What Will Happen To Gasoline Prices When the Iran War Ends?

FactCheck.org — 2026-05-14 16:40:00 — www.factcheck.org

Trump’s Gas Price Promises: A Closer Look at Misinformation

President Donald Trump has repeatedly assured the public that high gasoline prices will “rapidly” or “quickly” decline “as soon as” the war with Iran ends. However, energy experts caution that while prices may start to fall after the conflict is resolved, it could take many months—if not longer—before the national average price returns to pre-war levels.

Expert Opinions on Gas Prices

“For pre-war prices to show up, it could take beyond a year,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for the fuel-price tracking service GasBuddy. He emphasized that various outcomes are possible depending on the situation at the end of the conflict.

As of May 11, the average U.S. price for regular grade gasoline was $4.50 per gallon, a significant increase from $2.94 just before the U.S. and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran. This spike was largely due to Iran’s response, which included blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for oil exports.

Contradictory Statements from Trump

Despite the expert warnings, Trump has made bold claims about the future of gas prices. On May 11, he stated, “As soon as it’s over, you’re going to see gasoline and oil drop like a rock.” Just days earlier, during a Florida event, he claimed, “it’s going to come down lower than it was,” suggesting that “pent up” oil would lead to unprecedented price drops.

At another event on the same day, he expressed confidence that prices would “snap back” quickly, stating, “I believe it will snap back very, very quickly.” These statements have been echoed by members of his administration, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who predicted that gasoline prices would “come down very quickly” after the conflict ends.

Reality Check from Energy Experts

Experts have expressed skepticism about these optimistic projections. “When the strait opens in a meaningful way, it would likely have a fairly quick impact to start pushing prices down,” De Haan noted. However, he added that it would take several weeks for oil shipments to normalize, and a return to prices below $3 per gallon in the immediate future seems unlikely.

Abhi Rajendran, a nonresident fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute, echoed these sentiments, stating, “I don’t see $3 per gallon gasoline anytime soon,” even if the conflict ends, due to ongoing supply chain damage.

Potential Impacts of Misinformation

Trump’s statements could influence public perception and behavior regarding gas prices. For instance, if consumers believe prices will drop significantly soon, they may be less inclined to adjust their spending habits or seek alternatives. This could lead to increased demand, further complicating the supply situation.

In a recent speech, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump’s approach, asserting that “eighteen cents isn’t a dollar fifty,” referring to the inadequate impact of a proposed federal gasoline tax holiday. Schumer argued that the best way to lower costs would be to end the war, a sentiment that contrasts sharply with Trump’s assurances.

Conclusion: The Need for Accurate Information

While Trump’s assurances about falling gas prices may resonate with many, the reality is more complex. Energy experts warn that significant price relief may take longer than the president suggests. As the conflict continues, the public must navigate these mixed messages and rely on factual information to make informed decisions about their fuel consumption and spending.

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2026/05/what-will-happen-to-gasoline-prices-when-the-iran-war-ends/

Democrats release 2024 presidential campaign autopsy; Republicans could abandon $1bn proposal for Trump’s ballroom – live | US news

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-21 10:40:00 — www.theguardian.com

DNC Releases Autopsy of Party’s 2024 Presidential Campaign

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has released a report detailing the reasons behind the party’s loss in the 2024 presidential election, authored by Democratic strategist Paul Rivera. The report, which was first reported by CNN, was commissioned by DNC Chair Ken Martin and includes annotations added by the DNC itself. Martin stated that he withheld the report until now due to a lack of source material but felt it was necessary to release it to restore public trust in the party.

Key Findings of the Report

One of the report’s significant takeaways is the assertion that “despite winning the popular vote, Trump won the election by a little more than 2 million votes in the popular vote, meaning the election was swayed by 0.15 percent of the votes cast across the country.” However, the report’s annotations indicate that this analysis lacks supporting data.

