In mid-February, shortly before President Trump launched the war on Iran, the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps conducted live-fire drills in its coastal waters. Iranian state media publicized the exercise, whose official name made its purpose clear: “Smart Control of the Strait of Hormuz.”
The exercise amounted to a flashing red warning light to the Trump administration — one that, for reasons that are still not fully clear, went largely unheeded.
Within days of the war’s start, Iran’s military exerted control over the strait, menacing commercial tankers with boats, missiles and drones. Shipping ground to a halt. Energy prices soared. And Mr. Trump was backed into a strategic corner.
Three months later, Iran’s control of the strait has become its most powerful weapon, a source of huge leverage in negotiations with Mr. Trump over the country’s nuclear program.
A president used to bending opponents to his will has struggled to conceal his exasperation. In an April social media post, Mr. Trump profanely demanded that the “crazy bastards” leading Iran open the strait, “or you’ll be living in Hell.” Iran’s military mocked Mr. Trump’s threat as a sign of helplessness.
But Iran’s response has been neither crazy nor surprising, say numerous former U.S. officials who spent hours war-gaming Tehran’s likely response to a major U.S. attack.
For years, the U.S. government has conducted war games dealing with potential conflicts with Iran, including ones at the Pentagon attended by dozens of military officials and policymakers. Over and over, participants say, they concluded that Iran would respond to a major American attack by closing the strait of Hormuz.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote to Oversight Chairman James Comer demanding the Committee bring in Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel for transcribed interviews regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. This letter follows former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s transcribed interview last week, where she shifted blame to Blanche and Patel regarding the handling of Ghislaine Maxwell, redactions of the Epstein files, compliance with the Oversight Committee’s subpoena of the Epstein files, and the implementation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
“During her transcribed interview, former Attorney General Pam Bondi made one thing clear: we need to talk to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel. These agency leaders were directly involved in the cover up of the Epstein files and botched roll-out of the documents, which re-victimized survivors and made a mockery of our Justice Department. Oversight Democrats are demanding answers straight from the source,” said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.
In the letter to Chairman James Comer, Ranking Member Garcia wrote, “Rather than provide answers in her testimony, Ms. Bondi repeatedly shifted responsibility to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. In her opening testimony, Ms. Bondi acknowledged that “I did not lead every aspect of this effort or conduct that document review myself. I delegated oversight over this process to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.” During questioning, Ms. Bondi invoked Mr. Blanche’s name more than 30 times, pointing to him as the person responsible for DOJ’s actions involving the review, withholding, and botched release of Epstein-related records. Ms. Bondi also indicated that it was Mr. Blanche’s decision to conduct the highly unusual interview of Ghislaine Maxwell—an interview that preceded her suspicious transfer to a minimum-security facility in violation of standing BOP policy.”
###
The
complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief was filed in federal
court Monday, Case 1:26-cv-01907, on behalf of two former prosecutors
who handled January 6 cases. It names Associate Attorney General Stanley
Woodward, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and IRS Chief Executive
Officer Frank Bisignano as defendants, along with the Justice Department
and the Treasury Department.
According to language visible in the filing, the lawsuit argues that the fund's creation, along with its assertion that January 6 prosecutors acted for improper political reasons, has harmed the plaintiffs. The complaint notes that January 6 insurrectionists have already been "hailing the creation of the Fund," underscoring why the legal fight cannot be considered over based on press reports alone.
The Justice Department is standing by an extraordinary measure giving President Trump, his family and his businesses potentially lucrative protection from I.R.S. investigations, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, said on Tuesday.
Mr. Blanche’s remarks about the tax protections came during an appearance in front of a House Appropriations subcommittee, in which he told lawmakers that the Trump administration was abandoning a related plan to create a $1.8 billion fund to pay restitution to people who claimed they were victims of government “weaponization.”
Mr. Blanche said the end of the fund would not affect the separate agreement shielding Mr. Trump from audits of tax returns he and his family had already filed. Both proposals had emerged in recent weeks as part of a settlement of Mr. Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the I.R.S. But now only the measure benefiting the Trumps will survive, Mr. Blanche said.
“Nothing has changed with that,” he said, referring to the tax proposal. “We’re not moving forward with the anti-weaponization fund.”
Mr. Blanche’s directive left in place a staggering public benefit to a president who has sought to bend the government toward his own financial interests. A host of thorny legal questions also remain. Mr. Trump’s lawsuit against the I.R.S. was revived last week by a judge concerned about potential deception in the agreement to withdraw the suit and to release the Trumps from any ongoing audits.
