Author

admin

Browsing

A multi-year grant to a Washington-area nonprofit focused on promoting fishing, boating and outdoor activities was canceled by the Interior Department after Senate DOGE leadership flagged the original Fox News Digital report to the Cabinet agency.

More than $26 million has already been paid out – on top of $164 million since 2012 – to the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation (RBFF), based in Alexandria, Virginia.

From the government website USA Spending, the grant’s purpose highlights RBFF’s ‘Take Me Fishing’ consumer campaign that includes a social and digital media component, as well as ads on Walt Disney Company-branded streaming services and ‘mobile fishing units’ that cater to urban communities and ‘underserved audiences.’

At least $40.5 million will be saved in the near-term, the Senate DOGE Caucus told Fox News Digital, citing Interior’s response.

‘Today’s catch of the day is Washington waste,’ said Senate DOGE Caucus Chairwoman Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.

‘I am proud to have exposed bloated overhead costs and worked with Secretary Burgum to ensure tax dollars collected to boost fishing are not siphoned into the pockets of slick D.C.-based consultants.’

‘There’s more pork in the sea, and I am going to keep fishing for it!’

Burgum’s office struck a similar tone, saying the agency is committed to fiscal responsibility, efficiency and accountability – while still fully supporting the recreational boating, fishing and outdoors industries.

A spokeswoman for the agency, which oversees the National Park Service that provides outlets for all of the above, said that ‘under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, we are ensuring that every taxpayer dollar serves a clear purpose and aligns with our core mission.’

‘Following a review of discretionary spending, the Department determined that the use of this particular [RBFF] grant had not demonstrated sufficient alignment with program goals or responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources,’ Charlotte Taylor said.

The grant, largely funded by excise taxes on fishing poles, came under DOGE scrutiny when Ernst discovered an RBFF contract with Disney worth $1.99 million plus hundreds of thousands in ‘SEO consulting,’ and $5 million to a Minnesota creative media development agency. Several RBFF executives are paid from the mid-$100,000s on up.

In part of a lengthy response to the grant’s cancellation, RBFF officials told Fox News Digital the organization has ‘devised a plan we believe would meet the goals and priorities of the administration, which includes adjusted employee compensation, reduced headcount and updated investment priorities.’

But the group claimed it has not been able to connect directly with DOGE or Interior during the grant review process ‘despite repeated outreach attempts during the past three months.’ 

A source familiar with the situation indicated the group had met with Ernst’s office, and Taylor said Burgum’s office did meet with RBFF in Washington earlier this month and has been in contact ‘multiple’ times: ‘Anything to say otherwise is inaccurate.’

‘Since 1998, [RBFF] has helped build what has become a $230.5 billion industry that supports 1.1 million American jobs, generates $263 million in tax revenue, and contributes $2 billion annually to fisheries and conservation efforts in all 50 states,’ RBFF’s statement continued.

‘Alarmingly, in just the past two months since RBFF’s funding has been paused, fishing license sales are down 8.6% across 16 states, representing the loss of over $590 million in angler spending and 5,600 jobs.’

Several other groups came to RBFF’s defense.

Matt Gruhn, president of the Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, told Fox News Digital he was disappointed in Interior’s decision to terminate the grant.

‘[RBFF’s] work was pivotal to enhancing the recreational boating and fishing industry’s recruitment, retention and reactivation efforts. Their training and resources vastly improved state agency processes and marketing and has made boating and fishing licensing and registration far easier for Americans,’ Gruhn said.

Alabama fishing team reels in record-setting 494-pound bull shark

‘RBFF has been a responsible steward of these taxpayer dollars from the very beginning, with oversight from the very stakeholders that paid into the fund that RBFF’s grant originates from, as well as passing every audit with flying colors.’

Additionally, the head of the American Sportfishing Association warned of the ‘severe impact’ the loss of grant money will have on the outdoors industry.

CEO Glenn Hughes said his organization’s members agreed in 1950 to self-impose a tax on fishing rods to reinvest back into the industry and bolster license sales, habitat conservation and more.

The RBFF’s ‘Take Me Fishing’ campaign began in 1998 with congressional funding from the tackle tax. Hughes claimed the effort has generated a total of $230.5 billion in economic impact since.

‘Without consultation and coordination with the recreational fishing industry, the Department of the Interior decided to withhold critical funding from RBFF, ultimately ending a 27-year history of increasing fishing participation and efforts to bolster the economic impact of the fishing industry.’


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., denounced President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ just hours after making the surprise announcement that he would not run for a third term in 2026. 

Tillis voted against a motion to proceed with the spending package on Saturday and then announced his retirement on Sunday, citing political polarization and a desire to spend more time with family.

He then took to the Senate floor later Sunday to warn that ‘Republicans are about to make a mistake on healthcare and betraying a promise’ on Medicaid should the package clear the upper chamber. 

‘It is inescapable that this bill in its current form will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made in the Oval Office or in the Cabinet room when I was there with finance. He said, ‘We can go after waste, fraud and abuse’ on any programs,’ Tillis said. ‘Now, those amateurs that are advising him, not Dr. Oz, I’m talking about White House healthcare experts, refuse to tell him that those instructions that were to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, all of a sudden eliminates a government program that’s called the provider tax. We have morphed a legal construct that admittedly has been abused and should be eliminated into waste, fraud and abuse, money laundering. Read the code. Look how long it’s been there.’

