分类： 未分类

Fact Check: Covid-19 documents Gabbard released don’t prove her claims about Fauci

2026-06-23T19:32:40.450Z / CNN Politics

By Margaret Given, CNN

Published 3:32 PM EDT, Tue June 23, 2026

blob:https://www.cnn.com/9bf51f8a-0da8-48b1-88cf-824f41adece0

CNN’s Daniel Dale joins Boris Sanchez for a fact check of claims made by now-former DNI Tulsi Gabbard about Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Covid-19 pandemic.

03:51 • Source: CNN

Politics of the Day 11 videos

Trump administration can’t block SNAP recipients in 5 states from buying soda and candy, judge rules

June 23, 2026 / 12:28 PM EDT / CBS News

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s effort to let states bar SNAP recipients from using their food benefits to buy soft drinks and candy, ruling the Agriculture Department lacked the authority to approve the restrictions.

Earlier this year, multiple states received approval from the Agriculture Department to enact the ban, with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins backing the efforts as a way to strip foods regarded as unhealthy from the $100 billion federal program.

However, SNAP recipients in five states — Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia — sued the agency in March, alleging the move would “destabilize food access” for people on food stamps. They also argued that the ban makes it difficult for people with chronic illnesses to access food or drinks needed to maintain their health, including items used to manage blood sugar.

In her Monday ruling, Judge Amy Berman Jackson sided with the plaintiffs, writing that the Agriculture Department exceeded its authority when it allowed states to issue the ban.

“Congress defined what ‘food’ is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted,” she wrote in her opinion. “It did not authorize the agency to cut types of food out of SNAP entirely.”

SNAP provides monthly benefits to help low-income Americans pay for groceries. While it’s a federally funded program, food stamps are administered by each U.S. state.

The Agriculture Department defended the effort and vowed to continue pursuing the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.

“The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial,” a USDA spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News. “We will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP.”

While the ruling only applies to the five states where the plaintiffs live, it could have implications for the remaining 18 states with similar bans, according to the Food Research & Action Center, or FRAC, an anti-hunger advocacy group.

“Other approved SNAP restriction demonstrations relied on the same USDA process, the same statutory authority and many of the same legal and procedural assumptions the court rejected,” Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for FRAC, said in a Tuesday blog post. “For that reason, the decision may provide a roadmap for future challenges.”

Setback for “Make America Healthy Again”

The ruling is a setback for the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign championed by Kennedy and Rollins, who have argued taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for foods and drinks that fuel obesity, diabetes and chronic disease epidemics.

“We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick and then pay a second time to treat the illnesses those very programs help create,” Kennedy said in a December statement.

So far, the Agriculture Department has permitted 23 states to implement restrictions through waivers that allowed them to block SNAP recipients from buying certain food and beverages that are normally allowed under federal law.

The Food and Nutrition Act, which governs SNAP, allows food stamps to be used for “any food or food product intended for human consumption,” except for alcohol and ready-to-eat hot foods. The law also bars SNAP recipients from using benefits to buy tobacco.

The National Center for Law and Economic Justice, a nonprofit representing the plaintiffs, argued the different state-by-state definitions led to confusion for retailers and SNAP recipients.

“This decision makes clear that the USDA cannot bypass the legal guardrails that establish how SNAP must operate across the country,” Katie Deabler, senior attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, said in a statement.

Edited by Aimee Picchi

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Senate votes to limit Trump’s Iran war powers in rare rebuke

2026-06-23T19:44:05.356Z / CNN

By Morgan Rimmer

16 min ago

PUBLISHED Jun 23, 2026, 3:44 PM ET

The US Capitol building in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2026.

Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters

The Senate adopted a resolution on Tuesday directing the president to remove military forces from the conflict with Iran, a significant rebuke to Donald Trump and a strong message that the war lacks support in Congress.

Democrats have repeatedly forced votes to limit Trump’s war powers in both the House and the Senate – a campaign that has gradually picked up more GOP support in recent weeks, drawing the president’s ire.

