Presumptuous Politics

Monday, June 22, 2026

Meloni's Break With Trump Signals Bigger Shift in Europe

President Trump at G7 on left with Italian prime minister on right in split

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's publicly break with President Donald Trump this past week underscores a broader reassessment of Trump among European conservatives ahead of key elections across the continent.

Meloni's fallout with Trump marks a significant departure from a relationship that once made her one of the American president's closest allies in Europe.

The dispute erupted after Trump claimed in an interview that Meloni had "begged" him for a photograph during the recent G7 summit in France.

Meloni forcefully denied the allegation, calling it "totally invented" and accusing Trump of treating allies with less respect than America's adversaries.

The exchange has become one of the clearest signs of a growing political reality confronting right-leaning leaders in Europe: Association with Trump increasingly carries political risks.

The Financial Times cited Italian political analysts who argued that Trump has become "electorally toxic" in much of Europe, including among segments of the political right.

While Meloni initially sought to maintain close ties with Washington after Trump's return to office, recent disputes over NATO, the war in Iran, tariffs on European exports, and Trump's criticism of Pope Leo have complicated that strategy.

The breakdown comes as Meloni prepares for an upcoming reelection campaign.

Political observers say her willingness to challenge Trump publicly reflects both national pride and political calculation.

Italy's government has sought to distance itself from some of the administration’s foreign-policy positions, including by refusing requests to allow U.S. military operations connected to strikes on Iran to use Italian bases.

Trump's comments about NATO have also fueled growing concern among European conservatives who traditionally favor strong transatlantic ties.

His repeated criticism of the alliance, demands that European members shoulder greater defense burdens, and statements questioning long-standing security commitments have unsettled leaders across Europe, including many on the center-right and nationalist right.

The shift is not limited to Italy.

In France, National Rally President Jordan Bardella, widely viewed as a leading contender in the country's 2027 presidential race, has increasingly distanced himself from Trump.

Bardella recently described Trump's behavior as "erratic" and criticized what he called the U.S. president's "imperial ambitions" regarding Greenland and other foreign-policy issues.

The French conservative leader's comments reflect a broader trend among European right-wing parties that once viewed Trump as a political ally.

While many continue to share his positions on immigration, national sovereignty, and cultural issues, several have become wary of being seen as too closely aligned with a figure whose foreign-policy positions are increasingly viewed as conflicting with European security interests.

Analysts say NATO remains at the center of the divide.

Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine and growing concerns about European defense have strengthened public support for collective security arrangements in many European countries.

As a result, Trump's skepticism toward NATO has become a political vulnerability for leaders seeking to reassure voters about national security.

The public clash between Meloni and Trump represents a remarkable reversal.

Meloni attended Trump's inauguration, maintained close contact with his administration, and was often described as his strongest European partner.

Yet the latest dispute suggests that political realities in Europe are changing.

Whether the split proves permanent remains unclear.

For now, Meloni's break with Trump highlights a broader trend: European conservative leaders increasingly appear determined to chart an independent course, even when it means distancing themselves from a political figure who once inspired many of them.

With elections approaching in several major European nations, Trump's statements and policies may help elect parties staunchly opposed to him and the U.S.

It's Bloody Over: Keir Starmer's Collapse Is Complete

Twenty-four hours ago, Labour insiders were discussing what Keir Starmer's exit might look like.

Monday morning, standing outside Number 10 Downing Street, he confirmed it himself.

Keir Starmer is resigning as Labour leader and Prime Minister and will leave Downing Street once his party chooses a successor, bringing an abrupt end to a premiership that won a landslide less than two years ago.

"The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election.
"I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace.
"That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour Party."

Starmer said he had spoken with King Charles

Samir Hussein/Samir Hussein/WireImage

Monday morning and would remain prime minister until Labour completes a leadership contest expected to conclude before Parliament returns in September.

If you've been following the story over the last ten days, none of this is surprising.

First came "Bloody Thursday."

Defence Secretary John Healey resigned. Hours later, Armed Forces Minister Al Carns

followed him out the door. Seven ministers had quit Starmer's government in a month. The department responsible for Britain's defense was in open revolt.

