Politics

By Nolan D. McCaskill

WASHINGTON, June 13 (Reuters) – Republicans want President Donald Trump to put his money where his mouth is: behind his scandal-plagued ally, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Paxton ousted four-term Senator John Cornyn in a primary runoff last month on the heels of Trump’s 11th-hour endorsement to become the Republican U.S. Senate nominee in Texas. That prompted political forecasters to shift the race in a state Trump won by nearly 14 points in 2024 from likely Republican to lean Republican.

Paxton now faces a rising star in the Democratic Party and a fundraising juggernaut in state Representative James Talarico, whose campaign reported raising $40 million through March with $9.9 million on hand. Paxton, who has been indicted for felony fraud and was impeached by the Texas House, raised just $7.6 million through May 6 and reported having just $2.3 million in the bank. He has denied any wrongdoing.

“It would be very helpful if the president would help the people he endorsed,” Senator Cynthia Lummis, a retiring Republican from Wyoming, said when asked if Trump should put his financial might behind Paxton.

Texas is an expensive state with 20 television media markets. The Republican establishment already burned through tens of millions of dollars boosting Cornyn, who was widely considered a safer bet for retaining the seat. Senate Republicans’ campaign arm warned in an internal memo last August that a Paxton nomination would put Texas in play for Democrats “and cause Republicans to divert hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise be spent winning key battlegrounds.”

“There is no doubt that Ken Paxton needs outside money to help him win this race,” said one Texas political operative.

Gregg Keller, a spokesman for the pro-Paxton Lone Star Liberty PAC, said Republicans are coalescing behind Paxton as he builds momentum through Election Day.

“We are thankful to the president for his endorsement and leadership and look forward to joining the Senate majority next year,” Keller said in a statement. “There is no amount of money Talarico can spend to erase his radical and dangerous record.” 

Talarico has pulled in crowds in deeply Republican counties in Texas by openly talking about his Christian faith and policies to take on billionaires he says are bent on keeping the working class angry and divided to protect their interests. Republicans in turn have accused him of holding heretical views and attacked him on immigration and gender issues. A June 9 Texas Pulse poll shows a tied race.

“Paxton is now forcing the GOP to develop a completely new strategy for a state they never believed would be in play,” said Lauren French, a spokesperson for Senate Democrats’ super PAC.

REPUBLICANS DEFEND NARROW MAJORITY

Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. They’re targeting two Democratic-held seats in states Trump won in 2024 – Georgia and Michigan – but are also defending seats in several states expected to be competitive this fall: North Carolina, Ohio, Maine, Alaska and possibly Iowa and Texas.

Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., is sitting on a $356 million war chest, but it has not yet committed any money to help Paxton. MAGA Inc. spent nearly $377 million to elect Trump in 2024 and $1.7 million this cycle to boost Republicans Matt Van Epps and Clay Fuller in special congressional elections in Tennessee and Georgia.

 Senate Republicans’ primary super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, intends to spend $342 million in battleground states this fall, but its strategy does not include Texas. Senate Leadership Fund declined to comment.

“The assumption is that he is” going to invest in Paxton, a Senate Republican, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said of Trump. “I think he should. He put his foot on the scale for his candidate that won. So we are assuming that he will.”

The final two years of Trump’s presidency are at stake. If Republicans lost control of Congress, Democratic-led congressional committees could investigate the Trump administration, and a Democratic Senate majority would have more control over the president’s nominees.

Spokespeople for Senate Majority Leader John Thune and the White House did not respond to a request for comment.

In interviews, Senate Republicans were reluctant to be seen telling the president how he should spend his war chest.

“I won’t begin to tell the president what he should do,” Senator John Curtis of Utah said. 

Asked if the president’s potential investment in Texas would be helpful to Senate Republicans, Curtis maintained it’s up to Trump.

“That’s his funding,” Curtis said. “That’s his decision.” 

Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser at MAGA Inc., told Politico the super PAC is raising money to spend on campaigns but doesn’t disclose when or where it will spend. He described Texas, however, as an open Republican seat “that we’ll have to ensure that we win.”

GREG ABBOTT STEPS IN?

Analysts say Paxton faces a significant fundraising challenge against Talarico, and some blame Trump for creating a race that didn’t need to be this close. 

