WATCH: Trump says nuclear inspectors will be able to enter Iran at ‘appropriate time’

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-06-23 14:33:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Claims Iran Agreed to Nuclear Inspections, Downplays Urgency Amid GOP Criticism

President Donald Trump asserted Tuesday that Iran had agreed to United Nations inspections of its nuclear sites, but emphasized there was “no rush” for inspectors to be on the ground. Speaking to reporters in Pennsylvania, Trump said that if Iran had not agreed to inspections, he would have called off talks, stating, “I’d cancel the meetings right now.” When pressed on the timing of inspections, Trump responded, “There’s no rush. They’ll be on the ground at the appropriate time.”

Trump’s comments come as his interim deal with Iran faces criticism from Republicans in Congress, including Sen. Ted Cruz, who argue the agreement offers Iran significant benefits without immediate returns for the United States. Addressing these concerns, Trump dismissed the criticism, saying, “I think anybody that’s been critical has to be educated — even if they’re friends of mine.”

Fact-Checking Trump’s Statements

Trump’s insistence that Iran agreed to inspections, paired with his claim of “no rush,” raises questions about the immediacy and enforceability of the deal’s terms. Critics, including some within his own party, have highlighted that the agreement may grant Iran advantages while delaying substantive oversight.

Additionally, Trump’s suggestion that critics “have to be educated” serves as a disparagement of fellow Republicans who have voiced legitimate policy concerns. This pattern of dismissing dissenting views is consistent with Trump’s approach to criticism throughout his presidency.

Conclusion

President Trump’s statements regarding the Iran deal reflect a tendency to downplay the urgency of oversight while overstating the agreement’s immediate impact. His response to critics underscores his willingness to publicly belittle those who question his policies, even among his allies. As the debate over the Iran deal continues, Trump’s record of exaggerations and dismissive rhetoric remains a central issue in evaluating his approach to international negotiations and domestic dissent.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-nuclear-inspectors-will-be-able-to-enter-iran-at-appropriate-time

Protesters Accused of Antifa Ties Sentenced to Up to 100 Years in ICE Attack

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-06-23 13:54:00 — www.nytimes.com

Donald Trump’s Crackdown on Antifa: Expanding the Definition of Domestic Terrorism

Donald Trump has long prioritized bringing criminal charges against antifa activists and other left-wing demonstrators who have protested his immigration raids across the country. In September, he issued an executive order declaring antifa a “domestic terrorist organization”—despite the fact that such a designation does not actually exist under U.S. law.

Trump’s administration also issued National Security Presidential Memo 7, a sweeping directive that ordered a whole-of-government approach to targeting antifascist groups. This memo greatly expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to include a list of political beliefs traditionally protected by the First Amendment, such as “anticapitalism,” “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” and even “hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion and morality.”

These actions have led to a concerted crackdown on activists who have demonstrated against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including recent indictments of individuals said to be affiliated with antifa in Minnesota.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s executive order labeling antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization” is misleading. U.S. law does not provide a mechanism for designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations in the way it does for foreign entities. This claim has been widely fact-checked and found to be a distortion of legal reality.

Furthermore, the expanded definition of domestic terrorism in Trump’s directive includes political beliefs and forms of protest that are typically protected under the First Amendment. By targeting “anticapitalism” and “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” the administration blurred the line between violent acts and constitutionally protected speech.

Conclusion

Trump’s aggressive stance against antifa and left-wing demonstrators has resulted in unprecedented legal actions and harsh penalties for protesters, as seen in the recent sentencing of individuals involved in the Alvarado, Texas, ICE facility attack. However, his efforts to label antifa as a terrorist organization and to broaden the definition of domestic terrorism raise serious concerns about the protection of free speech and the potential for government overreach. These actions reflect a pattern of exaggeration and legal distortion in Trump’s approach to political dissent.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/23/us/politics/antifa-ice-protesters-sentencing.html

A ProPublica Reporter Cold-Called President Trump — ProPublica

ProPublica — 2026-06-23 04:00:00 — www.propublica.org

Trump Downplays Ties to Oil Donor, Signals Opposition to Methane Rules

In a revealing exchange, President Donald Trump minimized his relationship with major oil industry donor Jeff Hildebrand, stating, “I hear he does a good job. Don’t know him very well. OK?” when asked about the billionaire’s influence. Despite naming Hildebrand’s wife ambassador to Costa Rica and his administration’s ongoing efforts to weaken environmental regulations that could benefit Hildebrand, Trump professed little familiarity with the oil tycoon’s business.