Healey accused Starmer and the Treasury of refusing to provide Britain's military with the resources needed to confront growing threats.

"You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.
"Without a DIP that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe."

Carns reached a similar conclusion.

"We are asking our Armed Forces to operate in a more dangerous world on a budget written for a calmer one.
"A serious country funds its defence to meet the threat it actually faces, not the threat it wishes it faced."

Governments survive ministerial resignations all the time.

Two senior figures walking out of the Ministry of Defence on the same day is something else entirely.

Then came Makerfield.

Andy Burnham's by-election victory did more than return him to Westminster. It gave Labour MPs something they had been missing for months: an alternative.

Burnham's supporters claimed more than 200 Labour MPs were prepared to back a leadership challenge if Starmer refused to go voluntarily. Whether that number was real or inflated almost didn't matter. The message had already landed.

Over the weekend, reports suggested cabinet ministers, advisers, donors, and trade union leaders were all pushing Starmer toward the same conclusion. One Labour peer told reporters that stopping the "chaos" was no longer possible by staying. Another said the prime minister had run out of support.

By Sunday morning, Labour figures were openly discussing succession.

Read The Entire Bloody Series: Bloody Sunday? Keir Starmer Reportedly Preparing Exit Plan

After 'Bloody Thursday,' Labour Is Already Planning for Life After Starmer

Bloody Thursday for Starmer: Two More Ministers Quit, Seven Gone in a Month

By Monday morning, Starmer was announcing it.

He spent part of the speech defending his record. He pointed to defense spending increases, support for Ukraine, NHS reforms, trade deals, and efforts to reduce illegal migration. He argued that Labour had inherited a broken country and left it stronger than it found it.

That was the case Starmer wanted to make.

The problem is that the people who needed convincing were sitting behind him, not standing in front of him.

Cabinet ministers were urging him to establish a departure timetable. Labour MPs were counting numbers. Burnham was preparing to return to Westminster. By the time Starmer stepped behind the lectern Monday morning, the argument had already been settled inside his own party.

Nigel Farage wasted little time responding, calling for a general election and arguing that Labour should not simply install another prime minister without returning to voters.

In his speech, Starmer promised an orderly transition.

"I will remain in post as Prime Minister until the contest is complete, and I will do everything I can to ensure an orderly handover of power.
"I will also give my successor my full and unequivocal support."

Now Labour gets the fight it spent weeks trying to avoid. Burnham enters Westminster with momentum, Reform UK is demanding a national vote, and potential challengers are still weighing whether to make their move. The leadership question that dominated British politics for days is no longer whether Starmer goes. He is gone.

The question now is whether Labour can convince voters that changing the name on the door will solve the problems that brought Starmer to this point. Ten days ago, he was dealing with a revolt inside his defense ministry. Over the weekend, Labour figures were openly discussing succession. By Monday morning, the prime minister walked outside Number 10 and made it official.

The collapse was fast. The warning signs were not.

Spencer Pratt Lost the Election. City Hall May Have a Bigger Problem Now

Spencer Pratt lost Los Angeles' mayoral race, but he may have found a bigger target.

In an exclusive interview published Sunday by the New York Post, Pratt made clear that his campaign is over, but his fight with Los Angeles' political machine is just getting started. The reality television star-turned mayoral candidate said he feels "energized" after the election and intends to keep up the pressure on City Hall as questions surrounding the race continue to pile up.

Pratt narrowly missed advancing to the November runoff after District 4 Councilwoman Nithya Raman

surged past him on late-arriving mail ballots. For many of Pratt's supporters, the controversy did not end on election night.

It lit the fuse.

'It's War': Spencer Pratt Says Campaign Is Over, but LA's Corrupt Machine Is Now in His Crosshairs

Questions about ballot collection, voter registrations tied to homeless shelters, and voting activity connected to Los Angeles' Skid Row have kept the pressure on Los Angeles officials in the weeks since the election.

Last week, the story reached the feds.

Federal agents were seen interviewing people on Skid Row after allegations surfaced that homeless residents had been paid to sign voter registration forms and provide voter information. The Department of Justice confirmed federal agents were investigating a criminal matter but declined further comment. No charges connected to the mayoral race have been announced, and the allegations remain unproven.