Senator Patty Murray: Well welcome, Mr. Secretary. I think from where I sit, I think it is pretty fair to say that DHS under President Trump has been a debacle. From day one, we saw rampant abuse of power and corruption. From awarding millions in no-compete contracts, to companies with direct family ties to DHS officials, to blatantly politicizing disaster relief and slow walking or outright blocking funding to blue states like mine, to making this country less prepared for disasters and leaving communities in the lurch. And then you have the absolutely shameful, unacceptable, un-American conduct we have seen from some of ICE and Border Patrol members. After Republicans gave nearly $200 billion last summer in their Big Ugly Bill -- with effectively no strings attached, President Trump and Stephen Miller built up a paramilitary force, and essentially promised it immunity, and set it loose on some of our American communities. We all witnessed the consequences: a family heading home from a basketball game that was teargassed. A priest in Chicago shot in the head and body with pepper balls. An American citizen dragged out of the house in the freezing cold, in his underwear. Renee Good, Alex Pretti, others murdered in broad daylight. Those actions shock the conscience -- and have shocked the world, which is horrified by what's unfolded on American streets. So, going back, as we negotiated the FY 26 DHS funding bill, I fought very hard alongside my Democratic colleagues to secure very basic reforms to make sure nothing like that happened again. Steps like, requiring body cameras -- and ensuring that the footage is retained and available, restoring basic training and hiring standards, requiring warrants, ending racial profiling, banning enforcement actions in sensitive locations, like schools, hospitals, and houses of worship. Taking off the masks and requiring visible identification. Those are very basic protocols the American people overwhelmingly support -- and by the way, police departments follow every day. But unfortunately, after weeks of back and forth --and at times, good discussions and good progress -- Republicans did ultimately walk away from the talks to enshrine those protections into law. And they chose to instead circumvent Democrats through reconciliation and are now trying to fund ICE and Border Patrol for the remainder of Trump's presidency -- not just this year -- without any oversight or accountability measures in place. This is exactly what led to the horrors that we did witness in Minneapolis and across the country. And I want to be very clear, Secretary Mullin, I'm watching closely to see what steps you now take as the new DHS Secretary. And I have to say -- I have yet to see you take back the reins from Stephen Miller. Because even now -- we are seeing some outrageous proposals. You plan to withdraw CBP officers from airports in cities that don't roll over for Trump -- that is insane -- it is not only dangerous, it would also spell economic crisis for blue and red states. Meanwhile, DHS is already on track to break last year's record for people dying in custody. And last week, ICE agents tear gassed a United States Senator who was simply working to peacefully mediate between ICE and protestors after federal law enforcement, we know, shoved a different Senator to the ground last year. And you continue to deport upstanding community members instead of the worst of the worst. “Accountability is desperately needed -- and I know we will all keep fighting for that.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: So let me ask you, throughout our negotiations over the [FY]26 bill, the White House and Border Czar Tom Homan told us we didn’t need to put any reforms into law, because DHS was already making changes like ending the roving patrols, restoring stronger training standards, requiring body cameras to be worn by all agents and officers.
And I know that at your confirmation hearing, you said you did not support the warrantless search and seizure policy the administration put in place and you reportedly were recently talking about legislation to require judicial warrants, restore training standards, and protect sensitive locations from raids.
But while you and Tom Homan say you’ve made some of those changes, the American people haven’t seen the proof of that.
So, I want to ask you today, what are your current training requirements for agents?
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: Thank you for the question. I want to remind the Senator that I was part of negotiating those reforms and I think you’re aware of that, so I actually know what happened during those.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: I know you were not in the room, but I do know you were aware of them.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: No, I was very involved in it.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: But you were not in the room.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: No, I was very involved in it.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: I was in the room; you were not in the room. I know you were not in room.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: I was very involved in it because we were talking with the House and you know—
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: It doesn’t matter; I asked you a question. What are the training requirements?
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: Senator, you know that we agreed to all the stuff you said and the fact is you guys walked away because you had primary elections.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: No, Mr. Secretary, we walked away because you would not agree to put it in writing.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: We had agreed, we had asked for three and we had asked for nine and we agreed to nine. But you would never get to yes, so we walked away and did reconciliation because we were never going to get to yes between Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and you know that to be a fact. And you can’t pull the wool over my eyes because I was part of negotiating.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: Mr. Secretary, you can give your side, I’m telling you I was in the room and we turned—I want to ask you what are your training requirement?
