分类： 未分类

How social change in the 1960s shaped Samuel Alito—and made him the conservative justice he is today | CNN Politics

2026-06-04 17:49:29 UTC / CNN Politics

How social change in the 1960s shaped Samuel Alito—and made him the conservative justice he is today

By Dana Bash, CNN

Published 1:49 PM EDT, Thu June 4, 2026

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/04/politics/video/inside-politics-justice-alito-revenge-for-the-sixties-canellos

Subtitles

• Off

Video Ad Feedback

How social change in the 1960s shaped Samuel Alito—and made him the conservative justice he is today

Inside Politics

“Revenge for the Sixties” is the title of a new biography about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. What exactly did he want revenge for? Author Peter Canellos explains what drives the justice who has spent two decades on the court moving it to the right—and what factors he may be considering as he decides whether to retire this year while Republicans can name his replacement.

5:41 • Source: CNN

Could Democrats win the Senate? Their chances seem to be improving

2026-06-04T17:43:01.600Z / CNN

Democrats have a tough road to take control of the Senate, but some recent wins and polling show things could be trending their way.

Recent polling shows Democrats leading by double digits on the generic ballot and competitive in Ohio and Texas.

Primary results have given Democrats their preferred candidates in Iowa, Montana and Texas, improving their prospects.

AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.

Democrats clearly have the momentum in the 2026 midterm elections. But in order to take control of the Senate, they need to do something pretty extraordinary: They likely must win at least two states that President Donald Trump carried by double-digits in 2024.

The most likely possibilities would seem to be Alaska (Trump +13), Iowa (Trump +13), Ohio (Trump +11) and Texas (Trump +14). Each would require a significant swing. Some lower-tier targets could include Montana (Trump +20) and Nebraska (Trump +20), where Democrats appear to be pinning their hopes on independent candidates.

But recent developments give Democrats increasing reason to dare to dream:

• The primaries have broken the way Democrats wanted them to in states like Iowa, Texas and Montana.
• The “generic ballot” polling — a choice between an unnamed Democrat and an unnamed Republican — has trended significantly in their direction.
• The limited quality polling we have in key states — like a new Fox News poll in Ohio — suggests winning some of these double-digit Trump states is within the realm of possibility.

That doesn’t mean everything is going Democrats’ way right now; the continued disclosures about Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner, for instance, have cast real doubt on a blue state that Democrats probably need to win.

(They need four more seats to gain control, and their easiest targets are supposed to be Maine and North Carolina.)

But they’ve got some major signs trending their way.

On Tuesday, the Democratic establishment got the candidate it wanted in Iowa: state Rep. Josh Turek, a Paralympian who has carried a district that voted for Trump. This led some election analysts to move the state into a more competitive category.

The same day, the party also pulled off a win, of sorts, in Montana. Specifically, it got an under-funded Democratic nominee who could theoretically open the door to an independent who has more of a chance of winning the race and depriving Republicans of a seat — or, at least, make the GOP spend more than it expected to in the state.

And further back, the matchup in Texas is exactly what the Democratic Party wanted. They got state Rep. James Talarico over firebrand Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary, then they got baggage-laden state Attorney General Ken Paxton over Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican primary runoff.

Some key primaries remain — especially the Democratic primary in Michigan — but, so far, they’re breaking well for Democrats.

This is a mainstay of midterm election polling, which asks voters whether they would prefer to vote for an unnamed Republican candidate or an unnamed Democratic candidate in that district. It’s a way to get a read on the national environment without polling every individual race.

For a while, it looked like Democrats weren’t building the kind of advantage they would like to — possibly owing to their party’s poor brand.

But there are some signs it could be shifting.

While some polls continue to show this measure is close among registered voters — like a CNN poll (Democrats +3) a month ago and a Marquette Law School poll released this week (near even with Democrats at 46% to Republicans’ 45%) — some recent high-quality polls have found Democrats with a double-digit lead.