Another notable point made in the report is that “the margin of defeat for Kamala Harris was among the smallest in American history.” It emphasizes that the Electoral College structure means that a few swing states are critical in determining election outcomes, suggesting that Democrats should focus on identifying battlegrounds early in future campaigns.

Political Reactions

In response to the report, Senator Angela Alsobrooks criticized the Republican agenda, stating, “We are here with this bill as further proof of what Republicans are thinking about, and it’s not about the American people.” She highlighted the lack of relief for rising gas and grocery prices, accusing Republicans of prioritizing funding for Trump’s ballroom project over the needs of American families.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer echoed these sentiments, calling the Republican budget a “broken promise.” He accused Republicans of attempting to allocate a billion dollars for Trump’s ballroom while Democrats are focused on addressing economic issues affecting everyday Americans. Schumer stated, “Taxpayer dollars under no circumstances should be used to brutalize or kill American citizens,” referencing the powers granted to ICE under the Trump administration.

Trump’s Record of False Claims

Throughout his political career, Trump has made numerous statements that have been fact-checked and found to be misleading or false. For instance, he has repeatedly claimed that he won the 2020 election, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This pattern of misinformation has contributed to a polarized political climate and has influenced public opinion significantly.

In the context of the DNC report, Trump’s assertion that he won the popular vote in 2024 is particularly noteworthy. The report’s claim that “the election was swayed by 0.15 percent of the votes cast” is contradicted by the fact that Trump lost the popular vote in both the 2016 and 2020 elections. This discrepancy highlights the ongoing challenges Democrats face in combating misinformation and restoring trust in electoral processes.

Conclusion

The DNC’s autopsy report sheds light on the factors contributing to the party’s electoral defeat in 2024, emphasizing the need for strategic focus on battleground states and a commitment to addressing the concerns of American families. As misinformation continues to shape political discourse, the Democratic Party must navigate these challenges to regain public trust and effectively communicate its message moving forward.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/may/21/donald-trump-ballroom-reconciliation-bill-republicans-democrats-war-powers-iran-epa-ai-latest-news-updates

Republicans expected to abandon $1B security proposal for White House and Trump’s ballroom

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-05-21 09:55:00 — www.pbs.org

Senate GOP Leaders Abandon $1 Billion Security Proposal Amid Backlash

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republican leaders are poised to abandon a controversial proposal for $1 billion in security funding for the White House complex and President Donald Trump’s ballroom, following significant backlash from within their own party. The funding was initially intended to be included in a larger $70 billion bill aimed at restoring funding to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Border Patrol.

Despite pressure from the White House, the security proposal has faced mounting opposition from GOP lawmakers who are questioning the timing, cost, and intended use of taxpayer dollars. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., acknowledged on Wednesday that there are “ongoing vote issues” as leaders assess Republican support for the bill.

Trump’s Claims and Party Frustration

In a recent social media post, Trump referred to the planned ballroom as “a gift” to the U.S., a statement that has drawn skepticism from both Democrats and some Republicans. Critics argue that the focus on funding a ballroom is misplaced, especially as many Americans struggle with rising costs of living. Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy expressed this sentiment, stating, “People can’t afford groceries and gasoline and healthcare, and we’re going to do a billion dollars for a ballroom?”

Senator John Kennedy, R-La., remarked that the bill was “back to square one” without the security funding, indicating a lack of support among GOP members. The internal conflict has been exacerbated by Trump’s recent endorsement of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, which has left some Republican senators feeling frustrated, as they believe it could jeopardize their majority in the upcoming elections.

Concerns Over Trump’s Settlement Fund

Another contentious issue is the Trump administration’s proposed $1.776 billion settlement fund, designed to compensate allies who claim political persecution. This fund has become a focal point of contention, with several Republican senators expressing reservations. Thune stated that senators have questions about the fund and are looking to ensure it is “fenced in appropriately.”

Democrats have seized on this opportunity, planning to introduce amendments to block the fund or restrict payments to individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. This has created a complex legislative environment, as Republicans attempt to navigate a budget process that requires a series of amendment votes.

