博客

Former Harris campaign official reacts to DNC’s 2024 ‘autopsy’

7:36 PM EDT, Thu May 21, 2026 / CNN Politics

https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/21/politics/video/election-2024-donald-trump-kamala-harris-dnc-autopsy-lead-jake-tapper

Former Harris campaign official reacts to DNC’s 2024 ‘autopsy’

The Lead

Rob Flaherty, who was the Deputy Campaign Manager for the Biden 2024 campaign and then the Harris 2024 campaign, joins The Lead.

0:59 • Source: CNN

Trump admin pushes back on ‘slush fund’ attacks against Anti-Weaponization Fund and lays out who qualifies

2026-05-21 5:12pm EDT / Fox News

Fund emerged from a settlement between Trump and the IRS over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax records

By Elaine Mallon Fox News

Published May 21, 2026 5:12pm EDT | Updated May 21, 2026 5:44pm EDT

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6396089330112

Acting AG Blanche grilled at Senate hearing over compensation fund

Fox News chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram reports on acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testifying before a Senate panel about a compensation fund for alleged victims of government weaponization on ‘Special Report.’

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Trump administration says the $1.778 billion Justice Department “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will compensate Americans unfairly targeted by politicized federal investigations on a “case-by-case” basis, pushing back on critics who have portrayed the program as a taxpayer-funded payout for Jan. 6 rioters and Trump allies.

Heated dispute over the fund centers on who will ultimately benefit from it, with Trump administration officials saying it is intended to compensate individuals harmed by “weaponized” federal investigations, such as pro-lifers targeted by the Biden administration, while critics in both parties fear it could allow politically connected figures or some Jan. 6 defendants to seek taxpayer-funded payments.

“Republicans can apply for it. Democrats can apply for it,” Vice President J.D. Vance said during a Tuesday White House briefing in answer to the critics. “If Hunter Biden wants to apply for this particular fund, he is welcome to.”

The Anti-Weaponization Fund is unusual because it emerged from a lawsuit settlement between Trump and the IRS, an agency he oversees as president, raising concerns among lawmakers and commentators about potential conflicts of interest. Its creation caught GOP lawmakers by surprise and has derailed Senate negotiations on a $72 billion package to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol — with several Republicans joining Democrats in calling it a “slush fund.”

REPUBLICANS RECOIL AS TRUMP’S BILLION-DOLLAR DOJ ‘SLUSH FUND’ FOR ALLIES THREATENS ICE, BORDER PATROL PLAN

An image shows the Department of Justice building with an overlay of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images; Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was deployed to Capitol Hill on Thursday to smooth things over. But according to several sources, the meeting was contentious and more than one Republican senator blew up at the DOJ head.

“The Acting Attorney General met with Senators today, and there was a healthy discussion on the settlement,” a DOJ spokesperson said after the meeting Thursday. “He made clear that the Anti-Weaponization Fund announced Monday has nothing to do with reconciliation, indeed not a single dime from the money the President is seeking in reconciliation would go toward anything having to do with the Fund. We will continue to work with the Senate to get critical reconciliation funds approved.”

MS NOW contributor Joe Scarborough has alleged that the Anti-Weaponization Fund would be funneled to those convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots. On his first day in office, Trump issued pardons and commutations to more than 1,500 people involved in the Capitol riots.

“We got this billion-dollar ‘Marie Antoinette’ ballroom, now that they’re talking about funding and $1 billion plus slush fund for people who beat the hell out of cops,” Scarborough said. “It is a slush fund, a weaponization slush fund for supporters of Donald Trump, JD Vance and the Republican Party.”

But the Trump administration’s grievances with the “weaponization” of the Justice Department extend far beyond Biden-era prosecutions of those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot.

Biden’s Justice Department prosecuted more than 50 pro-life activists who were accused of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) between 2021 and 2024. Since returning to office, Trump pardoned dozens of pro-life activists, some of whom were serving jail time.

