Documents Undercut Trump’s Claims About Bears Ears National Monument

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-08-03 14:08:00 — www.nytimes.com

President Trump’s Claim on Bears Ears Recreation Contradicted by Internal Documents

President Trump asserted that recreation in Bears Ears National Monument was “virtually impossible,” a statement used to justify his decision to dramatically reduce the size of the protected area. However, documents reviewed by The New York Times reveal that federal officials were aware this claim was not accurate.

False Claim About Access

Trump’s position that public recreation was severely restricted in Bears Ears played a central role in his administration’s argument for shrinking the monument’s boundaries. The president’s assertion suggested that federal protections were preventing Americans from enjoying the land. However, internal government documents obtained by The New York Times show that officials knew recreation—including hiking, camping, and off-road vehicle use—was already allowed and widely practiced within the monument before Trump’s changes.

Contradictions Exposed by Federal Records

The reviewed documents indicate that the narrative of “virtually impossible” recreation was not supported by the facts known to the administration. In reality, the monument’s management plan permitted a range of recreational activities, and there was no evidence that access for the public was being denied in the way President Trump described.

Conclusion

President Trump’s claim that recreation in Bears Ears National Monument was “virtually impossible” is contradicted by internal federal documents. These records show that officials were aware of the broad recreational access available prior to the administration’s decision to reduce the monument’s size. This case highlights a significant example of the president making a public statement that was at odds with information known to his own government.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/03/climate/trump-bears-ears-monument-recreation.html

Michigan’s GOP governor primary is getting weird

Politics — 2026-08-03 03:45:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Endorses John James in Michigan, Repeats False Claim About 2020 Election

President Donald Trump’s involvement in Michigan’s heated Republican primary for governor has taken center stage, with his endorsement of Rep. John James and a fresh round of false claims about the 2020 presidential election results in the state.

Trump’s Endorsement and Rally Appearance

Trump’s backing of John James has been described as the “crown jewel” of the candidate’s endorsements, providing James with a significant boost in a contentious primary. At a late July rally outside Detroit, Trump brought James on stage and told him, “You have to win. You have to win.” This public show of support comes after Trump initially criticized James for leaving a battleground House seat to run for governor, but ultimately endorsed him in June.

False Claims About Michigan’s 2020 Results

During the same rally, John James asserted for the first time that Trump won Michigan in 2020—a claim that is demonstrably false. Official results confirm that Joe Biden won Michigan in the 2020 presidential election. James himself had previously acknowledged Biden’s victory, though he expressed frustration over his own Senate loss that year. Trump’s continued promotion of the false narrative that he won Michigan in 2020 has been widely debunked by election officials and fact-checkers.

Impact on the GOP Primary

Trump’s endorsement has helped insulate James from attacks by his remaining primary opponent, Perry Johnson, and from skepticism within the state party. Despite internal party divisions and criticism of James’ campaign style, polling shows James leading the field, bolstered by Trump’s support and years of targeted campaign spending in Southeast Michigan.

Conclusion

President Trump’s endorsement of John James and his repeated false claims about the 2020 election continue to shape Michigan’s Republican primary. As the state’s GOP navigates internal divisions and prepares for a high-stakes general election, Trump’s influence—and his record of promoting election misinformation—remains a defining factor in the race.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/03/michigans-gop-governor-primary-john-james-01020176

Factions of the Republican Party on display in a Washington race : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-03 04:00:00 — www.npr.org

Trump Endorses McKinney in Washington’s 4th District, But His Influence Remains Uncertain

Donald Trump has thrown his support behind Yakima County Commissioner Amanda McKinney in the crowded Republican primary to replace retiring Rep. Dan Newhouse, one of only two House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in 2021 and remain in office. In his endorsement, Trump called McKinney an “America First Patriot” and claimed she would “grow” the economy, lower “migrant crime,” reduce red tape regulations, and lower taxes. He concluded with his signature phrase: “Amanda McKinney has my Complete and Total Endorsement. SHE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN.”

Trump’s endorsement, however, does not guarantee victory in Washington’s 4th Congressional District. Despite Trump’s popularity in the district—he “handily won” there in 2024—a Trump-backed candidate has never won the seat. Local Republican leaders, such as Yakima County GOP chair Matt Brown, have noted that Trump’s endorsement has not always translated to electoral success in the state: “Look at all the people that have had that endorsement and it hasn’t played out in their favor.”

