As millions of Americans grapple with rising grocery bills, expensive gas, and growing financial anxiety, Donald Trump offered a surprising response to the latest inflation figures: “I love the inflation.”

The remark came after new government data showed inflation jumped to an annual rate of 4.2% in May — the highest level in three years and the third consecutive monthly increase since the outbreak of the Iran conflict.

The comments are likely to raise fresh questions about whether Trump fully appreciates the economic strain facing ordinary Americans. While the White House insists the administration’s broader agenda remains on track, consumers are increasingly feeling the squeeze as prices climb and confidence deteriorates.

Before the conflict with Iran escalated, inflation stood at just 2.4% in February. Since then, energy markets have been rattled by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes, helping push inflation steadily higher.

Speaking from the White House on Wednesday, Trump dismissed concerns about rising prices.

“No, I love it. The numbers were great,” the president said.

He then pointed to US military actions in the region, claiming the administration had removed millions of barrels of oil from the market without Iran’s knowledge. Trump also made unverified claims about operations involving dozens of ships, arguing that his actions were helping manage global energy markets.

But for many Americans, the reality is harder to ignore.

The latest inflation report showed that energy prices were responsible for roughly 60% of the monthly increase in consumer prices. Gasoline remains elevated at an average of $4.15 per gallon nationwide, while airline fares have jumped nearly 27% compared with a year ago. Food, clothing and household expenses have also continued to rise.

Even after excluding volatile food and energy prices, so-called core inflation rose 2.9%, suggesting broader price pressures remain embedded throughout the economy.

Share

The White House sought to reassure consumers, describing the inflation report as “at-expectation” and arguing that temporary disruptions caused by Iran should not overshadow the administration’s broader economic achievements.

Officials highlighted falling prices for prescription drugs, cars and some insurance categories as evidence that Trump’s policies are benefiting consumers.

Yet the broader economic mood appears to be darkening.

Recent surveys from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York show households growing increasingly pessimistic about inflation, job prospects and their overall financial outlook. Consumer sentiment has also fallen to historic lows after months of deterioration.

The contrast is becoming harder to ignore: while the administration points to selective improvements, many Americans continue to report feeling worse off financially than they did just months ago.

The inflation surge now places additional pressure on the Federal Reserve as policymakers prepare for their next meeting. The central bank has spent years attempting to bring inflation back to its 2% target and has so far resisted calls to aggressively lower interest rates.

Trump, however, has repeatedly pushed for rate cuts and is expected to continue doing so despite rising inflation.

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh has aligned himself with Trump’s view that rates should eventually move lower. But some economists warn that cutting rates too soon could risk fueling another wave of inflation just as households are already struggling with higher living costs.

Major financial institutions are becoming increasingly cautious. Goldman Sachs no longer expects the Fed to cut rates this year, while JPMorgan analysts have warned that energy shocks linked to the Middle East conflict could further erode household purchasing power if disruptions continue.

“The energy price spike is now raising inflation and generating a sharp squeeze on household purchasing power,” JPMorgan chief economist Bruce Kasman warned.

For Trump, who returned to office promising economic strength and lower costs, the latest inflation figures present a growing political challenge.

The president argues that his policies are working and that the current pressures are largely the result of geopolitical turmoil. Critics counter that Americans care less about explanations than outcomes — and outcomes are becoming increasingly difficult to defend as prices rise month after month.

With inflation climbing, consumer confidence weakening and interest-rate debates intensifying, many voters may soon be judging the administration on a simple measure: whether their paychecks are keeping up with the rising cost of living.

The United States is once again raising the curtain on a major sporting spectacle. Giant stadiums, cities packed with fans, national teams spread across the country, and an organizational machine designed to impress the world. But just days before kickoff, the perfect picture many imagined is beginning to show cracks—not because of the organization itself, but because of everything surrounding the sport.

