Judge Pained as He Grants Dismissal of Jan. 6 Charges Against Oath Keepers

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-08-05 03:39:00 — www.nytimes.com

President Trump has repeatedly sought to play down the violence of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and has asserted that the rioters were wronged by efforts to hold them accountable, even claiming they deserve financial restitution. This stance has come under renewed scrutiny following a federal judge’s decision to grant the Justice Department’s request to dismiss criminal charges against eight members of the far-right Oath Keepers militia, who played a central role in the Capitol assault.

## Trump’s Efforts to Minimize January 6 Violence

Judge Amit P. Mehta, who presided over the case, directly addressed Trump’s ongoing attempts to diminish the seriousness of the events on January 6. The judge refused to ignore the “profound damage” caused that day, both to individuals at the Capitol and to American democracy itself. In his ruling, Judge Mehta wrote that “President Trump has sought to play down the violence of the attack and has repeatedly asserted that the rioters themselves were wronged by efforts to hold them accountable and deserve financial restitution.” The judge’s statement highlights Trump’s persistent narrative that the perpetrators of the Capitol riot are victims, despite overwhelming evidence of their criminal actions.

## Judicial Rebuke of Trump’s Narrative

Judge Mehta’s decision to dismiss the charges was accompanied by clear regret and criticism. He described the Justice Department’s move as bestowing “unearned grace” on the Oath Keepers by “wiping their records clean.” The judge emphasized that the events of January 6 caused the “peaceful transfer of presidential power” to buckle, directly contradicting Trump’s attempts to downplay the attack’s gravity.

## Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

The judge’s ruling also served as a rebuttal to arguments frequently made by Trump and his allies. While prosecutors claimed that dropping the charges was in the “interest of justice,” Judge Mehta noted that the government had never suggested the charges were legally deficient or that the evidence was insufficient. There was no admission of prosecutorial misconduct or legal error that could have led to wrongful convictions—undermining Trump’s repeated claims that the prosecutions were unjust or politically motivated.

## Conclusion

President Trump’s ongoing efforts to recast the January 6 rioters as victims stand in stark contrast to the facts established in court and the statements of federal judges overseeing these cases. Judge Mehta’s ruling, while compelled by legal technicalities, underscores the enduring damage of the Capitol attack and directly challenges Trump’s attempts to rewrite the history of that day. As the legal and political fallout from January 6 continues, Trump’s record of minimizing the violence and excusing those responsible remains a central and contentious issue.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/04/us/politics/jan-6-charges-oath-keepers-dismissed.html

Trump hasn’t ‘made a determination’ on Jeanine Pirro’s fate

Donald Trump — 2026-08-04 23:51:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Repeatedly Criticizes U.S. Attorney Over Reflecting Pool Vandalism Claims

President Trump has repeatedly chastised the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia after she stated that vandals were not responsible for damage to the Reflecting Pool. This ongoing criticism highlights the president’s willingness to publicly dispute official findings and cast doubt on statements from law enforcement authorities.

Disputing Official Accounts

The president’s repeated attacks on the U.S. attorney center on her assertion that vandals were not to blame for the damage at the historic site. By challenging this conclusion, Trump has sought to shift responsibility and question the credibility of the official investigation. His public statements have amplified skepticism about the findings and contributed to ongoing controversy surrounding the incident.

Pattern of Public Disparagement

This episode is consistent with a broader pattern in which President Trump has publicly disparaged officials whose statements or actions do not align with his preferred narrative. By chastising the U.S. attorney, Trump once again demonstrates his readiness to undermine the authority of those tasked with upholding the law, particularly when their conclusions contradict his own assertions.