‘I’m telling the president that you have been misinformed,’ Tillis said. ‘You supporting the Senate mark will hurt people who are eligible and qualified for Medicaid.’

‘I love the work requirement. I love the other reforms in this bill. They are necessary, and I appreciate the leadership of the House for putting it in there,’ Tillis said. ‘But what we’re doing, because we have a view of an artificial deadline on July 4, that means nothing but another date in time. We could take the time to get this right if we lay down the House mark of the Medicaid bill and fix it.’ 

The two-term senator said he consulted with Republican experts in the state legislature, Democrats loyal to Gov. Josh Stein and an independent body from the hospitals’ association to gain insight on how the provider tax cuts would impact North Carolinians. In the best-case scenario, he said, the findings showed a $26 billion cut in federal support for Medicaid. Tillis said he presented the report to the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz. 

‘After three different attempts for them to discredit our estimates, the day before yesterday they admitted that we were right,’ Tillis said. ‘They can’t find a hole in my estimate.’

‘So what do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding is not there anymore, guys?’ Tillis said. ‘I think the people in the White House, those advising the president are not telling him that the effect of this bill is to break a promise, and do you know the last time I saw a promise broken around healthcare? With respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it’s when somebody said, ‘If you like your healthcare, you could keep it, if you like your doctor, you could keep it.’ We found out that wasn’t true.’ 

In promoting the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, from 2009 to 2010, former President Barack Obama repeatedly claimed, ‘If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’ Tillis argued that it was the failures of that package that led to him becoming the second Republican Speaker of the North Carolina House since the Civil War and later to his election to the U.S. Senate. 

Trump celebrated Tillis’ retirement announcement and issued a warning to other ‘cost-cutting Republicans.’ 

‘For all cost-cutting Republicans, of which I am one, REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected. Don’t go too crazy!’ Trump wrote Sunday night. ‘We will make it all up, times 10, with GROWTH, more than ever before.’ 

After his Senate speech, Tillis told reporters that he had told Trump that he ‘probably needed to start looking for a replacement.’

‘I told him I want to help him,’ Tillis said, according to Politico. ‘I hope that we get a good candidate that I can help and we can have a successful 2026.’

The senator told reporters Trump is ‘getting a lot of advice from people who have never governed and all they’ve done is written white papers.’ He condemned ‘people from an ivory tower driving him into a box canyon.’

In his retirement announcement, Tillis said that ‘it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species.’ 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Senate Republicans are inching closer to a final vote on President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ but face one more obstacle before lawmakers go on record on the president’s ambitious agenda.

Lawmakers wrapped up several hours of debate on the megabill that began Sunday afternoon and petered out early Monday morning. The next hurdle is the marathon ‘vote-a-rama,’ when lawmakers on either side of the aisle can submit an unlimited number of amendments to the bill.

Senate Republicans will use the time to further change and mold the bill to sate holdouts, while Democrats will inflict as much pain, and burn as much time as possible, with amendments designed to kneecap or outright kill the legislation.

The debate was largely a predictably partisan affair filled with floor charts, impassioned gesticulating fists and pleas to either pass or nuke the bill.

Senate Democrats railed against the bill for its slew of changes to Medicaid, green energy tax subsidies and how the bill, particularly its design to make Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Job act permanent, would balloon the federal deficit.

Republicans lauded the ‘big, beautiful bill’ for the growth it could supercharge in the country, and in particular, how important it was to prevent the president’s first-term tax cuts from lapsing.

‘I say to everybody in America who’s been hearing all of the politics of fear, about what we’re doing here and running up the deficit, [they] need to remember that only in Washington, D.C., is the refusal to raise your taxes an increase in the deficit,’ Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said. ‘And we’re not going to let that happen.’

Lawmakers kicked off the debate with a back and forth on whether Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., or the Senate parliamentarian had the authority to dictate if Republicans could use the current policy baseline, the budget gimmick the GOP argues would negate their tax bill from ballooning the deficit, or current law, which would show the real cost of Trump’s tax package over the next decade.

‘Republicans can use whatever budgetary gimmicks they want to try and make the math work on paper, but you can’t paper over the real-life consequences of adding tens of trillions to the debt,’ said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.  

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released two sets of scores Saturday and Sunday that reflected both current policy and current law. Under current policy, the bill would tack on just over $507 billion over the next decade. But under current law, the package would add roughly $3.3 trillion.

Graham countered that as budget chair, he has the right to set the numbers.

‘The resolution we’re operating under to get us here, we voted to make that the case so we’re not doing anything sneaky,’ he said. ‘We actually voted to give me the authority to do this, and it passed.’

Graham also went to bat for the GOP’s planned cuts to Medicaid, which they have presented as efforts to root out waste, fraud and abuse in the program by instilling work requirements, booting illegal migrants off the benefit rolls, and making changes to just how much the federal government would pay states.