That includes a New York Times/Siena College poll and a Quinnipiac University poll which showed Democrats up 11, as well as an NPR/PBS/Marist College poll showing them up 10.

Those are the kinds of margins that give Democrats reason to hope they could win double-digit Trump states.

While polling data is still early and sparse at the state level, the limited recent polls available look good for Democrats.

A new Fox News poll among Ohio registered voters is a case in point.

The poll released Wednesday shows Democratic former Sen. Sherrod Brown leading appointed GOP Sen. Jon Husted by eight points, 53%-45%. This is, again, in a state Trump won by 11 points in 2024. If that margin held among actual voters in November, it would be a 19-point swing.

The result would be similar to Brown’s six-point win in Trump’s first midterm in 2018 — an election that was quite good for Democrats.

And it suggests Brown is picking off significant numbers of crossover voters. The Fox poll shows he’s getting 13% of all Republicans, 14% of 2024 Trump voters and 31% of Republicans who don’t identify with the MAGA movement.

The polling in Texas has been similar, if more dated. A late April/early May Texas Southern University/YouGov poll showed Talarico and Paxton tied at 45%, while an older University of Texas/Texas Politics Project poll showed Talarico ahead by eight, 42%-34%.

Both showed Talarico leading by more than 20 points with independents. And even the closer poll showed Paxton struggling to completely lock down Republican voters.

Another key facet of the polls in both states: They all show the Democratic Senate candidates doing better than other Democrats on the ballot, like gubernatorial candidates. That suggests Democrats are nominating pretty favorable candidate matchups.

And finally worth mentioning is another recent poll in Maine. The late-May University of New Hampshire survey was conducted before the recent revelations about Platner, but it confirmed Democrats’ overall momentum.

Platner led Republican five-term Sen. Susan Collins 51%-42% among likely voters.

What’s particularly encouraging for Democrats there was that Platner seemed to be locking down Democrats (taking 91% of them) more than Collins was locking down Republicans (80%).

That’s a reversal from Collins’ 2020 reelection race, when exit polls showed her getting 91% of Republicans but her Democratic opponent getting just 84% of Democrats.

Another Maine poll last month, from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and YouGov, showed Platner leading 48%-43%.

Polling Maine is notoriously difficult. In that 2020 race, Collins trailed in every public survey before shocking everyone when she won by nine points. And obviously, Platner’s baggage could impact things.

Still, the data right now is pretty clear that Democrats winning control of the Senate is increasingly on the table. One wouldn’t blame them for feeling optimistic about their ability to compete in Alaska and even Iowa, given what we’re seeing in Ohio and Texas.

This story has been updated with additional polling.

Iowa GOP governor nominee recounts viral clash that put Obama on the spot at 2009 town hall

June 4, 2026 1:48pm EDT / Fox News

Iowa GOP gubernatorial nominee stumped Obama on signature legislation at 2009 rally

The newly-minted Republican nominee for governor in Iowa put then-President Barack Obama on his heels after with question about Obamacare at a 2009 rally in Colorado. (Credit: The Obama White House)

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Republican nominee for governor in Iowa pulled back the curtain for Fox News Digital on the time he went viral for stumping Barack Obama at a 2009 town hall centered on the then-president’s namesake legislation.

Zach Lahn pulled off an upset victory Tuesday night when he defeated Trump-backed Republican Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, for the party’s nomination for governor.

But 17 years ago, when he was a student at the University of Colorado Boulder, Lahn confronted Obama at a town hall where the 44th president was promoting the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. The old clip went viral after his Tuesday win.

Zach Lahn speaks to supporters after winning the Iowa GOP gubernatorial primary election on Tuesday, June 2, 2026.(Zach Lahn for Governor via Facebook)

At the time of the exchange, the video was circulated by late conservative radio titan Rush Limbaugh, who praised Lahn as “amazing,” and said that with “one simple question that Obama can’t answer, [he] nukes the entire foundation of Obamacare.”

