

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Exciting news, patriots! After cancelling his OG concert, Dear Leader will now celebrate our 250th birthday with "the Greatest Rally, EVER!" featuring the "fabulous" 83-year-old Lee Greenwood and “a fine and highly dignified gentleman," himself. Also, for some reason, "prune-face" Bruce Springsteen and a gazillion A-list performers are holding two concerts to honor America's "songs that shaped us." Reviews call it "a rare gift" in music history, but they're all losers and lunatics.
Taking time off from nodding off (again) in a meeting, Trump as predicted has finally cancelled his much-hyped “Freedom 250 concert of has-beens and never-weres after almost all nine acts bailed; poor Vanilla Ice, reportedly the only, desperate act still ready to go on. The concerts were set to kick off his equally-fab-sounding Great American State Fair, a "once in a generation...State Fair like no other" - "Dive into the fun and feel the energy" - hosting carnival rides, "hands-on partner activations" from each state, and daily workshops with titles like Land & Prosperity, Family Life and Community Support, Everyday Health and Well Being with MAHA Monday, and Faith, Values, and Inspiration.
Trump was his usual chivalrous self in defeat after the concert went down in tacky flames. "We don't want singers with no talent, but big fees to put you to sleep," he wrote. "We’ve told them all to stay home." Instead, he giddily announced “a Rally to end all Rallies!" in "magnificent Washington D.C, now totally beautified." Because, "All we want is you, me, a few speakers, and the Greatest Music ever played, the same Music you have listened to for years!" it will feature die-hard Lee Greenwood (again), with "one of the Greatest Hits of All Time," his 1984 God Bless the U.S.A, after which he will introduce "a fine and highly dignified gentleman known as President DONALD J. TRUMP!”
There's more: The "amazing" opera singer Christopher Macchio, who has just 571 listeners on Spotify, will join in. "Not since the legendary Luciano Pavarotti has there been such a voice!” bragged Trump, though Pavarotti’s family has protested his use of the opera great's songs by arguing, "The values of brotherhood and solidarity which Luciano Pavarotti expressed throughout (his) artistic career are entirely incompatible with the worldview offered by Trump.” Also, the U.S. Army Band, Armed Forces Choir and "The President’s Own United States Marine Band" will perform “all your favorite Hits." Observers say the gig "sounds lame as fuck," but MAGA fans who go to every rally "like Deadheads with less weed and more racism" will probs love it.
Amidst other glad fails - even UFC fighters have trashed him with Star Wars rants of "Darth Vader gonna get took (sic) down" - many deem a more apt celebration of America's birthday the June 4 and 5 concerts in New Jersey by Springsteen and many fellow musicians. The guest list is so vast and illustrious - among them, Bon Jovi, Jackson Browne, Rosanne Cash, Kenny Chesney, Tom Morello, Gary Clark Jr., Dion, Dropkick Murphys, Shemekia Copeland, Keb’ Mo’, Nils Lofgren, Valerie June, Darlene Love, Public Enemy, David Sancious, Tony Trischka, Sister Sadie, Mavis Staples, Trombone Shorty, Steve Van Zandt, Jimmie Vaughan, the New Breed Brass Band - it's assumed Bruce called in favors: "They were beckoned, and graciously agreed."
Springsteen and the E Street Band just wrapped their Land of Hope and Dreams Tour - "No Kings" plastered below - in Philadelphia. Celebrating "hope over fear," it featured his most fiery political songs: Born in the USA, Death To My Hometown, No Surrender, Darkness On the Edge of Town, Streets of Minneapolis, Dylan's Chimes of Freedom. The two new concerts, titled Music America: The Songs that Shaped Us, are likewise unabashedly rabble-rousing. Held in Springsteen's Jersey backyard at Monmouth University, they will also launch the new Bruce Springsteen Center for American Music, which aims to preserve the Boss' legacy and offer "a journey through American music history" with ongoing exhibitions, archives and workshops.
