Exactly eight years ago this week, as Sen. Bob Corker neared the end of his congressional career, the Tennessee Republican voiced his frustrations about the direction of his party, telling reporters that the GOP had become almost “cultish” toward Donald Trump.

The retiring senator added, “It’s not a good place for any party to end up with a cult-like situation as it relates to a president.”

Soon after, Donald Trump Jr. appeared on Fox News and took issue with Corker’s comment, but not in an unexpected way. Instead of rejecting the senator’s characterization, the president’s son said, “You know what, if it’s a cult, it’s because they like what my father is doing.”

In other words, if the Republican Party was starting to resemble a cult, perhaps that deserved to be seen as a good thing.

This came to mind eight years later watching Republican Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas offering his latest Trump praise.

Nehls: Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to this country in a hundred years. He was born a very special baby. I bet the doctors said, “I can tell this is a very special baby.” pic.twitter.com/wvhqRAhpNM

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 11, 2026

“Donald Trump is the best thing to happen in this country in 100 years,” the retiring congressman said. “He was born a very special baby. I bet you the doctors said, ‘I can tell this is a very special baby.’”

As ridiculous as the rhetoric was, it was hardly out of character. As HuffPost noted, this is the same Nehls who said in 2024, “If Donald Trump says, ‘Jump three feet high and scratch your head,’ we all jump three feet high and scratch our heads. That’s it.” Earlier this year, Nehls also wore a necktie with Trump’s face all over it to the State of the Union, then asked the president to sign it.

More recently, Nehls said, “I believe that Donald Trump is better than sliced bread. I think he’s almost the Second Coming, in my humble opinion.”

Such talk certainly brings to mind Corker’s concern about his party’s descent into “cultish” devotion, but Nehls isn’t alone.

Earlier this week, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said, after winning his primary race, “I want to start with a bunch of thank yous. I want to thank the big guy, God. Trump comes later. Mr. President, you’re not far behind God, but we’re going to start with him.”

Around this time a year ago, Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas similarly told Newsmax, “With Trump, all things are possible.”

Soon after, Republican Rep. Mark Alford of Missouri delivered remarks on the House floor alongside a poster board featuring images of Trump and fireworks. When he wrapped up his comments, Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts asked his GOP colleague, “Cult much?”

The relevance of the simple question lingers for a reason.

The post ‘Born a very special baby’: Republican rhetoric on Trump becomes even more cultish appeared first on MS NOW.

The Trump administration’s highly aggressive efforts to obtain state voter rolls has, at least so far, failed spectacularly, losing in eight out of eight court fights.

But as such federal efforts continue, there’s apparently a new twist on the broader gambit related to state voter rolls. The New York Times reported:

The U.S. Postal Service has proposed a new rule that would allow it to refuse to deliver mail ballots in states that don’t turn over voter rolls to the federal government.

The rule, proposed last week, is vaguely written but appears to establish broad authority for the agency to intervene in the mail voting process. It calls on states to compile lists of mail voters that Postal Service employees would use to screen ballots for eligibility. If states refuse to comply, the agency could refuse to send their mail ballots.

Pointing to the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register last week, the Times added, “Screening mail ballots for voter eligibility … would amount to an unprecedented, and potentially unconstitutional, involvement of the federal government in the administration of elections.”

For Donald Trump, that might very well be the point.

In March 2025, just two months into the president’s second term, the Republican signed a radical executive order intended to impose sweeping changes on the nation’s system of elections. Trump, however, lacked the legal authority for such a power-grab, and his policy was rejected throughout the judiciary.

One year later, in March 2026, the president nevertheless did it again, signing another order in which he purportedly gave himself sweeping authority over the country’s elections systems. As part of the radical scheme, hatched to address a problem that does not exist, the Republican administration set out to create a citizens database, which the U.S. Postal Service would then use to limit mail-in voting.

It was widely assumed that this, too, would fail in the courts, but two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, allowed the executive order to restrict mail-in voting to stand (at least for now), ruling that the plaintiffs, the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens cannot claim to have been harmed by the policy because the president’s policy had not yet been implemented.

One day after the Trump-appointed judge allowed the president’s policy to remain in place, the U.S. Postal Service proposed its new rule to require states to provide voter-level data on mail-in ballots in federal elections.

There’s still a great deal of uncertainty about how, exactly, this policy would be applied, and the legal fight is ongoing.

Indeed, the Times’ report noted recent oral arguments before a federal judge in Boston in which a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general and voting rights advocates said the administration’s rule isn’t merely an unconstitutional federal intrusion into the voting process, but would also “be expensive, cumbersome and chaotic to comply with the demand to create new lists of voters and, in some cases, to change mail ballot designs, with fewer than 150 days until the 2026 general election.”

Time will tell what becomes of the fight, but that it’s even a possibility the USPS might refuse to deliver ballots unless states comply with Trump’s unnecessary demands is breathtaking. Watch this space.

The post USPS eyes new rule that would block ballots in states that balk at Trump’s demands appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* Donald Trump takes his endorsement record very seriously, to the point that he likes to pretend that he can singlehandedly choose election winners, especially in Republican primaries, with a snap of his fingers. A few months ago, for example, the president boasted online, “My Endorsements within the Republican Party have been virtually insurmountable! It is such an honor to realize and say that almost everyone I Endorse WINS, and wins by a lot.”

The trouble is, the power of his endorsement isn’t nearly as strong as he claims, as we were reminded again last week. In Iowa’s GOP gubernatorial primary, Trump threw his support behind Rep. Randy Feenstra, who narrowly lost to Zach Lahn.

Asked Thursday whether he regrets backing Feenstra, the president told reporters, “Had I been given the proper information, which I don’t think I was, I probably would have endorsed the other person, or not endorsed at all, but I would have endorsed the other person.”

He did not elaborate as to who failed to provide him with “the proper information.”

* Speaking of Iowa’s gubernatorial race, Lahn will face state Auditor Rob Sand, who won the Democratic nomination, and this week, Sand announced his running mate: Crawford County Supervisor Dave Muhlbauer, a fifth-generation family farmer and lifelong Iowan.

* Alaska’s Division of Elections has issued a preliminary ruling that retired teacher Dan Sullivan is ineligible to run against incumbent Republican senator Dan Sullivan. A court fight appears increasingly likely.

* In Michigan’s closely watched Democratic Senate primary, there had been rumors for weeks that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer preferred Rep. Haley Stevens, and this week, he made it official, announcing his endorsement for the congresswoman. He told Punchbowl News that Stevens “has the best chance to win” in the fall.