The candidate in what will be a hotly contested Iowa gubernatorial race posted the clip to his social media in May, but it gained widespread traction after Tuesday’s primary election.

GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE IN KEY 2028 WHITE HOUSE ELECTION CYCLE STATE ANNOUNCES RECORD FUNDRAISING HAUL

Lahn recounted the moment to Fox News Digital on Thursday and remembered how shocked he was to be called upon at the event. Lahn and his roommate purchased tickets to the 2009 event in Grand Junction and then drove eight hours round trip twice to attend the event — first to pick up tickets and again days later to attend the town hall.

“You know, I was young, and, I was in college at the time, going to University of Colorado Boulder, and so I was pretty fired up about this whole healthcare discussion,” he said. “It was just my entrance, sort of, into some of the political discussions.”

President Barack Obama speaks with CU student Zach Lahn during a town hall meeting at Central High School in Grand Junction, Colo., on Aug. 15, 2009, discussing health insurance reform and limits on out-of-pocket expenses.(Craig F. Walker/The Denver Post)

Speaking to Obama in 2009, Lahn said: “We all know the best way to reduce prices in this economy is to increase competition.”

“How in the world can a private corporation providing insurance compete with an entity that does not have to worry about making a profit, does not have to pay local property taxes, they’re not subject to local regulations? How can a company compete with that?” he questioned.

REPUBLICANS DIVIDED OVER WHETHER TO SALVAGE OBAMACARE — OR REPLACE IT — AHEAD OF SUBSIDY DEADLINE

“I don’t want generalities — I’m not looking for philosophical arguments. I’m just asking a question,” he asserted.

Obama thanked him for the question, and then for the first time during the Obamacare debate, said he might not be in favor of the public option, which would have allowed Americans to buy government-run health insurance alongside private insurance.

President Barack Obama answers a question during a health care town hall meeting at Central High School gym in Grand Junction, Colo., on Aug. 15, 2009.(John Moore/Getty Images)

“Certainly they can’t compete if the taxpayer is standing behind the public option just shoveling more and more money in,” Obama replied. “That’s certainly not fair, and so I’ve already said I would not be in favor of a public option of that sort because that would just mean more expenses out of our pockets and we wouldn’t be seeing much improvement in quality.”

WATCH: DOCTOR-LAWMAKER BLAMES OBAMACARE FOR DRIVING HEALTH COSTS HIGHER

There was no public option when Obamacare became law.

“Ultimately, what came out of it was, maybe in an inadvertent way, he mentioned for the first time that they might not have the public option in Obamacare,” Lahn told Fox News Digital. “Then right afterwards, Fox and CNN and these people wanted to talk to me because Obama had just said that this key part of his plan may not be included, and then it ended up not being included.”

For another minute or so, Obama stuttered through an answer to Lahn’s question about competition, wrestling publicly with the idea that private insurance companies would also have to borrow money at high interest rates, something else the government would not have to do.

TRUMP WILL MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN WITH AN UNLIKELY COALITION

Lahn told Fox News Digital he wasn’t quite satisfied with Obama’s answer at the time, describing it as “word salad.”

“I feel like most politicians today, like, they can’t give me a real answer or they or they dance around something and never get to the real issue,” he said.

Zach Lahn raises his fist in celebration after defeating his primary opponent in Iowa’s GOP gubernatorial race on Tuesday, June 2, 2026.(Zach Lahn for Governor via Facebook)

Lahn, a farmer and businessman who has centered much of his campaign on making Iowa healthy again and was strongly backed by the MAHA wing of the conservative movement, now squares off with Democratic Auditor of Iowa Rob Sand.

Though he stepped away from politics for several years to build his business and run his family farm, Lahn’s passion for issues plaguing Iowans drew him back into the fold.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“I really haven’t been involved in this in over a decade, and these issues that I’m running on I truly care about, whether it’s all these kids leaving Iowa, our family farms, our education system or the outlier cancer rate that we are in the world.”

“I don’t know how much longer we can go as a state without addressing these issues.”

