Diplomacy usually comes with deadlines. This one came with a target list.
Trump Threatens to Bomb Iran’s Bridges and Power Plants
President Donald Trump warned Iran that the U.S. will strike its bridges and power plants next week unless Tehran returns to nuclear negotiations, dramatically escalating the war of words as fighting intensifies.
The warning raises fresh concerns about attacks on civilian infrastructure, which international law generally prohibits during armed conflict.
Speaking in a Fox News interview, Trump said Iran’s leaders “better make a deal, or you’re not going to have anything left.” He added, “Next week it gets really bad for them. We’re going to knock out all their power plants. We’re going to knock out all their bridges unless they get to the table and negotiate.”
Trump also said energy facilities would eventually become targets if negotiations fail.
The remarks revived criticism first raised in April when Trump made similar threats. At the time, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk warned that deliberately attacking civilians or civilian infrastructure could constitute a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. The comments came as U.S. forces launched another wave of strikes against Iranian military targets and reinstated a naval blockade of Iranian ports.
Meanwhile, the conflict continued to widen. Iran launched missiles and drones toward U.S. positions in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain, while the U.S. accused Tehran of intentionally targeting commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The renewed fighting has sharply reduced tanker traffic through the vital waterway and pushed oil prices higher as fears grow that the conflict could further disrupt global energy supplies.
Source: BBC News
Editor: Threatening military targets is one thing. Threatening bridges and power plants is another. If this conflict keeps climbing the escalation ladder, the next rung could prove a lot harder to climb back down.
Saying you have “no records” and then finding more than 127,000 pages is one way to make a FOIA request a lot more interesting.
ICE Reveals It Has 127,000+ Records on Possible Election Deployments
ICE has acknowledged it possesses thousands of records tied to possible deployments of immigration agents near polling places after initially telling a federal court it had found nothing responsive to Democrats’ request.
The documents exist—but with the midterm elections approaching, the public still hasn’t seen a single page.
The disclosure came in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee, which is seeking records related to any plans involving federal agents or troops at polling places, ballot drop boxes, and election offices. ICE previously told the court it had “found no responsive records,” but later identified at least 11,103 potentially responsive pages. U.S. Customs and Border Protection also located roughly 116,779 potentially relevant records.
The reversal followed concerns raised by the DNC over recent incidents involving ICE agents near election-related activities, including two agents approaching a poll worker during New York’s recent primary election in Syracuse. The White House has not ruled out using federal personnel at polling locations, while some Justice Department officials have publicly supported the idea despite longstanding federal restrictions on law enforcement presence at polling sites.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell noted that despite agencies identifying thousands of potentially responsive records, no documents have yet been released with fewer than four months remaining before the 2026 midterm elections. Under FOIA, agencies must either produce responsive records or explain why they are exempt from disclosure.
Whether the documents ultimately reveal routine planning or more significant discussions remains unknown. For now, the fight centers on transparency, with both sides waiting to see what, if anything, the records actually contain.
Source: Democracy Docket
Editor: Finding 127,000 pages after saying you found zero isn’t exactly a confidence-builder. Now comes the part where everyone gets to see whether those files are routine paperwork—or something much more consequential.
Six years after 2020, we’re apparently still getting sequels—and this one arrives just months before another national election.
Trump Plans Primetime Propaganda Pitch as Midterms Draw Closer
President Donald Trump is set to deliver a primetime address on election security Thursday as his administration weighs whether to disclose intelligence related to China’s activities during the 2020 election.
The speech is expected to revive one of the country’s most divisive political debates at a pivotal moment before the 2026 midterms.
Reuters reports the White House has discussed including classified or sensitive intelligence concerning China’s intent or capability to interfere in the 2020 election. Sources told Reuters the intelligence does not show Beijing manipulated or changed votes, while some administration officials reportedly worry its release could be misleading. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said reports about the speech are speculative and that no final decision has been made about its contents.
Trump has continued to question the integrity of the 2020 election, despite numerous court rulings, recounts, and reviews finding no evidence of widespread fraud that altered the outcome. Since returning to office, his administration has also pushed for expanded federal involvement in election administration, including support for legislation requiring photo identification, proof of citizenship for voter registration, and greater information sharing between states and the federal government.
Republicans face a difficult political environment heading into November’s midterms, with Democrats needing only a handful of House seats to regain control of the chamber. Democratic leaders have accused the administration of attempting to influence election administration, while some Republicans have urged Trump to focus on current economic concerns instead of revisiting the 2020 election. It remains unclear whether major television networks will carry the speech live. Editor: They will bend the knee—AGAIN.
Source: Reuters
Editor: If the goal is calming nerves ahead of an election, relitigating the one you lost 6 years ago has a curious way of accomplishing the exact opposite.
When one of your own starts talking about exit ramps, it’s a sign the family meeting isn’t going smoothly.
Fetterman Says Democrats Risk Losing Him Over Israel
Sen. John Fetterman says he has no plans to leave the Democratic Party—but warns he would walk away if it officially became an anti-Israel party.