The preparations of several national teams have been marked by incidents and setbacks ranging from warnings about venomous snakes to immigration issues, venue changes, complaints about training grounds, a shooting near England’s base in Kansas City, and a 6.1-magnitude earthquake felt in Florida. Not all of these incidents are equally serious, and some have been amplified by headlines that are more alarmist than accurate. Together, however, they paint a somewhat uncomfortable picture. Organizing a World Cup across three countries, with vast distances and vastly different contexts, also means navigating complex challenges.

Warnings Beyond Football

The most striking case is that of Switzerland. The national team was alerted to the presence of rattlesnakes near its training grounds in San Diego, specifically in an area marked as a “snake zone” adjacent to its facilities. The image shared by the Swiss team—a map of the training area—perfectly encapsulates a contrast that has surprised many observers.

Norway has also received warnings about dangerous wildlife at its training camp in North Carolina, including snakes, lizards, and alligators. Again, rather than an emergency, it appears to be a sensible precaution for European footballers arriving in an unfamiliar ecosystem. Nevertheless, it has contributed to the perception of a less controlled environment than many expected.

More serious concerns have emerged on the logistical and political front for Iran. The Iranian national team moved its base from Arizona to Tijuana, Mexico, amid tensions surrounding visas and entry restrictions in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security later clarified that players would be permitted to enter the United States the day before each match, dismissing reports that they would have to enter and leave on the same day. Even so, the situation remains delicate. Some staff members reportedly encountered visa issues, and the Iranian federation has cited obstacles affecting its supporters.

“The United States doesn’t want Iran to stay overnight in the United States,” said Claudia Sheinbaum, President of Mexico.

Share The Women Post

An Incident That Raises Alarms

Japan, for its part, decided to change its training grounds in Mexico after several complaints about the condition of the pitch. Players reported an uneven surface, patches of dirt, and conditions they considered unsuitable for World Cup preparation.

But the concerns do not end there. England has been associated with some of the most controversial headlines before the tournament has even kicked off.

In Kansas City, nine people were injured in a shooting near the area where the team has established its World Cup base. However, local police emphasized that the incident did not occur at a World Cup venue or at facilities directly connected to the tournament. Furthermore, the English squad was not in the area at the time, as it was in Florida.

Florida also felt the effects of a 6.1-magnitude earthquake west of Cuba. The USGS confirmed the quake and described it as the strongest in the region in nearly 150 years. The tremor was felt in Cuba, Mexico, and parts of Florida. While no tsunami warning was issued and no major damage was initially reported, the event added yet another source of concern to preparations already under intense media scrutiny.

For survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse, Tuesday’s testimony from longtime assistant Lesley Groff could represent another opportunity to uncover the truth about how the disgraced financier operated for years while exploiting vulnerable young women and girls.

Groff, who worked as Epstein’s executive assistant from 2001 until his arrest in July 2019, is scheduled to appear before the House Oversight and Reform Committee as lawmakers continue investigating the network of employees, associates, and systems that surrounded Epstein throughout much of his criminal activity.

Survivors and advocates have long argued that understanding how Epstein was able to abuse so many victims requires examining not only Epstein himself, but also the people who managed his schedule, coordinated appointments, arranged travel, and helped oversee the day-to-day operations of his sprawling personal and professional life.

Documents released by the Department of Justice earlier this year include notes from a 2021 FBI interview in which Groff described how she first came to work for Epstein after being contacted by a recruiter who told her there was a position available to “organize one man’s life.” According to the records, Groff said she had never heard of Epstein before interviewing for the role and eventually met with both Epstein and his longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is now serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking offenses.

The FBI interview notes indicate that Groff’s responsibilities included managing Epstein’s calendar, arranging meetings, making phone calls, coordinating with household staff, and overseeing many aspects of his daily schedule.

One detail that has drawn particular attention from investigators and survivors is Groff’s acknowledgment that massage appointments were a routine part of Epstein’s daily life. According to FBI notes, Groff said arranging such appointments was simply another task she handled as part of her job responsibilities.

