博客

House Democrats fracture badly over Massie amendment to cut $3.3B in U.S. aid to Israel

2026-07-15T16:46:44-04:00 / Fox News

Katherine Clark, the second-ranking Democrat, broke with Hakeem Jeffries, in a notable intraparty rift over Israel

By Adam Pack , Tyler Olson Fox News

Published July 15, 2026 4:46pm EDT

Top Democratic lawmaker faces scrutiny over allegations that Israeli settlers detained him

‘Fox News @ Night’ panelists Jessica Millan Patterson and Elizabeth Pipko discuss Rep. Ro Khanna’s, D-Calif., claims that Israeli settlers detained him during his West Bank visit.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democrats split sharply over legislation to terminate aid to Israel, highlighting hardening attitudes toward the Jewish state as support for the Palestinian cause grows within party ranks.

House lawmakers voted 104-313 to reject an amendment that would have cut $3.3 billion in foreign aid to Israel for the next fiscal year in a vote that even split House Democratic leadership, which declined to whip members either way.

The hotly contested vote gave lawmakers their first chance this Congress to weigh in directly on taxpayer-funded aid to Israel.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joined 97 other Democrats in opposing its elimination, while the chamber’s second-ranking Democrat, Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., joined 102 other Democrats in supporting the measure. Ten Democrats voted present.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/House-Dem-leadership.jpg
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks alongside Rep. Pete Aguilar and Rep. Katherine Clark during a news conference in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 8, 2026.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

DOZENS OF DEMS FLIP ON ISRAEL, VOTE TO BAN ARMS SALES IN PROTEST OF IRAN WAR

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., a leading Israel critic, offered the measure as an amendment to a State Department appropriations bill, calling the country the “biggest welfare recipient of the United States.”

He was the lone Republican to support the amendment.

Opponents argued the measure would damage one of the United States’ most critical relationships in the Middle East amid the Iran war and hamper Israel’s ability to combat terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

“The same terrorists and terrorist entities that threaten Israel also threaten the United States and our people directly,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., said Wednesday. “When we give Israel the tools and capabilities to eliminate these terrorist threats … we are making America and the American people safer.”

The Florida Republican also noted that the vast majority of the funding is used by Israel to purchase American-made weaponry, supporting the U.S. industrial base.

Several prominent Democrats agreed, offering sharp criticism of the Massie amendment.

“This amendment would embolden the enemies of peace, those pursuing the complete elimination of Israel and those who seek the death of Jews,” former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said during debate on the measure.

Despite the Massie amendment failing overwhelmingly, supporters still took a victory lap.

“More Democrats than ever before voted to stop sending money to Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, despite the fact that this amendment was an imperfect vehicle for our movement,” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar, D-Texas, said following the vote. “Tomorrow we get back to work to build a Democratic Party that spends taxpayer dollars on working people, not an out of control military abroad. We will win.”

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/Thomas-Massie.jpg
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., speaks to members of the media outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, June 25, 2026.(Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

MIKE HUCKABEE REJECTS RO KHANNA’S ISRAEL VISIT CLAIMS: ‘NOT HELD AT GUNPOINT’

Jeffries, who announced his opposition to the Massie amendment during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, argued the measure was poorly drafted. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., the third-ranking House Democrat, agreed.

“As written, it is overly broad in that it prohibits or would limit the use of funds for longstanding initiatives related to humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, peace-building and U.S. Embassy operations,” Jeffries wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter, adding that U.S. policy toward Israel must change.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif

Clark, his deputy, and a bevy of Democrats rejected his position, arguing the country’s war in Gaza — an event some lawmakers have labeled a genocide — necessitated a need to end financial support to the Jewish state.

“If we hope to change Israel’s behavior, we must use our leverage,” Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, said on the House floor. “The American people have seen this tragedy with their own eyes. … They do not support giving Israel more weapons.”

Massie’s amendment did not include language preventing non-military aid from also being cut off.

“It’s really bad for our ally, for our national security. They shouldn’t be messing around like this,” Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, told Fox News in June.