If the allegations are substantiated, this is no longer just a Spencer Pratt story. It becomes a story about whether Los Angeles' election system can survive serious scrutiny.

Pratt told the Post that California's election system has become a major reason voters are losing confidence in the process.

"I feel energized. The California voting system is absurd, and it's making voters check out, because, right or wrong, they don't trust the system," Pratt said. "There is a lot of evidence of fraud that needs to be investigated, but evidence is not the same thing as proof, so we must avoid drawing conclusions until we have proof of malfeasance."

Pratt is not treating the election loss as an ending. He has spent the weeks since the election leaving campaign mode behind and turning himself into a full-time thorn in City Hall's side.

Earlier this month, he released a video declaring that he was moving on from the campaign phase of his effort to "save Los Angeles" and into what he described as a more interesting phase.

Losing the race did not take Pratt off the board. It may have made him more dangerous to the people he was running against.

In the clip, Pratt explains why he believes losing the election may have removed some of the constraints that came with being a candidate.

"Hey morons. I didn't get in this for political power. I got in this to expose this corrupt machine. Nothing's changed. You enjoy your worthless meetings in City Hall. I've been lighting you up every single day and now I don't have to worry about offending CNN viewers. I don't have campaign laws hamstringing me now. It's war."

Pratt also suggested that information uncovered during the campaign could create serious problems for people currently operating inside Los Angeles politics.

"My goal hasn't changed. I've been laser-focused on stopping these commie animals, and I will stop them. If you think we uncovered a lot of fraud and evil in the campaign, just wait. We have some recordings of one of your exalted candidates doing and saying something that would make her resign in shame."

Whether anything ultimately comes from those claims remains to be seen, but it is not hard to understand why that kind of warning would make Los Angeles insiders nervous.

Pratt is not talking like someone who plans to disappear after an electoral defeat.

The Post asked him directly what comes next.

"I'll rest when I'm dead. We are at war with socialism and I will keep hammering these corrupt politicians and force them to meet the needs of us Angelenos. I'm not going anywhere."

That does not sound like a candidate preparing to fade quietly into the background.

For months, much of Los Angeles' political class treated Pratt as a novelty candidate. Then he pulled more than 200,000 votes, nearly forced his way into a runoff, and built a following that remains intensely engaged even after the election.

They mocked him. They underestimated him. Now they may have to deal with him without the limits of a campaign.

The election is over, but the questions surrounding it are not.

Neither, apparently, is Spencer Pratt.

Interesting Poll About the Dems From NY Voters...and Not in a Good Way

Show me the White People in the above photo.

We’ve been through this before, with many voters from the city who claim to dislike left-wing shenanigans, only to end up supporting those figures at the polls. And there’s a reason for it. This survey suggests that the state of the Democratic Party with those in the Big Apple is piss-poor, but not for the reasons you think (via NY Post):

The Democratic Party is run by a bunch of jackasses — according to its own members!
Frustrated Big Apple voters are fed up with Dem leaders, who they feel are failing to advocate for working people — and they want to clean house, according to a stunning new poll.
Half of Democratic voters polled in the 5 Borough Barometer survey, conducted by the Honan Strategy Group, signaled that electing a new generation of younger, more progressive members who will challenge the party establishment is a top priority in this year’s closely-watched congressional primaries.

The astonishing repudiation of the Democratic Party leadership comes as support for the party dwindles, according to the poll.
Only 63% of Democratic voters hold a favorable view of the party overall, while 35% — more than one in three — have an unfavorable view, the survey found.
The high level of discontent gives the Democratic Socialists of America and left-wing allies an opportunity to knock off more incumbents with their slate of insurgent candidates in Tuesday’s primary elections, Honan Strategy Group president and CEO Bradley Honan said.

CNN’s Harry Enten also noted the Democratic Party’s shift towards madness.