When pressed about the impact of “Biden methane rules” on Hildebrand’s operations, Trump quickly responded, “Certainly we do the opposite of what Biden did.” This comment highlights the administration’s broader approach: prioritizing deregulation over technical policy details, often regardless of the specific individuals or companies involved.

The context of this exchange underscores how the administration’s deregulatory agenda is shaped more by ideological alignment and donor support than by detailed policy knowledge. Stripper wells, like those owned by Hildebrand, contribute just 6% of U.S. oil and gas but are responsible for about half of the sector’s methane pollution—a potent greenhouse gas. Nevertheless, the administration has moved to roll back regulations, a move that stands to benefit donors like Hildebrand.

In January, Trump invited Hildebrand and other energy executives to the White House to discuss investing in Venezuela’s oil industry, which is notorious for high methane emissions. When Hildebrand expressed readiness to help rebuild Venezuela’s infrastructure, Trump replied, “That’s good. You’ll be very happy.”

Trump’s comments and actions, as reported, reveal a pattern of downplaying personal connections while consistently siding with industry interests in regulatory matters. The administration’s stance on methane rules and its willingness to reward loyalty among donors raise important questions about the intersection of policy, personal relationships, and environmental impact.

Source article

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/propublica-called-trump-hildebrand

Tamara Keith and Amy Walter on new rifts between Trump and GOP leaders over Iran

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-06-22 17:30:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Pressures Senate Republicans Amid GOP Frustration Over Iran and Voting Restrictions

President Trump is facing mounting frustration from Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, as he insists they take action on his priorities—including the controversial SAVE America Act. According to reporting, Trump is demanding that Senate Republicans pass this measure, which would require voter ID, proof of citizenship, and significantly restrict mail-in voting—a method many Republicans themselves support.

Despite this pressure, it remains unclear whether GOP senators will comply with Trump’s demands or push back in any meaningful way. The excerpt notes that Trump has gone so far as to temporarily pull his own nominee for director of national intelligence or instruct him not to attend his confirmation hearing, further straining relationships within his party.

Trump’s focus on these issues comes at a time when his approval ratings are at a new low. A recent PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll found only 36 percent of Americans approve of his job performance, with just 33 percent approving of his handling of the economy. The president’s net unfavorable rating on inflation has increased by nearly 20 points since the war in Iran began, and 78 percent of Americans say gas prices are straining their household budgets.

Meanwhile, Trump’s insistence on prioritizing projects like the Reflecting Pool—drawing attention to it through Oval Office meetings, social media posts, and public displays—has raised questions among Senate Republicans about his focus on issues that matter most to voters, such as bipartisan housing legislation.

As Trump continues to exert pressure on his party, the lack of enthusiasm among the Republican base and the growing rift between the president and GOP lawmakers could have significant implications for upcoming elections. The president’s approach, marked by demands and public displays, underscores ongoing tensions within the party and raises doubts about his ability to unify Republicans around his agenda.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/tamara-keith-and-amy-walter-on-new-rifts-between-trump-and-gop-leaders-over-iran

Trump endorsements in 2026 look much different than 2018 : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-06-23 04:00:00 — www.npr.org

Trump’s Endorsement Strategy: Early Support, Repeated Rhetoric, and Mixed Results

A Truth Social post from President Trump offering his “Complete and Total Endorsement” has become one of the most influential forces in Republican primaries. Since 2017, Trump has issued more than 1,000 endorsements in House, Senate, and governor’s races, according to an NPR analysis. This analysis reveals a significant shift in Trump’s approach to endorsements, with earlier announcements and a growing focus on incumbents in safe seats.

Earlier and More Predictable Endorsements

Trump’s endorsement timing has changed dramatically. In the 2018 midterms, his average endorsement in a primary came about seven weeks before the election. In the current cycle, that average is closer to seven months, meaning Trump is now weighing in more than a year before the general election. Nearly 75% of his endorsements this cycle have gone to incumbents, compared to about two-thirds since 2017.