For many survivors, however, questions remain about what employees and associates may have understood about the true nature of those appointments and the environment that existed around Epstein’s homes and properties.

Groff has consistently denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. Through her attorneys, she has maintained that she was unaware of any illegal conduct and has never been accused of criminal wrongdoing by prosecutors. No criminal charges have ever been filed against her.

Still, public scrutiny intensified after it became known that Groff was among four women identified as potential co-conspirators who received immunity under Epstein’s controversial 2007 plea agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida, a deal that has faced years of criticism from victims and victim advocates.

Leave a comment

Groff’s attorney, Michael Bachner, has said that “Epstein repeatedly deceived Groff and other staff members regarding the allegations against him. According to Bachner, Epstein insisted he was being blackmailed and falsely accused, and denied knowingly having contact with minors.”

Whether employees accepted those explanations or questioned them remains one of the many issues that continue to interest investigators and lawmakers.

Additional records released by the Justice Department include an internal FBI document from 2019 listing Groff among several individuals identified as possible co-conspirators. Groff’s attorney has said she was never informed that law enforcement viewed her in that way and emphasized that she cooperated voluntarily with investigators.

At the same time, some survivors have expressed a different perspective. In a 2020 FBI interview, one survivor reportedly stated a belief that Groff “knew what was going on” and understood that massage appointments were sexual in nature. The survivor also acknowledged that they never directly discussed those concerns with Groff.

Following Epstein’s death in 2019, Groff was named in several civil lawsuits filed by survivors against Epstein’s estate and various associates. Some plaintiffs alleged that she helped facilitate aspects of Epstein’s abuse. Groff has denied those allegations, and the claims against her were ultimately dismissed.

Despite those dismissals, many survivors continue to seek answers about who knew what, when they knew it, and why warning signs may have gone unaddressed for so long.

That search for accountability is expected to be a central focus of Groff’s appearance before Congress.

Share

In a letter subpoenaing Groff to testify, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer stated that public reporting, Justice Department records, and materials obtained by the committee suggested she possessed information relevant to the ongoing investigation.

For survivors who spent years fighting to be heard, Groff’s testimony represents more than another congressional interview. It is another chance to shed light on the inner workings of Epstein’s world and potentially provide long-awaited answers about how his abuse was able to continue for so many years behind closed doors.

Last month, another former Epstein assistant, Sarah Kellen, also appeared before the committee. Kellen denied being an accomplice to Epstein and testified that she herself had been sexually and psychologically abused during her time working for him.

As lawmakers continue their investigation, survivors and advocates alike are hoping that those who were closest to Epstein’s daily operations will finally help fill in the remaining gaps and bring greater clarity to a chapter that continues to leave many questions unanswered.

Nithya Raman, a progressive member of the Los Angeles City Council, has secured a place in November’s mayoral runoff after narrowly surpassing former reality television personality Spencer Pratt, earning the opportunity to challenge incumbent Mayor Karen Bass.

Pratt, who launched his mayoral campaign after losing his Pacific Palisades residence in the devastating 2025 wildfires, maintained a slight advantage over Raman for several days. However, as election officials continued counting ballots from last week’s primary, Raman eventually moved ahead.

Bass, who is seeking re-election as mayor of the nation’s second-largest city, learned on primary night, 2 June, that she had obtained enough support to advance to the general election. The battle for the second runoff spot, however, remained unresolved for nearly a week.

Share

Following confirmation that Raman had advanced, Bass’s campaign released a statement Monday evening. “A campaign against Nithya Raman, who permits encampments near schools and supports reducing police staffing, is a race Mayor Bass is eager to win,” said campaign strategist Douglas Herman.

With many Democratic voters submitting ballots in the final days before the election and California’s election-counting process known for being comprehensive yet slow, outcomes in several major statewide contests remain uncertain. In the governor’s race, voters are still awaiting confirmation of whether Republican Steve Hilton or Democrat Tom Steyer will move on to face former Biden administration official Xavier Becerra. Becerra officially advanced to the general election on Friday.