He argued that since former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act became law, Medicaid has grown exponentially, largely because Obama ‘incentivized’ states to opt in to the Medicaid expansion program and allowed for able-bodied working-age adults to get onto the benefit rolls, something he noted that Medicaid was ‘never intended’ to do.  

‘It’s a good thing for the individual involved to be working,’ he said. ‘It’s a good thing for the taxpayer, for them to be working. But that seems to be a crime on the other side, to ask somebody to work that can work.’

Not all Republicans were aligned in their passion to pass Trump’s bill.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., torched the legislative behemoth in a fiery floor speech that railed against the deficit-adding effect the bill would have. He and Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., both voted against advancing the bill through a key procedural hurdle late Saturday night.

Tillis, who largely agrees with many of the tweaks to Medicaid, railed against the changes to the provider tax rate and accused the president of being duped by his healthcare advisors in the White House. 

He said he would remain against the bill until lawmakers took the time to actually unpack what their Medicaid proposals would do to the states, adding, ‘What’s wrong with actually understanding what this bill does?’ 

‘Republicans are about to make a mistake on healthcare and betraying a promise,’ he warned. ‘What do I tell 663,000 people in two or three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding isn’t there anymore?’

Paul, who has taken issue with the addition of a $5 trillion hike to the debt ceiling baked into the bill, reaffirmed that he would be voting against the megabill during final passage.

‘In deciding whether to vote for the ‘big, not-so-beautiful bill,’ I’ve asked a very specific question: Will the deficit be more or less next year? The answer, without question, is this bill will grow the deficit,’ he said. 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

FIRST ON FOX – As U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran give way to an historical ceasefire, opposition figures are stepping forward with renewed urgency — calling on the United States to support regime change led by the Iranian people. 

One of the most prominent voices is that of the exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the late Shah of Iran, who has long advocated for a secular and democratic alternative to the Islamic Republic.

Born in Tehran in 1960, Pahlavi was officially named crown prince during his father’s coronation in 1967. In 1978, at the age of 17, he left Iran for military training with the United States Air Force in Texas. Months later, his family was forced into exile following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and the monarchy was replaced by an Islamic theocratic regime that has ruled Iran ever since.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, the prince discussed the growing resistance inside Iran, his message to the military and why he believes now is the moment for President Donald Trump to act in support of the Iranian people. 

What’s your message to President Trump and the American people?

President Trump is looking for peace in the Middle East and an end to chaos. He wants to keep American troops safe and finally bring them home. I want the exact same thing. But the current regime in Iran does not want this. It thrives on chaos and bloodshed. So true peace can only happen when the Islamic Republic is gone. 

So my message to President Trump is this: the way to end the chaos and destruction is to help the people of Iran to end this regime and take their country back. He can leave a lasting legacy and be one of history’s great peacemakers if this happens. I am ready to be his partner in this process and this mission and lead our nation into a peaceful, democratic future once again aligned with regional stability and American interests. Working with President Trump, we can bring down the world’s most dangerous regime—and fill the void not with chaos, but with strength, order, and freedom.

You stated ‘a broad coalition of Iranians’ is already working to build a post-regime future. Who are the key players in that coalition, and how are they coordinating inside and outside the country?

This coalition spans across sectors and ideologies—former officials, dissidents, technocrats, activists, women’s rights leaders, workers, students and members of the diaspora. Inside Iran, they’re organizing resistance and preparing for a democratic transition. Outside, we’re building the institutional groundwork for the day after: from transitional justice to economic recovery. Most importantly, to ensure chaos does not ensue and we can secure a peaceful transition. What unites us is not a political party, but a single goal—freeing Iran from tyranny and rebuilding it as a sovereign, democratic nation.

You stress that the Iranian military and security forces should defect and join the people. Have you been in touch with any current or former elements of the armed forces, and do you see signs of that happening?

Yes—quietly, but clearly. I’ve had conversations with both former and current members of the armed forces. Many of them love their country but despise what the regime has turned it into. We are seeing growing cracks — hesitation to follow orders, defections, and signs of passive resistance. In recent days, I have launched a formal channel for these communications to increase. My message to them is simple: history is being written now. Stand with your nation, not the criminals. You will be remembered for your choice.

As a trained fighter pilot, what’s your opinion about the U.S. and Israeli air campaign in Iran that has shaken the foundations of Iran’s military infrastructure?

I was proud to wear my country’s uniform, and I have flown many of these fighter jets. To see the state of disrepair and disgrace the Islamic Republic has dragged our armed forces into pains me deeply. The members of the armed forces I speak to share this pain. They hate to see our once proud military used to abuse our people at home and sow chaos and terror abroad. The new Iran I seek will have a once-again proud armed forces that defends our nation and helps establish peace and stability in the Middle East.

You’ve been criticized — also by Iranian dissident leader Maryam Rajavi — for allegedly seeking to restore the monarchy and lacking broad support among Iranians. What do you say to those who claim you have no legitimate mandate and are out of touch with the people inside Iran?

Maryam Rajavi leads a radical cult that fuses Marxist and Islamist ideologies—a group that has killed American soldiers and is completely rejected by Iranians. I don’t respond to attacks from terrorists, especially those with no support on the ground.