* In Texas’ Senate race, former Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley, the former top Republican elected official in the state’s biggest red county, announced this week by way of a new radio ad, “I won’t vote for Ken Paxton.” The scandal-plagued state attorney general will face Democratic state Rep. James Talarico in November, and a pro-Talarico super PAC is sponsoring the ad.

* Last September, Brad Lander was arrested at a protest inside a building that houses one of New York City’s immigration courts. This week, a judge found Lander, a Democratic congressional candidate, not guilty. Lander is taking on incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in a Democratic primary.

* Republican Rep. James Gallagher of California was sworn in this week as Congress’ newest member, a week after winning a special election to fill the vacancy left by the late Rep. Doug LaMalfa. The developments bumped up the total number of House GOP members to 218, giving the Republican leadership a little additional breathing room on close votes.

The post Friday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.12.26: Trump blames team after failed primary endorsement appeared first on MS NOW.

Late last year, the public learned that the Trump administration’s drive to rebrand the Department of Defense as the Department of War would be, among other things, very expensive. In fact, an NBC News report said the initiative “could cost as much as $2 billion” in taxpayer money.

While that should have brought the conversation to a rather rapid end, the Pentagon nevertheless formally asked Congress two months ago to codify the president’s preferred branding in federal law.

Unfortunately, Republican lawmakers are taking this unserious effort quite seriously.

Last week, the House Armed Services Committee took up the idea, which Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the panel’s top Democrat, mocked as “one of the dumbest things that has been done by this administration.” Soon after, the GOP majority nevertheless voted to rename the department, adding the idea to a must-pass spending bill.

This week, the Senate Armed Services Committee did the same thing. Politico reported:

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted this week to formally change the Pentagon’s name to the Department of War, moving a significant step closer to solidifying President Donald Trump’s rebrand of the Defense Department as permanent.

The move came during the committee’s closed-door deliberations over its defense policy bill, according to Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who announced the name change in explaining his vote against the legislation.

“It’s a juvenile move that sadly describes the reality of a president who has abandoned meaningful diplomacy in favor of starting doubtful wars in multiple locations and threatening even more,” the Virginia Democrat said in a statement.

Kaine’s point resonated for a reason: The proposed name change remains an entirely unnecessary priority that sends all of the wrong messages to the world about the United States and its intentions. Career military leaders didn’t ask for this, and for the past several months, the proposed change did little more than annoy Pentagon insiders.

What’s more, it’s tempting to think Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other Republican officials would put aside trivial pursuits like this during the ongoing war with Iran, which, more than 100 days in, hasn’t exactly gone according to plan.

But GOP members of Congress, at the White House’s behest, are embracing the scheme anyway.

That said, it is not a done deal, at least not yet. At issue is a legislative package called the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets defense policy and authorizes military spending. Every year, some bad ideas work their way into the bill, and every year, when the House and Senate get together to reconcile the competing versions of the NDAA, many of those bad ideas get filtered out. That may yet happen to the whole “Department of War” gambit.

Or it may not. Watch this space.

The post GOP advances push to rename the Defense Department (and spend a lot of taxpayer money) appeared first on MS NOW.

There are roughly seven months remaining in the current Congress, and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate still have an opportunity to try to govern and pass worthwhile legislation that the American public might like.

As is too often the case, GOP leaders’ focus apparently lies elsewhere. The Wall Street Journal reported:

President Trump and his allies have discussed pushing lawmakers to pass a resolution aimed at voiding his first-term impeachments, according to people familiar with the matter.

The resolution would allow Trump to claim a symbolic victory on a matter that has dogged him since his first term, part of a broader effort to burnish his presidential legacy. It would have little legal significance, however, because the Constitution provides no procedure for undoing an impeachment, according to experts.

This is not simply a matter of backroom chatter and whispers from Capitol Hill hallways. Trump explicitly told the Journal, in reference to the efforts to “expunge” the record, “It should be done because I did nothing wrong.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson similarly told the newspaper that he believes the effort “makes a lot of sense.” The Louisiana Republican, who called the president’s impeachments a “sham” and “a hyperpartisan attack job,” added, “It is a priority and something that Congress should make right.”

Before we dig in on what might actually happen with this effort, it’s important to understand how we arrived at this point.

On Feb. 5, 2020, Trump’s first impeachment trial concluded in the Senate. On Feb. 7, 2020, the president first broached the subject of trying to “expunge” the record, calling the effort to hold him accountable a “hoax.”

His message resonated with some of his allies. Indeed, then-Rep. Markwayne Mullin — years before the Oklahoma Republican moved up to the Senate, and more recently the White House Cabinet — introduced a resolution that would have declared Trump’s first impeachment “expunged.” Soon after, Mullin also took aim at Trump’s second impeachment, and that effort gained the support of, among others, Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, who made some amazingly misguided arguments in support of the idea.

The effort was largely ignored by the Democratic majority in the House, but as 2023 got underway, then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he was willing to take a look at the idea, adding, “I would understand why members would want to bring that forward.”

Several GOP members endorsed the move and unveiled legislation soon after. To the president’s chagrin, the last Congress nevertheless failed to take action on this.

History buffs may recall that a related effort happened nearly two centuries ago. Lawmakers censured President Andrew Jackson in 1834, only to have his allies “expunge” the censure from the record in 1837 after control of the Senate switched party hands.

The point at the time was for partisans to say that the congressional action happened, but for the sake of the historical record, it didn’t really count. Trump and his acolytes appear to have similar intentions now.

Indeed, as recently as two months ago, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California introduced a measure to undo both of the president’s impeachments, which coincided with assorted items Trump posted on his social media platform endorsing the broader effort. The same week, as part of an effort that appeared quite coordinated, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard used her office to also take aim at the legitimacy of Trump’s first impeachment.

Just so we’re all clear, this is entirely about Trump’s ego and hurt feelings. There is no mechanism in place that allows for a president to be unimpeached. But Trump sees this as a stain on his record, and he’s eager to have sycophantic GOP members do his bidding, rewrite the recent past, symbolically wipe the slate clean and make him feel better about himself.

Whether such a campaign could generate majority support, however, remains to be seen. Watch this space.

The post Republicans prioritize effort to ‘expunge’ Trump’s impeachments from the record appeared first on MS NOW.

It’s been 10 days since California held its closely watched statewide primaries, and nearly every day since, Donald Trump has shared baseless conspiracy theories about the contests, with varying degrees of hysteria about Democratic mischief that hasn’t happened in reality.

