Presumptuous Politics

Thursday, May 28, 2026

Iran Targets American Air Base, US Downs Iranian Attack Drones

US Strikes Iranian Drone Operation Near Hormuz

Iran targeted a U.S. air base on Thursday after the United States struck what Washington described as an Iranian drone operation near the Strait of Hormuz.

The attacks, while limited, highlighted the fragility of negotiations aimed at turning the tenuous ceasefire that took effect in early April into an agreement to end the three-month-old war and reopen the vital shipping route.

A U.S. official told Reuters the military shot down four Iranian attack drones and struck a ground control station in the port city of Bandar Abbas 

Port of Bandar Abbas, Iran Real-Time Live Ship & Marine Traffic - Cruising  Earth 

that was about to launch a fifth drone.

 "These actions were measured, purely ​defensive and intended to maintain the ceasefire," said the official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about military operations.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Profile: Iran's Revolutionary Guards 

 said later that it had targeted the U.S. base responsible for an early morning attack near Bandar Abbas airport, Tasnim news agency reported.

The IRGC, which did not name ⁠the base, said any repeat of what it called aggression would lead to a "more decisive" response.

Kuwait - which hosts a large U.S. base - said it was responding to missile and drone ​attacks without saying where the attacks were coming from.

President Donald Trump told media at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday he was not yet satisfied by the talks with Iran and that the U.S. was not discussing easing sanctions on the country, one of Tehran's demands.

He dismissed an Iranian state TV report about an unofficial draft ‌of an agreement to restore commercial shipping through the strait to prewar levels within a month, with Iran and Gulf state Oman jointly managing traffic.

Trump said no single country would have control over the waterway, and appeared to threaten Oman, a country with which the U.S. has decades-long military and economic ties.

"Nobody's going to control (the strait)," Trump said. "It's international ⁠waters, and Oman will behave just like everybody else or we'll have to ‌blow them up. They understand that, they'll be fine."

Oman has not ⁠said anything about the idea of joint control of the strait with Iran, with which it says it has discussed freedom of navigation. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei 

Iran says having no direct link with ruling group in Syria-Xinhua 

expressed solidarity with Oman after what it called "U.S. officials' threats."

Iran was insisting ⁠on the ⁠United States releasing Iranian funds, the deputy secretary of its National Security Council Ali Bagheri Kani said, according to a Tasnim report.

Ongoing sanctions, the dismantling of Iran's nuclear capacity and the blockage of Hormuz, which handled a fifth of the world's oil and liquefied ‌natural gas traffic before the war, are the major sticking points in talks to end the conflict.

The waterway is covered by international law that guarantees foreign vessels the right to pass through. The U.S. Treasury Department added the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, the Iranian body set up to manage passage through the strait, to a list of sanctioned people and entities seen as posing threats to U.S. national ‌security.

Iranian state TV said ​the draft deal would also have the U.S. withdraw military ‌forces from the immediate vicinity, though it said the issue of U.S. troops in the region needed further discussion. The White House dismissed the report as a "complete fabrication." Tehran did not comment.

Iran's nuclear program, which the U.S. wants disbanded, was not mentioned in the Iranian TV report. Iranian sources have said talks on the ​nuclear issue will come in a second round of negotiations - something that may not be acceptable to some of Trump's closest supporters. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

"The bottom line is Iran's never going to have a nuclear weapon," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said at the cabinet meeting.

 

Talarico Desperately Tries to Clean Up His 'Cringey Comments,' but Just Makes It Worse

Looks like the campaign for Texas Democrat Senate nominee James Talarico has finally realized they have a problem. 

They seemed to go into hyperdrive after Tuesday's runoff primary in Texas to clean it up, but it's a bit late. All of his bizarre comments have been sitting out there for a while, and they've already made a big impression on people. I wrote about how even President Donald Trump hit on some of the weirdness and gifted Talarico with the perfect nickname. 

 After folks laughed at these first two pictures, saying it didn't look like Talarico was ready to take back much, the DNC released a picture of him in a Texas flag-themed shirt (yet again) and gnawing on a beef rib (as though to prove he ate meat).