Trump’s Criticism of Senate Leadership

As tensions rise between Senate Republicans and the White House, Trump has publicly criticized the Senate, urging party members to fire Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough for her ruling that parts of the security proposal cannot remain in the ICE and Border Patrol bill. He has also reiterated calls for the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, which would require all voters to prove U.S. citizenship, and to eliminate the Senate filibuster.

Trump’s statement that Republicans need to “get smart and tough” has not resonated well with Senate leaders, who have historically resisted his calls to eliminate the filibuster, which requires a 60-vote threshold for most legislation.

Secret Service Funding Request Faces Scrutiny

The Secret Service’s request for approximately $220 million to fund security improvements related to the ballroom has also come under fire. Senator Thom Tillis, R-N.C., labeled the effort to add the security package to the bill as a “bad idea,” emphasizing that it merely contributes to the perception of a “billion-dollar ballroom.” This sentiment reflects a broader concern among lawmakers about the appropriateness of such expenditures in light of pressing national issues.

As the Senate grapples with these challenges, the fate of the immigration enforcement bill remains uncertain. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has indicated that the House will pass the bill “whatever form it takes,” but the ongoing disputes within the Senate could complicate matters further.

Conclusion

The abandonment of the $1 billion security proposal highlights the growing rift within the Republican Party, as members grapple with the implications of Trump’s influence on their legislative agenda. As lawmakers navigate the complexities of funding and political endorsements, the focus remains on how these developments will shape the party’s future and its standing with voters ahead of the November elections.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-expected-to-abandon-1b-security-proposal-for-white-house-and-trumps-ballroom

Trump’s Fund Shows Blanche Choosing Loyalty Over Pushing Back

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-05-21 08:31:00 — www.nytimes.com

Todd Blanche Takes a Bold Stance as Acting Attorney General Amid Trump’s Controversial Claims

In a striking shift from his previously conventional image, Todd Blanche has embraced a more combative approach in his new role as acting attorney general. This change comes at a time when former President Donald Trump continues to make headlines with a series of contentious statements that often blur the lines of truth. As Blanche navigates this complex landscape, the implications of Trump’s rhetoric on public perception and legal proceedings are becoming increasingly significant.

Trump’s Disparaging Remarks

Recently, Trump has made several statements that have raised eyebrows and prompted scrutiny. During a rally in North Carolina, he claimed, “The Democrats are trying to steal the election again,” a statement that lacks substantiation and echoes his unfounded claims from the 2020 election. Experts have pointed out that there is no evidence to support allegations of widespread voter fraud in the previous election, a fact reiterated by officials from both parties.

Blanche’s new role places him at the intersection of these controversies. As he takes on the responsibilities of the acting attorney general, he must contend with the fallout from Trump’s statements, which often incite division and misinformation among the public.

Legal Challenges and Misinformation

Trump’s rhetoric has not only influenced public opinion but has also had tangible effects on legal proceedings. For instance, his repeated assertions that the FBI is “corrupt” and “politically motivated” have led to increased scrutiny of federal law enforcement agencies. This narrative has been challenged by former FBI officials who emphasize the agency’s commitment to impartiality and integrity. “The FBI operates under strict guidelines and oversight,” stated former FBI Director Robert Mueller, countering Trump’s claims.

As Blanche steps into his role, he faces the challenge of addressing these narratives while upholding the rule of law. His predecessor, Merrick Garland, emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust in the justice system, a sentiment that resonates now more than ever as misinformation continues to proliferate.

The Impact of Misinformation

The consequences of Trump’s misleading statements extend beyond the political arena. Public trust in institutions has eroded, with polls indicating that a significant portion of the population believes in conspiracy theories surrounding the electoral process. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that 70% of Republicans believe that the 2020 election was not conducted fairly, a belief largely fueled by Trump’s persistent claims.

Blanche’s approach as acting attorney general could play a crucial role in countering this misinformation. By prioritizing transparency and accountability, he has the potential to restore faith in the justice system and mitigate the divisive impact of Trump’s rhetoric.

Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Justice

As Todd Blanche takes off the gloves in his new role, the intersection of his leadership and Trump’s controversial statements presents a pivotal moment for the U.S. justice system. With misinformation shaping public opinion and legal challenges looming, Blanche’s actions will be closely watched. The need for clear, factual communication has never been more critical, as the nation grapples with the consequences of a political landscape increasingly defined by distortion and division. The coming months will reveal whether Blanche can navigate these turbulent waters and help restore integrity to the office of the attorney general.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/21/us/politics/trump-fund-todd-blanche-doj.html

Radiologist by trade, farmer on the side. How Trump’s surgeon general pick uses a tax loophole in New Jersey.  

Donald Trump — 2026-05-21 04:00:00 — www.politico.com

Nicole Saphier Joins Wealthy Residents Benefiting from Agricultural Tax Breaks

In a move that has drawn attention to the intersection of wealth and agricultural policy, Dr. Nicole Saphier, a prominent radiologist and Fox News contributor, has recently taken advantage of a New Jersey state law that allows significant tax discounts for land designated for agricultural use. This development highlights a growing trend among affluent residents utilizing agricultural exemptions to reduce their tax burdens.

Understanding the Agricultural Tax Breaks

The New Jersey law in question permits landowners to receive steep discounts on property taxes if their land is classified for agricultural use. Critics argue that this system is often exploited by wealthy individuals who may not be genuinely engaged in farming activities. Saphier’s acquisition of a property that qualifies for these discounts places her among a list of high-profile residents benefiting from this legislation.

Trump’s Statements on Wealth and Taxation

Former President Donald Trump has made numerous statements regarding wealth and taxation that often contain inaccuracies or misleading claims. For instance, during a rally in 2020, Trump stated, “The rich are paying a lot of taxes, and the poor are not paying anything.” This claim has been widely disputed, as data from the Tax Policy Center indicates that the wealthiest Americans pay a significant portion of federal income taxes, while lower-income households often pay little to no federal income tax due to various credits and deductions.

Contradictions and Misstatements

Trump has also been known to disparage individuals who he perceives as benefiting from government programs. In a 2019 interview, he remarked, “People are taking advantage of the system. They’re living off the government.” This statement has been criticized for oversimplifying the complexities of social safety nets and the realities faced by many Americans. Experts argue that such rhetoric can foster a divisive narrative that overlooks the contributions of various socioeconomic groups.

Impacts of Misinformation

The spread of misinformation regarding wealth and taxation can significantly influence public opinion and policy. For example, Trump’s assertions about the wealthy and taxation have contributed to a polarized view of tax reform, with many Americans believing that the rich do not pay their fair share. This perception can lead to support for policies that may not accurately address the underlying issues of income inequality and tax fairness.

Conclusion: The Broader Implications

As Nicole Saphier joins the ranks of affluent individuals benefiting from agricultural tax breaks, the conversation surrounding wealth, taxation, and government benefits continues to evolve. Trump’s statements, often filled with inaccuracies and contradictions, serve to complicate this dialogue. Understanding the realities of tax policies and their implications is crucial for fostering informed public discourse. As the debate continues, it remains essential for citizens to critically evaluate the information presented to them and consider the broader implications of such policies on society.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/21/radiologist-by-trade-farmer-on-the-side-how-trumps-surgeon-general-pick-uses-a-tax-loophole-in-new-jersey-00930676

Police officer accuses Trump of 'putting a retainer on a mob' with $1.77B compensation fund

Administration News — 2026-05-21 08:12:00 — thehill.com

Former Capitol Officer Accuses Trump of Misusing Anti-Weaponization Fund

Former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn has raised serious allegations against former President Donald Trump, claiming that he is misappropriating the anti-weaponization fund to financially support January 6 rioters as they prepare for the upcoming presidential election. Dunn stated, “This payment is going to serve as a retainer. People have retainers for their lawyers. So when they need them, they’re available.”

