5/23: Saturday Morning – CBS News

Politics – CBSNews.com — 2026-05-23 08:00:00 — www.cbsnews.com

Trump’s Recent Statements: A Closer Look at Misinformation

In a recent appearance, Donald Trump made several statements that have drawn scrutiny for their inaccuracies and misleading claims. As the nation gears up for record-setting travel over Memorial Day weekend, despite high gas prices, Trump’s remarks have sparked discussions about the impact of misinformation on public perception and behavior.

Misleading Claims About Gas Prices

During a rally in North Carolina, Trump claimed, “Gas prices are the highest they’ve ever been, and it’s all because of the Democrats.” This statement overlooks the fact that gas prices have fluctuated significantly over the years due to various factors, including global oil prices, supply chain issues, and geopolitical tensions. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, while gas prices have risen recently, they are not at an all-time high when adjusted for inflation.

Attacks on Political Opponents

Trump also took aim at President Biden, stating, “He’s ruining this country faster than anyone ever thought possible.” This broad assertion lacks specific evidence and fails to acknowledge the complexities of the current economic landscape, including the ongoing recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts have pointed out that many economic challenges are rooted in global issues rather than solely domestic policy failures.

Contradictory Statements on Travel

In another part of his speech, Trump remarked, “People are afraid to travel because of the economy.” This contradicts recent reports indicating that travel bookings are at an all-time high for the Memorial Day weekend, with AAA projecting a significant increase in travelers compared to previous years. The surge in travel suggests that many Americans are willing to spend despite economic concerns, highlighting a disconnect between Trump’s narrative and the reality on the ground.

Legal Issues and Controversies

Trump’s statements come amid ongoing legal challenges, including investigations into his business practices and the January 6 Capitol riot. These issues have raised questions about his credibility and the reliability of his claims. Legal experts have noted that the outcomes of these investigations could have significant implications for Trump’s political future and his ability to influence public opinion.

The Impact of Misinformation

As misinformation continues to permeate political discourse, its effects on public opinion and behavior cannot be understated. Studies have shown that false claims can lead to increased polarization and mistrust among the electorate. For instance, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that a significant portion of Americans believe misinformation has influenced their views on key issues, including the economy and public health.

Conclusion: The Need for Accurate Information

As the nation prepares for a busy travel weekend, it is crucial for the public to critically evaluate the statements made by political figures like Trump. With misinformation potentially shaping perceptions and behaviors, ensuring access to accurate information is more important than ever. As we navigate these complex issues, a commitment to truth and transparency will be essential in fostering informed public discourse.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/052326-saturday-morning/

Trump’s justice department scrubs its website of news releases about January 6 defendants | US Capitol attack

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-23 09:23:00 — www.theguardian.com

Justice Department Purges January 6th Case Releases, Trump Administration Calls It “Partisan Propaganda”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently acknowledged the removal of news releases from its website concerning criminal cases related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, labeling the information as “partisan propaganda.” This move marks a significant step by the Trump administration to reshape the narrative surrounding the violent insurrection, during which hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.

Trump’s First Day Back: A Pardon for the Rioters

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump, upon returning to office, issued pardons and commutations for over 1,500 individuals charged in connection with the Capitol assault. This included those convicted of violent acts against law enforcement officers using makeshift weapons such as flagpoles, hockey sticks, and crutches. Trump’s actions have drawn sharp criticism from various quarters, as they appear to undermine the severity of the events of January 6.

Creation of a Controversial Compensation Fund

In a further development, the DOJ announced the establishment of a $1.776 billion fund intended to compensate Trump allies who claim they were unjustly investigated or prosecuted. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not ruled out the possibility that individuals convicted of violent acts during the Capitol riot could be eligible for payouts. This proposal has sparked bipartisan outrage in Congress, with many lawmakers expressing concern over the implications of compensating those involved in the attack.

Response to Media Scrutiny

The DOJ’s decision to remove news releases came under scrutiny after a journalist noted the “quiet” deletions on the social media platform X. In response, the DOJ’s “rapid response” account asserted, “We are proud to reverse the [justice department’s] weaponization under the Biden administration. We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes. This includes stripping [the justice department’s] website of partisan propaganda.”