November, here we come. pic.twitter.com/ux1w1WzGNO

— Democrats (@TheDemocrats) May 27, 2026

Even anti-Trump ex-congressman Adam Kinzinger (IL-16) knew these social media guys were just digging themselves a bigger hole. 

"No offense but you guys need new social media folks," Kinzinger advised them.

No offense but you guys need new social media folks

— Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ (@AdamKinzinger) May 27, 2026

READ MORE: Trump Praises Paxton, Delivers Perfect Nickname for Talarico - Once You See It, You Can't Unsee It

Talarico Really Wants You to Know He Likes Meat 


Talarico also did a CBS News interview with senior political correspondent Ed O'Keefe, spinning and walking back what he admitted were "cringey comments." Which past comments? There are so many bad ones. Please be specific. 

Pro tip? When you're having to explain stuff like this, you're losing. And you know you're losing. This is a real effort to make him look like a moderate. But the problem is that it's so obvious.

Texas state Rep. and Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico responded to GOP attacks over his past remark that God is “non-binary,” telling @edokeefe that some of his previous comments “missed the mark.”

“There are some statements that I’ve made that I certainly regret,”… pic.twitter.com/VRsEXHo6ir

— CBS News (@CBSNews) May 27, 2026

"There are some statements that I've made that I certainly regret," he responded. 

But then he tried to blame Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the GOP Senate nominee, for "intentionally clipping" his "cringey comments." Um, my dude, Paxton isn't doing that - they're your comments that people are reporting on. Paxton didn't make them up. How dare he notice you said weird things?  You said them, you thought them. And the only reason you're talking about them now is in the hope you can get around them and convince Texans that you aren't a weird radical. 

Talarico tried to bring in dirt on Paxton, saying he had a "criminal record," while he, Talarico, had a legislative record. No, Paxton was not convicted of anything. Meanwhile, Talarico doesn't just have big questions about being weird, but big questions about missing votes while serving as a state representative in the Texas House of Representatives. If you're missing more than 800 votes, how will you be there in the U.S. Congress to put Texans first? Listen to him try to spin that. 

James Talarico says that the criticism that he missed over 800 votes in the Texas House is a "Republican talking point" because he "broke quorum to protest redistricting."

Except, there cannot in fact be a vote in the House without a quorum present.pic.twitter.com/ufJ3SaCMYw

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) February 2, 2026

It wasn't just a GOP talking point - his Democrat primary opponent, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), tagged him with this fact too.

Talarico even claimed he called out Joe Biden on the border crisis. But what I found was him saying something long after Biden had left the White House, when Talarico was already campaigning for the Senate. So he keeps spinning, but it's not working.

His justification for his theory that there are six sexes also doesn't really fly. Then, claiming his present campaign now runs on "barbecue," is bizarre when he claimed in 2022 that his campaign at that time was a "vegan campaign" because it was an existential question. 

— Brandon Gill (@realBrandonGill) March 18, 2026

So what you have here is a desperate effort at remaking the candidate, with the help of CBS News. This is a rehab clip, not a questioning interview. If there's one thing that's worse than a weird radical leftist, it's someone who's a phony about his beliefs. If it was "existential" then, why isn't it now? 

If on the first day of the general election campaign, you're already walking things back, you just may have a problem.

 

Let's Go: Ken Paxton Opens General Election Campaign With a Not-So-Gentle Message for James Talarico

Though I find it pretty amusing that there are various "political experts" out there among the Commentariat™ who are now suggesting that the seat currently held by the departing Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) might be flippable, I'm not yet ready to declare any race a "sure thing" one way or the other, considering the current political climate, where things you once thought would never happen have actually happened.

It's hard not to, though, when one considers the goldmine of material Texas Democrat Senate nominee James Talarico has put out there over the years for Trump-backed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the newly minted GOP Senate nominee, to exploit. 

RedState has extensively reported on it, with my colleague Jennifer Oliver O'Connell pointing to the Texas state representative's bizarre claims about how "God is non-binary, whiteness and masculinity are problems to be reckoned with, there are at least six genders," and "the American flag is a problematic symbol" being among the more notable.