“National Republicans understand Paxton’s vulnerabilities – at least that he’s likely to run in a close race – and they want to be in a position to do what’s required to pull him through,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. 

“And lots of people are pointing the finger directly at Donald Trump because it was his endorsement that created that stampede to Paxton in the runoff.” 

Another possibility is that Texas Governor Greg Abbott steps in. Abbott’s political committee, Texans for Greg Abbott, reported nearly $96 million in cash on hand in February.

Eduardo Leal, Texans for Greg Abbott’s press secretary, said Abbott is supporting the entire Republican ticket, but declined to say if he would fund Paxton.

“Republicans are united and focused on delivering a decisive victory, and we’re confident Texans will once again reject the radical left’s agenda,” Leal said in a statement.

(Editing by Deepa Babington)

source

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats’ decision to let a key surveillance authority lapse comes as they are increasingly emboldened in their legislative fights against President Donald Trump, blocking even traditionally bipartisan bills as they push back against his policies and personnel.

The posture is an escalation from a year ago, when Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer was widely criticized within his party for a spring vote with Republicans to keep the government open. Since then, Democrats have forced government shutdowns, slowed Trump’s nominations and now blocked the bipartisan intelligence law as they seek leverage in a Republican-led Congress.

The risky strategy has consequences when government programs go dark, and Democrats have little to show for it so far in terms of policy victories. Republicans say it is a grave threat to national security to let the surveillance law, which aims to prevent terrorist attacks, expire just as millions of people are entering the United States for World Cup games and as celebrations for the nation’s 250th anniversary get underway.

But the hardball approach has helped unite Democrats inside and outside of the Capitol as they say they have no other choice — and that the blame should fall on Trump for how he is governing.

“I don’t deny that this is dangerous,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Thursday about Democrats allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to expire starting Saturday. “But this didn’t have to happen.”

Democrats’ growing confidence also comes at a time when Republicans are often sparring with Trump, who has made clear he has little interest in compromise with lawmakers in either party. Democrats are blocking renewal of the law, known as FISA, in protest of Trump’s appointment of federal housing regulator and loyalist Bill Pulte to temporarily lead the nation’s intelligence agencies. The choice also rankled Republicans, who said Pulte lacks the required experience for the job.

Lawmakers in both parties urged Trump all week to pull the appointment, and on Thursday he nominated a permanent replacement for the job just after lawmakers left Washington for the weekend. But the Senate confirmation process will take time, and Trump has not budged on Pulte’s appointment as an interim director.

With no change, Democrats “are going to use every tool we have to fight back,” said Schumer, D-N.Y.

The standoff over FISA has won Senate Democrats some respect with base voters revolted a year ago. Schumer and the caucus have “shifted to more of a fight posture,” says Joel Payne, a Democratic strategist who served as an aide to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Democrats have been playing “fast and loose” with national security for the past year. He pointed to the 43-day government shutdown last fall and a monthslong delay in funding for Trump’s immigration enforcement operations.

“How did we get to the point where one party has completely abdicated any responsibility for our nation’s security?” Thune asked.

Democrats argue that Pulte, with little national security background, is a greater threat. They note that as a federal housing regulator, he has pushed for investigations of high-profile political figures whom Trump considers political foes.

“It’s not a close call,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “We cannot extend these capabilities if the president is making clear that he’s going to use them not to protect the nation, but to protect himself politically.”

Strategist Payne says he believes Democrats have gained a bit of leverage since the shutdown in the fall.

Democrats did not get the extension in health care subsidies they demanded because a small group of moderate Democrats voted with Republicans to end the impasse. They did not achieve the changes to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol that they sought when they delayed passage of funding for those agencies for months. But the White House did agree to negotiate, even if those talks ultimately failed.

Democrats also have grown more unified. While moderates ended the fall shutdown, the party stayed together in blocking the immigration funding and the surveillance authority.

“They’ve showed Republicans they are not going to fold,” Payne said.

Still, it may not be enough for some in the party base or to win Democrats a majority in November’s midterm elections.

Andrew O’Neill, national advocacy director for the Democratic resistance group Indivisible, said he was concerned to see some Democrats praise Jay Clayton, Trump’s permanent pick for the intelligence job.

