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

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

Trump’s Pardon of Honduran Ex-President Sparks Outrage Over VIP Prison Perks

President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of taking bribes and enabling drug traffickers to export more than 400 tons of cocaine to the U.S., has ignited a political firestorm over the use of taxpayer dollars for special treatment of pardoned criminals.

After Trump granted Hernández a full pardon in December, federal prison officials reportedly removed an immigration detainer that should have kept Hernández in custody for pickup by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Instead, the Bureau of Prisons arranged for a four-man tactical team to drive Hernández six hours from a high-security West Virginia prison to the luxury Waldorf Astoria hotel in Manhattan, with overtime pay funded by taxpayers.

The special treatment, described by Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) as “red carpet” accommodations, prompted her to introduce an amendment to bar the Bureau of Prisons and other agencies from using public funds to provide VIP perks, transportation, or preferential legal treatment to convicted drug traffickers and child traffickers, even if they have been pardoned.

Hernández, who has long denied wrongdoing, appealed to Trump’s sympathies last year with a letter claiming he was a victim of “political persecution” by the Biden administration. Trump’s pardon came just two days before a contentious Honduran presidential election, a move experts said signaled support for Hernández’s right-wing National Party and may have encouraged election manipulation.

The Bureau of Prisons has not commented on the specifics of Hernández’s release, but a retired prison worker described staff as “disgusted” by the agency’s actions. Torres’s amendment was voted down along party lines in the House Appropriations Committee, with Republicans opposing the measure.

The controversy highlights ongoing concerns about the fairness of the justice system and the use of presidential pardons. Torres vowed to continue fighting for reforms, stating, “The American people deserve a government that enforces the law fairly and holds powerful criminals accountable, regardless of who pardons them.”

This episode underscores the far-reaching consequences of Trump’s pardon decisions and raises questions about accountability and equal treatment under the law.

Source article

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

Trump’s Inaccurate Anecdote on ‘Right to Repair’ Cars

FactCheck.org — 2026-06-12 07:24:00 — www.factcheck.org

Trump Falsely Claims Mechanic Jailed for Seven Years for Fixing His Own Car

President Donald Trump has repeatedly cited a wildly inaccurate anecdote to support his stance on the “right to repair” debate, claiming that a man was sentenced to seven years in jail simply for fixing his own car. In remarks on June 4, Trump stated, “They gave a man seven years in jail, actually, because he fixed his own car.” He reiterated the claim the following day at a Wisconsin agriculture roundtable, asserting, “I pardoned a man last week who was sentenced to seven years in jail because he got caught fixing his car or his truck.”

However, the facts do not support Trump’s story. The case he referenced appears to be that of Troy Lake, a Wyoming diesel mechanic who was pardoned by Trump on November 7. Lake served seven months of a one-year sentence—not seven years—after pleading guilty to violating the Clean Air Act by disabling emissions monitoring systems on hundreds of commercial trucks. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lake and his company, Elite Diesel Service Inc., orchestrated a large-scale conspiracy to tamper with emissions controls, resulting in significant illegal pollution.

Lake was not prosecuted for merely fixing his own vehicle, but for intentionally disabling federally mandated emissions equipment on at least 344 trucks, causing an estimated 1,300 tons of excess nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. The case involved multiple co-conspirators and substantial fines, and was not simply about the right to repair a personal vehicle.

Despite Trump’s claims that Democrats want to jail people for fixing their own vehicles, no such law exists. The “right to repair” debate is more nuanced, focusing on consumers’ ability to repair their own products or choose independent repair shops, particularly as modern vehicles become more reliant on proprietary software and telematics.

Trump’s repeated false statements misrepresent both the facts of the Lake case and the broader right to repair issue, exaggerating the consequences and incorrectly attributing blame to political opponents. This pattern of distortion highlights the importance of fact-checking claims made in high-profile policy debates.

Conclusion

President Trump’s anecdote about a mechanic jailed for seven years for fixing his own car is not supported by the facts. The actual case involved criminal tampering with emissions controls, not simple repairs, and the sentence was far shorter than Trump claimed. The right to repair debate remains complex, but Trump’s statements have significantly misrepresented both the law and the reality faced by consumers and mechanics.

