Trump and Netanyahu Say Iran War Is Not Over

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-05-10 19:39:00 — www.nytimes.com

Uncertainty Looms Over War’s Conclusion

According to recent statements, the Trump administration declared last week that the war had "run its course." However, in a twist of events, both the U.S. president and Israel’s prime minister, during interviews on Sunday, left the door open for the possibility of renewed combat. This juxtaposition of views introduces a layer of uncertainty about the future of military engagements in the region.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• Specific details about what might trigger renewed combat.
• The nature of the "war" mentioned as having run its course.
• The identity of any opposition or other involved parties besides the U.S. and Israel.
  

  How this sits against verifiable accuracy
  

  Truth and evidence (grounded in the excerpt):
  The claim that the war had "run its course" suggests a winding down or conclusion of hostilities. Normally, such a claim would be supported by official statements from involved parties, peace treaties, ceasefire declarations, or significant de-escalation on the ground. However, the subsequent refusal by both the U.S. president and Israel’s prime minister to rule out renewed combat complicates this narrative. The excerpt does not provide outside verification or details that would allow us to assess the completeness of the war’s conclusion.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies:
  The excerpt does not contain enough material to verify any falsehoods directly. It states contrasting positions without providing evidence that directly contradicts either claim. Additional evidence, such as official military reports or new statements from the leaders, would be necessary to confirm the accuracy of the initial claim that the war had run its course.

  Targets and tone:
  The excerpt does not show President Trump or Israel’s prime minister singling out, insulting, demeaning, threatening, or speaking in a hostile fashion about specific people or clearly described groups. The tone of the reported statements focuses on the status of the war and the possibility of future actions, without disparagement or hostility towards any individual or group.

  This analysis highlights the complexities and nuances in political and military communications, where statements can be open to interpretation and dependent on evolving circumstances. The situation remains fluid, and further clarification from the involved parties would be crucial to understanding the future course of this conflict.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/10/us/politics/trump-netanyahu-iran-war.html

Trump Administration Is Considering Pausing the Federal Gas Tax to Lower Prices, Energy Secretary Says

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-05-10 14:52:00 — www.nytimes.com

Gasoline Tax Measure Offers Minimal Relief Amid High Fuel Prices

In the face of soaring gasoline prices, a tax measure imposing a little over 18 cents per gallon is under scrutiny. With the national average price of gasoline exceeding $4.50, the effectiveness of this tax measure in providing significant economic relief to consumers appears limited.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• Specific details about the implementation timeline of the tax measure.
• The geographic scope affected by the average price mentioned.
• Long-term impacts on consumer spending and economic behavior.
  

  How this sits against verifiable accuracy
  

  Truth and evidence (grounded in the excerpt):
  The factual claim here centers on the tax measure, which is a little over 18 cents a gallon for gasoline, and its relative insufficiency in providing relief given the high average national price of gasoline, which is above $4.50. Normally, evaluating such claims would require access to economic data on fuel prices, tax rates, and consumer impact studies. The excerpt does not provide external verification from economic reports or expert analysis to support the assessment of the measure’s effectiveness.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies:
  The excerpt does not contain sufficient material to verify any falsehoods directly. It states the tax rate and the average national price of gasoline but does not contradict itself or provide any retracted statements. Additional evidence, such as economic forecasts or consumer price indices, would be necessary to fully assess the claim’s accuracy, but these are not available in the excerpt.

  Targets and tone:
  The excerpt does not show any disparagement or hostile speech directed towards specific individuals or groups. It focuses solely on the factual reporting of the tax measure and gasoline prices, maintaining a neutral and informative tone.

  This analysis underscores the importance of additional context and data when discussing economic measures and their real-world implications, particularly in a climate of rising fuel costs.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/10/us/politics/energy-secretary-federal-gas-tax.html

Trump calls for Jeffries to be charged with ‘inciting violence’ in social media post

Donald Trump — 2026-05-07 10:17:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Links Jeffries’ Redistricting Comments to White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting

In a recent statement, Donald Trump implied a connection between Hakeem Jeffries’ call for "maximum warfare" against the GOP in redistricting efforts and a subsequent shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which occurred three days later. The assertion suggests a causal link between the rhetoric used by Jeffries and the violent event.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• The specific details of Jeffries’ statement on redistricting.
• The identity and motivations of the shooter at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
• Evidence directly supporting Trump’s implication of a causal connection.
  