Peter D’Abrosca is a reporter at Fox News Digital covering politics.

Follow Peter on X at @pmd_reports. Send story tips to peter.dabrosca@fox.com.

Bipartisan Senate duo urges court to maintain block on DOJ fund, calling it a “dire threat” to Constitution

2026-06-04T15:58:00-0400 / CBS News

Washington— A bipartisan pair of senators urged a federal court Thursday to continue blocking the Justice Department from moving forward with its $1.7 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” warning that it is an “immediate and dire threat” to the constitutional order and arguing it is designed to provide payouts to people involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Sens. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, and Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, raised their objections to the fund in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the court in eastern Virginia. A judge there temporarily blocked the Justice Department last week from taking any action regarding the program, including considering claims or disbursing funds, while she considers whether to grant longer-lasting relief.

In their filing, the senators said the judge should maintain her injunction and ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the fund, which include a former federal prosecutor who worked on Jan. 6-related cases.

“The Anti-Weaponization Fund presents an immediate and dire threat to our constitutional order and the authority of Congress,” Cassidy and Booker wrote. “Indeed, among other purposes, the Fund is designed to compensate the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. The existence of the Fund strikes at the core of Congressional authority and our Constitutional order.”

The senators said that the fund violates the Constitution’s Spending, Appropriations and Appointments Clauses.

In their brief, they said they “respectfully urge this Court to recognize that what is at stake in this litigation is not an ordinary dispute about executive spending authority or the boundaries of the clemency power. It is a question of whether the machinery of democratic government may be turned, by design and with explicit intent, against the democratic foundations it exists to serve.”

The Justice Department announced the anti-weaponization fund last month as part of a deal to settle a civil lawsuit President Trump filed against the IRS in January over the leak of his tax returns by a former government contractor. The $1.7 billion fund aims to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare,” according to the Justice Department.

The settlement gives five people who are appointed by the attorney general the authority to distribute payouts. The Justice Department did not specify who could benefit from the fund, but shortly after it was announced, several people convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack and Trump allies said they planned to apply for relief.

Republican and Democratic senators swiftly objected to the program, particularly because of concerns that people involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol assault could be awarded money. The fund threatened to derail a $70 billion package to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through a process known as reconciliation. The Senate on Thursday convened to move forward with the legislation, though Democrats and some Republicans are expected to force votes aimed at limiting the fund.

Cassidy, who recently lost his primary election to an opponent backed by Mr. Trump, is among the GOP senators who have expressed issues with the anti-weaponization fund.

Amid the backlash, the Justice Department said it would stop work on the program and comply with the court’s temporary decision. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche also told a House committee Tuesday that the administration is “not moving forward with the fund,” but would not commit to putting it in writing.

Still, Blanche’s assurances, particularly when coupled with Mr. Trump’s continued defense of the program, have done little to assuage skeptical senators.

In their court filing, Booker and Cassidy argued the “anti-weaponization” program is an “end-run” around Congress’s power of the purse and the Senate’s advise and consent role in presidential appointments. They said the fund “presents a threat to our constitutional democracy” by potentially providing payments to Jan. 6 rioters, many of whom were pardoned by Mr. Trump on his first day back in the White House.

“Regardless of the Executive Branch’s authority to extend clemency to those defendants, the further step of affirmatively compensating them from public funds transforms a decision not to punish into a declaration that the conduct itself was legitimate and deserving of remedy,” Cassidy and Booker wrote. “The gravity of that transformation cannot be overstated.”

The two senators framed the fund as part of a “scheme deliberately designed to recast insurrectionists” as victims and “legitimate prosecutions as persecution.”

“To deliberately deploy public funds, in violation of the Constitution and the laws of this nation, to compensate these perpetrators is to use the machinery of democratic government to subsidize an attack on that government’s most fundamental processes,” the senators said.

Vote against “anti-weaponization” fund coming

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/will-republicans-join-democrats-in-vote-against-doj-anti-weaponization-fund/

Will Republicans join Democrats in vote against DOJ “anti-weaponization” fund?