Context of the Allegations

Dunn’s comments were made during a recent interview, where he expressed concern over the implications of Trump’s actions. The anti-weaponization fund was established to combat the misuse of federal resources against political opponents, but Dunn argues that it is being weaponized in a different way. He suggests that Trump is effectively putting the January 6 rioters on a “retainer,” ensuring they have legal support as they face charges related to the Capitol insurrection.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Statements

Trump has made numerous statements regarding the January 6 events, often downplaying the violence and claiming that the rioters were merely “patriots” exercising their rights. However, these claims have been widely debunked. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have categorized the actions of the rioters as an attack on democracy, resulting in numerous arrests and convictions.

In a recent rally, Trump claimed that the January 6 defendants were being treated unfairly, stating, “They’re being persecuted for standing up for their beliefs.” This assertion has been met with criticism, as many of the rioters have been charged with serious offenses, including assaulting law enforcement officers and conspiracy.

Expert Opinions on the Matter

Legal experts have weighed in on Dunn’s claims, emphasizing the potential legal ramifications of Trump’s alleged actions. “If Trump is indeed using funds in this manner, it could raise significant ethical and legal questions,” said a constitutional law scholar. “The misuse of federal funds for personal or political gain is a serious offense.”

Moreover, Dunn’s concerns reflect a broader issue regarding the normalization of misinformation in political discourse. The impact of such statements can influence public perception and behavior, as seen in the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection, where misinformation about the election results fueled the violence.

Conclusion

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the implications of Trump’s statements and actions continue to reverberate through the political landscape. Dunn’s allegations highlight the ongoing concerns about the integrity of political funding and the potential for misinformation to shape public opinion. With the legal challenges surrounding the January 6 rioters still unfolding, the intersection of politics and accountability remains a critical issue for voters and lawmakers alike.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5888849-jan-6-rioters-retainer-trump/

Some Republicans expected to oppose $1B request for Secret Service and ballroom

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-05-21 05:48:00 — www.npr.org

Republican Rift Over Funding Bill: Trump’s Ballroom and Secret Service Under Scrutiny

As Republicans navigate the complexities of a reconciliation bill aimed at funding the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a contentious proposal to allocate $1 billion for the Secret Service and former President Donald Trump’s ballroom has sparked significant debate within the party. Some GOP members are pushing back against this funding, raising questions about its necessity and implications.

Trump’s Controversial Statements

In a recent rally in North Carolina, Trump claimed, “We need to protect our great people, and that includes the Secret Service. They do an incredible job.” While it is true that the Secret Service plays a crucial role in safeguarding current and former presidents, the context of this funding request raises eyebrows. Critics argue that the proposed allocation for Trump’s ballroom—part of his Mar-a-Lago estate—could be seen as a misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Trump has also made sweeping claims about the safety and security of his properties, stating, “Nobody knows security better than me. I’ve built the best.” However, these assertions have been met with skepticism. Security experts, including former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, have pointed out that while Trump’s properties may require security, the justification for such a large sum for a private venue is questionable. “The Secret Service is there to protect the president, not to fund his businesses,” Bongino remarked.

Internal GOP Divisions

The proposal has divided Republicans, with some lawmakers expressing concern over the optics of funding a private business. Representative Chip Roy of Texas stated, “We should be focusing on border security and ICE, not funding a former president’s ballroom.” This sentiment reflects a growing unease within the party about prioritizing Trump’s interests over pressing national issues.

Moreover, the pushback against the funding proposal comes amid ongoing legal challenges faced by Trump, including investigations into his business practices. These controversies have led some Republicans to distance themselves from Trump, fearing that aligning too closely with him could jeopardize their political futures.

Impact of Misinformation

Misinformation surrounding Trump’s statements and the funding proposal has already begun to influence public opinion. A recent poll indicated that 60% of respondents disapprove of using taxpayer money for Trump’s properties, a sentiment echoed by many GOP voters who prioritize fiscal responsibility. This disconnect highlights the potential risks for Republicans as they navigate their relationship with Trump while trying to maintain their base’s trust.

