Home Blog

Trump-Xi accord on Iran elusive as US president’s China trip winds down | China

Trump-Xi accord on Iran elusive as US president’s China trip winds down | China

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-15 00:46:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump has claimed that the US and China “feel very similar” about ending the war in Iran but offered no details about a possible breakthrough. The US president was speaking alongside Xi Jinping of China at the Zhongnanhai garden in Beijing on the second and final day of the leaders’ summit. “We did discuss Iran,” Trump said. “We feel very similar about [how] we want it to end. We don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon. We want the straits open.” He added: “We want them [Iran] to get it ended because it’s a crazy thing there, a little bit crazy. And it’s no good, it can’t happen.”

There is much speculation about how much pressure the US is putting on China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, to use its leverage with Iran to encourage the country to reopen the strait of Hormuz. And there is a question mark over whether or not Beijing would be willing to accede to that pressure.

US trade representative Jamieson Greer said in an interview with Bloomberg TV on Friday that the Chinese “don’t want to be on the wrong side” on the Iran issue. “It’s really important for China to have the strait of Hormuz open,” Greer said. Earlier, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said the US hoped “to convince [China] to play a more active role in getting Iran to walk away from what they’re doing now and trying to do now in the Persian Gulf.” But in an interview with NBC News on Thursday he downplayed the idea that the US was seeking support from Beijing. “We’re not asking for China’s help. We don’t need their help,” Rubio said.

China’s foreign ministry on Friday again called for a ceasefire in Iran and said the strait of Hormuz should be opened “as soon as possible.” About half of China’s crude oil passes through the waterway, but the bigger threat for the Chinese economy is if the conflict in the Middle East causes a global recession that dents demand for its exports. But many in Beijing feel that the crisis in Iran is not China’s responsibility. Zhou Bo, a retired senior army colonel and a senior fellow in the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, said: “On Iran, China definitely wants to help but I read what Rubio said: he actually seems to shift the burden to the Chinese side. In China, we have a saying: it is like, ‘Why should I clean your shit?’”

The White House readout of the more than two hours of talks between Trump and Xi on Thursday said the leaders “agreed that the strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy” and that “President Xi also made clear China’s opposition to the militarisation of the strait.” Trump raised eyebrows during a TV interview when he suggested that finding Iran’s enriched uranium was primarily for show after Israel demanded it as a goal. “I just feel better if I got it, actually, but it’s – I think, it’s more for public relations than it is for anything else,” the US president told Fox News host Sean Hannity.

The Chinese readout of Thursday’s meeting just made a brief reference to the “situation in the Middle East.” Chinese state media rapidly published a flurry of articles echoing the language of “constructive strategic stability” that was part of the Chinese government’s readout of Thursday’s meeting. The Xinhua news agency said that the term meant “harmony without uniformity and seeking common ground while reserving differences.” The concept is “full of wisdom and demonstrates responsibility,” Xinhua said.

Trump, for his part, has revelled in Chinese hospitality and flattery. He was heard saying on his way into the tea room at the Zhongnanhai garden that Xi was giving him roses for the Rose Garden, according to a White House pool report. “This has been an incredible visit,” he said as the men sat together in an opulent wood panelled room with a huge golden carpet. “I think a lot of good has come of it. We’ve made some fantastic trade deals – great for both countries … we’ve really done some wonderful things, I believe.” Trump added: “We’ve settled a lot of different problems that other people wouldn’t have been able to solve.”

He told Fox News that China agreed to buy US oil, soybeans and 200 Boeing planes. But on key issues including Taiwan, there seems to have been little by way of concrete agreement. Julian Gewirtz, a former director for China on the national security council during the Biden administration, said the new Chinese formulation about US-China relations was about “locking in this current phase of strategic stalemate for the remainder of Trump’s term and ideally beyond.” “Xi Jinping has been working for years to be ready for this moment, to bring an American president to Beijing as a peer, widely acknowledged as such around the world. And now it is happening,” Gewirtz said.

Wu Xinbo, a professor of international studies at Fudan University and a Chinese government adviser, said the balance of power between the US and China was “shifting towards greater parity.” “In the past, it always seemed as though the United States held the upper hand, constantly exerting pressure on China and taking the offensive. Now, however, it’s fair to say that the two countries have reached a new point of equilibrium,” Wu said.

At a busy intersection near Trump’s hotel, the crowds that gathered to catch a glimpse of the presidential motorcade were thinner on Friday morning than on Thursday evening, with the heavy police presence encouraging people not to loiter. Many grumbled about the inconvenience caused by the repeated road closures. Asked for their views on Trump, the word that came up again and again from Beijingers was “unpredictable.” “What he says isn’t necessarily what it means,” said one Trump-watcher, who declined to give his name.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/15/trump-china-visit-iran-agreement-xi-jinping-elusive

Fact-checking JD Vance on Maine Democrats, Medicaid fraud and autism coverage

Fact-checking JD Vance on Maine Democrats, Medicaid fraud and autism coverage

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-05-14 17:25:00 — www.politifact.com

Visiting Maine weeks before the state’s primary election, Vice President JD Vance accused Democrats of capitulating to fraudsters. Calling Maine the “bronze medalist” in fraud after California and Minnesota, Vance predicted that federal officials will find “hundreds of millions of dollars every single month” because Maine “is not a state that takes it seriously.” Vance, tasked by President Donald Trump to uncover fraud in federal programs, said May 14 in Bangor that states that don’t go after fraud “care more about illegal aliens than the people they represent.”

Maine has experienced some fraud in Medicaid and autism coverage in recent years, but some of the things Vance said exaggerated how much fault lies with Democratic officials, and he left out that, by some metrics, Maine experiences less fraud than other states. U.S. Sentencing Commission data shows in fiscal year 2025 that New Jersey and the Southern District of Florida were tied for the most health care fraud sentencings. Nationwide, 91% of people sentenced were United States citizens. Maine has about 10,000 immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, just under 1% of the state’s population and one of the smallest unauthorized immigrant populations in the U.S.