This statement reflects a broader narrative promoted by Trump and his allies, suggesting that investigations into the Capitol attack were politically motivated. However, many experts argue that the DOJ’s actions are an attempt to rewrite history and diminish the accountability of those involved in the insurrection.

Legal Repercussions for Extremist Groups

Among the releases removed were those detailing seditious conspiracy cases against members of far-right extremist groups, including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Last month, the DOJ filed an unopposed motion to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of these groups, a request that was granted by a federal appeals court. Following this, the DOJ moved to dismiss the cases against these individuals entirely, raising further concerns about the administration’s commitment to upholding the rule of law.

Implications of Misinformation

The ongoing narrative surrounding the January 6 attack and the DOJ’s actions have significant implications for public perception and trust in the justice system. Misinformation has been shown to influence public opinion, with many supporters of Trump believing that the Capitol rioters were unjustly treated. This belief is fueled by statements from Trump, who has repeatedly claimed that the investigations were politically motivated and that the individuals involved were merely “patriots” exercising their rights.

For instance, Trump has disparaged the legal consequences faced by the rioters, stating, “They are being treated so unfairly. It’s a disgrace.” Such statements contribute to a narrative that undermines the severity of the events of January 6 and the accountability of those who participated.

Conclusion: A Distorted Narrative

The DOJ’s recent actions, including the removal of news releases and the establishment of a compensation fund for Trump allies, represent a significant shift in the narrative surrounding the January 6 Capitol attack. As the Trump administration seeks to portray the events as politically motivated persecution, the implications for justice and accountability remain profound. The ongoing discourse surrounding these issues highlights the critical need for accurate information and a commitment to upholding the rule of law, ensuring that the events of January 6 are not forgotten or distorted in the annals of American history.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/23/trump-justice-department-scrubs-website-january-6-defendants

G.O.P. Break With Trump Reflects Limits of Party’s Post-Jan. 6 Truce

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-05-22 15:29:00 — www.nytimes.com

Republicans Express Outrage Over Trump’s Personal Agenda Amid January 6 Payments

In a striking divergence from the party line, several Republican leaders have voiced their outrage over former President Donald Trump’s recent statements regarding financial support for individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. This backlash highlights a growing rift between Trump’s personal agenda and the political interests of the Republican Party, as members grapple with the implications of supporting those who threatened their lives.

Trump’s Controversial Statements

During a rally in Texas on October 7, Trump made headlines when he suggested that the individuals who stormed the Capitol were “patriots” and deserved financial assistance. “They were just trying to protect our country,” he claimed, framing the insurrectionists as victims rather than perpetrators. This characterization has drawn sharp criticism from within his own party, particularly as many Republicans are still processing the violent events of that day.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime Trump ally, expressed his discontent, stating, “I don’t think we should be paying people who attacked our democracy.” Graham’s remarks reflect a broader sentiment among Republicans who are increasingly uncomfortable with Trump’s narrative surrounding January 6.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s assertion that the January 6 participants were merely “patriots” stands in stark contrast to the findings of multiple investigations and court rulings. The bipartisan House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack concluded that the insurrection was a coordinated effort to overturn the 2020 election results, with many participants facing serious criminal charges. According to the Department of Justice, over 1,000 individuals have been arrested in connection with the events of that day, underscoring the severity of their actions.

Moreover, Trump’s claim that these individuals deserve financial support has been met with skepticism. Republican Representative Liz Cheney, who has been vocal about the dangers of Trump’s rhetoric, stated, “It is unacceptable to suggest that those who engaged in violence against our Capitol should be treated as heroes.”

Impact on Republican Unity

The fallout from Trump’s statements is likely to have significant implications for the Republican Party. As members grapple with their allegiance to Trump versus their commitment to democratic principles, the potential for division grows. This internal conflict could influence upcoming elections, as candidates may find themselves torn between appealing to Trump’s base and maintaining broader party support.

Political analyst Charlie Sykes noted, “The more Trump continues to prioritize his personal grievances over the party’s interests, the more he risks alienating mainstream Republicans.” This sentiment is echoed by many within the party who fear that Trump’s narrative could further polarize voters and undermine their chances in future elections.

Conclusion: A Party at a Crossroads

As Republicans confront the implications of Trump’s statements regarding the January 6 insurrectionists, the party finds itself at a critical juncture. The outrage expressed by party leaders signals a growing recognition that Trump’s personal agenda may not align with the broader political interests of the Republican Party. With the potential for increased division and public backlash, the coming months will be crucial in determining how the party navigates this complex landscape.