The Trump Justice Department has also accused Biden-era officials of “zealously pursuing” prosecutions against Christians in its “2026 Report by the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias,” potentially opening the door for another category of people who could seek compensation through the fund.

Still, Trump faces criticism over the fund even from his own party. Sen. John Thune, R-SD, the top Republican leader in the Senate, said he wasn’t a “big fan” of the fund’s creation and that he “was not sure exactly how they intend to use it.”

BIDEN DOJ WEAPONIZED FACE ACT AGAINST PRO-LIFE AMERICANS, 882-REPORT ALLEGES

“I think that there are, and will continue to be, a lot of questions around that, that the administration is going to have to answer,” Thune said.

Justice Department officials and some legal experts say the fund, while unusual and politically controversial, falls within the government’s legal authority and that payments aren’t guaranteed.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund was born out of a settlement between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service. Trump filed the lawsuit against the IRS in January over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax records.

A sign for the Internal Revenue Service is seen outside its headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 13, 2025.(Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

Claims will be determined by a five-person board appointed by the Attorney General, with at least one member selected with consultation with congressional leadership, according to a Justice Department press release. At any point in time, the president has the power to remove a member without cause.

Under the settlement agreement, the Anti-Weaponization Fund will evaluate claims by looking at the “totality of the circumstances.” Those factors considered include how strong a person’s claim is and what evidence supports it, the financial harm they allegedly suffered — including legal fees — whether they spent time in prison and whether they have already received compensation or other relief elsewhere.

The agreement also gives the board discretion to weigh “other factors” it considers fair and appropriate when deciding whether someone qualifies for compensation.

“This is about seeking accountability for all Americans who were victims of law fare and weaponization: millions of Americans whose online speech was censored at the behest of the government, parents silenced at school boards, Senators whose records were secretly subpoenaed, churchgoers targeted by the FBI, and so on,” a Justice Department document stated.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund will last until December 1, 2028.

APOLOGIES AND CASH HEADED TO ALLEGED ‘WEAPONIZATION’ VICTIMS IN BILLION-DOLLAR TRUMP SETTLEMENT

“It would be a disgrace if the Supreme Court of the United States allows that to happen. Remember what I said 20 to 25% of the people coming into our country will come in through birthright citizenship,” said Trump.(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Funding for the Anti-Weaponization Fund is coming from the Judgment Fund, which is a permanent Treasury account used to pay for settlements and claims against the government.

While the Justice Department pointed to the Obama administration’s creation of “Keepseagle,” a $760 million fund for victims of racism by the federal government as precedent for the creation of the fund, legal experts say there are key distinctions between the two. For instance, payouts in Keepseagle were made out to people a part of a class action lawsuit against the government; whereas anyone can apply for a claim with the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

“The Judgment Fund is for lawsuits,” Adam Zimmerman, a professor at USC Gould School of Law told PBS News. “It’s not for an amorphous group of people who feel like they’ve been wronged generally by a prior administration.”

But unlike the Keepseagle, which distributed leftover funds to nonprofits, the Anti-Weaponization Fund will return remaining funds back to the Department of Commerce. Although, the practice of disbursing leftover funds to related third party organizations, which occurred in Keepseagle, is not uncommon in class action lawsuits.

Fox News Digital’s Alex Miller and Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.

Zelenskyy confirmed asking for “ammunition, not a ride.” Four years ago, I got pushback for reporting that.

2026-05-21T16:50:00-0400 / CBS News

Washington — Back in February, just after American forces captured former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and days before the United States would kick off its war with Iran, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed for the first time that he had uttered perhaps the best-known line attributed to him about the war against Russia: “I need ammunition — not a ride.”

In a speech marking four years since the full-scale Russian invasion had begun, the embattled president recounted that as Russian forces were closing in, the U.S. offered to evacuate him. That line was his response. Zelenskyy told Ukrainians he had said it “not because we are all fearless or made of steel…but [that] on some invisible level, all of us know that we have no other Ukraine, that this is our home.”