I am focused on leading this movement and this change, I am not advocating for a particular form of government. Iranians will choose their future form of government in free and fair elections and anyone who wants to deny them this right is not part of the democratic opposition.

My mandate is the trust of my compatriots who chant my name not because I ask for it, but because I have stepped forward to serve them and not myself. When Iran is free, the people—not cults or clerics—will decide our future in a national referendum.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A Greek Odyssey

First of all, I apologize for any potential delays or inconsistencies this week. I’m currently writing this from a hotel room in Greece, surrounded by what I can only describe as the usual Greek chaos. Our flight back home was first delayed, then canceled, then rescheduled and delayed again. So instead of being back at my desk as planned, I’m getting back into the trenches from a small Greek town. But the markets wait for no one, so here we are!

Market Sector Shifts: Tech Takes the Lead

The changes in our top five aren’t massive, but they’re certainly worth noting. Technology has muscled its way back to the #1 spot, nudging Industrials down to second. Communication Services and Utilities are holding steady at positions #3 and #4 respectively. The most interesting move, imho, is Financials re-entering the top five at #5, up from #7 last week.

Real estate remains just outside at #6, while Consumer Staples has dropped out of the top five, landing at #7. Materials and Energy are still bringing up the rear at #8 and #9. In a bit of musical chairs, Consumer Discretionary and Health Care have swapped places — Discretionary now at #10 and Health Care down to #11.

  1. (2) Technology – (XLK)*
  2. (1) Industrials – (XLI)*
  3. (3) Communication Services – (XLC)
  4. (4) Utilities – (XLU)
  5. (7) Financials – (XLF)*
  6. (6) Real-Estate – (XLRE)
  7. (5) Consumer Staples – (XLP)*
  8. (8) Materials – (XLB)
  9. (9) Energy – (XLE)
  10. (11) Consumer Discretionary – (XLY)*
  11. (10) Healthcare – (XLV)*

Weekly RRG

The weekly Relative Rotation Graph (RRG) paints a clear picture of Technology’s strength, as it powers further into the leading quadrant. Industrials is still in the lead but starting to lose some relative momentum — though it’s maintaining the highest RS ratio reading. Communication Services is showing a clear upward rotation, while Financials and Utilities are inside the weakening quadrant with negative headings (but still above the 100 level, keeping them in the top five).

Daily RRG

  • Technology and Communication Services flexing their muscles in the leading quadrant
  • Industrials inside lagging but turning back up
  • Financials in improving on a positive heading
  • Utilities rotating back down at a negative heading, close to crossing into lagging

The sector at risk here is clearly Utilities — at least for now.


Technology

The Technology sector chart is showing a very clear breakout above the resistance area around 240. It’s a decisive move, and that old resistance should now act as support. This breakout is mirrored in the relative strength line, which has continued its upward trajectory after breaking out of the falling channel.

Industrials

Industrials are also flexing their muscles, clearing overhead resistance with a nice breakout. The relative strength line, already out of its consolidation pattern, appears to be gaining momentum again. This is starting to drag the RS ratio line higher.

Communication Services

Communication Services is showing a clear upward break over the 105 resistance area. Just like Tech and Industrials, that old resistance is now expected to act as support. The price strength is finally reflected in the relative strength line, which has started to move up against the rising support line. This is causing the RS momentum line to pull up, almost crossing back over the 100 level, which should, in turn, push Communication Services back into the leading quadrant on the weekly RRG.

Utilities

Utilities, one of the defensive sectors in this cyclical power play, has remained static within its range. But in this market, standing still means losing relative strength. The utility sector is becoming increasingly at risk, with its relative strength chart returning to the trading range and heading towards the lower boundary. This is dragging the RRG lines lower.

Financials

Financials, our new entrant in the top five, is still grappling with the old rising support line and overhead resistance level. However, last week’s price action seems to have broken the sector out of a small consolidation pattern. If Financials can now take out the overhead resistance just above 52, it’ll be a powerful sign for this sector.

Portfolio Performance

From a portfolio performance perspective, we’re getting hurt by the strength of the Technology sector. It’s in the portfolio, but not enough to keep up with the S&P 500’s performance. We’re still underperforming by around 8%.

To turn this situation around, we need sustained moves higher by Technology, Communication Services, and potentially Financials. If Consumer Discretionary could join the party at some stage, that would be ideal — but it’s still far off at #10. For now, we’ll have to work with what we’ve got, especially from Tech and Communication Services, with potential boosts from Financials and Industrials. Utilities are likely to be a drag while they remain in the top five, given the current bullish market sentiment.

#StayAlert and have a great week. –Julius



Iran acknowledged on Sunday that an Israeli strike on Tehran’s notorious Evin prison last week killed dozens of people.

Iran’s judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir posted on the office’s official Mizan news agency website that the strike killed at least 71 people, including staff, soldiers, prisoners and members of visiting families. Officials did not provide a breakdown of casualty figures.

The Washington-based Human Rights Activists in Iran said at least 35 of those killed were staff members and two were inmates. Others killed included a person walking in the prison vicinity and a woman who went to meet a judge about her imprisoned husband’s case, the organization said.

Jahangir said some of the injured were treated on site, while others were taken to hospitals. Iran has not said how many were injured.