The largest cases of fraud over a decade in MaineCare, the state’s Medicaid healthcare program for low-income people, have involved pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmacies, including companies with offices in the U.S., WMTW, PolitiFact’s Maine partner, reported. Neither the White House nor the vice president’s office responded to an inquiry for this article. Democratic Gov. Janet Mills rejected Vance’s portrayal after his speech, resending a March statement that said she cracked down on fraud as a district attorney, attorney general and governor, “often by working hand-in-hand with the federal government.”

Vance campaigned with former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who is running in an open-seat race for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, an area that Trump won three times. Republican Sen. Susan Collins did not attend the event, but Vance had a kind word for the senator, who voted to convict Trump in 2021 and is in a competitive Senate race. “I almost wish that she was more partisan, but the thing I love about Susan is she is independent,” Vance said. Graham Platner, the Democrats’ expected Senate candidate nominee, shared video of Vance’s comment within hours, seeking to reinforce Collins’ ties to the administration.

We fact-checked some of Vance’s comments. Vance: “The government wasn’t going after fraud. And ladies and gentlemen, that changed the moment, Donald J. Trump became the President of the United States.” That’s incorrect. The federal government and state governments, including Maine’s, have long pursued fraud cases. Trump has torn down governmental fraud-finding tools. He fired more than a dozen inspectors general whose jobs were to ferret out fraud and inefficiencies and appointed his own. He paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from taking bribes from foreign officials. He has also granted clemency to some people convicted of Medicare or Medicaid fraud.

Congress passed the Inspector General Act of 1978 in response to anti-corruption efforts that started after the 1972 Watergate break-in and cover-up that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation. Another federal entity, the Government Accountability Office, conducts audits. WMTW reported in January that since 2015, the Maine Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit recovered more than $17 million in 162 cases, sometimes involving repeat offenders. That is a small percentage of the billions of dollars spent annually on MaineCare. Maine’s improper payment rate of 2.4% is lower than the national average of 3.2%, data show.

Vance: “Fraud has festered in Maine” because LePage is no longer the governor. That’s wrong. Fraud existed under both LePage and Mills, and both administrations carried out investigations and conducted routine audits. WMTW found that there were dozens of fraud investigations every year between 2015 and 2025. That includes the final four years of LePage’s tenure and most of Mills’ governorship. Assigning credit for investigations and prosecutions is tricky, because convictions can represent cases in which investigations were launched years earlier.

For example, two Lewiston men who defrauded MaineCare from 2015 to 2018 were sentenced for health care fraud in 2021. This prosecution was the result of a three-year investigation by federal and state officials during the Trump, Biden, LePage and Mills administrations. As governor, LePage’s antifraud actions included pursuing more than 1,000 cases of fraud within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for low-income households and hiring additional welfare fraud investigators. Under Mills, the state health department in December stopped payments for MaineCare to Gateway Community Services, a nonprofit that works with Somali immigrants, because of allegations of fraud. A few employees were later charged with tax fraud.

Vance mentioned the case of Rakiya Mohamed, an Auburn, Maine, resident and owner of a language interpretation business. Mohamed in March pleaded guilty in federal court to filing a false tax return and interfering with the administration of federal tax laws. Mohamed reported the income and expenses for the business, Reliable Language Resources, on her individual income tax returns and reported false and fraudulent expenses for contract labor and office expenses. A court document said she is not a foreign national. Mohamed faces a maximum term of imprisonment of three years and a $250,000 fine.

Vance: “In Maine, we’ve seen people go out there and say that they’re providing services to autistic children, when, in reality, they maybe don’t have any children at all, or they certainly don’t have autistic children.” There is evidence of payment problems within Maine’s autism-related Medicaid coverage, but the auditor cited incomplete paperwork and did not say anyone had fabricated autistic children. In January, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services inspector general released an audit that said Maine made at least $45.6 million in improper Medicaid payments for children with autism.

An “improper” payment in a government program refers to erroneous payments made to beneficiaries and their providers or without sufficient documentation. The Maine audit deemed some Medicaid payments improper if children did not receive all the required assessments or if filed assessments lacked required signatures of staff, parents or guardians. Others were considered improper because the notes from patient evaluation sessions were not fully documented or lacked a provider’s credentials. The agency said Maine should return $28.7 million, which was the federal share of the payments. The inspector general examined the program because of rising costs; it had grown from $52.2 million in 2019 to $80.6 million in 2023.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, who heads the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, asked Mills in February what the state was doing to prevent fraud and recoup stolen payments. The letter came weeks after the federal government deployed immigration agents to Maine in a targeted crackdown. Mills’ response cited initiatives from her tenure, including requiring all group homes and personal care agencies in Maine to be licensed and enhancing licensing requirements for home and community rehabilitation support services. Staff Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/may/14/vice-president-JD-Vance-Maine-fraud-Janet-Mills/

Yes, Florida is the only state in the nation removing children from low-cost health insurance

Yes, Florida is the only state in the nation removing children from low-cost health insurance

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-05-14 16:04:00 — www.politifact.com

The way Florida treats kids enrolled in its low-income children’s health insurance program is an outlier in the United States, a Democratic congresswoman said. “Governor (Ron) DeSantis is breaking the law,” U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., wrote April 29 on X. “Florida is the only state in the nation kicking children off their affordable health coverage and preventing over 40,000 children from getting KidCare coverage.”

KidCare is Florida’s subsidized health insurance for children from low-income families — the state’s version of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. Florida officials challenged a federal rule that requires keeping children enrolled in affordable health insurance — and Florida is the only state taking children off its program because of missed payments. State officials removed about 43,000 children from December 2024 to November 2025.

The DeSantis administration has filed lawsuits against both the Biden and Trump administrations to exempt Florida or reverse the rule. The rule requires states to keep children continuously enrolled in subsidized health insurance plans for 12 months even if parents miss a payment. Two of Florida’s lawsuits have been unsuccessful; one is pending.