As Californians continue waiting for final results, misinformation and conspiracy theories regarding election integrity have spread online. During an NBC Meet the Press interview on Friday, Donald Trump exited the discussion after making unfounded claims about election fraud, labeling California’s system as “crooked” and alleging widespread “cheating.”

“It’s four days, and they aren’t even close to counting [ballots],” Trump remarked.

Pratt appeared to echo similar concerns in a social media message, stating, “They’re not the only ones who know where to find votes,” while implying that Raman’s lead was boosted by ballots cast by much of Los Angeles’s unhoused population.

In the run-up to the election, Pratt—despite having no prior political experience—rose rapidly in opinion polls. His campaign attracted attention through controversial videos and relentless social media criticism directed at his opponents, depicting both Bass and Raman as ineffective public officials. Nonetheless, his candidacy faced persistent scrutiny over his lack of governing experience and his registration as a Republican in heavily Democratic Los Angeles.

Raman’s surprise entry into the race in February, only hours before the filing deadline, caught many political observers off guard. Just weeks earlier, she had publicly endorsed Bass’s re-election effort. The two politicians had also frequently praised one another on social media in previous years.

“I am so grateful for your friendship and your support,” Raman replied at the time.

Raman has largely brushed aside questions regarding their past relationship. “I don’t think conversations about LA’s future should revolve around friendship or betrayal,” she previously said. “We should be focused on the challenges facing our city and the solutions needed to address them.”

Whoever becomes the next mayor will be responsible for demonstrating progress on Los Angeles’s long-standing homelessness crisis, revitalizing Hollywood amid an ongoing production exodus, and strengthening emergency response systems following last year’s deadly wildfire season.

Before becoming mayor, Bass built a prominent political career at both the state and national levels, serving in the California State Assembly and later in the US Congress. In 2022, she defeated billionaire developer Rick Caruso to become the first woman elected mayor of Los Angeles.

Public dissatisfaction with Bass intensified after the catastrophic 2025 wildfires that devastated Altadena and Pacific Palisades. At the time the fires erupted, Bass was on a diplomatic visit to Ghana. Her absence, combined with reports of budget reductions affecting the fire department, fueled widespread criticism and calls for her resignation.

Since then, Bass has worked to rebuild public confidence. Nevertheless, frustration surrounding post-fire recovery efforts and the city’s homelessness challenges has continued.

Raman, who identifies as a democratic socialist, has presented herself as the candidate capable of delivering a new direction for Los Angeles. In 2020, she defeated councilmember David Ryu in a victory that inspired progressive candidates nationwide. She has highlighted achievements including limiting rent increases and significantly reducing encampments within her district. Housing policy remains the centerpiece of her mayoral campaign, with an emphasis on expanding development throughout the city.

Although Bass and Raman share common ground on several issues, they differ in their approaches to some of Los Angeles’s most pressing concerns. Bass has promoted the Inside Safe initiative, which removes encampments and places unhoused residents into temporary accommodations, often motel rooms.

Raman, however, argues that the program has consumed substantial resources without producing sufficient results. She has advocated for reforms that would introduce stronger data tracking, performance measurements, and accountability standards for homelessness programs.

The two candidates have also disagreed over Raman’s opposition to proposals that would increase firefighter hiring following the 2025 wildfires, as well as an ordinance targeting homeless encampments. Raman has characterized the camping measure as merely a short-term solution.

Bass’s re-election campaign has received endorsements from several high-profile California Democrats, including Governor Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris. At the same time, a number of Raman’s progressive colleagues on the City Council have backed her candidacy.

Polling conducted before election day indicated that Raman and Pratt were locked in a close contest for the opportunity to challenge Bass in November.

Pratt first gained national attention through The Hills, MTV’s popular reality series following the lives of young adults in Los Angeles between 2006 and 2010. His frequent confrontations and highly publicized relationship with fellow cast member and now-wife Heidi Montag helped cement his reputation as one of reality television’s most notorious villains.