Today, the war has settled into a grinding conflict of attrition defined by drone warfare, long-range missile strikes, World War I-esque entrenched fighting positions, high casualty counts and mounting economic pressure on both sides. No long-term peace settlement appears close. But the war has also defied some early predictions that an outmanned Ukrainian military would suffer a swift defeat.

In late February 2022, Zelenskyy’s historic line became one of the most frequently quoted remarks about the invasion — despite the fact that after I reported it, the Biden administration firmly denied Zelenskyy had ever made the comment.

Still, the quote, which showed Zelenskyy’s resolve and dashed any hope Vladimir Putin may have harbored for a quick takeover of Ukraine, became a war cry, appearing on t-shirts and posters and in countless social media posts.

Zelenskyy’s defiance starkly differed from what had occurred months earlier, when a different president — Ashraf Ghani — fled Afghanistan as the Taliban rapidly swept up swaths of territory in the summer of 2021. And only six years earlier, Ukraine had seen another president, Viktor Yanukovych, flee Ukraine for Russia, amid massive protests about government corruption.

Despite the virality of the quote, what I remember most is an angry Biden administration and even a call from National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, pushing back on the reporting.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives at the Bucharest B9 summit, held at the Cotroceni Presidential Palace in Romania, on May 13, 2026. Vadim Ghirda / AP

At the time, I was working at the Associated Press, covering national security issues on the investigations team. After learning of the evacuation offer and quote, I notified my editor, Ron Nixon, who, like me, is a Marine veteran. The AP’s top editors met to discuss whether the story could be published on the single source that I had.

Among them was Julie Pace, the AP’s former Washington bureau chief who had been appointed executive editor five months earlier. She made the call to publish, since the source was a senior U.S. intelligence official with direct knowledge of the conversation.

The story went live late that night, a Friday, at 11:04 p.m. The world now knew that the Biden administration had offered to evacuate Zelenskyy from Kyiv as invading Russian forces closed in on Ukraine’s capital following a savage fusillade of airstrikes on cities and military bases around Ukraine.

Zelenskyy’s reply: “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride,” according to a senior American intelligence official with direct knowledge of the conversation.

The story and the quote instantly went viral. President Joe Biden instructed the U.S. State Department to release up to an additional $350 million worth of weapons from U.S. stocks to Ukraine, according to Reuters.

In Franklin Foer’s 2023 book, “The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future,” Foer wrote about the Associated Press report quoting Zelenskyy’s refusal to evacuate Kyiv. He compared it to “a line that screenwriters might conjure as they imagine their next blockbuster, and according to the administration it was apocryphia.”

He added, “Jake Sullivan’s advisors considered asking for a correction, but never bothered. A good story that came at their expense was understandable in the circumstances. If anybody deserved a little slack, it was Volodymyr Zelensky.”

He was wrong about that. Biden administration officials did want a correction — and a retraction, if they could get it.

As Friday night rolled into early Saturday, Anna Johnson, the AP’s new Washington bureau chief, received an angry call from a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council. As is the case whenever a news outlet receives pushback, I begin re-checking my facts as I knew them. The story and the quote were verbatim accurate in the English translation — in Ukrainian, it’s “I need a weapon, not a taxi.”

I stayed up all night. The Washington Post fact-checked the quote in March 2022 and reported that Biden administration officials expressed confusion about the claim and denied Zelenskyy was asked to leave Kyiv by the U.S. government.

The Post quoted me: “I can understand why they have been denying it. It makes them look bad.”

The Post noted that many news outlets typically would not cite a single-source secondhand quote by another news organization. But at 4:37 a.m. Saturday, hours after the AP’s story was posted, the Ukrainian Embassy in Britain tweeted the quote, giving a source to other news publications.