“There are no other states doing this,” said Joan Alker, director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families. “Florida is removing thousands of children, violating federal law, and saying they aren’t going to expand their program because of this federal rule.”

In her post, Castor shared an article by KFF, a health policy think tank, that described Florida’s yearslong delay of a KidCare program expansion, which state lawmakers approved in 2023. When asked for comment, Jay Rhoden, a Castor spokesperson, referenced the KFF article and said other states, such as Texas, have asked the federal government to rescind the rule requiring continuous coverage but haven’t defied the law.

DeSantis’ office directed PolitiFact’s questions to the state’s Agency for Health Care Administration, which helps oversee KidCare and has been involved in the litigation. The agency did not respond to our email seeking comment.

Florida’s KidCare is a Medicaid expansion program for children whose families earn too much money to qualify for traditional Medicaid but do not earn enough money to buy private or marketplace insurance. The federal government pays about 69 cents of every dollar spent on KidCare, with the rest funded through state funds and monthly premiums of about $15 to $20, depending on household income.

Florida is among the states with the highest number of uninsured children, with more than 400,000, or 8.5%, lacking insurance, according to 2024 federal data. In May 2023, the Florida Legislature unanimously approved expanding KidCare’s eligibility threshold from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty level. That means children in a family of four qualify for coverage if the annual household income is $93,600 or less, up from about $66,000. DeSantis signed it into law in June 2023.

A 2023 House analysis estimated the expansion would cover 42,000 more Florida children. Studies have found that subsidized healthcare coverage improves children’s lives by increasing access to care and improving long-term health outcomes. Also in 2023, the federal government approved the “continuous eligibility” rule that required states to provide 12 months of healthcare coverage for children enrolled in subsidized programs. The rule ensures children’s coverage wouldn’t lapse in cases of nonpayment or administrative issues. Alker said children sometimes lose coverage because of a bureaucratic mistake, such as missing a notice when they move.

The DeSantis administration sued the federal government in an attempt to nix the rule, and also submitted a waiver to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to seek approval of the KidCare expansion and to ask the agency to let the state continue removing children from the program for missed premiums. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved Florida’s waiver to expand KidCare in December 2024 but said the state must comply with the federal rule.

From December 2024 through November 2025, Florida removed about 43,000 children from the program for premium payment lapses, according to data obtained by KFF. “Florida is an extreme outlier. Thousands of children are losing their health insurance,” said Holly Bullard, chief strategy and development officer at the Florida Policy Institute, a left-leaning nonprofit advocating for the state to implement the expansion. “Not only is it the only state suing, but it’s also the only one not complying with both state and federal law.”

A federal judge dismissed Florida’s first lawsuit over the rule, and the state withdrew its second lawsuit in February. Florida is now suing the federal government for a third time, accusing it of Freedom of Information Act violations related to the expansion waiver and asking the court to strike the condition that Florida must abide by the continuous enrollment requirement. Florida officials have pointed to ongoing litigation for the delay in expanding the program. “You can sue over federal policy you don’t like, but you’re supposed to comply with the law at the same time,” Bullard said.

The Trump administration has not enforced the continuous enrollment rule in Florida, or issued any warnings to the state. Florida Health Justice Project, a nonprofit legal aid group, and the National Health Law Program sued Florida’s Medicaid and KidCare agencies in March to implement the approved expansion.

Our ruling Castor said, “Florida is the only state in the nation kicking children off their affordable health coverage.” The state is the only one in the country not complying with a federal rule requiring states to keep children enrolled in subsidized healthcare for 12 months regardless of missed premium payments. Florida has removed at least 43,000 children from KidCare for nonpayment since December 2024. We rate Castor’s statement True.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/may/14/kathy-castor/kid-care-florida-desantis-health-insurance/

Trump Counterterror Plan Targets Leftists, Ignores Far-Right Violence — ProPublica

Trump Counterterror Plan Targets Leftists, Ignores Far-Right Violence — ProPublica

ProPublica — 2026-05-14 10:55:00 — www.propublica.org

For a year, White House counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka promoted the national strategy he was drafting, saying he was pouring his “life’s work” into a “massive” blueprint that would overhaul the U.S. approach to combating terrorist threats.

The finished product, released May 6 after months of delays, is a 16-page, typo-sprinkled document that ranks threats based on politics rather than intelligence assessments, according to several current and former counterterrorism officials and threat analysts.

Islamist militant groups, the perennial top concern, now come second to Latin American drug cartels. The violent far right, which the FBI has repeatedly called the leading domestic threat, doesn’t merit a mention. Meanwhile, militant leftists, a small subset of extremist violence in the United States, are portrayed as a threat on par with global terrorist networks such as al-Qaida.

“A new type of domestic terrorism has emerged,” the document says, “driven by violent extremists who have adopted ideologies antithetical to freedom and the American way of life.”

Gorka’s strategy — the subject of a recent ProPublica report — lavishes praise on President Donald Trump’s national security agenda but offers few details about plans to tackle the administration’s top priorities: Latin American “narcoterrorists,” Islamist militant groups, and violent leftist antifascists and anarchists.

Gorka, who coordinates White House counterterrorism policy at the National Security Council, has called the document a “return to common sense” after a 2021 strategy by President Joe Biden centered on mostly far-right domestic threats. The new strategy mentions Biden seven times.

“What it tells me is that this administration is not paying attention to the data, to what our allies are seeing globally, or to where the biggest threats of violence come from or how they might be prevented,” said Cynthia Miller-Idriss, founding director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at American University.

Republican leaders often portrayed Biden’s focus on the violent far right as the Democrats cracking down on conservative organizing. That idea fueled Trump’s blanket pardon of more than 1,500 defendants, including those who attacked police, in the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Gorka did not reply to a request for comment. The White House, asked about criticisms of the plan, referred to a number of Gorka’s public statements touting it. Olivia Wales, a White House spokesperson, added in an email, “President Trump is crushing terrorist threats to the United States and will never let cartels, Jihadists, or the governments who support them plot against our citizens with impunity.”