This week's concerts, says Robert Santelli, "reflect everything the Center stands for" - the power of "a rich and diverse treasury of American music (to) bring people together (and) the inspiration to think about our shared history in divisive times." Casting a wide and joyful net, artists perform landmark songs from American music - blues, bluegrass, Native, rock, hip-hop, folk, jazz, country, gospel. Tickets are reasonably priced for an intimate venue, and brief narration before each performance offers context to the artist, song, and genre. Thursday night reviews praised "a magical, once-in-a-lifetime moment in music history" and a nod to "how powerful music is in telling our nation’s story." Both concerts sold out.
Bruce and the Dropkick Murphys' rousing rendition of American Land, based on a 19th-century poem by an immigrant steelworker, which asks and celebrates those "who will make his home in the American Land." In brief, all of us.
The McNicholases, the Posalskis, the Smiths, Zerillis, too
The Blacks, the Irish, Italians, the Germans and the Jews
They come across the water a thousand miles from home
With nothing in their bellies but the fire down below.
Two recent high-profile chemical plant disasters are putting a spotlight on the Trump administration's aggressive deregulation of the industry, with even more cuts to chemical safety regulations expected in the coming months.
The disasters—one at a paper mill in Washington state that killed 11 people and the other in an aerospace plastics facility in California that forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate their homes—came after months of warnings from experts and labor unions about the impact of the administration's deregulatory agenda.
In late March, for instance, members of United Steelworkers (USW) rallied in Washington, DC to protest against a US Environmental Protection Agency plan to scrap regulations enacted under former President Joe Biden, which included "new safeguards such as identifying safer technologies and chemical alternatives, requiring implementation of safeguard measures in certain cases, more thorough incident investigations, and third-party auditing."
USW Local 13-228 process safety specialist Phil Stagg at the time warned that scrapping the rule would put "profits over safety" by prioritizing cost cutting over worker safety.
Following last week's twin disasters, the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters also pointed to plans to weaken Biden-era safety regulations as a grave mistake that will put American workers at greater risk.
"The fatal and shocking incidents communities have faced in recent days demonstrate the urgent need to implement and build on existing regulatory safeguards so communities near chemical facilities are protected from chemical disasters," the group said. "But, instead of protecting workers and families from death, injury, and illness, Trump’s EPA is putting communities at greater risk of harm by weakening the nation’s primary defense against chemical facility incidents."
The administration has also been targeting the Chemical Safety Board (CSB), an independent federal watchdog charged with investigating the root causes of industrial chemical accidents.
As The New York Times reported last month, Trump's proposed budget all but eliminates the CSB by cutting its funding down to $0 while arguing that the watchdog merely duplicates work already done by the EPA.
Rep. Marie Glusenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) said in a Sunday social media post that the CSB did essential work in preventing future accidents, and she vowed to fight the administration's plans to zero out its budget.
"I’ll be making it my priority ensuring [CSB] has the resources they need for a through, unbiased investigation," Perez said. "They also have three vacancies currently on that board of directors, and my hope is that we're able to work with the administration to ensure that people with real trades experience are appointed to that board."
The horrifying loss of life in Longview last week demands a thorough impartial investigation conducted by the independent watchdog Chemical Safety Board.
Unfortunately the presidents proposed budget has zeroed out the CSB budget.
Next week, I’ll be making it my priority to… pic.twitter.com/3SqbDSASWJ
— Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (@RepMGP) May 31, 2026
Jordan Barab, a former deputy assistant secretary at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), explained in an interview published by Mountain State Spotlight last week that CSB produces invaluable work about chemical disasters' root causes, whereas the EPA's work focuses on whether disasters were caused by violating federal regulations.
In particular, Barab noted that CSB can "look at other problems, other causes that aren’t necessarily covered by regulations or standards," and added that "a lot of the ways the industry has modernized to improve safety are based on recommendations that came out of the CSB."
US Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Thursday reiterated his threat to remove Customs and Border Protection agents from airports at so-called "sanctuary cities" that bar local police from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement operations.
During a Fox News interview, co-host Brian Kilmeade asked Mullin whether this plan would essentially halt all international flights to major US airports in travel hubs such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York.
Mullin responded by saying DHS wasn't "going to halt the flights," but rather "won't be able to process them because we won't have officers there."
The DHS secretary said that the CBP officers needed to be sent to protect DHS employees at the Delaney Hall migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey, which has been targeted in recent days by protesters demanding humane treatment of immigrants.
"If things don't change, we're going to have to make this step pretty quick," Mullin emphasized. "I'm not going to put my employees and my [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents at risk going to and from this [facility]."
Markwayne Mullin: "If CBP isn't there processing international flights, then those individuals when the airlines land won't be permitted into the United States. If things don't change, we're gonna have to make this step pretty quick." pic.twitter.com/flcAGL2TVG
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 28, 2026
Critics were quick to point out that Mullin's plan would lead to massive chaos at major international airports and would be a significant economic disruption at a time when Americans are already under financial pressure from the rising price of food and energy.
"This would be deliberately stabbing the US economy in the back," argued Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "It would cause enormous economic damage and disrupt air travel nationwide, as airlines would be forced to cancel flights en masse. That he’s even contemplating this publicly is a sign of madness."
Minneapolis-based attorney Will Stancil questioned whether Mullin had fully gamed out how his plan would play out politically for his boss, President Donald Trump, whom polls show is historically unpopular.
"If I’m sitting at 35% approval," Stancil mused, "the thing I definitely want to do is to cause apocalyptic levels of chaos at all of America’s largest airports."
Retired air traffic controller Vivian Lumbard similarly marveled at the self-destructive consequences that would come from enacting Mullin's plan.
"If customs isn't there processing international flights, US citizens won't be permitted to re-enter the United States either," she wrote. "Do any of these people have a working brain or understand how life works in the real world?"
Mullin's threats appear to be more than bluster, however. The Atlantic reported last week that the DHS chief recently "convened a small group of airline and travel-industry executives at DHS headquarters in Washington and told them he may reduce [CBP] staffing at major airports that serve sanctuary jurisdictions," including airports in New York, Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon.
Democratic Sen. John Fetterman is coming under fire from progressives for allowing one of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees from his home state of Pennsylvania to advance to a confirmation hearing.
As reported by Punchbowl News, Fetterman (D-Pa.) this week waived his right to block the nomination of former federal prosecutor Antonio Pozos for a lifetime appointment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In doing this, Fetterman became the first Democratic senator to waive this right during Trump's second term.
Under the Senate's "blue slip courtesy" tradition, senators can opt not to return a blue slip—named for the color of the paper form—to the Judiciary Committee for a particular judicial nominee from their home state, if they don't believe the nomination should advance. A spokesperson for Fetterman confirmed he had turned in a blue slip for Pozos on Friday.
This drew the ire of Demand Justice, which vowed on Friday to take out a six-figure ad campaign against the Pennsylvania Democrat for letting a "crony Trump judge" move toward confirmation.
"At a time when Trump is corrupting the courts with crony judges who will rig our economy and attack our rights and freedoms for decades," the group said, "Democrats cannot afford to treat these nominations like business as usual."
In an interview with Punchbowl News, Demand Justice president Josh Orton called on all Democrats, not just Fetterman, "to stand up to Trump’s attacks on the rule of law," imploring them to "do so in every room—not just on Twitter and not just on TV."
Demand Justice has argued that all of Trump's judicial nominees have refused to contradict the president's false claim that he won the 2020 election or to denounce the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, and has called on Democrats to block everyone he's nominated to the federal bench.
Progressive organizing group Indivisible also criticized Fetterman for enabling Pozos' nomination to go through, while hinting at a future primary challenger for the first-term senator should he run for re-election in 2028.
"Alleged Democrat John Fetterman has decided to let one of Trump’s judicial nominees move forward for a lifetime appointment," wrote Indivisible. "Fetterman’s betrayal of his voters and everything he claimed to campaign for is why he will be a one-term senator."
Fetterman in 2025 tied with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) as the Senate Democrat who voted for the most Trump Cabinet nominations. Data published by VoteHub in February showed that Fetterman has voted on legislation with Trump more than any Democratic senator.
He is also the only Democrat in the Senate to consistently oppose war powers resolutions aimed at ending Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran.
The watchdog group Demand Progress on Thursday warned that the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat is attacking civil liberties by collaborating with Republicans and the Trump administration to renew warrantless spying powers—even as he sounds the alarm over President Donald Trump's appointment of unqualified loyalist Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) is pressing Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to use his influence to persuade Trump to reconsider appointing Pulte—a private equity firm founder and homebuilder who is currently director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—to the top intel post, which current Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard will officially vacate on June 30.
Warner this week called out Pulte's lack of relevant experience, as well as his "eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution" against a number of Trump’s political foes for politically motivated mortgage fraud investigations.
However, critics including Demand Progress have pointed out Warner's critical role in whipping Democratic support for renewing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the US government to collect electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the United States without a warrant. Experts note that Americans’ data is also swept up during such surveillance, and civil society groups and some lawmakers from both parties have demanded reforms to prevent further abuse by federal agencies.
Section 702, which was reauthorized for two years in 2024, is set to expire next week. There is a legislative battle between lawmakers and intelligence officials who want to extend Section 702 largely intact—the so-called "clean" reauthorization backed by Trump and his allies—and privacy-focused legislators from both parties who want reforms, especially a requirement for warrants before searching Americans' communications.
A three-year proposal passed by House lawmakers in April did not include a warrantless requirement.
“Sen. Warner’s opposition to Bill Pulte masks the fact that he is still the Democrats’ chief advocate for handing over unchecked spying powers to the Trump administration," Demand Progress executive director Sean Vitka said Thursday. "Pulte obviously must go, but he’s also proof that this administration is eager and willing to use the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as a weapon."
"If Trump pulls Pulte, he can easily appoint another eager goon to fill the slot," Vitkaco stressed. "By focusing on Pulte and not broader reforms, Sen. Warner is not standing up for Americans or the Constitution, he is disguising his work to engineer warrantless mass surveillance against us."
"We know this because he’s been doing it publicly for months," he added. "An unprecedented, bipartisan movement is demanding privacy reforms, but Sen. Warner’s machinations threaten to derail this progress and hand Trump the surveillance powers he needs to threaten Americans and democracy itself for the rest of his administration.”
Demand Progress said that Warner "has conspicuously failed to join the chorus of Democrats and Republicans calling for reforms to FISA that would protect privacy and democracy itself."
"Warner, who is negotiating with Republicans and the Trump administration to renew FISA, has only commented on how bad Pulte is and notably stopped short of saying anything about FISA reform," the group continued. "This is particularly telling considering Warner’s history of promising future reforms to get FISA renewed and failing to deliver."
Demand Progress contrasted Warner's actions with those of his fellow Democrats, including Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, who explicitly called for “reforms to ensure Americans’ privacy and rights are protected.”
Senate lawmakers could hold an initial procedural vote on extending Section 702 as soon as Thursday, with just a simple majority needed for the measure to advance. Future votes would require the support of 60 senators in order to avoid a Republican filibuster.
Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, warned Wednesday in a social media thread that the Section 702 extension supported by Trump, his Republican allies in Congress, and Warner "doesn’t just fail to curb warrantless domestic spying, it actually expands the government's ability to use 702 against Americans."
"Trump’s allies and Warner have produced a bill that purports to include reforms, but that makes no change whatsoever to existing standards and procedures for conducting backdoor searches, let alone a warrant requirement," she continued.
A "backdoor search" occurs when the government collects information about a US citizen when the surveillance was originally authorized for foreign targets and the government did not obtain a warrant before collecting the communications.
"These 'backdoor searches' are an affront to the Fourth Amendment," Goitein asserted. "They have led to widespread abuses, including FBI searches for the communications of members of Congress, campaign donors, journalists, and protesters across the political spectrum."
"There is broad bipartisan support in Congress for requiring the government to get a warrant before accessing Americans’ communications obtained under Section 702," she continued. "This reform has twice passed the House, and 76% of Americans support it."
"Unsurprisingly, Trump and his allies in Congress oppose this reform," Goitein wrote. "What’s more surprising is that key Democratic surveillance hawks, including Mark Warner and [Rep.] Jim Himes [D-Conn.], have teamed up with the Trump camp to ensure that his administration has continued warrantless access."
"Even more disturbing is the provision titled 'Restriction on Use of United States Person Information Acquired Under Section 702 in Criminal Prosecutions,'" she said. "Notwithstanding the Orwellian title, this provision actually *removes* existing restrictions on such use.
"Any member who is concerned with Pulte’s appointment should be aghast at the prospect of handing this administration warrantless access to Americans’ private communications and expanding its power to use those communications against Americans in court," Goitein added. "There is only one way senators can force leadership to permit amendment votes or otherwise negotiate: vote NO on the procedural motion that will take place in the coming days. Senators who support reform are the majority; they have real leverage. They must use it."
The Brennan Center for Justice and Demand Progress were among dozens of civil society groups that on Monday sent a letter to congressional leaders urging them to "not abandon Americans' constitutional rights" and "reject any extension that does not include key bipartisan reforms that would protect Americans' privacy and civil rights and liberties."
The United Nations World Food Program on Friday warned that President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran is pushing millions of people across the world into hunger.
A report published by the WFP on Friday finds that the Iran war, which has resulted in the months-long closure of the Strait of Hormuz, is "generating significant spillovers, particularly through fuel, food price, and income shocks, and trade disruptions."
The impacts of the war are being felt most in some of the world's poorest countries, particularly those that rely on shipments from the Persian Gulf region for essential commodities.
The report projects that 2.3 million more people in Afghanistan will face severe hunger in 2026 due to the impact of the war, along with 2.5 million people in Somalia, and 1.3 million people in Sri Lanka.
"Extensive dependence on energy and food imports and external trade corridors has left the countries we studied exposed to the effects of the crisis," the report states. "In Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Somalia, impacts include supply chain disruptions and the pass through of higher global energy prices to domestic prices. Governments’ fiscal space is constrained by reduced revenue from falling import duties and the burden of high public debt."
The report also warns that the conflict is harming WFP's operational capabilities and its inability to provide relief to people suffering from hunger will only grow the longer the war continues.
"WFP estimates it will now serve 1.5 million fewer people that it originally planned to in 2026," the report explains. "If the conflict continues for six months, more than 9 million people could lose assistance, driven by a combination of higher operational costs and rising local food prices, which also increases the cost of cash-based assistance. In the meantime, funding for WFP operations have also decreased."
WFP's analysis also expresses concerns about political instability caused by rising hunger, pointing to the increased number of anti-government demonstrations in recent months as a sign of "increasing popular discontent."
Jean-Martin Bauer, Director of WFP’s Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Service, noted that the current crisis was predicted to happen by WFP months ago, but that its warnings went unheeded.
“Early warnings only matter if the world acts on them,” said Bauer. "We warned that this crisis could push millions more people into hunger; now we are watching it happen in real time. In many cases, the poorest families around the world, far from the center of the crisis, are being hit the hardest."
"She was putting a thumb on the scale on behalf of the administration. Constantly looking out for the views of the president."
Days after being fired from the CBS News program '60 Minutes' for speaking out against the dismissal of several top correspondents and declaring that editor-in-chief Bari Weiss was "brought in to kill" the show, veteran journalist Scott Pelley described in detail the right-wing former opinion columnist's efforts to push for political coverage that centered the White House's point of view—regardless of the facts.
"There was a thumb on the scale for the president’s version of events that I felt was a level of political influence that I had never seen in 37 years at CBS News," Pelley told The New York Times' Lulu Garcia-Navarro Sunday.
Pelley was interviewed after he and his former colleagues spoke out against what fired correspondent Cecilia Vega called "censorship" at the 58-year-old program since Weiss took the helm of CBS News last year. Weiss was installed following a White House-approved merger of parent company Paramount and Skydance Media, owned by the son of President Donald Trump backer Larry Ellison.
The new editor-in-chief, who first gained notoriety as a student at Columbia University when she led a campaign against pro-Palestinian professors and later railed against "cancel culture," arrived at CBS last fall with promises to promote "journalism that reports on the world as it actually is" and that is "fair, fearless, and factual."
But in his interview with the Times, Pelley expanded on his earlier accusation, made in a statement released last week after he was fired, that Weiss had demanded that he "inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story"—revealing that the coverage in question dealt with the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis in January.
Good was shot in her car by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent after several officers gave her conflicting instructions, and footage of the shooting showed an agent approaching the front of her vehicle as she turned the wheel to the right. Pretti was shot by Customs and Border Protection agents in another incident, after he approached a woman one officer had thrown to the ground. Top administration officials accused both victims of being violent and called Good a "domestic terrorist" while barring state officials from investigating the killings.
Pelley said that before Weiss intervened in the coverage of the fatal shootings, he had pushed to use images "in which we see the protesters acting aggressively."
"I felt it was very important to identify that the protesters themselves were being very aggressive and that they were half of these confrontations," he told Garcia-Navarro. "We also included a picture of Alex Pretti before he was killed kicking out a taillight on a police car and made a point of saying, this is Alex Pretti and this is what he did."
But Pelley's push to get ahead of any criticism that '60 Minutes' was being biased against the agents or the Trump administration didn't stop Weiss from emailing the show's executive producer hours before the story was set to air, asking that producers "make the protesters look more violent" and even promote a false claim about Good that was pushed by the White House.
Pelley said the message from Weiss was, "You need to describe her as driving toward the officer."
This is a devastating interview.
Scott Pelley tells the NYT that Bari Weiss directly put a “thumb on the scale” for Trump over the killing of Renee Good.
Here’s his explanation of exactly what happened. pic.twitter.com/Kh56P1q7rM
— Niall Stanage (@NiallStanage) June 7, 2026
"This is not what you see on the video," Pelley told Garcia-Navarro. "On the video, you see the officer standing slightly off the front of the car. And you clearly see Ms. Good’s wheels turned completely as far as they will go, away from the officer. But he shoots her in the head, kills her."
Pelley said he refused to make the changes, and did not hear from Weiss about the piece after it aired. A CBS spokesperson told the Times that the suggestions Weiss had made "had no political motivation and were proposed solely to make the piece as strong, fair, and accurate as possible."
Pelley told Garcia-Navarro: "My impression at the time was that she was putting a thumb on the scale on behalf of the administration. Constantly looking out for the views of the president. We’re reporting those views. There’s nothing wrong with reporting those views, but it was never enough."
The story on Pretti and Good came weeks after Weiss pushed the show's producers and correspondents to change a segment on Trump's deal with El Salvador under which hundreds of immigrants have been deported to the country's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center after being falsely accused of being gang members.
Pelley's revelation about the exchange with Weiss was called "devastating" by The Hill reporter Niall Stanage, while the grassroots progressive group Our Revolution said Pelley had described "a CBS News editor demanding reporters change facts to match Trump’s version of events to help justify the murder of a US citizen.
"That isn’t news. It’s state propaganda," said the group. "Bari Weiss is not a journalist. She is an asset of the Trump administration. She should be sued and removed and Paramount should answer for installing her."
Scottish historian William Dalrymple added that Pelley's interview revealed Weiss as "a major threat to truthful journalism."
The chaos at CBS has intensified as Paramount Skydance has pushed for a merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN—raising alarm that the cable network could soon see a significant shift toward reporting that blatantly centers the White House's viewpoints.
Asked to provide any evidence of fraud in California, the best Trump could come up with over the weekend was, "All I have to do is look, and I listen." As one journalist pointed out: "That's not evidence."
US President Donald Trump and world's richest man Elon Musk sang to the same dishonest tune once again on Monday to allege—without evidence—that the mayoral election in Los Angeles was somehow fraudulent or rigged against Republicans after their preferred candidate, former reality TV personality Spencer Pratt, dropped to third place in the open primary.
With incumbent Democratic Mayor Karen Bass already sitting in first place, it was progressive City Council Member Nithya Raman who overtook Pratt on Sunday after more votes were counted. The top two finishers in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, will face off in a runoff election, but it was Pratt's slip out of the second slot—with approximately 80% of ballots now counted—that inspired Trump and Musk to call into question the results.
"No way this could have happened. Rigged Election!" Trump declared in a social media post on Sunday night. The president infamously refused to admit he was defeated by former President Joe Biden in 2020, a denial that ultimately led to the insurrection attempt by his supporters on January 6, 2021.
The election results in Los Angeles, however, are very much in line with polling that took place ahead of last week's vote and Los Angeles is known as a Democratic-leaning city.
In a series of retweets and comments on X, the social media behemoth he owns, Musk echoed Trump by suggesting that the mayoral race was fraudulent, though he offered no substantive evidence.
"It takes a conspiracy theorist to believe California’s election is secure," stated one post Musk shared to the more than 240 million accounts that follow his.
As Raman climbed out of second place into third as Pratt's share of the vote total dropped, Musk perpetuated the idea that the counting of ballots indicated fraud of some kind and stood on that insinuation to advocate for the Republican-backed SAVE Act, which voting rights experts have warned is a key part of a coordinated GOP effort to make it harder for Americans to vote in upcoming elections.
Trump stormed out of his weekend interview with NBC New's Kristen Welker on "Meet The Press" after the host challenged Trump over his repeated lies that the 2020 election was rigged, and his new unfounded claims that something similar was now happening in California.
WOW -- Trump crashes out and cuts his interview with Welker short as she presses him on his lack of evidence for claiming elections are rigged
"You're either crooked or you're stupid. Let's call it quits. Because I've had enough. Thank you darling," he tells her."
"I traveled… pic.twitter.com/qQaNIDnX4y
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 7, 2026
Trump claimed that because the results had not been officially decided after four days in California, the nation's largest state with millions who vote by mail, that "They're cheating on the election."
"Do you have evidence to support that?" Welker asked.
"All I have to do is look, and I listen," the president replied.
"But that's not evidence," Welker countered.
The progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, which backed Raman in the election, said in a social media post that a second-place showing in the race would be in keeping with the city's political profile.
"No way Los Angeles was ever going to send a MAGA reality star with zero governing experience to a general election for mayor. Not this city," the group said. "Nithya Raman advances. Now let’s have the conversation LA actually deserves—housing, affordability, and a real vision for this city’s future."
"I am going to call Bibi right now and tell him not to retaliate. Each of them had their fun. Israel had its strike, and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one," President Donald Trump reportedly said.
After Israeli forces attacked a southern suburb of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, Iran delivered its promised retaliation late Sunday, firing missiles at Israel for the first time since a ceasefire agreement took effect in April and prompting US President Donald Trump to renew his push for a negotiated end to a conflict he helped inflame.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz claimed their Sunday strikes were in response to rocket fire from the Lebanese group Hezbollah—though Israel has been widely accused of trying to sabotage peace talks. Iran retaliated with at least 20 missiles from four different bases, which the Israeli military said it intercepted.
The barrage of missiles was a response to "the widespread killing and displacement of the oppressed people of the Tyre and Nabatieh regions" in southern Lebanon, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said in a statement. "Tonight's operation was a warning, and if the aggressions are repeated, the responses will be broader and will encompass all American-Zionist targets in the region."
Following the Iranian missile attack, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir declared that "the IDF will strike the enemy with force the moment the green light is given."
Whether that permission is granted remains to be seen. Trump—who tore up the Obama administration's nuclear deal with the Iranian government during his first term and then, this past February, partnered with Netanyahu to launch an illegal assault on Iran, despite his "no new wars" promise—signaled to multiple journalists on Sunday that he was still pushing for a negotiated agreement.
Fox News' Trey Yingst said on air that during a phone call, Trump told him that he was "not happy about" the IDF's strikes allegedly targeting Hezbollah, and Iran's retaliation "certainly" won't help negotiations.
According to Yingst, Trump's message to Iran is, "You've shot your missiles, that's enough, get back to the table and make a deal."
Trump also told Axios' Barak Ravid that he planned to send Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a similar message: "I am going to call Bibi right now and tell him not to retaliate. Each of them had their fun. Israel had its strike, and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one."
The Times of Israel reported that after a call with Trump, Netanyahu was "holding a discussion with top security officials."
Summarizing Sunday's events on social media, Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, noted that "last week, we got reports that Trump yelled at Netanyahu to back off plans to attack Beirut's southern suburb of Dahieh after Iran warned that such a strike could trigger Iranian attacks on northern Israel. Today, Israel struck Dahieh anyway, killing civilians. This looks like a test: probing Iran's red lines and willingness to enforce them amid fluid deterrence dynamics."
"Israel's strike on Beirut put Iran in a difficult position," Toossi explained after Iran's response. "After publicly warning that such an attack would trigger retaliation, failing to respond would have undermined the credibility of that threat and likely invited further US/Israeli escalation. Iran's missile attack on northern Israel should be viewed in that context."
"What we're witnessing is a classic deterrence contest, with each side trying to establish which actions will trigger retaliation and impose costs sufficient to deter their repetition," he wrote. "The key question now is whether a deterrence equilibrium emerges around the Beirut-northern Israel equation, or whether both sides continue probing each other's thresholds and credibility, whether through more Israeli attacks in Lebanon/Beirut, direct Israeli strikes on Iran, or both, pushing this already fragile 'ceasefire' toward total collapse."
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, highlighted in a blog post that "this is the first time Iran has struck Israel after Israel struck another country's territory (that is, not Iran). This means that the battle lines have been moved. Iran's deterrence had already been restored in the sense that Israel knew that any strike on it would be responded to. But now, Iran has proven that it will also respond to Israeli strikes on Lebanon."
"From a US perspective, supporting Israel at this point recommits the US to its decades-long policy of seeking to sustain a balance in the region that allows for near-complete Israeli dominance," he asserted. "That policy has been extremely costly to US interests, has destabilized the region, and enabled the Israelis to get increasingly aggressive and reckless (since they face no consequences for it)."
Parsi added that "however problematic it has been, it will become far more challenging and destabilizing going forward since sustaining Israel’s dominance will necessitate continued war with Iran. This clearly contradicts US interests. If US interests were at the center of US policy, getting out of the Middle East and its regional rivalries would be a no-brainer."
Arab Center Washington DC fellow Assal Rad said on social media Sunday that "Trump wants a deal, Iran wants a deal, the region wants a deal, Americans want a deal, basically everyone wants to bring an end to wars, except Israel. That's why they keep attacking. Israel will not stop, it must be stopped."