Former Interior Secretary Deb Haaland has emerged victorious in the Democratic primary for New Mexico governor, advancing to the general election as she seeks to make history as the first Native American woman elected to lead a U.S. state.

Haaland enters the November contest as the leading candidate to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. Democrats have maintained a strong hold on statewide offices in New Mexico, with Republicans currently lacking representation in any statewide elected position.

The former cabinet secretary defeated Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman in the Democratic primary. Bregman is also known as the father of Chicago Cubs third baseman Alex Bregman.

In the general election, Haaland will face the Republican nominee. The GOP primary field includes Rio Rancho Mayor Gregg Hull, businessman and former gubernatorial candidate Doug Turner, and former state Human Services Secretary Duke Rodriguez.

Subscribe now

Throughout her campaign, Haaland has highlighted the historic significance of her candidacy. She has frequently referenced her Native American heritage and incorporated the Diné language into several campaign advertisements, underscoring her connection to Indigenous communities across the state.

Haaland served as Interior Secretary during former President Joe Biden’s entire four-year administration. Before joining the Cabinet, she made history as one of the first Native American women elected to Congress, representing the Albuquerque area for a single term. She also previously led the New Mexico Democratic Party as its chair.

Democratic leaders quickly praised her primary victory. Democratic Governors Association Chair and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear described Haaland as a dedicated advocate for New Mexico, citing her role in attracting investment, supporting job creation, strengthening the economy, and protecting natural resources.

Ahead of the primary results, Haaland indicated that her general election campaign would focus heavily on criticizing President Donald Trump’s policies and their impact on New Mexico residents.

“We’re in a horrible era right now with our federal government, and people see that the policies that Donald Trump is inflicting on New Mexicans are having a very negative effect all over the state,” Haaland said.

She also emphasized economic and social issues affecting families across the state.

“Everybody deserves to have health care, deserves to eat healthy food,” she said. “They need somebody who understands what it’s like, and they want somebody who knows how to find solutions to these issues.”

Leave a comment

New Mexico ranks among the states with the highest participation rates in both Medicaid and federal food assistance programs. Those programs were significantly reduced under the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which Trump signed into law last year.

At the same time, Haaland has continued to speak positively about Biden, despite lingering criticism surrounding his decision to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race.

In recent remarks, she described Biden as “absolutely an asset” to her campaign and referred to him as a “true partner” to both New Mexico and Indigenous communities nationwide. She has also regularly highlighted achievements from her tenure as Interior Secretary, particularly in conservation efforts and the expansion of wind and solar energy projects throughout the American Southwest. However, her campaign advertising has generally avoided mentioning Biden directly.

A mounting legal and political controversy surrounds the $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund established by Donald Trump’s Justice Department to compensate individuals who claim they were harmed by politically motivated government actions. However, former Justice Department officials and legal scholars have sharply criticized the initiative, describing it as a corrupt arrangement and a taxpayer-funded “slush fund” that primarily serves Trump and his MAGA supporters.

Lawmakers from both political parties, along with numerous legal experts, have challenged the fund’s legitimacy, arguing that it lacks transparency and could provide financial benefits to individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. Some of those individuals have already indicated they intend to seek compensation through the program. Critics also contend that the initiative reinforces Trump’s repeated allegations that the Biden administration improperly used federal agencies to target him and his allies.

Opposition to the fund has intensified since Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced its creation on May 18 as part of a settlement resolving Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the 2019 disclosure of his tax records. Detractors have focused particular attention on an accompanying provision within the agreement that would prevent the IRS from pursuing any ongoing tax investigations involving Trump, his sons, or businesses associated with the family.

The legal battle surrounding both the fund and its controversial addendum continues to expand. On May 27, a bipartisan coalition of 35 former federal judges petitioned a federal court in Miami to reopen the case that led to the settlement. The group urged the court to investigate whether the unusual agreement between Trump and the Justice Department involved fraudulent conduct. According to the former judges, the creation of the settlement fund itself may constitute what they described as a “fraud on the court.”