Here are five notable aspects of the plan, compiled from interviews with counterterrorism personnel and researchers’ published critiques:

1. It’s about Trump, not terrorism.

The counterterrorism strategy begins with a signed foreword by Trump, who sets the tone by claiming credit for ending “four years of weakness, failure, surrender, and humiliation under the last administration.”

Analysts say the rest of the strategy often reads like a valentine rather than a sober national security communique. Under Trump’s leadership, it states, “America is again the world’s most powerful nation, with the largest economy in history, the most advanced technologies, and the bravest and most skilled warfighters the world has ever seen.”

The strategy’s top threat categories align with the president’s pet issues, including the villainizing of Democrats and leftist dissent. The language also echoes debunked right-wing conspiracy theories the president has shared about a stolen election, a purported genocide of Christians and existential threats to Western civilization by what the strategy calls “alien cultures.” One section refers to Christians as “the most persecuted people on Earth.”

“This was once a serious document written by serious people” across Democratic and Republican presidencies, veteran terrorism analyst and former Obama administration official Juliette Kayyem lamented on X. “Now it reads like a partisan screed.”

2. Data counter the priorities.

Analysts say the most obvious hole is the omission of violent far-right movements. Federal authorities have said for years that neo-Nazi and anti-government militia groups pose the most active and lethal domestic threats, though recently authorities have noted increases in leftist and mixed-motive attacks.

For example, on Sept. 10, the same day conservative youth leader Charlie Kirk was assassinated at an outdoor event in Utah, a 16-year-old gunman who was steeped in online forums for white supremacy and mass-shooter fandom opened fire at a Colorado high school, critically wounding two students before killing himself.

The strategy is concerned only with the kind of violent extremism the White House ascribes to Kirk’s alleged shooter, who is labeled a violent left-wing “radical who espoused extreme transgender ideologies.” Terrorism analysts say the attack motives do not appear so clear-cut; the suspect, who has yet to go to trial, reportedly comes from a Republican family but had shifted politically and had expressed opposition to the “hatred” he said Kirk spread.

Just last week, a lawsuit related to a deadly shooting last year at Florida State University revealed that the gunman had used ChatGPT to explore “his interests in Hitler, Nazis, fascism” and other far-right topics.

In a social media post, Jacob Ware, a terrorism researcher who has written extensively about the militant right, called the case a “friendly reminder that the #Trump administration’s new United States Counterterrorism Strategy does not mention far-right violent extremism.”

Gorka’s counterterrorism strategy begins with a signed foreword by President Donald Trump, who claims credit for ending “four years of weakness, failure, surrender, and humiliation.” Justin Lane/Getty Images

3. Policies undermine strategy.

Several of the White House’s stated counterterrorism objectives conflict with the president’s own actions, analysts say.

For one, the pledge of stepped-up efforts to thwart plots doesn’t factor in the diminished capacity of federal agencies since Trump slashed the national security workforce last year and diverted counterterrorism resources to his mass deportation campaign.

Terrorism analyst Colin Clarke, executive director of the security-focused Soufan Center and a Gorka critic, summarized the document as “highly partisan & mostly incoherent.”

It touts the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a U.S. military operation as the important capture of a “narco-terrorist outlaw.” But weeks before the Maduro raid, Trump had granted a pardon to former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving 45 years for trafficking 400 tons of cocaine into the United States.

Another U.S. goal is to aggressively counter anti-American propaganda by Islamist extremist groups, which the administration says have been driven from strongholds in the Middle East and are “exploiting the ungoverned spaces” across Africa. Places where “a resurgent terror threat is the reality,” according to the strategy, include West Africa, the Sahel region, Sudan and Somalia.

Yet efforts to counter anti-American messaging are undermined by increased U.S. airstrikes with civilian casualties, particularly in Somalia and Yemen, and the cutoff of humanitarian programs across the continent, conflict monitors say. U.S. aid has been a lifeline for communities whose desperation can be exploited by militant recruiters.

The strategy calls for a “light military footprint” in Africa, with the expectation that African leaders will take on a greater share of counterterrorism work. But Trump’s halting of foreign aid hobbled regional counterterrorism programs. Conflict monitors, now watching with alarm as Islamist militants capture territory and stage attacks in Mali, urge the administration to pay closer attention to the restive Sahel region and other hot spots.

“Terrorists are on the verge of recreating a new caliphate sanctuary that could serve as an incubator for attacks against the US homeland and interests abroad,” Alex Plitsas, a security analyst and former Obama-era Pentagon official, wrote this month after visiting U.S. Africa Command.

“The result is a warning for Washington: when the United States and its partners step back, jihadist groups and adversarial powers fill the space,” Plitsas wrote.

The strategy also disparages “failed ‘forever war’ policies” at a time Trump’s base is wrestling with his decision to launch the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism.

In a call with reporters after his plan was released, Gorka got defensive when asked how the Iran operation was not a “forever war” that could endanger Americans. He called critics “testicularly challenged.”

Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, drew a distinction: “Unlike the ‘forever wars’ of the past with vague objectives and ever-expanding timelines, President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history, and he kept Americans apprised of the scope and defined objectives for Operation Epic Fury.”

4. Successes are exaggerated.

Trump’s preface opens by celebrating counterterrorism achievements that analysts describe as inflated or lacking in nuance.

One example is the claim that, within 43 days of Trump’s return to office, the U.S. had apprehended “the terrorist mastermind” of the deadly Abbey Gate attack in Kabul. In 2021, a suicide bomber detonated in a crowd of civilians outside an airport gate during the chaotic U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, killing more than 150 Afghans and 13 American service members.

In March, the Justice Department hailed the arrest of Afghan national Mohammad Sharifullah, an Islamist militant it said had “orchestrated” the attack. Gorka has publicly recounted the dramatic scene of waiting on the tarmac in the cold at 3 a.m., alongside several Cabinet members, to welcome the plane carrying the handcuffed “man who was responsible for the murder, the massacre.”