Repetitive Language and Uncontested Races

Many of Trump’s endorsements use nearly identical language, regardless of the candidate or race. For example, in a November 2025 post about Arkansas Rep. Rick Crawford, who ran unopposed in his primary, Trump wrote: “In Congress, Rick is working hard to Champion our Amazing Farmers and Ranchers, Grow our Economy, Cut Taxes and Regulations, Promote MADE IN THE U.S.A., Advance American Energy DOMINANCE, Keep our now very Secure Border, SECURE, Support our Military/Veterans, and Protect our always under siege Second Amendment. Rick Crawford has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election — HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!”

Similarly, in March, Trump endorsed Rep. Kevin Hern for Oklahoma’s U.S. Senate seat, promising Hern would “continue to fight tirelessly to Grow our Economy, Cut Taxes and Regulations, Champion our Amazing Farmers and Ranchers, Promote MADE IN THE U.S.A., Ensure American Energy DOMINANCE, Keep our Border SECURE, Strengthen our Military/Veterans, Safeguard our Elections, and Protect our always under siege Second Amendment.”

Mixed Track Record and Shifting Allegiances

Trump often quickly endorses nominees even in races where he did not participate in the primary. After Derek Merrin won the primary to challenge Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Trump declared Merrin “will fight hard to Grow our Economy, Cut Taxes and Regulations, Promote MADE IN THE U.S.A., Keep our Border SECURE, Stop Migrant Crime, Strengthen our Brave Military/Veterans, Ensure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, and Defend our always under siege Second Amendment. Derek Merrin has my Complete and Total Endorsement to be the next Representative from Ohio’s 9th Congressional District – HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!”

However, Trump’s loyalty is not guaranteed. If previously endorsed Republicans disappoint him, he has endorsed challengers to unseat them. This year, his preferred candidates ousted Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.

Despite his influence, Trump’s endorsements do not always guarantee victory. In recent weeks, his picks lost in Iowa and Georgia, and his choices in South Carolina and Oklahoma face difficult runoff elections. Notably, after endorsing South Carolina Lt. Gov. Pam Evette, Trump also endorsed her opponent, Attorney General Alan Wilson, just days before the election.

Conclusion

Trump’s endorsement strategy has evolved to favor early, formulaic support for safe incumbents, but his record is mixed when it comes to competitive races. While his “Complete and Total Endorsement” remains a powerful tool in Republican politics, it is not always decisive—and often follows a predictable script, regardless of the candidate or context.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/23/nx-s1-5863542/trump-endorsements-primary-runoff-general

Rep. Norma Torres Proposes Ban on Special Treatment for Convicted Drug Traffickers — ProPublica

ProPublica — 2026-06-11 04:00:00 — www.propublica.org

Donald Trump’s Pardon of Honduran Ex-President Sparks Outcry Over “Red Carpet” Treatment

President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández in December has triggered a wave of criticism and legislative action, following reports that Hernández received what lawmakers and prison staff described as “red carpet” treatment upon his release from federal prison.

Hernández, convicted in early 2024 for taking bribes and enabling drug traffickers to export over 400 tons of cocaine to the United States, was serving a 45-year sentence before Trump granted him a full pardon. On the day of his release, Hernández had an active immigration detainer—a formal request for law enforcement to hold noncitizens for pickup by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Instead of holding him, the Federal Bureau of Prisons reportedly scrambled to remove the detainer, allowing Hernández to walk free. Prison officials then paid a four-man tactical team overtime to drive him six hours from a high-security facility in West Virginia to the luxury Waldorf Astoria hotel in Manhattan.

This extraordinary treatment, revealed by ProPublica, prompted Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) to introduce an amendment barring the Bureau of Prisons and other agencies from using taxpayer dollars to provide special accommodations or transportation to convicted drug traffickers and child traffickers, even those who have been pardoned or had their sentences commuted. The amendment was voted down along party lines in the House Appropriations Committee, with all Republicans opposing it.

The timing of Trump’s pardon also raised eyebrows. He announced his intent to pardon Hernández just two days before the Honduran presidential election, a move experts said signaled support for Hernández’s right-wing National Party and potentially encouraged manipulation of the vote. After the pardon, Hernández’s lawyer filed a motion to vacate his conviction, which was granted when prosecutors did not oppose it.