In the past, Trump’s misleading claims have often swayed public perception. For instance, his repeated assertions about the “greatest economy” during his presidency have been contradicted by economic data showing significant job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such distortions have led to polarized views among voters, complicating the party’s messaging.

Conclusion: A Party at a Crossroads

As the reconciliation bill progresses, the debate over funding for the Secret Service and Trump’s ballroom underscores a broader struggle within the Republican Party. With internal divisions growing and public sentiment shifting, GOP leaders must carefully consider the implications of their decisions. The outcome of this funding proposal could not only affect the party’s immediate agenda but also shape its long-term relationship with Trump and his supporters. As Republicans grapple with these challenges, the need for transparency and accountability remains paramount, particularly when taxpayer dollars are at stake.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/05/21/nx-s1-5828812/some-republicans-expected-to-oppose-1b-request-for-secret-service-and-ballroom

An Arizona Sheriff’s Office Misused $163M Related to Racial Profiling Case — ProPublica

ProPublica — 2026-05-21 04:00:00 — www.propublica.org

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Faces Scrutiny Over Misallocated Funds

More than $7,000 in cable TV subscriptions. An $11,000 golf cart. $1.5 million in renovations to office space in a swanky Phoenix high-rise. And another $1.7 million for Tasers. These expenses are part of over $200 million billed to a class-action settlement aimed at addressing racial profiling within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).

A federal judge in 2013 found that the department, under then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio, had violated the constitutional rights of Latino drivers. The court mandated sweeping reforms, including the documentation of all traffic stops to identify patterns of racial bias, hiring additional investigators to probe deputy misconduct, and appointing a monitor to oversee the settlement.

Cost of Compliance Questioned

Since Sheriff Jerry Sheridan took office last year, he and Republican members of the county’s Board of Supervisors have cited the costs of complying with these orders to advocate for an end to the settlement known as Melendres v. Arpaio. This comes despite ongoing reviews indicating that traffic stops continue to show racial disparities affecting Latino residents. The situation has raised concerns among Latino leaders and community members, especially as the second Trump administration has increased local law enforcement’s involvement in mass deportation efforts.

Maricopa County, which houses over half of Arizona’s population, has approved $353 million in spending related to the settlement since 2013. However, an audit of the sheriff’s office spending, ordered by the court and reviewed by Arizona Luminaria and ProPublica, revealed that millions of dollars were allocated to expenses unrelated to the settlement. The audit focused on $226 million charged to the settlement over a decade and found that nearly 72% of the spending was misattributed or misappropriated. Only $63 million was deemed appropriately charged to the settlement.

Audit Findings Raise Concerns

The auditing team, led by experienced public finance professionals, stated that overstating the costs of reforms undermines the court’s credibility. “This mischaracterization misleads the public on the cost of reform efforts and calls into question MCSO’s credibility, transparency, and truthfulness of its reporting,” they noted.

Among the questionable expenses detailed in the audit were over $310,000 for travel and professional development, including $1,261 for travel in 2020 to research buying a boat and $4,070 to train and test whether to buy a horse for the mounted unit.

Oversight Lacking

The audit concluded that the county Board of Supervisors, responsible for approving the sheriff’s annual budgets, provided no “meaningful” oversight of its spending and lacked a process to verify if funds were being used appropriately. As costs ballooned, the Board rarely questioned the expenses, according to the review.

In response to the audit, the supervisors claimed that the reforms had exceeded the original racial profiling complaints. They stated, “Hispanic residents of Maricopa County concerned with racial profiling are unaffected by how the County and MCSO allocate costs.” This assertion raises further questions about accountability and transparency.

Legal Maneuvering and Future Oversight

Attorneys for the county have filed a motion to end court oversight, which is currently pending. Republican supervisors Thomas Galvin and Kate Brophy McGee argued that examining county finances to minimize the cost of compliance is an insult to taxpayers and beyond the federal court’s jurisdiction. They maintain that their budgeting practices comply with federal and state law.