GOP Sens. Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Bill Cassidy joined Democrats in voting for the resolution, while Democratic Sen. John Fetterman voted against it. The final tally was 50-48**.

The measure passed the House earlier this month. But because it is what’s known as a concurrent resolution, it does not require the president’s signature and, by definition, does not carry the force of law.

A House Democratic aide who has been involved in the effort to pass the war powers resolution told CNN earlier this month, however, that they believe the measure would be binding and it would be a legal matter to work out.

This is the 10 th time the Senate has voted on an Iran war powers measure since the beginning of the year. An earlier Senate-led resolution advanced last month, but has not had a follow-up vote yet as Democrats work to ensure they have the support needed to pass it.

The House passed the concurrent resolution 215-208, with four House Republicans voting with Democrats and immediately facing the president’s anger. Trump called the four members “GRANDSTANDERS” and their action “unpatriotic” in a post on Truth Social after the vote.

Some Democratic senators, including Tim Kaine, have argued that passage of a war powers resolution is necessary, even after the US reached an agreement with Iran and amid ongoing negotiations with Tehran.

“I think it’s a good time to have the vote to say, ‘Hey, if we’re really in a period of maybe some stability here, let’s not just allow it to start up again without Congress being involved in that decision,” he told reporters last week.

Frank Luntz: Democrats will move to impeach Trump ‘on day one’ if they take both chambers

2026-06-23T19:37:43.298Z / CNN Politics

By Blake McGill, CNN

Published 3:37 PM EDT, Tue June 23, 2026

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/23/politics/video/cncpm-frank-luntz-midterms

Frank Luntz: Democrats will move to impeach Trump ‘on day one’ if they take both chambers

As primary contests take place across the country and President Donald Trump visits the swing state of Pennsylvania, pollster & communication strategist Frank Luntz joins CNN’s Brianna Keilar and Boris Sanchez.

4:49 • Source: CNN

Politics of the Day 11 videos

Frank Luntz: Democrats will move to impeach Trump ‘on day one’ if they take both chambers
04:49
Now playing
• Source: CNN

The Odds: Will the bell toll for Josh Shapiro?
04:07
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Billionaire Ray Dalio worries about our political polarity
01:45
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Tucker Carlson pulls support for GOP
01:30
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Rep. Goldman responds to NYC café banning him over his Israel stance
08:23
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Sen. Booker calls Trump-Vance administration ‘unserious’, ‘a joke’ after snub by Qataris
01:40
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Source: acting DNI Bill Pulte has begun mass firings
02:21
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Meet the Trump-backed far-right populist leading the race to become Colombia’s next president
02:29
Now playing
• Source: CNN

A Kennedy, a former Republican, and a political insider: Meet the crowded field of Democrats running in NY-12
03:09
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Turning Point USA women say they can ‘have it all’
05:42
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Alan Greenspan dies at 100
03:06
Now playing
• Source: CNN

What has Andy Burnham, Britain’s likely next prime minister, said about President Trump?

2026-06-23T12:54:00-0400 / CBS News

By Emmet Lyons

Emmet Lyons is a news desk editor at the CBS News London bureau, coordinating and producing stories for all CBS News platforms. Prior to joining CBS News, Emmet worked as a producer at CNN for four years.

Read Full Bio

Updated on: June 23, 2026 / 2:03 PM EDT / CBS News

London — Labour Party lawmaker Andy Burnham, who looks increasingly likely to be Britain’s next prime minister, has previously criticized President Trump, accusing the American leader of bringing “instability” to the world.

Current Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced Monday that he would resign in the wake of disastrous local elections in May, and 20 resignations from his government.

As his Labour Party still has a large majority of seats in the U.K. parliament — won in the last national elections in 2024 — it gets to pick Starmer’s replacement, and Burnham is widely expected to get the job.