Last month, just before Gorka’s strategy was released, a federal jury dealt a blow to the “mastermind” narrative by returning a mixed verdict. Sharifullah was convicted of aiding the terrorist group known as Islamic State Khorasan, but the jury deadlocked on whether there was sufficient evidence to hold him responsible for the Abbey Gate deaths. The difference shapes how much time Sharifullah could spend behind bars — the more serious charge was eligible for a life sentence.

A Justice Department news release about the conviction (but not the deadlock) was scrubbed of references to Sharifullah as an orchestrator and did not use the “mastermind” language that appeared days later in the White House strategy.

Analysts also expressed skepticism about the blueprint’s claim that “hundreds of Jihadist terrorists in multiple countries” had been killed in recent U.S. counterterrorism operations. The administration releases virtually no details about the identities of those targeted or the circumstances of their deaths. Humanitarian groups say they fear the operations could be causing uncounted civilian casualties.

5. Opponents are targeted.

Rights watchdogs say the strategy hints at ways Trump administration officials will attempt to build terrorism cases against U.S. leftist and Muslim activists through nebulous or nonexistent ties to transnational militant movements.

A link to a foreign entity formally designated as a terrorist group opens the door for government surveillance and potential charges related to providing aid — “material support” in legal jargon — to a foreign terrorist organization.

Analysts say that’s why the Trump administration has pursued designations targeting leftist militant groups in Europe under the label of antifa, as well as some branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood is a century-old Islamist group that renounced violence in the 1970s, though spinoffs such as Hamas remain active and on the U.S. blacklist. Republicans have long tried to portray U.S.-based Muslim advocacy groups as a foothold for the Brotherhood.

The document also calls for the rapid “neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.” Researchers called the terms ill-defined and said they aren’t used in international counterterrorism work.

Miller-Idriss’ overarching concern about the Trump counterterrorism doctrine: “How damaging could it be? Both in the things it’s ignoring and the things that it’s emphasizing.”

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-counterterrorism-plan-ignores-far-rights-gorka

Elon Musk and other CEOs among those invited to be in Trump’s delegation to China

Elon Musk and other CEOs among those invited to be in Trump’s delegation to China

Politics – CBSNews.com — 2026-05-11 15:26:00 — www.cbsnews.com

Washington — Billionaire and former Trump administration official Elon Musk is one of the high-powered business leaders who have been invited to be a part of the U.S. delegation to China this week, according to a list of names from a White House official. President Trump is meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing for a high-stakes meeting as uncertainty over the war with Iran roils global oil markets and supply chains. Musk and other business leaders in the U.S. delegation have significant business interests in China. Others invited to be a part of the delegation include: Apple’s Tim Cook, BlackRock’s Larry Fink, Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman, Boeing’s Kelly Ortberg, Goldman Sachs’ David Solomon, Meta’s Dina Powell McCormick, Micron’s Sanjay Mehrotra, Qualcomm’s Christiano Amon, Illumina’s Jacob Thaysen, Mastercard’s Michael Miebach, Visa’s Ryan McInerney, Cargill’s Brian Sikes, Citi’s Jane Fraser, Cisco’s Chuck Robbins, Coherent’s Jim Anderson, and GE Aerospace’s H. Lawrence Culp.

Mr. Trump on Monday said he plans to talk about economic and energy matters. “I have a great relationship with President Xi,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office. “We’re doing a lot of business, but it’s smart business. We used to be taken advantage of for years with our previous presidents. And now we’re doing great with China. We make a lot of money with China.” The president delayed his trip to China due to the war with Iran. On Monday, Mr. Trump blasted the Iranians’ response to a U.S. proposal to bring the war to an end, calling it “unacceptable” and “garbage.” He also said the ongoing ceasefire is “unbelievably weak” and “on life support.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to note that the executives have been invited to be a part of the delegation, and have not necessarily committed to participating.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-trump-china-us-delegation/

‘I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation,’ says Trump amid Iran talks | US news

‘I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation,’ says Trump amid Iran talks | US news

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-13 09:03:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump has said the growing financial pressure inflicted on Americans by the war on Iran is “not even a little bit” motivating him to make a peace deal with Tehran. With US inflation at a three-year high and fuel costs still climbing after a sharp rise in oil prices, the US president stated on Tuesday that he is not focused on the economic hardship sparked by the conflict. “The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran [is] they can’t have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters at the White House before boarding a plane to China. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all.”

These remarks come as the US midterm election campaign season approaches, a time marked by increasing concerns about affordability. Trump made his comments shortly after official figures revealed that US prices had risen 3.8% in April—the fastest pace since 2023—largely driven by energy costs that have surged since the US and Israel first attacked Iran in late February. Gasoline now averages over $4.50 a gallon, the highest price in four years, while food prices have also increased nearly 4%, and utility bills have climbed significantly.

Trump’s administration has faced challenges in addressing these economic pressures. Energy Secretary Chris Wright previously indicated that fuel prices could return to prewar levels by summer, but later admitted he “can’t make predictions.” Trump himself has offered vague forecasts about prices potentially going lower, remaining the same, or possibly increasing by November. His top economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, claimed that relief would come “relatively quickly and certainly ahead of the election,” while Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that Americans should consider themselves fortunate compared to other countries suffering more severe economic strains.

On Tuesday, Trump pointed out that inflation was running at 1.7% before the war and predicted that a resolution would lead to a “massive drop in the price of oil.” He noted that dire forecasts—such as $300-a-barrel crude or a stock market crash of 25%—had not materialized, stating, “A lot of people predicted that. Well, it didn’t happen.” Despite rising inflation and consumer confidence dropping to levels last seen in 2022, Trump maintained that his economic policies were working “incredibly” and that once the war ends, Americans would see significant benefits. “When this war is over, oil is going to drop, the stock market is going to go through the roof, and truly, I think we’re in the golden age right now,” he said. “You’re going to see a golden age like we’ve ever seen before.”