READ MORE: James Talarico Hoisted by His Own Words in New PAC Ad Supporting Ken Paxton

Low-T Talarico Really Wants You to Know He Likes Meat (And Makes Buttigieg Look Normal by Comparison)


With the general election campaign season now officially underway, Talarico is trying to run away from his past, admittedly "cringey comments," as RedState previously reported. He's proclaiming that "There are some statements that I've made that I certainly regret," but has alleged that Paxton “is intentionally clipping" things he's said, implying in the process that he was being taken out of context in some instances.

Anyone in Paxton's shoes would be "intentionally clipping" Talarico's past statements, too, because, as noted earlier, there is a treasure trove to use against him that is almost never-ending.

 Paxton and his campaign team are, of course, well aware of this, which is why they've come out of his decisive Tuesday primary runoff victory against Cornyn swinging against Talarico, giving a mere preview of what's to come. "This is Texas. This is not" they repeat throughout, while showing what makes Texas great (its hard-working people) and what doesn't (Talarico):

While it's a tried and true campaign tactic to paint your opponent as an out-of-touch radical, Talarico makes it way too easy, and you can expect Paxton to lean into the "radical" label hard because, well, it's true.

In response to this, for example:

Paxton responded with this:

That's going to leave a mark in a red state like Texas. I can't wait to see what's next.

 

Jill Biden Once Again Shows What a Terrible Person She Is

Jill Biden Once Again Shows What a Terrible Person She Is

It’s been a couple of years, so I guess Jill Biden can now be more open about one of her family's worst moments politically. It was the June debate with Donald Trump on CNN that decided the fate of the failed presidency. Looking back, we should have seen it coming with that terrible video of Joe trying to act tough, eager to have another debate with Trump. The video, which probably wasn't longer than 90 seconds, had more edits than 'Requiem for a Dream.' 

As you know, Trump overwhelmed Biden, who finally acted as many of us suspected he would, given his numerous mental lapses and sluggish demeanor. He was mentally exhausted. All Democrats could do was watch in horror, knowing Donald Trump likely secured the win in the 2024 election that night. It sparked the push to remove him from the ticket, which culminated in July. The former first lady admits that she was horrified by her husband’s performance, thinking he was having a stroke.

 

NEW: Jill Biden reveals she was “frightened” by Joe Biden’s 2024 debate & thought he was having a stroke.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) May 27, 2026

🚨 NOW: Jill Biden just stunned the nation, saying she thought Joe Biden "HAD A STROKE" during the infamous debate with Donald Trump in 2024

"I was frightened...I NEVER saw Joe like that before."

"I thought, oh my god he's having a stroke."

SO SHE KNEW ALL ALONG

WILL CAIN:… pic.twitter.com/3jnZi6qEwM

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 27, 2026

Okay, Lady Macbeth, then why did you continue this charade, dragging this poor, half-brain-dead shell of a man, and tell people that he was healthy? The power trip lasted too long. It was never going to hold up, though it carried on, thanks to the help offered from the liberal media and Democrats writ large. Of course, look what happened when they could no longer defend the man. 

And sorry, but I have to give credit to Nancy Pelosi — the woman wasn’t even in the leadership anymore, but she outmaneuvered and completely outplayed the White House political team in less than two weeks. That should never happen, a classic example of the difference between powerful people and the offices they hold: Biden held a powerful office, but he was not a truly powerful person, not in the least. 

😭 Top 9 HILARIOUS Biden Moments That Will Forever Live in History

A thread 🧡

1. This debate moment and Trump’s reaction. pic.twitter.com/2tVcqygtD7

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) April 15, 2025

BONUS: Even CNN called out Jill over these revelations about that disastrous debate:

CNN’s Abby Phillip obliterates Jill Biden for her new interview about Joe Biden’s disastrous 2024 debate with Trump:

“It's the first time that we've heard her express any concern about that debate that ultimately ended Joe Biden's 2024 campaign. But that stands in stark contrast… pic.twitter.com/IWfwWRH4Px

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) May 28, 2026

 

Trump's Physical Went Off Without a Hitch, but the Liberal Media Tried to Stir Up Controversy Over This

Trump's Physical Went Off Without a Hitch, but the Liberal Media Tried to Stir Up Controversy Over This

President Trump had his physical on Tuesday and received a clean bill of health, unlike Joe Biden, who we all know shows signs of mental decline. Of course, the media was disappointed because they were hoping any chronic disease or ailment could create a narrative about health that they avoided with Biden. Sorry, Trump is still president.

