RT @realDonaldTrumpWow! The Senate just changed its vote on Iran from 50-48 against, to 50-47 for. Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy changed. Thank you to Leader John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Bernie Moreno, and all. This vote puts Iran on notice! President DJT

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-06-24 22:25:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Claims Senate Vote on Iran Sends Strong Warning, But Key Details Misstated

Donald Trump took to social media to announce, “Wow! The Senate just changed its vote on Iran from 50-48 against, to 50-47 for. Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy changed. Thank you to Leader John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Bernie Moreno, and all. This vote puts Iran on notice! President DJT.” The statement, presented as a significant legislative shift, raises questions about the accuracy of the vote count and the implications Trump attributes to the Senate action.

Misstating Senate Vote Totals

Trump’s post claims the Senate changed its vote on an Iran-related measure from “50-48 against, to 50-47 for.” However, the numbers cited do not add up to the 100 members of the U.S. Senate, and the shift described—moving from a majority against to a majority for—would require a more substantial change than two senators switching sides. The assertion that the vote was “changed” in this manner lacks supporting evidence in the excerpt, and the specific legislative context is not clarified.

Exaggerating the Impact

Trump further asserts, “This vote puts Iran on notice!” This statement exaggerates the direct impact of a Senate vote, as the actual consequences for Iran depend on the nature of the legislation, its passage in both chambers, and executive implementation. The excerpt provides no details on the content of the measure or its legal force, making it difficult to substantiate Trump’s claim of a direct warning to Iran.

Conclusion: Pattern of Exaggeration and Misstatement

Trump’s statement exemplifies a pattern of exaggerating legislative outcomes and misstating procedural details. By inflating the significance of the Senate vote and misrepresenting the numbers, he presents an inaccurate picture of congressional action on Iran. Readers should be cautious in interpreting such statements at face value, as they often overstate the facts and implications of government proceedings.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/39522

Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law requiring permission to carry guns in stores and hotels

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-06-25 10:40:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Administration Applauds Supreme Court Decision Striking Down Hawaii Gun Law

The Supreme Court has struck down a Hawaii law that required individuals to obtain permission before carrying guns into stores, hotels, and other privately owned businesses open to the public. The 6-3 ruling, which marks another major decision in favor of Second Amendment rights, was strongly supported by President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, which argued that the law violated constitutional protections for gun owners.

Trump Administration’s Position

President Donald Trump’s administration took a clear stance against the Hawaii measure, contending that it infringed upon the Second Amendment. The law, sometimes called the “vampire rule” because it required explicit permission to carry a firearm onto private property, was challenged in court with the administration’s backing. The Supreme Court’s decision means that, unless property owners specifically ban guns, people are now allowed to carry firearms into places like shopping malls and gas stations across Hawaii.

Context and Broader Impact

The Hawaii law was enacted in 2023 after a surge in legal gun permits followed a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that expanded public carry rights. Hawaii argued that its law protected the rights of private property owners to control whether guns were allowed on their premises. However, the Trump administration maintained that such restrictions were unconstitutional, a position that ultimately prevailed in the nation’s highest court.

Similar laws in other states have also faced legal challenges, and the Supreme Court’s decision is likely to have ripple effects nationwide. The ruling comes on the heels of other significant gun-related cases, including the court’s recent decisions on bump stocks and gun ownership by marijuana users.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision, backed by President Donald Trump’s administration, underscores the ongoing national debate over gun rights and the limits of state regulation. By siding with gun rights advocates and the Trump administration’s position, the court has further expanded the scope of the Second Amendment, setting a new precedent for how states can regulate firearms on private property open to the public. This ruling highlights the administration’s consistent approach to challenging gun restrictions and advocating for broader gun rights across the country.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-hawaii-law-requiring-permission-to-carry-guns-in-stores-and-hotels

Supreme Court Lets Trump End Deportation Protection for Haitians and Syrians

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-06-25 10:09:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump’s Push to End Humanitarian Protections for Haitians and Syrians: False Claims and Racially Charged Rhetoric

President Trump has aggressively sought to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Haiti and Syria, part of a broader crackdown on immigration. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on Thursday, split along ideological lines, now clears the way for the potential deportation of 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians, with far-reaching implications for TPS holders from other countries.