Scott Bessent Called Zelensky 'Mr. Bean on Crack'

We all know Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is a savage. He outmaneuvers and outspeaks Democrats at congressional hearings, and he’s now a master of sizing up foreign leaders, too. A new book reportedly revealed the names he used to describe the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky,

SOPA Images/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

whom he advised Trump should not be hosted in the Oval Office. This was before the infamous February 28, 2025, meeting, where Zelensky was bulldozed by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Bessent called this event a diplomatic own goal for Ukraine (via The Guardian):

Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, advised Donald Trump not to host Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, having called the Ukrainian president a “little fucker”, a “special-needs child” and “Mr Bean on crack”, according to a new book.
The suggestion that a US cabinet official described a world leader in such terms is included in Regime Change, a blockbusting account of the second Trump administration by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, set to be published worldwide on Tuesday.
News of Bessent’s alleged remarks may embarrass the Trump administration, although the meeting that did take place on 28 February 2025 proved outright disastrous, as Trump and JD Vance blasted Zelenskyy for not being grateful for aid in his fight against Russian invaders, and for not wearing a suit.
The issue of aid to Ukraine remains at the fore, and was discussed at the G7 summit in France earlier this week.

“Several Trump aides had been worried” about the potential for a blow-up when Zelenskyy came to the White House, ostensibly to seal a minerals deal drafted by Bessent, Swan and Haberman write. Then-national security adviser Mike Waltz “tried – unsuccessfully – to get the message across that Zelenskyy should come wearing a suit”, they continue. “Bessent had strongly recommended to Trump that he not even allow Zelenskyy into the White House before he had signed” the deal.
“‘I’ve dealt with this little fucker,’ Bessent would say to associates about Zelenskyy,” according to the book. “‘He’s tricky. He’s like the special-needs child for the Europeans. And he’s acting like Mr Bean on crack.”
[…]
Zelenskyy did come, and Bessent was in the room as Vance carpeted their visitor. “Others present could see that Vance was steadily turning red,” Haberman and Swan write, as Zelenskyy’s insistence on pushing for security guarantees “began to sound to Vance like impertinence and ingratitude”.
Things went south from there.
After the disastrous meeting, Bessent told Bloomberg that Zelenskyy scored “one of the great diplomatic own goals”, adding: “I was shocked, shocked that President Zelenskyy would come into the Oval Office, behave like this, speak to the president, speak to the vice-president, but more importantly, disrespect the American people like this.”

“Mr. Bean on crack”—that’s amazing.

He's just TOO GOOD at this.
Scott Bessent enrages Rep Larson by simply directing "war" questions to the Secretary of War. pic.twitter.com/ytRDnhO5Ng
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 4, 2026

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Sec. Scott Bessent PUMMELS Dem Sen. Chris Coons' lies that he gave Iran and Russia BILLIONS through sanctions relief
"With PLEASURE, Senator. The $14 billion is a MYTH and unfortunately a DNC TALKING POINT that I've been subjected to many times!" 🔥
"If ANYONE… pic.twitter.com/4jdNYzfCak
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 22, 2026

Trump blasts NYT over reporting of Iran conflict

President Donald Trump blasted The New York Times (NYT) over its reporting of the Iranian conflict, calling the outlet “Corrupt.” The United States commander-in-chief pointed to the destruction of the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities to contrast the claims purported by the newspaper.

“The headline in the Corrupt and Failing New York Times: ‘What Changed After Almost 4 Months of War? Analysts Say Not Much.’ REALLY? Their Military is DONE, their Navy is GONE, their Air Force is GONE, their Launching Pads, Missiles, Drones and Manufacturing of same, is almost GONE, their top two sets of Leaders are GONE, their Inflation is at 250%, their Economy is Broken, their Soldiers aren’t being paid, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN, THE OIL IS GUSHING, and the U.S. Stock Market and Jobs are at records HIGHS. That’s what’s CHANGED, you corrupt and unethical cowards, and MORE!!!” the president posted to Truth Social on Sunday.
His assertions come amidst peace talks taking place in Switzerland between the U.S. and Iran, where Vice President JD Vance is leading the U.S. delegation. However, ongoing conflict between Israel and the Iranian terrorist proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, reportedly threatens to disrupt negotiations.

The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) last week, with the 60-day clock beginning on Thursday to finalize a permanent peace deal.