Prison staff expressed outrage at the special treatment, with one retired worker saying they were “disgusted” by the agency’s actions. Torres and other lawmakers have vowed to continue pushing for reforms to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Trump’s decision and the subsequent handling of Hernández’s release have reignited debates over the use of presidential pardons and the potential for abuse of power, especially when it comes to high-profile figures convicted of serious crimes. The controversy underscores ongoing concerns about fairness, accountability, and the use of taxpayer resources in the criminal justice system.

Source article

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-bureau-prisons-pardons-juan-orlando-hernandez-norma-torres

At least 39 people injured, 4 dead, in Chicago weekend shootings. Governor Pritzker, I, as President, can fix this, FAST and Permanently. D.C., Memphis, New Orleans, all down to record lows, and quickly! CALL ME! President DJT

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-06-22 23:14:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Claims He Can “Fix” Chicago Violence “Fast and Permanently”—Fact-Check and Analysis

Donald Trump responded to news of at least 39 people injured and 4 dead in Chicago weekend shootings by directly addressing Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. Trump stated, “Governor Pritzker, I, as President, can fix this, FAST and Permanently. D.C., Memphis, New Orleans, all down to record lows, and quickly! CALL ME! President DJT.”

Trump’s Claim: Quick and Permanent Fix

Trump’s assertion that he could rapidly and permanently solve gun violence in Chicago, as well as bring crime in cities like Washington, D.C., Memphis, and New Orleans “down to record lows, and quickly,” is a sweeping promise. He presents himself as uniquely capable of addressing urban violence, urging the governor to contact him for a solution.

Fact-Checking the Record

The claim that Trump could single-handedly and permanently fix Chicago’s gun violence crisis is not supported by evidence from his time in office or by crime data from the cities he referenced:

• Chicago: During Trump’s presidency, Chicago continued to experience significant gun violence. There was no evidence of a dramatic, permanent reduction in shootings or homicides during his administration.
• Other Cities: Trump’s statement that D.C., Memphis, and New Orleans are “all down to record lows, and quickly” is not accurate. Crime statistics from these cities do not show record-low violent crime rates as a result of federal intervention during his presidency. In fact, many major U.S. cities saw increases in violent crime during and after 2020.
• Federal Authority: While the federal government can assist with law enforcement resources, local policing and gun violence prevention are primarily under state and city jurisdiction. No president has demonstrated the ability to “fix” urban gun violence “fast and permanently.”

Exaggeration and Political Messaging

Trump’s message to Governor Pritzker is characteristic of his pattern of exaggerating his abilities and achievements. By claiming he can deliver a “fast and permanent” solution, he oversimplifies a complex, longstanding problem that has challenged leaders from both parties for decades.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s latest statement about Chicago’s gun violence crisis and his ability to solve it “fast and permanently” is not supported by his record or by available crime data. His claim that other cities are already at “record lows” due to his actions is also inaccurate. The facts show that addressing urban violence requires sustained, multi-faceted efforts, not quick fixes or political slogans.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/39464

Plagued by algae and peeling paint, Reflecting Pool set to undergo more repairs

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-06-22 17:40:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Blames Vandals for Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool Issues Without Evidence

As the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool prepares for another round of repairs just days before America’s 250th anniversary, Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed—without providing evidence—that vandals are responsible for the algae blooms and peeling paint that have plagued the site since its renovation.

Trump’s Unsubstantiated Claims

According to Trump, the ongoing problems at the iconic reflecting pool are the result of deliberate acts of vandalism. However, these assertions have not been supported by any evidence. The excerpt notes that Trump has “repeatedly claimed without evidence that vandals caused the algae blooms and peeling paint.” No official reports or investigations have substantiated Trump’s allegations, and the issues with the pool have persisted since its renovation, suggesting maintenance or environmental factors may be at play.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Statements

Trump’s repeated statements blaming vandals stand in contrast to the facts available. The excerpt specifically highlights that his claims lack supporting evidence. This pattern of making unsupported accusations is consistent with Trump’s record of public statements that have often been contradicted by available facts or lack corroboration.