The list of problems surrounding the president’s claims is not short. Even putting aside the obvious and inconvenient details — there’s literally no evidence of the system being “rigged,” Trump doesn’t seem to understand how election administration works, etc. — the fatal flaw in the Republican’s groundless claims is that the election outcomes haven’t quite turned out as Democrats would have preferred.

In Los Angeles’ mayoral race, for example, the Democratic incumbent would have welcomed the opportunity to run in the fall against a conservative television personality with an embarrassingly thin professional resume, but instead she’ll face a Harvard- and MIT-educated City Council member who’s already demonstrated an ability to win local elections.

In the state’s gubernatorial race, Democrats would have been delighted if Republicans had been locked out of the general election altogether, but instead, Republican Steve Hilton, a Trump-backed former Fox News personality, finished second in the multiparty “jungle” primary.

Yet despite the obvious flaws that have already made these theories flimsy, the president added a new twist on Thursday.

During a phone interview that aired live on “Fox and Friends,” Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade asked about the war in Iran. Trump responded by immediately focusing on his 2020 election conspiracy theories, which naturally led to his California election conspiracy theories.

“It was happening to Steve Hilton, and I went on a tear,” the president said. “And they said it was going to be two weeks and they’d know about Hilton, whether or not he’s going to make it. I went on such a tear, then they approved it immediately. They approved Steve. It’s such a rigged deal, it’s so crazy. They approved him so fast because everybody was watching.”

Hours later, at a White House event ostensibly about commercial fishing, Trump echoed his absurdities.

Trump again tells his delusional story about how Steve Hilton was "approved" to advance in the California election only because California officials were feeling "heat" after he started yelling about the "rigged election"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-11T19:43:09.045Z

“They said it’s going to take two more weeks,” the president said. “It was a week and it was heading south, and I started saying, ‘It’s a rigged election.’ And then they said it was going to take two weeks, one week, two weeks, and all of a sudden, [Hilton] was approved. You know why? Because the heat was on. They couldn’t get away with it. If I didn’t do it, I guarantee he wouldn’t be the nominee. It’s a rigged election.”

To the extent that reality impinges in any way on these presidential conspiracy theories, none of Trump’s claims was true, but of particular interest was his vision of how election administration works in the nation’s most populous state.

Hilton was already well positioned to advance to the general election when Trump started peddling baseless assertions. Earlier in the week, it became clear based on the remaining outstanding ballots that it simply wasn’t possible for any other candidate to surpass him.

But to hear the president tell it, election administration officials in California effectively told one another, “Sure, we planned to secretly arrange for Hilton’s defeat, but Trump is onto our nefarious scheme! It looks like we now have no choice but to let Hilton advance to the general election.”

In other words, from Trump’s perspective, when a Republican falls short, it’s proof that his conspiracy theories are true, and when a Republican doesn’t fall short, it’s still proof that his conspiracy theories are true.

This is madness, but a Trump-appointed federal prosecutor in the Golden State nevertheless appeared on Glenn Beck’s program this week to ask Californians to help him uncover evidence (which he apparently lacks) that could lead to the kind of prosecutions the president wants to see.

The post Trump adds a bizarre twist to his baseless California election conspiracy theory appeared first on MS NOW.

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana spent a year and a half trying to avoid Donald Trump’s wrath, in the hopes that it might help save his career. It didn’t work: The president, still enraged by Cassidy’s 2021 impeachment vote, helped orchestrate the senator’s primary defeat in mid-May.

Newly liberated, the Louisianan wasted little time showing renewed independence, defying the White House’s wishes on several issues.

Roughly a week after Cassidy’s loss, a similar dynamic unfolded in Texas, where incumbent Republican senator John Cornyn went to even greater lengths to stay on the president’s good side, only to see Trump back his primary rival and ensure his defeat.

An obvious question soon followed: After Trump became a problem for Cornyn, would Cornyn become a problem for Trump? An answer is starting to come into focus. The New York Times reported:

Now the Trump administration might find itself having to come to terms with Mr. Cornyn as he flexes new political freedom, joining a handful of other Senate Republicans not seeking re-election or defeated in primaries at Mr. Trump’s behest who now have added room to maneuver.

“I think it is going to be a pretty bumpy ride for the next seven months,” Mr. Cornyn said during a wide-ranging conversation in his Capitol office as he reflected on the tumultuous Texas election and his nearly quarter-century in Washington.

To be sure, there are key qualitative differences between Cornyn and Cassidy: The Texan is clearly to the Louisianan’s right. Even if Cornyn were to decide to ignore party pressures and the White House’s wishes altogether and simply vote his conscience on every matter, he’d still rarely buck the party line.

That said, it’s been interesting to see some unsubtle shifts in recent days. Before Trump endorsed his primary challenger, for example, the Texan launched an effort to rename a highway after the president. In the wake of Trump helping end Cornyn’s career, the senator decided the highway project was no longer a priority.

Similarly, when the president announced that Bill Pulte, the highly controversial director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, would serve as the acting director of national intelligence, Cornyn was among the first GOP senators to say publicly that Pulte was unqualified for the position.

But the Times’ report highlighted an issue of even greater significance.

After Trump withdrew his outlandish $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS last month, he received two scandalous rewards from his own administration. The first was the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion compensation fund, while the other was an IRS audit shield, unveiled by his Justice Department, granting Trump, his family and his controversial businesses immunity from all existing IRS tax audits.

Of the two rewards, the former appears to have been discarded in the face of overwhelming bipartisan opposition, while the latter remains intact.

Cornyn, however, is opposed to both.

“I think that’s a terrible mistake,” Cornyn told the Times, referring to the audit shield. “The president needs to be treated like everybody else.”

Whether the Texas Republican actually intends to do anything about this belief remains to be seen, but his newly stated position keeps the issue alive and at least opens the door to potential congressional action.

As for the big picture, Cornyn went on to tell the Times, in reference to Trump, “If he would do that to me, he would do that to anybody. There’s never going to be good enough for him, other than 100%, you know, slavish adherence to whatever he wants. But obviously that’s not what the senator’s role is supposed to be, especially in terms of checks and balances.”

Putting aside the question of why it took a full decade for Cornyn to recognize this problem, he has a unique opportunity to partner with the so-called YOLO caucus with six months remaining before his involuntary exit from Capitol Hill. Watch this space.

The post After Trump became a problem for Cornyn, Cornyn may soon become a problem for Trump appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The president sure is an unreliable narrator: “On Thursday morning, Trump threatened to strike Iran ‘very hard’ and announced plans to seize Kharg Island, the linchpin of Iran’s oil export infrastructure, and ‘assume total control’ of its oil and gas markets. By Thursday afternoon, he canceled the planned strikes and said ‘discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved.’”