Iran had also confirmed on Saturday that top prosecutor Ali Ghanaatkar had been killed in the attack. Ghanaatkar’s prosecution of dissidents, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi, had led to widespread criticism by human rights groups.

Israel carried out the strike on June 23 as its Defense Ministry said it was attacking ‘regime targets and government repression bodies in the heart of Tehran.’ The facility was known to hold many of Iran’s political prisoners and dissidents.

The prison attack came near the end of 12 days of Israeli strikes, which Israel claimed killed around 30 Iranian commanders and 11 nuclear scientists, while hitting eight nuclear-related facilities and more than 720 military infrastructure sites.

The status of Iran’s nuclear program remains unclear, even after President Donald Trump said American strikes on June 22 ‘obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’ in an interview Sunday that Iran’s capacities remain, but it is impossible to assess the full damage to the nuclear program unless inspectors are allowed in, which Iranian officials have not authorized.

‘It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it’s not total damage, first of all. And secondly, Iran has the capacities there, industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again,’ Grossi said.

Grossi said Iran could have centrifuges spinning enriched uranium ‘in a matter of months.’

‘Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there,’ he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

We are nearly halfway through the first year of the second Trump administration, and the American people are seeing something unprecedented in American politics in the 21st Century: the development and implementation of a grand strategy. 

Critics and talking heads have tried to paint President Donald Trump as brash and careless, especially when it comes to foreign relations and international affairs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the beginning, Trump has been clear that America’s interests are his interests, and he has designed America’s grand strategy around American priorities. 

Critics say the Trump Doctrine is causing chaos. Not so. The chaos caused by the flawed designs of previous presidents and their advisers in this century alone made it necessary for a radical course correction. In other words, what Trump has done this year has also opened up new opportunities for collaboration and commerce in regions that were overlooked in previous administrations. The Middle East is a case in point.  

For decades, the only narrative coming out of the region was conflict. Trump saw past that and identified opportunities for trade, commerce and cooperation. This has directly led to a transformation in foreign relations with many Middle Eastern and Gulf countries and new partnerships that have the potential to revolutionize America’s engagement in the area — as well as the American economy. 

That was not Trump’s only goal. On his trip to the region, he also laid the groundwork for the now-apparent isolation of Iran. No one wants the Iran problem. Even Syria — a long-term Iranian ally — is watching from the sidelines. 

The Trump administration has also simultaneously put to bed the blanket ‘isolationist’ and ‘warmonger’ caricatures, which hold no water after strategic strikes against Iranian uranium enrichment facilities. These were calculated strikes that sent two important messages. 

First, it was a reminder that America supports its allies. Israel has been fighting against constant opposition long before the second Trump administration began. The lone beacon of democracy in the Middle East, it has done an admirable job of weakening the state and non-state actors that threaten not only the existence of the state of Israel but also democratic values that undergird all free societies.  

Israel has stood boldly when other nations have cowered. And they did it without asking for help. This is something that has set Israel apart. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has always acknowledged that Israel must fight for itself and has ultimate responsibility for its own defense. 

Iran

Trump honored that position and leveraged America’s unmatched military to support Israel through bombings that neutralized targets that were important to America, Israel, and the rest of the free world. 

This reminded America’s other allies that the Trump administration is ready and willing to work in tandem when priorities are aligned. The fact that this happened ahead of the NATO meeting demonstrates just how comprehensive the new American doctrine is. It is also not a coincidence that NATO agreed to support Trump’s recommendation of 5% of GDP going toward defense spending. 

The second message that Trump has sent is that he is always open to diplomacy. In fact, it is his preference. Iran was repeatedly warned against using force. They were encouraged to find a peaceful solution and explicitly told the consequences if they continued to violate the JCPOA agreement. Only when it became clear that Iran was not interested in negotiations was military force used.  

The Trump administration has also simultaneously put to bed the blanket ‘isolationist’ and ‘warmonger’ caricatures, which hold no water after strategic strikes against Iranian uranium enrichment facilities. 

Importantly, that was not the end of the story. Quickly after the strikes were completed, Trump again began working toward peace, personally working with top officials to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Force was only ever used in an effort to bring both parties to the negotiating table. 

These are not the actions of a warmonger or an isolationist. They are the actions of a peace strategist. Someone who is unashamed to put his country first on the world’s stage but opens the hand of friendship and cooperation to those willing to join together to achieve shared goals. Sounds a bit like President Ronald Reagan, who ended the Cold War without firing a shot.  


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump’s 24th week back in the Oval Office is set to focus on Republican lawmakers sprinting to meet a July 4 deadline to pass a massive piece of legislation that will advance the president’s agenda, while the White House simultaneously juggles ongoing talks related to conflict and tensions in the Middle East.

Trump’s 23rd week in office was one of his most consequential on the books after he ordered U.S. military strikes on a trio of nuclear facilities in Iran last Saturday evening that critics said threatened to pull the U.S. into another war. Instead, the strikes appear to have wiped out Iran’s burgeoning nuclear program that had the Middle East and nations worldwide on edge. It ended in a ceasefire between Iran and Israel as Trump took a victory lap for ending the ’12 Day War.’

‘This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will! God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!’ Trump posted to Truth Social last week.