A Brutal Reality Check for Parents: What the Anthony Verdict Means for Safety

The guilty verdict in the Karmelo Anthony case should sober every parent and taxpayer who still believes our streets and schools are safe. A Collin County jury on June 9, 2026 found Anthony guilty of first-degree murder for the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf, and the community is left grappling with how a day at a high school track meet ended in a death no family should endure.

What happened on April 2, 2025 was brutal and plain: witnesses say a confrontation in the bleachers escalated when Metcalf pushed Anthony, who then pulled a knife and stabbed the student in the chest. The simplicity of the sequence — a shove, a knife, a dead boy — strips away the media’s usual fog of excuses and forces Americans to ask a basic question about accountability.

The courtroom did not buy the narrative of reasonable fear. Jurors rejected Anthony’s claim of self-defense and handed down a prison term intended to reflect the gravity of taking a life in cold blood; judges sentenced him to 35 years behind bars, a hard but necessary answer from the justice system. A verdict and a sentence are not celebration; they are the Republic doing its duty to the grieving family and to public safety.

This case exploded beyond Frisco because it touched raw national nerves about race, youth crime, and whether our institutions protect victims. While some rushed to cast the killing as a symbol or a grievance, the facts show a violent overreaction that cannot be normalized or excused by politics; the jury weighed the evidence and concluded the push did not justify a fatal stab. That is the rule of law working, and it matters that communities insist on it.

We should also be frank about the environment that breeds these tragedies: a culture that tolerates menace and an education system that often lacks discipline and moral instruction. Parents, schools, and local leaders must reassert authority, teach responsibility, and make clear that carrying knives and answering insults with lethal force will end lives and futures, not win social points or headlines.

The Metcalf family’s grief is the clearest indictment of our failure to keep children safe; no amount of punditry or politicized narrative can return a son. Conservatives should lead with steady, common-sense solutions — enforce laws rigorously, support victims, restore order in schools, and rebuild the civic habits that teach young people right from wrong. If we do not demand real accountability now, more families will pay the price.

Britain in Chaos: Violent Attacks Spike, Leaders Try to Hide Reality

Britain is convulsing with a string of savage incidents that should jolt any patriot awake — from knife attacks and arson to street mobs — yet the political class and their media allies are desperate to tuck the ugliness out of sight with comforting narratives. Officials in London have even opened inquiries into a cluster of attacks on Jewish targets and are publicly wrestling with whether foreign actors are involved, a sign that this is bigger than random crime.

In Northern Ireland a brutal stabbing by a Sudanese asylum seeker set off nights of violent anti-immigrant unrest, with communities rightly furious at the apparent failure of border controls and immigration vetting that allowed a dangerous stranger into our midst. The episode exposed the familiar pattern: horrific incident, public alarm, and then calls for calm while the root causes — porous borders and permissive asylum policies — go unaddressed.

In Edinburgh, multiple attacks that left several Muslim residents injured have been treated with the seriousness they deserve, and police arrested a suspect as questions swirl about motives of religious hatred and public safety. These are not isolated blips but part of a national spike in violent incidents that is testing community cohesion and the competence of law enforcement to keep citizens safe.

Worse still, counterterror units have been pulled into investigations after a string of arson and coordinated assaults, and some reports point to the troubling possibility of foreign-state influence or foreign-directed networks stoking discord on British soil. When intelligence chiefs and national investigators raise flags about overseas interference and proxy actors, conservatives are right to demand immediate, decisive action rather than more virtue-signaling pronouncements.

The predictable leftist playbook kicks in next: minimize the perpetrators’ backgrounds, blame “hate” in the abstract, and insist that more migration and multicultural platitudes are the cure for the carnage they helped create. Meanwhile hardworking citizens get lectured on compassion and told to ignore the inconvenient patterns — a betrayal of public trust that leaves ordinary people feeling abandoned and unsafe.

What Britain needs — and what Americans watching should demand from their own leaders — is clarity, competence, and courage: honest reporting of who is committing these crimes, immediate reforms to asylum and border policy, tougher policing where necessary, and accountability for the officials and corporate outlets that obfuscate the facts. If conservatives don’t raise their voices now in defense of law, order, and the rule of law, these stories of violence and cover-up will only continue, and the price will be paid by our neighborhoods and our children.