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: It’s interesting I was involved in that too, if you want to start talking about training, we’re going to -- July 1st == we'll go back to the 71, 72 hours of training. The training policy is going to change a little bit because we’re going to be doing crowd control and fit today’s needs, but all training is willing to change back-and-forth. When you start talking about warrants, I was very clear in my confirmation that judicial warrants are used when we are entering a residence unless we’re in pursuit of a criminal or the criminal continues to evade by going from one place to the next to the next to the next and we’re trying to lock the person down, but I was very clear when we started discussing that. And on the sensitive locations, it has been asked multiple times, we’re not actively being at sensitive locations. We do sometimes have to pick up a felon that is around a sensitive location, but we are not actively patrolling those, and I think you know that to be true.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: Okay and can you give this committee in writing what your current training requirements are? You said as of July 1st—if you could give that to us so we can see what those are.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: Yes.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: How about the updated departmental protocols for agents engaging with protestors?
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: I’m sorry?
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: You have an updated Department protocol for agents who are engaging with protestors, can you describe that?
Senator Katie Britt: And the time has expired, so if you could get to your answer quickly then I’d appreciate it.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: Well then let me just ask you then, if you could give the Committee in writing that answer, whether or not you have ended roving patrols, and whether or not every officer and agent in the field is now wearing a body camera, in writing so we can see what your protocols are.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: We don’t have the money for all the cameras, we had it in the funding bill but since you guys decided not to vote for it, we don’t have the money to put it on all of our officers. But if you remember during the funding bill, we had $20 million set up for it and its currently unfunded because Democrats are refusing to fund CBP. [NOTE: The enacted FY26 appropriations bill did include $20 million specifically set aside for body-worn cameras. See Sec. 109(a).]
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: We had $20 million in it, and I will tell you this, that that was not enough but what I’d like to know is if you’d respond to that in writing what your current policies are so that we know that they are actual policies being implemented.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: We’ll respond to you in writing.
Senators Schiff, Kelly, and Slotkin held a press conference to announce the legislation. The livestream can be viewed here.
Washington, D.C. – In case you missed it, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) introduced the Drain the Slush Fund Act, new legislation that would shutter President Donald Trump’s so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund and prevent taxpayer dollars from being paid to the President or his allies including those convicted of crimes or those related to the insurrection on January 6, 2021.
The Drain the Slush Fund Act would also prevent future presidential abuse of the Department of Justice’s Settlement Fund by banning any settlements or payments stemming from a claim or lawsuit filed by the President of the United States or the Vice President. The introduction of the bill will prevent any abuse or corrupt settlements from this fund or any in the future.
Read more about the bill here and see coverage below:
CBS News: Senate Democrats launch campaign to kill what DOJ calls its “anti-weaponization” fund
Senate Democrats are launching a coordinated effort to kill the Trump administration’s $1.7+ billion “anti-weaponization” fund. In a “Dear Colleague” letter released Monday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats will use a variety of strategies, from floor action to oversight, to block President Trump’s “nearly $2 billion MAGA slush fund.”
“If Republicans return to reconciliation, we will be ready with amendments to shut the fund down,” Schumer wrote. “If they try to bury the issue, we will force them to the Senate floor. If they try to sneak behind appropriations, we will fight them there, too. There will be no escape hatch. No fake guardrails or backroom promises to hide behind.”
In addition, a trio of Democratic Senators are introducing a bill Monday to shut down the fund and prevent taxpayer dollars from being paid to the president or his allies, including those convicted of crimes or related to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The measure, dubbed the Drain the Slush Fund Act, is sponsored by Sens. Adam Schiff, of California, Mark Kelly, of Arizona, and Elissa Slotkin, of Michigan.
“As Republicans return to Washington to provide further funding for this and other mistaken priorities, we’re going to hold them accountable,” Schiff said. “And as Senators who have actually seen their government weaponized against them, we want to make it clear: We will not allow a single payout from this so-called weaponization fund to be paid.”
Last week, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Justice Department from moving forward with work on the new fund. A department spokesperson said it “remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements.”
The $1.776 billion fund would provide taxpayer-funded payouts to people who allege the legal system has been “weaponized” against them. It’s part of an agreement between President Trump and the federal government to settle his lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department over the leak of his tax returns.