Republicans are rushing to confirm Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, before Tulsi Gabbard leaves the job and Pulte takes over as interim director on June 19.

It is unclear, so far, if Democrats will support Clayton or allow Republicans to speed up the process and confirm him quickly.

O’Neill said he is glad Democrats blocked FISA over Pulte’s appointment, but activists are wary.

“It’s a mixed bag,” O’Neill said of the past year. “The frustration is it took so long.”

Caught in the middle are Senate Republicans, who had to spend months to fund border enforcement agencies and are now navigating the dispute over FISA, even after lawmakers reached a bipartisan compromise.

Republicans are also trying to work with Trump, who derailed the intelligence legislation when he announced Pulte’s appointment as senators were on the verge of passing that deal.

Trump has weakened Republicans’ position — and his own support in the Senate — by backing primary challenges to incumbent senators. Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana both lost in primaries to Trump-backed opponents last month and have joined Democrats in criticizing Pulte.

Senate Democrats say hope their strategy gives them enough leverage to win more Republican allies.

Being in the minority is “a difficult dynamic for us,” said Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt. “But I’m seeing the Republicans start to move a little bit.”

source

FBI agents have searched the office of an Ohio group that supports voter registration efforts, seizing documents and computer files, a board member of the organization said Friday.

It’s the latest action by the Trump administration connected to voting or election operations in the states, and it comes in a state that is expected to have hotly contested races this fall for governor and U.S. Senate.

Federal agents showed up at the Cleveland office of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative on Thursday and spent hours questioning staff, said Prentiss Haney, a board member of the grassroots organization. The organization was founded in 2007 and describes its mission as fighting for criminal justice reform, racial justice and an expansion of voting rights.

Federal agents also went to the homes of people who have worked with the organization, seeking interviews and information about alleged voter fraud, Haney said. He accused the agents of “intimidation tactics and harassment” and expressed concern that the investigation was designed to sow doubt in the coming elections.

The focus of the probe was unclear, but a person familiar with the matter said Friday that investigators were examining potential fraud violations. The person was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Justice Department declined to comment on Friday, and a spokesperson for the FBI in Cleveland did not respond to messages seeking comment.

To obtain a search warrant, federal authorities must convince a judge that probable cause of criminal activity exists. Though the information authorities presented was not immediately released, Democrats expressed skepticism about the basis of a search that unfolded against persistent concerns of a politicized FBI and Justice Department.

The party’s nominees for the state’s top races issued statements Friday saying they were troubled by the FBI raid.

“Any attempts by federal law enforcement to intimidate eligible Ohioans from registering to vote are unacceptable,” said Dr. Amy Acton, the state’s former public health director, who won the state’s Democratic primary for governor and is challenging Republican Vivek Ramaswamy.

Democrat Sherrod Brown, who is challenging Republican Sen. Jon Husted in the fall, called on the FBI to make public “any and all activities around these raids.”

He added, “Any attempt to intimidate Ohio voters is wrong, and will not work.”

Republicans have held the state’s top elected seat for 20 years and hold both U.S. Senate seats but are concerned that Democratic momentum in this year’s midterms could make them vulnerable.

The Justice Department during President Donald Trump’s second term has launched several legal actions or investigations related to voting or state election operations.

The FBI has seized ballots and other records from the 2020 election for Georgia’s Fulton County and Arizona’s Maricopa County and from the 2024 election in Michigan’s Wayne County. It also has been questioning election workers in Wisconsin’s Milwaukee County. All four are in presidential battleground states.

The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states and the District of Columbia after they refused to hand over detailed voter data that includes dates of birth and partial Social Security numbers. It has said in court filings that it wants the information so it can run it through a Department of Homeland Security program that checks U.S. citizenship, although the program’s accuracy has been questioned. The Justice Department has so far been on a losing streak in its lawsuits seeking to extract the data from the holdout states.

Early in his second term, Trump, a Republican, also ordered the Justice Department to investigate ActBlue, the top fundraising platform for the Democratic Party.

Allegations of fraud in voter registration efforts are typically investigated by states and usually involve people working for groups that pay for sign-ups. Earlier this year, California officials opened an investigation into whether signature-gatherers were offering to pay people for signing a ballot petition. In 2025, Pennsylvania officials brought criminal charges against seven people for submitting fraudulent voter registration forms.