In the wake of these controversies, it remains clear that the Republican Party must reconcile its identity with the realities of Trump’s influence, or risk further fracturing in an already tumultuous political climate.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/22/us/politics/republicans-congress-senate-trump.html

100 ships redirected amid naval blockade of Iran ports, Strait of Hormuz: Centcom

Administration News — 2026-05-23 09:43:00 — thehill.com

Trump’s Claims on Naval Blockade Face Scrutiny Amid Rising Tensions

In a recent statement, U.S. Central Command (Centcom) announced that it has redirected over 100 commercial vessels as part of an ongoing naval blockade of Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz, describing the action as a “milestone” amid escalating tensions in the region. This blockade, initiated in April at President Trump’s direction, has seen the deployment of more than 15,000 U.S. troops to the area.

Contradictory Statements and Misinformation

Despite the military’s assertions, President Trump has made several statements regarding the blockade that have raised eyebrows for their inaccuracies. In a recent rally, Trump claimed, “We’ve never had a blockade like this before; it’s the most effective in history.” However, military experts have pointed out that the U.S. has implemented various blockades in the past, including during the Cuban Missile Crisis and against Iraq in the early 1990s. This assertion not only misrepresents historical facts but also serves to exaggerate the current situation.

Moreover, Trump has repeatedly downplayed the risks associated with the blockade, stating, “Iran is not a threat anymore; they’re scared of us.” This claim contradicts assessments from intelligence officials, who have warned that Iran remains a significant regional threat, particularly in light of its ongoing military activities and support for proxy groups across the Middle East.

Expert Opinions on the Situation

Experts have voiced concerns about the implications of Trump’s statements. “Misinformation can lead to miscalculations in military strategy,” said retired Admiral James Stavridis, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. “When leaders make exaggerated claims, it can create a false sense of security or urgency that may not align with the actual threat landscape.”

Furthermore, the blockade’s impact on global oil markets has been significant. Analysts have noted that disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for oil shipments, could lead to increased prices and economic instability. “The rhetoric surrounding this blockade could have real-world consequences,” stated energy analyst Sarah Emerson. “If the situation escalates, we could see a spike in oil prices that affects consumers worldwide.”

Legal and Political Controversies

Trump’s statements come amid ongoing legal challenges, including investigations into his handling of classified documents and potential election-related misconduct. Critics argue that these controversies may be influencing his rhetoric on foreign policy as he seeks to rally support among his base. “When under pressure, politicians often resort to strongman tactics and assertive foreign policy claims to distract from domestic issues,” noted political analyst David Gergen.

Conclusion: The Importance of Accurate Information

As the U.S. military continues its blockade of Iranian ports, the accuracy of statements made by leaders like Trump is crucial. Misinformation not only distorts public perception but can also lead to dangerous miscalculations in foreign policy. With tensions in the region at a high, it is imperative for both the public and policymakers to rely on verified information to navigate these complex issues effectively. The stakes are high, and the need for clarity has never been more critical.

Source: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5892609-central-command-milestone-100-ships-redirected-strait-of-hormuz/

GOP senators press Blanche on “anti-weaponization fund” in tense meeting

Politics – CBSNews.com — 2026-05-21 22:31:00 — www.cbsnews.com

Republican Senators Voice Concerns Over DOJ’s "Anti-Weaponization Fund"

Some Republican senators openly expressed their concerns about the Justice Department’s new "anti-weaponization fund" in a tense meeting Thursday with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. "You could call it a curveball right at the end, and nobody could hit it," Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville told reporters after the meeting, referring to the compensation fund. Sources inside the meeting say Blanche did not provide adequate answers or clarity about the $1.776 billion Justice Department fund announced earlier this week, which will provide taxpayer-funded payouts to people who allege the legal system has been "weaponized" against them.

Background on the Fund

The fund is part of an agreement between President Trump and the federal government to settle his lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department over the leak of his tax returns. Major questions remain about how the fund will operate and who might receive payments from it. The Justice Department has stated that the fund will be administered by a commission of five people appointed by the attorney general, with one member chosen "in consultation with congressional leadership." There will not be any partisan requirements to file claims, and some Trump allies and pardoned Jan. 6 defendants have indicated they may apply.

