The price of Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, rose over 1 percent on Monday to between $73 and $74 a barrel for September delivery, the most actively traded contract. Prices remain near prewar levels, where they returned last week after a series of declines.
West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, rose 1.5 percent to around $70 a barrel.
The US launched a new round of strikes on Iran on Friday in the most explicit indication yet that the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has collapsed into an escalating and open conflict. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said its aircraft struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites near the Strait of Hormuz.
A report by Al Jazeera said the US strikes were near the Iranian port of Sirik. Al Jazeera also reported that Iran said it had “succeeded in neutralizing” the attack and pledged to retaliate in a statement shared by the ISNA news agency. The statement said, “We emphasize that this aggression will not go unanswered, and our response will be swift and decisive at a time and place of our choosing.”
An Iranian parliamentary security official, Ebrahim Azizi, accused Washington of attacking “in the middle of negotiations once again” and said the US president had shown no commitment to negotiation or ceasefire principles.
According to other reports, the US strikes were carried out in response to Iran’s launching of at least four one-way attack drones at a commercial vessel on Thursday, with one drone striking the ship’s upper deck and damaging it before the vessel continued its course.
Tabby Wilson (BBC) notes each side is blaming the other:
Following the exchange of fire, the US and Iran accused each other of violating the ceasefire agreement.
Centcom said in a statement, "Iran was given a chance to honor the ceasefire agreement but elected not to when its forces launched a one-way attack drone that hit MT Kiku," a Panama-flagged tanker.
In response, it said, Centcom hit military equipment, communication systems, air defense sites and drone storage facilities.
In the IRGC's statement, it said the US had attacked five coastal posts in Iran under what it called "the pretext of the IRGC Navy confronting the offending ship".
In retaliation, the IRGC said it had launched ballistic missiles and drones at "eight key pieces of infrastructure" at the Ali al-Salem base in Kuwait and the Fifth Naval Fleet in Port Salman, Bahrain, "destroying them".
ALJAZEERA noted, "Saturday’s renewed attacks are the latest indication that a Middle East ceasefire, established as part of a June 17 memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, might be at breaking point." Optimism. Aime Williams (FINANCIAL TIMES) noted the attacks " further imperilling the fragile ceasefire agreement struck between Washington and Tehran almost two weeks ago." While Benoit Faucon, Lara Selignman and Saleh al-Batati (THE WALL STREET JOURNAL) noted Saturday's attack was "the second wave of American attacks in as many days." Uwa Ede-Osifo (GUARDIAN) adds, "In a statement the IRGC vowed that any further aggression would be met with a 'crushing response' and warned that violating the ceasefire would result 'in the complete halt of all diplomatic processes'."
The U.S. and Iran have agreed to halt attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and allow vessels to move through freely, according to a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations, as continued hostilities threatened a two-week-old cease-fire. Iran has yet to confirm an agreement.
The agreement would bring calm to the crucial waterway, where renewed skirmishing began last week after an attack on a cargo ship. U.S. officials blamed Iran for the resumption of hostilities, saying it had launched drone attacks on two vessels in the strait in recent days. Iran has not claimed responsibility for those strikes, but on Sunday reiterated its demand that vessels follow its designated routes in the strait.
Earlier in the day, the Iranian foreign minister declared that his country alone had the authority to manage commercial traffic through the strait.
Talks were slated to continue on the mechanics of putting into action a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran that produced the fragile cease-fire, according to the U.S. official. The official declined to provide any specifics on when or where those talks would occur.
RYAN NOBLES:
Yeah. Let’s talk now about the Epstein files. That’s been an issue that has been very difficult for the Trump administration. President Trump’s decision to move on from the Epstein files, that launched a series of top secret meetings in the Situation Room. Maggie, what do those moments reveal about how Trump’s top advisors handled that crisis?
MAGGIE HABERMAN:
So you have to set this picture here, Ryan. This had been something that top officials in the Trump government–JD Vance, Kash Patel, the FBI director, Dan Bongino, the deputy FBI director—had spent years talking about how there was a secret cabal of pedophiles. And once they were in charge, they would open this up and make this visible. Trump, to be fair, had never actually really quite gone that far. He had talked about it more in 2015, but it kind of went away.
RYAN NOBLES:
He certainly didn’t reject it, though.