Multiple news outlets started to report the quote by morning on the East Coast. I remember what The New York Times wrote: “Mr. Zelensky’s response…will most likely go down in Ukrainian history whether he survives this onslaught or not.”

By 9 a.m., we were on another call with a spokesperson from the National Security Council. Angry about Zelenskyy’s quote and another story Nomaan Merchant, our intelligence reporter, was working on — a report about a delay in the intelligence the United States was sharing with Ukraine.

I soon received a call to ask if Sullivan could call me. I was stunned to hear that a top Biden adviser would want to talk to me, but agreed. When Sullivan called, I was at home unclogging my toilet with a plunger. He pushed back on the reporting and urged that I recheck my facts.

I did. The facts did not change. After the call, I spoke to my editor who wanted me to let my source know how much pushback the Associated Press was receiving from the White House. I went back and checked my reporting again. No change.

Sullivan told CBS News earlier this year he had nothing further to add.

I sent an email to the National Security Council spokesperson at 1:50 p.m.

“I spoke to Jake and he wanted me to give him a call back after I had gone back to double check my facts. I called but there was no answer,” I wrote. “The facts as we understand them have not changed but the one thing I don’t quite understand is why the NSC is so upset over this quote when it seems like the NSC has bigger issues to worry about? Thank you for your help and any clarification you can provide for the record.”

In March 2022, The Washington Post’s fact checker published an analysis on whether the quote was real and concluded that it was not easy to confirm. The AP neither corrected nor retracted the story.

Contacted for this story, the AP said they stand by it — me too. A spokesperson for Zelenskyy did as well.

U.S. intelligence agencies were reviewing what they got wrong on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by June 2022. While the U.S. intelligence community accurately predicted Russian President Vladimir Putin would order an invasion, it underestimated Zelenskyy’s resolve.

In December 2022, the AP reported that Zelenskyy’s quip denying to be evacuated from Kyiv was the top notable quote for 2022, according to a Yale Law School librarian’s list of the most notable quotations.

伊朗媒体：伊美在巴基斯坦调解下继续对话

2026年5月22日 07:08 / 联合早报

德黑兰一座建筑物外墙贴上绘有伊朗已故最高领袖哈梅内伊画像的宣传海报。 （路透社）

伊朗学生通讯社星期五（5月22日）凌晨报道，在巴基斯坦方面调解下，伊朗与美国之间的消息和文本交换仍在继续，目标是达成协议框架。

新华社引述伊朗学生通讯社报道，巴基斯坦方面消息人士说，若伊美双方达成预期框架，巴基斯坦陆军参谋长穆尼尔将到访伊朗。

伊朗学生通讯社21日报道，穆尼尔当天将赴伊朗首都德黑兰磋商，旨在进一步推动伊美谈判。

美国国务卿鲁比奥飞往瑞典出席北约外长会议前，在机场对记者说，美伊谈判出现一些“好迹象”。他说：“确实有一些好迹象，但我不想过于乐观……所以，让我们看看未来几天会发生什么。”

21日油价在剧烈波动的交易中大幅震荡，因为战争解决方案的前景不明朗而走低。美国总统特朗普当天誓言，美国最终将拿到伊朗的高浓缩铀。

在特朗普发表这番讲话前，伊朗两名消息人士透露，伊朗最高领袖穆杰塔巴已下令禁止将浓缩铀库存运往国外。

Republican revolt over Trump ‘weaponization’ fund stalls ICE funding vote

2026-05-21T20:17:01.227Z / Reuters

WASHINGTON, May 21 (Reuters) – U.S. Senate Republicans abandoned plans to vote on a bill to fund U.S. ​immigration enforcement operations on Thursday in a political revolt against one of President Donald Trump’s priorities: a $1.8 billion fund for victims of government “weaponization,” including those ‌convicted of violent crimes during the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

The Senate walked away from a planned vote on a $72 billion bill funding Trump’s massive migrant deportation led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, delaying the vote at least until June, when lawmakers return from a one-week Memorial Day holiday recess.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune had sought to focus the legislation narrowly to secure the money intended to fund ​ICE and Border Patrol through the end of Trump’s presidency. But at Trump’s behest, the $1.8 billion “weaponization” fund and another $1 billion for building a White House ballroom became ​sticking points.

