作者： root

Trump family promotes coins commemorating White House UFC fight

2026-06-09T22:57:57.401Z / CNN

By Adam Cancryn

32 min ago

PUBLISHED Jun 9, 2026, 6:57 PM ET

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as he meets with UFC fighters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 6, 2026.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/File

Summary

• The Trump family is promoting commemorative coins priced up to $12,000 for the White House UFC fight this weekend.
• The coins are being marketed as a collaboration between UFC and the Trump Organization, run by the president’s sons.
• The event coincides with Trump’s 80th birthday and is being promoted as part of America’s 250th anniversary celebration.

AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.

As President Donald Trump prepares to host a UFC fight at the White House this week, his family is promoting a venture aimed at profiting off the spectacle by selling gold coins priced as high as $12,000.

The “Freedom 250”-themed silver and gold medallions feature Trump’s face and are being marketed as a collaboration between the UFC and the Trump Organization, which is run by the president’s sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr.

The coins, which are being sold in advance of Sunday’s fight, have been dubbed “Trump Coins” on a website that also boasts they were “designed by President Trump.” There are four coins for sale, ranging from a silver one that costs nearly $250 to a $11,999.99 gold medallion whose holder comes with a portrait of Trump and UFC chief Dana White.

The Trump Organization appears only to be licensing the president’s brand for the coins and is not manufacturing or selling them.

But the collaboration marks the Trump family’s latest involvement in efforts to cash in on his return to the White House — and yet another example of the president’s eagerness to put his name on an array of products, events and initiatives related to his administration.

Trump’s sons have licensed his name to promote phones, fragrances, cryptocurrency, golf courses and a range of other business ventures, drawing scrutiny for the unprecedented profits the Trump family has reaped through their close association with the commander in chief.

In response to questions about Trump’s involvement in the coin’s design and marketing, White House spokesman Davis Ingle rejected any suggestion of a conflict of interest.

“The Fake News’ continued attempts to fabricate conflicts of interest are irresponsible and reinforce the public’s distrust in what they read,” he said, adding that “Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public.”

The Trump Organization did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump has talked up the UFC fight for weeks, while closely overseeing the construction of a giant staging area on the White House South Lawn called “The Claw” that now towers over the executive mansion.

And while the event is billed as part of the celebration of America’s 250th anniversary, it is also set to take place on Trump’s 80th birthday.

That has prompted a lawsuit filed by two Virginia residents seeking to stop the fight.They argue it will financially benefit White and Trump, citing a report from the spring that Trump bought $50,000 in stock in UFC’s parent company.

The fight “is not in any material sense a ‘celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence’—it is, instead, a celebration of the UFC’s brand and the 80th anniversary of Donald Trump’s birth,” the lawsuit alleges.

A federal judge has ordered the administration to respond to the lawsuit by Tuesday evening.

In the meantime, Trump and the UFC have pressed ahead as planned — as has the Trump Organization’s coin collaboration, which sought on its website to box out any competitors by asserting its product was the only one approved by the president himself.

“These are the only officially licensed Donald J. Trump medallions on the market,” the website reads. “Other Trump-themed bullion or numismatic products might be unlawful, and more importantly, none of them has an actual connection to Donald J. Trump – ours are the only medallions authorized and endorsed/designed by President Trump himself.”

Grand juror called DOJ’s controversial Chicago protest indictment ‘a crock’ before it was approved, transcript shows

2026-06-09T22:37:30.667Z / CNN

By Katelyn Polantz

PUBLISHED Jun 9, 2026, 6:37 PM ET

Protesters are enveloped in a cloud of gas released by federal agents while they attempt to block a vehicle at the Broadview Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on September 19, 2025, in Broadview, Illinois.

Stacey Wescott/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Summary

• Newly released transcripts show a grand juror told prosecutors a proposed indictment was “a crock.”
• The US Attorney’s Office in Chicago has faced a crisis in recent weeks over its handling of those grand jury proceedings.
• The Justice Department dropped all charges in the case last month after a judge found the grand jury process improper.

AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.

Some grand jurors in Chicago told the Justice Department in October they were skeptical of a proposed indictment of six Democratic politicians and activists who had protested outside a federal immigration detention center outside Chicago, according to newly released transcripts of the October grand jury sessions.

“Do you have unlimited tries?” one grand juror asked prosecutors a week after the grand jury had already voted against the indictment. The Justice Department was trying again.

Related article US Attorney Andrew Boutros at his office in the Dirksen US Courthouse in April 2025 in Chicago. E. Jason Wambsgans/Chicago Tribune/Getty Images Justice Department rushes to defense of Chicago US attorney after weeks of turmoil 9 min read

A federal judge in Chicago on Tuesday authorized the release of several pages of transcripts from October grand jury proceedings where the protesters, now known as the “Broadview Six,” were charged. It is exceedingly rare for full grand jury transcripts, showing prosecutors’ interactions with the grand jury members analyzing a possible criminal case, to be made public.