Yet they briefly discussed how the president likes to rest his eyes. PBS even dedicated a segment to it about the recent doctor’s trip, and it was just embarrassing 

 CNN’s medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner 

See doctor's reaction to CDC's expected Covid isolation guidance 

delivered a startling health assessment of President Donald Trump ahead of another physical exam for the commander in chief at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Reiner, speaking to CNN anchor Kate Bolduan

CNN anchor to commentator: Don't even go there | CNN 

on Tuesday, began by saying that the American people deserve a “clear understanding” that Trump, who turns 80 next month, is “fit for duty.”

He said he would like to see a better explanation for some of Trump’s “visible health concerns,” including the bruising on his hands, which the White House has tried to explain away as a result of frequent handshakes, and swollen ankles.

Reiner then brought up Trump’s apparent inability to stay awake during some events, and offered a diagnosis, one that he called “severe.”

“The president has severe daytime somnolence,” he said. “He falls asleep very often. He’s fallen asleep in the Oval Office on multiple occasions with people talking to him in the cabinet room, and there was concern yesterday that he might have fallen asleep at Arlington National Cemetery during Memorial Day observances.”

Okay, unless you’re his actual doctor, STFU, dude. And when then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) tried to diagnose Terri Schiavo over video during the Bush administration, it was also cringeworthy. 

The White House rapid response team went to work to mock the media over this fiasco.

Trump is fine, folks. Sorry, liberal America. You lose again.

 

Fla.: DeSantis calls special session on proposal to eliminate property taxes on primary homes

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has unveiled a legislative proposal to severely cut and eventually eliminate property taxes on primary residences in Florida, calling a special legislative session to address the issue.

The move escalates a multi-year effort to reform the state’s tax structure, potentially positioning Florida as the first state in the nation to boast neither a personal income tax nor a property tax on primary, owner-occupied homes.

“Today in Tampa, I outlined the Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes plan that will eliminate taxes on homesteads. Property tax revenue collected by local governments has nearly doubled in the past seven years (from $32 billion to $60 billion) and is expected to reach an astounding $83 billion by 2032. Florida homeowners need relief. Now is the time to stand up for taxpayers, enact a historic reform, and save the home of every Floridian,” DeSantis (R-Fla.) posted on X on Wednesday.

Today in Tampa, I outlined the Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes plan that will eliminate taxes on homesteads. 

Property tax revenue collected by local governments has nearly doubled in the past seven years (from $32 billion to $60 billion) and is expected to reach an… pic.twitter.com/3ZcexD9L7X

 — Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) May 27, 2026

If approved by the Legislature, the proposal would be placed on the November general election ballot, where it would require 60% voter approval to amend the state constitution.

Under the newly released plan, the state’s baseline homestead exemption would immediately go from from $50,000 to $250,000 for full-time residents who register their properties as primary homes. DeSantis estimated that this initial shift would wipe out property tax bills entirely for roughly 60% of the state’s current primary homeowners.

The proposed constitutional framework instructs lawmakers to establish a subsequent multi-year “glide path” to eventually scale the exemption to $500,000 — a threshold the governor noted would leave 92% of homesteaded properties completely tax-free — before phasing out the remaining tax burden entirely.

 

The governor’s announcement triggers an immediate special session, putting more pressure on the Republican-led legislature following a fractured regular session.

While the Florida House previously passed a joint resolution to phase out non-school property taxes over a ten-year period, the measure died in the Senate over concerns from local governments regarding catastrophic revenue losses.

To bridge this executive-legislative divide, the new proposal narrows the scope of allowable expenditures for remaining property tax revenue, dictating that residual collections may only be used to fund vital local operations such as public schools, law enforcement, and fire departments.

 

The plan also establishes a state trust fund specifically designed to backfill revenue gaps in smaller, rural counties that lack a robust commercial or non-homestead tax base. Meanwhile, legislative response to the proposal has since highlighted deep ideological and geographic fault lines across the state.