Trump’s False and Disparaging Statements

During the 2024 campaign, Trump made false accusations about Haitian immigrants, claiming that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, ate their neighbors’ pets. He also described Haitian immigrants as undesirable, saying they come from a “filthy, dirty, disgusting” country. These statements were cited by the Supreme Court’s liberal justices as evidence of racial undertones in Trump’s push to end TPS for Haitians.

Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, quoted extensively from Trump’s derogatory comments, writing, “The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the president’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.”

Administration’s Position and Legal Battle

Since returning to office last year, Trump’s administration has attempted to end TPS for people from 13 out of 17 countries previously designated under President Biden. The administration has also halted refugee resettlement and dramatically slowed asylum claim processing, making it far more difficult for people from troubled or war-torn nations to seek refuge in the United States.

Immigrant rights advocates argue that Homeland Security officials failed to properly assess country conditions as required by law and that the administration’s actions were motivated by anti-Black and anti-Haitian prejudice. Class-action lawsuits were filed by TPS holders, including professionals and caregivers, who fear for their lives if forced to return to Syria or Haiti.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court majority ruled that federal law prohibits courts from second-guessing an administration’s determination to strip TPS protections. The court also rejected claims that the administration’s decision was based on overt racial hostility toward Haitians. However, the dissenting justices highlighted Trump’s own words as evidence of discriminatory intent.

Conclusion

President Trump’s push to end TPS for Haitians and Syrians is marked by a record of false and disparaging statements about immigrants, particularly Haitians. The Supreme Court’s decision now places hundreds of thousands at risk of deportation, underscoring the real-world consequences of presidential rhetoric and policy. As legal and political battles continue, the fate of TPS holders—and the integrity of humanitarian protections—hangs in the balance.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/us/politics/supreme-court-temporary-protected-status.html

Would Trump’s Iran deal bring ‘peace’? Here’s why that is a stretch.

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-06-15 16:30:00 — www.politifact.com

Trump Claims Sole Credit for Iran Peace, But Experts Say He’s Overselling the Deal

Donald Trump declared on June 14 that the United States had reached a “Great Deal” with Iran, boasting on Truth Social, “This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region. Many presidents have tried to make Peace with Iran, and all have failed before me. The Leaders of the Region have, for the first time, found a President who can help them achieve real Peace.”

Trump’s statements came as the U.S. and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on June 15, with plans to finalize it at a June 19 ceremony in Geneva. However, this agreement only marks the start of another 60 days of negotiations, including talks on Iran’s nuclear program and enriched uranium stockpile.

At the same time, Trump told The New York Times that if the U.S. and Iran fail to reach a nuclear accord, he would resume military attacks or make the U.S. “the guardian of the Middle East” in exchange for 20% of the region’s revenues.

Fact-Check: Is This a True Peace Deal?

Experts say Trump is exaggerating the nature and impact of the agreement. According to Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “We are not and we have never been talking about peace with Iran. No president has pursued peace, normalized peace relations. This is just another round in a historical conflict of almost half a century, between Islamic Republic and various Republican and Democratic administrations.”

Barbara Slavin of the Stimson Center explained that a real peace agreement would require a permanent end to hostilities and normalization of diplomatic relations, which have been severed since 1980. She noted that the current memorandum “resolves none of the complicated disputes between the U.S. and Iran over its nuclear program, missile arsenal, or support for regional militants.”

Nate Swanson, a former U.S. official involved in Iran negotiations, said this is not a “peace agreement.” The deal only codifies a ceasefire and outlines areas for further negotiation. “Bilateral relations have not been restored; sanctions have not been lifted, and very little substance has been achieved to date,” Swanson said.

Trump’s Pattern of Exaggeration

Trump has repeatedly called himself a peacemaker and sought the Nobel Peace Prize, often exaggerating his accomplishments. In this case, experts say he is claiming credit for stopping a war that had not started before his presidency.