Senate Republicans are considering adding potential guardrails to the fund as part of a broader $72 billion reconciliation package for immigration enforcement agencies. GOP leaders scrapped votes on the party-line measure last month after a contentious meeting over the DOJ fund with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
“They (Trump administration) need to help with this issue, because we have a lot of members who are concerned,” Majority Leader John Thune told reporters at the time.
Blanche will return to Capitol Hill this week for an oversight hearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee.
The New Republic: Democrats Are Starting to Fight Back Against Trump’s MAGA Slush Fund
Three Democratic senators introduced a bill Monday to kill Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” slush fund.
Senators Adam Schiff of California, Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan introduced the “Drain the Fund Act,” which they said would block taxpayer dollars from being funneled to Trump and his allies, including individuals convicted in connection with the January 6 riot, public figures who spread election misinformation, and the leader of a violent hate group.
“As Republicans return to Washington to provide further funding for this and other mistaken priorities, we’re going to hold them accountable,” Schiffsaid in a statement. “And as Senators who have actually seen their government weaponized against them, we want to make it clear: We will not allow a single payout from this so-called weaponization fund to be paid.”
The bill would also ban settlements stemming from suits brought by the president or the vice president, and be retroactive to January 20, 2025. That would functionally undo the recent settlement for Trump’s failing $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Services that produced the fund, and blocked the president from future audits.
Last week, a federal judge issued a restraining order to ensure that no taxpayer dollars would be “irreversibly disbursed” from the fund before the legal battle could play out.
But the bill is only part of the plan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday that Democrats would introduce an amendment to their $72 billion budget reconciliation bill in order to shut down the fund. “If they try to bury the issue, we will force them to the Senate floor. If they try to sneak behind appropriations, we will fight them there, too. There will be no escape hatch. No fake guardrails or backroom promises to hide behind,” Schumer said.
The Hill: Senate Democrats unveil bill to block Trump’s ‘anti-weaponization’ fund
Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.) on Monday introduced legislation to block the Trump administration’s “anti-weaponization” fund, which the Department of Justice (DOJ) scrapped earlier in the day.
The bill, dubbed the Drain the Slush Fund Act, would bar the use of taxpayer money for payments to President Trump, his associates, individuals convicted of crimes or those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
The bill would also put restrictions on the DOJ’s settlement fund, prohibiting settlements or payments arising from claims or lawsuits brought by a sitting president or vice president. That restriction would be retroactive to the day of Trump’s second inauguration.
The DOJ on Monday abandoned the $1.776 billion fund it created last month as part of a settlement agreement in Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). That was after federal judges in Virginia and Florida on Friday temporarily halted the fund from making payouts and reopened the president’s suit against the IRS, respectively.
The department wrote on the social platform X that while it “disagrees strongly” with the decision by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia, it will abide by her ruling.
When acting Attorney General Todd Blanche unveiled the fund last month, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pushed back. Democrats largely slammed it as a “slush fund” for those involved in Jan. 6, while some Republicans argued similarly — with Senate Republicans taking Blanche to task during a May 21 meeting on the fund.
In unveiling their legislation, Kelly, Schiffand Slotkin slammed the fund, with Kelly calling it “theft in broad daylight,” Schiff referring to it as “one of the most brazenly corrupt schemes we’ve ever seen from a U.S. president” and Slotkin saying it is “an unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money.”
That particular trio sponsoring the bill is notable. Earlier this year, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro unsuccessfully sought a grand jury indictment of Kelly, Slotkin, and four House Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds for recording a video urging military members and intelligence officers to refuse illegal orders.
Kelly, a retired Navy captain, is also embroiled in a legal fight with the Pentagon, which has tried to reduce his rank in the wake of the video.
Schiff, meanwhile, was the subject of a DOJ probe into alleged mortgage fraud last year.
“As Republicans return to Washington to provide further funding for this and other mistaken priorities, we’re going to hold them accountable, and force a vote on this language to shut down the slush fund once and for all,” Schiffsaid in a release. “Americans see the cost of this corruption coming out of their own pockets.
“And as Senators who have actually seen their government weaponized against them, we want to make it clear: we will not allow a single payout from this so-called weaponization fund to be paid.”
Los Angeles Times: Trump’s $1.8-billion fund unravels amid court setbacks, bipartisan pushback
California Sen, Adam Schiff,along with Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, introduced the “Drain the Slush Fund Act.”