In recent weeks, the grand jury issues in the Broadview Six case have sent the US Attorney’s Office in Chicago, and its US Attorney Andrew Boutros, into crisis. Pushback from defense attorneys and scrutiny from judges — on the Broadview Six case and others — will continue following the release of the transcripts.

A judge had already characterized the exchanges as improper. She noted in a hearing in May that line prosecutors vouched for their evidence and injected their own views into the proceedings. The judge said the prosecutors had sent home a grand juror who indicated they would vote no on the indictment, a week after the indictment failed to win support last October.

The grand jury was meeting every Thursday last fall to examine cases prosecutors proposed. This case was presented to the same grand jury three weeks in a row in October, but not all grand jurors needed to be present each session.

After one grand juror asked if there were new facts to add to the case, one of the prosecutors responded, “I’m feeling the skepticism already. Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth.”

“I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of shit then and I still think it is,” the unnamed grand juror responded, according to the newly released transcripts.

The prosecutor then excused the grand juror — an approach so problematic, the US attorney’s office cut short the session without asking the grand jury to vote again.

A week later, the grand jury approved an indictment of the Broadview Six — its third session about the case.

The US attorney’s office dropped the charges against them last month shortly after the judge, April Perry, read the previously secret grand jury transcripts.

“These transcripts prove that the grand jury in the Broadview 6 case repeatedly attempted to say ‘no’ to this sham political indictment,” Christopher Parente, an attorney for one of the Broadview Six defendants, said in a statement on Tuesday. “This DOJ has violated the good faith foundation of the grand jury process to weaponize indictments and subvert the law.”

Continued fallout

The situation also has raised questions about the possible involvement of Justice Department political leadership in the Chicago office’s prosecution efforts of the Democratic activists. Last week, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche voiced his support for Boutros.

However, a lower-level prosecutor told the grand jury on the Broadview Six case in October, “I do not want to touch politics with a ten-foot pole,” and that “we’re putting blinders on to politics,” given that the case involved federal immigration law enforcement, according to the newly released transcripts.

More than 100 alumni of the office, including several well-known former federal prosecutors, issued a written statement on Monday saying they believed the office was suffering from “a failure of leadership” and that “once-forbidden political considerations are infecting prosecutorial decisions.”

Also this week, defense attorneys in at least two other cases in the Northern District of Illinois’ trial-level court have raised the Broadview Six grand jury debacle as reason for judges to review prosecutors’ work in other criminal cases.

Boutros has boasted about his aggressive approach to charging cases, especially related to gun crimes, and also says he’s “spent the last year righting the ship through significant changes and reforms,” according to a statement his office posted on social media yesterday.

Republican Steve Hilton will advance to November election in California governor’s race, CNN projects

2026-06-09T23:37:57.516Z / CNN

By Kaanita Iyer, Arit John

Updated 22 min ago

Updated Jun 9, 2026, 7:38 PM ET
PUBLISHED Jun 9, 2026, 7:37 PM ET

California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks during his campaign watch party in Huntington Beach, California, U.S. June 2, 2026.

Mike Blake/Reuters

Republican Steve Hilton will advance to the November election in California’s gubernatorial race, CNN’s Decision Desk projects.

Hilton, a former Fox News host who has President Donald Trump’s endorsement, will face former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat.

Hilton and Becerra were among a crowded field of contenders in Tuesday’s primary election who vied to succeed term-limited incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom. Billionaire Democratic candidate Tom Steyer, who spent more than $200 million on his gubernatorial campaign, will finish in third place.

Key Race
Advances to general

Governor: California

| CANDIDATE | VOTES |
| — | — |
| Xavier Becerra Democratic | 27.9% 2,336,013 |
| Steve Hilton Republican | 25.0% 2,090,349 |
| Tom Steyer Democratic | 22.6% 1,890,642 |
| Chad Bianco Republican | 10.1% 846,239 |
| Katie Porter Democratic | 4.4% 367,219 |

Est.

88%
votes in

Updated 7:59 p.m. ET, Jun. 9

Advances to general

Concern had grown among Democrats that their scattered field of candidates could split the vote enough for Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, another Republican in the primary, to be the top two vote-getters in the contest. But Trump’s endorsement of Hilton in April helped consolidate GOP support.

Hilton responded to similar comments in an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett this week, saying, “I think that actually this year could be different.” He claimed Californians are frustrated with high taxes and that a majority of them believe the state is going in the wrong direction.

Video Ad Feedback

Top political forecaster: no way a Trump pick becomes CA gov

3:03 • Source: CNN

Top political forecaster: no way a Trump pick becomes CA gov

3:03

After working in British politics, Hilton moved to California in 2012. He focused his campaign on affordability issues, blaming Democratic leadership in California for high costs and vowing to reduce bureaucracy in the state. He has argued California voters are ready for a change after 16 years of unified Democratic party control.