Andy Burnham, newly elected Member of Parliament for Makerfield, Greater Manchester, at his swearing-in ceremony in the House of Commons, in London, June 22, 2026. House of Commons/Handout/REUTERS

If that happens as expected in the coming weeks, Burnham will, sooner or later, find himself on the phone with Mr. Trump, whose advisers will likely have scoured years of news articles for evidence of Burnham’s views on the businessman-turned-politician.

So what has Burnham said about Mr. Trump?

“A polarized, poisonous politics”

In short, he has not been particularly complimentary.

“The path we’re on, if we are not careful, is a path towards the politics of the United States of America,” Burnham warned on the campaign trail in June. While he didn’t attribute it directly to President Trump, he said Americans were grappling with “a polarized, poisonous politics where people in communities don’t work together anymore.”

Last year, in an interview with The London Economic that included questions about Mr. Trump’s reelection and the rise of right-wing, populist parties in Europe, he said: “I think we now have to have a real debate about what that means and the instability that [former prime minister] Liz Truss brought to Britain, I think Trump is bringing to the U.S. and the world.”

In a 2024 book that he co-authored, Burnham wrote: “Whether we like it or not, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage have been effective in connecting with people who feel politicians have neglected the place where they live.”

A photo posted online by British politician Nigel Farage on Nov. 12, 2016 shows him standing with Donald Trump at Trump Tower in Manhattan after a private meeting with the then-U.S. president-elect. Nigel Farage/Twitter

He said a “new radical Right” in the U.K. and U.S. were capitalizing on inequality and an “out-of-touch left-progressive establishment” that had failed to solve problems for middle class voters.

And on Jan. 6, 2021, as rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, Burnham posted on X: “Any UK politician who gave Trump the time of day should be ashamed right now.”

When asked about Burnham’s previous comments about Mr. Trump on Tuesday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told CBS News: “Left-wing policies of unfettered migration and destructive globalism have made once-great European cities unrecognizable – allowing criminals to run wild and antisemitism to thrive. President Trump saved the United States from such destruction when he was elected, and he has rightfully warned other world leaders that western civilization will continue to erode if they don’t quickly reverse course.”

Reflecting Pool renovation, a massive White House ballroom and a triumphal arch: Here’s how Trump is remaking D.C.

June 23, 2026 / 2:00 PM EDT / CBS News

By Luis Giraldo,

Katherine Lam
Katherine Lam is the director of Growth & Engagement at CBS News, focusing on strategy, content partnerships and platforms including YouTube. She previously worked at Fox News as a breaking news digital producer.

Read Full Bio

In his second term in office, President Trump has initiated a D.C. makeover, attempting to leave his mark on the capital and prompting multiple legal battles.

Mr. Trump, a former real estate developer, has overseen the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make way for a massive ballroom, tried to change the name of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and completed a resurfacing project at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool that quickly faced setbacks.

Here’s a look at where five of Mr. Trump’s projects stand and how much they cost.

Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool

The Trump administration announced plans to resurface the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in April and paint it “American flag blue” at the president’s request. The last time the reflecting pool underwent a significant renovation was from 2010 to 2012 during the Obama administration. At the time, the government tapped $34 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to cover the cost of the project.

President Trump displays a rendering of his proposed renovations to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool during an event in the Oval Office on June 3. Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images

The cost: Mr. Trump estimated it would take a week and cost roughly $1.5 million. Atlantic Industrial Coatings, the Virginia-based company hired for the project, completed the restoration in early June for $14.7 million, according to records, more than nine times Mr. Trump’s original estimate. The administration spent another $1.7 million on a filtration system. Neither contract for the reflecting pool was subject to a competitive bidding process.

National Park Service personnel vacuum algae from the Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC. Photo by Pete Kiehart/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Where it stands now:Images showed the reflecting pool’s water turning green in less than two weeks after Mr. Trump announced that the site had reopened to “rave reviews.”

A spokesman for the Interior Department said supply lines that had been dormant for two months are to blame for the residual algae causing the color change.

