Politics

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

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. “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 who 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 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 acting Attorney General Todd 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

By David Hood-Nuño, Julio-Cesar Chavez and Jason Lange

WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) – About half of evangelical Christians – a core component of President Donald Trump’s political base – believe his administration’s approach to the Iran war and immigration enforcement is not in line with their understanding of Christianity, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

Evangelicals helped power the Republican’s 2024 election victory, and Trump and his top officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have regularly used religious language in describing their goals and policies. Republicans will be counting on them in the November midterm elections, when they will be defending thin majorities in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Some 54% of evangelicals in the June 3-8 poll said Trump’s use of the military in Iran was not in line with their understanding of Christianity, while 41% said it was in line with it. Some 51% of evangelicals said the administration’s approach to immigration policy was not in line with Christian values, with 44% saying it was.

Overall, Trump’s approval rating among evangelicals stood at 52% in the latest poll, down from 61% in August but well above his 35% approval rating among all U.S. adults. 

His approval rating has broadly fallen in recent months as the unpopular Iran war pushed gasoline prices sharply higher.

During his first term in office, Trump helped to secure a longstanding goal of many evangelical Americans by installing a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which then overturned a decision that had established a nationwide right to abortion. 

In his second term, he has regularly invited faith leaders into the Oval Office and changed policies to allow federal employees to promote their religious views at work.  

Evangelicals in particular skew Republican by more than two-to-one and Trump won the white evangelical vote 81%-16% in 2024, according to an exit poll analysis by the Pew Research Center.

White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said Trump has delivered to people of faith by defending religious rights and pardoning anti-abortion activists convicted of crimes. “There has never been a greater president for Christian Americans than President Trump,” Taylor said.

MIDTERMS APPROACHING

Cracks in the key voting bloc could add to the headwinds facing the Republican Party in the midterm elections.

Evangelical Christian Sandy Miller, 63, said she wouldn’t vote for him again if she had the opportunity. She lives in Worthington, Indiana, a small town of roughly 1,400, and takes care of a 24-year-old daughter whose home-healthcare Medicaid benefits were cut under Trump.

But more than her financial situation, she said her faith influences who she votes for. She said that Trump is probably a Christian but doesn’t show it.

“I just don’t think waging war is the answer to everything all the time,” Miller said. “I understand sometimes you have to, but I don’t know in this instance that it needed to be done.”

Miller said she prays every night that the country’s leaders will seek God’s will. “I wish our politicians would pray more than they talk,” she said.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,531 U.S. adults nationwide and its results had a margin of error of 2 percentage points in ‌either direction.

Evangelicals also give Trump low marks on his handling of the cost of living.

The U.S. and Israel began the war in Iran on February 28 to ensure the Iranian government does not fully develop a nuclear weapon. Despite the war’s impact on household finances, Trump has vowed to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons at any cost.

Thousands of people have died in the Iran war, including more than 3,000 in Iran alone, with rights groups putting the figure closer to 3,600, alongside over 1,800 deaths in Lebanon and more than 100 in Iraq, according to official and NGO sources.

Many evangelicals believe the U.S. has a moral obligation to protect Israel, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Connie Reese, 77, an evangelical voter who lives in Iowa, said in a follow-up interview with Reuters that his support for Trump’s war in Iran has biblical precedent, and that governments have the right to preemptively defend themselves. Although he said he doesn’t always agree with the government of Israel, the Jewish people have “historical grounds for their homeland.” 

“The re-establishment of Israel, the country, is a prophetic answer or an answer to a prophecy that is clearly spelled out in the word of God,” he said. “So in that regard, I support Israel as a free and sovereign nation.”

(Reporting by David Hood-Nuño, Julio Cesar-Chavez and Jason Lange; editing by Scott Malone and Deepa Babington)

source

By Mike Scarcella

June 11 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday filed an appeal of a court order that required Trump’s name to be removed from the Kennedy Center and blocked the Republican leader’s bid to close the Washington performing arts venue for a two-year renovation.

The appeal to the Washington-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenges a sweeping ruling against the administration in a lawsuit brought by Democratic U.S. Representative Joyce Beatty of Ohio, a member of the Kennedy Center’s board by virtue of her position in Congress.

The White House and Beatty’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled on May 29 that federal law “makes crystal clear” that Congress named the center for former Democratic President John F. Kennedy, “and only Congress can change it.” He ordered the removal of Trump’s name from the building’s facade, its website and other materials.

Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform hours later that his administration would transfer control of the Kennedy Center ‌to Congress.

“I cannot be involved with a situation where danger to the Public is allowed to flourish in plain and open sight,” Trump said, saying the building was in serious disrepair.

Trump said he directed the U.S. Commerce Department to “make all necessary arrangements with Congress to allow a full and complete transfer of this Institution” and give lawmakers responsibility over its operation, maintenance ​and management.

The Kennedy ​Center opened in 1971 as a living memorial to the late president, who was slain in 1963. Its board voted in December to alter the center’s name to include Trump, who last year replaced several board members and appointed himself a trustee.

Beatty sued the Trump administration in December, calling the renaming of the building “a flagrant violation of the rule of law” that “flies in the face of our constitutional order.”

In February, Trump announced the two-year closure of the Kennedy Center without any prior warning.

Trump’s plan to renovate the Kennedy Center is part of a broader push by the Republican leader to reshape Washington’s monumental core. He also intends to erect a ​250-foot (76-meter) arch and to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom at the site of the demolished East Wing of the White ​House.

(Reporting by Mike Scarcella in Washington, D.C.; Additional reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Matthew Lewis and Christopher Cushing)

source