Hilton now faces a steep uphill climb in November’s election. There are roughly 4.6 million more registered Democrats than there are Republicans in California, according to the state’s most recent voter registration statistics. California hasn’t elected a Republican governor in 20 years, when voters gave Arnold Schwarzenegger a second term.

Meanwhile, Becerra, who previously served as a Los Angeles-area US congressman and California attorney general, ran on his years of experience in various governmental roles and argued that only someone who had managed crises could fix California’s problems.

However, he weathered attacks on his record, particularly his handling of the child migrant crisis and the mpox outbreak during former President Joe Biden’s administration. He also faced criticism over his former chief of staff pleading guilty to a fraud charge related to a scheme to siphon money from a Becerra campaign account. Becerra has not been accused of any wrongdoing by law enforcement.

The race faced a major shakeup in April when then-Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out and resigned from Congress following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, which he has strongly denied. Swalwell was seen as the front-runner, but the vacuum left by his exit was quickly filled by Becerra.

Watchdog finds waste and unsanitary conditions at ICE facility inside Fort Bliss

2026-06-09 16:41 EDT / CBS News

By Camilo Montoya-Galvez
Camilo Montoya-Galvez Immigration Correspondent
Camilo Montoya-Galvez is the Immigration Correspondent at CBS News, where his reporting is featured across multiple programs and platforms, including national broadcast shows, CBS News 24/7, CBSNews.com and the organization’s social media accounts.

Read Full Bio

Updated on: June 9, 2026 / 4:43 PM EDT / CBS News

A government watchdog found major problems with the Trump administration’s efforts to hold immigrant detainees inside the Fort Bliss Army base in Texas, including millions of dollars in waste, unsanitary conditions and inadequate tuberculosis control measures, as well as a lost firearm.

From August 2025 to March 2026, the facility, known as Camp East Montana, suffered a host of serious incidents, including two deaths that were investigated by the Government Accountability Office. According to the GAO’s report, one detainee’s death by asphyxiation in January was determined by an autopsy to be a homicide and is now under a criminal investigation. Another detainee died by suicide in January after being left “unattended for intervals longer than 15 minutes,” the report said.

In another incident in January, a security guard lost a loaded firearm inside the facility. As of March, the gun still had not been found.

File: Entrance to series of hardened tents at Camp East Montana immigrant detention center in the desert at a U.S. Army base on the outskirts of El Paso, Texas, Friday, Feb. 13, 2026. Morgan Lee / AP

Detainees with chronic health conditions did not receive proper care, the GAO also said, citing the lack of treatment plans for those with HIV or diabetes.

Camp East Montana is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency’s largest detention facility, with a capacity of 5,000 detainees. In its report, the GAO said the issues were linked to a rushed construction and contracting process.

“While the Army and ICE’s planning and acquisition approach for Camp East Montana enabled them to award the contract quickly, it contributed to negative outcomes during facility operations,” the GAO said.

“These issues contributed to waste of government resources and threats to the health and life of detained noncitizens and staff at the facility,” the watchdog added.

The Defense Department announced the building of Camp East Montana last summer, touting it as the “largest federal detention center in history.” The Army initially awarded a contract worth up to $1.2 billion to a contractor the GAO later found had no experience providing detention services.

According to the report, the Army used a process that did not incorporate flexibility in its contract to adjust for expenses when the facility was not at capacity.

This meant that from Aug. 1 to Aug. 15, 2025, when there were no detainees at the facility, the Army “wasted” up to $11.5 million on the full cost of meals, transportation, guards and medical services, the report said.

After the facility started operations, it paid an additional $423,000 for meals it did not need while the facility was operating below its designated capacity through Sept. 30, 2025, according to the report. After ICE took over the contract, it paid about $7.1 million for meals it did not need from Oct. 1, 2025, through March 12, 2026.

The contract did not include a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, which the GAO said is used to measure contractor performance and quality. ICE contracting officials told the GAO that this caused significant challenges conducting oversight and addressing problems.

In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said ICE is “upgrading,” and has contracted a new provider at Camp East Montana.

“This new contractor will allow Camp East Montana to continue abiding by the highest detention standards WITH the ability to provide MORE medical care on-site,” DHS said. “This contract also allows more on-site staff and a PRECISE quality assurance surveillance plan. ICE will have even more oversight of the contractors at this facility. Far from closing, Camp East Montana is upgrading.”

The GAO found that because the contractor at one point was not regularly cleaning dormitories, resulting in unsanitary conditions, “some contract security guards offered detained noncitizens cookies in exchange for cleaning their own dormitories.”

The GAO recommended that ICE pursue flexible contracts, ensure that new facilities meet standards, and that DHS and the Army identify lessons learned for future acquisitions.

The Defense Department said it would implement the recommendation but disagreed with the GAO’s report, arguing that the GAO relied too heavily on information from ICE officials. In response, the GAO said its findings concluded that both DHS and the Army “made decisions that contributed to the serious challenges at Camp East Montana.” The Army said that it had no response beyond what is contained in the report.