Conclusion

As repairs begin again at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, Trump’s unsubstantiated claims about vandalism serve as a reminder of his tendency to offer explanations that are not backed by evidence. With no proof provided to support his assertions, the real causes of the pool’s ongoing issues remain tied to factors other than vandalism, according to all available information. Readers should be aware of the distinction between Trump’s claims and the documented facts as the nation prepares to mark a historic anniversary.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/plagued-by-algae-and-peeling-paint-reflecting-pool-set-to-undergo-more-repairs

It’s unclear who will pay for Iran’s $300B reconstruction fund. Here’s why

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-06-22 16:00:00 — www.politifact.com

Trump Denies $300 Billion U.S. Payment to Iran Amid Scrutiny Over War-Ending Deal

President Donald Trump has forcefully rejected claims that his administration is sending $300 billion to Iran as part of a newly announced agreement to end the war. “There is no 300 Billion Dollar payment to Iran by the U.S.,” Trump stated in a June 18 Truth Social post. “That’s Fake News! All there is for the U.S. is Success, Lower Oil Prices, and Victory.”

The controversy erupted after Democrats, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., seized on language in a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran. The memo, shared with news organizations by an anonymous source, states that the United States “undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least U.S.D. 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Despite the memo’s wording, the Trump administration has acknowledged the existence of a fund but insists that no U.S. taxpayer money will be used. When pressed about the source of the $300 billion, Vice President JD Vance said the money would come from private investments and foreign partners, not the U.S. government. He cited the United Arab Emirates as an example of a country interested in investing, provided that sanctions are lifted and Iran changes its behavior.

Further complicating the issue, Reuters reported that half of the fund had already been committed as a “private investment vehicle” with no government money or grants involved. Companies from the U.S., Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America, and Africa have reportedly agreed to invest in various sectors in Iran, but no public information is available on the specific entities involved.

Additionally, the memorandum includes a provision for the U.S. to “make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” However, according to reporting, these funds are separate from the proposed $300 billion investment fund.

While Trump has dismissed the $300 billion payment claim as “Fake News,” the lack of transparency around the deal’s details and funding sources has made it difficult to fully assess the accuracy of his statement. The administration maintains that the U.S. will not directly pay Iran, but the agreement does pave the way for significant international investment and the release of frozen Iranian assets.

In summary, Trump’s categorical denial of a $300 billion U.S. payment to Iran is not fully supported or disproven by the available evidence. The deal involves complex financial arrangements, primarily driven by private and foreign investment, and the administration’s statements leave key questions unanswered about the ultimate flow of funds.

Source article

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jun/22/trump-iran-300-billion-fund/

Judge finds a Trump data system to verify voters is unlawful : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-06-22 17:25:00 — www.npr.org

President Trump signed an executive order on March 31 directing the Department of Homeland Security to use the SAVE system and other federal data to generate lists of eligible U.S. citizen voters in each state, making SAVE checks central to his voting and elections agenda. This move came despite longstanding federal laws that already prohibit noncitizens from voting and research showing that such incidents are extremely rare.

A federal judge has now ruled that the Trump administration’s overhaul of the SAVE system—which aggregated Americans’ personal data to check voter eligibility—was unlawful and cannot be used in its current form. The judge found that federal agencies had “haphazardly combined and repurposed the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable,” violating the Privacy, Social Security, and Administrative Procedure Acts.

Under Trump’s directive, more than 60 million voter records were run through the revamped SAVE system, but less than 1% were flagged as potential noncitizens. However, the system mistakenly flagged numerous American citizens who are foreign-born, putting their voting rights at risk. In one case, a naturalized citizen was removed from Texas voter rolls after being flagged and only reinstated after proving his citizenship.

Despite legal challenges and widespread public opposition, the Trump administration pressed forward with the SAVE overhaul, with the Department of Justice stating it would “continue to aggressively defend President Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda and DHS’s use of the SAVE system to verify citizenship.”

This case highlights the Trump administration’s focus on combating noncitizen voting—a problem that evidence shows is exceedingly rare—while raising significant concerns about privacy rights and the risk of disenfranchising eligible voters. The court’s decision underscores the need for careful oversight and statutory authority before implementing sweeping changes that affect millions of Americans’ fundamental right to vote.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/22/nx-s1-5866719/save-voter-data-trump-judge-unlawful