Vice President JD Vance on Thursday pushed back
against Republican criticism of President Donald Trump's Iran agreement,
arguing it is "fundamentally different" from former President Barack
Obama's 2015 nuclear deal because it prohibits uranium enrichment and
comes after Iran's nuclear program was destroyed.
"You have to remember, in 2015 Iran had built a sophisticated nuclear
weapons program with a nuclear weapon stockpile. So the perspective
that we came at as the United States was, 'You already have a really
nice nuclear program; we're going to bribe you with American money in
order to stop it,'" Vance said.
"Our perspective — and where we're coming at it — is, 'We already
destroyed your nuclear program; and so if you promise and show
verifiable pathways to not rebuild it, then we are willing to give you
some sanctions relief, and things like that.'"
Vance listed several provisions he said distinguish Trump's agreement
from Obama's, including restrictions on enrichment, enriched-material
stockpiles and U.S. payments.
"Now, there are all these substantive differences as well. The Obama
nuclear deal allowed enrichment; ours will not," Vance said.
"The Obama deal allowed the accumulation of stockpiled weapons-grade
material. Ours is actually leading to the destruction of that stockpile
of enriched material," he continued.
"The Obama deal gave them over a billion dollars of American money. The deal gives them $0 of American money," Vance said.
"A lot of substantive differences, but I think the most important
differences are where we're coming at it from: a position of strength,
and the fact that our [Persian] Gulf Coast partners love this deal."
Republican Rep.Brandon Gill (TX-26) has only been in Congress since
2025, but he has developed a reputation over the last year and a half
for being someone who won't beat around the bush and who will tell you just like it is.
To his credit, Gill says what he says without concern
over whether or not it will offend the delicate sensibilities of the
woke left, but inevitably it does, which then gives him the opportunity
to emphasize the point in a different way that effectively shuts down
his Democrat critics.
During a recent Fox News interview, one of
the questions Gill was asked related to the decades-long U.K. grooming
scandal, where a just-released Rape Gang Inquiry report noted
that "It has been previously established that, at the very least,
250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang
rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and
lifelong trauma. The true number is probably higher." Who targeted them?
"... predominantly Muslim Pakistani gangs across towns and cities
throughout the United Kingdom."
As
my colleague Ward Clark recently asserted, "When you import the Third
World, you become the Third World," and that is a viewpoint that Gill
echoed during that interview, pointing out that we are seeing the
Islamification of certain parts of America right now, in some cases
where you wouldn't expect to see it.
We need to nip it in the bud now, he firmly asserted, before it is too late:
Amazingly,
pointing out that we needed to act sooner rather than later to protect
women from being forced to wear burkas and much worse fauxfended woke
Iranian-American Democrat Rep. Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03),
who tweeted that "Brandon Gill might be the most racist (and useless) Republican in Congress, and that’s saying something."
For
starters, it was an especially dumb argument when one considers that
Gill's wife, Danielle D'Souza (daughter of conservative
commentator/author Dinesh D'Souza), has an Indian-American heritage.
But beyond that, Gill reminded the MS-13 Caucus member
that the old Democrat/media-driven rules about playing the "raaaacism"
card to shut down debate were now out the window - and that they
wouldn't work anymore:
And on Thursday, in response to the release of the U.K. report, Gill observed
that "the UK allowed as many as a quarter of a million of their own
citizens to be victimized by Muslim grooming gangs because they changed
their culture through mass migration and were more concerned about being
called racist than defending their girls from third-world barbarians."
Simply
put, a Democrat yelling "racism!" because they can't handle some
inconvenient truths should never stop America-loving individuals from
speaking out in defense of this country and against those who seek to
turn it into something it was never meant to be and never should be.
Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna (CA-17) walked
into a voter ID buzzsaw on Fox Business Thursday morning and left in
pieces, taking the entire Democrat argument against the SAVE America Act
with him.