(03:48)

Bessent spars with Dem in fiery Trump tax showdown until claim crosses the line: ‘Slanderous’

June 4, 2026 2:55pm EDT / Fox News

The exchange grew combative as Sánchez questioned who in Trump’s family is shielded from IRS audits

By Robert Schmad, Fox News

Rep Linda Sánchez questions Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent over President Trump’s taxes in a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Thursday.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/19147cdf-57bc-4250-919a-09b621155bee

Listen to this article

4 min

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Rep. Linda Sánchez, D-Calif., traded barbs during a Thursday congressional hearing after she pressed him over a DOJ settlement requiring the IRS to end any existing tax audits of President Donald Trump, with Sánchez ultimately accusing him of overseeing the “most corrupt Treasury Department” in U.S. history.

“I hope that you’re proud of your performance today, Mr. Secretary,” Sánchez told Bessent as he testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday.

“I hope you get some social media clips,” he shot back.

The tense exchange came as Sánchez cited a settlement reached between the Department of Justice and the Trump family in May that forced the IRS, which is overseen by the Treasury Department, to end any existing tax audits of Trump, his family and their business interests. By the end of the back and forth, both parties had become incensed, with the congresswoman accusing Bessent of running the “most corrupt Treasury Department.”

TRUMP FILES $10B LAWSUIT AGAINST IRS OVER ALLEGED TAX RETURN LEAKS TO MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks to members of the media outside the White House in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 5, 2025.(Eric Lee/Bloomberg)

“Why are you allowing President Trump and his family to have complete immunity from being audited?” Sánchez asked Bessent as he testified before the House Ways and Means Committee.

“Again, since you are a lawyer, you will understand that the U.S. Treasury and the IRS are represented by the Justice Department and the acting attorney general,” Bessent responded.

The clash highlighted a broader fight over how far executive power should extend when it intersects with federal agencies, personal finances and politically charged investigations. It also provided a familiar dynamic: Democrats warning of special treatment for Trump, and the administration framing the issue as another example of combating institutional overreach against him.

It is unclear whether Trump is currently facing any audits, a detail pressed by Bessent, eliciting indignation from Sánchez.

“Do you have specific knowledge of an audit of President Trump?” he asked Sánchez.

DEMOCRAT CONGRESSWOMAN DRAWS BOOS OVER ‘SHAMEFUL’ SEXISM REMARK IN COMMITTEE HEARING WITH TREASURY SECRETARY

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testifies during the House Financial Services Committee hearing titled “The Annual Report of the Financial Stability Oversight Council” in the Rayburn Building on Feb. 4, 2026.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc)

“Excuse me? It’s my time. You’re not here to ask me questions. I’m here to ask you questions. And hopefully you’re here to try to answer some of them,” she responded. “I’m curious to know who counts as Trump’s family for the purposes of this immunity. Is it his children, his in-laws, his grandchildren, his second or third cousin? His great-great-grandchildren? Do you know the answer to that question, Mr. Secretary?”

“Again, I imagine you have the Justice Department phone number. I suggest you call them,” the secretary responded.

The exchange only heightened from that point.

“Safe to say that this is probably the most corrupt Treasury Department in our nation’s history,” Sánchez said as her time speaking expired.

“And I am going to have to take exception with that,” Bessent hit back, waving away her claim as “slanderous.”

“The congresswoman is slanderous,” Bessent continued. “She has nothing … the unsubstantiated opinions. And I will not stand for that. There is nothing corrupt. We move at the highest levels.”