“It was something that was supposed to be very narrow, targeted, focused, clean, straightforward, and it got a little bit more complicated ⁠this week,” Thune said, expressing his frustration. “It makes everything way harder than it should be.”

The battle over the partisan ICE funding bill came after a Trump-backed challenger unseated two-term Republican ​Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and the president endorsed a primary challenger over veteran Republican Senator John Cornyn in Texas.

Presidents usually back their party’s incumbents. Republicans said Trump’s opposition to Cassidy ​and Cornyn added to the mood of acrimony surrounding the debate.

“He’s lost some support in the Senate,” said Nebraska Republican Don Bacon, who predicted that Senate Republicans would have to impose curbs on Trump’s fund, which the Justice Department announced as part of a court settlement between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service.

“He’s the plaintiff and the boss of the defendants. So just on the surface, it smells,” he said.

ACTING ATTORNEY ​GENERAL SUMMONED TO CAPITOL HILL

Against that backdrop, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche was summoned to Capitol Hill to face questions from angry senators when he made his case for ​the $1.8 billion fund designed to compensate Trump allies and other victims of government “weaponization.”

During Blanche’s meeting, several senators insisted the money not be used to compensate people convicted of assaulting law enforcement during the ‌Capitol riot, the ⁠person said.

Trump had already pardoned many of those convicted for crimes they committed during that deadly assault.

“I think there are people who are concerned about public relations,” Senator Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, told reporters about the meeting.

Emotions were so raw that a planned White House meeting between Trump, Senate Republicans and House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson was canceled, according to a source familiar with the arrangement.

BIPARTISAN RESISTANCE TO BALLROOM FUNDING

The resistance against Trump became evident late on Wednesday when Senate Republicans said “no” to $1 billion in new security funding for the 90,000-square-foot (8,360-square-meter) ​ballroom Trump wants to build on the ​site of the White House East Wing ⁠that he had razed last October.

For months, Trump has said no taxpayer dollars would be needed for the project. Nonetheless, a $1 billion tab to be picked up by taxpayers stared senators in the face as an add-in to a $72 billion bill for Trump’s migrant deportation program.

Bacon ​said the White House failed to communicate that most of the $1 billion ballroom money would fund needed security upgrades across the ​White House complex. “The ballroom was ⁠rolled out so badly that I’m not sure it can be recovered in the near term,” he said.

Democrats hammered away about a “glitzy,” “gauzy” “vanity project,” a preview of their midterm election pitch addressing voters’ worries about the high prices of food, housing, healthcare and particularly gasoline, which skyrocketed after the February 28 U.S. attack on Iran.

Thune, who started the week with a tense phone call with the ⁠president over ​his endorsement against Cornyn, told reporters after Thursday’s meeting that his party “will pick up where we left off” ​after the holiday recess.

Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who is not running for reelection, did not hold back in criticizing Trump.

“I think it’s stupid on stilts,” Tillis said of the “weaponization” fund in an interview with Spectrum ​News. “The American people are going to reject this out of hand.”

Reporting by Richard Cowan, David Morgan, Bo Erickson, Jacob Bogage and Katharine Jackson; Editing by Caitlin Webber, Rod Nickel and Michael Learmonth

Trump lawyer-turned-critic Michael Cohen says he’s applying for “anti-weaponization fund” claim

May 21, 2026 / 7:41 PM EDT / CBS News

By Jacob Rosen Justice Department Reporter

Michael Cohen, a Trump lawyer-turned-critic who served prison time due to his work for the president, is planning to apply for money from the Justice Department’s new “anti-weaponization fund,” he told CBS News on Thursday.