During an appearance on Thursday, Khanna clashed with host
Maria Bartiromo over the SAVE America Act, the election integrity bill
that would require
proof of citizenship for federal voter registration. What followed was
the same tired Democrat two-step: non-citizens shouldn't vote, illegal
voting should be punished, citizenship is already required by law. But
heaven forbid we actually verify any of it.
The SAVE
America Act has become a major priority for President Trump and many
congressional Republicans. The legislation has drawn fierce opposition
from Democrats, who argue existing safeguards are sufficient. The bill enjoys broad bipartisan public support, with 84 percent of Americans backing voter ID requirements.
Khanna argued that Americans should not have to produce additional documentation to register.
“I
don’t think people should have to go get their birth certificates and
go to the registrar. We have a system that allows people to vote if
they’re citizens. And by the way, if you’re not a citizen and you vote,
you should have enormous penalties, consequences. I'm for making sure
that we criminally prosecute people who are voting illegally.”
How exactly do you know they're citizens?
Bartiromo wasted little time getting to the point.
“That’s
the law. You can't vote if you're not an American citizen. Yes, get
your birth certificate. Yes, that's exactly right. I wanted a copy of my
birth certificate. I went online, I got the birth certificate. It took a
week, no problem.”
Democrats have spent
years arguing that proof-of-citizenship requirements are unreasonable,
burdensome, or even dangerous. On live TV Thursday, Khanna made that
case and completely fell apart doing it. Americans provide documentation
for countless routine activities. They do it for passports. They do it
for driver's licenses. They do it for employment verification. They do
it for government benefits.
But mention voting, and
suddenly the same people who navigate the DMV, the TSA, and the IRS
every year are completely helpless. Give us a break.
Khanna repeatedly argued that non-citizen voting is already illegal and should carry severe penalties.
Penalties come after the fact. After the damage is done. After the fraudulent vote is already cast and counted.
Bartiromo cut right to it.
“That's
the only way to do it. You have to have a citizenship proof. That's the
only way to do it. It's not on the backs of Americans. It's your
responsibility to ensure that you're doing it lawfully.”
Khanna
never answered the basic question he walked in with: if only citizens
can vote, and illegal voting should be prosecuted, why is proving
citizenship before registration so controversial?
For
supporters of the SAVE America Act, that's the question Democrats still
can't answer. They won't answer it because they can't. Not without
admitting that "existing safeguards" is a talking point, not a policy.
Khanna came on to defend the indefensible. Bartiromo made him pay for it. Pass the SAVE America Act.
Last night, the York Revolution forfeited their minor league "Pride
Night" game after their players refused to wear jerseys that had rainbow
logos stitched on the sleeves. The organization placed the entire blame
on its players in a statement posted on its website.
It is with great disappointment that
the York Revolution have issued important changes to our 11th Annual
Pride Night on Thursday, June 18th. Most significantly, the scheduled
game between York and Southern Maryland will not be played and Pride
will still be hosted as a free admission event. Everyone’s tickets for
the game on Thursday will be treated as a rainout that can be redeemed
for any future game.
This decision was not reached lightly.
Unfortunately, several of our players have refused to wear the scheduled
Pride Night jersey and the club decided that hosting the event is more
important than forcing players to wear jerseys they are not comfortable
with and playing the game.
Of course, the
organization won't give up on the virtue signaling, so they are instead
hosting a "free and fun celebration of recognition and inclusion," and
will be donating $10,000 to a local LGBTQ center, to "support and
further their work in making sure the York community is as inclusive as
we strive to make WellSpan Park in York, Pennsylvania."
MLB commissioner Rob Manfred
quickly issued a statement warning the players of a uniform violation
after the media condemned the move. Others jumped to the players'
defense, however, with comedians and elected officials
vowing to pay any imposed fines, and writing letters to the
Commissioner defending the players' actions and right to express their
beliefs.
While corporations and organizations don't seem
interested in retiring the relentless virtue-signaling campaign any time
soon, it's refreshing to see some resistance to and support for
traditional religious values.