‘One big, beautiful bill’ 

Republicans in Washington, D.C., are hyper-focused on passing the ‘one big, beautiful bill’ this week, ahead of lawmakers’ July 4 deadline to land the legislation on Trump’s desk for his signature. The budget reconciliation bill, if passed, will advance Trump’s agenda on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt. The legislation is currently before the Senate. 

Senate Republicans successfully carried the legislation over a procedural hurdle late on Saturday in a 51-49 party-line vote after hours of negotiations. All Republicans voted in support of advancing the bill except for Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Rand Paul, R-Ky. Tillis announced on Sunday, after bucking Republican colleagues and the president, that he would not seek reelection in 2026.

Following the procedural vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., required clerks on the Senate floor to read the entire 940-page Senate GOP’s version of Trump’s megabill as a delay tactic that stalled debate on the package by about 16 hours.

Senate lawmakers will hold 20 hours of debate that is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans as the bill moves along ahead of the Friday deadline. Senate Democrats are expected to use all of their allotted time, while Senate Republicans will likely only use a portion of their hours.

‘Tonight we saw a GREAT VICTORY in the Senate with the ‘GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL,’ but, it wouldn’t have happened without the Fantastic Work of Senator Rick Scott, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ron Johnson, and Senator Cynthia Lummis,’ Trump posted to Truth Social overnight Saturday. 

‘They, along with all of the other Republican Patriots who voted for the Bill, are people who truly love our Country! As President of the USA, I am proud of them all, and look forward to working with them to GROW OUR ECONOMY, REDUCE WASTEFUL SPENDING, SECURE OUR BORDER, FIGHT FOR OUR MILITARY/VETS, ENSURE THAT OUR MEDICAID SYSTEM HELPS THOSE WHO TRULY NEED IT, PROTECT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT, AND SO MUCH MORE.’ 

Ongoing discussions with Iran 

The White House is expected to hold ongoing talks with Iran this week after the U.S. successfully carried out military strikes on three nuclear facilities in the country last Saturday. 

‘So Iran wants to meet. As you know, their sites were obliterated. Their very evil nuclear sites,’ Trump told the media last week.

Details related to the reported discussions are vague, with Iran denying it is participating in ongoing talks, while the White House said the U.S. remains in close communication with Iranians and intermediaries.  

‘I spoke to our special envoy Witkoff at length this morning and I can assure all of you we continue to be in close communication with the Iranians and through our intermediaries as well, namely the Qataris, who have been an incredible ally and partner throughout this entire effort,’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing on Thursday. ‘And as I said, this administration is always focused on diplomacy and peace, and we want to ensure we can get to a place where Iran agrees to a non-enrichment civil nuclear program.

‘The president wants peace. He always has, and right now we’re on a diplomatic path with Iran. The president and his team, namely special envoy Witkoff, continue to be in communication with the Iranians and especially our Gulf and Arab partners in the region to come to an agreement with Iran,’ she added.

Trump announced on June 21 that the U.S. successfully carried out strikes on Iran in a Truth Social post that was not preceded by media leaks or speculation that an attack was imminent. The unexpected social media post was followed just hours later by a brief Trump address to the nation while flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. 

‘A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan,’ Trump said from the White House late on Saturday in an address to the nation regarding the strikes. ‘Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success.’

The operation included the longest B-2 spirit bomber mission since 2001, the second-longest B-2 mission ever flown and the largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history, Hegseth said. 

Operation Midnight Hammer followed Israel launching preemptive strikes on Iran on June 12 after months of attempted and stalled nuclear negotiations and subsequent heightened concern that Iran was advancing its nuclear program.

Trump floats ceasefire in Gaza 

While celebrating the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, as well as a separate U.S.-brokered peace deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo on Friday, Trump predicted a potential ceasefire in Gaza as the war between Hamas and Israel continues since 2023. 

Trump called the situation in Gaza ‘terrible’ while speaking to the media from the Oval Office on Friday, but expressed optimism there could soon be a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. 

‘I think it’s close. I just spoke with some of the people involved,’ said the president, adding, ‘We think within the next week we’re going to get a ceasefire.’ 

Trump also addressed the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, saying, ‘We’re supplying, as you know, a lot of money and a lot of food to that area because we have to. I mean, you have to. In theory, we’re not involved in it, but we’re involved because people are dying.’

‘MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!! DJT,’ Trump posted to Truth Social early on Sunday as he posted other messages related to the Big Beautiful Bill. 

Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer is expected to travel to Washington, D.C., this week to meet with U.S. counterparts to discuss a ceasefire deal, The Associated Press reported. 

Fox News Digital’s Alex Miller and Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump declared last week that Iran’s underground nuclear facilities bombed by the U.S. were ‘obliterated,’ while adding the U.S. and Israeli strikes delivered ‘monumental damage to all nuclear sites in Iran.’ 

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed that message in a briefing, saying the ‘CIA can confirm that a body of credible intelligence indicates Iran’s nuclear program has been severely damaged by recent targeted strikes.’

Israeli intelligence sources told Fox News Digital that strikes on Natanz, Fordow and Esfahan caused severe and possibly irreversible damage to Iran’s known enrichment infrastructure. ‘We hit the heart of their capabilities,’ one official said. 