Days later, chunks of peeling paint from the blue coating were spotted in the water. Mr. Trump claimed in a Truth Social post, without any evidence, that the Reflecting Pool was vandalized. Five people were arrested for vandalism and five others were served citations, according to the U.S. Park Police.

Bare patches are visible where newly applied blue paint has peeled from the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C. Ken Cedeno /AFP via Getty Images

White House ballroom

The Trump administration announced in July 2025 plans to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom that could seat 1,000 guests. CBS News obtained architectural renderings of the project in September and weeks later, the White House’s East Wing was demolished to start on the ballroom construction. The Trump administration hired Clark Construction as the project’s contractor.

The Trump administration has argued the proposed ballroom would provide safety assurances for large gatherings with the president and other distinguished guests. Administration officials amplified their argument after April’s shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner and an alleged foiled plot to attack the White House UFC event this month.

An overhead view of the construction site for President Trump’s White House ballroom. Aaron Schwartz / Getty Images

The cost:The project was initially estimated to cost $200 million but has increased significantly less than a year after it was first announced. Mr. Trump has since said construction would cost about $400 million and insisted it would be “taxpayer-free” and funded by him and other donors, including tech giants such as Google, Amazon and Nvidia, defense contractors and other large corporations.

However, a project summary obtained by The Washington Post showed ballroom construction would cost an estimated $600 million, with about half coming from taxpayer-funded departments, including the Secret Service, White House Military Office and the Executive Residence of the White House.

Rendering of the White House State Ballroom interior

Where it stands now:The project has been embroiled in a legal battle in federal courts. The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the U.S. sued the Trump administration in December for demolishing the East Wing “without any review whatsoever.”

The White House is waiting for an appeals court to decide whether construction can continue after a lower court ruled that Congress must approve the project.

President Trump holds a rendering of the planned White House Ballroom extension during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office on Oct. 22, 2025. Aaron Schwartz / CNP / Bloomberg via Getty Images / Aaron Schwartz – Pool via CNP

“Arc de Trump”

In October 2025, President Trump told a group of donors for the White House ballroom project that he would also be building a 250–foot triumphal arch that resembles the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. The structure would be built in the middle of Memorial Circle between the entrance of the Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial. Construction could take two to three years, according to documents published on the Federal Register.

When CBS News senior White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe asked President Trump who the arch is for, Mr. Trump simply said: “Me.” The White House added that the arch would commemorate the 250th anniversary of the U.S.

Rendering of President Trump’s triumphal arch that would sit between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery. Interior Department to Commission on Fine Arts

The cost:The White House has not disclosed the total cost for the arch. However, some taxpayer money has already been earmarked for the project. In its spending plan, the National Endowment for the Humanities, an independent government agency, allocated $15 million in taxpayer dollars for the arch.

The actual price tag is likely to be much higher: In November 2025, Axios reported that the arch would cost an estimated $100 million.

“The estimated cost of the Triumphal Arch is still being calculated and will be shared in the near future,” the Department of the Interior said in a statement to CBS News. “We anticipate some combination of public and private funds to be used to pay for the Triumphal Arch.”

Where it stands now:Critics say the arch would dominate the skyline and tower over the 99-foot Lincoln Memorial. A group of veterans and a historian sued the Trump administration to block construction, but a federal court has yet to intervene.

The National Park Service said the project could take almost a year to complete on an accelerated timeline, with two, 10-hour shifts per day, and “several tower cranes, forklifts, skid steers, drill rigs, and concrete pumping systems.”

A model of President Trump’s proposed arch to commemorate the country’s 250th anniversary is seen on a table at a public meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts on April 16. Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

Mr. Trump has made significant changes at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts during his second term. He ousted several board members, installed himself as chairman and proposed an “anti-woke” vision for its future, leading to several artists canceling performances. The board voted in December to change the institution’s name to the Trump-Kennedy Center, and a few months later announced it would close its doors for two years for renovations that were slated to begin this summer.