Republican Senate President Ben Albritton expressed optimism, noting that the tailored approach seeks to protect local public safety, education, and water infrastructure while offering direct financial relief to families facing rising costs of living.

However, conversely, Democrat House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell strongly condemned the initiative, arguing that eliminating property taxes does not disappear the costs of municipal infrastructure and emergency response.


 

New Mayor's Aggressive Policies Threaten Private Property in NYC

YouTube video player

New York City’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, hit the ground running on January 1, 2026, signing a string of executive orders aimed at “tackling the housing crisis” — including a reboot of the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants, the creation of two housing task forces, and a series of citywide “Rental Ripoff” hearings. These are not small administrative tweaks; they are explicit policy choices that put government between landlords and their property in the name of “tenant protection.”

At the heart of the alarm is a chilling sentence spoken by Cea Weaver, the tenant activist Mamdani tapped to run the revived office: “If you still don’t do it, we are going to take it away from you.” That isn’t progressive jargon — it’s a direct threat to private property rights, delivered by an appointee whose worldview favors aggressive government intervention over market solutions.

Mamdani has openly promised to govern “expansively and audaciously,” language that should make every property owner uneasy because it telegraphs an appetite for sweeping action rather than careful reform. When a mayor talks about taking things “away,” what he means in practice is expanding the state’s power to seize control or intervene in private property under regulatory or bankruptcy pretexts.

We’ve already seen the first examples: the mayor’s office moved to intervene in high-profile bankruptcy auctions where landlords are accused of neglect, signaling that the city will use legal and administrative levers to insert itself into private transactions. That may win applause from activist constituencies, but it also sets a dangerous precedent — city hall deciding which owners keep their buildings and which owners lose them.

The practical consequences will be predictable and painful: fewer investors willing to buy or repair buildings in New York, higher costs passed on to tenants, and an ever-growing web of government control that crowds out private solutions to the very problems the administration claims it wants to solve. Experts and market watchers have already begun to warn that these kinds of confrontational policies will scare off capital needed to maintain and build housing, making the housing crunch worse, not better.

Americans who believe in private property, free enterprise, and the rule of law should not shrug and hope for the best. This is a moment to speak up — demand concrete legal limits on executive overreach, insist on due process for landlords of all sizes, and elect leaders who understand that empowering entrepreneurs and defending property rights, not confiscating them, is how you deliver stable, affordable housing. If we lose the principle that the fruits of lawful effort and ownership are protected from political whim, we lose more than buildings; we lose liberty itself.

 

Ferrari's Electric Future: A Betrayal of Tradition and Loyal Fans

YouTube video player

Ferrari’s long-promised pivot to electrification came on May 26, 2026 with the reveal of the Luce, and the reaction was immediate and brutal — not the quiet, respectful evolution a storied brand would hope for, but a public repudiation of what loyal customers expect. What was meant to be a triumphant “new chapter” instead looked like a boardroom-led capitulation to Silicon Valley aesthetics and woke marketing, leaving many Americans who love performance and tradition feeling betrayed.

The design choices only added fuel to the fire: the Luce’s minimalist, Apple-adjacent styling — courtesy of Jony Ive’s LoveFrom studio — has been widely mocked as “too Californian” for an Italian house built on passion and roar. Critics and longtime Ferrari fans said the car does not “shout Ferrari,” instead whispering a tech-bro aesthetic that cheapens the marque’s lineage.

 And then there’s the price tag: roughly €550,000 (about $640,000) for a five-seat electric that many argue looks like a cleverly disguised luxury appliance rather than a Ferrari supercar. Investors made their feelings known almost immediately — Ferrari’s shares plunged more than 8% after the unveiling as the market punished a bet that looks disconnected from the brand’s core buyers.

The outrage wasn’t just on social media; veteran insiders and even former executives ripped into the decision as an aesthetic and strategic mistake. The car inspired memes likening it to computer mice and Apple products, while voices inside the Italian motorsport world publicly called the design an affront to Ferrari’s history.