President Donald Trump just exposed
another lie the left is telling about the deal he made with Iran to stop
the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Shortly after
the details about the agreement were released, critics slammed the
president over a provision they claimed would send $300 billion to the
Iranian regime. However, the truth is something different.
“There is no 300 Billion Dollar payment to Iran by the U.S.
That’s Fake News! All there is for the U.S. is Success, Lower Oil
Prices, and Victory,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Check out
the Stock Market. Dumocrat propaganda at play!!!”
In
another post, Trump wrote, “OIL IS FLOWING, IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A
NUCLEAR WEAPON (THE WORLD WILL BE SAFE!), THE STOCK MARKETS ARE ROARING,
JOBS ARE AT RECORDS, AND PRICES ARE DROPPING (AFFORDABILITY!). OUR
COUNTRY IS STRONG, SAFE, AND RESPECTED LIKE NEVER BEFORE. ‘YOU’RE
WELCOME!’”
Several media outlets reported that Trump’s deal with Iran
includes a $300 billion reconstruction fund to help the Iranian regime
rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. The fund is private and aimed at
triggering investment in the country.
“There
is no 300 Billion Dollar payment to Iran by the U.S. That’s Fake News!
All there is for the U.S. is Success, Lower Oil Prices, and Victory.
Check out the Stock Market. Dumocrat propaganda at play!!!” - President
Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/ivJDcNkzWz
Some on the left have framed
this as Trump giving away billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to the
Iranian regime, referring to it as a major concession. But, as Trump
stated, this is not what the deal says.
White House officials stressed that the United States is not investing any taxpayer money into the fund. Vice President JD Vance affirmed that not a single cent of American money will go to Iran under any circumstances.
Instead,
any investments in the fund would come from private sources in Gulf
states and elsewhere if the regime meets strict conditions on its
nuclear program, inspections, and other requirements. Yet, left-wing
politicians and influencers conveniently left this part out.
The
only role the U.S. will play in this fund is in setting it up and
removing barriers for those who wish to invest. However, Washington can
shut it down if Iran does not follow through on its promises related to
its nuclear program.
A federal judge on Thursday narrowed the scope of legal battles
surrounding President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting,
ruling that Democrat-led states and voting rights groups can only
advance challenges aimed at blocking the policy’s impact on the upcoming
2026 midterm elections. However, the Trump administration wanted a
total dismissal.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani
rejected the federal government’s
attempt to fully dismiss the lawsuits, ruling that the rapidly closing
window ahead of the November 3rd midterms justifies immediate
judicial review. The judge wrote that postponing a review of the policy
would be impracticable and could inflict hardship on the plaintiffs as
state election officials scramble to prepare for upcoming primaries and
the fall vote.
Nonetheless, Judge Talwani simultaneously limited the litigation by
dismissing all claims concerning elections beyond 2026, finding that
because federal agencies are still working out how to implement the
policy, the long-term impact remains too speculative and “ripe” for
future courts to handle later.
The lawsuits, which were filed in April by a coalition of nearly two
dozen states and far-left groups like the League of Women Voters, target
Trump’s March 31st executive order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.”
Related Video Obama Judge
The directive seeks to restructure the mechanics of American voting
by ordering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compile
database-derived lists of confirmed U.S. citizens and transmit them to
the states. The order instructs the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to only
deliver mail-in ballots to voters explicitly verified on those federally
approved lists.
The ruling in Boston follows a separate decision late last month in
Washington, D.C., where U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols declined a
request to temporarily block the executive order on the grounds that
federal agencies had not yet fully executed its provisions. Since then,
federal entities have moved forward with preliminary steps; the USPS
recently introduced proposed rules requiring states to provide specific
voter names and tracking barcodes tied to their mail-in ballots.
The federal government does not actually maintain one single, master
list of every American citizen. To build this database, the DHS has to
cobble together records from separate federal systems, such as the
Social Security Administration (SSA) and immigration/naturalization
records.