MAGGIE HABERMAN:
Yeah, I mean, as he often does, he sort of leaves it as an option. And there were a number of senior officials in Trump’s White House who didn’t understand what a driving force this was for the MAGA base, for Trump’s own base. Trump wanted nothing to do with any of this. He didn’t want anything out. He was snapping at people who would talk about it. And then he started attacking his own supporters and saying, “This is a hoax.” So we write about a series of meetings in the White House Situation Room, which is intended to deal with national security crises, with foreign wars, you know, with sensitive matters, but not usually matters about, you know, Epstein PR crisis comms. And there were several of these, but we zeroed in on a few. These start, the ones we write about, right after the White House has used all of its political capital on the One Big Beautiful Bill, which you know, was what they would’ve rather been talking about. Instead they find themselves–and it’s the top levels of government. JD Vance, White House chief of staff, attorney general, deputy attorney general, Kash Patel, you know, several lawyers. And that’s, like, half the crew who were in some of these, talking about how to get themselves out of this. And this goes on, and on, and on. And all it does is allow a greater clamor among Trump’s supporters, including this surreal meeting that we end up writing about, where they were planning on putting out some public-facing website with things old and new, and you know, they were discussing what universe it would be. And then somebody had looked up in that mock website they were setting up, Trump’s name. And up pops up this unverified, already public claim with an allegation that Trump, you know, was made second-hand, but it was about Trump. And that was sort of the end of that.
President Donald Trump has had a hard time distancing himself from the Jeffrey Epstein saga, and a new development in the case might prove to be more of a headache than he wants, according to two legal experts.
Earlier this month, convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein's assistant, Lesley Groff, testified before Congress about her relationship with the disgraced financier and his crimes. The transcripts of that interview were released late last week, and some of the details Groff shared with investigators raised red flags for attorneys Brian Kabateck and Shant Karnikian, who co-host the "Civil Action" podcast on the Legal AF Network.
For instance, Kabateck pointed out in a new episode on Sunday that Groff testified she began working for Epstein in 2001 and that Epstein and Trump were in contact for at least a decade. That seems to contradict Trump's previous claim that he cut off communications with Epstein in 2004 or 2005, well before Trump became president, Kabateck noted.
Another issue is that those dates extend beyond Epstein's 2008 felony conviction for soliciting a minor, which is another "problematic" aspect of the timeline, Kabateck said.
Friday, the House Oversight Committee heard remarks from Leon Black behind closed doors until Black decided to walk out mid-testimony. Jimmy Jenkins (BLOOMBERG NEWS) explains:
Billionaire investor Leon Black was issued two subpoenas by a congressional committee and walked out early from voluntary testimony regarding his relationship to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Members of the House panel investigating Epstein clashed with Black behind closed doors on Friday about non-disclosure agreements the Apollo Global Management Inc. co-founder allegedly concluded with women.
The House Oversight Committee issued one subpoena requiring Black to appear for a deposition on July 16, according to a statement from the panel. The second subpoena requires him to produce NDAs to the committee.
Black said in his opening statement to the committee that he never abused women and wasn't blackmailed by Epstein, his longtime friend and client. After questions about NDAs, Black left the meeting early, something the chairman of the panel said he had never seen before.
Black voluntarily testified on Epstein's relationships with wealthy and influential figures. His name is mentioned in files released by the US Department of Justice. However, when committee members began the inquiry about NDAs that may have been signed in connection with women Black had relationships with, he stormed out.
Committee leaders proceeded to approve subpoenas seeking copies of any relevant agreements after Black's departure and required him to return for an on-camera deposition under oath.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released the following statement after Leon Black, billionaire and primary client of Jeffrey Epstein, stormed out of his transcribed interview with the Committee when asked about non-disclosure agreements.
“Leon Black had a chance to do the right thing and help us bring justice to the survivors. Instead, he ran out of the room when he was pressed for information about his non-disclosure agreements with women and his relationship with survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. He has now been subpoenaed and must provide real answers to the Committee. He will be held accountable if he doesn’t comply with our investigation,” said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.
Leon Black had a longstanding relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Black was Epstein’s primary client, even after Epstein was convicted in Florida of sex crimes. Black paid millions to women he engaged with sexually, some of whom were also connected to Epstein. Black forced women to sign strict non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to keep them quiet. He also paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Island to avoid Epstein-related claims against him. Black paid Epstein $170 million for “tax and estate work” and his name is mentioned hundreds of times in the Epstein files.
###
Salon reports the specter of Jeffrey Epstein appears to be looming over the Republican Party as the GOP struggles to maintain it’s delicate House and Senate majorities.
Republicans have seized on Epstein’s ties to Democratic figures like former President Bill Clinton, but it appears that Epstein lingers most heavily over the party with a president whose name peppers the Epstein files, and who worked so obviously to keep the files under wraps. Trump also labored to remove Republicans who favored exposing the Epstein files in Republican primaries.
This is giving Democrats an additional edge in a race that is already swinging heavily away from Republicans who have failed to reign in President Donald Trump’s various power grabs and his monetizing of the White House.