Construction workers build scaffolding near the sign for the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts on June 12. Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images

The cost:Last year, Mr. Trump secured $257 million through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to restore the Kennedy Center. The tax cut and spending law states that funding is available until September 2029 for expenses related to “capital repair, restoration, maintenance backlog and security structures” at the Kennedy Center. Repairs include upgrading theater seats, repairing water damage and drainage issues, replacing soffit panels and addressing structural issues with the center’s parking garage.

“This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the center,” Matt Floca, executive director and chief operating officer, said in a statement to CBS News. “All of these improvements that we need to make are real, are needed.”

The Kennedy Center did not disclose the total estimated cost for the renovations.

A tarp covers the newly removed name of President Trump from the facade of the Kennedy Center on June 13. Aaron Schwartz / Bloomberg via Getty Images

Where it stands now:In May, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled in favor of Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat who serves on the Kennedy Center’s Board of Trustees, after she sued to block the name change and the closure. The judge stopped the plan to temporarily close the center and ruled the board acted unlawfully when it added Mr. Trump’s name to the building.

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so. Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” Cooper wrote in his opinion.

Dozens of people gathered outside the Kennedy Center on June 13 to watch crews scrape the president’s name off the building.

After the judge’s ruling, the center’s board of trustees voted to create a new endowment in Mr. Trump’s name that they said was intended to recognize his “significant contributions and dedication” to the Kennedy Center. A Kennedy Center official said the endowment will raise private funds that will supplement the money secured by Mr. Trump and Congress for renovations.

Lafayette Park

The National Park Service announced that portions of the park would close in January because of “serious concerns about security for construction equipment and prior vandalism associated with public protests in recent years.” In May, Mr. Trump posted on social media that he had contributed funds to build fountains and to rebuild parts of Lafayette Park in front of the White House.

“That’s the entrance to the White House, and it was an embarrassment,” Mr. Trump said.

With the White House in the background, construction equipment is parked in Lafayette Square as part of a renovation project. Kevin Carter / Getty Images

The cost:The New York Times reported in April that the Trump administration initially agreed to pay the government contractor in charge of the ballroom renovation, Clark Construction, $11.9 million to do the job, but later increased the contract to $17.4 million to cover additional costs.

Where it stands now:The project was expected to be completed by May 31, but a spokesperson for the Department of the Interior, which oversees the park, told CBS News that the restoration project is still in progress and that “final figures for the project are unavailable at this time.”

Arden Farhi contributed to this report.

Trump keeps claiming Iran made concessions. Iran keeps denying them

2026-06-23T17:46:20.748Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/23/politics/trump-iran-claims-nuclear-inspectors

Ever since releasing a memorandum of understanding last week that appeared heavily slanted toward Iran, the Trump administration has kept claiming Tehran agreed to other major concessions in ongoing negotiations.

The problem is that none of them appeared in the MOU — and Iran keeps denying them.

And given the Trump administration’s own demonstrated credibility problems, it’s not at all clear whom to trust.

The biggest example came Tuesday morning, when President Donald Trump made the massive claim that Iran has already agreed to major nuclear inspections in perpetuity.

“… Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!),” he wrote on Truth Social. “This will insure (sic) ‘Nuclear Honesty.’ If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!”

Similarly, Vice President JD Vance at a press conference Monday in Switzerland cited a “major milestone.” He said Iran had agreed to admit inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

But Iran has rejected the idea there had been any significant movement on this front.

It instead said that its work with the IAEA, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency, would continue “under the current procedures.”

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Iran had not agreed to let inspectors examine its heavily damaged nuclear sites and that it had made “no new commitments.”

Indeed, despite Vance’s claim of a major advance, the IAEA already has limited access to Iran. So merely being allowed in isn’t, in and of itself, a major step forward.

Fuller inspections were also a major piece of the Obama administration’s Iran deal that Trump pulled out of.

But Trump didn’t back down Tuesday afternoon while on his way to an event in Pennsylvania. “They’re wrong, they’re wrong,” he told reporters of the Iranians. “We have it down: 100% inspections. And if they were right, I’d cancel the meetings right now.”