Republicans send $70 billion in ICE and border patrol funding to Trump’s desk

2026-06-09T21:27:24.632Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/09/politics/house-passes-ice-border-patrol-funding-trump

• House Republicans passed a $70 billion immigration enforcement package Tuesday after months of internal party conflict.
• Some Republicans sought to enact a prohibition on Trump’s controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, but that ultimately did not make it into the legislative package.
• The package also does not include funding for Trump’s White House ballroom project, despite a push from administration officials.

AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.

House Republicans on Tuesday sent a $70 billion immigration enforcement package to President Donald Trump’s desk, ending a months-long fight that exposed major cracks in the party.

The move will now fully fund the Department of Homeland Security — specifically, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and US Customs and Border Protection funding — for the rest of Trump’s second term. Republicans made the measure their top legislative priority this spring, after Democrats successfully blocked Congress from approving a single dollar for ICE or border patrol after federal agents killed two US citizens in Minnesota.

But the push wasn’t easy. The top two GOP leaders were at times sharply at odds over shutdown strategy. The package nearly collapsed in the Senate because of Republican opposition to Trump’s push for a Justice Department settlement fund that critics say would act as a slush fund for his allies. Ahead of the final vote Tuesday, the bill ran into drama in the House as hardliners demanded that party leaders promise to take up a strict immigration crackdown bill — despite GOP opposition inside the narrowly divided House.

The House passed the bill by a 214-212 party-line vote, with independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California voting against it.

Kiley cited the lack of limits on federal immigration enforcement and the process taken to pass the bill as part of his decision to note vote with with GOP conference on the package.

“We didn’t see that: body cameras, training, identification, judicial warrants to enter homes, not enforcement zones around schools,” he said. “I think the vast majority of Americans support this.”

And, Kiley noted, instead of relying on the normal appropriations process to approve the spending, lawmakers relied on a workaround called budget reconciliation. “Polarization in Congress is at an all-time high right now, and I think that this is going to make things worse,” he said.

The bill’s final passage comes despite a growing number of rank-and-file defections on Capitol Hill in recent weeks. Those months of negotiation — and tension — underscored the frailty of the Republican majorities, at a time when lawmakers are increasingly worried about their political futures amid the president’s approval ratings.

Ultimately, Trump is getting nearly everything he had initially sought. Republicans are approving the ICE money without any new reforms or oversight for an agency that’s drawn heavy scrutiny in the wake of the fatal shootings.

“This bill breaks the Democrats’ stranglehold over ICE and CBP funding,” GOP Rep. Tom McClintock of California said on the House floor.

Republicans in the end did not pass any measures to kill the president’s “anti-weaponization” fund, which members of his party warned could grant payouts to rioters who attacked police officers during the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has told lawmakers that the fund would not move forward, but some Senate Republicans had still sought to enact a prohibition on the fund as part of the legislation.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a long-time immigration rights activist, accused Republicans of passing the bill with “no guardrails” — while throwing $70 billion more to ICE.

“With $70 billion, we could end homelessness in America,” said Democratic Rep. Morgan McGarvey of Kentucky. “Just about anything would be better than giving it to ICE.”

One major Trump priority that was dropped: His push for $1 billion in security upgrades for the White House, including $200 million for his East Wing ballroom project.

The Senate GOP’s initial text included nearly $1 billion for “security adjustments and upgrades” to the White House ballroom project, as well as other pots of security money after the White House Correspondent’s dinner shooting this spring. Administration officials had sought to clarify that only about $200 million would go toward the East Wing project, with the rest going toward other security efforts. But a number of Senate Republicans balked at the plan, which was also ruled against by the chamber’s rules’ referee.

The final hours ahead of passage in both chambers saw significant drama as Republicans hold-outs sought last-minute promises on the package.

In the Senate, multiple GOP senators initially held up the package over opposition to Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund — but ultimately fell in line and voted for the bill. In the end, only Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against it.

In the House, more than a dozen GOP hardliners withheld their votes for a key procedural vote on Tuesday as they made a last-ditch push to secure concessions. But they, too, ultimately fell in line.

The hardliners had stalled all House floor action on the $70 billion bill in an effort to secure a separate vote on their own hardline immigration policy bill, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

It’s unclear if they secured that promise to bring up the immigration crackdown bill — which would almost certainly fail if it ever came up for a floor vote.

This story has been updated with additional details.