“I am working through the process on my own and will submit the letter directly to the DOJ once completed,” Cohen told CBS News in a text message.

The controversial $1.776 billion fund was announced earlier this week, offering financial compensation to people who allege the legal system was “weaponized” against them. It’s part of a settlement between President Trump and the Justice Department to resolve a lawsuit brought by the president against the Internal Revenue Service over the leaking of Mr. Trump’s tax returns.

He said he is applying because he believes the issues that prompted Mr. Trump to sue the government are “identical to what had happened to me.”

“The basis for which Trump instituted the $10 billion action are the same causes of action that have affected me as well—has cost me my law license, my businesses, finances, family happiness, business relationships and opportunities,” Cohen said.

Cohen said that he is still working on a draft of his letter seeking relief. In a portion of his draft obtained by CBS News, Cohen wrote: “If the weaponization fund truly exists to support individuals destroyed by politically motivated law enforcement tactics, selective prosecution, government leaks, abuses of power and intentional destruction of reputation then there is perhaps no clearer example than what happened to me.”

NBC News was first to report on Cohen’s plan to apply for the fund.

Cohen was among Mr. Trump’s most trusted legal advisers before he became president in 2016. He was often referred to as Mr. Trump’s personal “fixer,” and once described himself as “the guy who would take a bullet for the president.” He is now a loud Trump critic.

Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison in 2018 after he pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations related to payments he arranged to women alleging affairs with Mr. Trump. He was also sentenced to two months in prison for lying to Congress over a proposed Trump Tower Moscow project, a charge brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. At his sentencing, Cohen claimed his loyalty to Mr. Trump led him to “take a path of darkness instead of light.”

“My weakness can be characterized as a blind loyalty to Donald Trump, and I was weak for not having the strength to question and to refuse his demands,” Cohen said at his sentencing.

In 2024, Cohen testified in a New York state criminal case against Mr. Trump, who was later convicted of falsifying business records related to the same payments to women that were at the center of Cohen’s criminal charges. Mr. Trump has long denied having affairs with the women and denied any criminal wrongdoing.

Cohen testified at trial that the president received regular updates on efforts to cover up salacious stories about him when he ran for president in 2016 and personally signed off on a scheme to falsify records related to them.

This would not be the first time that Cohen has sought relief for what he views as mistreatment by the government. Five years ago, he sued the federal government and Mr. Trump, alleging he was abruptly taken out of a COVID-era home confinement program in 2020 and forced to return to prison in an act of retaliation due to his criticism of the president. A judge dismissed his lawsuit, citing prior court precedents.

Cohen is among the first known Trump critics to signal plans to apply for the “anti-weaponization fund.”

The Justice Department said in a statement Monday that “there are no partisan requirements to file a claim,” and decisions on who will get relief will be determined by a panel of five people appointed by the attorney general.

Many of the other figures who have taken an interest in applying are Trump allies, including former Trump adviser Michael Caputo, who became the first known applicant when he asked the Justice Department for $2.7 million on Tuesday. Some Jan. 6 riot defendants have also suggested they may apply.

The fund has drawn criticism from members of both parties and from ethics watchdogs. The progressive Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called it “the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency.”

The Justice Department has defended the fund, with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche comparing it to other settlement funds created by the government and arguing it would remedy “years and years of weaponization.”

Lawmakers react to “anti-weaponization fund”

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/republican-lawmakers-seek-clarity-trumps-anti-weaponization-fund/

Republican lawmakers seek clarity on Trump’s “anti-weaponization fund”

(04:31)

Trump ups Reflecting Pool renovation projections to ‘less than $20 million’ amid court fight

2026-05-21T20:48:17.042Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/21/politics/reflecting-pool-20-million-lawsuit

President Donald Trump said Thursday the price tag for his Reflecting Pool renovations in Washington, DC, will be “less than $20 million” after he decided the exterior needed more work.