The Pennsylvania Democrat says support for Israel is a moral line he won’t cross. Editor: So he’s all for genocide. Got it. GET THE FUCK OUT.
Speaking at The Hill Nation Summit, Fetterman said he is increasingly worried that Democrats are drifting away from Israel under pressure from the party’s progressive wing.
“If our party ever becomes—and just makes it official—the anti-Israel party, that’s when I would leave because that’s been a moral clarity for me,” he said.
Fetterman pointed to recent Democratic support for efforts to cut U.S. security assistance to Israel and criticized the growing success of progressive candidates who have taken tougher positions against the longtime U.S. ally. He also voiced concern that some Democrats are reviving politically damaging positions such as “defund the police,” arguing those messages hurt the party in past elections.
The senator also took aim at fellow Democrats, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, for backing former Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner before serious allegations against him surfaced. Fetterman questioned why party leaders supported Platner and demanded greater accountability after the candidate ended his campaign.
While making clear he intends to remain a Democrat, Fetterman’s remarks underscore the widening divide within the party over Israel, public safety, and the direction Democrats should take heading into the 2026 midterm elections.
Source: The Hill
Editor: Fetterman has built a reputation for saying what many politicians only whisper. Whether Democrats see this as a warning or simply another disagreement may say a lot about where the party is headed.
CUT HIM LOOSE. He doesn’t deserve Democratic support. He’s a turncoat.
Trade fights are back on the front burner—and this one comes with another reminder that tariffs rarely stay contained to one country—when it comes to Trump.
U.S. Slaps New 25% Tariff on Brazil After Trade Probe
The Trump administration will impose a 25% tariff on selected Brazilian imports beginning July 22 after concluding Brazil engaged in unfair trade practices following a yearlong investigation.
The move marks one of the first major new tariffs since the Supreme Court curtailed the president’s broader tariff authority earlier this year.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the investigation found Brazilian policies harmed American interests in areas including digital trade, ethanol market access, and illegal deforestation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of failing to negotiate in good faith, while saying the new tariffs are the consequence of that impasse.
Brazil quickly rejected the decision. President Lula called the tariffs “illegal and arbitrarily imposed” and vowed to respond under Brazil’s Reciprocity Law while pursuing relief through the World Trade Organization. The new tariff will apply to a range of imports but exempts several major Brazilian exports, including coffee, beef, Brazil nuts, petroleum oils, and aircraft parts.
The dispute could grow even larger. Brazil is also part of a separate U.S. trade investigation into alleged forced labor in global supply chains, with a decision expected soon that could add another 12.5% in tariffs. If that happens, some Brazilian imports could face a combined tariff rate of 37.5%.
Source: CNN
Editor: Tariffs are often sold as leverage at the negotiating table. The invoice, however, has a habit of showing up in places politicians don’t always mention first.
Let’s not forget we (Apple) does a lot of business with China, who is notorious for employing slave and child labor. So this really isn’t about morals. It’s about retribution which is the Trump SOP.
Confirmation hearings are supposed to answer questions. This one mostly proved there are still plenty left to ask.
Blanche Grilled Over Trump Ties, Epstein Files, and Scrapped DOJ Fund
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche faced bipartisan scrutiny during his confirmation hearing as senators pressed him on his ties to President Trump, the abandoned $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, and the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files. #EpsteinFiles
The hearing showed Blanche still has work to do if he hopes to lock down every Republican vote for confirmation. And he needs all the Republican votes.
One of the biggest flashpoints was the controversial settlement that created a proposed $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund tied to Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS. Blanche insisted the fund is effectively dead and that no taxpayer money will be distributed, although senators noted the settlement remains an enforceable contract. Republican lawmakers suggested Congress formally eliminate the fund through legislation, an idea Blanche said the Justice Department would support.
Democrats also questioned whether Blanche can remain independent (newsflash: Blanche has NEVER been indeptendent) after serving as Trump’s personal attorney before joining the Justice Department.
During testimony, Blanche referred to Trump by saying, “I’m his lawyer—was his lawyer,” a remark that fueled criticism from Democrats who argued his close relationship with the president creates ethical concerns.
Blanche defended the department’s work, pointing to efforts against violent crime, fraud, drug cartels, and child exploitation (Epstein Files, anyone?)
The handling of the Epstein investigation remained another major issue. Senators from both parties criticized the Justice Department’s release of case files, including failures to properly redact victims’ identities.
Blanche acknowledged those mistakes, saying, “Whenever we learned that any victim’s name had been improperly not redacted, we immediately took the document down and fixed it as soon as we could. That doesn’t excuse the mistakes of which I take responsibility, but it does mean that we tried to fix them.”
He also defended the department’s overall transparency while facing calls to personally meet with Epstein’s victims.
Source: NPR
Editor: Every attorney general nominee promises impartial justice. The confirmation process is where senators try to figure out whether those promises will hold up once the cameras are gone.