The White House declined to comment on whether the administration would also make changes to the tax immunity clause.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is backing away from plans to create a $1.8-billion fund to compensate people who claim the government was weaponized against them, a retreat that comes amid a cascade of legal setbacks and a revolt within members of the Republican Party.
But Senate Democrats say the concession is not enough, and are pushing legislation to ensure no president can ever attempt the creation of such a fund again.
“If Republicans are serious about ending this brazenly corrupt scheme, they should have no problem voting for legislation banning any president from creating such a slush fund in the future,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote Monday in a post on X.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) added that Democrats plan to force a vote on a measure to ensure that Trump and Republicans are “truly abandoning this corrupt scheme.”
“Trump’s word is nowhere near enough,” Schumer wrote on X. Earlier in the day, Schumer vowed to force a floor vote to make Republican lawmakers take a public stance on the issue.
Schiff,along with Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, introduced the “Drain the Slush Fund Act” on Monday. The bill, if approved, would bar any payout arising from a lawsuit filed by a president or vice president, language that is designed to permanently foreclose the fund, or anything like it, from being put in place by a future administration.
The White House did not comment on the president’s thinking. But in a statement, the Department of Justice said the decision to scrap the fund was in response to a federal judge’s ruling last week that temporarily blocked payouts from the fund while legal challenges remain pending. The department said it “disagrees strongly” with the move, but stopped short of saying it would challenge the decision.
“This fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise,” the statement read. “The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling.”
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat, has scheduled a June 12 hearing for argument on whether to extend the order blocking the fund.
While the court ruling is not permanent, the unraveling over the fund is a notable defeat for Trump, who has cast it as a long-overdue reckoning for Americans he says were targeted by “an evil, corrupt and weaponized Biden administration.” For Republicans who publicly criticized the fund, it may come as a relief as the concept had been widely seen as a political liability heading into the midterm elections.
The Department of Justice created the fund to settle a lawsuit Trump personally brought against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The settlement also includes a clause permanently barring the IRS from pursuing any tax claims against Trump and his businesses that were filed before May 19 — a provision that, according to an analysis by Forbes, would save Trump and his family more than $600 million.
The White House declined to comment on whether the administration would also make changes to the tax immunity clause. The Democrats’ bill does not address that provision.
“Congress doesn’t need to pass a law to remind the Acting Attorney General [Todd Blanche] that he doesn’t have the authority to grant a blanket pardon for tax crimes by the president, much less when the AG is his personal attorney,” a Schiffspokesperson said in a statement. “The attempt at IRS immunity is corrupt and undoubtedly illegal — and we look forward to seeing it exposed as a fraud.”
Beyond Trump’s own legal disputes with the IRS, the fund was structured to accept claims from anyone who said they had been targeted by the government, a category the administration made clear could include those who were convicted for attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump pardoned and commuted the prison sentences of 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack, and neither he nor Vice President JD Vance ruled out the possibility that those individuals would be able to receive money from the fund.
KCAL CBS: Challenging Anti-Weaponization Fund
Yuccas: Also, in Washington today, Senate democrats are ramping up efforts to block the Trump administration’s $1.7 billion dollar anti-weaponization fund. Three Democratic Senators, Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly, and Elissa Slotkin are introducing the Drain the Slush Fund Act. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned he has several plans to counter potential Republican moves and said, “No matter what Republicans do, we will force them to vote on it.”
Scripps News: Under Pressure, Trump Admin Backs Off ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Fund, For Now
Reed: Democrats yesterday making clear that they’re going to take the lead on this one, they’re going to force a vote on a bill at some point in the coming days to try and outlaw to try and prevent this weaponization fund from ever coming back or being legal in the future, a law that would potentially affect to future presidential administrations as well. Here’s Senator Adam Schiff in a press conference yesterday.
Schiff (in clip): There will be no hiding from this issue, and our Republican colleagues need to understand that they can join us in disavowing this kind of self-dealing corruption or they’re going to own it. It is not personal to this president and vice president, it would prohibit any future president from doing the same thing. And for that reason, I would hope that we would have our colleagues join us in it.
###
-
-
Whiney Chump whines some more6 hours ago
-
Musk the grifter and creep6 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Stop Your Chirping!1 day ago
-
Floetry: Tiny Desk Concert1 day ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chump's medical 'report'1 day ago
-
-