Critics have blasted the settlement agreement, with congressional Democrats labeling it a "slush fund," a characterization the Justice Department has pushed back against. One GOP source who attended the meeting indicated that the Trump administration dropped the news of the fund on lawmakers at the last minute, and with poor messaging. The source noted that the administration does not seem to grasp how negatively the public views it.

Legislative Implications

A senior Republican aide mentioned that a bill to fund Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which the Senate was supposed to vote on Friday, "would have been passed, if not for the actions of the administration." Members were reportedly ready to vote until the DOJ’s announcement of the anti-weaponization fund.

Now, Congress is going into recess until next month without passing the measure, which Trump had said he wanted to see on his desk by June 1. If voting had proceeded, it may have opened the floodgates for a number of uncomfortable amendments and votes related to the fund, including on who would be eligible to receive payouts.

"I’m not going to get into the specific amendments," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said regarding Democrats’ strategy to force votes on the reconciliation bill. "We felt that this corruption was so vile that we were going to do everything we can in reconciliation to try to get it undone."

Ongoing Concerns from Republican Senators

After the meeting with Blanche, Republican senators expressed frustration, noting that the department "didn’t need to settle the case when they did and didn’t need to announce this fund." Blanche was sent to the Hill to address the problems his department caused but reportedly did not resolve the issues.

In a statement Thursday, a Justice Department spokesperson said the meeting included "a healthy discussion on the settlement." Blanche reportedly clarified that the Anti-Weaponization Fund has nothing to do with reconciliation, asserting that "not a single dime from the money the President is seeking in reconciliation would go toward anything having to do with the Fund."

Tuberville told CBS News that Blanche indicated during the meeting that people who assaulted law enforcement would not be compensated under the fund. However, Blanche did not rule out allowing payouts for Jan. 6 rioters convicted of attacking police when he testified before a Senate appropriations subcommittee earlier this week.

"We’re not going to reward people that attack policemen and people of authority," Tuberville stated. GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine also expressed a desire for more clarity from the Justice Department regarding the fund’s language.

Criticism from Within the GOP

Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who has become increasingly vocal in his criticism of the compensation fund, appeared unswayed by the meeting with Blanche. "The kind of gut reaction is that’s not right, and if it’s not right, we shouldn’t be doing it," Cassidy told reporters.

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, who did not attend the meeting due to a hearing, also criticized the DOJ fund, stating, "So, the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong – Take your pick."

Political Dynamics

The controversy surrounding the fund has intensified following Trump’s intervention in some Senate Republicans’ primary campaigns. Cassidy lost his primary last weekend after Trump endorsed his opponent, while Sen. John Cornyn is fighting to save his seat from a challenge mounted by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was also endorsed by Trump.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota suggested that the dynamic between the White House and Republican senators has been strained by Trump’s efforts to drive out Cassidy and Cornyn. "I think it’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us," Thune remarked.

Thune also noted that he was not consulted on the fund before its announcement. "It would be nice if they had consulted, and I think they probably would have gotten plenty of advice from lots of folks about it," he said. "But it’s water under the bridge now, and you know, you play the hand you’re dealt, and we’ll sort it out from here. But you know, obviously, it became a more complicated and bumpy path than we had hoped for."

Conclusion

The introduction of the anti-weaponization fund has sparked significant controversy and division within the Republican Party, raising questions about its implications for both legislative priorities and the broader political landscape. As Congress heads into recess, the uncertainty surrounding the fund and its potential beneficiaries remains a contentious issue, reflecting the ongoing challenges within the GOP as it navigates the complexities of Trump’s influence and the party’s future direction.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-senators-press-doj-todd-blanche-about-anti-weaponization-fund-in-tense-meeting/

Crow: Massie loss shows that 'there's no room for ideological diversity' in Trump's GOP

Administration News — 2026-05-21 16:05:00 — thehill.com

Rep. Jason Crow Highlights GOP’s Lack of Ideological Diversity Following Massie’s Primary Loss

In a pointed critique of the Republican Party’s current state, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) stated that the recent primary loss of Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) underscores a troubling trend within the GOP under President Trump. Speaking to The Hill on the Capitol steps, Crow asserted, “There’s no room for ideological diversity or independence in the Republican Party right now. That’s been very clear.”