### How this sits against verifiable accuracy
Trump’s statements imply that he is not influenced by the economic pressures facing Americans due to the war on Iran and that his primary concern is preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He has dismissed the impact of rising inflation and fuel prices on his decision-making. However, the economic context surrounding his remarks—rising prices and inflation—contradicts his assertion that these factors do not motivate him. The excerpt highlights a disconnect between Trump’s focus on foreign policy and the domestic economic realities affecting American citizens.

### How this compares to what he has said before
In previous statements, Trump has emphasized the importance of economic stability and the impact of inflation on American families. During earlier discussions, he often linked economic performance to his administration’s policies, suggesting that a strong economy would bolster national security. His current dismissal of economic concerns in favor of a singular focus on Iran’s nuclear capabilities marks a shift from his earlier stance, where he acknowledged the interconnectedness of domestic economic health and foreign policy decisions.

### Targets and tone
The excerpt does not show Trump singling out, insulting, demeaning, threatening, or speaking in a hostile way about specific people or groups.

In summary, Trump’s recent comments reflect a prioritization of foreign policy over domestic economic concerns, which may raise questions about his administration’s responsiveness to the financial pressures faced by Americans. This shift in focus could have implications as the midterm elections approach, where economic issues are likely to be a central theme.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/13/trump-iran-war-americans-finances

Trump demands GOP staffer be fired for making McConnell look 'out of it'

Trump demands GOP staffer be fired for making McConnell look 'out of it'

Administration News — 2026-05-13 07:33:00 — thehill.com

President Trump on Wednesday demanded that a GOP staffer be fired for making Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) look “out of it” while leading a recent Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing. Trump criticized the staffer, stating, “The guy that came up to Mitch McConnell today when McConnell thought the hearing was over and started speaking in his ear for Mitch to belatedly…”

How this sits against verifiable accuracy
Trump’s remarks imply that the staffer’s actions were inappropriate and contributed to a negative perception of McConnell during the hearing. The excerpt does not provide evidence to support or refute the claim about McConnell’s state during the hearing or the staffer’s intentions.

How this compares to what he has said before
In previous public statements, Trump has expressed support for McConnell, particularly during their time working together in the Senate. However, this recent demand for the staffer’s dismissal suggests a shift in Trump’s tone, indicating frustration with McConnell’s handling of the situation. This marks a notable change from his earlier public posture of solidarity with the Senate Minority Leader.

Closing: Trump’s demand for accountability from within the GOP highlights ongoing tensions within the party, particularly regarding leadership and public perception. As he continues to navigate these dynamics, it remains to be seen how this will affect his relationship with McConnell and the broader Republican establishment.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5875564-donald-trump-mitch-mcconnell-gop-staffer-criticism/

Trump pardons, DOJ moves hurt fight against public corruption : NPR

Trump pardons, DOJ moves hurt fight against public corruption : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-05-13 04:00:00 — www.npr.org

In 2024, a federal jury found former Las Vegas councilwoman Michele Fiore guilty of misappropriating approximately $70,000 in donations intended for a memorial for police officers killed in the line of duty. Instead, she used the funds for personal expenses, including rent and her daughter’s wedding. Just weeks before her scheduled sentencing in May 2025, President Trump granted her a full, unconditional pardon. Fiore is among at least 15 former elected officials and their associates who have been pardoned by Trump since he returned to office.

Legal experts argue that these pardons reflect a broader trend within the Trump administration that undermines the fight against public corruption. Dan Greenberg, a senior legal fellow at the Cato Institute, noted that the administration’s actions suggest an increasingly casual attitude toward public corruption, with pardons being a significant part of that trend. Additionally, the dismantling of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, established post-Watergate to combat corruption, has further weakened enforcement efforts. Columbia Law School professor Richard Briffault emphasized that the administration’s actions convey a lack of seriousness regarding corruption, indicating a disdain for the issue and a belief that those convicted of corruption were treated unfairly.

Trump’s second term has seen a surge in pardons, including around 1,500 granted on his first day in office for individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riots. Among the pardoned were a Virginia sheriff convicted of accepting $75,000 in bribes and the former speaker of the Tennessee state house, who was involved in a kickback scheme. While some pardons were granted to Democrats, such as former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, more than half of those related to public corruption were awarded to Republicans or Trump supporters. A top official involved in the pardon process, Ed Martin, remarked on social media, “No MAGA left behind.”

Greenberg compared the controversial pardons to a “hailstorm,” suggesting that the sheer volume and nature of these pardons are not just questionable but disturbing. In defense of Trump’s actions, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated that he has exercised his constitutional authority to issue pardons for individuals who have been victims of what she described as Biden’s “weaponized justice system.” She also criticized Biden’s pardons, labeling him “President Autopen” for allegedly signing pardons for violent criminals and family members.

The impact of these pardons extends to the Justice Department, where John Keller, a former chief of the Public Integrity Section, noted a chilling effect on prosecutors. Following Trump’s 2024 election victory, many prosecutors hesitated to pursue public corruption cases that might be unpopular with the administration. Keller highlighted that the Public Integrity Section, which once had around 40 full-time staff, has been reduced to just two attorneys, significantly limiting its ability to investigate and prosecute corruption cases. The number of open matters handled by the section has dropped from approximately 175-200 to around 20.

Experts warn that this decline in enforcement could lead to a long-term “corroding effect” on public integrity, resulting in a government where officials prioritize personal gain over public service. Keller pointed to a specific case involving a former Pennsylvania police officer convicted of bribery and sexual misconduct, emphasizing that without the Public Integrity Section, such cases are unlikely to be prosecuted.

How this sits against verifiable accuracy
The excerpt indicates that Trump has granted numerous pardons, including to individuals convicted of corruption, which aligns with the broader narrative of his administration’s approach to public integrity. Legal experts cited in the excerpt express concern that these actions reflect a casual attitude toward corruption and a dismantling of enforcement mechanisms. The White House’s defense of Trump’s pardons as a constitutional exercise contrasts sharply with the criticisms from legal experts, who argue that the pardons undermine the integrity of public office and the rule of law.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies
No verifiable lies are presented in the excerpt.