The Republican primary has become a test of Trump’s ongoing influence within the party. McKinney, who has described herself as an “America First and MAGA Republican,” is running against businessman Jerrod Sessler, who also previously received Trump’s endorsement but lost in 2024, and state Sen. Matt Boehnke, a more moderate Republican. Sessler acknowledged that Trump’s support carries “a tremendous amount of weight” but admitted it is “not a silver bullet,” emphasizing that candidates must still put in significant campaign work.

Trump’s approval in the district has “waned a little bit” in recent months, according to Sessler, who attributed the decline to international issues but defended Trump by arguing that “there’s propaganda out there that wants people to not like President Trump.” Nationwide, Trump faces low approval rates, with a recent NPR/PBS News/Marist poll showing his support among rural voters underwater by 10 percentage points.

As the Republican Party contemplates its future beyond Trump, the outcome of this primary will serve as a signal for the direction of the party in a district that is both reliably conservative and demographically diverse. Trump’s endorsement remains a powerful but unpredictable factor in the race, highlighting the ongoing debate within the GOP over the value and limits of his brand of politics.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/03/nx-s1-5902154/2026-primaries-washington-state-republican-party-trump

Donald J. Trump: “Iranian Leadership is unbelievably duplicitous! They ask for a meeting, some…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-08-03 10:25:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Escalates Rhetoric Against Iran With Series of Dubious Claims

President Donald J. Trump has once again turned his attention to Iran, issuing a series of statements that both attack Iranian leadership and make sweeping claims about U.S. control in the region. In his remarks, Trump accused Iranian leaders of duplicity, stating, “Iranian Leadership is unbelievably duplicitous! They ask for a meeting, some would say ‘beg,’ talks begin, with more scheduled in the immediate future, and they say, openly and proudly, that they’re not having any discussions, that nothing is being talked about, and they’re only dealing with ‘Oman.’”

Disparagements and Exaggerations

Trump’s comments disparage Iranian officials, characterizing their diplomatic actions as dishonest and desperate. He further mocks their public statements, referring to them as “their usual blather.” Such language is a hallmark of Trump’s confrontational style, often aimed at undermining the credibility of foreign adversaries.

Questionable Claims About U.S. Military Control

Among the most striking assertions is Trump’s claim that the Strait of Hormuz is “already completely controlled by the United States Navy and our ‘Blockade’ or, as some say, ‘The United States Wall of Steel!’” He further insists, “Nothing gets through to Iran, unless we want it to, and nothing will get through, unless a Deal, or Total Surrender, is accomplished.”

These statements exaggerate the extent of U.S. military dominance in the region. While the U.S. Navy maintains a significant presence near the Strait of Hormuz—a vital waterway for global oil shipments—it does not exercise total control. The strait remains a contested and volatile zone, with both Iranian and international forces operating in close proximity. Trump’s suggestion of an impenetrable “blockade” or “wall of steel” overstates the reality, as commercial and non-military traffic continues to flow, and the U.S. has not formally declared or enforced a blockade.

Absolute Pledge on Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

Trump concludes his remarks with an unequivocal promise: “It is very simple, IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!” This categorical statement reflects his administration’s hardline stance, but it also glosses over the complexities of international negotiations and the ongoing challenges of nuclear nonproliferation.

Conclusion

President Trump’s latest comments on Iran continue his pattern of using inflammatory language, making exaggerated claims about U.S. power, and offering absolute assurances on complex foreign policy issues. While his rhetoric may appeal to supporters seeking a tough posture, the factual basis of his statements often falls short, misrepresenting both the situation on the ground and the realities of international diplomacy. As tensions persist, it remains crucial to scrutinize such claims and separate fact from political bravado.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40465

Blanche rescinds ‘anti-weaponization fund’ for Trump allies after GOP senators threaten to block his AG bid

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-03 08:42:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Continues to Back Disputed $1.8 Billion Fund for Political Allies Despite DOJ Termination

Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed support for a controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” intended to compensate his political allies, even as the Justice Department has now formally terminated the initiative following bipartisan backlash.

Trump’s Persistent Support for the Fund

Throughout weeks of negotiations over the fund, Trump maintained that it should move forward. He threatened to advance the proposal if his nominee for attorney general, Todd Blanche, was not confirmed. After a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Blanche’s nomination was delayed, Trump stated on social media that he might withdraw Blanche’s nomination and resubmit it after certain senators left office next year.