The Ohio Democrat also accused Republicans of putting the measure on the floor to expose divisions among his party.

Wednesday’s vote comes as a growing number of Democrats take an increasingly hard line against Israel, according to recent polling.

An NBC News survey released in March found that 67% of Democratic voters have more sympathy for Gaza than Israel, while just 17% said the opposite.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/Israel-flag.jpg
A marcher carries a large Israeli flag while wearing a blue Yeshiva Derech HaTorah shirt and walking up Fifth Avenue with fellow marchers at the Israel Day on Fifth parade in New York.(Sal Media)

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif

Three socialists trounced establishment-aligned candidates in New York’s June primaries while largely running on opposition to Israel.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who supports terminating U.S. aid to Israel, was pressed to support Hamas’ Oct. 7 invasion of Israel during an interview with a leftist news outlet Tuesday.

Though Khanna declined to say the brutal attack was justified, the questioning was viewed by several Democratic commentators as reflective of growing hostility toward Israel within the party.

Given changing attitudes, some Democrats predicted Massie’s amendment would draw significant support.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if it was quite large because I don’t think this is just an ideological issue. I don’t think this is just a lefty thing,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told Fox News. “I think this is affecting people all across the board.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6401133052112

美军称击中一艘试图驶向伊朗港口的油轮

2026年7月16日 07:01 / 联合早报

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/538743d09cf0d3acc2c8e395f1a60bf7eb75a0a93dc217d0ea608274f48e8752

伊朗坚持，如果无法从与美国达成的谅解备忘录中获益，德黑兰就没有理由遵守协议。图为7月15日，德黑兰一座建筑上展示了一块广告牌，画面描绘了躺在棺材里的美国总统特朗普。 （路透社）

在恢复对伊朗港口的海上封锁后，美国军机周三向一艘试图驶向伊朗港口的空载油轮发射导弹，使其失去航行能力。

美国中央司令部星期三（7月15日）在社媒X平台发布消息说，遭袭的是悬挂库拉索旗帜的贝尔马号油轮，油轮当时正经由公海驶向伊朗石油出口枢纽哈尔克岛，违反美国的封锁令并无视多次警告。一架美军飞机向该船发射“地狱火”导弹，使其丧失航行能力。

美军从美东时间星期二下午4时（新加坡时间星期三凌晨4时）起，恢复对进出伊朗港口和沿海地区船只的海上封锁。美军说，在执行封锁任务后的24小时内，已迫使两艘商船改变航向，并使一艘“不配合”的船只丧失航行能力。

周三早些时候，美军对伊朗发动了新一轮打击。美国中央司令部说，此次打击旨在削弱伊朗威胁霍尔木兹海峡船只航行的军事能力。

伊朗：无法从中获益就没理由遵守谅解备忘录

伊朗首席谈判代表、议长卡利巴夫说，如果伊朗无法从与美国达成的谅解备忘录中获益，那“我们就没有理由遵守这一协议”。

卡利巴夫周三在Telegram发文说，伊朗的国家安全取决于在霍尔木兹海峡维持“伊朗的安排”。

他指出，伊朗在应对与美国的对抗及相关停战谈判时，应立足于国家利益、国家安全及长远考量。他并补充道，德黑兰别无选择，只能依靠自身力量。

House vote exposes Democrats’ widening divide over Israel

July 15, 2026 at 5:50 p.m. EDT / The Washington Post

The symbolic vote showed how far Democratic politics on Israel have shifted, as progressive candidates turn anger over Gaza and U.S. military aid into a campaign issue.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/QJ4U7M3WQ2VVMWLYWRDDIQRG2U_size-normalized.jpg

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) voted against the amendment. (Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

By Matthew Choi

A striking number of House Democrats — 103 — voted Wednesday to cut off military aid to Israel for the next fiscal year, in a sign of the growing disconnect between the Democratic leadership’s long-standing support for the Jewish state and the party’s left wing.