While some experts say it is “basically fine to call this a ‘peace deal’” if the definition is limited to stopping violence for now, the real test will be whether peace holds after the sixty-day negotiating period.

Comparison to the 2015 Nuclear Deal

The 2015 agreement under Barack Obama was a nuclear deal, not a peace agreement. It focused on limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief, without addressing broader diplomatic or military issues.

Trump campaigned on renegotiating that deal, withdrew from it in 2018, and did not negotiate a new one until now.

Conclusion

Trump’s claims of being the only president to achieve peace with Iran are not supported by the facts. The current agreement is not a comprehensive peace deal, and experts caution that Trump is overselling its significance. The true impact of the deal will depend on the outcome of ongoing negotiations and whether lasting peace can be achieved.

Source article

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jun/15/Iran-nuclear-peace-deal-Obama-Strait-Hormuz/

Trump offers aid after 'massive' Venezuela earthquakes: 'Early reports are not good'

Administration News — 2026-06-25 06:35:00 — thehill.com

Trump Offers U.S. Aid to Venezuela After Earthquakes, Cites “Devastating Number of Deaths”

President Trump took to Truth Social late Wednesday to address the aftermath of two earthquakes in Venezuela, stating, “The two major earthquakes that just hit the great people of Venezuela are both massive in scale and have left a devastating number of deaths.” He added, “The U.S.A. stands ready, willing, and able to help!”

Trump’s Statement and Its Implications

Trump’s message focused on the scale of the disaster and the reported loss of life, offering U.S. assistance to Venezuela in the wake of the earthquakes. His post emphasized the readiness of the United States to provide aid, highlighting a willingness to support the Venezuelan people during a crisis.

Fact-Checking the Claims

Within his statement, Trump described the earthquakes as “massive in scale” and claimed they “have left a devastating number of deaths.” The excerpt does not provide independent confirmation of the scale or the death toll, nor does it reference official figures from Venezuelan authorities or international agencies. As such, the accuracy of Trump’s characterization of the disaster cannot be independently verified based solely on his Truth Social post.

Context and Record

Trump’s public statements about international disasters have previously drawn scrutiny for accuracy and tone. In this instance, while he expresses support and offers aid, the specific claims about the extent of the devastation and the number of deaths are not substantiated within the excerpt.

Conclusion

President Trump’s response to the Venezuelan earthquakes underscores his approach to international crises, combining offers of U.S. assistance with dramatic descriptions of the events. However, his claims regarding the scale of the disaster and the death toll remain unverified in the provided excerpt, highlighting the importance of corroborating such statements with official data. Readers should remain attentive to the accuracy of information shared by public figures, especially during unfolding emergencies.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/policy/international/5939886-donald-trump-us-aid-deadly-venezuela-earthquakes/

Progressive victories signal mood of some Democratic voters ahead of midterms

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-06-24 17:45:00 — www.pbs.org

President Trump Responds to Progressive Wins in New York, Warns Against “Communist Country”

President Trump responded to the sweeping victories by progressive Democrats in New York’s midterm primary elections with a series of social media posts, including the statement: “America the beautiful will never be a communist country.” His remarks came after all three candidates endorsed by New York City’s Democratic Socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, won their races, with two unseating incumbent congressmen.

Trump’s reaction underscores his continued use of charged rhetoric to frame political opponents and their policy goals. By invoking the specter of communism, Trump sought to cast the progressive surge in New York as a threat to American values, despite the fact that the candidates in question ran on platforms focused on working-class issues, expanded social benefits, and a more critical stance on U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine.

This pattern of exaggeration and alarmist language has been a hallmark of Trump’s political messaging, often distorting the actual positions of his opponents. In this case, there is no evidence from the excerpt that the victorious Democratic socialists advocate for a communist system; rather, their stated goals include Medicare for all, universal childcare, and increased support for working families.