Source article

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2026/06/trumps-inaccurate-anecdote-on-right-to-repair-cars/

Donald J. Trump: “At my direction, the United States Southern Command delivered a swift and le…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-06-12 20:03:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Claims Responsibility for Strike on Tren de Aragua Leader, Issues Series of Attacks and Exaggerations

Donald Trump declared, “At my direction, the United States Southern Command delivered a swift and lethal kinetic strike to successfully execute Niño Guerrero, the infamous leader of Tren De Aragua, one of the most bloodthirsty Terrorist Organizations on Planet Earth.” In a sweeping statement, Trump took credit for the military action and used the announcement to launch a series of attacks and unsubstantiated claims about immigration and crime.

Exaggerated and False Claims About Immigration

Trump asserted, “Before I returned to office, Joe Biden opened our Southern Border to millions of Illegal Criminals, and allowed this foreign army to rape, maim, and murder American Citizens with total impunity.” This statement repeats a pattern of exaggeration and demonization of immigrants, painting them as a “foreign army” responsible for widespread violence. There is no evidence that millions of criminals have crossed the border or that the Biden administration has allowed such crimes with “total impunity.” These claims have been repeatedly debunked by fact-checkers and law enforcement statistics.

Personal Attacks and Distortions

Trump referenced specific victims, saying he pledged to “expel these monsters from our Country, and bring Justice to the families of those they slaughtered, including the precious 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, 22-year-old Laken Reilly, and countless other beautiful souls.” By linking these tragedies directly to his political opponents and immigration policy, Trump distorts the facts around individual cases for political gain.

Dubious Claims of Policy Success

Trump claimed, “Early in my Administration, I delivered on my promise to designate Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, deport thousands of evil criminals, and wage war against the Cartels, who have long been waging war against our Citizens, while weak leaders left America helpless and defensive.” While he touts coordination with Venezuela and the elimination of safe havens for Tren de Aragua, there is no public record confirming the official designation of Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. government during his administration. His assertion that “Tren de Aragua terrorists no longer have safe haven in Venezuela or anywhere else” is also not substantiated by independent reporting.

Conclusion

Trump’s statement is marked by a series of exaggerations, falsehoods, and personal attacks. He attributes violent crime to immigrants with no supporting evidence, misrepresents policy actions, and claims credit for military operations in dramatic terms. These patterns reflect his ongoing use of inflammatory rhetoric and misleading statements to advance his political narrative. Readers should approach such claims with skepticism and seek out verified information to understand the true scope of these issues.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/39234

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

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

Trump’s Pardon of Honduran Ex-President Sparks Outrage Over VIP Prison Perks

President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of taking bribes and enabling drug traffickers to export more than 400 tons of cocaine to the U.S., has ignited a political firestorm over the use of taxpayer dollars for special treatment of pardoned criminals.

After Trump granted Hernández a full pardon in December, federal prison officials reportedly removed an immigration detainer that should have kept Hernández in custody for pickup by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Instead, the Bureau of Prisons arranged for a four-man tactical team to drive Hernández six hours from a high-security West Virginia prison to the luxury Waldorf Astoria hotel in Manhattan, with overtime pay funded by taxpayers.

The special treatment, described by Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) as “red carpet” accommodations, prompted her to introduce an amendment to bar the Bureau of Prisons and other agencies from using public funds to provide VIP perks, transportation, or preferential legal treatment to convicted drug traffickers and child traffickers, even if they have been pardoned.

Hernández, who has long denied wrongdoing, appealed to Trump’s sympathies last year with a letter claiming he was a victim of “political persecution” by the Biden administration. Trump’s pardon came just two days before a contentious Honduran presidential election, a move experts said signaled support for Hernández’s right-wing National Party and may have encouraged election manipulation.

The Bureau of Prisons has not commented on the specifics of Hernández’s release, but a retired prison worker described staff as “disgusted” by the agency’s actions. Torres’s amendment was voted down along party lines in the House Appropriations Committee, with Republicans opposing the measure.

The controversy highlights ongoing concerns about the fairness of the justice system and the use of presidential pardons. Torres vowed to continue fighting for reforms, stating, “The American people deserve a government that enforces the law fairly and holds powerful criminals accountable, regardless of who pardons them.”

This episode underscores the far-reaching consequences of Trump’s pardon decisions and raises questions about accountability and equal treatment under the law.

