The Trump administration's "divide and conquer" approach to LGBTQ rights

In Marsha P. Johnson's final interview before her death in 1992, the activist later recognized as an icon of the movementthat preceded LGBTQ rights in the United Statesexplained why she, a transgender woman, championed a cause that often excluded her. "I've been walking for gay rights all these years," Johnson said, referencing early Pride marches in a conversation that appears ina 2012 documentaryabout her life. "Because you never completely have your rights, one person, until you all have your rights." Since then, social and political wins over timegrew to encompass everyonerepresented by the acronym LGBTQ, which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer. But that's become less true in recent years, as lawmakers in Tennessee, Texas and a number of other states repeatedly pushed legislation to restrict access togender-affirming care,bathroomsand sports teams for transgender people. Anti-trans sentimentwas central to President Trump's 2024 campaign, LGBTQ advocates say, and it followed him into office. Many of his directives this term haveclosely mirrored Project 2025, a conservative policy agenda that explicitly prioritizes eroding LGBTQ rights. A "divide and conquer" approach Fromhealth care bans, tosports bans, bathroom bans, amilitary banand attempts to erase non-binary gender pronouns from the federal system, Mr. Trump's most conspicuous threats to LGBTQ rights specifically target trans people, a pattern that has drawn accusations of scapegoating from his critics, given thattrans people make up an estimated 1% or lessof the U.S. population. LGBTQ advocates also see it as a tactic to sow division in the community. "Donald Trump ran for president on an age-old platform of divide and conquer," said Brandon Wolf, the national press secretary at the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy organization. "Inside the LGBTQ+ community, Donald Trump ran his campaign saying, I'm not targeting all LGBTQ+ people, just the trans people, and if you sacrifice that community, perhaps you will be spared." Whilepolling datashowed most LGBTQ voters didn't choose to elect him, Mr. Trump has gained increasingly loud support from a faction of gay conservatives who disavow the"radical LGBT left"and insist his policies aren't at odds with their personal freedoms. When the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrationannounced the upcoming terminationof part of its 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline dedicated to helping LGBTQ youth, the gay conservative groupLog Cabin Republicanscalled related media coverage "fake news." On TikTok, a small but popular band of conservative gay influencers post videos to similarly defend Mr. Trump's record. "Rights I've lost in Trump's America as a gay man," reads the caption of one of them, followed by an empty list numbered 1 through 5. In the comments section of another, a TikTok user responded to a thread outlining the current administration's anti-LGBTQ actions by saying, "None of that has anything to do with us being gay." Trump's orders On Inauguration Day, Mr. Trump declared in his televised address to the American public that"only two genders," male and female,would be recognized going forward by the federal government. He signed an executive order to enforce that within hours of being sworn in. Titled "Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government," the wide-rangingorderincluded instructions for the State Department to prohibit trans people from using gender markers that reflect their identities on official documents, like passports, and instead require that those markers align with the document holders' reproductive organs "at conception." "The Trump administration's passport policy attacks the foundations of the right to privacy and the freedom for all people to live their lives safely and with dignity," said Jessie Rossman, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Massachusetts, which has made headway in a lawsuit aiming to reverse the new rule, in astatement. "We will continue to fight to stop this unlawful policy once and for all." Like many of Mr. Trump's executive orders, that one has faced steep challengesin the courts, andlegal experts sayits long-term applicability is uncertain as some elements contradict the U.S. Supreme Court decision inBostock v. Clayton County, which codified discrimination protections for all LGBTQ employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The same conflict exists in Mr. Trump's orders to eliminatediversity, equity and inclusion initiatives,in which he instructed federal departments to "correct" what he called a "misapplication" of the Bostock ruling in their policies. Their uncertain futures aside, LGBTQ advocacy and rights groups feel those policies and others have already reaped consequences on the community at large — "the predictable result," said Wolf, "of a divide and conquer campaign." In response to Mr. Trump's directive to end "radical indoctrination in K-12 schools," the Department of Defense banned books with themes involving gender identity, sexual orientation and race from its schools for children in military families, which receive federal funding, according to a separatelawsuitfiled by the ACLU. A textbook focused on LGBTQ figures in American history was tossed out under the ban. Meanwhile, corporations scrambling to comply with anti-DEI orderseliminated or scaled back their partnershipswith Pride celebrations