Conclusion

President Trump’s repeated criticism of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia over the Reflecting Pool incident underscores his tendency to challenge and disparage official findings that do not support his views. This approach not only sows confusion about the facts but also raises questions about the impact of such rhetoric on public trust in law enforcement and the integrity of official investigations.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/05/jeanine-pirro-donald-trump-us-attorney-01025059

TMZ trades Hollywood gossip for Capitol Hill scoops with new D.C. bureau : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-04 15:16:00 — www.npr.org

President Trump’s Jab at Senator Jon Ossoff Highlights Ongoing Pattern of Personal Attacks

President Trump’s penchant for personal attacks resurfaced in a recent exchange highlighted by TMZ’s new Capitol Hill coverage. During a conversation outside Reagan National Airport, TMZ’s Charlie Cotton referenced President Trump’s jab at Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff, in which Trump called Ossoff “Pinky Herman.” This remark is part of a broader pattern in which Trump has used disparaging nicknames and personal insults against political opponents.

The Impact of Trump’s Remarks

Trump’s comment, labeling Ossoff with a mocking nickname, underscores his continued use of ridicule as a political tool. Such attacks often shift the focus from substantive policy debate to personal animosity, contributing to a more divisive political climate. The excerpt does not provide a direct response from Ossoff to Trump’s insult, but it does illustrate the way Trump’s words continue to reverberate in political and media circles.

A Broader Context of Disparagement

This incident is one of many in which Trump has resorted to name-calling and public jabs against lawmakers and critics. While these remarks may energize his base, they also draw criticism for lowering the tone of public discourse and distracting from legislative priorities.

Conclusion

President Trump’s jab at Senator Jon Ossoff, calling him “Pinky Herman,” is another example of his ongoing strategy of personal attacks against political rivals. As TMZ and other outlets continue to cover Capitol Hill, such moments are likely to remain in the spotlight, raising questions about the impact of these tactics on American political culture.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/04/nx-s1-5910831-e1/tmz-trades-hollywood-gossip-for-capitol-hill-scoops-with-new-d-c-bureau

El-Sayed holds narrow lead in Michigan Senate primary but race too close to call | US midterm elections 2026

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-08-04 23:23:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump Continues to Promote False Claims About Michigan Election Results

Donald Trump has once again amplified false claims regarding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in Michigan. At a recent rally, John James, a Trump-endorsed congressman and current candidate for governor, repeated the assertion that Trump had won Michigan “three times,” with Trump present at the event.

This claim directly contradicts the certified results of the 2020 election, in which Joe Biden was declared the winner in Michigan. James, echoing Trump’s ongoing denial of the 2020 results, has continued to promote the narrative that Trump was the legitimate victor in the state, despite a lack of evidence and repeated confirmations of the results by state and federal officials.

The persistence of these false claims underscores the continued influence of Trump’s rhetoric within the Republican Party, particularly in battleground states like Michigan. As the state prepares for another high-stakes election season, the spread of misinformation about past elections remains a significant issue, shaping both political discourse and voter trust.

The ongoing denial of the 2020 results by Trump and his allies highlights the challenges facing election officials and candidates committed to upholding democratic norms. As Michigan’s races come into focus, the impact of these falsehoods on voter confidence and the integrity of the electoral process remains a pressing concern.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/05/abdul-el-sayed-haley-stevens-michigan-primary-election

Donald J. Trump: “For far too long, Radical Climate Activists attempted to hold our Great Coun…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-08-04 17:52:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Attacks Endangered Species Act, Blames “Radical Climate Activists” for Regulatory Overreach

President Donald J. Trump has sharply criticized what he describes as “Radical Climate Activists,” accusing them of holding the United States “hostage by drastically and unreasonably expanding the intended scope of the Endangered Species Act.” In a statement, Trump claimed, “This was complete and total regulatory overreach by unelected bureaucrats!” He further alleged that these actions “treated Americans very unfairly by stifling the production of important resources like Oil, Natural Gas, and Timber, and blocking the construction of family homes and critical Infrastructure.”

Claims of Overreach and Economic Harm

Trump’s remarks directly attack environmental advocates and government officials, blaming them for limiting economic growth and resource development. He asserted that “Even our Military couldn’t train on land that was deemed ‘off limits’ to protect a little rodent!” This statement exaggerates the impact of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which is designed to balance species protection with other land uses. While the ESA has occasionally restricted certain activities to protect endangered species, claims that it broadly blocks military training or critical infrastructure are not supported by the law’s actual provisions or its implementation history.

Trump’s Rollback of Environmental Protections

Trump stated, “Now my Administration has returned the Endangered Species Act to how it was intended to be, just as the Great Justice Antonin Scalia has explained in previous cases.” This refers to his administration’s efforts to roll back ESA protections, making it easier for industries to develop land and extract resources. Critics argue these changes weakened protections for threatened species and undermined the law’s effectiveness, while Trump frames them as a restoration of original intent.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Assertions

Trump’s claim that the ESA was “drastically and unreasonably” expanded by “unelected bureaucrats” misrepresents the law’s evolution. The ESA has been amended by Congress and interpreted by courts, not solely by agency officials. Additionally, his assertion that the law “stifled” production of oil, gas, timber, and housing is an exaggeration. While the ESA does impose some restrictions, studies show that its economic impact is often limited and that it includes mechanisms for balancing development with species protection.

Conclusion

President Trump’s statement reflects a pattern of attacking environmental regulations and those who support them, often using exaggerated or misleading claims. By blaming “Radical Climate Activists” and “unelected bureaucrats” for economic challenges, Trump seeks to justify his administration’s rollback of key environmental protections. However, a closer look at the facts reveals that many of his assertions about the Endangered Species Act and its effects do not align with the law’s actual impact or intent. As debates over environmental policy continue, it is crucial for the public to separate rhetoric from reality.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40554

National Guard deployment to Washington through 2029 will cost roughly $1.4 billion, estimate shows

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-04 16:42:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump’s Emergency Order Extends National Guard Presence in D.C., Drawing Criticism Over $1.4 Billion Cost

President Donald Trump’s decision to extend the National Guard deployment in Washington, D.C. through January 2029 is projected to cost taxpayers roughly $1.4 billion, according to a Defense Department estimate provided to Congress. The deployment, which began last summer under Trump’s emergency order, was described by the administration as a law enforcement surge intended to fight crime in the nation’s capital.

Trump’s Order and Its Justification

The emergency order issued by Trump launched a significant law enforcement presence in D.C., with hundreds of armed Guard troops supporting arrest operations, snow removal, and beautification projects. The number of National Guard members surged to about 5,000 during the city’s 250th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence. The Defense Department’s estimate assumes an average of 2,500 Guard members will remain in the city through January 2029.

Mounting Costs and Political Backlash

The $1.4 billion cost estimate, covering fiscal years 2027-2029, was provided in response to questions from Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Warren sharply criticized Trump’s move, stating, “While American families are getting flattened by skyrocketing costs, Donald Trump is spending $1.4 billion to keep troops on the streets in Washington for years on end. The National Guard are not pawns and taxpayer dollars are not a piggy bank for Trump’s political stunts.”

Local officials and Democrats have also condemned the ongoing deployment, calling it an infringement on D.C.’s autonomy and an unnecessary militarization of the city’s streets. Despite court restrictions on National Guard use in other locations, Trump, as president, remains the direct commander of the D.C. Guard, allowing the deployment to continue.

Uncertainty and Community Response

The Pentagon has stated that the Guard mission will continue until January 20, 2029, or until terminated by the president. The deployment was previously set to expire at the end of this year but was extended by Trump’s order. As of late July, 4,600 military personnel from D.C. and 23 states and territories were still stationed in the city, with some states planning to reduce their presence in the coming months.

Residents like Don and Donna Powell have voiced frustration over the continued military presence and the allocation of funds, arguing that the money could be better spent on healthcare and food for families in need.

Conclusion

President Trump’s emergency order to maintain a large National Guard presence in Washington, D.C. has sparked significant controversy over its cost, duration, and impact on the city’s autonomy. As the debate continues, critics argue that the deployment represents a costly and unnecessary show of force, while the administration maintains it is necessary for public safety and order. The ongoing presence of the Guard—and its $1.4 billion price tag—remains a focal point of political and public scrutiny.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/national-guard-deployment-to-washington-through-2029-will-cost-roughly-1-4-billion-estimate-shows

Inside the Oval Office Showdown Between Trump and Jeanine Pirro

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-08-04 16:22:00 — www.nytimes.com

President Trump lashed out at U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro this week, accusing her of “folding like an umbrella” and “choking” after she withdrew charges against a man accused of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Trump’s anger was fueled by Pirro’s decision to publicly dismantle a narrative he had championed—one that blamed vandals, rather than a contractor hired by the Interior Department, for the damage to the landmark.

Trump’s Response and Public Attacks

In a series of escalating reactions, Trump privately raged against Pirro, then criticized her in front of reporters, and later posted on Truth Social: “I disagree 100 percent with Jeanine Pirro. I don’t know what she was thinking? To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM.” He added, “There may have been some contractor difficulty, but the major damage was caused by VANDALS!” Trump’s public statements directly contradicted Pirro’s findings, which were based on a thorough review of evidence indicating the renovation had been rushed and mishandled by the contractor, not by vandals as initially claimed.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Pirro’s court filing revealed that her original indictment of David Hearn, a former Olympic canoeist, was based on “false assumptions and incomplete evidence.” After reviewing thousands of pages of documents, Pirro concluded that the Interior Department had “botched” the renovation and that Park Police officials had provided misleading information. The supposed “tremendous evidence” against Hearn did not exist, undermining Trump’s repeated insistence that vandalism was the primary cause.

Despite these findings, Trump continued to promote the vandalism narrative and criticized Pirro for not pursuing the case. He accused her of being too afraid to present the case to a judge, further disparaging her professional judgment.

Political Fallout and Loyalty Demands

The episode highlights a recurring theme of Trump’s presidency: officials who contradict his preferred narratives, even when backed by evidence, risk his wrath and potential professional consequences. Pirro, a longtime ally, faced rumors of her firing and a tense Oval Office meeting but ultimately retained her position after defending her actions with extensive documentation.

Conclusion

Trump’s handling of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool controversy demonstrates his willingness to attack even close allies who challenge his narratives, regardless of the facts. His public statements about the case were contradicted by the evidence uncovered by Pirro’s office, yet he persisted in blaming vandals and disparaging those who disagreed. This episode underscores the ongoing tension between loyalty to the president and adherence to factual findings within his administration.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/04/us/politics/trump-jeanine-pirro-showdown.html

Donald J. Trump: “It was my Great Honor to welcome Highly Respected and very popular Pennsylva…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-08-04 12:30:00 — trumpstruth.org

Donald Trump Endorses Stacy Garrity for Pennsylvania Governor: A Closer Look at His Statements

Donald Trump has publicly endorsed Pennsylvania State Treasurer Stacy Garrity for governor, stating, “It was my Great Honor to welcome Highly Respected and very popular Pennsylvania State Treasurer, Stacy Garrity, into the Oval Office. Stacy is running to be the next Governor of the GREAT Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She has my Complete and Total Endorsement. She will do a fantastic job!”

Trump’s Endorsement and Claims

Trump’s statement highlights his support for Garrity, describing her as “highly respected” and “very popular.” He also asserts that she will do a “fantastic job” as governor. These claims are presented as fact, but the excerpt does not provide evidence or context to support the assertions about Garrity’s popularity or qualifications beyond Trump’s endorsement.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Language

While Trump’s endorsement is clear, his characterization of Garrity as “highly respected and very popular” is subjective and not substantiated within the statement. Such language is typical of Trump’s public endorsements, where he often uses superlatives and broad praise without specific supporting details. The claim of “Complete and Total Endorsement” is a frequent phrase in Trump’s political communications, intended to signal strong support but not tied to any measurable criteria.

No Disparagements or False Claims in This Statement

In this particular excerpt, Trump does not make any direct attacks or disparaging remarks about opponents or other individuals. The focus remains on praising Garrity and expressing confidence in her candidacy.