Despite the sheriff’s office claiming over 90% compliance with the court orders, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow has yet to clear the department in two key areas: racial disparities in traffic stops and a backlog of uninvestigated misconduct claims against deputies.

Conclusion

The findings from the audit of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office raise significant concerns about financial mismanagement and the ongoing impact of racial profiling within the department. As the county seeks to end judicial oversight, the implications for accountability and reform remain critical. The situation underscores the importance of transparency in law enforcement spending, particularly when addressing issues of racial bias and community trust.

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/maricopa-county-sheriff-audit

Is Trump’s $1.7+ billion “anti-weaponization fund” legal? Experts weigh in.

Politics – CBSNews.com — 2026-05-21 05:00:00 — www.cbsnews.com

Justice Department’s New Fund Faces Scrutiny Amid Allegations of Self-Dealing

Washington — The Justice Department’s new $1.776 billion fund to provide payouts to individuals claiming the legal system was “weaponized” against them has sparked immediate scrutiny and raised questions about its legality, enforcement, and implementation. While the Justice Department asserts that there are no “partisan requirements” to seek compensation, past settlements and statements suggest that President Trump’s highest-profile supporters and allies may disproportionately benefit from this initiative.

Background of the Fund

The fund was established as part of a settlement agreement between Mr. Trump and the Internal Revenue Service to resolve a civil lawsuit he and his sons filed in January regarding the leak of his tax returns by an independent contractor. Dubbed the anti-weaponization fund, the program aims to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare.” The fund is set to receive nearly $1.8 billion from the Judgment Fund, which was created by Congress in 1956 to pay court judgments and settlements against the government.

Despite the significant allocation, neither the Justice Department nor the White House has clarified the criteria for eligibility or whether there will be a cap on payouts. The fund’s oversight will be managed by a five-member commission, with four members appointed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and one selected in consultation with congressional leadership.

Ethics Concerns and Legal Challenges

The fund has drawn swift condemnation from ethics groups and lawmakers. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington described Trump’s settlement as the “most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency,” arguing it likely violates the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause.

Legal challenges are already emerging. A pair of U.S. Capitol Police officers filed a lawsuit seeking to block the fund, claiming that potential payouts to individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack could increase their risk of “vigilante violence” and ongoing harassment. However, these officers face a significant hurdle in proving they have the legal standing to sue, as established by a 1923 Supreme Court decision that limits taxpayer standing in such cases.

Concerns Over Executive Power

Legal experts have expressed concerns about the implications of this fund. Paul Figley, a law professor at American University, noted that while the program may be legal, it raises serious questions about the appropriateness of the executive branch creating such initiatives without explicit congressional authorization. “It’s not part of our scheme to have the executive branch set up programs and fund them,” Figley stated.

Other federal settlement programs, such as the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, were created by Congress and include rigorous safeguards. Rupa Bhattacharyya, legal director for the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, criticized the lack of established criteria for the new fund, stating it “lends itself to abuse and corruption.”

Comparisons to Previous Settlements

The Justice Department has cited legal precedent for the fund, referencing a 2011 settlement for Native American farmers and ranchers. However, Joseph Sellers, who served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs in that case, emphasized the critical difference: judicial oversight. “The court was controlling the disbursement of these funds to ensure they’re being paid out in a manner consistent with the requirements of the law,” he explained.

Bipartisan Concerns in Congress

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have voiced concerns about the fund. Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressed skepticism, stating, “I don’t see a purpose,” while Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins called for more scrutiny, labeling the fund “highly irregular.” Congressional action may be necessary to impose controls on the fund, as Bhattacharyya noted that this represents an extraordinary intrusion into the powers of Congress.