Subscribe now

In a dramatic development just two days later, on May 29, the Miami judge overseeing the matter agreed to reopen Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS. The court will now examine whether the parties involved—including the Justice Department—misled the court and whether the settlement arrangement was, as critics allege, based on deceptive representations.

In a separate legal challenge, a federal judge in Virginia responded to a lawsuit brought by a former January 6 prosecutor who was dismissed by the Justice Department, along with several individuals and organizations that claim they have been targeted by the Trump administration. On May 29, the judge issued a temporary order preventing any further steps toward establishing the fund or distributing money from it until at least a June 12 hearing.

To date, no compensation has been paid out, as the program remains in the process of being organized.

The structure of the fund has also come under scrutiny from opponents who argue that it lacks adequate transparency. Critics have focused particularly on provisions that grant Trump broad authority over the fund’s governance, including the power to remove any member of the five-person board responsible for determining payouts without cause. Blanche is expected to appoint all five board members, with one appointment to be made in consultation with Congress.

On Monday, the Justice Department stated that it would comply with the court’s ruling issued the previous Friday, which temporarily halted the fund’s implementation.

Leave a comment

That same day, amid increasing criticism from judges, lawmakers, and political leaders in both parties—including Senate Majority Leader John Thune—Axios reported that the initiative was effectively dead “for now,” citing two anonymous sources familiar with the matter.

Speaking to ABC News, Trump acknowledged that the courts currently hold the deciding role in the fund’s future.

“We are subject to the courts,” Trump said. “At this moment, that’s what it is. If a court doesn’t allow it, and right now a court has it held up, what can you do?”

Former Justice Department officials have remained among the program’s harshest critics, questioning both its legality and the lack of clarity surrounding how it would operate.

Michael Bromwich, who previously served as the Justice Department’s inspector general, condemned the initiative in blunt terms.

“Everything about the $1.776 billion fund is crazy and corrupt,” Bromwich said, pointing to what he described as the enormous amount of money involved, uncertainty over who would qualify for compensation, and a complete absence of transparency regarding how funds would ultimately be awarded.

Bromwich further argued that the anti-weaponization fund—created by Todd Blanche, Trump’s former criminal defense attorney—amounts to “an attempted political payoff to criminals” and could potentially benefit individuals who committed acts of violence while supporting Trump.

According to Bromwich, the program inverts traditional concepts of accountability.

“People who attacked and injured law enforcement personnel become heroes and victims; the law enforcement personnel and prosecutors who made righteous cases against lawbreakers become villains, and are targeted for firing and investigation,” he said.

Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general who served during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, was equally critical.

“This is outright theft,” Ayer said. “Trump and his DoJ have decided that they’re going to give money away to his supporters who will claim some sort of personal abuse when they, in fact, have been the abusers.”

Ayer also objected to the settlement provision involving the IRS.

“This blank check immunity from IRS inquiries of Trump, his family, and affiliates can only happen when due process and the rule of law have failed,” he said.

Share

Trump, however, has vigorously defended the initiative, insisting—without providing evidence—that the fund is intended to assist individuals who were mistreated by what he describes as a politically motivated Biden administration.

According to the Justice Department, the fund would be authorized to provide formal apologies and financial compensation to individuals who can demonstrate that the federal government wronged them. Department officials have also emphasized that applications would be open to everyone and that there would be “no partisan requirements” for eligibility.

When unveiling the program, Blanche argued that federal institutions should never be used as political weapons.

“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American,” Blanche said, adding that the department’s goal was to address past injustices and prevent similar actions from occurring in the future.

Critics note that Blanche reportedly faced sharp questioning during a closed-door Senate hearing shortly after the fund was announced. They also argue that his efforts to reassure lawmakers have largely consisted of vague promises regarding future public disclosures.