* MS NOW put together a list of previous instances in which Trump has publicly delayed or canceled planned military action in Iran, and the list is not short.

* A heartbreaking milestone: “The war in Ukraine has often been compared to World War I for its brutal infantry assaults and heavy casualties. Yet the idea that it could, by any measure, surpass a conflict so long and bloody that French soldiers hoped it would be ‘the last of the last’ once seemed unthinkable. That is just what happened on Thursday. The war in Ukraine — which reached 1,569 days, or more than four years and three months — has now outlasted World War I.”

* Yet another strain on relations between the White House and New Delhi: “Three Indian sailors were killed in a U.S. operation to enforce its blockade of Iran, an Indian official said Thursday, the first reported deaths from the American effort to starve its foe of petrodollars and force it to make a deal to end the war.”

* On Capitol Hill: “The House of Representatives on Thursday rejected a last-minute attempt to extend a controversial warrantless-surveillance law, as Democrats protested President Donald Trump’s decision to temporarily place Bill Pulte, a mortgage agency director and MAGA loyalist, atop the U.S. intelligence community. The vote failed 218-198, with 19 Republicans joining nearly all Democrats in opposing the bill.”

* An inauspicious warning: “Oil and gas executives have warned the White House that gasoline prices could surge in coming months as fuel inventories fall to critical lows, complicating the Trump administration’s efforts to contain inflation that has already rattled American consumers.”

* All clear at the Pentagon: “A shelter-in-place order issued by the Pentagon Thursday due to an ‘air quality issue’ ended after it was deemed a false alarm, Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell said.”

* Pakistan’s latest strike in Afghanistan: “The United Nations said on Thursday that 13 civilians were killed in airstrikes this week in eastern Afghanistan, as Pakistan claims that it was targeting militant camps along the long border between the countries.”

* This story out of Albania is worth keeping an eye on: “For over three years, Jared Kushner has striven to build a set of luxury hotels and resorts in a corner of Eastern Europe that U.S. investors typically overlook. It isn’t going well.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Thursday’s Mini-Report, 6.11.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

Although not all of the relevant details are yet clear, according to U.S. Central Command, an Army AH-64 Apache helicopter crashed off the coast of Oman; the two crew members on board were rescued and are now in stable condition. Whether the incident was the result of a deliberate Iranian attack is the subject of some debate.

One day after the developments, Donald Trump spoke to The Wall Street Journal and downplayed the importance of the incident. In fact, according to the Journal, the president “repeatedly” said the downing of the helicopter “wasn’t a big deal.” Hours later, the Republican did a 180-degree turn, decided it was a very big deal after all, and approved a new military offensive against Iranian targets.

Trump offered additional insights on his perspective with a pop culture reference that he didn’t appear to fully understand. The Washington Post reported:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday night appeared to defend his latest military strikes on Iran by posting a short clip from “The West Wing,” the popular NBC television drama about a fictional U.S. president, in which the show’s characters debate their own military action.

In the video Trump promoted on his social media platform, he referred to an episode from the show’s first season in which Syria downed a U.S. military plane. The clip, which ran about a minute and a half, showed the fictional American president in the White House Situation Room, expressing his dissatisfaction with the idea of a “proportional response.”

Voicing support for a “disproportional response,” the fictional president declares, “Let the word ring forth from this time and this place, gentlemen — you kill an American, any American, we don’t come back with a proportional response. We come back with total disaster.”

This evidently resonated with Trump, who promoted the excerpt late Tuesday. What the incumbent president neglected to do, however, is to watch the rest of the episode.

In the show, the president eventually concedes his initial reaction was reckless and overly emotional, and that the kind of “disproportional response” he initially envisioned would lead to civilian casualties. Indeed, the whole point of the episode was that responsible global superpowers reject the very idea of a “disproportional response.”

Trump, in other words, got it backward.

It wasn’t the first time. Exactly one year ago, my MS NOW colleague Hayes Brown noted that Trump had touted “Les Misérables” while clearly missing the point of the production. A month earlier, the Republican tried to have a little fun with “Star Wars” day, but he inadvertently promoted an image that presented him as a villain.

These weren’t isolated incidents. In 2019, for example, the Republican White House tried to use “Game of Thrones” as part of a clumsy argument about the president’s border wall project, and the whole thing fell apart rather quickly. A year later, Trump talked about the Capt. William Bligh character from “Mutiny on the Bounty,” though it wasn’t altogether clear whether the president realized that Bligh is the villain of that story.

After his defeat in 2020, Trump talked obsessively about fictional character Hannibal Lecter, including a weird instance in which he referred to the infamous cannibal from “The Silence of the Lambs” as “the late, great Hannibal Lecter” and “a wonderful man.”

Maybe the president should just steer clear of making pop culture references? He’s clearly not good at it.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Still struggling with pop culture, Trump whiffs on point of ‘West Wing’ clip appeared first on MS NOW.

Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has maintained a rather high profile lately. In late April, for example, he appeared on CNBC and celebrated Donald Trump’s “palpable” commitment to the First Amendment. A few weeks later, Clayton also made the case on CNBC that the defunct $1.766 billion compensation fund had merit because “they” tried to “destroy” the president.

As recently as Monday, as the White House pushed conspiracy theories about election results in California, Clayton again toed the party line on national television, arguing the public is “right to question” the vote tallies.

If that was an audition for a promotion, it was apparently a successful one. On Thursday afternoon, Trump announced by way of his social media platform:

I am pleased to announce the Nomination of very Highly Respected Jay Clayton, former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the former Head of Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the most prominent and successful Law Firms anywhere in the World, and the current United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to be the next Director of National Intelligence and, importantly, to serve in my Cabinet. Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay. I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

If confirmed, Clayton would succeed outgoing DNI Tulsi Gabbard, whose resignation will take effect next week.

Clayton isn’t as outlandish a choice as Bill Pulte, whom the president recently tapped to serve as the acting DNI, but it would be an exaggeration to say his looming nomination is entirely uncontroversial.

In mid-November, Trump went even further than he usually does in directing the Justice Department to target his perceived political foes and critics, announcing that he wanted then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and federal law enforcement officials to investigate former President Bill Clinton and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, among others, over their alleged Jeffrey Epstein ties.

Four hours later, Bondi did as she was told, announcing via social media that she was tapping Clayton, who chaired the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump’s first term, to “take the lead” on the matter.

In other words, the president’s new choice to serve as the director of national intelligence — an office that Trump has freely admitted that he wants to weaponize for political purposes — has spent the last seven months investigating Trump’s opponents at the president’s insistence.