Conclusion

The establishment of the Justice Department’s anti-weaponization fund has ignited a firestorm of controversy, with allegations of self-dealing and concerns over executive overreach dominating the discourse. As legal challenges mount and bipartisan scrutiny intensifies, the future of this fund remains uncertain. The implications of its implementation could set a precedent for how taxpayer dollars are allocated in politically charged contexts, raising critical questions about accountability and governance.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-anti-weaponization-fund-legal-questions/

At one Kentucky bar, young Republicans wrestle with their disappointment in Trump and their party

ABC News: Politics — 2026-05-21 04:40:00 — abcnews.com

Young Republicans in Covington, Ky., Express Frustration with Trump Administration

COVINGTON, Ky. — On a recent evening in northern Kentucky, over a dozen young Republicans gathered with beers and brightly colored cocktails at a bar called dEcORa, its neon interior as eccentric as its capitalization, ribbing each other and picking apart the presidential administration they welcomed with high hopes last year. By now, their enthusiasm for Donald Trump had curdled into frustration.

“I absolutely do not regret voting for Trump in 2024,” said Nathaniel Showalter, 34, who sat in front of a concrete pillar covered in spray paint. “I can’t wait for him to get out of office.”

What poured out that night under the bar’s low lights was a sense that the Republican establishment — which they initially applauded Trump for disrupting, but which some now see him sustaining — had forsaken them. That festering feeling has widened a generational gap between younger and older conservatives as the party slowly begins to consider a future without Trump in charge.

Disappointment Over Foreign Policy

The crew at the bar expressed discontent with Trump’s foreign policy, particularly his military actions in Iran. They view Trump’s war with Iran as a betrayal of his campaign promises. “Operation Epic Fury is not just ‘a complete betrayal of his promises,’” said Michael Gartman, 32. “It’s evidence that our voices have been drowned out by the political establishment.”

Logan Edge, a 30-year-old gun lobbyist, mimicked Trump discussing Miriam Adelson, a billionaire who Trump once claimed advised him on Israel. “Oh Miriam, she’s over there, she loves Israel, maybe more than America,” he said, before adding, “You can’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining.” This sentiment reflects a broader frustration among young Republicans who feel sidelined by the establishment.

Concerns About Military Engagement

Andrew Cooperrider, a 33-year-old conservative podcaster, expressed his reluctance to allow his son to enlist in the military. “Not with everything going on, my son is not getting into the military right now and go fight these wars for these psychopaths,” he said. This sentiment was echoed by Angel Figueroa, 27, who served in the military and knows people based in the Middle East. “It would devastate me to see one of my friends getting bombed one day and what, I have to see their box now?”

Generational Divide in the GOP

As the group discussed their frustrations, TJ Roberts, the 28-year-old state representative and group leader, noted, “There seems to be a concerted effort to keep the next generation out on the right.” He lamented, “We have to make sure that young Republicans have a voice in Washington, D.C.” This generational divide is evident as younger conservatives increasingly feel disconnected from the party’s older leadership.

Roberts also expressed concern that young people like those gathered at dEcORa were “going to live a shorter, less prosperous life than your parents.” His comments highlight a growing anxiety about the future among younger Republicans.

Trump’s Promises and Party Dynamics

While some in the group still support Trump, others voiced disappointment. “I think that he broke a lot of his promises,” said Elijah Drysdale, 27. “Any affiliation with this administration will be a stain on your reputation.” This sentiment reflects a broader concern that the party is not living up to its foundational principles.

Roberts argued that the party “under President Donald Trump is without doubt the best Republican Party I have seen in my entire lifetime,” but acknowledged that “the old order is dead.” This internal conflict underscores the challenges facing the GOP as it navigates a future that may not include Trump at the helm.

Conclusion: A Party at a Crossroads

The gathering at dEcORa in Covington, Ky., illustrates a pivotal moment for young Republicans. As they grapple with their frustrations over Trump’s leadership and the direction of the party, the generational divide becomes increasingly pronounced. With concerns over foreign policy, military engagement, and a perceived lack of representation, younger conservatives are calling for a change in leadership and a reevaluation of the party’s core values. The future of the GOP may hinge on how it addresses these concerns and whether it can unify its diverse factions moving forward.

Source: https://abcnews.com/Politics/wireStory/kentucky-bar-young-republicans-wrestle-disappointment-trump-party-133177044