Over 100 House Democrats vote to block billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, reflecting growing schism in party

2026-07-15 5:30 PM ET / CNN

By Annie Grayer

Updated 1 hr 29 min ago
Updated Jul 15, 2026, 6:16 PM ET
PUBLISHED Jul 15, 2026, 5:30 PM ET

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/c-gettyimages-2284695487.jpg

The US Capitol building is seen on July 4, in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

More than 100 House Democrats voted to block billions of dollars in military aid to Israel — an ultimately unsuccessful effort that highlighted the growing division in their party on the issue.

On Wednesday 103 Democrats voted in support of an amendment to block aid that had been proposed by GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, a persistent critic of President Donald Trump who has been skeptical of US support for Israel. One Republican also signed on. But the measure ultimately failed 104-314. 98 Democrats voted against it and 10 voted present, meaning they did not weigh in on the issue.

Even the top three lawmakers in House Democratic leadership split on the issue. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar voted against it, while House Minority Whip Katherine Clark voted for it.

Progressive Democrats celebrated the seismic shift in their party where, for the first time, the majority of House Democrats voted to block billions in military aid to Israel. Two years ago, only 37 Democrats voted to block aid to Israel when presented with a similar vote.

“Think about this just for a moment. Starting today, a majority of Democrats in this building refused to vote to send billions of dollars in weapons to the Israeli military,” Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said following the vote. “That sends a strong message to Netanyahu that the days are over of an unaccountable blank check to his wars and his war crimes, at least from the Democratic Party”

He added: “Nothing will be the same on this issue ever again I think after this vote.”

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar said that as the vote was occurring, she reflected with fellow progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian member of Congress, about what the moment meant.

“When we got here, a day like today, the kind of vote that was taken today, did not seem possible,” Omar said.

Knowing that their caucus would be divided on the issue, House Democratic leadership intentionally did not whip ahead of the vote, and Jeffries instead encouraged members to vote their conscience. For weeks, Democratic lawmakers have been meeting privately to have “family discussions,” as multiple members described it, about how to approach the vote.

Even Democrats who voted for Massie’s amendment, like Clark, argued it was deeply flawed because it also blocked humanitarian funding for Palestinian refugees and civilians in Gaza. Some argued the measure was designed to drive a wedge among Democrats.

“This is not an attempt to have a serious and necessary debate about offensive military aid to Israel. It’s more stunts from Congressional Republicans who would rather score cheap political points than lead,” Clark said in a statement announcing her vote. “However, it is clear that the status quo is not tenable. We should not provide a blank check for military aid to any country that does not comply with U.S. law, interests, and values.”

Some Democrats sought to downplay the divisive vote and pin the issue back on Republicans.

“We’ve allowed ourselves to tie ourselves up in knots about something that was never, ever going to advance anyway. But to Hakeem’s credit, he said vote your conscience,” Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan, who voted against the measure, told CNN.

But this vote also signals that the ground is shifting for House Democrats as the party grapples with its position on US foreign policy towards Israel. Many on the left are demanding a dramatic change in course.

“There is a tremendous pent-up desire among most Democrats to signal a change in policy towards Israel and in the region,” said Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman, who voted present, meaning he did not take an official position on the matter. “For many of my colleagues this Massie amendment is an appropriate vehicle to make that statement.”

This story has been updated with additional details.

Trump to allege Chinese meddling in U.S. elections in primetime speech, sources say

July 15, 2026 6:48 PM EDT / CBS News

By Jennifer Jacobs

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/headshot-600-jennifer-jacobs.jpg Jennifer Jacobs Senior White House reporter

Jennifer Jacobs is a senior White House reporter at CBS News.

Read Full Bio

Jennifer Jacobs

Part of President Trump’s speech Thursday night is expected to touch on previously unreported alleged Chinese meddling in U.S. elections, according to sources familiar with the matter.

One component: Allegations that Beijing compromised U.S. voter data and evidence the CIA knew about the action and didn’t share that information with Mr. Trump during his first term.