Targets and tone
The excerpt does not show Trump singling out, insulting, demeaning, threatening, or speaking in a hostile way about specific people or groups.

In summary, the pardons issued by Trump, particularly those related to public corruption, raise significant concerns about the administration’s commitment to combating corruption and maintaining the integrity of public office. The reduction of resources within the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section further complicates efforts to hold corrupt officials accountable, potentially leading to a long-term erosion of public trust in government institutions.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/05/13/g-s1-121485/trump-pardons-public-corruption-justice

Trump arrives in Beijing to meet with Xi Jinping

Trump arrives in Beijing to meet with Xi Jinping

Politics – CBSNews.com — 2026-05-13 07:22:00 — www.cbsnews.com

President Trump landed in Beijing on Wednesday evening local time to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping at a crucial moment in his presidency amid the ongoing war with Iran and uncertainty about the economy. “We’re the two superpowers,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he departed the White House on Tuesday. “We’re the strongest nation on Earth in terms of military. China’s considered second.” Upon arrival, Mr. Trump stated, “We have a lot of things to discuss,” but added, “I wouldn’t say Iran is one of them, to be honest with you, because we have Iran very much under control.”

Mr. Trump has made it clear that he intends to push Xi to open up China to more American business, bringing a delegation of business leaders with him, including Elon Musk and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang. Before leaving, Mr. Trump spoke to New York City radio host Sid Rosenberg, emphasizing the “good relationship” the U.S. has with China and noting, “there are a lot of advantages to us getting along.” He even mentioned on social media that he would give Xi a “big, fat hug” when they meet.

Despite the complexities of the geopolitical landscape, Mr. Trump asserted that he did not need China’s help with the war or the economy, stating, “Not even a little bit,” when asked how much Americans’ finances were motivating him to make a deal. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation,” he said. “I think about one thing: we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”

### How this sits against verifiable accuracy
Mr. Trump’s statements imply a strong confidence in U.S. military superiority and a belief that the relationship with China is beneficial. However, his assertion that Iran is “very much under control” contrasts with the reality that China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil, which complicates the U.S. position in the region. The claim that he does not think about Americans’ financial situation raises questions about the administration’s focus on domestic economic concerns, especially given the ongoing economic uncertainty.

### How this compares to what he has said before
In previous remarks, Mr. Trump has often emphasized the importance of negotiating with China and the need for a strong U.S. economy. His current dismissal of American financial concerns as a motivator for negotiations marks a shift from earlier statements where he highlighted the economic implications of international relations. This inconsistency raises questions about the administration’s priorities and approach to foreign policy.

In summary, Mr. Trump’s remarks during his visit to China reflect a complex interplay of confidence in military strength and a dismissive attitude toward domestic economic concerns, which may not align with the realities faced by many Americans.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-beijing-xi-jinping-meeting-arrival/

Second indictment of ex-FBI chief James Comey signals retaliation fears | US news

Second indictment of ex-FBI chief James Comey signals retaliation fears | US news

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-13 07:00:00 — www.theguardian.com

The second indictment of ex-FBI director James Comey, a top target of Donald Trump in his drive for revenge against critics, suggests more charges could be coming against other Trump foes as the US president continues to use the Department of Justice to settle political scores, ex-prosecutors and law professors said. Legal critics also see the new indictment by acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, as “embarrassing” and “ridiculous” and revealing Blanche’s desire to quickly appease Trump and persuade him to make his appointment as America’s top justice official permanent.

The new grand jury indictment of Comey came in late April, just weeks after Trump fired Pam Bondi as attorney general in part because she failed to successfully prosecute Comey and other Trump enemies, and tapped Blanche, her deputy at the Department of Justice and a former top Trump criminal defense lawyer, to be acting AG. Comey had incurred Trump’s wrath in 2016 when, as FBI director, he investigated Russian efforts to help Trump win his first presidency and was subsequently fired by Trump in May 2017.

Comey was first charged last year in a separate case alleging he lied to Congress, which a judge threw out on the grounds that White House lawyer and neophyte prosecutor Lindsey Halligan had been improperly appointed on Bondi’s watch. Ex-prosecutors say the new charges against Comey, which alleged he threatened to kill Trump based on his posting a photo on Instagram in May 2025 of seashells on a beach that read “86-47,” will likely be dismissed by a judge for insufficient evidence or as a “vindictive prosecution.” “86” most often means removing or banning someone, but it’s also slang for killing a person. Trump is the 47th president. After he received criticism that the phrase could communicate the threat of violence, Comey quickly removed the post and indicated that he intended no harm.

The Justice Department’s three-page, two-count indictment alleges the seashells were “arranged in a pattern making out ‘86 47’, which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.” Blanche said on May 3 that DOJ has “evidence of all sorts” from an 11-month investigation that it will present at trial. In response, Comey quickly issued a video statement where he said: “I am still innocent, I am still not afraid and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary, so let’s go.”

Ex-prosecutors say that the latest charges against Comey are weaker than the earlier ones and signify Blanche’s ambition to quickly meet Trump’s desires. “The descent to the bottom at DoJ has accelerated since Bondi’s departure—an apparent casualty of Blanche’s ambition,” Michael Bromwich, a former inspector general at the Justice Department, told the Guardian. “Under Bondi, the department forfeited its independence and then lost its soul. Now, based on the ‘seashell indictment’ and other events of the last month, DoJ appears to have lost its mind. In more than 40 years of practicing law, I have never seen a weaker indictment.” Bromwich predicted that the new Comey charges “will fail on multiple grounds both on the law and on the facts – it’s just a matter of which motion to dismiss the judge decides to grant. It should be embarrassing to everyone involved in the decision to bring the case and to pursue it. Apparently, it was even too sketchy for Pam Bondi.” Bromwich added that “Neither top management in the DoJ nor the FBI seem to believe that the 1st Amendment is the law of the land.”