On Sunday evening, Trump defended the fund, saying that people who had faced charges from the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol had “their lives destroyed.” He described the fund as “a reimbursement for the pain that they suffered,” and claimed, “A lot of people like it.”

DOJ and Congressional Pushback

The Justice Department, under Acting Attorney General Blanche, issued a formal order ending the fund, clarifying that no members had been appointed, no funds transferred, no claims process established, and no claims paid. The DOJ stated, “This order establishes, beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”

Republican Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, who had blocked Blanche’s nomination, demanded written confirmation that the fund would not proceed, citing concerns that violent rioters from January 6 could be eligible for payments. The DOJ’s order also limited a related provision that would have granted Trump and his family broad immunity from tax audits, specifying that it applied only retroactively.

Legal and Ethical Questions

Trump’s attorneys have notified a court that they will appeal a judge’s ruling that characterized the IRS settlement related to the fund as improper self-dealing. The judge criticized Blanche’s involvement in the settlement, given his prior representation of Trump, and referred one of Trump’s attorneys for potential disciplinary action.

Conclusion

Despite the Justice Department’s clear termination of the “anti-weaponization fund,” Trump continues to advocate for compensating those charged in connection with the January 6 attack, framing them as victims. The episode highlights Trump’s ongoing efforts to support his political allies, even in the face of bipartisan opposition and legal scrutiny. The DOJ’s actions and the Senate’s resistance underscore the deep divisions and controversies surrounding Trump’s approach to wielding executive power for personal and political ends.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/blanche-rescinds-anti-weaponization-fund-for-trump-allies-after-gop-senators-threaten-to-block-his-ag-bid

Trump frequently announces he’s halting strikes in Iran. But they keep happening

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-02 16:29:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump’s Shifting Announcements on Iran: A Pattern of Threats, Pauses, and Renewed Strikes

President Donald Trump announced late Saturday that he would halt new planned attacks on Iran, citing renewed talks aimed at winding down the war and reviving stalled cargo traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. This move is the latest in a series of abrupt shifts that have characterized Trump’s approach to the five-month conflict, marked by repeated threats of massive strikes followed by sudden reversals.

A Record of Contradictory Announcements

Throughout the conflict, Trump has repeatedly threatened severe military action against Iran, only to call off strikes at the last minute. These reversals have contributed to ongoing instability and have been followed by renewed attacks, sometimes just hours after a supposed pause.

• April 7: Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran, just before a deadline he set for Tehran to capitulate or face attacks on critical infrastructure. He warned that such strikes would mean “a whole civilization will die,” an extreme exaggeration that heightened tensions.
• April 21: Trump extended the ceasefire indefinitely, claiming mediators had asked for more time. Despite this, the ceasefire collapsed by May 8, when the U.S. resumed strikes on Iranian tankers.
• May 18: After issuing dire threats, Trump said he was holding off on a major strike because “serious negotiations” were underway, stating, “If we can do that without bombing the hell out of them, I’d be very happy.” Yet, by May 27, military action resumed after talks failed.
• June 11: Trump threatened to hit Iran “VERY HARD TONIGHT” and take “total control” of its oil and gas industries, only to later announce a breakthrough in negotiations and call off the strikes.
• June 17: Trump signed an initial agreement with Iran for a permanent end to hostilities but left the door open to abandoning it, saying, “It’s a memorandum of understanding, and if I don’t like it, we’ll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs.”
• July 7: Following Iranian attacks on commercial ships, Trump launched new strikes while attending a NATO summit, then renewed his threat to “just finish the job” after declaring the ceasefire over.
• July 27: Trump paused two weeks of intense U.S. strikes to give negotiations another chance, but the fighting continued to escalate.
• August 1: After again threatening to hit Iran “very hard,” Trump announced on social media that he had canceled planned strikes, claiming Mideast allies had reached a deal to end the war. He stated, “Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL.”

Exaggerations and Unpredictability

Trump’s statements have often included hyperbolic threats and sweeping claims. His warning that attacks would mean “a whole civilization will die” is a clear exaggeration, designed to pressure Iran but lacking in factual basis. The pattern of threatening overwhelming force, then reversing course, has contributed to confusion among allies and adversaries alike, and has not resulted in a stable ceasefire or a clear resolution to the conflict.