The audience for the primetime speech is expected to include members of the president’s cabinet. Among those invited are the heads of CIA, FBI, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Department of Homeland Security, as well as other agencies and staff. Some cabinet members will not be there due to scheduling conflicts.

Asked for comment on the contents of the president’s address, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: “As usual, anonymous sources are speculating about what President Trump will say during his speech on Thursday evening. The truth is, nobody knows yet what President Trump will ultimately say, which is why everyone should tune in.”

This is a breaking story; it will be updated.

How the SAVE Act could impact elections
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/election-law-expert-breaks-down-save-act-amid-trump-push/ Election law expert on breaks down the SAVE Act amid Trump push (03:05)

法国议会通过法案 绝症患者可申请协助死亡

2026年7月16日 07:31 / 联合早报

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/c2315deb4c7a5aa37e2743b28bf7814be58decbcce9870776274afea4b855845

法国国民议会周三通过具里程碑意义的协助死亡法案。图为议员们在法案的表决结果公布后鼓掌致意。 （路透社）

法国国民议会周三最终通过一项法案，允许患有不治之症的成年人享有“协助死亡”的合法权利。

法案规定，在符合严格条件的情况下，患有不治之症的成年人可获得致死药物。​​药物既可由当事人自行服用，也可在当事人因身体状况无法自行操作的情况下，由医生或护士协助给药。

申请“协助死亡”（assisted dying）的资格仅限于身为法国公民或在法合法居留的成年人；这些人须患有严重且无法治愈、危及生命并处于晚期或终末阶段的疾病，因疾病承受持续的身心痛苦，并能够作出自由且知情的选择。

在最终表决中，法国国民议会以291票赞成、241票反对通过法案。

此次投票意味着法国总统马克龙三年多前提出的这项立法正式完成议会程序。法国由此加入少数允许这一权利的国家行列，其中包括荷兰、比利时、瑞士和加拿大。美国也有几个州允许为绝症患者提供医疗协助死亡。

民调显示，法国公众广泛支持允许协助死亡。据民调机构Ifop今年2月发布的调查结果，这项法案获多达84%的法国人支持。

支持者认为，法案将在维持严格保障措施的同时，赋予那些在生命尽头承受难以忍受痛苦的人们更大的自主权，让他们能掌控自己的死亡方式。

包括部分医疗界人士和宗教团体在内的反对者则认为，将协助死亡合法化可能会给弱势群体带来压力。天主教会也是反对法案的团体之一，甚至有一名主教威胁称，将拒绝向支持法案的议员提供圣餐。

The downside of making Daylight Saving Time permanent

2026-07-15T16:11:15.104Z / CNN

One of the most famous quotes about politics is Otto von Bismarck’s observation that it’s the “art of the possible.”

But when it comes to Daylight Saving Time, a more apt version comes from economist John Kenneth Galbraith’s 1962 letter to President John F. Kennedy: “Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.”

Congress is yet again flirting with eliminating the United States’ twice-yearly ritual of changing the clocks by an hour — this time, by making Daylight Saving Time permanent. The House voted in favor of that change Tuesday by an overwhelming margin, 308-117.

But in many ways, this issue epitomizes political populism run amok.

Changing clocks is bad and we don’t like it? OK, then let’s just stop doing that! If the status quo is bad, then the alternative must be better.

Indeed, to hear some supporters of this effort tell it, this is a virtually cost-free maneuver — a no-brainer with no discernible downsides.

It’s called the Sunshine Protection Act, after all. Who could oppose protecting sunshine? President Donald Trump, who supports the move, wrote in May that it would give people “a longer, brighter Day.”

“And who can be against that?” he added.

Well, as it turns out, lots of people can be. Because they were when the United States tried this back in the 1970s. Americans were soon reminded that there was a good reason that we started changing the clocks in the first place. And public opinion turned on a dime.

In the midst of an energy crisis, President Richard Nixon proposed making Daylight Saving Time permanent for the next two winters in order to conserve it. And the change was quickly implemented for the winter of 1973-74.

But polls showed support falling off a cliff. Data from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago showed 79% supported the change in December; that fell to 42% by February. Other polls showed support dropping even lower.