杨丹旭：王楚钦的乌龙与幼儿园的查家底

2026年6月10日 05:00 / 联合早报

AI摘要
王楚钦高考祝福闹乌龙，云南幼儿园招生查家底，两起看似无关的事件，折射出公众对教育公平的深切关注与隐忧。

本摘要由AI辅助生成，仅供参考

中国乒坛名将王楚钦6月5日在微博发文祝福高考学子。 （微博截图）

高考前两天，中国乒坛名将王楚钦在社交媒体上闹了个小乌龙。

6月5日傍晚，在微博有上千万粉丝的王楚钦通过个人账号发文，为即将走上高考“独木桥”的莘莘学子送祝福。最初的帖子写道：“今天吃好睡饱，明天超常发挥！北大的未名湖很美。”帖子还配上了一张波光粼粼的湖面画面。

发出去不到10分钟，王楚钦意识到了问题：帖子里提到的“明天”是6月6日，而从2003年开始，中国全国统一的高考通常都安排在6月7日开始。

订户专享，请登录解锁全文

New analysis warns FEMA overhaul would make disaster aid harder to access, shifting costs to survivors

June 9, 2026 / 5:27 PM EDT / CBS News

A new analysis warns that a proposed overhaul of the Federal Emergency Management Agency by a Trump-appointed panel would limit access to federal disaster aid for survivors, shifting the burden to state and local governments amid hurricane season.

Last month, the FEMA Review Council floated sweeping changes to the disaster agency, turning it into a leaner organization that plays a supporting role in reacting to natural disasters, requiring state agencies to take the lead. The proposed overhaul, much of which requires congressional approval, came after President Trump suggested trying to “wean” states off of FEMA or eliminating the agency altogether.

But a report penned by Sabotaging Our Safety argues the FEMA Review Council’s plan would first make federal disaster aid harder to unlock, raising the threshold to declare a major natural disaster so high, it would have excluded nearly one-third of declarations spanning from 2012 to 2025.

The progressive disaster preparedness advocacy group is advised by elected officials, labor leaders, political organizers and emergency management veterans. The group argues that FEMA’s rebrand would replace FEMA Public Assistance grants — which totaled approximately $180 billion over the past five years — with formula-based block grants that may not reflect the actual cost of rebuilding roads, schools, hospitals and other damaged infrastructure.

For individual survivors, fifteen categories of assistance would instead be collapsed into one capped payment, leaving survivors with fewer options for help with housing, medical costs, funeral expenses, vehicle repairs and other disaster losses.

For flood-zone families, the report warns the overhaul would accelerate insurance changes that could drive up premiums and price low-income households out of coverage, leaving some of the most at-risk Americans with less protection before the next storm.

Public recovery grants would be replaced with a formula

One of the most consequential changes proposed by the Review Council is the replacement of FEMA’s Public Assistance program – a federal program that helps state and local governments pay for debris removal, emergency protective measures and the repair of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, utilities and other public infrastructure.

Under its proposed replacement, dubbed “RAPID,” FEMA would move away from project-by-project reimbursement based on documented damage, instead issuing a lump-sum grant calculated through a formula tied to disaster metrics such as wind speed and flood depth. The Sabotaging Our Safety report suggests this might create a built-in gap between federal aid and real recovery costs.

“The cost of rebuilding a school, a water system, a county road network, or a hospital depends on local construction costs, infrastructure age, code requirements, and supply chain conditions that the pre-set formula doesn’t even attempt to capture,” the report says. “Basing payments off the expected magnitude of a disaster, rather than the cost of damage sustained, creates an inherent gap borne entirely by states and localities.”

The RAPID program would also require federal funding to be spent within eight years, a deadline Sabotaging Our Safety called “divorced from reality.”

The report warns that RAPID’s eight-year deadline could prevent major disaster recovery, with the rebuilding of public infrastructure often involving “permitting, procurement, engineering, and construction cycles” often stretching beyond a decade, particularly when supply chains are disrupted.

Flood insurance premiums could rise sharply

The report warns the overhaul of FEMA could increase the cost of flood protection for low-income households most likely to need it. For instance, under Risk Rating 2.0, FEMA’s newer way of pricing flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program, new policies are projected to fall by 11% to 39% overall.

But the report argues that the decline could be far steeper in low-income ZIP codes — by as much as 60%, compared with as much as 32% in the wealthiest areas — pushing flood insurance out of reach for the people most exposed to floods.

Premiums would also rise sharply in the highest-risk places, including by 279% in the most flood-exposed ZIP codes under full risk-based pricing, according to the report, adding more than $2,000 a year for some households. The impact, Sabotaging Our Safety says, would drive a persistent trend of “driving low-income communities out of coverage.”

Currently, the NFIP is about $20 billion in debt, and more than 400,000 homes in the Southeast and central Southwest are underinsured for inland flooding. For homeowners with federally backed mortgages in Special Flood Hazard Areas, the report warns that losing affordable flood insurance could trigger “a cascade of financial consequences,” including escrow issues, problems selling and mortgage default.

Long-term housing, fewer disaster declarations

The report also warns the council has proposed ending FEMA’s role in long-term housing assistance, instead shifting responsibility for housing survivors with no place to go to states, territories and tribal governments.

Without that bridge between temporary shelter and permanent recovery, Sabotaging Our Safety argues that displacement can become permanent, especially for low-income families, renters, older Americans and people without insurance.