  How this sits against verifiable accuracy
  

  Truth and evidence (grounded in the excerpt):
  Trump’s implication that Jeffries’ aggressive political rhetoric led to a violent act hinges on establishing a direct cause-and-effect relationship, which would typically require evidence such as statements from the shooter aligning their motives with Jeffries’ comments, or credible sources drawing the same conclusion. The excerpt does not provide such corroboration.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies:
  The excerpt does not contain sufficient information to verify the truthfulness of Trump’s claim. Additional evidence, not available in the excerpt, would be necessary to confirm or refute the alleged connection between Jeffries’ comments and the shooting.

  Targets and tone:
  The excerpt indicates that Trump’s comments were directed at Hakeem Jeffries in the context of his remarks on GOP redistricting efforts. There is no direct quote in the excerpt that shows Trump using disparaging or hostile language towards Jeffries or any group. The tone and nature of Trump’s criticism are thus not fully detailed in the provided text.

  This analysis is based solely on the information provided in the excerpt, without additional external verification or evidence.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/07/trump-jeffries-charge-inciting-violence-00909976

From 2020 election to retribution, how the Justice Department is advancing Trump’s agenda

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-05-07 17:40:00 — www.pbs.org

Justice Department Advances Trump’s Priorities, Including Election Investigation and Legal Actions Against Critics

The Justice Department is actively advancing several of President Trump’s key legal and political priorities. This includes a continued focus on the 2020 election with an investigation into voting records in Georgia, as well as legal actions targeting lawmakers and organizations perceived as opposed to the president’s agenda. Justice correspondent Ali Rogin provided these updates in a discussion with Amna Nawaz.

Fulton County Election Records Controversy

The situation in Fulton County, Georgia, remains a significant point of contention. Stemming from an FBI raid in January that resulted in the seizure of over 600 boxes of election records from 2020, the local authorities sued to reclaim these documents. However, a recent judicial ruling has allowed the FBI to retain the records and proceed with their investigation, marking a victory for those in the administration seeking to challenge the election results.

Legal Challenges Against Senator Mark Kelly

In another development, a federal appeals court heard arguments regarding whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has the authority to penalize Democratic Senator Mark Kelly for his critical remarks about the administration. Previous court decisions have favored Kelly, and the appeals court judges appeared to maintain this stance. Senator Kelly has emphasized that the administration’s actions are intended to intimidate not just him but others who might speak out against it.

Case Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), known for its investigations into extremist groups, faces legal challenges from the DOJ, which last month secured indictments accusing the SPLC of fraudulent practices concerning its donor funds. The SPLC has countered these allegations, arguing that their informant payments were vital for law enforcement collaborations. They are now seeking to have the grand jury proceedings unsealed to potentially expose any misrepresentations by the DOJ.

Perspective on Truth and Evidence

The claims and actions of the Trump administration, as reported, hinge significantly on the outcomes of ongoing legal proceedings and investigations. The factual basis of the administration’s allegations, particularly regarding election fraud and the operations of the SPLC, has not been independently corroborated in the details provided.

What the Excerpt Shows About Verifiable Lies

Based on the information available in the excerpt, there are no explicit contradictions or corrections offered that would directly challenge the truthfulness of President Trump’s statements or the DOJ’s actions as presented. Further evidence, not included in the excerpt, would be necessary to fully verify or refute the claims made.

Targets and Tone

The excerpt does not explicitly describe President Trump using disparaging or hostile language towards specific individuals or groups directly. It does, however, detail legal and political actions directed against individuals and organizations like Senator Mark Kelly and the SPLC, which are framed as part of broader efforts to address perceived adversaries and enforce the administration’s policies.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/from-2020-election-to-retribution-how-the-justice-department-is-advancing-trumps-agenda

Trump says there will be 3-day ceasefire in Russia-Ukraine war

Donald Trump — 2026-05-08 14:27:00 — www.politico.com

New Ceasefire Deal Announced with Prisoner Swap

According to a recent statement, the president has facilitated a new deal that includes a prisoner swap. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has quickly signaled his support for this agreement. However, it’s important to note that previous attempts at ceasefires have not been successful.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• The specific details of the prisoner swap are not provided.
• The identity of the president who facilitated the deal is not specified.
• The reasons for the failure of past ceasefires are not detailed.
  