Meanwhile, several prominent Trump supporters, including former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and other individuals connected to the January 6 Capitol attack, have publicly welcomed the initiative and signaled their intention to seek compensation through the fund.

Opposition to the proposal has emerged from both parties. While congressional Democrats have broadly denounced the fund, several Republicans have also expressed concern about its purpose and design.

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” on May 24, Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina dismissed the rationale behind the initiative, describing its mission of funding so-called anti-weaponization efforts as “stupid on stilts.”

“I call it a payout pot for punks,” Tillis said. He further characterized the proposal as “politically tone deaf” and argued that whoever was responsible for creating it should be dismissed. Tillis also stressed that individuals convicted by a jury or those who pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers should not be eligible for compensation.

Share The Women Post

Former Vice President Mike Pence voiced similar objections during appearances on CBS and NBC programs on May 31. Pence described the proposal as “deeply offensive,” particularly because it could result in payments to people involved in the January 6 riot, and urged the Trump administration to abandon the idea altogether.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has also emerged as a vocal opponent of the initiative. In a message circulated to fellow lawmakers, Schumer characterized the fund as an unprecedented example of presidential self-interest.

“Trump’s nearly $2 billion MAGA slush fund is his most brazen act of self-dealing yet and one of the most corrupt schemes ever launched by a president,” Schumer wrote. “Senate Democrats will not let it stand.”

Resistance to the proposal is also taking shape in the House of Representatives. Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi of New York are reportedly working together on legislation designed to stop the fund from being implemented altogether. In addition, two police officers who were assaulted during the January 6 attack while attempting to prevent rioters from disrupting Congress’s certification of Joe Biden’s election victory have filed a lawsuit seeking to block the program.

In an unexpected development, CNN reported on May 26 that several individuals who have been targeted by Trump and his allies—including former Capitol riot prosecutors who lost their jobs and other dismissed federal officials—are considering applying for compensation through the same fund. Bromwich told CNN that one of his clients, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, is seriously weighing that option. McCabe was frequently criticized by Trump during his first term because of his involvement in investigations related to Russian election interference.

Leave a comment

Former Prosecutors Warn the Fund Threatens Democratic Norms and the Rule of Law

A number of former federal prosecutors have argued that the proposed fund poses broader risks to democratic institutions and the legal system itself.

Bruce Green, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches at Fordham University, said the initiative effectively turns fundamental democratic principles upside down.

“This all stands the rule of law and democracy on its head,” Green said. “The administration has subverted the democratic process in 2026 to reward people who tried to subvert the democratic process in 2021.”

Green also criticized the manner in which the money would be distributed, arguing that the proposal bypasses the traditional legislative process through which government funds are normally authorized.

“Ordinarily, before the government distributes taxpayer money, there is a democratic process,” he said. “Congress establishes the program after an opportunity for public discussion. In this case, by contrast, the executive branch intends to draw nearly $2 billion from the Treasury without congressional appropriation, using the settlement of a lawsuit that the government never answered and almost certainly could have defended.”

Barbara McQuade, the former U.S. attorney for Eastern Michigan and now a law professor at the University of Michigan, described the fund as a striking example of political self-dealing.

According to McQuade, the initiative not only benefits Trump’s political allies but also reinforces what she considers a false narrative that the Biden administration engaged in politically motivated prosecutions.

“The creation of this fund is a blatant example of self-dealing corruption,” McQuade said. “It not only enriches Trump’s political allies, but also advances the false political narrative that the Biden administration engaged in lawfare.”

She further warned that compensating individuals convicted of violent offenses connected to January 6 could have serious consequences.

“If this fund is used to reward people who assaulted Capitol police officers or committed other violent crimes for which they were convicted in court, it will send a message that vigilante violence is welcome as long as it aids the party in power,” McQuade said. “This is antithetical to the rule of law.”

McQuade also challenged the legality and relevance of the settlement provision that shields Trump and his associates from future IRS scrutiny.