Pete Hegseth walked into a room full of NATO defence ministers and
did something most diplomats politely avoid: he told the truth. The
United States is done pretending Europe’s happy talk and cheque-signing
ceremonies equal real defence. Hegseth put a clear line in the sand —
six months to show serious progress on defence spending, base access,
and fighting readiness, or expect Washington to change its posture in
Europe.
Hegseth’s Six-Month Ultimatum: NATO 3.0 or Bust
Secretary
of War Pete Hegseth framed this as “NATO 3.0” — a return to a
hard-edged alliance that can fight, not a club for debates about gender
policy and climate panels. He called NATO “a paper tiger” and said it
was time to stop freeloading. The centerpiece of his message is a
six-month Department of War review of U.S. force posture and basing in
Europe. That review will look at who is serious, who says “maybe,” and
who says “no” when America needs help. Spoiler: saying “no” could cost
you American boots and jets nearby.
Why This Matters for U.S. Troops and Bases
This
is not just posturing. The review explicitly ties future U.S. basing
and overflight access to concrete guarantees from allies — and to
whether nations show a credible path to meet new defence-spending
expectations. The administration is pushing a much higher bar than the
old two-percent goal. The new aim floated in halls and briefings is a
target near five percent of GDP by 2035 for true heavy-lift and
deterrence capabilities. That will force serious budget choices in
capitals that have spent decades preferring welfare and open borders
over steel and ammo.
Europe’s Choices: Pay Up or Make Room
Europe
can do one of two things. It can scramble to rebuild its defense
industrial base, align budgets with real military needs, and guarantee
access to bases and airspace — or it can keep freeloading and accept a
reduced American footprint. For countries that have become used to
America solving their problems, that choice will sting. But the
alternative is worse: keep pretending and discover that when the chips
are down, the U.S. posture in Europe has been reshaped by a lack of
trust and access.
What Should Happen Next
Hegseth’s blunt
talk is medicine — bitter but necessary. Allies who actually value the
transatlantic bond should welcome the test. Meet the spending goals.
Secure basing rights. Stop treating U.S. logistics like a public good to
be used and ignored. If Europe wants the protection of a powerful
America, it must be willing to act like it. Otherwise, Washington will
adjust forces where they’re wanted and where partners pull their weight.
That’s not only reasonable; it’s fair.
The Justice Department says the FBI and its partners just stopped a
chilling plot to attack the UFC event on the South Lawn of the White
House. Court filings name Abraham Hermosillo Alvarez as a principal
planner. Separately, DHS — according to reporting by Fox News — told
reporters Alvarez is a Mexican national who overstayed a B‑2 visa and
was later granted DACA relief. That immigration detail has not appeared
in the DOJ filings themselves and should be read as
DHS-as-reported-to-Fox unless the agency confirms it on the record.
What federal filings say
Federal
prosecutors unsealed complaints that lay out a dark and organized plan.
The filings describe encrypted group chats, drones packed with
explosives, and snipers ready to fire on crowds fleeing the scene.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the fast work to stop the
scheme, and FBI Director Kash Patel said the bureau’s rapid action
helped take multiple suspects into custody. The charges are serious:
conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit violence on White
House grounds.
DHS details — and why to be cautious
Fox
News reports that DHS provided immigration details saying Alvarez
overstayed a visitor visa and received DACA relief years ago, and that
ICE has lodged a detainer. Those are explosive facts if confirmed. But
they came to light via DHS-as-reported-to-Fox rather than inside the DOJ
complaints, so responsible reporting must seek direct confirmation from
DHS or ICE before treating the immigration claim as settled. For
readers who need a short explainer: DACA is discretionary relief that
defers removal and allows work permission for certain people brought
here as children. It is not permanent legal status or citizenship.
Why this matters beyond the headlines
If
the reported immigration detail is accurate, it will spark obvious and
deserved outrage. People who pushed for DACA as a catch-all safety valve
promised it would produce lawful, vetted residents who pose no threat.
This alleged case shows gaps in how dangerous intent can slip through
any system if enforcement is lax or if background checks are incomplete.