  How this sits against verifiable accuracy
  

  Truth and evidence:
  The claim here is that a new deal, including a prisoner swap, has been facilitated and supported by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Normally, such claims would require confirmation from independent sources or direct statements from the involved parties. The excerpt does not provide external verification or details on how the deal was reached or who the prisoners are.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies:
  The excerpt does not contain enough material to verify any falsehoods directly. It states the facilitation of a deal and support from President Zelenskyy, but without additional context or evidence from the excerpt itself, these claims remain unverified.

  Targets and tone:
  The excerpt does not show any disparagement or hostile speech toward specific individuals or groups. The tone conveyed in the excerpt is straightforward, reporting on the facilitation of a deal and the support it has received.

  Conclusion
  

  The announcement of a new ceasefire deal with a prisoner swap marks a significant development, though the lack of details and the history of failed past ceasefires call for cautious optimism. Further verification and details are needed to fully assess the impact and durability of this agreement.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/08/russia-ukraine-war-trump-ceasefire-00912463

President Donald Trump said U.S. consumer confidence is ‘way up.’ Metrics don’t bear that out

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-05-06 16:50:00 — www.politifact.com

Assessing Trump’s Claim on Consumer Confidence at White House Summit

During a recent event at the White House, President Donald Trump asserted that "consumer confidence is way up," suggesting a robust economic outlook and satisfaction with his policies. However, this claim contrasts sharply with data from established economic indicators. At the White House small business summit on May 4, Trump’s optimistic statement about the economy was directly challenged by findings from the University of Michigan, the Conference Board, and aggregated public polling data, all of which indicate a decline in consumer confidence compared to the end of former President Joe Biden’s tenure.

Contradictory Economic Indicators

The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index, a long-standing measure of consumer confidence, recorded a score of 53.3 for March 2026, marking it as one of the lowest since the survey’s inception in 1978. Similarly, the Conference Board’s index showed a decrease in consumer confidence during Trump’s second term, with a score of 92.8 in April 2026, significantly lower than during Biden’s administration.

Public opinion polls further reflect this trend, with a notable decline in approval of Trump’s economic policies. A compilation by Silver Bulletin indicated that net approval for Trump’s economic management has significantly dropped, turning negative shortly after his second term began in January 2025.

Retail Sales: A Silver Lining?

In defense of Trump’s claims, the White House cited retail sales figures, which have shown resilience. Retail sales data indicated an average monthly increase of 3.75% during the first 14 months of Trump’s current term. However, experts argue that this metric, unadjusted for inflation, may not accurately reflect consumer confidence as it could be influenced by inflationary pressures, including those possibly stemming from tariffs.

How This Sits Against Accuracy, Norms, and Governing Rules

Truth and Evidence:
Trump’s assertion that consumer confidence is surging lacks support from the primary economic indicators traditionally used to gauge this sentiment. Reliable sources like the University of Michigan and the Conference Board show a decline, not an increase. Normally, such claims would require backing by independent data or corroborative reports from credible institutions, which in this case, contradict the president’s statement.

What the Excerpt Shows About Verifiable Lies:
Based on the data provided in the excerpt, Trump’s claim about rising consumer confidence is demonstrably false. The traditional metrics used to assess consumer confidence all indicate a decrease during his term compared to his predecessor’s. The assertion lacks factual support within the context of the provided economic indicators and public opinion trends.

In summary, while retail sales figures offer a more positive outlook, they do not directly correlate with consumer confidence, especially when inflation is considered. The broader economic indicators suggest that American consumers are less confident now than they were under the previous administration, directly contradicting President Trump’s claims at the White House summit.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/may/06/donald-trump/consumer-confidence-sentiment-spending-second-term/