Conclusion

President Trump’s handling of the Iran conflict has been defined by a cycle of threats, abrupt pauses, and renewed military action. His repeated exaggerations and unpredictable announcements have fueled instability and left the future of U.S.-Iran relations uncertain. As negotiations continue, the world watches to see whether Trump’s latest pause will hold, or if the pattern of escalation and reversal will persist.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-frequently-announces-hes-halting-strikes-in-iran-but-they-keep-happening

Todd Blanche rescinds Trump’s ‘anti-weaponization fund’ ahead of nomination hearing : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-03 00:04:00 — www.npr.org

Trump Defends Controversial Fund for Jan. 6 Defendants, Despite DOJ Termination

President Donald Trump continues to express support for his proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” even after the Justice Department formally terminated the initiative following bipartisan backlash and legal scrutiny. Trump has repeatedly stated that he believes the fund should proceed, arguing that individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol have “had their lives destroyed.” He described the fund as “a reimbursement for the pain that they suffered,” and claimed, “A lot of people like it.”

Persistent Advocacy Amid Legal and Political Pushback

Despite Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s order officially ending the fund and clarifying that no money was distributed and no process for claims was ever established, Trump threatened to revive the proposal if Blanche was not confirmed as attorney general. Trump also suggested in a social media post that he might withdraw Blanche’s nomination and resubmit it after key Senate opponents leave office next year.

The fund, which was intended to compensate Trump’s political allies, drew sharp criticism from both parties, particularly over concerns that it could benefit violent rioters who attacked law enforcement at the Capitol. The Justice Department’s order emphasized that “no Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” and declared, “This order establishes, beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”

Legal Fallout and Ongoing Appeals

Trump’s attorneys have notified a court of their intent to appeal a judge’s ruling that characterized the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS—of which the fund was a part—as an improper act of self-dealing. The judge criticized Blanche’s involvement in the settlement, given his prior role as Trump’s defense lawyer, and referred one of Trump’s attorneys for potential disciplinary action.

The Justice Department has maintained in court filings that the fund would not move forward, but resisted a judge’s request for a sworn declaration from Blanche and other officials that the administration would not pursue the fund in the future, calling such demands “unnecessary.”

Conclusion

Trump’s unwavering support for the “anti-weaponization fund,” despite its formal termination and widespread condemnation, highlights his continued efforts to defend those charged in the January 6 attack and to challenge legal and political opposition. The controversy underscores ongoing divisions within the Republican Party and persistent questions about the use of government resources for political purposes.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/03/g-s1-136864/todd-blanche-rescinds-trump-anti-weaponization-fund

Blanche formally rescinds Trump’s $1.8bn ‘anti-weaponization fund’ ahead of nomination hearing | Donald Trump

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-08-02 23:46:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump Continues to Push for Discredited $1.8 Billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” Despite Formal Termination

Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced support for a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” intended to compensate his political allies, even as the Justice Department has now formally ended the proposal. Acting US attorney general Todd Blanche issued a written order late Sunday officially terminating the fund, following weeks of negotiations with Republican senators who had blocked his nomination over concerns the fund could be revived.

Trump’s Persistent Advocacy

Throughout the negotiations, Trump has maintained that the fund should proceed. He said that individuals charged in connection with the January 6 attack on the Capitol, who could have benefited from the fund, had “their lives destroyed.” Trump characterized the fund as “a reimbursement for the pain that they suffered,” adding, “A lot of people like it.”

Despite these statements, Blanche and the Justice Department had already made clear in public and in court that the fund was not moving forward. Lawmakers remained concerned, however, because Trump continued to express support for the idea, raising the possibility it could be revived in some form.

Official Termination and Legal Clarifications

Blanche’s order, released Sunday night, rescinds the previous directive that had established the fund. It also narrows the scope of a related provision granting broad immunity from tax audits for Trump and his family, clarifying that this immunity applies only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not shield future tax filings from examination.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s assertion that the fund would simply “reimburse” January 6 defendants for “pain they suffered” omits the fact that many of those individuals were charged with serious crimes related to the attack on the Capitol. The proposal to use taxpayer funds to compensate political allies facing legal consequences has drawn bipartisan criticism and was never formally enacted, despite Trump’s repeated claims and continued advocacy.