“There’s just no basis for the addendum to this agreement to forbid the IRS from ever auditing or bringing tax claims against Trump,” she said. “That remedy is entirely unrelated to his claim regarding the leak of his tax returns. Settlements must resolve the claim alleged. This is just a gift, pure and simple.”

Leave a comment

Former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah, who currently teaches at Fordham University and has written extensively about the Justice Department, argued that the fund rests on a premise that lacks factual support.

Rocah said too many people have accepted the claim that the Biden Justice Department improperly pursued cases against political opponents, despite a lack of evidence to support that assertion.

“This fund is based on a myth that people seem too willing to accept,” Rocah said. “The idea that the Biden DoJ was improperly bringing cases against all sorts of people it shouldn’t have simply didn’t happen. It’s a Trump political talking point that has now become embedded within the Justice Department.”

She also expressed skepticism about assurances that the program would be administered fairly.

“Blanche is willing to claim that this will be open to everyone and not a biased fund,” Rocah said, “but no one believes that.”

Looking ahead, Bromwich suggested that the controversy surrounding the anti-weaponization fund reflects a broader pattern within the current Justice Department.

“There is apparently nothing this Justice Department won’t do to please the president,” Bromwich said. “The weaponization fund is only the latest—and most corrupt—episode.”

The Democratic Party has finally released its long-delayed internal report examining the party’s crushing defeat in the 2024 election cycle — but not before facing intense backlash over efforts to keep the findings hidden from the public.

Ken Ma…

Read more

The tennis legend and lifelong advocate for equality received her Bachelor of Arts in history from California State University, Los Angeles, on Monday, walking across the stage at the Shrine Auditorium …

Read more

Federal prosecutors in Texas have issued a subpoena to New York’s major hospital network, NYU Langone Health, seeking records connected to transgender youth who received gender-…

Read more

The 2026 midterm elections are already shaping up to be one of the most consequential political battles in recent history — and it’s not just because control of Congress is on the line. Across the country, more than 30 governors’ mansions are up for grabs, placing enormous power in the hands of voters at a mo…

Read more

Every year, millions of people around the world wake up on Mother’s Day ready to celebrate the women who raised them. Social media fills with smiling family photos, flowers are delivered, restaurants overflow with reservations, and emotional tributes flood timelines from morning until midnight.

“Happy Mot…

Read more

When Donald Trump publicly labeled Norah O’Donnell a “disgrace,” it was not just another headline-grabbing insult in an already crowded news cycle. It was something more revealing—another example in a long, troubling pattern that has defined American public life for generations. A pattern where powerful white men …

Read more

A controversial proposal to impose a one-time tax on California’s wealthiest residents is moving closer to voters, after supporters announced they have gathered enough signatures to secure a spot on the N…

Read more

A growing fracture between Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson spilled further into public view Monday, as the conservative host openly acknowledged his role in helping elevate the president—framing it as a mistake he now has to answer for.

During an episode of The Tucker Carlson Show, Carlson s…

Read more

A woman walked into an immigration office in Texas, following the rules, showing up as required.

She never walked back out.

Deisy Rivera Ortega, the wife of a U.S. Army sergeant, was detained by federal immigration agents during a scheduled appointment in E…

Read more

Progressive organizer Analilia Mejia delivered a commanding win in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, ste…

Read more

In a move that could reshape the future of American elections, Abigail Spanberger has signed legislation bringing the United States one step closer to electing presidents…

Read more

Extremist cells operating within major U.S. cities are reportedly planning an imminent attack similar in scale to 9/11, according to multiple trusted sources. The operation is being framed as retaliation for the killing of 168 Iranian schoolgirls and 17 staff members, a massacre that has sparked outrage internationally.

Our sources confirm that these loc…

Read more

Read more

By the time her fifth graders leave the classroom each afternoon, Melissa Carter’s workday is far from over.

The Washington state teacher, who spends her mornings guiding students through math problems and rea…

Read more