Context of the Statement

Crow’s comments come in the wake of Massie’s defeat in a primary election, which many observers interpreted as indicative of the GOP’s shift towards a more rigid ideological stance. Massie, known for his libertarian leanings and willingness to break from party lines, faced backlash from Trump-aligned factions within the party. This situation has raised concerns about the diminishing space for dissenting voices in a party increasingly unified under Trump’s influence.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Influence on the GOP

Crow’s assertion about the lack of ideological diversity aligns with observations made by political analysts who have noted Trump’s tendency to endorse candidates who align closely with his views, often at the expense of traditional Republican values. For instance, Trump’s endorsement of candidates like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) has been seen as a move to consolidate power within a specific ideological framework, sidelining more moderate voices.

Moreover, Trump’s history of disparaging fellow Republicans who do not align with his views is well-documented. He has publicly attacked figures such as former Ohio Governor John Kasich and Senator Mitt Romney, labeling them as “losers” and “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only). Such rhetoric contributes to a culture of fear among GOP members, discouraging them from expressing independent or divergent opinions.

The Impact of Misinformation

The implications of this ideological narrowing are significant. Experts have pointed out that misinformation and divisive rhetoric can lead to a more polarized electorate. For example, Trump’s repeated false claims about the 2020 election being “stolen” have not only influenced public opinion but have also led to legislative efforts in various states to restrict voting access, further entrenching partisan divides.

Political scientist Dr. Sarah Binder has noted that “the consolidation of power within the GOP around Trump’s narrative has made it increasingly difficult for moderate Republicans to find a foothold.” This trend could have lasting effects on the party’s future, particularly as it approaches the 2024 elections.

Conclusion

Rep. Jason Crow’s remarks highlight a critical moment for the Republican Party, as the loss of Thomas Massie serves as a stark reminder of the diminishing space for ideological diversity. As the GOP continues to align closely with Trump’s vision, the implications for American politics could be profound, potentially leading to increased polarization and a lack of representation for moderate voices. The question remains: what will this mean for the future of the Republican Party and its ability to appeal to a broader electorate?

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5890177-massie-loses-trump-backed-primary/

Trump’s old taxes can’t be audited as part of IRS deal. That’s unprecedented — and hard to reverse

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-05-21 16:43:00 — www.politifact.com

Trump Settlement Halts Tax Audits Amid Controversy

An already controversial settlement of President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over leaked tax files would permanently halt existing tax audits of Trump and several associates. The Justice Department announced the move on May 19, a day after releasing details of a $1.776 billion fund to pay for claims of federal government “weaponization.” Critics have labeled this fund a “slush fund” for Trump supporters, including those convicted of crimes during the January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Details of the Settlement

The fund was designed to resolve a $10 billion lawsuit by Trump and his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump, against the IRS, citing a leak of Trump-related tax materials. The settlement document, signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, states that the IRS will be “forever barred and precluded” from auditing the returns of Trump and related individuals, trusts, and businesses, as long as the returns were filed before May 18, 2026.

This sweeping closure of existing audits is unprecedented, and experts suggest it would not be easily challenged in court, by Congress, or by future administrations. Danny Werfel, who served as IRS commissioner from 2023 to 2025, remarked to Politico, “I am unaware of a single precedent where the IRS has agreed in advance to permanently forgo examination of previously filed tax returns for a specific person or business.”

Potential Financial Implications

The New York Times estimated that halting long-running audits of Trump’s finances could save him approximately $100 million. The audits were reportedly prompted by a $72.9 million tax refund Trump received starting around 2010. The settlement document also precludes “prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, including … monetary relief, damages, examinations or similar or related reviews, appeals, debt relief, costs, attorney’s fees, expenses and/or interest, whether presently known or unknown.”

Challenges to the Settlement

One significant obstacle to ending the legal protections for Trump and his associates would be finding someone with legal standing to challenge it. Experts indicate that locating someone harmed by relieving Trump and others of potential tax penalties is unlikely, as simply being a taxpayer does not constitute sufficient standing. Congress could attempt to block or amend certain provisions of the policy, but critics have not demonstrated the two-thirds majority required in both chambers to override an expected Trump veto.