It’s the sort of thing that should give senators pause while weighing whether to confirm him.

What’s more, despite the statutory qualifications for the office, which require a DNI to have significant experience in intelligence, Clayton is a former Wall Street lawyer with no background in intelligence.

As for Pulte, it’s not yet entirely clear whether Trump sees him as the odd man out, or whether the White House still expects the highly controversial director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to serve as acting DNI until there’s a confirmation vote on Clayton. Watch this space.

The post Trump says he will nominate Jay Clayton to succeed Tulsi Gabbard as the DNI appeared first on MS NOW.

For nearly a year and a half, the list of Jan. 6 rioters who received pardons from Donald Trump only to run into fresh trouble with the law after receiving clemency has grown, reaching unsettling lengths.

Hoping to determine exactly how long the list is, Lawfare, a nonprofit legal issues publication, published a study last week that found at least 97 people charged in connection with the assault on the Capitol have since been accused of new crimes.

Jake Lang, however, stands out as a special case. The Dallas Morning News reported Wednesday:

A far-right influencer who has repeatedly tried to inflame racial tensions around the Karmelo Anthony case was arrested Tuesday and accused of making terroristic threats.

Jake Lang was booked into the Dallas County jail and faces a charge of terroristic threat to place the public in fear of serious bodily injury, interrupting public services, or influencing a government, according to jail records. He was arrested by Texas Department of Public Safety officers, and bail is set at $1 million.

Lang was arrested after he allegedly threatened extrajudicial mob violence against a Black teenager.

If his name sounds at all familiar, it might be because Lang was also arrested last week and charged with criminal trespass outside a rally in Texas.

In February, he was also arrested in Minneapolis after destroying an ice sculpture that was outside the state Capitol, which came around the same time Lang was charged with threatening a police officer who served at the Capitol.

In other words, nearly 100 rioters have been accused of new crimes after receiving pardons from Trump, but only one has been charged on four separate occasions. (Lang has denied wrongdoing.)

Highlighting the broader pattern, the editorial board of The New York Times recently published an opinion piece arguing that the American public “deserves to understand the mayhem that the Jan. 6 pardons have unleashed.”

Given the circumstances, the appeal was hardly unreasonable.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Pardoned Jan. 6 rioter arrested yet again, accused of making terroristic threats appeared first on MS NOW.

As this week got underway, the public saw Donald Trump abruptly end his latest “Meet the Press” interview when NBC News’ Kristen Welker asked the president whether he had evidence to support his election conspiracy theories. “You’re either crooked or you’re stupid,” the Republican told the host instead of answering the question like an adult who wasn’t making stuff up.

Unprompted, Trump returned to the subject Wednesday at an unrelated White House event, telling reporters:

They rigged the election, the second election, as you probably heard and probably know, most of you know, that happened and now it’s been proven, and it will be proven as time goes by, even more so. We have things that you won’t believe. When we release the full files, you’re not going to believe how crooked the second, the 2020 election was.

He made the comments while surrounded by congressional Republican leaders, who simply nodded along.

Trump: "They rigged the election. Now it's been proven, and it will be proven even more as time goes by even more so. We have things that you won't believe. When we release the full files, you won't believe how crooked the 2020 election was."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-10T16:04:29.518Z

There’s probably no point in rehashing what reality-based observers already know: The election wasn’t rigged; it isn’t “proven”; Trump and his team haven’t found “things”; there is no “they”; etc.

What I found notable about this, however, was the idea that there might still be people out there who are willing to believe that the president may yet uncover and release some evidence of a conspiracy that did not and does not exist.

Six months ago, for example, Trump sat down with Politico’s Dasha Burns, and when she brought up the president’s views on Russia’s war in Ukraine, his brain quickly shifted to what he described as the “rigged election.” Trump declared at the time, “It’s going to come out over the next couple of months too, loud and clear, because we have all the information.”

A couple of months came and went. The “information” never surfaced, because there is no such information.

For nearly six years, Trump and his team, like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, have said the evidence to support the election conspiracy theories really is on the way. Any day now. Just you wait. It’ll be awesome.

My advice for those waiting for the president to follow through on his vow: Stop. He can’t produce that which does not exist.

The post Hoping to persuade the gullible, Trump vows to share proof of 2020 conspiracy theories appeared first on MS NOW.

Immediately after professing his “love” of inflation at a White House event, Donald Trump went on to tell reporters on Wednesday afternoon about an operation he’s been eager to disclose.

“You know, I can say it now, something you didn’t know,” the president said. “You know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil. Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran — until right now.” He said this operation involved 22 ships that traveled “with no lights” and went undetected because Iranians “don’t have any radar because we blasted the crap out of it.”

Trump added, by way of a statement published to his social media platform, that this was “a secret mission.”

Soon after, during a congressional hearing, Energy Secretary Chris Wright was asked if he knew what the president was talking about. The Cabinet secretary conceded he was “unaware” of the developments Trump described, and he assured lawmakers the president was merely “talking casually.”

That wasn’t much of an answer, and it left unresolved the obvious underlying questions: Had Trump disclosed an actual secret mission? Had he kept it from his own energy secretary?

The New York Times shed additional light on the subject soon after.

As often happens with Mr. Trump, the truth was less dramatic. According to a senior U.S. military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the president was referring to an American effort to steer the passage of dozens of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.

While the operation was surreptitious enough — the U.S.-guided vessels have been turning off their transponders to avoid detection when crossing the narrow waterway — it could hardly have been news to Iran. Late last month, The New York Times published an article about the effort, reporting that U.S. Central Command had shepherded around 70 commercial ships through the strait.

In other words, when the president said “nobody” knew of the operation, he apparently meant nobody except everyone who read the Times’ article that was published on May 31.

I had a professor in college who used to joke about politicians who “burst through open doors.” This comes to mind often when watching the current White House.

Indeed, it came up last week when Trump said it was a “big thing” that he and his team had persuaded Iranian officials to agree not to pursue a nuclear weapon. Except, as anyone who’s followed the issue has long understood, Iran has been saying this same thing for more than a half-century.

I can appreciate the broader political dynamic: Trump, struggling in the polls and short on successes, appears desperate to share some good news, especially about a war that hasn’t gone according to his expectations. But pointing to meaningless accomplishments and disclosing operations that have already been disclosed aren’t going to turn things around for him.

The post Bursting through an open door, Trump hyped an already disclosed ‘secret mission’ appeared first on MS NOW.