Conclusion

While the Justice Department has now formally ended the controversial “anti-weaponization fund,” Trump’s ongoing support for the idea highlights his willingness to push discredited proposals and to frame legal accountability for January 6 defendants as unjust persecution. The formal termination of the fund and the clarification of related legal provisions underscore the gap between Trump’s rhetoric and the legal reality, leaving lawmakers and the public with a clear record of the facts.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/03/blanche-formally-rescinds-trumps-18bn-anti-weaponization-fund-ahead-of-nomination-hearing

New Round of Trump Threats and Pullbacks Raises Uncertainty in Mideast

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-08-02 19:15:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump’s Shifting Iran Strategy: Threats, Negotiations, and Repeated Claims

President Trump entered the weekend with a vow that U.S. forces would unleash a “furious new round of attacks against Iran,” stating the military would be “hitting them very hard.” By Saturday night, Trump claimed the military was still “locked and loaded” for strikes, but that he had decided to call them off. “I was asked to by Saudi Arabia, by U.A.E., by Qatar and by Iran,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “We were all set to go. Just about at this time, right now. The reason they asked is they think there’s a deal.” He further stated that talks with Iran would begin on Monday and that he was told there could be a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, as well as “a deal on the nuclear.”

A Cycle of Threats and Negotiations

This pattern is not new. Over the past five months, Trump has repeatedly threatened military escalation against Iran, only to later promote the prospect of negotiations. Just over a week ago, he decided against escalating after advisers raised concerns about the U.S. supply of Patriot antimissile interceptors. Despite Trump’s public statements, the White House and Pentagon have provided few details about what might have brought Iran to the negotiating table, if such talks are even happening.

Questions and Criticism

Lawmakers and analysts remain uncertain about Trump’s intentions. Some experts suggest that Trump’s approach appears more like a public relations strategy than a coherent military plan. Critics argue that Trump’s premise—that Iran is weak and can be coerced into capitulation—has repeatedly proven false.

Democrats have also criticized Trump’s management of the conflict, particularly his reliance on individuals without extensive foreign policy experience, such as his longtime friend Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, to lead negotiations.

Trump’s Public Persona

While the administration faced scrutiny over its Iran policy, Trump spent Sunday afternoon at his golf club in New Jersey, celebrating what he described as a big win in a golf tournament. On social media, he wrote, “I won with a score of 70, and am so honored in that, unlike the rest of the field, I’m given very little time to practice, because I’m focused on many other things. It’s called TALENT, and I have it, and they don’t!”

Conclusion

President Trump’s repeated claims of imminent military action followed by sudden shifts to negotiation have left lawmakers, experts, and the public questioning the administration’s strategy and credibility. The lack of clear details and reliance on personal associates for high-stakes diplomacy continue to fuel criticism and uncertainty about the direction of U.S. policy toward Iran.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/02/us/politics/trump-iran-negotiations.html

Trump on making a deal with Iran: 'I'm not looking to kill people'

Administration News — 2026-08-02 19:24:00 — thehill.com

Trump Asserts He Is “Not Looking to Kill People” Amid Iran Negotiations

President Trump stated on Sunday that he is “not looking to kill people” as he pursues a diplomatic agreement with Iran. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump revealed that negotiations with Iranian officials are scheduled for Monday. He attributed the latest round of talks to efforts orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.

Trump’s Position on Iran

Trump’s comments come at a time of heightened tensions in the region. By emphasizing that he is “not looking to kill people,” Trump sought to portray his administration’s approach as focused on diplomacy rather than military escalation. He also highlighted the involvement of key Gulf states in facilitating the negotiations, suggesting a broader regional effort to de-escalate the situation.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Statements

Within his remarks, Trump did not make any specific false claims or disparaging comments about individuals. Instead, he positioned himself as seeking a peaceful resolution with Iran and credited regional partners for their role in bringing both sides to the table. There is no evidence in the excerpt to contradict his stated position or to indicate exaggeration or misstatement regarding the orchestration of talks by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.

Conclusion

Trump’s assertion that he is “not looking to kill people” underscores his administration’s stated preference for negotiation over conflict in dealing with Iran. By attributing the upcoming talks to the efforts of Gulf allies, Trump aimed to demonstrate a collaborative approach to regional security. As the negotiations proceed, the effectiveness and sincerity of this diplomatic posture will be closely watched by both domestic and international observers.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6004829-trump-iran-deal-negotiations/