The Trump administration has also claimed this week that the many billions in Iranian assets that would be unfrozen as part of a peace deal would be used on American products.

It has made this claim as it attempts to combat criticisms that Iran could use the money, along with at least $300 billion in reconstruction funds from Gulf countries, to rebuild its military or fund terrorism. Even many conservatives have complained about the extensive financial concessions to Iran in the agreement.

Vance said Monday that lead negotiator Jared Kushner had devised a plan under which the spending of the money would be approved by the US and Qatar. He said that “then the money would actually go to buy American soy, American corn and American wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people.”

“If Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they are going to make American farmers richer and help feed the Iranian people,” Vance said.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Michael Waltz said later Monday on Fox News that “they’re going to buy American crops.”

Trump added Tuesday morning in his social media post that the money would be “controlled by the U.S.A., and will be used for the purchase of food and medical supplies, exclusively from the United States.”

But when Fox’s Laura Ingraham pressed Waltz on how ironclad the agreement was, Waltz suggested it was still being worked out. He said that “how we control” the money is “being negotiated right now as we speak.”

And Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ali Bahreini, on Tuesday rejected the idea.

“Iran ​is the only country to decide what to do with its assets,” Bahreini said. He added, “I reject any claim about that if there would be any role for any other country to have an influence on those decisions or on those processes.”

The MOU says that vessels will be allowed to transit the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has gained great leverage by closing, “with no charge, for 60 days only.”

What happens after that, the two sides can’t agree.

Trump said last week at the G7 summit in France that the strait would also be “toll-free” beyond the 60 days.

“Somebody said, oh, it’s toll-free for – no, no, its toll-free, period,” Trump said last Tuesday. “When it opens permanently, it’ll be toll-free.”

He added Monday that “we have an agreement where it’s going to be open, and it’s toll-free. We had a little argument on that; it’s toll-free.”

Trump previously made a similar promise in an interview with The New York Times’s David Sanger, saying the strait would be “permanently toll-free.”

But Iran has not said that. In fact, it has previewed a plan under which it would charge “fees” for certain services. And The New York Times reported Tuesday morning that it has already set this plan in motion.

The mere fact that the MOU only makes the strait free of charge for 60 days would suggest this is a real sticking point.

And the dispute is apparently still serious enough — despite Trump’s assurances — that this weekend he threatened to “take over” the strait and have the United States charge for passage.

The answer to that question is usually a pretty easy one — especially when dealing with authoritarian regimes like Iran.

But Trump’s tendency to make wild and false claims makes it more complicated.

This is a president, after all, who suggested more than three dozen times over more than two months that an Iran deal was right around the corner. He said more than two months ago that Iran had already “agreed to everything” he was demanding — when it clearly hadn’t.

Similarly, Trump and his administration claimed last year’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites had “obliterated” its nuclear program. Trump went so far as to say the strikes had also obliterated the “future nuclear capability of Iran.”

But CNN and others reported that early US intelligence assessments did not back up these claims. And sure enough, eight months later, Trump was launching a war by citing, yet again, the supposedly imminent nuclear threat that Iran posed.

Put plainly: The Trump administration has major credibility problems, too.

And that also applies to the known terms of the current negotiations.

For instance, before the MOU was released last week, Trump was asked if it included “a $300 billion fund funded by Gulf allies.” He said that was “false.” But sure enough, the MOU contains such a reconstruction fund.

Vance and the administration also broadly dismissed claims about the MOU from Iranian media as “propaganda.” A White House spokesman also said a draft version of the MOU published by CNN last week did “not reflect the language of the actual MOU.”

But many of the Iranian claims wound up being echoed in the actual MOU. And the final document was similar to the draft version CNN published, with some language differences.

It’s also worth asking, if some of these concessions to the US side are so ironclad and were able to be agreed to so quickly, why didn’t they appear in the MOU? Why was that document so heavily weighted toward the Iranians?