Similarly, ex-US attorney for eastern Michigan, Barbara McQuade, who now teaches law at the University of Michigan, told the Guardian: “The Comey indictment is ridiculous. No unanimous jury of 12 people will find that sharing a picture of seashells arranged in the shape of 86 47 meets the legal standard of a true threat, defined as a serious expression conveying an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence.” McQuade stressed: “If Bondi was fired for failing to deliver on Trump’s demand for retribution, then Blanche appears determined to avoid the same mistake.” McQuade’s point has been underscored by how Blanche moved quickly to rev up a wide-ranging conspiracy case against other Trump enemies, including John Brennan, the ex-CIA director who, like Comey, had made Trump’s enemies list during the first Trump administration for probing how Russia supported Trump’s 2016 campaign.

An investigation of Brennan and other Trump foes whom DOJ has been investigating as part of a multi-year “grand conspiracy” against Trump is now being overseen by Joe DiGenova, an 81-year-old former Trump election lawyer who pushed conspiracies about 2020 election fraud and was recruited in April to expedite charges. On April 20, the day he was sworn in, DiGenova appeared on WBAL Radio and said Trump “personally asked” him to lead what he dubbed “the Russia hoax investigation.” DiGenova then sketched a grand conspiracy: he noted “the historical significance (of) what in 2016, 2020 and 2024, where it’s very evident…that there was a very brazen plot against a private citizen, and then a president, and then a post-president, and then a sitting president again, Donald Trump, to deny him his civil rights.”

According to a lengthy Lawfare analysis on April 27, DiGenova’s statements are “only the latest in a litany of accusations diGenova has lodged against the president’s perceived enemies over the years. The volume and, indeed, the vitriol of his grievances cast real doubt on his ability to act as an independent or impartial prosecutor in the Grand Conspiracy case or any related matter.” Former prosecutors voice similar concerns. “The administration’s recent efforts to weaponize the criminal justice system have gone into overdrive,” said ex-DoJ prosecutor, James Pearce, who is a senior counsel at the Washington Litigation Group, stressing that DiGenova “…has made deeply improper public statements about individuals he is investigating…”

To make way for DiGenova’s new role, DOJ removed the veteran Miami prosecutor Maria Medetis Long, who was leading the Brennan inquiry, reportedly because she balked at pressures to quickly charge Brennan over alleged lying to Congress. Addressing the removal of Long by Blanche, Stacey Young, the executive director of Justice Connection, deplored the growing pressures on prosecutors to bring charges regardless of the evidence’s strength. “Until this administration, prosecutors were expected to drop a case when an investigation revealed no crime occurred. Now, if they refuse to pursue charges against a perceived enemy of this President, they’re pushed aside and replaced with loyalists who will stretch the facts and the law to manufacture a case.”

Other recent DOJ moves since Blanche became acting AG are raising red flags with critics who say he’s bent on pleasing Trump with charges and lawsuits against various political foes regardless of whether evidence merits legal actions. Among other weak cases, critics cite Blanche allegations that the Southern Poverty Law Center, a veteran Alabama nonprofit focused on dismantling white supremacy, had defrauded donors by using their funds to pay informants inside white supremacist groups. The SPLC pleaded not guilty on May 7 to charges that it conspired to launder money and committed fraud. “Ex-prosecutors say that the public evidence so far in a 14-page indictment doesn’t reveal that the SPLC intentionally defrauded donors. Amy Markopoulos, an ex-federal prosecutor who served in the DOJ’s fraud section for years, told USA Today that ‘Paying informants to then dismantle the organization seems like something that people would expect to be one of the tactics that are used, so that seems like a very weak case to me.’”

In McQuade’s eyes, the SPLC charges and others pursued by Blanche since he became acting AG are cynical moves and contrary to DOJ policies. “Blanche seems more interested in scoring points with Trump by filing baseless indictments against the president’s perceived enemies than in securing convictions, even though the strategy violates the DOJ policy to file charges only if the evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. Even if DOJ cannot convict Trump’s enemies, it can make their lives miserable for a while, and then blame their defeat in court with baseless allegations that the judge was ‘woke.’” In a similar vein, Fordham law professor and ex-prosecutor Bruce Green told the Guardian the charges against Comey especially stand out as “a transparently absurd prosecution and I think there will be compelling reasons for a judge to toss the case. It’s a vindictive prosecution.” Green said that “to serve in this DOJ in the higher ranks you have to be a true believer.” He added: “There are ongoing investigations that normal DOJ prosecutors wouldn’t bring. It seems clear that this DOJ is doing the president’s bidding and has no qualms about proceeding against people who are on his enemies list whether they did anything wrong or not.”

### How this sits against verifiable accuracy
The excerpt indicates that the Department of Justice has brought charges against Comey, alleging that he threatened Trump through an Instagram post. Critics, including ex-prosecutors, have labeled these charges as “embarrassing” and “ridiculous,” suggesting they lack sufficient evidence and may be politically motivated. The indictment claims that Comey’s post could be interpreted as a serious expression of intent to harm the president, but experts argue that it does not meet the legal standard for a true threat.

### How this compares to what he has said before
In the past, Trump has expressed strong animosity towards Comey, particularly after Comey’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump’s previous statements have often framed Comey as a key adversary, and this latest indictment aligns with his ongoing campaign against perceived enemies. However, the severity of the current charges, particularly the interpretation of Comey’s Instagram post, marks a notable escalation in Trump’s approach to dealing with critics.

### Targets and tone
The excerpt shows Trump singling out James Comey, describing him as a target of his political retribution. The tone reflects a hostile stance towards Comey, indicating that Trump continues to view him as an enemy deserving of legal consequences.

In summary, the ongoing legal actions against Comey and others signal a troubling trend of using the justice system for political retribution, raising significant concerns about the integrity of the Department of Justice under Trump’s influence.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/13/james-comey-fbi-retaliation-fears