Source article

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

Trump’s Inaccurate Anecdote on ‘Right to Repair’ Cars

FactCheck.org — 2026-06-12 07:24:00 — www.factcheck.org

Trump Falsely Claims Mechanic Jailed for Seven Years for Fixing His Own Car

President Donald Trump has repeatedly cited a wildly inaccurate anecdote to support his stance on the “right to repair” debate, claiming that a man was sentenced to seven years in jail simply for fixing his own car. In remarks on June 4, Trump stated, “They gave a man seven years in jail, actually, because he fixed his own car.” He reiterated the claim the following day at a Wisconsin agriculture roundtable, asserting, “I pardoned a man last week who was sentenced to seven years in jail because he got caught fixing his car or his truck.”

However, the facts do not support Trump’s story. The case he referenced appears to be that of Troy Lake, a Wyoming diesel mechanic who was pardoned by Trump on November 7. Lake served seven months of a one-year sentence—not seven years—after pleading guilty to violating the Clean Air Act by disabling emissions monitoring systems on hundreds of commercial trucks. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lake and his company, Elite Diesel Service Inc., orchestrated a large-scale conspiracy to tamper with emissions controls, resulting in significant illegal pollution.

Lake was not prosecuted for merely fixing his own vehicle, but for intentionally disabling federally mandated emissions equipment on at least 344 trucks, causing an estimated 1,300 tons of excess nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. The case involved multiple co-conspirators and substantial fines, and was not simply about the right to repair a personal vehicle.

Despite Trump’s claims that Democrats want to jail people for fixing their own vehicles, no such law exists. The “right to repair” debate is more nuanced, focusing on consumers’ ability to repair their own products or choose independent repair shops, particularly as modern vehicles become more reliant on proprietary software and telematics.

Trump’s repeated false statements misrepresent both the facts of the Lake case and the broader right to repair issue, exaggerating the consequences and incorrectly attributing blame to political opponents. This pattern of distortion highlights the importance of fact-checking claims made in high-profile policy debates.

Conclusion

President Trump’s anecdote about a mechanic jailed for seven years for fixing his own car is not supported by the facts. The actual case involved criminal tampering with emissions controls, not simple repairs, and the sentence was far shorter than Trump claimed. The right to repair debate remains complex, but Trump’s statements have significantly misrepresented both the law and the reality faced by consumers and mechanics.

Source article

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2026/06/trumps-inaccurate-anecdote-on-right-to-repair-cars/

Donald J. Trump: “Highly Respected America First Congresswoman, Julia Letlow, of the wonderful…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-06-12 11:30:00 — trumpstruth.org

Donald Trump Endorses Julia Letlow for Senate, Repeats Familiar Claims About Louisiana Victories

Donald Trump has issued a full-throated endorsement of Julia Letlow, calling her a “Great Star” and a “TOTAL WINNER” as she runs for the United States Senate in Louisiana. In a statement, Trump praised Letlow’s record and promised she would “work tirelessly to Grow our Economy, Cut Taxes and Regulations, Support our Amazing Farmers and Fishermen, Champion Louisiana Oil & Gas, Unleash American Energy DOMINANCE, Promote MADE IN THE U.S.A., Keep our Border SECURE, Stop Migrant Crime, Ensure LAW AND ORDER, Strengthen our Military/Veterans, and Protect our always under siege Second Amendment.”

Trump also repeated a familiar boast, claiming Louisiana is “a place I love and WON BIG, six times, including Primaries, in 2016, 2020, and 2024.” While Trump did win Louisiana in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, the assertion of “six times” appears to exaggerate the number of significant victories, as Louisiana holds two major elections for president each cycle (primary and general), not three. There is no public record of Trump winning six separate statewide contests in Louisiana.

Exaggerated Claims and Repeated Rhetoric

Trump’s statement continues his pattern of using superlatives and sweeping promises when endorsing allies. He describes Letlow as someone who “has ALWAYS delivered for Louisiana” and assures voters she “will never let you down.” These phrases echo Trump’s frequent use of absolute language to characterize his endorsements and policy positions.

Additionally, Trump’s pledge that Letlow will “Stop Migrant Crime” and “Ensure LAW AND ORDER” reflects his longstanding rhetoric on immigration and crime, often criticized for lacking supporting evidence and for exaggerating the scale of migrant-related crime.