ACTING AG BLANCHE REVEALS FATE OF TRUMP’S ‘ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND’ UNDER PRESSURE FROM HOUSE LAWMAKERS

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent adjusts his glasses during a meeting with President Donald Trump and Argentine President Javier Milei in the Cabinet Room at the White House on Oct. 14, 2025.(Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Critics have questioned whether the DOJ has authority to bind the IRS and accused Trump, who was in 2024 reportedly facing a tax investigation that could have cost him up to $100 million, of pressuring the government for personal gain. Supporters, meanwhile, argue that the immunity is an appropriate response to alleged government weaponization.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The state of the Trump family’s immunity is currently uncertain, especially after a federal judge blocked the president’s proposed $1.8 billion compensation fund. Bessent has declined to comment on whether the immunity deal is still in place, citing pending litigation.

Fmr Defense Secretary Panetta: the war in Iran ‘is very much turning into Trump’s Vietnam’

2:36 PM EDT, Thu June 4, 2026 / By Margaret Given, CNN

Fmr Defense Secretary Panetta: the war in Iran “is very much turning into Trump’s Vietnam”

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/04/politics/video/cncpm-panetta-iran-turning-into-trumps-vietnam

Leon Panetta, Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director under Obama, tells CNN’s Brianna Keilar that the war in Iran “is very much turning into Trump’s Vietnam.” He explains his thinking.

3:50 • Source: CNN

Politics of the Day 10 videos

Fmr Defense Secretary Panetta: the war in Iran “is very much turning into Trump’s Vietnam”
03:50
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Rubio responds to videos appearing to show Trump sleeping in Cabinet meetings
06:07
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Fetterman calls Platner a ‘creep’ after reports of extramarital sexting
00:54
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Justice Department is not moving forward on the ‘anti-weaponization’ fund, Blanche says
05:20
Now playing
• Source: CNN

‘He has no background’: CNN intelligence analyst on Trump’s pick for acting DNI
04:43
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Newark mayor calls for immediate closure of ICE detention center
01:14
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Jill Biden shares update on Joe Biden’s cancer
00:51
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Ex-Jill Biden spokesperson on why he thinks former first lady’s recent CBS interview has damaged her credibility
03:54
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Dem lawmaker on Bondi’s Epstein testimony: “She’s lying”
03:33
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Trump responds to ruling that his name must be taken off Kennedy Center
01:06
Now playing
• Source: CNN

See more videos

英法据悉敲定战后霍尔木兹海峡扫雷计划 15国承诺支持

2026年6月5日 00:00 / 联合早报

6月3日，从阿曼穆桑达姆港所见的滞留霍尔木兹海峡的船只。 （路透社）

据知情人士透露，英国和法国已敲定计划，准备在美国和伊朗就重开霍尔木兹海峡达成协议后的数日内，牵头在这一水道展开一项多国扫雷任务。

本周稍早，美国与伊朗在波斯湾发生冲突。在各方艰难推动达成一项临时协议、以恢复战前海上交通水平之际，这条全球最关键的贸易通道之一的航运仍几乎陷于停摆。

彭博社引述五名知情人士说，多国军事规划人员就参与清除霍尔木兹海峡水雷的行动进入深入筹备阶段。这些水雷先前由伊朗伊斯兰革命卫队布设。

其中三名知情人士称，这项扫雷任务将涉及由15个国家组成的联盟，这些国家已承诺提供军事人员和装备。他们补充说，这些国家可能会在任务启动数周后加入行动，为商业船只提供安全保障。尽管规划工作基本完成，但有关方面仍在寻求补充一些设备，尤其是支援船只。

知情人士指出，在美国与伊朗达成协议、恢复完整且不受阻碍的商业航行权，并为军事资产在海峡内活动提供可接受环境之前，相关部署不会启动。由于涉及尚未公开的敏感行动事项，这些知情人士要求匿名。

知情人士称，这项由英国和法国牵头的任务将就行动事务与德黑兰开通沟通渠道。知情人士补充说，尽管伊朗已表示希望自行清除霍尔木兹海峡的水雷，但英国和法国认为伊朗不具备完成这项任务的能力，因此更倾向于自行主导扫雷行动。