The easy part now is prosecuting the plotters. The harder part is
fixing the policy and enforcement holes that let suspects live and plan
in the shadows.
What should happen next
First, DHS and ICE
need to put their confirmation on the record. Second, prosecutors
should keep the pressure up and give the public the full evidence from
the complaints. Third, lawmakers and the administration must answer the
hard questions about vetting and DACA policy — without playing politics
when national security is at stake. Credit where it’s due: the FBI and
DOJ disrupted a plan that could have killed many Americans and even
endangered the president. Now let’s demand clear answers and real fixes
so this kind of danger is less likely to return.
President Donald Trump and Iran have signed a
memorandum of understanding aimed at winding down their conflict and
opening a 60-day negotiating window toward a broader settlement that
includes limits on Iran’s nuclear program and its enriched uranium
stockpile, according to Newsmax reporting and additional Agence
France-Presse wire details.
The agreement is described by U.S. officials as a preliminary
framework rather than a final peace deal, intended to pause escalation
while both sides pursue a broader accord covering nuclear restrictions,
sanctions relief, regional security arrangements, and other unresolved
issues.
Newsmax reported that Iran has, in principle, agreed to curb uranium
enrichment activity and expand cooperation with International Atomic
Energy Agency inspectors as part of a verification-based compliance
process tied to any future sanctions relief.
The memorandum also reportedly addresses Iran’s existing enriched
uranium stockpile, with discussions focused on monitoring, reduction, or
transfer under international supervision, according to wire reporting.
The Hill reported that Trump formally signed the agreement while
attending events tied to the G7 summit in France, including diplomatic
meetings centered at the Palace of Versailles, where leaders gathered
for a state dinner hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron.
The signing was described as part of a broader summit sequence in
which the final agreement was completed during the France meetings after
earlier drafting and procedural steps, according to The Hill.
A separate Newsmax global-talk report described the deal as part of a
broader push to stabilize U.S.-Iran relations following months of
conflict and intermittent military escalation.
The 60-day diplomatic window sets out a sequence in which Washington
and Tehran are expected to negotiate the details of sanctions relief,
nuclear verification, and enforcement mechanisms, with any easing of
U.S. measures conditioned on verified Iranian compliance with agreed
benchmarks.
President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance have emphasized that sanctions relief will remain strictly conditional.
According to Newsmax reporting, the deal calls for an immediate halt
to hostilities, with both sides agreeing to pause military escalation as
negotiations proceed.
Agence France-Presse wire reporting indicated that mediators played a
key role in bridging gaps between Washington and Tehran, particularly
on nuclear verification, sanctions sequencing, and security guarantees.
Those mediation efforts reportedly included multiple revisions aimed
at aligning U.S. demands for strict monitoring of uranium-related
activity with Iranian demands for phased economic relief.
The agreement also addresses the Strait of Hormuz, with provisions
for a phased restoration of commercial shipping through the critical
energy choke point after months of disruption.
Newsmax
reported that maritime de-escalation is tied to broader compliance
steps, including reciprocal reductions in military activity in the Gulf.
Full Speech
Wire reporting also noted provisions that could ease restrictions on
Iranian oil exports over time, depending on compliance benchmarks tied
to nuclear obligations.
The memorandum includes the possibility of unlocking limited Iranian
financial assets abroad, though officials stressed that any such
measures would be staged and conditional.
Oil prices fell following the announcement, with markets reacting to
expectations that reduced tensions could stabilize shipping through the
Strait of Hormuz and ease global supply risks.
The White House has not confirmed all reported details circulating in
wire coverage, particularly regarding the scale and timing of sanctions
relief and broader economic provisions.
Newsmax reporting described the deal as an initial step toward
de-escalation rather than a binding treaty, leaving core disputes over
nuclear limits, uranium stockpiles, sanctions architecture, and
long-term enforcement to be resolved during the negotiating period.
The 60-day timeline is expected to determine whether the agreement
can be converted into a lasting settlement or whether tensions will
resume if talks collapse.