The Trump administration has suggested that’s because of the delicate politics involved on Iran’s side of the negotiations — and even that there are some secret handshake agreements that weren’t enumerated in the document.

But the politics are delicate in the United States right now, too. And the administration’s just-trust-us approach might not cut it.

Few in US say Iran war was worth it; Trump approval ties lowest of term, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

2026-06-23T17:48:35.023Z / Reuters

U.S. President Donald Trump attends the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 21, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Summary

• Trump’s approval rating falls to 34%, returning to lowest level of his second term
• 63% of Americans said a truce with Tehran was unlikely to last
• Only 23% said the US was stronger after the war with Iran

WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) – Just one in four Americans believes President Donald Trump’s war with Iran was worth its costs ‌and a majority worry that a truce with Tehran is unlikely to last, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

The five-day poll, which closed on Monday, also showed the war weighing heavily on Trump’s popularity, with his approval rating dropping to 34%, a return to the lowest level of the Republican’s second term that was last touched in an April survey.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Only ​23% of Americans — including just half of Republicans — think the U.S. is now in a stronger position with Iran compared with its position ​before the war, the poll found. Some 35% of respondents think it is in a weaker position. The rest ⁠said they were not sure or that the U.S. position was about the same as before.

Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a preliminary deal ​on June 17 that would reopen oil and gas shipping lanes that were frozen by the conflict, while easing U.S.-led economic pressure on Iran.

The deal ​has led to a rapid drop in global crude oil prices, although for most Americans the price of gasoline remains considerably higher than it was before the February 28 U.S.-Israeli strikes that started the war. Iran responded to the initial attack with strikes that shut down a fifth of the global oil trade and damaged energy facilities of ​U.S. regional allies.

NOT WORTH THE COSTS

Only 24% of Americans think the war with Iran was worth the costs, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed. Half of ​poll respondents said the conflict was not worth it and the rest were unsure.

Some 63% of Americans think it unlikely that the deal Trump signed will lead to ‌lasting peace ⁠between the two countries. About half of Republicans and eight in 10 Democrats said the deal was unlikely to deliver peace. Just 18% of Americans — including 10% of Democrats and 34% of Republicans — see lasting peace as likely.

Trump won the 2024 presidential election after promising to reduce inflation and keep America out of costly foreign wars. His political brand has long leaned on his background as a deal-making real estate developer and reality television star.

Trump’s approval ​rating on the cost of living, at ​22%, was near the lowest ⁠level of his presidency and below the rating of his Democratic predecessor in the White House, Joe Biden, at the end of his presidency.

MIDTERMS LOOM

Trump started his current term with a 47% approval rating, but his popularity has ​suffered amid high rates of inflation as well as controversy over his aggressive efforts to deport people in ​the country illegally, ⁠which have included deadly confrontations with pro-immigration activists.

His falling popularity could weigh on his Republican allies when they defend their congressional majorities in the November 3 midterm elections. The Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that just 17% of independent registered voters said they would vote for the Republican in their district if the election were held ⁠today, compared with ​34% who said they would pick the Democrat.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll showed just 37% ​of Americans approved of how Trump has handled immigration, the lowest of his term and down from 40% in the prior Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The latest poll gathered responses from 1,262 U.S. adults ​nationwide and its results had a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.

Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Scott Malone and Edmund Klamann

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Jason Lange is a Washington correspondent focused on political data. Send tips to jason.lange@thomsonreuters.com

Trump administration charges 455 people, including doctors, with $6.5 billion in healthcare fraud

2026-06-23 3:04 PM ET / CNN

By Tami Luhby

FBI Director Kash Patel, flanked by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , speaks during a press conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC on Tuesday.

Ken Cedeno/AFP/Getty Images

In the Trump administration’s latest effort to crack down on fraud, the Justice Department on Tuesday unveiled charges against 455 people for their alleged participation in healthcare fraud and opioid abuse schemes.

The defendants, who included 90 doctors and other healthcare professionals, were involved in $6.5 billion worth of fraud that involved false claims and resulted in significant harm to patients, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

“This is just the beginning. Fraudsters can no longer rip off American taxpayers,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a press conference Tuesday. “If you seek to harm or cheat Americans, we will find you, seize any assets and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.”

Officials highlighted one defendant who they claim rubber stamped a student’s cardiovascular test as normal without alerting the family that his heart was enlarged. The 18-year-old college basketball player, Kaiden Francis, died weeks later during a workout.

A record 45 states and territories participated in this year’s National Health Care Fraud Takedown, which Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted during the press conference. The Trump administration has clamped down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud in several, primarily Democratic-led states, leading their governors to claim political bias.

The administration has been particularly focused on healthcare fraud. Dr. Mehmet Oz, who runs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has been one of the leading players — drawing on his TV background to film videos in areas he claims are hotspots for fraud. The agency is looking to stop payments for fraudulent claims before they are made.

“Healthcare fraud steals from taxpayers, exploits vulnerable patients and puts lives at risk,” Kennedy said in a statement.

The cases included fraudulent wound care claims, which resulted in $2 billion in Medicare payments to one Arizona company and another $906 million scheme in Texas. In another case, one California hospice owner allegedly paid a funeral home employee for information about the recently deceased to fraudulently bill Medicare for a few days of hospice services.

The takedown also included charges against 295 defendants and more than $518 million in false claims submitted to Medicaid — the largest number of people charged and funds lost to fraud in the Justice Department’s history.

Last year, the Justice Department charged 324 defendants with more than $14.6 billion in alleged fraud during its annual takedown effort.

Army looking into using 2 U.S. ranges for testing to mimic electronic jamming seen in Ukraine

June 23, 2026 / 1:54 PM EDT / CBS News

The Army in the next four to six weeks plans to set up at least two domestic ranges that mimic realistic conditions on Ukraine battlefields, according to Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

“You can have a kind of electronic warfare and all of the contested environment created, and you can have drone manufacturers and counter-drone tool-builders engaging together,” Driscoll told reporters Tuesday. “Then, we also want soldiers to be able to go there, so that they can strengthen their skills and work hand-in-hand with developers.”

Driscoll said there are already places in the U.S. where the Army can test safely, and separately, the Army is looking at a global range outside the U.S. to do “much more aggressive testing,” including with hypersonics. When asked, Driscoll declined to say where these ranges would be until planning is farther along.

At least some of the current counter-drone training for soldiers, like one CBS News saw in April, does not include electronic jamming — in part because the U.S. restricts jamming domestically.

Driscoll made the comments while attending an industry day the Army held to talk to companies about the Pentagon’s push for more systems to intercept drones or missiles.

Dwayne Hayes, an official from the Army’s Strategic Threats Office, told participants that Russia is producing about 3,000 to 5,000 one-way attack drones, like Shaheds, per month and roughly 600,000 per month of the smaller first-person-view drones. Faced with that threat, Ukraine produces about 30,000 interceptor drones per month, according to Hayes.

Hayes said the U.S. is “really good” at producing “exquisite” munitions — the more expensive, advanced and technical weapons like Patriot or THAAD interceptor missiles — but also needs to make interceptors that are cheap enough to be expendable in a “brutal war of attrition,” like the one in Ukraine.

The Iran war has highlighted vulnerabilities in the defense industry, particularly in speed and cost of production. President Trump met with major defense companies earlier this year and is expected to meet again with them this week to press them for faster production.

Some companies expected to attend — like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and L3Harris — produce parts for more exquisite munitions, like the Patriot interceptor missiles that can each cost $4 million to $5 million.

At the same time, the Army is soliciting information from a broader array of companies in the next few months for proposals on interceptors that would cost less.

“This is not intended to replace the solutions that we have — they’re incredible,” Driscoll said of the exquisite munitions. He told the industry-day participants, “They’ve been described as the ‘Ferrari’ of products, and it is, but we need some other things to supplement those products.”