rich prize. The Islamic Republic, he writes, may get "a two-for-one": the presidency of Donald Trump, and the presidential ambitions of JD Vance.If Sadjadpour is right, Vance has accepted a mission whose success is largely outside his control, with a boss already rehearsing the line that will pin any failure on him. The clerics and generals in Tehran, not the voters in Iowa, may end up deciding how that story turns out.
Far Left