This fiasco is part of a broader pattern conservatives have been warning about for years: corporations surrendering heritage and customers to woke rebrands dreamed up by marketing elites who live in echo chambers. Look at Jaguar’s recent rebrand misadventure — a costly detour that alienated loyal buyers and handed critics a textbook example of “go woke, go broke.” Companies that forget who built them do so at their peril.

Make no mistake, Wall Street noticed the danger here too — the Luce reveal wiped billions off Ferrari’s market value almost overnight, a cold reminder that investors reward product that serves customers, not corporate virtue signaling. Ferrari says it will “prove doubters wrong,” but words won’t fix a design that already alienated the faithful or a strategy that treats legacy as expendable.

Patriotic consumers and conservative buyers should take this as a lesson: vote with your wallet and demand that iconic brands respect craftsmanship, heritage, and the customers who made them great. If America’s best companies keep bowing to feverish trend-chasers, we’ll lose more than a logo — we’ll lose the very culture of excellence and pride that built this country.

 

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

CartoonDems


 








WH Pushes NDAs After Reports on Iran, Venezuela Leaks

WH Pushes NDAs for Federal Employees After Leaks on Iran, Venezuela Ops

The Trump administration is moving to require all current and future federal employees to sign nondisclosure agreements as part of a broader effort to tighten controls on leaks of non-public government information.

The move comes as part of a wider push that officials have linked to recent media leaks involving sensitive national security matters, including reporting on U.S. military operations and internal assessments tied to the Iran war and earlier Venezuela-related operations.

A proposed notice posted Tuesday on the Office of Personnel Management website and expected to be published in the Federal Register seeks public comment on a draft NDA that could apply to both new and existing employees across federal agencies.

The form is intended to document employees' acknowledgment of existing legal obligations to protect confidential, proprietary, or otherwise non-public information obtained through their official duties while preserving lawful whistleblower protections.

The proposal also asks agencies to weigh whether the NDA should apply only to unclassified material and what penalties should apply to employees who refuse to sign.

OPM said it was responding in part to what it described as "several recent instances" of unauthorized disclosures involving internal agency communications related to rulemaking and policy development.

The notice specifically cited cases in which FBI and Department of Homeland Security personnel allegedly disclosed details about planned immigration enforcement actions without authorization.

The push comes as the administration continues an intensified crackdown on leaks, including high-profile disclosures involving national security and military operations.

That effort has increasingly overlapped with investigations tied to reporting on the Iran war, where officials have raised concerns about unauthorized disclosures of sensitive war planning, internal deliberations, and post-strike assessments of U.S. operations.

According to reporting citing administration officials, President Donald Trump has privately pressed senior Justice Department leadership to aggressively pursue individuals responsible for leaking information related to Iran military operations, including details that officials say revealed internal debates and early intelligence assessments of strike effectiveness.

Some of those disclosures reportedly involved Pentagon warnings about the risks of an extended campaign and reporting on damage assessments that undercut the administration's public claims about the scope of the strikes.

Other reports have described internal concern over the release of information related to classified or sensitive evaluations of Iran's remaining military capabilities following U.S. operations, as well as earlier reporting tied to Venezuela-related military planning and operations.

 

The leak investigations have also reportedly included discussions about whether media organizations should be compelled to provide records or testimony in order to identify government sources behind the disclosures.

Journalists and press freedom advocates have warned that such steps, combined with broader leak prosecutions, could chill reporting on wartime decision-making and national security policy.

The administration has defended its approach as necessary to protect classified information, safeguard troops, and prevent unauthorized disclosures that could compromise operations.

The OPM proposal also highlights tensions inside the federal workforce over transparency rules and discipline, noting the balance between safeguarding sensitive information and preserving legally protected whistleblower activity.

The American Federation of Government Employees has criticized the NDA proposal as an attempt to silence career civil servants and expand political control over the federal bureaucracy.

Labor leaders argue the measure could deter employees from reporting waste, fraud, and abuse, while administration officials maintain it is aimed narrowly at protecting legitimate national security and policy deliberations.

Legal experts have also questioned the need for new agreements, noting that existing federal statutes already prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified and sensitive information, and raise questions about how additional NDAs would be enforced.

 

CartoonDems