___

Lauer reported from Philadelphia, and Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed from Washington.

source

Democrat Eric Jones on Friday advanced to the November ballot in a Northern California congressional district, where he will face fellow Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson in the latest generational battle within the party.

Jones, a 35-year-old former venture capitalist, took the second slot in California’s top-two, nonpartisan June 2 primary for the state’s 4th Congressional District. Thompson was first elected to the U.S. House in 1998 after serving as a state lawmaker.

Having two Democrats on the ballot will ensure that the district, which includes the Napa-Sonoma wine country and stretches across a wide swath of Northern California north of the state capital, will remain in Democratic hands.

The race becomes the second generational challenge against a California U.S. House Democrat. Rep. Doris Matsui, 81, replaced her late husband in the House when he died in 2005. She is facing a challenge from 41-year-old Sacramento City Councilwoman Mai Vang.

In Los Angeles, 15-term Rep. Brad Sherman successfully fended off a younger Democratic challenger who did not advance to the November ballot because he failed to make the top two. Younger Democrats across the country have challenged older incumbents in the wake of former President Joe Biden’s term.

California’s House primaries were dominated by suspense over whether Democrats would be able to capitalize on their redraw of the House map to potentially pick up five additional seats in November. Democrats redrew the California map to counter Republican redistricting gains in Texas and other red states. Democrats were able to avoid getting locked out of any of the newly attainable seats.

source

By Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff

WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) – While the Justice Department has said it has abandoned plans for President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.8 billion “weaponization” fund, some of his allies are shifting focus to a different way to make payouts to his supporters, including those who took part in the January 6, 2021, riot on the U.S. Capitol.

The most viable path, according to Trump allies and legal experts, may involve compensating these loyalists under a 1946 law called the Federal Tort Claims Act. That measure lets people file administrative claims – and subsequent lawsuits – against the U.S. government for alleged wrongdoing, which can then be settled out of court.

“At my level, the fund is dead,” Stanley Woodward, the third-ranking official at the Justice Department, said in an interview with Reuters. “If somebody wants to submit a claim against the government and sue us, they can still do that.”    

The Republican president repeatedly has expressed support for federal payouts to supporters whom he has portrayed as being targeted by a “weaponized” U.S. government under his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. 

But the “anti-weaponization” fund, crafted as part of a legal settlement between ​Trump and the Justice Department to resolve his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over allegedly mishandling his tax records, was put on hold amid fierce opposition from Republicans in Congress. Trump critics derided it as a slush fund to reward supporters with taxpayer money.

Hundreds of people who were prosecuted after taking part in the Capitol attack, which was a failed bid by Trump supporters to prevent Congress from certifying his 2020 election loss to Biden, already have filed claims, and at least 10 have sued the government for damages – so far with little response.

The strategy has long been in the works. Conservative lawyers debated the plan during a previously unreported strategy session at the 2024 Republican National Convention, according to longtime Trump ally Michael Caputo, who attended the meeting.

Other payout options are still being explored, according to Caputo, who helped lead “anti-weaponization” efforts in Trump’s 2024 election campaign and filed the first known claim under the now-abandoned “weaponization” fund.

“I’ve heard no indication that they’ve slowed down on trying to get victims paid,” Caputo said, adding that administration officials have told him to “watch this space.”

Caputo, who served as a Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson during Trump’s first term, asked acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for $2.7 million in “restitution” over investigations by the Biden ​administration and former special counsel ⁠Robert Mueller.

“It’s the most logistically feasible method,” said Patrick Jaicomo, a senior attorney at the libertarian legal group Institute for Justice who specializes in Federal Tort Claims Act cases. “The government would have a lot of flexibility.”

Trump’s repeated support for compensating supporters he paints as victims of “weaponization” has raised the question of what avenue he may now pursue to make such payments.

Asked if there are alternative plans to provide such compensation, the White House pointed to previous comments by Trump and Blanche that the weaponization fund would not go forward.

“We have no additional announcements at this time and any speculation about potential future actions is just that – speculation,” a White House official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. “President Trump remains committed to addressing Biden-era weaponization.”

A Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there is no effort to encourage people to submit these claims.

‘PEOPLE SHOULD BE COMPENSATED’

Trump has accused the Biden administration and other political opponents of improperly using law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory agencies to target him and his allies. Critics have said these efforts were legally justified by actual or suspected wrongdoing by Trump and others.

Trump, for instance, gave executive clemency to his supporters who were prosecuted for their roles in the January 6 riot.

“The people were destroyed by dirty cops and by weaponization,” Trump said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program aired on Sunday. “Many of those people should be compensated.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in a social media post backed the idea of pursuing payouts through the Federal Tort Claims Act, prompting the Justice Department’s Woodward to respond with what looked like an endorsement in a since-deleted post.

“We’re working on it,” Woodward wrote. 

Woodward later told Reuters he was trying to send a message that people who believe they were victims of government abuse continue to have a path for compensation even without the $1.8 billion fund. 

FROM FRINGE IDEA TO MAINSTREAM

Financially compensating Trump allies has moved from the political fringe closer to mainstream Republican strategy.

Caputo said he was involved in conversations about finding ways to pay victims of “weaponization” dating back to October 2023. 

In 1956, Congress created a permanent Judgment Fund for paying settlements of lawsuits against the federal government.

Caputo said that allies of the president and conservative lawyers discussed using this fund for payouts under the Federal Tort Claims Act “ad nauseam” during the 2024 Republican National Convention. Attendees at these discussions opposed paying violent felons, including those who assaulted police officers, according to Caputo. 

The attendees viewed the Judgment Fund as a “limitless” pot of money that would avoid the political hurdles of creating a new administrative fund, Caputo said, though they acknowledged these payouts could be controversial. 

Some high-profile Trump allies already have received payouts under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Michael Flynn, who briefly served as Trump’s national security adviser during his first term, received a $1.25 million settlement under the statute.

Attorney Peter Ticktin said his office is representing more than 400 people who took part in the Capitol riot who have submitted Federal Tort Claims Act claims. Ticktin said he hopes the government will settle the cases before they go to court, but has not been told of any plans to do so.

“We’re asking for restitution in the millions of dollars,” Ticktin said, adding that he trusts that Trump and the Justice Department will ensure that his clients get paid.

‘A TRAVESTY’

The administrative process for a Federal Tort Claims Act claim begins when a person files a form, known as an SF-95, alleging government wrongdoing and demanding damages.

Claims typically must be filed within two years of the incident, but January 6 defendants are arguing that the alleged wrongdoing against them constitutes ongoing harm. It remains unclear how courts or the Justice Department will treat that interpretation.

If the government agrees to the amount requested, officials can authorize payment before a judge is assigned, Jaicomo said, meaning no judge would review the payment. 

If the government does not settle, claimants can file a lawsuit, at which point a judge would begin overseeing the case. Ticktin has already filed 10 lawsuits and said he plans to file hundreds more. 

Rupa Bhattacharyya, a former Justice Department official who oversaw the compensation fund for victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, said department attorneys typically settle only when they face a high risk of losing at trial, though they retain broad discretion on settlements including in January 6 cases.

“That would be a travesty because these are very defensible lawsuits,” said Bhattacharyya, who served under presidents of both parties. “It would violate the purpose and spirit of the judgment fund – but it is unlikely it would violate the text of the law.”

(Reporting by Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff. Editing by Michael Learmonth and Will Dunham)

source

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine began counting ranked choice ballots on Friday to determine nominees for its open governor’s office and a pivotal race for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Results are expected sometime next week, the secretary of state’s office said.

Maine and Alaska use ranked choice voting for some statewide elections. Voters in ranked choice elections are allowed to rank the candidates on their ballot in order of preference.

Under that scenario, if no candidate breaks 50% of the popular vote, the bottom finisher is eliminated, and voters’ second choices come into play. The tabulations continue until a candidate achieves a majority of the total votes.

No candidates exceeded 50% in Tuesday’s Republican and Democratic primaries for governor or the Democratic primary for the 2nd Congressional District. The Maine Secretary of State Department said Friday that the counting the ballots would begin that afternoon and would be open to the public and available on the secretary of state’s YouTube page.

Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, who has served since 2018, is termed out of office, and that created a wide-open field for both parties. Democrats had five candidates actively campaigning in the June 9 primary and the Republicans had seven. The Democratic race was especially close, with the top four candidates within a few percentage points of each other.

Democrats chose between Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows; former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson; former state House Speaker Hannah Pingree; energy executive Angus King III; and former director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Nirav Shah.

Bellows, whose office is running the ranked counting, “has stepped aside from this part of the process and has delegated to her staff,” said Jana Spaulding, the deputy secretary of the office.

Republicans chose between former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Bobby Charles; healthcare executive Jonathan Bush; former Senate Majority Leader Garrett Mason; former Paris, Maine, selectman Robert Wessels; and businessmen Owen McCarthy, David Jones and Ben Midgley.

Mills ran in the primary for U.S. Senate in Maine this year, but suspended her campaign in April. That primary was won by oyster farmer Graham Platne r, who will run against longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

In the 2nd Congressional District, former Secretary of State Matt Dunlap, state Sen. Joe Baldacci, former U.S. Senate candidate Jordan Wood and social worker Paige Loud were on the ballot for the Democrats.

The winner faces Republican former Gov. Paul LePage, an ally of President Donald Trump who was unopposed in the Republican primary. LePage served as governor from 2010 to 2018, during which time he fashioned himself as a vocal critic of liberalism and a staunch defender of Trump.

The 2nd District seat has no incumbent in the November election because Democratic Rep. Jared Golden, who has held the seat since 2018, is stepping down.

The district has consistently voted for Trump but also elected Golden four times.

source

By Blake Brittain

WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) – A federal judge in Washington on Friday declined U.S. President Donald Trump’s request to temporarily pause an order to remove Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper said he would not lift the order while a federal appeals court considers his ruling that only Congress could rename the famed venue in the nation’s capital memorializing former President John F. Kennedy.

The Trump administration has also appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

(Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Mark Porter)

source

President Trump Dismisses as ‘Fake News’ Iran’s Reported Ceasefire Terms  

President Donald Trump on Friday rejected reported Iranian ceasefire terms published by Iranian media, calling them “fake news” and saying they did not match the written agreement discussed between Washington and Tehran.  

The comments came less than 24 hours after President Trump halted planned US military strikes against Iran and announced a proposal aimed at ending the conflict.  

In a post on Truth Social, President Trump wrote: “The terms that Iran leaked out to the Fake News have NOTHING to do with the terms that were agreed to, in writing. What they said, including their weak and pathetic statement on having a deal, bears no relation to the truth.”  

The president was responding to a reported 14-point proposal published Friday by Mehr News agency. The framework included provisions for a $300 billion economic recovery and reconstruction package for Iran, a complete withdrawal of foreign troops from areas surrounding Iran, and the suspension of energy-related sanctions.  

Following President Trump’s announcement Thursday night, Iranian media reported there was “a high probability that the regime will approve that proposal.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry, however, said the United States had modified some elements of the original agreement.  

President Trump also questioned the prospects for reaching an agreement with Tehran.  

“Very dishonorable people to deal with. With them, there is no such thing as dealing in good faith. AMAZING!”  

The president further wrote: “Also, their totally rebuffed Drone attack last night against Indian Ships leaving the Hormuz Strait is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. They better get their act together, and FAST!”  

His comments came as military activity continued following the ceasefire announcement. Reuters reported that a US official said American forces intercepted two suicide drones targeting ships in the Strait of Hormuz overnight. Iranian media reported explosions near Sirik, while Fars said Iranian military activity prevented a tanker from entering the waterway without coordination.  

NBC reported that US military forces were approximately three hours from carrying out planned strikes when President Trump announced the halt on Thursday. According to the report, naval units had already prepared munitions and adjusted air operation plans. Kharg Island, which President Trump had previously identified as a potential target, was not included in the approved strike package. 

source

By Andrew Goudsward and Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff

WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) – A U.S. judge indefinitely blocked a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund supported by President Donald Trump on Friday, giving the administration one week to provide a sworn statement that the fund will not go forward.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia said the Justice Department’s public pronouncements that the fund would not move forward were not enough to prevent the judge from ruling on whether the plan is legal.

Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from creating the fund while the lawsuit moves forward. The case was brought by a group of individuals and organizations who alleged they were victims of political targeting by the Trump administration and would be ineligible for compensation from the fund. 

The judge said it was “problematic” that the administration sought to set up a pool of taxpayer money to favor “an extremely small group” that many Americans feel engaged in “unacceptable” conduct.

The fund emerged from a settlement agreement between Trump and the Justice Department over the president’s $10 billion lawsuit ​against the Internal Revenue Service.

The Justice Department set up a $1.776 billion ⁠fund overseen by a five-member commission to dole out payments to those who show they were victims of “lawfare” and “weaponization,” terms Trump ​and his allies have used to describe investigations and criminal cases against them.

When asked for comment on the ruling, the Justice Department pointed to previous statements by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche saying the fund was not moving forward. 

UNCERTAINTY OVER PLAN’S STATUS

Last week, Blanche told lawmakers the Trump administration was not moving forward with the plan, which critics have called a slush fund. But he refused to make that commitment in writing when he was asked to do so by Democratic lawmakers, and Trump has repeatedly expressed his support for the concept of the fund, prompting questions as to whether the administration was actually abandoning the fund.

Brinkema cited Trump’s public statements in recent days supporting the concept of the fund as evidence that the administration may still be looking to proceed with the plan in some fashion.

At a court hearing on Friday, Justice Department lawyer Andrew Block said the plaintiffs’ claims were too speculative and urged the judge not to issue an order that “rests on hypotheticals.”

Block also asked the judge to credit statements from Blanche to Congress and from Justice Department lawyers in court filings that the fund would not proceed.

Reuters reported earlier on Friday that Trump allies were training their focus on a possibly more viable path to pay supporters who claim they are victims of government abuse. 

Brinkema pushed Block on why Blanche has not formally rescinded the order setting up the fund, echoing a question Block heard from a different federal judge in a related case on Wednesday.

On Friday, Block said he did not know, repeating the same answer he gave on Wednesday. Brinkema replied: “There’s a huge gap in the record if you don’t have the answer to that question.”

Brinkema said she would give the acting attorney general and Treasury secretary one week to sign off on a sworn statement declaring the fund would not go forward. She indicated she may revisit her ruling if the Trump administration submitted such a declaration and asked the plaintiffs in the case if they would agree to drop the lawsuit entirely. 

“If the fund is truly rescinded, where is the sworn declaration saying so?” said Amy Powell, a former DOJ senior trial counsel and litigation director at Lawyers for Good Government. “The court appears unwilling to treat political statements and media reports as a substitute for a formal record.”

Brinkema had issued a temporary halt to the fund last week that was set to expire on Friday.

“I don’t have in this record the type of uncontested evidence that this will not be repeated,” she said during the Friday court hearing. 

(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward and Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff in Washington; Writing by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Michelle Nichols, Matthew Lewis and Deepa Babington)

source

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Rosie Pino, a Clifton City, New Jersey, councilwoman, has won the Republican primary in the state’s 9th Congressional District to take on Democratic Rep. Nellie Pou.

Pino defeated attorney Tiffany Burress in the northern New Jersey district, where Pou is seeking a second term. The Associated Press called the race for Pino on Friday.

The district is being watched closely in this year’s hotly contested midterm elections, with Republicans in particular drawing a target on the longtime Democratic-held seat.

The GOP saw an opportunity there after the 2024 election was closer than expected and Donald Trump won in places where his party hadn’t been victorious for decades.

Pino, a former Democrat, said she left the party for the GOP and criticized Democrats in the campaign for their longtime control in the region.

In a statement, Pino emphasized that she would work for those who disagree with her sometimes.

“I extend a hand to everyone across our district — Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, as well as those who have never voted before,” she said.

Pino had been critical of the slow pace of vote counting in her district, where the election ended June 2, and across the country.

“In Congress, I will help lead the fight to secure our elections,” Pino said in a statement this week. “We need mandatory Voter ID nationwide and strict limits on late mail-in voting.”

In a statement Friday, Burress said she was grateful to her supporters but stopped short of backing Pino.

Pou is in her first term in the House, where she was elected after years in the state Legislature, succeeding longtime Democrat Bill Pascrell Jr., who died in 2024.

source