The most feasible option for challenging the policy would be for a future administration to reverse it. Tax Law Center policy director Brandon DeBot stated, “The IRS could seek to void agreements with a showing of fraud, malfeasance, or misrepresentation of a material fact.” However, such efforts would face significant obstacles, including the Trumps’ ability to mount a legal defense.

Expert Opinions

New York University law professor Daniel Shaviro advised that if the next administration wanted to reverse the policy, they should “ignore it and go ahead with whatever proceedings against the plaintiffs they consider appropriate.” He added that while the Trumps would raise this as a defense, it does not guarantee that it would be upheld in court.

Former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen highlighted practical challenges, stating, “By the time a new IRS commissioner shows up, the (money from the contested tax returns) will be gone, and tracking it down will be difficult.”

Conclusion

The settlement of Trump’s lawsuit over leaked tax files raises significant questions about accountability and the implications of government actions perceived as favoring certain individuals. As the legal landscape evolves, the potential for future challenges remains, but the unprecedented nature of this settlement complicates the path forward. The implications of this settlement could reverberate through the political and legal systems, influencing public perception and trust in governmental processes.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/may/21/trump-taxes-irs-audits-weaponization/

Who’s Paying for the White House Ballroom?

FactCheck.org — 2026-05-14 12:40:00 — www.factcheck.org

Trump’s Ballroom Funding Claims Under Scrutiny

Since the White House announced plans in July for a new ballroom, President Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted that its construction would be funded entirely through private donations, claiming, “not one dime of government money” would be used. However, recent developments have raised questions about the accuracy of these statements, particularly in light of a proposed $1 billion in federal funding for security upgrades related to the ballroom project.

Conflicting Statements on Funding

Initially, when Trump began promoting the ballroom project shortly after taking office in 2025, he stated that he would personally cover the costs. The project was officially announced on July 31 with an estimated cost of $200 million. In response to a reporter’s inquiry about funding sources, Trump said, “It’s a private thing, yeah, I’ll do it, and we’ll probably have some donors or whatever.”

As the estimated cost of the ballroom rose to $400 million by late March, Trump maintained that it would be funded by private donations, asserting, “This is taxpayer-free. We have no taxpayer putting up 10 cents.”

Proposed Federal Funding Raises Concerns

Following a shooting incident during the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on April 25, some congressional Republicans cited security concerns and proposed public funding for the ballroom project. Senator Lindsey Graham remarked, “If this is not a wake-up call, what would be?” while announcing legislation that would allocate $400 million for the ballroom and a military installation below it.

On May 5, Senator Chuck Grassley proposed a $1 billion allocation for the Secret Service to provide “security adjustments and upgrades” related to the East Wing Modernization Project, which includes the ballroom. This proposal has drawn criticism from Democrats, who argue that it contradicts Trump’s claims of private funding. Representative Jamie Raskin noted, “Trump said, ‘Not one penny is being used from the federal government’ to fund his ballroom boondoggle. True, in the sense that $1 billion is a lot more than one penny!”

Security Funding Clarifications

In a meeting on May 12, the Secret Service chief informed Republican lawmakers that only $220 million of the proposed $1 billion would be allocated for security enhancements specific to the ballroom, including bulletproof glass and drone detection systems. The remainder would be used for broader security measures across the White House complex.

Both the White House and Grassley’s office have emphasized that the proposed funding is strictly for security-related features, stating, “None of the funds made available under this section may be used for non-security elements of the East Wing Modernization Project.”

Legal Challenges and Public Backlash

The demolition of the East Wing to make way for the ballroom has faced legal challenges, including a lawsuit from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. A federal judge ordered a halt to construction until plans receive congressional authorization, although construction deemed necessary for safety and security can continue.

Critics have voiced concerns over the use of taxpayer money for what they describe as a “gilded room for their balls,” with Representative Susie Lee highlighting the economic struggles in Nevada while Republicans push for funding the ballroom.

Conclusion: A Complex Funding Landscape

As the controversy surrounding the funding of the new White House ballroom unfolds, it highlights the complexities of public versus private funding in government projects. While Trump insists that no taxpayer money will be used, the proposed federal funding raises significant questions about the financial realities of the project. As the situation develops, it remains crucial for the public to scrutinize these claims and understand the implications of government spending on high-profile initiatives.

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2026/05/whos-paying-for-the-white-house-ballroom/

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/