The FEMA Review Council is also proposing increasing the threshold for measuring whether disaster damage is severe enough to justify federal help, which typically compares the estimated damage to the state’s population, shifts even more burden onto states.

That threshold, known as the “per-capita indicator,” would jump from $1.94 to $2.99, which the Sabotaging Our Safety report says would shift $1.5 billion in costs away from the federal government and onto states, counties and survivors.

The report found that raising that threshold for presidential disaster declarations would have kept 29% of major disaster declarations from qualifying between 2012 and 2025 — about 16 fewer declarations each year.

The impact, the group suggests, would make rural communities especially vulnerable because disaster thresholds are calculated against statewide population. As a result, extreme damage in a small rural county may not generate enough statewide per-capita impact to qualify for federal aid, even if the local damage is devastating to families.

It’s already hurricane season

FEMA is entering hurricane season under financial and staffing strain. The agency lost more than 5,000 employees since January 2025, with nearly half of its top 38 leadership positions vacant, though acting administrator Bob Fenton told CBS News that the agency was ready for hurricane season.

While FEMA has stated it is taking steps to stabilize its workforce and strengthen readiness ahead of hurricane season and the FIFA World Cup, the Government Accountability Office has warned that FEMA was already stretched thin before Trump-era workforce reductions and may not have enough staff if catastrophic disasters strike back to back.

In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA, said the release of the FEMA Review Council final report marked “an important milestone in this Administration’s ongoing efforts to strengthen FEMA’s mission, operations and accountability,” adding that recommended changes “best serve the national interest.”

“With Secretary Mullin at the helm, we look forward to continuing to enhance our operations and engage with our state partners to best provide the federal support they need during disasters,” a DHS spokesperson added.

Trump-backed Hilton advances to California governor general election

June 9, 2026 7:47pm EDT / Fox News

Hilton hopes to become first GOP candidate to win a California gubernatorial election since Schwarzenegger in 2006

By Paul Steinhauser Fox News

GOP candidate for governor in California Steve Hilton details to Fox News Digital a Taxpayer Fraud Strike Force he would set up on day one if elected, with Gov. Gavin Newsom as his “top target.”

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/9efb47d8-2e17-4051-b096-8bdb5587c470

Listen to this article

3 min

Republican Steve Hilton has won one of the two tickets to the November California gubernatorial election in the race to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in steering the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy.

Hilton, a one-time British political strategist turned American conservative commentator and former Fox News Channel host who is backed by President Donald Trump, will advance to the general election, the Associated Press reported on Tuesday.

Democrat-dominated California holds what’s known as a jungle primary in which all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, appear on the same ballot, with the top two finishers advancing to the general election.

DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB

Former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, speaks during a roundtable discussion with representatives from Child Guidance Center in Santa Ana on Tuesday, March 31, 2026.(Leonard Ortiz/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images)

The big question is who Hilton will face in November.

His top two rivals heading into primary day were Xavier Becerra, a former California attorney general who later served as a Cabinet secretary in former President Biden’s administration and would make history as California’s first Latino governor in modern history, and Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmental activist who unsuccessfully ran for his party’s 2020 presidential nomination and who has shelled out over $200 million of his own money in his bid for governor.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, as well as Democratic candidates former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, were among the whopping 61 candidates on the ballot.

Hilton is hoping to become the first California Republican to win a gubernatorial election since then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2006 re-election two decades ago.

Steve Hilton, a Republican gubernatorial candidate in California, details during a Fox News Digital interview his plan to set up a commission to investigate fraud in the Golden State, on June 1, 2026, in Los Angeles(Paul Steinhauser/Fox News)

Former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla mulled launching Democratic bids for governor, but both last year announced they would take a pass. That resulted in the lack of a clear Golden State gubernatorial frontrunner for the first time in more than a quarter century.

MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS DOG SWALWELL AS DEM RIVALS SEIZE OPENING IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S RACE

And the race was overshadowed for much of last year, as the devastation from the Los Angeles-area wildfires and President Donald Trump’s immigration raids grabbed headlines in California.

But the showdown for governor entered the spotlight earlier this year when one of the leading candidates, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, dropped out of the race and then resigned from Congress following a political implosion after facing multiple allegations of sexual assault and misconduct that he continues to deny.

Matt Mahan, Xavier Becerra, Chad Bianco, Steve Hilton, Tom Steyer and Katie Porter appear during a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco, California, US, on Wednesday, April 22, 2026. California will hold its primary election on June 2, where the top two finishers advance to the general election in November regardless of party affiliation.(Jason Henry/Nexstar/Bloomberg – Pool/Getty Images)

Swalwell’s exit from the race opened the door for first Steyer and then Becerra to rise in the polls.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Steyer, who unsuccessfully ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, spent more than $200 million of his own money to blanket the airwaves and the internet with ads. Meanwhile, more than $80 million in outside money has also been spent on the race.

Bianco, who launched his campaign for governor in April of last year, was among the top contenders in the race until Trump’s endorsement of Hilton in early April blunted his momentum.