Conclusion

Trump’s endorsement of Julia Letlow for the U.S. Senate in Louisiana is marked by his characteristic use of hyperbole and repetition of unsubstantiated claims about his electoral record in the state. As voters head to the polls, Trump’s statements serve as a reminder of his ongoing influence in Republican primaries—and his continued reliance on familiar, and sometimes exaggerated, talking points.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/39231

Judge extends block on Trump’s $1.8 billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-06-12 10:57:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Continues to Support Controversial $1.8 Billion Settlement Fund Despite Court Block

A federal judge has extended a court-ordered block on the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion settlement fund, designed to compensate individuals claiming to be victims of a weaponized government. Despite the Justice Department’s announcement that the fund would be scrapped amid bipartisan backlash, President Donald Trump has not publicly and unequivocally endorsed its cancellation. Instead, he has continued to express support for the fund in remarks to reporters.

Trump’s Ongoing Support for the Fund

While acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress that the administration was abandoning the fund, Trump’s position has remained supportive. The judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, noted that Trump has not clearly backed away from the initiative, leaving open the possibility that the fund could be revived. Brinkema has ordered further negotiations to ensure the administration will not move forward with the fund without a sworn declaration from Blanche.

Legal and Political Controversy

The fund, created by Trump’s administration to resolve his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over leaked tax returns, has faced criticism from both parties. Plaintiffs argue that the government cannot legally divert taxpayer money into what they describe as a slush fund for compensating Trump’s allies. The controversy deepened when it was revealed that the fund could potentially be used to compensate individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot—a group Trump issued mass pardons to on his first day back in the White House last year.

Fact-Check: Trump’s Record and the Fund

Despite claims from the administration that the fund would not proceed, Trump’s continued support and lack of a clear public statement endorsing its cancellation have fueled skepticism. The Justice Department never formed the commission required to decide on payout criteria, and no money has been disbursed. However, the administration’s reluctance to formally rescind the order establishing the fund has left the issue unresolved in the courts.

Conclusion

President Trump’s ongoing support for the controversial settlement fund, despite bipartisan opposition and a federal court block, highlights his willingness to stand by initiatives that critics argue benefit his allies and undermine legal norms. The lack of a definitive public statement from Trump ending the fund leaves open questions about the administration’s intentions and the future of the disputed payouts. As the legal battle continues, the case underscores the broader debate over accountability and the use of taxpayer funds for politically charged purposes.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-extends-block-on-trumps-1-8-billion-anti-weaponization-fund

FISA, a Key U.S. Spying Power, Is Expiring. What Does That Mean for Foreign Surveillance?

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-06-12 10:24:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Warns of National Security Threat as FISA Surveillance Program Nears Lapse—But Experts Say “Going Dark” Is a Myth

As Congress failed to reach a deal to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), President Trump and other officials issued dire warnings that the United States is about to “go dark” to foreign terror plots, cyberattacks, and other threats. Trump’s administration is pushing for the program’s renewal, despite his own previous criticisms of FISA.

Trump’s Warnings and the Reality

President Trump, along with members of Congress and intelligence officials, has claimed that letting Section 702 expire would leave the country dangerously exposed. These warnings have been echoed by others, with some describing the situation as risking “catastrophe in our national security.”

However, the reality is more complicated. Legal experts and government documents reveal that a lapse in the law would not immediately halt surveillance operations. Due to annual certifications by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the National Security Agency (NSA) could continue operating the program through March 2027, even if the statute expires. This built-in safety net means the program would not simply “go dark” at midnight.

The “Going Dark” Narrative Challenged

Privacy advocates and some lawmakers argue that the deadline is being used to create a false sense of urgency. They point out that other surveillance authorities would remain in place, and that the FISA court’s certifications were intentionally designed to prevent sudden gaps in intelligence collection.

Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice calls the fear of “going dark” a “myth being used by opponents of reform to pressure members to pass either short-term extensions or bills that preserve the status quo.” Even if technology companies hesitate to cooperate without a live statute, the FISA court can compel compliance almost immediately, as past cases have shown.

Trump’s Contradictory Record

While Trump’s administration is now pushing for Section 702’s renewal, he has previously condemned both the program and FISA more broadly. This contradiction highlights the shifting political landscape around surveillance powers and privacy concerns.