The move didn’t actually save much energy, according to a later study from the Department of Transportation. But it did produce a series of other changes that, it turned out, were problematic.

Among them, as Daylight Saving Time scholar Michael Downing wrote in 2005, were that it put clocks out of sync with Europe, made religious rituals related to sunrises more difficult, and, contrary to popular opinion, wasn’t popular with farmers.

But at the top of the list was the months of cold, dark mornings it created. While supporters of permanent Daylight Saving Time pitch it as increasing sunlight, it really just shifts it later in the winter.

What that means, practically speaking, is that many Americans go to school and work in the dark for months on end. The Washington Post in 2024 produced some great visualizations on what this change means for all corners of the country.

A few telling points:

• Some parts of Michigan, North Dakota and Montana would see their latest sunrises start after 9:30 a.m.
• The latest sunrises in Indianapolis and Seattle would be around 9 a.m.
• Washington, DC, for example, wouldn’t see the sun rise before 8 a.m. for more than two and a half months.
• Parts of more than half a dozen states would see at least five months of no sunrises before 8 a.m.

The biggest downside of adopting this permanently meant putting children at the bus stop in the cold and dark — which some feared was deadly.

Time magazine reported in February 1974 that eight Florida children had died in early morning traffic accidents a month after the change took place, compared to just two in the same period the year prior. When Congress voted to nix the change later in 1974, The New York Times quoted an anonymous House member saying: “There seemed to be some indication that there were more deaths, and everyone got a little nervous.”

It’s valid to ask whether keeping the clocks on Daylight Saving Time actually led to deaths — or, more specifically, whether it led to more deaths than changing the clocks does. The latter, after all, could lead to accidents by throwing off people’s circadian rhythms and putting them behind the wheel when they might be sleep deprived. An academic study in 2016 estimated that changing the clocks “caused over 30 deaths at a social cost of $275 million annually.”

But that gets at the key point here. This is a choice between suboptimal options created by how our society functions and how sunlight hours shift over the course of the year because of Earth’s rotation.

And too often, proposals to stop changing clocks are treated like a simple fix for an annoying thing.

The Senate passed this change by unanimous consent — in other words, without lengthy debate — back in 2022.

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa remarked at the time: “All I know is, constantly, every year, my wife wants it to be permanent.”

But GOP Sen. Tom Cotton later expressed regret for not objecting and has become a passionate opponent of this change, for many of the reasons described above.

The Arkansas Republican has warned his colleagues to learn the lessons of 1974. And some appear to have obliged, given the change only passed narrowly in the Senate Commerce Committee last year, 16-12 — after no objections in the entire Senate just three years prior.

“Not every human problem has a legislative solution,” Cotton said last year. “Sometimes we have to live with an uneasy compromise between competing priorities and interests. That’s doubly true when considering how the movement of the stars and the planets affects the lives of 350 million souls spread across our vast continental nation.”

That doesn’t exactly fit on bumper sticker. But it’s a good point.

Trump spy nominee Clayton will not directly say Biden won 2020 election

2026-07-15T17:53:02.571Z / Reuters

WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the top U.S. spy, Jay Clayton, refused on Wednesday to directly acknowledge that the Republican president lost the 2020 election despite repeated questioning by Democrats in his Senate confirmation hearing.

Trump “isn’t in the room today,” Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona told Clayton. “If you can’t disagree with him when he’s not in the room, are you going to be able to disagree with him when you’re sitting across from him?”

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Propelled by Trump’s claims that U.S. elections are “rigged” and his refusal to accept his 2020 electoral loss to Democrat Joe Biden, the administration has sought to increase federal oversight of U.S. elections. Legal experts say such an effort would take power away from states in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Clayton said only that Biden had been “certified” as president, while saying, “I am not an election denier.”

Trump will deliver a national address on Thursday night about newly declassified intelligence on U.S. elections and what the White House calls voting machine vulnerabilities.