Paul Steinhauser is a politics reporter based in the swing state of New Hampshire. He covers the campaign trail from coast to coast.

Explainer: Congress has backed Iran war powers resolutions. Now what?

2026-06-09T21:21:12.715Z / Reuters

WASHINGTON, June 9 (Reuters) – For the first time since the war on Iran began on February 28, the Republican-led U.S. Congress has backed resolutions that could block Republican President Donald Trump from continuing hostilities, reflecting growing concern among members of his party about the three-month-long conflict.

The House of Representatives voted in ​favor of a war powers resolution on June 4 and the Senate advanced a separate, but similar, resolution in a procedural vote ​on May 19 as a handful of Republicans broke with party leadership to vote with almost every Democrat.

Get weekly news and analysis on U.S. politics and how it matters to the world with the Reuters Politics U.S. newsletter. Sign up here.

This is a look at the U.S. war powers law and what might happen next.

WHAT IS THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION?

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, also known as the War Powers Act, in 1973 as a check on presidential power in response to the ​unpopular Vietnam War. The Act requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of hostilities and says military action begun without Congress’ approval ​must be terminated within 60 days, unless there is an emergency.

With Iran, the 60-day deadline was May 1, which Trump ⁠addressed by declaring that the hostilities had been “terminated” by a ceasefire, despite continuing attacks and a blockade of Iranian ports. Legal experts said that argument might ​not survive judicial scrutiny.

The law also establishes procedures for Congress to vote on war powers resolutions to end hostilities not authorized by the legislature. These resolutions ​are privileged, meaning they can be brought up for votes even without the approval of House of Representatives and Senate leaders.

The Senate has considered seven resolutions and the House four resolutions related to the Iran conflict since U.S. and Israeli forces started bombing more than 100 days ago.

HOW MANY HURDLES DO THE RESOLUTIONS FACE? Both resolutions face significant hurdles.

The Senate measure ​has survived only a procedural vote and has not passed the full chamber. Even if it is passed, to go into effect it must also ​clear the House, whose Republican leaders are unlikely to allow a vote.

And if it passed the House, to go into effect the measure would have to garner the two-thirds ‌majorities needed ⁠in both chambers to overcome an expected Trump veto.

The separate measure passed by the House this month would have to pass the Senate, where aides said they were waiting for the parliamentarian to decide whether it is “privileged.” If not, Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota, who rarely breaks with Trump, is not expected to allow a vote.

SO WHY BOTHER?

The U.S. Constitution says only Congress, not the president, can authorize the use of military force, except for short-term ​operations or to counter an immediate threat.

Backers ​of the resolutions say bipartisan ⁠congressional approval sends an important signal that lawmakers are trying to take back their power to declare war and rein in Trump’s White House.

Opponents call the resolutions political posturing that emboldens U.S. enemies and may be unconstitutional because they ​impinge on the president’s powers as commander in chief.

Experts said the votes are important.

“The war powers resolution that was ​passed by the House ⁠sends a strong signal to the president that lawmakers across the aisle think that this war has gone on for too long and violates the war powers resolution as well as the Constitution,” said Katherine Yon Ebright, a war powers expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

She said Trump appeared to ⁠take the ​vote seriously, noting that he had called it unpatriotic and said Republicans who sided with Democrats ​should be ashamed of themselves.

The unpopular war could affect elections in November that will determine whether Trump’s Republicans retain control of Congress. Recent Reuters polling showed that 36% of Americans approved of U.S. strikes ​on Iran, and only 25% said the benefits of the strikes had been worth the costs.

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Don Durfee and Sanjeev Miglani

Why the GOP’s voter fraud theories in California don’t make sense

2026-06-09T20:26:26.356Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/09/politics/voter-fraud-theories-california

• Last week’s California primaries have sparked a resurgence of election fraud claims reminiscent of 2020.
• But these conspiracy theories don’t withstand scrutiny, nor do they make much political sense.
• And confronted with the lack of evidence, some GOP leaders are now arguing the fraud is real but it’s just not detectable.

AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.

The last week has brought the largest resurgence of election denialism since the aftermath of the 2020 election. Many on the right have cried foul over late shifts toward Democrats in results from California’s June 2 primary.

But as was the case six years ago, the vast majority of the theories about why voter fraud is involved don’t withstand scrutiny.

And increasingly, some top Republicans seem to be dealing with the pronounced lack of evidence by arguing that the fraud is just undetectable.

Let’s run through some of the biggest supposed evidence of malfeasance, and why it’s not what it might seem.

The conspiracy theories began bubbling last week as two GOP candidates saw their vote shares drop after primary night.

Gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton was in first place on election night but appeared at risk of dropping out of the top two as more votes rolled in. And Spencer Pratt, the buzzy Republican candidate for Los Angeles mayor, suddenly saw his significant election-night lead over third-place Nithya Raman, a Democratic Los Angeles City councilwoman, gradually get whittled away.

A week later, Raman has beaten Pratt for the second slot against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in what’s officially a nonpartisan race, even as Hilton continues to hold off Democrat Tom Steyer for second place in the governor’s race.

This is familiar territory.

Perhaps the most oft-cited supposed evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election was how late-counted ballots tended to go for Democrats, in some cases flipping swing states where Donald Trump was leading on election night.

But there was a very valid explanation for that: An analysis by MIT researchers found that Joe Biden counties — often urban ones with lots of votes — tended to count and report more slowly than Trump counties.

And that was exacerbated by the growing partisan gap in mail ballots, which tend to be counted later and which Democrats use much more than Republicans (in large part because Trump has claimed they are prone to fraud).

The combined effect is often called the “red mirage.”

California puts the “red mirage” on steroids, because of its extensive use of mail ballots and how long it takes to count them. Indeed, it was predicted far and wide that Democrats would gain significantly after primary night.

And crucially, the current results look a lot like the polls did.

Bass stands at 34%, Raman at 29% and Pratt at 26%. That three-point Raman lead over Pratt is the same as a late UC Berkeley-Los Angeles Times poll (Raman 25%, Pratt 22%).

What’s more, Pratt’s vote share is similar to the 26.5% that Trump got in the city of Los Angeles in 2024.

Even so, some on the right have wondered what could possibly explain the size of Raman’s surge. The other Democrat, Bass, actually lost ground, percentage-wise, as ballots were counted.

If this was just about late ballots leaning Democratic, why would Raman gain so much and Bass lose ground, as a percentage?

There are a couple of valid explanations.

One is that Democratic voters were being strategic about California’s unusual top-two primary system, in which the first- and second-place candidates advance regardless of party. By waiting to cast their mail ballots, the idea goes, they had a better idea of who could win or at least advance to the general election.

The Los Angeles Times even wrote a story about this trend two days before primary day, noting how crowded the governor’s race was. And CNN’s Elex Michaelson spoke to Democrats who said they voted late for Raman in order to make sure Pratt didn’t advance.

But there’s arguably an explanation that makes even more sense, which the Ballot Book’s Mason Herron wrote about on Monday.

It basically boils down to this: Those who cast late mail ballots skewed much younger than those who cast earlier votes, and Raman’s base also skews younger. Given that, it would make sense that the democratic socialist would gain big late, while Bass — with her older base — would lose some ground.

And this is familiar territory for Raman. In her 2024 primary for her city council seat, she was in a tight race with her Democratic opponent in the hours after polls closed — so much so that news outlets were writing that the contest (which she led 45%-43% the morning after primary night) was headed for a runoff.

But Raman didn’t need a runoff. She surged over 50%, thanks to late-counted mail ballots. And she won what had looked like a tight race by 12 points.

Even if you set all that aside, though, the voter fraud theories in the Los Angeles mayor’s race suffer from a major deficit: basic logic.

As CNN’s Harry Enten noted Monday, Bass would have actually preferred if Pratt had advanced to the general election. That’s because a Republican stands very little chance of winning in deep-blue Los Angeles, and Pratt was about as unpopular as Bass was.

But Raman, a democratic socialist opponent, on the ballot? That’s a major problem for Bass.

Indeed, that late UC Berkeley-LA Times poll showed Bass leading Pratt by 18 points (47%-29%), but trailing Raman by four (28%-32%).

And even if there was “ballot harvesting” by labor unions and the like, those groups tended to support Bass, so the results wouldn’t support that theory.

And then throw in the fact that Hilton still appears likely to make the general election for governor, and the question becomes why Democrats would rig the mayoral race to stop Pratt but not Hilton.

Another conspiracy theory floating on social media is that large numbers of votes were added to the tallies — tens of thousands of them, in fact — with precisely zero for Pratt.

But there’s no truth to that. It appears to be a result of a lag in how the Associated Press updated its vote totals.

And even Trump’s own DOJ has debunked this one.

First Assistant US Attorney Bill Essayli, a Trump appointee who leads the Los Angeles-based US attorney’s office, posted just before midnight on Friday that such claims were wrong.

“We reviewed official county records. The claim is false,” Essayli said. “Each candidate received votes in every update.”

Some Republicans increasingly acknowledge the lack of evidence of voter fraud, but they argue that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

They suggest the fraud is just undetectable.

“Some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream it is impossible to prove,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN’s Manu Raju on Monday. “But think everybody knows instinctively something is wrong here.”

(Johnson has previously made similar comments about the prevalence of undocumented immigrants voting, saying in 2024, “We all know intuitively that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it’s not been something that is easily provable.” There is no evidence of significant undocumented immigrant voting.)

Raju on Tuesday then pressed Johnson’s No. 2, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, about the lack of evidence.

Scalise responded: “Whether you can prove fraud or not, it does undermine integrity in the vote.”

It’s certainly true that someone is undermining the integrity of the vote.