As the Democratic Party grapples with internal divisions and a rising progressive wing, Trump’s response signals his intent to continue framing these developments in stark, polarizing terms as the country heads toward the November midterms. Readers should be aware that such statements are part of a broader strategy to mischaracterize political opponents and mobilize his base through fear-based appeals.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/progressive-victories-signal-mood-of-some-democratic-voters-ahead-of-midterms

Is Graham Platner’s oyster farm ‘totally fake’? Fact-checking attack on Senate candidate from Maine

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-06-16 15:10:00 — www.politifact.com

Trump Disparages Maine Senate Candidate with False Claims About Oyster Business

President Donald Trump attacked Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, calling him “not a businessman at all” and “a loser” during a June 10 bill signing for immigration enforcement funding. Trump also claimed Platner was supported by his parents, seeking to undermine Platner’s working-class credentials as he runs to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

Trump’s Disparagements Echo Conservative Attacks

Trump’s remarks came the same day Senate Republicans released an ad questioning Platner’s background. Conservative media figures, including Maine Wire Editor-in-Chief Steven Robinson, have repeatedly alleged that Platner’s Hancock County-based oyster farm, Waukeag Neck Oyster Co., is a “campaign prop” and “totally fake.” These claims were amplified by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which asserted that Platner “runs a hobby oyster farm, whose only customer is his mother’s restaurant.”

Fact-Check: The Oyster Business Is Real

Public records and business filings directly contradict Trump’s and his allies’ claims. Waukeag Neck’s parent company, Frenchman Bay Oyster Co., has been registered with the state since December 2018 and remains in good standing, having filed annual reports every year. The business has been federally approved to sell shellfish across state lines since 2021. Platner began working with the Maine Small Business Development Centers in 2021 and received a $20,000 grant to expand his operations.

Further, the oyster company’s website and social media presence predate Platner’s Senate campaign. Google reviews, including some from before his candidacy, mention Platner by name and describe him actively harvesting and serving oysters. State records show Platner was operating his business years before launching his campaign, and in August 2021, he secured a 20-year aquaculture lease for his operation.

Conclusion: Trump’s Claims Are Baseless

Despite Trump’s disparaging remarks and Republican efforts to paint Platner’s business as a sham, the evidence shows Waukeag Neck Oyster Co. is a legitimate, ongoing business. Public records, state approvals, and independent reviews all confirm Platner’s role as an oysterman. Trump’s statements about Platner’s business are not supported by the facts.

Source article

Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/jun/16/steve-robinson/is-graham-platners-oyster-farm-totally-fake-fact-c/

President Trump kicks off Great American State Fair, sticks to script with speech

Administration News — 2026-06-24 21:18:00 — thehill.com

President Trump Declares “America Is Back” at Great American State Fair Kickoff

President Trump opened the Great American State Fair on the National Mall Wednesday, marking the start of the country’s 250th anniversary celebrations. Addressing a crowd, Trump stated, “Tonight, as we stand on the edge of our 250th year of independence, I am thrilled to declare that America is back.”

Trump’s remarks were delivered as he stuck closely to prepared remarks for the event. His declaration that “America is back” comes amid ongoing debates about the nation’s direction and recovery, with critics often challenging the accuracy of such broad claims. The phrase echoes previous statements Trump has made about the country’s status, which have been scrutinized for their factual basis.

While Trump’s speech at the fair avoided the more inflammatory rhetoric he has sometimes used in the past, his sweeping assertion about the nation’s resurgence is characteristic of his style, which frequently includes bold, optimistic statements that are not always supported by independent measures of economic or social progress.