Clayton’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on his nomination to serve as director of national intelligence led to shouting when he repeatedly refused to acknowledge that Biden had been elected in 2020.

Pressed by Kelly on whether the winner was the person certified as the victor by Congress and who had the most electoral votes, Clayton said: “I think that’s your characterization. I’m really, I’m not going to continue.”

Lawmakers also questioned Clayton about his recent subpoenas of New York Times journalists in his current role as the U.S. Attorney for Manhattan.

Wednesday’s hearing was the second for Clayton scheduled by the intelligence panel, after Trump last month ordered the abrupt postponement of his first one to put pressure on Congress to pass a contested package of election restrictions known as the SAVE America Act.

That measure remains stalled because it lacks enough votes to pass the Senate. Voting rights groups say it would disenfranchise millions of Americans with no ready access to passports and birth certificates.

Democrats had seemed amenable to confirming Clayton, hoping to quickly replace the acting DNI, Bill Pulte, a close Trump ally and Federal Housing Finance Agency director, who lacks national security and intelligence experience. Pulte replaced Tulsi Gabbard, who left the job in June.

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the committee’s Republican chairman, said he intended to hold a vote early next week on Clayton’s nomination and send it for consideration by the full Senate.

Jay Clayton, U.S. President Donald Trump’s nominee to be Director of National Intelligence, testifies during a Senate Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 15, 2026.

POLITICIZING INTELLIGENCE?

Lawmakers questioned Clayton about subpoenas he issued on Friday ordering New York Times journalists to testify before a federal grand jury after reporting on security concerns involving Trump’s new Qatari-donated Air Force One.

The newspaper described the move as “an extraordinary escalation” in Trump’s efforts to intimidate journalists, a view echoed by some senators. The Justice Department said it was not aimed at journalists but at officials leaking sensitive information.

Clayton said the subpoenas were “in connection with an ongoing national security investigation,” and that they were issued as part of a “consultative process” with career prosecutors in his office.

“I’m absolutely committed to and respect our First Amendment and the role of the press,” Clayton said, adding that he did not want to discuss the case in detail.

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the committee’s senior Democrat, called on Clayton to refrain from what Warner charged were “repeated attempts” to politicize intelligence by Gabbard and Pulte.

The director of national intelligence, overseer of the 18-agency U.S. intelligence community, acts as the president’s top intelligence adviser, and is expected to be nonpartisan and to present and defend intelligence analyses that may not support the views of the Oval Office.

Warner said one of his greatest concerns was how Pulte might misuse extremely sensitive intelligence about U.S. elections that he is expected to declassify for Trump’s address on Thursday.

“I just don’t understand how Mr. Pulte … can end up figuring out what is appropriate or not appropriate (to declassify) since he’s been in the job for only three weeks,” Warner said.

Clayton said he was not involved in preparations for Trump’s speech.

Clayton lacks extensive traditional intelligence agency experience, but said he has worked on security matters while chairing the Securities and Exchange Commission and as Manhattan U.S. Attorney, a position in which he has been handling the prosecution of deposed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Since assuming his acting position last month, Pulte has announced repeated rounds of staff reductions, as some Republicans urge the elimination of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Clayton pushed back, saying there was a need for a “focal point for coordination across the other 17 intelligence agencies.” But he added that ODNI should “probably pull back” from involvement in operations and from functions performed by other agencies.

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle, Jonathan Landay and Luc Cohen; Editing by Don Durfee, Edmund Klamann, Philippa Fletcher, Rod Nickel

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Former Obama White House attorney says ‘it was a mistake’ to deal with Epstein and she regrets it

2026-07-15T16:32:38.962Z / CNN

Former Obama White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler said she regrets interacting with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and believes now it was a mistake, according to opening remarks she delivered to House committee investigators as part of a closed-door interview.

“If I knew then what I know now about who Epstein really was, I never would have accepted an initial meeting with him. It was a mistake to deal with him, and I regret it,” Ruemmler said, according to prepared remarks provided to CNN. “But many people assume that given everything we know now about Epstein, everyone who dealt with him before his 2019 indictment must have known everything then. In my case, that assumption is completely wrong.”