But despite the overwhelming success of the mission, questions remain about what survived – and what might come next. Analysts warn that while Iran’s declared facilities have been largely destroyed, covert elements of the program may still exist, and enriched uranium stockpiles could resurface.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director Rafael Grossi said in an interview with CBS on Saturday that although ‘it’s clear that what happened in particular in Fordow, Natanz, [and] Isfahan—where Iran used to have, and still has to some degree, capabilities in terms of treatment, conversion, and enrichment of uranium—has been destroyed to an important degree,’ the threat remains. 

Nuclear experts say that while Iran’s nuclear progress has been dealt a historic blow, the regime may still retain the technical know-how and residual capabilities to reconstitute its program over time – especially if it chooses to go dark.

A detailed assessment released Tuesday by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) found that Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, followed by U.S. bunker-busting strikes, ‘effectively destroyed Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program.’ But authors David Albright and Spencer Faragasso cautioned that ‘residuals such as stocks of 60%, 20%, and 3-5% enriched uranium and centrifuges manufactured but not yet installed… pose a threat as they can be used in the future to produce weapon-grade uranium’.

Jonathan Ruhe, director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), echoed that concern in an interview with Fox News Digital.

‘The threat now is certainly much reduced,’ Ruhe said. ‘But the threat from here on out is going to be much more difficult to detect because Iran could try to rebuild covertly. They don’t need much space or time to enrich 60% to 90%. And the IAEA has said for years that Iran likely retains some secret capability.’

Ruhe added that while Israeli intelligence was likely aware of attempts to move uranium before the strikes, ‘any planning assumption going forward must consider Iran’s residual capacity – even if it’s diminished.’

John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute, said critics who argue the program wasn’t completely destroyed are missing the bigger picture.

‘Can everything be rebuilt eventually? Sure. But there’s no question the program was rolled back – years, if not more,’ Spencer told Fox News Digital. ‘People fixate on how many pounds of uranium are missing. But building a bomb requires much more than material. You need the conversion, the metallurgy, the delivery system – all of which were hit.’

Dr. Or Rabinowitz, a nuclear proliferation scholar at Hebrew University and visiting associate professor at Stanford, noted that many unknowns remain.

‘There’s no verified answer yet to what happened to the 60% enriched uranium – or to the other feedstocks at 20% or 3.5%,’ Rabinowitz said. ‘If Iran has access to advanced centrifuges, they could in theory enrich back to weapons-grade – but we don’t know how many centrifuges survived or in what condition they are.’

She also explained that even if Iran retains the material, converting uranium gas into metal for a bomb requires a specialized facility. ‘From what we know, that conversion facility in Isfahan was bombed. Without it, Iran faces a significant bottleneck,’ she said. But she warned that nuclear weapons technology is not insurmountable: ‘This is 1940s science. If North Korea could do it, Iran could too – eventually.’

According to the ISIS report, ‘extensive damage’ was confirmed at nearly all major Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, including the destruction of uranium metal conversion plants, fuel fabrication centers, and the IR-40 Arak heavy water reactor. The report noted that the Israeli and U.S. strikes ‘rendered the Fordow site inoperable,’ citing high-resolution satellite imagery of deep bunker penetrations.

Rabinowitz also emphasized that the intelligence picture is still developing in real time. ‘The Israelis and the Americans are now hard at work to generate the most accurate intelligence picture they can,’ she said. ‘Without having my own sources in the Mossad, I can guarantee the Israelis are monitoring internal Iranian communications, trying to figure out what the Iranians have figured out. As they learn more, so will Israel and the U.S.’

As debate continues over whether the strikes were enough to permanently disable Iran’s nuclear ambitions, analysts agree on one point: Iran’s assumption that it could push forward without consequence is gone.

During a press conference on Friday. Trump was asked if he would bomb Iran’s nuclear program again if it was restarted. He told reporters, ‘Sure without question.’


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Earlier this month, in her first public speech as the Federal Reserve’s Vice Chair for Supervision, Michelle Bowman laid out her vision for how the central bank should oversee and regulate US banks. At the heart of her approach is pragmatism: identifying problems, crafting efficient solutions, analyzing both intended and unintended consequences, and considering alternative approaches that might produce better results at lower cost.

Bowman outlined how her pragmatic approach can improve the Fed’s oversight of the banking system. She focused on four key areas: 

  • Enhanced Supervision: Enhancing supervision to better achieve the Fed’s safety and soundness goals; 
  • Bank Capital: Reforming the capital framework to ensure it aligns with the structure of the US banking system; 
  • Regulatory Review: Reviewing existing regulations to ensure the framework remains viable; and 
  • Bank Applications: Making the application process more transparent, predictable, and fair.

Enhancing Supervision

Bowman identified five changes the Fed could adopt to better focus supervision on material financial risks that threaten the stability of the banking system—and to ensure those risks are addressed promptly. 

The first change she proposed was applying a more tailored regulatory and supervisory approach. As she explained, the Fed has historically “‘pushed down’ requirements developed for the largest firms to smaller banks, often including regional and community banks,” which has led to “the gradual erosion of distinct regulatory and supervisory standards among firms with very different characteristics.” As a result, smaller, community-focused banks are increasingly subject to rules designed for the largest and most complex institutions that are often ill-suited to their specific circumstances.

The second change Bowman proposed was reforming the supervisory ratings system. This reform would be aimed at addressing “the gap between assessed ratings and material financial risk.” For example, recent data showed that two-thirds of the nation’s largest banks were rated unsatisfactory, even though most met the Fed’s capital and liquidity expectations. In short, she argued, the current system fails to accurately reflect the financial condition of the institutions the Fed supervises.

Third, Bowman raised concerns about examiner priorities. She argued that “supervisory focus has shifted away from core financial risks (credit risk, interest rate risk, and liquidity risk, for example), to process-related concerns. She called for a shift in focus back to these substantive areas. Bowman also criticized the tendency among examiners to assume that more complex practices are inherently superior and to hold all banks to those standards—even when simpler approaches may be more appropriate for a bank’s size, scope, or risk profile. Echoing her earlier support for regulatory tailoring, she stressed the need for greater transparency in examination outcomes and emphasized that banks should be evaluated based on their individual circumstances.

The fourth change Bowman addressed was the role of guidance in the supervisory process. She emphasized that guidance should clarify supervisory expectations, offer direction on the permissibility and risks of new activities, and help institutions comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, she noted, “[w]here guidance does not further these objectives, it is worth revisiting.” At its best, guidance promotes transparency and provides firms with a clear understanding of what regulators expect—thereby enabling responsible innovation. Bowman noted that uncertainty around supervisory expectations has long been a barrier to innovation. Regulators, she concluded, must foster an environment where financial institutions can innovate without compromising safety and soundness.

The fifth change Bowman proposed was improving examiner training. Although becoming a commissioned examiner requires rigorous study and testing, the Fed does not currently require all staff involved in supervision to have earned this credential—or even to be working toward it. Bowman argued that “[r]egulated entities should be able to expect that all of our examination and supervisory teams have achieved or are working to achieve this level of professional expertise.” She committed to prioritizing examiner training and credentialing going forward to help maintain a safe and sound banking system.

Bank Capital

Bowman then turned to capital requirements. While acknowledging their central role in promoting financial stability, she cautioned that reforms often “take a piecemeal approach to capital requirements […] without considering whether proposed changes are sensible in the aggregate.” In her view, a piecemeal approach risks producing a capital framework that is poorly calibrated and internally inconsistent. Instead, she argued for a more holistic evaluation to ensure that all elements of the framework work in concert to capture risk appropriately.

By focusing narrowly on capital requirements, Bowman warned, the Fed can inadvertently create market distortions—encouraging certain activities while discouraging others in ways that may conflict with the goal of maintaining a safe and sound financial system and broader economic stability. For instance, she noted that under the current approach to leverage ratios, “banks are less inclined to engage in low-risk activities like Treasury market intermediation and revise their business activities in a way that is neither justified nor responsive to their customer needs.” 

Consistent with her earlier call for a more tailored regulatory approach, Bowman emphasized that while the capital framework for smaller banks is simpler, it must still be carefully calibrated to ensure it supports both the institutions themselves and the communities they serve. To that end, she said the Fed will take a closer look at capital requirements for small banks, including whether adjustments are needed to better support their role in the broader financial system.

Regulatory Review

Some of Bowman’s most substantive remarks addressed the sharp increase in bank regulation since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. While she acknowledged that many post-crisis reforms were warranted, she argued that many of them “were backward looking—responding only to that mortgage crisis—not fully considering the potential future unintended consequences or future states of the world.” In her view, it is time to reexamine whether these regulations still make sense—particularly given the tradeoffs they entail.

Bowman emphasized that the purpose of regulation is not to eliminate all risk from the banking system. Attempting to do so, she argued, “is at odds with the fundamental nature of the business of banking.” Instead, regulators should foster an environment in which banks can “earn a profit and grow while managing their risks.” The role of the regulator, in her view, is to ensure that banks take prudent risks—not to prevent risk-taking altogether. Nor should the goal be to “prevent banks from failing or even eliminate the risk that they will.” Rather, the regulatory framework should “make banks safe to fail, meaning that they can be allowed to fail without threatening to destabilize the rest of the banking system.”

Bank Applications

Bowman concluded with a discussion of the regulatory application processes governing the chartering of new banks, bank mergers, and other actions requiring regulatory approval. She argued that the process “should reflect both (1) transparency as to the information required in the application itself, and the standards of approval being applied, and (2) clear timelines for action.” In her view, streamlining the process in this way could encourage the formation of new banks and reduce unnecessary delays.

Taken together, Bowman’s remarks offer a clear vision for a more focused, flexible, and transparent regulatory regime—one that emphasizes core financial risks, respects institutional diversity, and avoids the unintended consequences of one-size-fits-all policymaking. Her agenda suggests a shift away from expansive, process-driven oversight toward a more disciplined, risk-based approach that supports innovation and allows the banking system to evolve without compromising its resilience. Whether and how this vision shapes actual regulatory practice remains to be seen, but it marks a notable effort to recalibrate the Fed’s supervisory framework.