英法据悉敲定战后霍尔木兹海峡扫雷计划 15国承诺支持

2026年6月5日 00:00 / 联合早报

6月3日，从阿曼穆桑达姆港所见的滞留霍尔木兹海峡的船只。 （路透社）

据知情人士透露，英国和法国已敲定计划，准备在美国和伊朗就重开霍尔木兹海峡达成协议后的数日内，牵头在这一水道展开一项多国扫雷任务。

本周稍早，美国与伊朗在波斯湾发生冲突。在各方艰难推动达成一项临时协议、以恢复战前海上交通水平之际，这条全球最关键的贸易通道之一的航运仍几乎陷于停摆。

彭博社引述五名知情人士说，多国军事规划人员就参与清除霍尔木兹海峡水雷的行动进入深入筹备阶段。这些水雷先前由伊朗伊斯兰革命卫队布设。

其中三名知情人士称，这项扫雷任务将涉及由15个国家组成的联盟，这些国家已承诺提供军事人员和装备。他们补充说，这些国家可能会在任务启动数周后加入行动，为商业船只提供安全保障。尽管规划工作基本完成，但有关方面仍在寻求补充一些设备，尤其是支援船只。

知情人士指出，在美国与伊朗达成协议、恢复完整且不受阻碍的商业航行权，并为军事资产在海峡内活动提供可接受环境之前，相关部署不会启动。由于涉及尚未公开的敏感行动事项，这些知情人士要求匿名。

经合组织：若中东战事拖至明年 全球增长恐跌至2.1% 中东冲突升级 科威特巴林再遭伊朗袭击 美军反击伊朗岛屿

知情人士称，这项由英国和法国牵头的任务将就行动事务与德黑兰开通沟通渠道。知情人士补充说，尽管伊朗已表示希望自行清除霍尔木兹海峡的水雷，但英国和法国认为伊朗不具备完成这项任务的能力，因此更倾向于自行主导扫雷行动。

Trump’s name must come off the Kennedy Center by June 12

2026-06-04T14:02:00-0400 / CBS News

By
Ed O’Keefe Senior White House and Political Correspondent
Ed O’Keefe is CBS News’ senior White House and political correspondent reporting for all CBS News platforms. He’s part of the team covering President Trump and covered all four years of Joe Biden’s presidency. From the White House to the campaign trail, O’Keefe’s reports stretch from the politics of the moment to how policy enacted in Washington affects the nation and the world.

Read Full Bio

Updated on: June 4, 2026 / 2:52 PM EDT / CBS News

Add CBS News on Google

Lawyers for what is currently called the Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts are instructing staff to immediately begin switching the name of the facility back to its original title.

The instructions, laid out in a memo sent Thursday by the center’s general counsel and obtained by CBS News, are the first official signal the national arts hub is complying with a federal court order to drop President Trump’s name and reconsider plans to close for two years of renovations.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper last week ruled in favor of Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio, a member of the Kennedy Center’s Board of Trustees, who filed a lawsuit challenging the institution’s name change and plans to close for two years for extensive repairs beginning this summer.

Cooper found the board had overstepped its authority and ordered the president’s name to be removed from “the institution’s title, as represented on the façade of the Center, any other physical or digital signage, and official materials.”

The memo to staff Thursday said staff “must immediately change email signatures, letterhead, and other documents to reflect the name as ‘The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts,’ or ‘Kennedy Center.”‘

Changes to interior and exterior signage and any furniture carrying the current name must be switched back by next Friday, according to the memo.

The Kennedy Center didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The memo also says center officials still are “considering their options and will provide further guidance shortly” on whether the center will remain open after July 5, when extensive renovations costing $257 million are set to begin.

In his order, Cooper agreed renovations to the arts center are “sorely needed,” but he wrote his preliminary injunction does not “categorically” bar the board from closing the Kennedy Center, “should it come to this decision anew after independently balancing its multiple obligations to the Center in a prudent fashion.”