Ruemmler was called to testify voluntarily by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee for a closed-door interview as part of the congressional probe into Epstein after numerous news stories scrutinized her ties to the disgraced financier. Reporting from CNN’s KFILE detailed the extent of her relationship with Epstein, including that she was among a small group of advisers to help him ward off legal and reputational risk during the final years of his life.

Ruemmler did not specifically address how she sought to help Epstein protect his reputation in her opening remarks but did say, “even though I wasn’t his lawyer, he sought my advice from time to time, as many people do. I was friendly with him in that context, and I dealt with him in my ordinary course — casually, informally, and sometimes irreverently.” She also said that Epstein was never her client.

She said that she first met Epstein in 2014 — and explained how she came to learn about how Epstein pled guilty in 2008 to charges that included the solicitation of a minor for prostitution along with other offenses and why she continued to engage with him.

“Epstein told me that, while a small number of the women he had solicited for prostitution turned out to be under the age of consent, he had not known that any of them were underage. Epstein appeared to be quite open about the conduct leading to his conviction, or so he led me to believe. He expressed remorse, embarrassment, and regret for his conduct, which he described as paying money for sex to women he believed to be over the age of 18,” Ruemmler said in her opening statement.

“Notwithstanding his conviction, by the time I met him, he had active relationships with an extensive group of respected professionals in business, academia, politics, and the arts. And given the nature of my law practice, I routinely dealt with compromised or controversial people, including those facing criminal or other allegations of wrongdoing,” she said, while adding that she “at no time” endorsed or excused the conduct to which Epstein pled guilty.

Ruemmler called Epstein a “masterful liar” — and also said that she “did not see any evidence of ongoing criminal conduct or misconduct of any kind by Epstein.”

She said that, “if I had seen or heard any evidence suggesting that he was abusing women or girls, I would have immediately reported him to law enforcement.”

Ahead of the interview, Ruemmler told CNN, “I will answer any questions that they think will help their inquiry. So, again, I’m looking forward to meeting with the committee members today.”

House Oversight Chair James Comer said prior to the start of the interview, “she’s a very powerful person that was probably more involved in working with him to rehabilitate his image, which I would argue has made it more difficult for him to be held accountable. So, very concerning. We want to know what she knew and we have a lot of questions about the extent of their relationship.”

The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Robert Garcia, echoed, “the fact that she continued to engage, give advice, was clearly a friend, and in fact was one of the folks that he was talking to consistently in the last phase of his life I think is really significant. We’ve said from day one that we don’t care if someone is a Republican or a Democrat or what the relationship is, we want truth and answers, and I think that’s what we’ll get throughout the day today.”

As the interview was ongoing, Garcia questioned Ruemmler’s credibility and said it was “problematic” for Republicans to allow her to testify without forcing her to be under oath.

“I think it is difficult to see how she is being completely truthful in there with the answers that she is giving the committee. And the transcript of course will come out,” Garcia told reporters

In February, Ruemmler announced she would resign by June 30 from her job as chief legal officer at Goldman Sachs amid fallout from the Justice Department’s release of Epstein documents.

But Democrats have pressed Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon over his reported effort to retain the bank’s top lawyer months after she announced she would resign.

The Justice Department’s release of millions of pages of Epstein documents provided fresh details about the relationship between the Ruemmler and Epstein.

Amid the hundreds of email exchanges reviewed by CNN that discuss Epstein’s legal battles and reputational problems, there are other more personal communications between the two, including plans for a proposed trip to Epstein’s island and gifts he’d given her.

In some of their back-and-forth messages, Ruemmler discussed personal matters in her life, expressed gratitude for their “friendship,” and concluded her messages with “xo” and “xoxo.”

“There has been much media attention around my email communications with Epstein and gifts that he gave me. Many of my emails with Epstein have been taken out of context or do not mean what some have speculated or suggested. With that said, given what I now know about him, I wish I had never dealt with him at all, much less emailed with him,” Ruemmler said in her opening remarks.