Control of the Senate in the next Congress might very well come down to the closely watched contest in Maine, where longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins is seeking a sixth term. On the surface, Democrats have reason for cautious optimism: Collins is New England’s only remaining GOP senator, and recent polling suggests many Mainers are ready for a change in a year that’s shaping up to be a rough one for the incumbent’s party.

But against that backdrop, Maine Democrats have decided to take a gamble on nominating oyster farmer Graham Platner, a Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The list of controversies from his background is not short: Platner has faced difficult questions about online comments downplaying sexual assault in the military, his since-removed tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol, allegations he sent sexually explicit texts to several women who were not his wife and, most recently, allegations from three ex-girlfriends about volatile personal behavior, some of which he’s denied.

Platner nevertheless easily won his party primary this week, and soon after, the National Republican Senatorial Committee circulated a memo warning donors and allies to take him seriously.

“The political fundamentals in Maine remain challenging, and it is a fatal mistake to assume Platner is too damaged to win,” the NRSC wrote. “He is currently leading.”

With this in mind, Donald Trump decided to weigh in on the race during an unrelated White House event on Wednesday afternoon, formally endorsing Collins and condemning her Democratic rival in stark terms. The president told reporters in the Oval Office:

I watched that thug that’s up in Maine. He’s a thug. … I mean, he’s worse than any human being that’s ever run for office, probably. I don’t know him. I don’t want to say bad, but I just, look, I mean, nobody’s ever had a record like that. […]

I’ve never seen anything like it. He’s a thug. I know thugs. I had to deal with thugs. I built a lot of buildings, I dealt with the toughest people on earth. I dealt with worse than thugs. This guy’s a thug. He’s a low-level thug. … he’s just an outright pig. He’s like a pig; I watched him a couple of times. He’s like a pig, that’s what he reminds me of. I come up with good names for people.

To be sure, it’s fair to say Platner is a controversial candidate who will have to prove himself over the next 21 weeks. Unlike most Democratic Senate candidates, the Mainer will have to make the case, not just for his vision and priorities, but that he’s overcome mistakes from his past.

But I’m not sure if Trump fully appreciates just how poor a messenger he is for his message.

After all, the president is a convicted felon who was under federal criminal indictment as recently as two years ago. Trump also ran a fraudulent charity, a fraudulent “university” and his business was found to have engaged in systemic fraud.

In the E. Jean Carroll civil case, a jury found him liable for sexual abuse, and Carroll is one of many women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct. Relatedly, much of the public is probably familiar with the infamous “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump said, in the context of his aggressive pursuit of women, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

This is just a small sampling of a record that includes countless examples of racism, in addition to remarks denigrating American military heroism. (He likes people “who weren’t captured,” for example.)

If Republicans want to make the case that Platner is a controversial candidate, there’s little point in denying the claim. But for Trump, of all people, to say the Mainer might be “worse than any human being that’s ever run for office” is a remarkable failure of self-awareness.

The post Why Trump is the wrong messenger to make the case against Maine’s Platner appeared first on MS NOW.

The challenge in picking Donald Trump’s favorite distraction is that the competition is brutally fierce. The president’s ballroom vanity project, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and the White House venue for the upcoming UFC fight are certainly near the top of the lengthy and growing list.

But don’t forget about his interest in a massive “triumphal” arch just across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial, in front of Arlington National Cemetery. The Washington Post reported:

Federal officials are laying more groundwork to begin construction on President Donald Trump’s planned 250-foot-tall triumphal arch, sharing additional documents that detail the project’s scope and an aggressive timetable for potentially completing work before Trump’s term ends.

According to National Park Service documents posted this month, the administration envisions 20 hours per day of construction on the arch, year-round, in hopes of completing the project within two to three years. Construction experts said that timeline — which would involve two 10-hour daily shifts — is aggressive for a nonemergency project.

To be sure, the controversy surrounding the arch was already messy. For one thing, there’s an ongoing lawsuit that may very well succeed. For another, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum recently told Congress that the project is only at the “discussion” stage, and when evidence to the contrary emerged, Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, argued that the Cabinet secretary came “pretty damn close” to committing perjury.

In case that weren’t quite enough, the Washington Post reported last month that the administration was moving forward with plans to start work on the arch “by piggybacking on an existing, unrelated contract for engineering services” a mile away, which in turn would “allow the administration to bypass a potentially lengthy public bidding process.”

As a rule, when a White House has to rely on subterfuge to advance its ambitions, it’s a bad sign.

At this point, common sense might suggest that Congress would intervene, but the White House has already made clear that it intends to circumvent lawmakers. Trump was quite explicit on this point a few weeks ago, declaring at an Oval Office event, “We don’t need Congress to sign off on it. We’re doing it.”

But now that the details of the administration’s plan are coming into focus, the controversy has taken an even more farcical turn. Indeed, Trump and his team don’t just want an arch; they want it to be built at extraordinary speed, as if there were some kind of emergency need for the project. (There is not.)

The Post’s report added, “The arch also would be built with concrete clad in granite, unlike the nearby Lincoln Memorial and other monuments that were constructed with natural stone like marble and limestone — another way to expedite its construction, experts said.”

Maybe the president wants to see the arch in place before the end of his second term for ego purposes; maybe he’s worried that if he doesn’t rush, his successor might pull the plug on the boondoggle. Either way, the fast-track process is tough to defend.

Looking ahead, however, there’s another element to this that’s worth keeping in mind: safety.

Those familiar with the geography of the nation’s capital might realize that there’s a large airport in Arlington, just across the Potomac from Washington, D.C., and that the flight path for many arrivals takes airplanes above where the proposed arch would sit.

With this in mind, the Post went on to report, “The Park Service said the project would require large cranes, including one that may be 320 feet tall and another that could be as high as 300 feet. The planned site for the arch is on a flight path to nearby Reagan National Airport, where planes can sometimes fly at around 500 feet of altitude, raising concerns about safety.”

Congressional Democrats have made no effort to hide their efforts to block the project, and if Republicans lose control of Congress in the midterm elections, this would likely be one of many points of contention next year. Watch this space.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post To build his ‘triumphal’ arch, Trump envisions 20 hours per day of construction appeared first on MS NOW.

Headed into this week, analysts expected to see another surge in inflation, and on Wednesday morning, those projections proved true: The consumer price index climbed to its highest level since April 2023, and inflation continued to outpace wage growth, exacerbating the affordability crisis.

The data left the White House not only with a policy challenge but also with a political one. How would Donald Trump and his team try again to convince the American public that the unpopular and unnecessary war in Iran is worth the economic sacrifice?

As it turned out, the president decided not to even make the effort. Instead, when asked for his reaction to the latest discouraging news, the Republican said the latest inflation data was “great,” adding, “I love the inflation.”

Reporter: Are you concerned, Mr. President, about the latest inflation number which came out this morning?Trump: No, I love it. I love the inflation.

— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) 2026-06-10T16:09:56.011Z

He later told The New York Post about the point he was trying to convey. “The numbers are going to be phenomenal because what’s showing is that despite the fact that we’re in a war, the numbers are much lower than anticipated, and when we’re out of that war, the numbers will be at lower numbers than they were even before it started,” the president said.

There were substantive problems with the defense — there’s no evidence to suggest that the “anticipated” inflation hike was even worse than the status quo, for example — coupled with the fact that Trump noticeably failed to provide this context when he was talking to the White House press corps, on the record and on camera. (The number of people who will see the “I love the inflation” clip will far outnumber those who see the New York Post’s article.)

But just as notable is the recent history. In fact, it was only four weeks ago when a reporter asked Trump, “When you’re negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, to what extent are American financial situations motivating you to make a deal?”

Without hesitating, the president replied, “Not even a little bit.” The Republican added that, as part of his focus on preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons, “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody.”

It was a brutal quote, not only because of its callousness, but also because Trump has spent so much time proving the underlying point true. As my MS NOW colleague Zeeshan Aleem added, “The truth, in this case, is that Trump obviously doesn’t care about ordinary Americans’ financial well-being. It’s sticky not just because he said it, but because he has long been acting like it.”

Nearly a month later, all of this has returned to the fore, not just because of the data, which paints an ugly picture, and not just because of the administration’s misguided policies, which are directly responsible for making the cost of living worse, but also because of the frequency with which the president expresses his public indifference.

The latest Economist/YouGov poll found that just 29% of the public approve of his handling of the economy — 10 points lower than Joe Biden’s worst poll on the same issue. With the midterm elections just 21 weeks away, it’s a number that will likely generate understandable panic among Republican officials and candidates.

But it’s not the only survey of interest. A recent Fox News poll asked respondents, “Do you think Donald Trump cares about people like you, or not?” Only 37% of Americans said they believe the president does in fact care about people like them.

There’s no reason to assume that number can’t sink lower.

The post ‘I love the inflation’: What makes Trump’s comments on the affordability crisis different appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The latest from Northern Ireland: “The family of a man who lost an eye in a knife attack appealed for ​calm on Wednesday after the incident triggered a wave of anti-immigrant violence in Belfast overnight, with masked men burning families out of their homes and torching vehicles. The appeal ‌came as a Sudanese man appeared in court charged with attempted murder and as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and politicians in Northern Ireland condemned the violence by ‘masked thugs’ that had targeted ethnic minorities.”

* In related news: “The British government hit out at X owner Elon Musk Wednesday, accusing him of whipping up tensions online ahead of disorder in Belfast.”

* The tenuous state of a dubious ceasefire: “Trump said the U.S. is going to hit Iran ‘hard’ today when pressed by reporters in the Oval Office about his statement earlier that Tehran will ‘pay the price’ for taking ‘too long’ to reach a peace agreement. ‘Well, we’re going to be attacking them and attacking them very hard, resuming bombing,’ he said.”

* The latest casualty figures from Lebanon: “Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon has killed at least 3,666 people, including 131 healthcare workers, and injured more than 11,300 since the U.S. and Israel began their war with Iran in late February, the Lebanese health ministry reported yesterday.”

* The changing nature of modern warfare: “Ukraine is wreaking havoc on unarmored trucks and trains in the battlefield’s rear, using drones with upgraded engines and batteries, integrated Starlink communication systems and new artificial-intelligence capabilities. The ramped-up attacks are causing fuel shortages, complicating troop rotations and reducing Russian military activity on the front.”

* This seems like a reasonable request: “Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee demanded Wednesday that Bill Pulte, President Donald Trump’s controversial pick for acting director of national intelligence, submit to a full security check before assuming the post, including an examination of his financial holdings and foreign contacts.”

* Some market trends can’t be stopped despite the White House’s best efforts: “Even as President Donald Trump boosts coal over clean energy, solar power is hitting new milestones in the U.S. and remains the leading source of new power. Data released Wednesday by global energy think tank Ember, along with a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie, show the continued growth of solar and decline of coal in the United States despite federal policy. In May, for the first time, solar supplied more of the nation’s electricity than coal, or 12.8%, Ember said.”

* A bizarre schedule for a nonemergency vanity project: “Federal officials are laying more groundwork to begin construction on President Donald Trump’s planned 250-foot-tall triumphal arch, sharing additional documents that detail the project’s scope and an aggressive timetable for potentially completing work before Trump’s term ends. According to National Park Service documents posted this month, the administration envisions 20 hours per day of construction on the arch, year-round, in hopes of completing the project within two to three years.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Wednesday’s Mini-Report, 6.10.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

For months, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, had championed legislation to send additional security aid to Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s invasion. The proposal, however, was stuck: House Republican leaders refused to consider it, and so the bill languished.

Last month, however, it became unstuck: Proponents of the legislation managed to go around the GOP leadership thanks to a discharge petition — a tactic that allows members to bring a bill to the floor if it’s formally endorsed by a majority of the House. As MS NOW reported last week, the Ukraine aid package cleared the House with 226 votes, including 18 Republicans.

This week, it happened again. NBC News reported:

The House tonight passed another Democrat-led bill that made its way to the floor after a group of Republicans bucked their party’s leadership and joined Democrats in forcing a vote.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act, which would force employers to start negotiating with a newly certified union within 10 days of receiving the request, passed with the support of 20 Republicans and all Democrats.

Critics will note that both this bill and the Ukraine aid still have to clear the Senate, where the measures’ fate remains uncertain, and they would still need Donald Trump’s signature to become law. It’s a fair point.

But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania said in an online written statement, “If the House Floor was managed properly, discharge petitions would never be needed. A successful discharge petition is clear and direct evidence of a poorly managed House Floor — because it demonstrates that the will of the majority of the People is being thwarted by the privileged few.”

Fitzpatrick didn’t mention House Speaker Mike Johnson by name, but given the context, he didn’t have to.

Indeed, it might not be immediately obvious just how embarrassing these latest developments are for the Louisiana Republican and his leadership team.

In the past century or so, successful discharge petitions have been very rare. The reason is simple: Such petitions have long been seen as a slap in the face of a sitting House speaker.

As New York magazine’s Ed Kilgore recently explained, “Indeed, prior to Johnson’s ascent to the Speakership, only two 21st-century discharge petitions achieved the 218 signatures needed to trigger a floor vote.”

This roughly once-per-decade average has undergone a dramatic revision under the Louisiana Republican’s tenure. In the last Congress, which ended in early January 2025, there were two successful discharge petitions, which was itself a significant total. Meanwhile, in the current Congress, which is far from over, there have been six successful discharge petitions, which The Hill accurately described as “extraordinary.”

The first came in March 2025, and it dealt with proxy voting for new parents serving in Congress. In November 2025, another discharge petition advanced the Epstein Files Transparency Act; five days later, a measure to repeal an executive order that gutted federal workers’ union rights also received 218 signatures.

The list grew longer as discharge petitions related to extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, providing temporary protected status for Haitian migrants and extending aid to Ukraine all crossed the necessary threshold.

Usually, members embarrass Johnson by ignoring his wishes and voting against legislation he has urged them to support. But this flurry of successful discharge petitions, which has no modern precedent, makes the House speaker appear even more diminished.

Kilgore’s recent piece added, “Signs of weakness invite further revolts by House members who fear voters more than this mild-mannered former backbencher from Louisiana, whose authority is totally dependent on Trump’s backing, which can be erratic during times when the president is distracted by nonlegislative matters like ending wars and naming things after himself. Politicians, like guard dogs, can smell fear and irresolution.”

The question, then, is less whether we’ll see more successful discharge petitions and more a question of when, as Johnson’s weak hold on power unravels further.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post The more lawmakers go around Mike Johnson, the more obvious his weakness becomes appeared first on MS NOW.

During an Oval Office event on Wednesday afternoon, a reporter asked Donald Trump for his reaction to the news that inflation has reached a three-year high. The president responded that the new data was “great,” adding, “I love the inflation.”

And while that was strange, it quickly got worse. As part of his explanation for why he professed his “love” of inflation, Trump went on to say, “You know, I can say it now, something you didn’t know. You know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil. Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran — until right now.”

He said this operation involved 22 ships that traveled “with no lights” and went undetected because Iranians “don’t have any radar because we blasted the crap out of it.”

Even at face value, this was difficult to understand. The president loves inflation because the United States is taking oil out of the Middle East?

Complicating matters, there was also uncertainty about the nature and accuracy of Trump’s claims, even within his own White House Cabinet. MS NOW reported as part of the network’s liveblog coverage:

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who was simultaneously testifying before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, told lawmakers that he did not know of any such operation.

Wright said he was not aware of “millions” of barrels of oil having been extracted from Iran, but he said earlier in the hearing that the U.S. military ‌had ⁠helped get some oil out of the Strait of Hormuz.

As a rule, Wright can be counted on to toe the party line on pretty much anything Trump says, but when pressed by Democratic Rep. Emilia Sykes of Ohio on the president’s public comments, Wright said Trump was merely “talking casually.”

SYKES: *plays audio of Trump claiming US is stealing Iranian oil*WRIGHT: I think the president is talking casually SYKES: Do you think that it's appropriate to 'talk casually' about war?WRIGHT: I think you talk to all different audiences and you talk in all different styles

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-10T18:22:57.391Z

When Sykes followed up by asking about the propriety of a president speaking “casually” about a war, the energy secretary was reduced to saying, “I think you talk to all different audiences, and you talk in all different styles.”

What did that mean in this context? Your guess is as good as mine. It’s similarly unclear whether Wright’s use of the word “casually” was meant to convey the idea that sometimes Trump just says stuff without any meaningful regard for accuracy.

That said, it’s certainly possible that 22 ships moved through the Strait of Hormuz. The New York Times noted, however, “He did not say what time period he meant. Ordinarily, dozens of oil tankers would pass through the strait each day, and thousands would have done so since the war began, if not for Iran’s blockade.”

The post Energy secretary says Trump was speaking ‘casually’ with claim about taking out oil appeared first on MS NOW.

Donald Trump’s recent record on U.S. attorneys and other federal prosecutors is a rather embarrassing mess. Some of the Republican lawyers have been purged for political reasons, some have resigned and some were forced out by the courts.

But perhaps most important of all are the president’s prosecutors who have actually tried to do their jobs in line with the White House’s agenda.

In Nevada, Sigal Chattah, a member of the Republican National Committee, has led a U.S. attorney’s office for the last year, and according to a Bloomberg Law report published last week, she’s used her office to “launch investigations at the behest of former clients and friends,” and also “opened a probe targeting her past political foe.”

In Illinois, U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros’ tenure has become highly controversial, as evidenced by the intensifying mess surrounding his office’s handling of the “Broadview Six” case.

In Wyoming, interim U.S. Attorney for Wyoming Darin Smith botched some criminal cases so badly that federal judges had to intervene. (Senate Republicans soon after rewarded Smith with a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.)

But let’s also not overlook Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney who’s leading the office in the Central District of California.

Essayli, a former Republican state lawmaker, has cultivated quite a reputation, reportedly ignoring the recommendations of senior prosecutors and demanding that the office pursue MAGA-aligned cases without regard for insufficient evidence. Last year, he also dropped a fraud case against a fast-food chain owner who just happened to be a major Trump donor.

This week, Essayli apparently thought it’d be a good idea to appear on Glenn Beck’s program, where he vowed to bring criminal charges in “one to two months” related to his party’s conspiracy theories regarding California elections. The Republican prosecutor seemed to suggest that he hasn’t yet collected real evidence, though he apparently plans to address this problem by turning to the public for help. The New Republic reported:

First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli — who oversees 500 attorneys — went on The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to beg listeners to help him find evidence of election fraud.

“I expect people will be charged. … We have set up a tipline. I’ve set up a dedicated email. … We are looking for any sort of widescale conspiracy, if you will. … If anyone knows anything … if you’ve witnessed anything … if you saw someone collecting ballots in a suspicious way, or doing something odd with ballots, we wanna know about that.”

The circumstances were, among other things, bizarre. Federal prosecutors rarely appear on programs such as Beck’s; they almost never predict future prosecutions against alleged criminals who haven’t yet been identified; and it’s even more unusual for them to effectively try to crowdsource evidence collection.

What’s more, this is not a comprehensive list. Other Trump-appointed prosecutors in other jurisdictions have failed in other embarrassing ways.

The longer the list becomes, the worse it is for the rule of law and law enforcement. If you voted for the Republican ticket because you expected Trump and his team to be “tough on crime,” I have some bad news for you.

The post Trump-appointed federal prosecutor seeks public help on election conspiracy theories appeared first on MS NOW.