Trump demands SAVE America Act in reconciliation package, but Sen. Kennedy and other GOP backers say there isn't enough time before the midterms.
An individual allegedly involved in a thwarted terrorist attack aimed at Sunday’s UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House parroted Democrat conspiracy theories about President Trump protecting child predators connected to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to federal court documents. The revelation came on Tuesday, when Fox News reported on how the FBI and […]
Federal prosecutors revealed details Tuesday of a 94-page indictment against 15 individuals they alleged to be affiliated with Antifa – the loosely organized anti-fascist movement that the Trump administration has designated as a terrorist organization – though mockery soon ensued after prosecutors shared a particularly “embarrassing” piece of evidence.Speaking at a press conference in Minnesota, U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen announced that a federal indictment had been unsealed charging 15 defendants with “conspiracy to injure federal officers,” among other charges. He went on to share with reporters evidence supporting the indictment, with one example sparking widespread mockery among critics.“You see here a Facebook post from one of the defendants writing, quote: ‘We need to become ungovernable,’” Rosen said, pointing to a monitor with a screengrab of the social media post in question displayed.“Embarrassing,” noted the progressive media outlet The Tennessee Holler in a social media post on X.“Oh, so they have NOTHING nothing,” quipped independent journalist Aaron Rupar.And Jim Stewartson, an entertainment producer and political commentator, argued the press conference made a “mockery” of the American justice system.“Wait. That’s evidence of something?” Stewartson asked in a social media post on X to his nearly 150,000 followers. “Justice Department, if you keep making a mockery of the American justice system and acting as a personal defense firm for the demented pedophile running the country, you are god------ right we will become ‘ungovernable.’ Welcome to America.”Rosen not only received scrutiny from critics online, but from a journalist attending the press conference in person, Minnesota Reformer’s Madison McVan, who noted that more than a third of the individuals named in the indictment had already had their charges dismissed.“I don't think any cases have failed in any way," Rosen pushed back."It's actually half now," another reporter could be heard interjecting.Embarrassing https://t.co/nY10ZsKE7t— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) June 16, 2026
President Donald Trump hasn't yet released what he has agreed to on the Iran deal, but there are those in his administration who aren't happy with it and think it's a mistake. According to the Mirror, Trump is pondering firing them. Those include Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. "The debate has been settled. Anyone who opposed it could pay a personal price," a source told The Mirror.One person who appears to be safe is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who serves in multiple roles for the president. It's unclear whether Trump would be willing to fire Vice President JD Vance, who has opposed to the Iran war from the start. In April, The New York Times reported that Vance was the most skeptical voice on the strikes. But The Mirror reported that Vance is supportive of the deal. Oddly, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who have been on the team working on the deal, are also said to support it, the Mirror reported. Since the deal hasn't been revealed, it's unclear if it prevents Israel from defending itself against Hamas in Lebanon. In the past both Kushner and Witkoff have been ardent supporters of Israel's ability to defend itself. The Jerusalem Post reported on Tuesday that Witkoff and Kushner are being seen as "sell-outs" as a result of their support for the deal. Right-wing pundit and close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Yinon Magal, host of Channel 14 's The Patriots, blasted Kushner and Witkoff using a slur, saying that Trump's deal makes him look like a “loser.” Magal accused the two men of acting under pressure from Qatar and “selling their brothers in Israel.”"Rubio, Hegseth, and other officials from both the Department of Defense and State have presented an assessment that the current Iranian regime was already in decline due to economic pressure and that turning up the heat on the country would eventually end in a surrender or, alternatively, its collapse," The Mirror claimed. South Carolina Republican, Lindsey Graham, fears that the U.S. and Iran might have "different" views of what the deal is or should be. He wrote on X that he was "pleased to hear the memorandum of understanding with Iran to allow the Strait of Hormuz to open has been agreed to.""I will be watching closely the ensuing negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program and other matters," Graham wrote. "I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming."That said, Graham doesn't appear to want Trump to decide whether the deal is final. "Under our law, any nuclear deal with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and a vote," Graham claimed. "I look forward to reviewing the final product, and I believe it is imperative that the architect of the deal, Vice President Vance, and his negotiating partners be part of the process in presenting the final deal to Congress."
In Trump v. Slaughter — a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — President Donald Trump is defending his right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a former commissioner for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The case is pending, and according to Reason's Damon Root, he may have the late Justice Antonin Scalia to thank if Trump v. Slaughter goes his way."Sometime in the next two or three weeks," Root explains in the libertarian Reason, "the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case about the president's authority to fire independent federal agency heads 'at will,' rather than 'for cause,' as federal law currently requires. If President Donald Trump wins the case, as many legal observers think he probably will, a 1988 dissenting opinion by a famous conservative justice is likely to play a key supporting role."The 1988 dissent by Scalia was in the case Morrison v. Olson.In that ruling 38 years ago, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and eight other justices examined a president's ability to remove officers of the U.S. from office. Scalia was the lone dissenter, disagreeing with two fellow Ronald Reagan appointees — Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor — as well as Rehnquist and Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and William Brennan Jr."According to the Federal Trade Commission Act," Root notes, "FTC commissioners may only 'be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.' Trump, however, purported to fire Slaughter for purely political reasons, which the statute, as written, does not allow. The question now before the Supreme Court is whether that statutory requirement amounts to an unlawful restriction on executive power. A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to view the law in that unforgiving light and rule in Trump's favor."Root continues, "If the Court does so, among the legal authorities it is likely to cite is a solo dissent written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in a case called Morrison v. Olson (1988)…. At issue in Morrison v. Olson was whether the existence of the independent counsel violated the constitutional separation of powers because it placed certain executive authorities beyond the immediate reach of the chief executive."Morrison v. Olson, like Trump v. Slaughter 38 years later, is grappling with how much executive power a president enjoys under the Constitution. "Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a judicial conservative who was first appointed to SCOTUS by none other than (President Richard) Nixon, readily affirmed the independent counsel law…. Writing alone in dissent, Scalia offered a very different view of the matter," according to Root. "The Constitution placed the executive power in the hands of the president alone, Scalia argued, and 'this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power'…. If Trump does prevail in his efforts to fire Slaughter from the FTC, don't be surprised when the long shadow cast by Scalia's nearly 40-year-old dissent is visible in the Court's decision."
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has joined the advisory board of Canadian mineral exploration firm NovaRed Mining, the company announced Tuesday. Noem, who now serves as Special Envoy for the Shield of the Americas, will work in a strategic advisory role as the company seeks to acquire and advance critical mineral exploration projects using…
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is once again placing himself at the center of the national political conversation, using claims that the Department of Justice is investigating him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, to argue that President Donald Trump sees him as a political threat. After announcing Monday that federal authorities were scrutinizing both […]
Plus: How the UFC and MMA went from outsiders to the sporting and political establishment—to the point where they’re being used for “diplomacy.”
Senate Republicans said they’re pressing the Trump administration for details on the US-Iran interim peace deal and signaled Congress will ultimately vote on the final agreement.