On the gifts specifically, Ruemmer said, “I didn’t ask for them, didn’t need them, and didn’t view them as particularly personal or consequential. I accepted them graciously, as I saw no reason not to. But the gifts weren’t important to me, and I declined to accept some of them. In any event, nothing he gave me caused me to deal with him any differently than I otherwise would have.”

A batch of documents released by the Justice Department on January 30 showed how Ruemmler advised Epstein on lawsuits brought by his accusers and coordinated responses to journalists, including regarding a proposed network TV interview with a victim that never aired.

According to the files, Ruemmler at one point inquired about taking a trip to Epstein’s private island.

In January 2017, Ruemmler asked Epstein whether she could take a “day trip” to the island while she was traveling in the Caribbean. Later that year, after Hurricane Irma severely damaged the island, Ruemmler mused about traveling to the island to help Epstein clean up.

A Goldman Sachs spokesperson previously said Ruemmler never visited the island.

Ruemmler left the Obama White House in 2014 and went to work for Latham & Watkins as head of its white-collar defense group. The firm previously told CNN that Epstein was never a client. In 2020, Ruemmler joined Goldman Sachs and was later promoted to become the firm’s chief legal officer.

In a statement to CNN in December, she said, “I knew Jeffrey Epstein in a professional capacity when I served as head of the white collar defense group at Latham & Watkins, and he was a business referral source. I did not represent him and was not compensated by him. I was one of a number of lawyers Epstein informally reached out to for advice.”

Given that Ruemmler is appearing voluntarily, she will not be sworn in under oath. She will be reminded at the start of the interview, however, that making false statements to Congress is subject to criminal prosecution. Ruemmler is the panel’s 18th witness to appear for an interview as apart of the ongoing Epstein probe.

NYPD officer who saved woman on Brooklyn Bridge says rescue happened on his 3rd day with elite unit

July 15, 2026 / 3:30 PM EDT / CBS News
By Anna Schecter

An officer who saved a woman’s life on the Brooklyn Bridge last week said the rescue happened on just his third day on the job with the New York Police Department’s elite Emergency Service Unit, which takes on some of the most dangerous rescues.

The incident happened on July 8 when a call came in for a person in distress on top of the Brooklyn Bridge, according to the NYPD. After an hour of compassionate negotiation approximately 200 feet above the East River, Officer Cristian Yepes wrapped his arms around the woman and was able to bring her to safety.

“I got you, I promise,” Yepes is heard telling the woman on body camera video.

“The care, courage, and compassion these officers showed was just extraordinary,” Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said in a statement on social media.

The rescue was one of three by the same unit within one week.

“This is what I’ve been training for, this is what I’ve prepared for,” Yepes said in an interview. “And my ultimate goal is to make sure everyone’s safe.”

Yepes was a patrol officer for seven years. He was fresh off the eight months of intensive training required to join the elite unit, and still it was his humanity that helped clinch the rescue.

“Yeah, we have the uniform. Yes, we’re police officers,” he said, “but we’re just human at the end of the day.”

If you or someone you know is in emotional distress or a suicidal crisis, you can reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988. You can also chat with the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline here.

For more information about mental health care resources and support, The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) HelpLine can be reached Monday through Friday, 10 a.m.–10 p.m. ET, at 1-800-950-NAMI (6264).

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/officer-who-rescued-woman-on-brooklyn-bridge-was-in-first-week-on-elite-unit/

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/nypd-rescue.png
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/snapshot-2026-07-14t223223-592.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/san-francisco-bay-capsized-boat-071326.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/silo-rescue-arapahoe-county-sheriff.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/44538609-93bd-4e01-a608-23bd04f810ee_1024x685.jpeg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F90653f74-e1c9-4213-9206-06bfb4f54b7e_1920x1280.heic
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/nypd-rescue.png
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/snapshot-2026-07-14t223223-592.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/san-francisco-bay-capsized-boat-071326.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/44538609-93bd-4e01-a608-23bd04f810ee_1024x685.jpeg