around the country after Mr. Trump's takeover of the Kennedy Center in February forcedWorldPride organizersto regroup because eventswere either canceled or relocatedfrom the venue. And, in May, the Human Rights Campaign issued amemowarning that Mr. Trump's"big, beautiful bill,"a "skinny" budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year, would cut $2.67 billion in federal funding from programs that support LGBTQ people. Among its most urgent concerns were the administration's plans to significantly downsize public health programs forHIV/AIDSprevention as well as Justice Department programs that investigate anti-LGBTQ hate crimes, in addition to sweeping cuts to resources for the trans community. Asked where LGBTQ rights stand under the Trump administration, a White House spokesperson pointed to Mr. Trump's past appointments of openly gay judges and officials such asTreasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in addition to two initiatives during his first term to decriminalize homosexuality globally and end the HIV epidemic by 2030, although his 2026 budget proposal would hamper that. "President Trump's historic reelection and the overall MAGA movement is a big tent welcome for all and home to a large swath of the American people," said the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, in a statement. "The President continues to foster a national pride that should be celebrated daily, and he is honored to serve all Americans. The American people voted for a return to common sense, and the President is delivering on every campaign promise supported by 77 million voters and is ushering in our Golden Age." "An anti-LGBTQ administration" In addition to tangible policies, advocates say that attitudes toward LGBTQ people from the nation's highest office are contributing tohigher incidences of violence against LGBTQ peopleand likely foreshadow harms still to come. "Overall, it is clearly an anti-LGBTQ administration," said Sarah-Kate Ellis, the president and chief operating officer at the LGBTQ media organization GLAAD. "And I think that they are consistently signaling that they want to roll back all of our hard-won rights." Mr. Trump and those in his orbit have repeatedly cast LGBTQ people and activities in a negative light. While announcing leadership shifts at the Kennedy Center in February, the presidentpenned a social media postthat pledged, in capital letters, to ensure the arts forum would no longer host drag shows "or other anti-American propaganda." His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, later said the country needs "less LGBTQ graduate majors" in an interview on Fox News criticizing Harvard University. According to advocates and academics, the administration frequently relies on political strategies to marginalize trans people that have been used against other groups in the past. The term "groomers," for example, is a historically anti-gay trope, and "gender ideology" originally demonized feminism. There were also notable moments of silence from the Trump administration, whichdid not acknowledge Pride Month, even as a global Pride festival took place for several weeks between May and June in Washington, D.C. LGBTQ people say that wasn't necessarily a surprise after watching their visibility decline in national forums this year, starting with mentions of "lesbian," "bisexual," "gay," "transgender," "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" being scrubbed from the White House website the day after Mr. Trump's inauguration,in a flashbackto his first term. References to trans people disappeared around the same time fromthe website for the Stonewall National Monument, considered the birthplace of gay liberation, in a move that sparked particular outcry. Marcia P. Johnson was among the pioneering trans activists who remain named on the site despite that change. Where do LGBTQ rights stand in America? Advocates for LGBTQ rights and others in the community say they're wary of what may come next. Echoing discourse that has persisted online since Mr. Trump's campaign, Ellis said she expects a right-wing push to overturnObergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, is imminent. "Our view on this is that they will continually attack our community and find any way to dismantle our community," she said, of the right-wing forces propelling Mr. Trump. "They've only focused on trans people because they are such a small population and so marginalized. But they will go after our marriages. They will go after our families. It has always been the anti-LGBTQ movement at the center of this." At least nine state legislatures have introduced bills to reverse the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling since Mr. Trump returned to Washington. Earlier this month, the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelminglyto pass a resolutionthat calls for the same. LGBTQ advocates emphasize that marriage equality is settled law, and research fromGallupandGLAADdemonstrate that a vast majority of Americans continue to support it. But some still worry the path to overturning Obergefell could be akin to the one thatled to the fall of Roe v. Wade, which kept abortion legal for 50 years before Trump-appointed justices tipped the Supreme Court bench and struck it down. Breaking down major Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions Saturday Sessions: Gordi performs "Lunch at Dune" Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez set for star-studded wedding in Venice

The Trump administration's "divide and conquer" approach to LGBTQ rights

The Trump administration's "divide and conquer" approach to LGBTQ rights In Marsha P. Johnson's final interview before her...
Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy billNew Foto - Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill

President Donald Trump is using false claims to promote his massive domestic policy bill. In a White Housespeechon Thursday, Trump falselyclaimedMedicaid is "left the same" by the bill. In fact, both the version of the legislation that wasnarrowly passed by the House in Mayand the latest version nowbeing contemplated by the Senatecontain major Medicaid policy changes and funding cuts that are expected to result inmillions of peoplelosing insurance coverage. Trump also falselyclaimedthat the bill includes "no tax" on Social Security benefits. The legislation would not actually fulfill Trump's campaign promise to completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, though it would temporarily give seniors asubstantially bigger tax deduction. And Trump falselyclaimedthat "there'll be a 68% tax increase" if Congress doesn't approve the bill; there is no credible estimate of anything close to a 68% hike. One caveat: since Congress has not yet sent a final bill to Trump's desk, it's possible that legislators will make major changes before the Senate votes. But Trump's claims are inaccurate with regard to the House-approved version and the version senators are considering. Asked for comment on the president's false claims, the White House provided an on-record response that touted the benefits of the bill but did not defend Trump's specific assertions. "The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is chock-full of the policies that the American people elected President Trump – and Congressional Republicans – to implement," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a Friday email. Here is a fact check. Trump claimed in his Thursday address that people are "not going to feel any" of the spending cuts included in the bill. He thensaid, "Your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same." Facts First:Trump's claim about Medicaid is false. The version of the bill that was passed by the House last month would make multiple significant changes to Medicaid and would reduce federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. The legislation's Medicaid provisions areexpectedto result in 7.8 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage tomore than 71 millionlow-income Americans, including children, people with disabilities, senior citizens, parents and other adults. The House bill would require certain able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, volunteer or participate in other activities for at least 80 hours a month to retain their coverage. It would also enact several provisions that would make it more difficult to sign up for or reenroll in Medicaid. And it would reduce federal support to certain states that provide state-funded coverage to undocumented immigrants. Regardless of the merits of these policies, they are major changes thatwould notleave Medicaid "the same." All told, the changes would reduce federal support for the program by roughly $800 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office projects; the Senate version of the bill has yet to be finalized but contains many similar provisions. Asked for comment on Trump's claim that Medicaid would be "left the same" by the bill, a White House official provided background material that did not try to corroborate the claim. Rather, the White House defended the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid – saying, for example, that the majority of people the Congressional Budget Office estimated would lose Medicaid under the bill "are able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and work less than 20 hours per week." Trumpcampaignedin 2024 on a promise of no more taxes on Social Security benefits. On Thursday, hesaidthe bill is "so good" because it includes "hundreds of things" that will benefit Americans – including "no tax" on Social Security. He thensaidin a social media post on Friday that the legislation left Republicans "on the precipice" of delivering achievements including "NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS." Facts First:Trump's claim about Social Security is false. The bill would temporarily beef up seniors' standard tax deduction, but it would not completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. The House-approved version would give people age 65 and older a $4,000 increase to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028, whether or not they are receiving Social Security payments yet. The Senate version wouldprovide a $6,000 boostto seniors. In both versions, the benefit would start to phase out for individuals with incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with incomes of more than $150,000. This measure is a move in the direction of Trump's campaign promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits; lawmakers could not eliminate those taxes under the rules of budget reconciliation, which Republicans are using to advance the package by a simple majority vote and without Democratic support in the Senate. But whatever the reason, Trump's claim that the bill includes "no tax" on Social Security, period, remains incorrect. Asked for comment on the Trump claim, the White House asserted in its background material that, under the bill, the vast majority of seniors receiving Social Security income would pay no tax on that income. Trump's own assertion was bigger. Trump warned Thursday of the consequences of allowing thetemporary tax cutsfrom his 2017 tax law to expire rather than making them permanent by passing this new bill – and he invoked a figure he hasfrequentlydeployedwhen promoting the 2025 legislation. "If the bill doesn't pass, there'll be a 68% tax increase," he said. "Think of that: 68%." Trump againrepeatedthe "68%" warning during Friday remarks at the White House. Facts First:Trump's claim is false. There is no credible basis for the claim that failing to pass the bill would result in anywhere near a 68% tax increase. One analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center think tankfoundthat taxes would rise by an average of about 7.5% in 2026 if Trump's bill didn't pass. Asked for comment by CNN, the White House did not attempt to address the "68%" figure even on condition of anonymity; it also provided no comment tootherfact-checkersearlier in the month. In their articles,PolitiFactandFactCheck.orgnoted that it's possible Trump has been wrongly describing a different Tax Policy Center estimate. The think tankfoundthat about 64% of households would pay more taxes in 2026 if the 2017 law's temporary cuts in individual income tax and the estate tax were allowed to expire. That's clearly not the same as saying Americans will face a 64% (or 68%) tax increase. And this wasn't a one-time slip of the tongue by the president. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill

Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill President Donald Trump is using false claims to promote his mass...
Red Wings acquire goalie John Gibson from the Ducks in a trade at the NHL draftNew Foto - Red Wings acquire goalie John Gibson from the Ducks in a trade at the NHL draft

The Detroit Red Wings acquired John Gibson from the Anaheim Ducks on Saturday, a trade of the veteran goaltender that could start the dominos falling around the NHL with several teams looking for help in net. Detroit sent backup goalie Petr Mrazek, a 2027 second-round pick and a 2026 fourth-rounder to Anaheim for Gibson, whose name has been in trade rumors for several years. No salary was retained. "John, throughout the course of his career, has been a proven starter and a good starter in the NHL," Red Wings general manager Steve Yzerman said on a video call with reporters. "As Anaheim has gone through their rebuilding process, I think it probably affected his play a little bit, and as their team gets better and they have a good, young goaltender in (Lukas) Dostal. John (is) looking for more opportunity to play, and we're counting on him obviously to give us quality starts and upgrade our team in net." Gibson, 31, has spent his first 12 years in the league with Anaheim. He started 28 games, compared to 49 for Dostal, last season, and he's signed for two more at a salary cap hit of $6.4 million. Ducks GM Pat Verbeek worked under Yzerman for a decade, and the two began speaking about Gibson before the trade deadline in March. Injuries derailed a move then but set the table for the western Pennsylvania native to go to Hockeytown. "We want to thank John for his time with our organization and being an integral part of the Ducks for more than a decade," Verbeek said. "It became clear John wanted a new opportunity, and after many discussions with him we felt now was the right time to make this move." Goalie market Back-to-back Western Conference champion Edmonton, rebuilding Philadelphia and others are expected to pursue a goaltender this offseason, and the list of unrestricted free agents with starting experience is not long. Jake Allen, Ilya Samsonov, Anton Forsberg and Ville Husso are among the top options available. A restricted free agent is off the market after St. Louis re-signed goaltender Joel Hofer to a two-year deal worth $6.8 million. GM Doug Armstrong had warned colleagues not to think about tendering ad offer sheet for Hofer, saying earlier in the week, "You're not going to get him." Other moves A few minor trades materialized on Day 2 of the draft. Los Angeles sent 24-year-old D-man Jordan Spence to Ottawa for the 67th pick and Colorado's sixth-rounder in 2026; Buffalo dealt Connor Clifton and a second-round pick to the Penguins for Conor Timmins and Isaac Beliveau and Washington acquired Declan Chisolm from Minnesota for a swap of picks and minor-leaguer Chase Priskie. Spence scored 52 points in 150 games for Los Angeles over the past two seasons, but he was relegated to the Kings' third defensive pairing last year with the rapid growth of Brandt Clarke and the injury return of Drew Doughty — each a right-handed shooter like Spence. Kings GM Ken Holland said Spence's representatives told him Spence wanted to leave if he wouldn't have a bigger role next season. The Capitals also signed 23-year-old forward Justin Sourdif for $1.65 million over two years after sending a second-round pick totwo-time Stanley Cup champion Floridafor the minor leaguer with four games of NHL experience. Sourdif scored a goal in his lone call-up this past season and had 10 points in 18 games on the Charlotte Checkers' run to the American Hockey League's Calder Cup Finals. They are are hoping Sourdif, making just over the league minimum at $825,000 annually, fills a hole on their second or third line. There was no room for upward mobility for Sourdif, especially after the Panthers signedplayoff MVPSam Bennett to aneight-year, $64 million contractand could bring back winger Brad Marchand. "We see a guy that's competitive, smart, can play wing and center," Capitals GM Chris Patrick said. "In Florida it was a situation where he was getting boxed out a little bit, and they had a bunch of people calling on him, so it got to be a competitive situation. ... He's going to have a good chance here to prove that he's a good NHL player." North of the border, the Calgary Flames extended 6-foot-6 Kevin Bahl to a six-year deal worth just over $32 million, while the Winnipeg Jets shored up their blue line depth by giving Haydn Fleury $1.9 million over the next two seasons. Bahl will count $5.35 million against the salary cap through 2030-31. ___ AP Sports Writer Greg Beacham in Los Angeles contributed. ___ AP NHL:https://apnews.com/hub/nhl

Red Wings acquire goalie John Gibson from the Ducks in a trade at the NHL draft

Red Wings acquire goalie John Gibson from the Ducks in a trade at the NHL draft The Detroit Red Wings acquired John Gibson from the Anaheim ...
Lonzo Ball trade grades: Did the Bulls actually do something kind of good?New Foto - Lonzo Ball trade grades: Did the Bulls actually do something kind of good?

The Cleveland Cavaliers and Chicago Bulls swapped players Saturday, specificallyIsaac Okoro for Lonzo Ball. It's a deal that's actually fairly well-balanced, so let's get into it. With Ball coming in to Cleveland, you can probably rule out a return of free agent Ty Jerome this summer, as Ball is going to take over the backup point-guard role. The 27-year-old missed two full seasons due to left knee issues, going through three surgeries, making a stunning comeback this past season by playing 35 games for the Bulls and displaying better movement than most would have anticipated. Cleveland takes a certain level of risk here because Ball is no lock to play 50 or 60 games, but they're swinging on the upside of him being ready for a postseason run. Ball's on-court IQ is substantial, and his defensive know-how remains an asset for any team. Ball signed a two-year extension worth $20 million, which triggers this summer. The second year has a team option in case his injury pattern re-emerges. Basically, the Cavs have an easy out here if needed, so they're only on the hook for his salary this year, which accounts for just 6.47% of the projected salary cap. The fact they gave up Okoro, who has become a rarely used wing, won't hurt their depth, with De'Andre Hunter absorbing a lot of those minutes. Grade:A The Bulls were loaded with guards, and it was frankly time to do something about it. The Bulls extended Ball for this very reason — so they could ship him out in a future trade — showing surprising foresight for an organization that's historically had very little. The yield is Okoro, a 6-foot-5 wing who can hit the corner 3 and play rock-solid defense. He's not a high-volume guy and probably never will be, but he can integrate himself into the fabric of a team where he doesn't feature heavily, and that's not a bad ability to have. Okoro will play hard, he'll be an active and switchable defender, and he'll give Chicago needed depth at small forward, with Patrick Williams and Matas Buzelis better suited as natural fours. Okoro's contract is also fine. He signed a three-year deal in 2024 worth $33 million, so a little over $22.8 million is left over the next two seasons. That's a very manageable number, and the Bulls essentially lock in a rotation wing for a number that falls way short of the non-tax MLE, which is actually decent work. Of course, it's still unclear what Chicago's plan is, so in the context of potential follow-up moves, this becomes a tough grade. Are they planning to compete and view Okoro as someone who will significantly help get them into the playoffs? If so, that's probably a little too optimistic. Is he instead considered a solid contract who will help steady the secondary rotation? If so, then that's a bull's-eye. Grade:Incomplete, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Lonzo Ball trade grades: Did the Bulls actually do something kind of good?

Lonzo Ball trade grades: Did the Bulls actually do something kind of good? The Cleveland Cavaliers and Chicago Bulls swapped players Saturda...
Trump Issues Blistering Response After Iran Threatens U.S.New Foto - Trump Issues Blistering Response After Iran Threatens U.S.

U.S. President Donald Trump addresses a press conference during a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. Credit - Nicolas Tucat—Getty Images President Donald Trump issued blistering remarks in response to Iran's Supreme Leader claiming victory over Israel and, by extension, the U.S. In a loaded public message, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had alsothreatened to attack more U.S. Military bases, further splintering the Middle Eastern country's relationship with the U.S. "Look, you're a man of great faith. A man who's highly respected in his country. You have to tell the truth. You got beat to hell," Trump said as he addressed the Iranian Supreme Leader duringa White House press conferenceon Friday. Trump was asked by a reporter if the U.S. would consider bombing Iran again, if intelligence reports were to conclude that Iran could enrich uranium to a level that concerns him. "Sure, without question, absolutely," he replied. Trump issued an even stronger response on his social media platform,Truth Social, later in the day, and doubled down on his stance once more when he reposted his message early Saturday morning. In the lengthy post, Trump accused Khamenei of publicly sharing a "lie" by claiming Iran achieved a victory over Israel. He reaffirmed his much debated viewpoint that theU.S. strikes "obliterated" the three key nuclear facilitiesit targeted on Saturday, June 21. Trump also seemingly made reference to previous reports that stated theWhite House turned down a planby Israel to try and kill Khamenei. "His country was decimated, his three evil nuclear sites were obliterated, and I knew exactly where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces... terminate his life. I saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death," Trump said, lamenting that Khamenei would not "thank" him for this. "During the last few days, I was working on the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery. The sanctions are biting! But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief." According toCongress, the U.S. sanctions on Iran "are arguably the most extensive and comprehensive set of sanctions that the United States maintains on any country." They block Iranian government assets in the U.S., ban nearly all U.S. trade with Iran, and prohibit foreign assistance and arms sales. Read More:How U.S. Strikes May Have Inadvertently Helped the Iranian Regime Trump concluded his charged social media message by saying "Iran has to get back into the world order flow" or else things "will only get worse for them." "They are always so angry, hostile, and unhappy, and look at what it has gotten them. A burned out, blown up country with no future, a decimated military, a horrible economy, and death all around them. They have no hope, and it will only get worse! I wish the leadership of Iran would realize that you often get more with honey than you do with vinegar. Peace!" Khamenei broke his silence on Thursday, publicly speaking out—via a pre-recorded televised address and various social media comments— for the first time since Trump announced the (admittedly fragile) cease-fire between Israel and Iran. Read More:Shaky Israel-Iran Cease-Fire Appears to Hold After Trump Publicly Rebukes Both Countries In his televised message, Khamenei threatened to attack more U.S. military bases should any further aggression from the U.S. side occur. "The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face. It attacked one of the important American bases in the region,"Khamenei said, referring to his country's air assault on Al Udeid Air Base, a U.S. airbase in Qatar. The strikes were intercepted by the U.S. (except for one that was allowed to proceed as there was no risk of contact), and no casualties were reported. The military action was retaliatory, a direct response to the U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities. Khamenei claimed "total victory" over Israel. But Israel, the U.S., and Iran have all claimed to have won the war that started on June 13, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets, amid growing concern overIran's nuclear capabilities. When the U.S. actively joined the conflict on June 21, striking three key Iranian nuclear facilities,world leaders urged de-escalationand a return to negotiations, amid fears of a far-reaching war erupting. Read More:'Gravely Alarmed' World Leaders React After U.S. Strikes Iran Though Trump continues to say that Iran's nuclear sites were"totally obliterated,"others have cast doubts on how effective the U.S. strikes were in setting back Iran's nuclear program. Leaked U.S. intelligence suggested that the damage to Iran's nuclear program may not be as severe as Trump has stated. CIA director John Ratcliffe said on Wednesday that the sites had been "severely damaged" by the U.S. strikes, and that it would take years to be rebuilt. Amid the debate, the White House hasput out statementsarguing Trump's stance that the facilities were "obliterated," labelling reports to the contrary as "fake news." But some Democrats left aclassified meetingwith lingering questions over the effectiveness of the strikes. "There's no doubt there was damage done to the program, but the allegations that we have obliterated their program just don't seem to stand up to reason," said Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut on Thursday. "To me, it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months." When asked about concerns of Iran having "secret nuclear sites" at Friday's press conference, Trump said he was "not worried about it at all." "They're exhausted. The last thing they're thinking about right now is nuclear," he told reporters. "You know what they're thinking of? They're thinking about tomorrow, trying to live in such a mess. The place was bombed to hell." Read More:Key Takeaways From the 2025 NATO Summit Meanwhile, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchisaidon Friday that Trump needs to retire his "disrespectful" tone towards Khamenei if he wants a deal to be struck between the U.S. and Iran."If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers," he said. "The great and powerful Iranian people, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had no choice but to run to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened by our missiles, do not take kindly to threats and insults." Araghchi was referencing remarks made by NATO chief Mark Rutte who, during the NATO Summit on Wednesday,referred to Trump as the "daddy"who had to intervene in the conflict between Israel and Iran. Amid the back-and-forth between Trump and Iran, on Saturday, thousands of mourners gathered in Tehran for the funerals of topIranian military commanders and scientiststhat were killed in the Israeli strikes.According to reports, crowds chanted "death to" Israel and America. Araghchi paid tribute to those who had been killed, and went on to tell Iranians on Saturday that the "pride of a nation is paramount," pledging that Iran would return to "new glory and greater strength."As the funerals took place,Khamenei spoke outvia a post on his Farsi-language social media account, sharing a message that translated to: "The Iranian nation should know that the reason for the opposition to America is that they want Iran to surrender, and this is a great insult to the Iranian nation by the Americans, and such a thing will never happen." Contact usatletters@time.com.

Trump Issues Blistering Response After Iran Threatens U.S.

Trump Issues Blistering Response After Iran Threatens U.S. U.S. President Donald Trump addresses a press conference during a North Atlantic ...
Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials crack downNew Foto - Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials crack down

WASHINGTON (AP) — Just hours after shepleaded not guiltyto federal charges brought by theTrumpadministration, New Jersey Rep.LaMonica McIverwas surrounded by dozens of supportive Democratic colleagues in the halls of the Capitol. The case, they argued, strikes at the heart of congressional power. "If they can break LaMonica, they can break the House of Representatives," said New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Federal prosecutors allege that McIver interfered with law enforcement during a visit with two other House Democrats to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark, New Jersey. She calls the charges "baseless." It's far from the only clash between congressional Democrats and the Republican administration as officialsramp up deportationsofimmigrantsaround the country. Sen.Alex Padillaof California was forcibly removed byfederal agentswhile attempting to speak at a news conference for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At least six groups of House Democrats have recently been denied entry to ICE detention centers. In early June, federal agents entered the district office of Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and briefly detained a staffer. Congressional Republicans have largely dismissed Democrats' behavior as inflammatory and inappropriate, and some have publicly supported the prosecution of McIver. Often in the dark about the Trump administration's moves, congressional Democrats are wrestling with how to perform their oversight duties at a time of roiling tensions with the White House and new restrictions on lawmakers visiting federal facilities. "We have the authority to conduct oversight business, and clearly, House Republicans are not doing that oversight here," said New Jersey Rep. Rob Menendez, one of the House Democrats who went with McIver to the Newark ICE facility. "It's our obligation to continue to do it on site at these detention facilities. And even if they don't want us to, we are going to continue to exert our right." Democrats confront a stark new reality The prospect of facing charges for once routine oversight activity has alarmed many congressional Democrats who never expected to face criminal prosecution as elected officials. Lawmakers in both parties were also unnerved by the recenttargeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakersand the nation'stense political atmosphere. "It's a moment that calls for personal courage of members of Congress," said Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania. "I wish that we had more physical protection. I think that's one of those harsh realities that members of Congress who are not in leadership recognize: that oftentimes, we do this job at our own peril, and we do it anyway." The arrests and detentions of lawmakers have led some Democrats to take precautionary measures. Several have consulted with the House general counsel about their right to conduct oversight. Multiple lawmakers also sought personal legal counsel, while others have called for a review of congressional rules to provide greater protections. "The Capitol Police are the security force for members of Congress. We need them to travel with us, to go to facilities and events that the president may have us arrested for," said Rep. Jonathan Jackson of Illinois. 'There's not a lot of transparency' As the minority party in the House, Democrats lack the subpoena power to force the White House to provide information. That's a problem, they say, because the Trump administration is unusually secretive about its actions. "There's not a lot of transparency. From day to day, oftentimes, we're learning about what's happening at the same time as the rest of the nation," said Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., who led a prayer for McIver at the Capitol rally. Democrats, to amplify their concerns, have turned to public letters, confronted officials atcongressional hearingsanddigital and media outreachto try to create public pressure. "We've been very successful when they come in before committees," said Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, who added that she believed the public inquiries have "one hundred percent" resonated with voters. Tapping into the information pipeline Congressional Democrats say they often rely on local lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to be their eyes and ears on the ground. A handful of Democrats say their best sources of information are across the political aisle, since Republicans typically have clearer lines of communication with the White House. "I know who to call in Houston with the chamber. I think all of us do that," said Texas Rep. Sylvia Garcia of how business leaders are keeping her updated. Garcia said Democrats "need to put more pressure" on leading figures in the agriculture, restaurant and hospitality sectors to take their concerns about the immigrant crackdown to Trump's White House. "They're the ones he'll listen to. They're the ones who can add the pressure. He's not going to listen to me, a Democrat who was an impeachment manager, who is on the bottom of his list, if I'm on it at all," Garcia said. Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, for instance, had a working relationship with a for-profit ICE facility in his district until DHS in February ended reports as part of an agency-wide policy change. A member of Crow's staff now regularly goes to the facility and waits, at times for hours, until staff at the Aurora facility respond to detailed questions posed by the office. Democrats say 'real oversight' requires winning elections Still, many House Democrats concede that they can conduct little of their desired oversight until they are back in the majority. Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, said that "real oversight power and muscle" only comes "when you have a gavel." "Nothing else matters. No rousing oratory, no tours, no speeches, no social media or entertainment, none of that stuff," Veasey said. "Because the thing that keeps Trump up at night more than anything else is the idea he's going to lose this House and there'll be real oversight pressure applied to him." ___

Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials crack down

Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials crack down WASHINGTON (AP) — Just hours after shepleaded not guiltyto fed...
Coco Gauff says criticism of Aryna Sabalenka's French Open comments went 'too far'New Foto - Coco Gauff says criticism of Aryna Sabalenka's French Open comments went 'too far'

LONDON (AP) — It didn't take long forCoco GauffandAryna Sabalenkato patch up their relationship after this month's French Open final. Now asWimbledonis about to start, Gauff is hoping everyone else can also forget what the top-ranked Sabalenka said in the wake of her loss to the American at Roland-Garros. A day afterdancing together on Wimbledon's Centre Courtin a TikTok video, the two tennis players faced more questions on Saturday about the aftermath of Sabalenka's comments right after the final, when she said her loss had more to do with her own mistakes than Gauff's performance. The Belarusian laterwrote to apologize to Gauffand said her comments were "unprofessional," but not before she faced some major backlash from fans and pundits — especially in the United States. Gauff is trying to make sure the criticism stops. "I'm not the person that will fuel hate in the world," said Gauff, who opens her Wimbledon campaign against Dayana Yastremska on Tuesday. "I think people were taking it too far. … It was just really targeting and saying a lot of things that I felt were not nice. I didn't want to fuel that more." Sabalenka, who faces Carson Branstine on No. 1 Court on Monday, said she hopes the TikTok video shows that all is well between the two. "We are good, we are friends," the three-time major winner said. "I hope the U.S. media can be easy on me right now." Sabalenka reiterated that she never meant to offend Gauff. "I was just completely upset with myself, and emotions got over me," she said. "I just completely lost it." Gauff did acknowledge that she was initially tempted to hit back publicly at Sabalenka, who said the American "won the match not because she played incredible; just because I made all of those mistakes from ... easy balls." Gauff also said she was slightly surprised that it took a while for Sabalenka to reach out to apologize. But once that happened, the American was quick to bury any grudge. "I preach love, I preach light," Gauff said. "I just want us to be Kumbaya, live happily, hakuna matata, and be happy here." Other players were also pleased to see the top two women's players getting along again. "I'm happy to see that they turned the page about it," said Frances Tiafoe, who is seeded 12th in the Wimbeldon men's bracket. "That's the biggest thing, because they're the best players in the world. So those relationships you kind of need." Then the American added with a laugh: "But also it wouldn't be too bad if they were also back-and-forth. That'd kind of be cool if they kind of didn't like each other." ___ AP tennis:https://apnews.com/hub/tennis

Coco Gauff says criticism of Aryna Sabalenka's French Open comments went 'too far'

Coco Gauff says criticism of Aryna Sabalenka's French Open comments went 'too far' LONDON (AP) — It didn't take long forCoco...

 

MARIO VOUX © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com