“By way of this opinion, the Court does not purport to dictate how the Center should be run, nor does it prescribe any particular plan for the institution — construction, closure, or otherwise — moving forward,” he wrote. “It simply holds the Kennedy Center Board to certain minimum requirements imposed by law. Beyond that, the Court will let the parties play on.”

In the early weeks of his second term, Mr. Trump replaced several members of the center’s Board of Trustees with senior members of his administration and close allies, who then elected him as chair.

In December, the Kennedy Center’s board voted to change the performing arts institution’s name to The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. Within hours, the Kennedy Center’s website was updated to read “The Trump Kennedy Center” and crews went to work adding Mr. Trump’s name to the building’s facade. But lawmakers and legal scholars said such a change required congressional action.

Several artists who were set to perform at the institution canceled performances and the executive director of the National Symphony Orchestra, which performs at the Kennedy Center, left for a new job.

US Supreme Court backs SEC in fight over ‘disgorgement’ power

2026-06-04T14:12:49.048Z / https://www.reuters.com/world/us-supreme-court-backs-sec-fight-over-disgorgement-power-2026-06-04/

The seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is seen at their headquarters in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 12, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Summary

• Case tested key Securities and Exchange Commission power
• SEC can seek surrender of profits from illegal activities
• Trump administration defended the SEC in the case

WASHINGTON, June 4 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the Securities ​and Exchange Commission’s broad authority to recover illegal profits using a financial remedy called disgorgement, buttressing one of ‌the Wall Street watchdog agency’s key powers.

The justices, in a 9-0 ruling, upheld a lower court’s decision that had endorsed a wide use of the SEC’s disgorgement authority. President Donald Trump’s administration had defended the SEC in the case.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

The challenge to the SEC’s disgorgement power was brought by a defendant named Ongkaruck ​Sripetch. At the agency’s request, a court in California ordered Sripetch to repay more than $3 million in ill-gotten gains and ​interest related to a financial fraud case.

The SEC’s general power to pursue disgorgement was not in dispute ⁠in the case. Courts have long recognized this authority and Congress enshrined it in federal law. At issue was whether the agency ​must show that victims suffered economic harm before it can seek the surrender of illegal profits.

Justice Department lawyers during arguments before the justices ​in April said the SEC was not required to show that fraud inflicted financial, or “pecuniary,” harm before pursuing repayment through the courts.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the unanimous court, concluded that “a showing of pecuniary loss is not required before an investor may qualify as a victim of an offender’s wrongdoing ​entitled to compensation.”

Under Trump, the SEC used the remedy to obtain around $1.4 billion in fiscal 2025, according to an agency tally that ​excluded certain sums. The prior year under Democratic President Joe Biden, the SEC obtained $6.1 billion through disgorgement, almost three-fourths of its total financial penalties.

The SEC ‌in ⁠2020 sought disgorgement for illicit proceeds that it said Sripetch reaped through fraudulent means, including a so-called pump-and-dump scheme that involved artificially inflating the price of penny stocks before selling off his shares at a profit.

Sripetch admitted violating securities law, and in a related criminal case was sentenced to 21 months in prison. Sripetch challenged the lower court’s disgorgement order on the grounds that the SEC failed to ​prove his actions caused stock ​prices to drop or otherwise ⁠financially harmed investors.

A California-based federal judge sided with the SEC’s broader interpretation of its disgorgement power in a ruling that was upheld last year by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ​SEC’s $1.4 billion disgorgement figure for fiscal 2025 excludes certain repayments secured by other federal agencies and ​an $8 billion payment ⁠made in January 2025, during the second week of Trump’s return to the White House, stemming from long-running SEC litigation concerning a Ponzi scheme. Beyond disgorgement, the SEC can also pursue fines, sanctions and other punishment.

The Supreme Court in a 2024 ruling also involving the SEC rejected ⁠the agency’s in-house ​enforcement of laws protecting investors against securities fraud. The court ruled that agency ​proceedings seeking penalties for fraud that are handled by the SEC itself instead of in federal court violate the U.S. Constitution’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Reporting by John Kruzel; additional reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab