Articles & Videos

President Donald Trump claimed Monday he was in talks to open the Strait of Hormuz “literally by tomorrow”—while Iran has denied speaking to the United States. Speaking at a press conference to sign an executive order, Trump rambled about ongoing talks with Iran to reopen the strait. “It’s not very complex. We’re talking about the strait, the opening of the strait, having it open, literally by tomorrow. Completely open,” Trump said. The president claimed that would be the first phase before proceeding to denuclearization talks.Trump, who has been claiming the US controls the Strait of Hormuz, now says he's talking with Iran about "opening the Strait literally by tomorrow" 🤔 pic.twitter.com/8hKjbT9BBA— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 3, 2026Don’t hold your breath. Trump has teased an imminent deal with Iran more than three dozen times since the war began six months ago, and this doesn’t appear to be any different. Trump told reporters Sunday that he’d called off another “massive attack,” because U.S. allies in the Middle East believed that Tehran was ready to make “a deal on Hormuz.” The president indicated that the talks would begin Monday. But Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry, told reporters Monday that Iran was not currently in talks with the U.S. He said Iran was in the final stages of discussions with Oman to open the strait.  In response, Trump called Iran’s leadership “unbelievably duplicitous,” claiming in a social media post before the press conference they’d begged him to restart talks.  Still, Trump inexplicably promised there would be progress. “We’re gonna find out today or tomorrow. I mean, they’re gonna go quickly, one way or another,” he said during the press conference. 

The document describes them as insulated “from the realities many Americans were encountering in their lives.”

Questions remain on whether the slush fund debate could be revived sometime in the future.

Strip clubs, casinos, designer purses, guns, an Adam Sandler puzzle, 30 different ice cream flavors, and a private performance of Ed Sheeran’s “Hills of Aberfeldy”: Representative Chuck Edwards has a long pattern of creepy behavior, and the House Ethics Committee just detailed all of it.The House Ethics Committee Monday released a 25-page report on the congressman’s inappropriate conduct towards two young women staffers in his office, accusing him of violating House rules related to “sexual harassment and hostile workplaces.”On pages 5 and 6 of the report, the committee lays out, in detail, a long list of Edwards’s inappropriate conduct, which made the women in his employ feel uncomfortable and unsafe. The list includes lavish vacations, expensive gifts, trips to a staffer’s house to do her yardwork, and messages that made both women uncomfortable. In the case of one staffer, he arranged for a private singer to go to her “birthday party to sing Ed Sheeran’s ‘Hills of Aberfeldy’ and say that it was ‘from a special someone,’” after which the staffer told a friend she was “scared lowkey.” After one staffer went to a restaurant the congressman recommended, he texted her: “I’m burning with jealousy because I wanted to be the person to introduce you to it.” After a staffer accompanied Edwards to a work event, he wrote: “You’re so fun to be with, so easy to talk to, and I love listening to you. By all means—let’s explore more of DC together. We seem to have a fondness for many of the same things. Even where we do not, I’ll enjoy the adventure alongside you!”When the same staffer later left Edwards’s office, he read a poem “at her going away party in the congressional office accompanied by a slideshow, during which he cried. Several staffers present testified that they felt uncomfortable, and Representative Edwards acknowledged in his own testimony that he could tell the staff felt uncomfortable.”The House Ethics Committee noted that many messages central to the investigation were mysteriously missing from the congressman’s phone. Edwards also deleted a photograph of 30 different types of ice cream that he had delivered to a staffers house, as well as her response: “Thank you, but this seems a bit excessive.” “You looked like you needed a lot of cheering up!” the congressman texted back. “My heart was breaking seeing you like that.”When the same staffer later wrote “I don’t think dinner is a great idea,” the congressman responded:It’s disappointing to feel something that used to be easy has gotten complicated. Whether we were talking about cat poop, crime plots, or thoughts more meaningful—I’ve always valued the time we shared, and the money we won :) and I thought you might too. I didn’t expect outside chatter to change that. Still, I understand. You get to set the boundaries, and I get to respect them. If you ever feel easy again, I hope you’ll give me the signal.The House Ethics Committee began investigating Representative Edwards in late April for then-unspecified “allegations.” Reports of inappropriate conduct with two young female staffers soon followed, including a handwritten note from the congressman that read, “Your kindness, encouragement, and light-heartedness have written a complex chapter in my heart that I will never stop reading.”Edwards has been married to his wife, Teresa, since 1980.Despite this mountain of evidence to the contrary, Edwards continues to insist that he did nothing wrong.“Representative Edwards has continued to deny any wrongdoing publicly and to the Committee. He has also refused to acknowledge the reality of the power imbalance between a Member of Congress and young staffers,” the report states. “This shows a lack of self-awareness and accountability.”In one staffer’s testimony before the committee, she said that Edwards completely ignored “the fact that [the staffer was] a young female in politics and that [her] image is everything. And while he can navigate rumors like those that are circulating now without concern because he is, I guess, a male in politics, he had no regard for how something like this could impact my career.”Moving forward, the committee intends to “bring a privileged resolution for consideration and vote by the full House.”This story has been updated.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s supposed deal to end President Trump’s $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” in his settlement with the IRS has a lot of loopholes.As Blanche seems to have stifled a Republican revolt and secured his Senate confirmation, Democrats on Capitol Hill sounded off against the settlement revision, which was announced late Sunday night.As Democrats pointed out, there are some major problems with the rewritten IRS settlement. First, there is no guarantee that Trump won’t later create a separate fund to reward his allies. Second, the IRS agreement granting Trump, his family, and Trump Organization immunity from IRS audits is still in place. Blanche’s only revision is that the immunity deal can’t apply to the future. And third, Blanche’s deal wasn’t signed by all parties, namely Trump, as the original IRS settlement was.“Nothing here stops DOJ from using taxpayer money to pay off January 6th insurrectionists. And it leaves the IRS shield protecting Trump and his family from past audits fully intact,” Democratic Senator Alex Padilla posted on X Monday. “Todd Blanche has always been Trump’s personal lawyer—and this ‘deal’ proves he’s unfit to serve as Attorney General. Congress must pass my legislation to permanently ban any payouts to J6ers.”California’s other Democratic senator, Adam Schiff, also criticized the deal, pointing out that it “doesn’t prevent payouts to violent insurrectionists in the future.”“It doesn’t prevent the admin from bringing the slush fund back from the dead next week or using DOJ’s Judgment Fund for the same illicit purpose,” Schiff posted on X. “It leaves in place a tax-immunity deal that could help Trump skip taxes on the $2.3 billion he made last year, and still leaves it vague who and what is covered.”Representative Daniel Goldman echoed concerns about the IRS audit immunity provision, pointing out that “the ridiculous tax immunity deal still applies to all tax years up to and including this year.“Remember, the lawsuit was a total sham that was withdrawn and this was an addendum that had no relevance or connection to the lawsuit ‘settlement,’” Goldman posted.Trump does not want the weaponization fund to die, complaining that people who were “horribly treated” deserve compensation. Sunday’s deal seems aimed at placating superficial opposition from Republicans who are on their way out of the Senate at the end of this year, without actually addressing the many corrupt issues with Trump’s IRS settlement.

Paramount provided the gifts while the federal agency was reviewing or about to review mergers involving the company.

What do we do if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides not to run for president in 2028? It makes sense that many leftists are currently focused on calling on her to take the plunge. But the absence of a Plan B, or even much discussion about one, is worrisome. The US Left can’t afford to sit out the 2028 [...]