“The
revelations from the files further fueled the widespread, bipartisan
exasperation among voters with the wealthiest elites,” reports Salon.
“The Epstein issue, two Democratic pollsters told The 19th, is rare for
its high salience and far reach even among less politically engaged
voters — and for the high levels of bipartisan agreement on the need for
more action.”
Surveys from Navigator Research and progressive pollster Data for Progress buttress that argument, with both polls showing majorities of voters — including a majority of Republicans — believe “there hasn’t been enough accountability connected to Epstein’s crimes” and they want to see more arrests and prosecutions. The March Navigator poll, in particular, revealed the share of Americans who said they believed Trump administration officials should resign over the Epstein matter increased when they were informed about officials in other countries being arrested, fired or forced to resign over their Epstein connections.
Donald Trump's Great American State Fair kicked off Friday on the National Mann in Washington, D.C. to bad weather, power outages, poor attendance, and, apparently, a Confederate flag problem. This prompted plenty of responses from both attendees and people watching from afar via social media. As one person put it, "This is pathetic."
The New York Times reported Saturday the fair is missing key traditional elements often present at similar events (like butter sculptures, naturally), but there are displays promoting Turning Point USA and a portrait of Donald Trump.
Footage from Saturday showed scarce attendance on the lawn.
Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who served in Illinois from 2011 to 2023, wrote on X, "Wow. Turns out people aren't very maga after all."
Vanilla Ice's performance at Freedom 250's Great American State Fair was scrapped at the last minute on Friday, June 26, as storms swept through Washington, D. C. Heavy rain fell near the stage area before the 58-year-old was scheduled to perform, with very few people turning out for the show. It comes after critics came up with a wild reason for the show to be canceled.
Before the show was canceled, Vanilla Ice faced criticism from fans for participating in the Trump-backed event. A number of artists had pulled out of the event, including Martina McBride, Morris Day and the Time, and Young MC. It comes as Trump was accused of a "very unhealthy" relationship with his blonde 34-year-old aide.
A concession stand at the Great American State Fair listed beers for $12 and bottled water for $5, with additional taxes and processing fees, adding to complaints about high prices at the event. It comes after a chilling discovery was made at the bottom of the Washington DC Reflecting Pool that exposes Trump.
Tom Boggion (RAW STORY) observes, "The cancellation represents yet another failure for what has become a disaster for the administration. Three days into the 16-day celebration, Trump's fair has been wracked by artist boycotts, electrical failures, broken equipment, sparse attendance, and now a weather-canceled performance by a 1990s rap act that was supposed to salvage the event." Edith Olmsted (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes the high prices:
President Donald Trump has made it clear he doesn’t care about high prices—even at his own Great American State Fair.
Attendees at the first day of the president’s festival were disappointed to discover that what few food options were actually open were far from cheap.
USA Today reported that the only food stall open on Thursday sold turkey legs for $23—almost twice the price of the same offering from a Disney theme park. The stall also offered smashburgers and giant western sausage sandwiches for $20, and lemonade for a whopping $9.
Kate Corliss (WASHINGTONIAN) notes:
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ron Wyden said today he has joined Senate colleagues in demanding answers from the Trump administration about its rushed rehabilitation project of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
The lawmakers note that the issues facing the reflecting pool are not simply maintenance concerns, but failures by the Department of the Interior in project execution and government oversight.
"The American people deserve to know why the rehabilitation project has failed and the corrective actions the Department is taking to address this ongoing issue," the senators wrote to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.
Following the award of a no-bid contract and a drastic increase in project costs — from an initial cost estimate of $1.8 million to reportedly $14 million — the administration assured the public that the rehabilitation project would restore one of the nation's most visible landmarks. Instead, days after the reflecting pool was refilled, large algae blooms turned the water green, and sections of the newly applied blue coating separated from the bottom and surfaced to the top of the pool, despite the project having been completed only days earlier.
"Perhaps, most troubling, is that the reflecting pool now will have to be drained again for additional repairs only weeks after its completion," the senators continued. "If a project this costly and of this magnitude cannot remain functional for an entire month after its completion, serious questions must be raised regarding the planning, execution, inspection process, and the Department's acceptance of the completed work."
"Taxpayers deserve a full explanation of how these failures occurred and who will be held accountable for correcting them," the senators added.
The lawmakers concluded the letter by requesting answers by July 9 to the following:
- Why did costs rise from $1.8 million to more than $14 million?
- What funds were used for the project?
- Who will pay for future repairs?
- What was the Department's justification for awarding a no-bid contract?
- Will the contractor be held accountable for the defects and failures?
- What investigations have been conducted into the coating failures and algae bloom?
The letter was led by U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.. In addition to Wyden, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Angus King, I-Maine, Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz.
The text of the letter is here.