Conclusion

Trump’s endorsement of Stacy Garrity for Pennsylvania governor is marked by his characteristic use of emphatic and positive language. While he offers strong praise, the claims about Garrity’s respect and popularity are not backed by evidence in the statement itself. Readers should note the distinction between Trump’s promotional language and independently verifiable facts when evaluating such endorsements.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40540

Up First briefing: Michigan primaries; Spokane fires; Todd Blanche : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-04 06:29:00 — www.npr.org

Trump Administration Opens Protected Pacific Marine Areas to Commercial Fishing, Sparking Backlash

The Trump administration has moved to open large sections of the Pacific Ocean—previously safeguarded as U.S. marine national monuments and sanctuaries—to commercial fishing. This decision, which reverses protections for some of the most pristine and biodiverse marine areas in the country, has drawn both support and sharp criticism.

Industry Support and Cultural Opposition

Hawaii’s fishing fleet has welcomed the move, citing increased competition and rising diesel costs as reasons why expanded access to these waters is needed. Industry representatives argue that opening the Pacific Marine Monument waters could provide much-needed opportunities for local fishermen.

However, many Native Hawaiian cultural groups are strongly opposed, viewing the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands as sacred. Conservationists have also raised alarms, warning that these marine areas require the highest level of protection—especially as climate change threatens their vibrant ecosystems.

Environmental Concerns

Conservation experts caution that opening these protected waters to commercial fishing could jeopardize thriving coral reefs, shark populations, and seabird colonies. They emphasize that, amid the growing impacts of climate change, preserving these unique ecosystems is more important than ever.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s decision to allow commercial fishing in previously protected Pacific marine areas has ignited a debate between economic interests and environmental and cultural preservation. As the policy takes effect, its impact on both local communities and the fragile marine environment will be closely watched.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/04/g-s1-137277/up-first-newsetter-michigan-primaries-todd-blanche-spokane-wildfires-chuck-edwards

Trump keeps making threats. Washington and the world have stopped flinching.

Politics — 2026-08-04 04:00:00 — www.washingtonpost.com

Global Shockwaves as President Trump Unveils Tariff Hikes in Rose Garden

In April 2025, President Donald Trump dramatically escalated global trade tensions by appearing in the White House Rose Garden with a poster board detailing sweeping tariff hikes. The move triggered immediate, worldwide repercussions: financial markets lost trillions of dollars in value, diplomats from around the globe rushed to Washington, and more than 75 governments scrambled to negotiate with the United States—many abandoning their own carefully prepared countermeasures in a frantic effort to cut deals.

Trump’s Tariff Announcement Sparks Market Turmoil

Trump’s public display of the tariff increases sent a clear message to both allies and rivals. The announcement was met with alarm, as evidenced by the scale of the market reaction and the diplomatic scramble that followed. The excerpt highlights the direct impact of Trump’s actions: “Markets shed trillions of dollars, envoys rushed to Washington, more than 75 governments scrambled to negotiate, some scrapping carefully prepped countermeasures in a rush to cut deals.”

Fact-Checking the Fallout

The excerpt does not cite specific false claims or disparagements by Trump in his Rose Garden appearance, but it does attribute the global economic and diplomatic upheaval directly to his decision to brandish the tariff hikes. The scale of the fallout underscores the significant influence of Trump’s trade policies and the unpredictable consequences of his public pronouncements.

Conclusion: A Presidency Defined by Disruption

President Trump’s 2025 Rose Garden announcement on tariffs stands as a stark example of how his actions can send shockwaves through the global economy and diplomatic community. The episode illustrates the far-reaching consequences of presidential decisions and the volatility that can result from abrupt policy shifts. As the world continues to respond to Trump’s trade agenda, the lasting impact of his approach to international negotiations remains a defining feature of his presidency.

Source article

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/08/04/trump-keeps-making-threats-washington-world-have-stopped-flinching/