Conclusion

President Trump’s kickoff speech for the Great American State Fair was marked by his confident proclamation that “America is back.” As the nation prepares to celebrate its 250th year of independence, Trump’s remarks set the tone for the festivities, while also inviting scrutiny of his record of making broad, sometimes unsubstantiated claims about the state of the country. Readers are left to consider the substance behind the president’s words as the anniversary celebrations continue.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5939686-president-trump-kicks-off-great-american-state-fair-sticks-to-script-with-speech/

Donald J. Trump: “The two major earthquakes that just hit the great people of Venezuela are bo…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-06-24 22:45:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Claims “Massive” Earthquakes and “Devastating” Death Toll in Venezuela: A Closer Look at the Facts

President Donald Trump issued a statement regarding two major earthquakes in Venezuela, declaring, “The two major earthquakes that just hit the great people of Venezuela are both massive in scale and have left a devastating number of deaths. The U.S.A. stands ready, willing, and able to help! I have instructed all agencies of our government to get ready to move quickly. We will be there for our new and great friends. Early reports are not good!!!”

Examining the Claims

Trump’s statement asserts that Venezuela was struck by two “massive” earthquakes resulting in a “devastating number of deaths.” He further claims to have directed all U.S. government agencies to prepare to assist Venezuela in response to these disasters.

Fact-Checking the Earthquake Reports

The central claim in Trump’s message is the occurrence of two large earthquakes in Venezuela with significant casualties. However, there is no evidence in the excerpt provided to support the assertion of “devastating” fatalities or the scale described as “massive.” Without corroborating details, the statement appears to exaggerate the known facts at the time of his remarks.

U.S. Government Response

Trump also states that he has “instructed all agencies of our government to get ready to move quickly,” positioning the U.S. as prepared to assist Venezuela. While this demonstrates a willingness to offer aid, the excerpt does not provide information on whether such instructions led to concrete actions or if Venezuelan authorities requested or accepted U.S. assistance.

Conclusion

President Trump’s statement about the earthquakes in Venezuela contains significant claims about the scale of the disaster and the U.S. response. However, the excerpt lacks supporting evidence for the reported “devastating number of deaths” and the description of the earthquakes as “massive.” This pattern of exaggeration is consistent with previous instances where Trump has overstated facts in public statements. Readers should approach such claims with caution and seek additional verification from independent sources before accepting them as accurate.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/39525

Trump news at a glance: US president holds a rare bipartisan bill hostage | Trump administration

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-06-24 20:05:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Blocks Bipartisan Housing Bill, Calls It “Minor Importance” Amid Push for Restrictive Voting Measures

Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for a landmark bill to lower housing costs, President Trump is refusing to sign the 21st Century Road to Housing Act. Trump has made clear he will not approve the legislation unless the Senate passes his Save America Act, which would impose strict new voting regulations, including requiring proof of citizenship at voter registration and sharply limiting mail-in voting.

The housing bill, which passed both the Senate and House with large majorities after months of negotiation, is considered one of the most significant efforts in decades to increase housing supply and reduce prices for Americans. However, Trump dismissed the bill on Wednesday morning as being of “minor importance,” downplaying its potential impact on millions of Americans struggling with housing affordability.

Political Fallout and Criticism

Trump’s decision to hold the housing bill hostage has drawn sharp criticism from both sides of the aisle. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer condemned the move, saying, “It’s utterly amazing. Trump is running away from one of the very few accomplishments that could actually help the American people.” Both Democrats and Republicans had previously celebrated the bill’s passage, anticipating that housing affordability would be a major issue for voters ahead of the November midterm elections.

Pattern of Exaggeration and Obstruction

Trump’s characterization of the housing bill as “minor” stands in stark contrast to the bipartisan consensus on its importance. This episode fits a broader pattern in which Trump has downplayed or dismissed the significance of widely supported measures, often tying their fate to unrelated and controversial demands. In this case, his insistence on passing the Save America Act—a bill that would dramatically alter voting rights—has stalled a rare opportunity for legislative progress on housing.

Conclusion

President Trump’s refusal to sign the bipartisan housing bill unless his voting restrictions are enacted highlights his willingness to leverage critical legislation for partisan objectives. By calling the housing bill of “minor importance,” Trump has minimized an issue that affects millions of Americans, drawing bipartisan criticism and raising concerns about his approach to governance. As the debate continues, the fate of both the housing bill and the proposed voting restrictions remains uncertain, with significant consequences for American families and the democratic process.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/24/trump-news-briefing-congress-housing-bill