Conclusion

President Trump’s warnings about the imminent loss of critical surveillance capabilities if Section 702 lapses are contradicted by legal experts and government documents. The built-in legal mechanisms ensure that intelligence collection will not suddenly stop, and the narrative of “going dark” appears to be more about political pressure than immediate national security risk. As the debate continues, the facts show that the situation is far less dire than Trump and his allies suggest.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/12/us/politics/fisa-expiration.html

Trump grouses about 'weak and pathetic' Iran, dismisses 'leaked' deal

Donald Trump — 2026-06-12 10:06:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Touts “Great Settlement” of War, Quickly Shifts Back to Criticizing Iran

President Trump declared a “great settlement” of the war on Thursday afternoon, only to pivot back to criticizing Iran the following morning. This rapid shift in messaging highlights the president’s pattern of making bold claims about foreign policy achievements, while simultaneously maintaining a confrontational stance toward adversaries.

Claims of a “Great Settlement”

On Thursday, President Trump publicly touted what he described as a “great settlement” of the war. The statement suggests a significant diplomatic breakthrough or resolution, though the details of such a settlement were not specified in the excerpt. This type of sweeping declaration is consistent with the president’s history of exaggerating the outcomes of his administration’s foreign policy efforts.

Return to Attacking Iran

Despite his claim of a successful settlement, Trump quickly returned to criticizing Iran the next morning. This pivot underscores a recurring contradiction in his rhetoric: presenting peace or resolution on one hand, while escalating tensions on the other. The president’s approach often leaves observers questioning the stability and consistency of U.S. foreign policy.

Fact-Check and Context

Fact-checkers have repeatedly scrutinized Trump’s statements regarding international conflicts and negotiations. In this case, the claim of a “great settlement” is not substantiated with evidence in the excerpt, and the immediate return to attacking Iran raises doubts about the durability or reality of any such agreement. This pattern of making grand pronouncements, followed by contradictory actions or statements, has been a hallmark of Trump’s communication style.

Conclusion

President Trump’s assertion of a “great settlement” of the war, followed by renewed criticism of Iran, exemplifies his tendency to make unverified claims and rapidly shift positions. Such inconsistencies complicate efforts to assess the true state of U.S. foreign relations and highlight the importance of scrutinizing presidential statements for accuracy and coherence. Readers should remain vigilant in evaluating the facts behind political rhetoric, especially when it comes to matters of international conflict and diplomacy.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/12/trump-iran-peace-deal-leak-00960515

Donald Trump wrong about rarity of Republicans winning in Nassau County, NY

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-06-12 08:03:00 — www.politifact.com

Trump’s Rally Claim About Nassau County Republicans Contradicted by Local Political History

At a recent rally in Suffern, New York, Donald Trump introduced Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman and praised him as a trailblazer for Republicans in what Trump described as a heavily Democratic stronghold. “Nassau County, it’s all Democrat,” Trump said at the May 22 event. Referring to Blakeman’s 2021 victory, Trump asserted, “You know, when he ran years ago, he ran in Nassau. They said, you got to be kidding. It doesn’t happen. No Republican wins in Nassau. And he ran and won.”

However, this characterization of Nassau County’s political landscape is at odds with the historical record. While it is true that Nassau County has tended to vote Democratic in presidential elections since 1992—with Trump himself breaking that streak in 2024—Republicans have consistently performed well in local races. In fact, seven out of the county’s ten executives since 1938 have been Republicans, and the party has often controlled other key offices, including the district attorney and comptroller.

Local political analysts and historians have dismissed Trump’s claim as misleading. Lawrence Levy, a longtime observer of Long Island politics, described Trump’s assertion as “almost laughable,” noting that Democrats have only occasionally succeeded in county and town races, while Republicans have dominated for decades.

The facts show that, contrary to Trump’s statement, Nassau County has a long history of electing Republicans to major offices. While the county’s recent presidential voting patterns have favored Democrats, the broader political reality is far more competitive and often leans Republican at the local level.

Conclusion

Trump’s statement that “no Republican wins in Nassau” ignores the county’s actual political history, where Republicans have frequently held top offices. The claim contains a kernel of truth regarding presidential elections, but it distorts the broader record, earning a “Mostly False” rating from fact-checkers. This episode highlights Trump’s ongoing pattern of exaggerating or misrepresenting political realities to bolster his narrative.

Source article

Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/jun/12/donald-trump/nassau-county-new-york-blakeman-republicans/