“I originally thought I’d do it for $2 or $3 million,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “Just do a base. But now we are fixing up the exterior of it so we will probably be in it for less than $20 million.”

Trump’s comments came as a federal judge heard arguments by a nonprofit suing to stop the project in front of the Lincoln Memorial. The judge did not immediately rule on the motion.

Trump said the exterior work was not included in his original numbers.

“When I went there last week, I saw the exterior was in very bad shape, as well as the interior, so I said, ‘We’re going to fix that too,’” he said.

“The key is to have it done before July 4,” Trump said, adding that the project is “probably at three quarters done.”

The president had initially said the renovation would cost $1.8 million. But federal records show the price tag is already up to $13.1 million for the project, CNN reported.

Trump on Thursday touted the economic efficiency of his renovations, repeatedly pointing to previous repair estimates of $350 million that he said would’ve taken longer.

“It was going to take four years, $350 million. I’ll be doing it in basically a couple of months for less than $20 million dollars.”

The project has been a priority for the president, who has repeatedly disparaged the state of the Reflecting Pool, saying it is feces-infested and in disrepair. He has zeroed in on the color, which he claims no one likes. And he contends that previous administrations failed to repair leaks and other problems.

The color has been a particularly thorny issue in Washington. Historians, including the foundation suing to stop the renovations, say Trump’s choice of a dark blue that he calls “American Flag Blue” will make the site look more like a swimming pool.

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Washington, DC, appeared torn on Thursday over what to do with a request from a non-profit for an order halting work on the Reflecting Pool while their legal challenge to the project plays out.

US District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, asked tough questions to attorneys representing the Cultural Landscape Foundation about how the ongoing work amounted to an irreparable injury that warranted his intervention now. Courts are typically reluctant to issue injunctions like the ones sought by the group unless they can be persuaded that a challenged action cannot later be undone.

“It seems to me that if there is any harm to be done it is both reparable and temporary,” Nichols said during a hearing.

The judge, who did not rule form the bench, pushed a Justice Department attorney to concede that while it’s not possible to remove the paint, it could be painted over in a way that brings the color back closer to how it was before work began this year.

That reality appeared to ease concerns from Nichols that if he didn’t intervene now, but later decided that the government violated federal law in how it carried out the project, his ruling would still have an impact on the ground.

https://www.cnn.com/

“Putting the pool back entirely to the way plaintiffs want — we can do that now and later,” the judge said.

The case, which was brought earlier this month, is the latest challenge to Trump’s effort to remake a slew of cultural and historic institutions and sites in the nation’s capital. Other groups have asked federal courts to stop the president from moving ahead with work on a massive new ballroom at the White House, construction of an arch similar to Paris’ Arc de Triomphe and the painting of a historic federal office building adjacent to the White House.

In the Reflecting Pool case, the plaintiffs contend the project violates federal laws requiring the Interior Department to complete a consultation process that includes notifying the public of the plans and getting input from other federal agencies before beginning the work.

“The new coloration will cause the pool to resemble a large swimming pool rather than the reflective civic landscape it was designed to be, distorting the experience of the site for the millions of visitors who come to it each year,” lawyers for the group wrote in their lawsuit.

The group also says the project runs afoul of a federal law requiring the department to issue an assessment of how the paint job would impact the environment.

“As we speak, the government is defacing a historic treasure,” Alexander Kristofcak, an attorney for the challengers, told Nichols on Thursday.

The Justice Department, however, said both on Thursday and in court papers filed ahead of the hearing that no federal laws were violated because a determination was made to exclude the project in full from an environmental assessment.

As for the winding review process ordinarily required to be undertaken per the National Historic Preservation Act, they said the project underwent a “streamlined review” that can sometimes take place when officials decide work on a site amounts to “routine maintenance.”

鲁比奥5月21日说，外交途径仍是美国的首选，但针对古巴，这种可能性不高。（法新社）

美国国务卿鲁比奥指古巴对美国构成“国家安全威胁”，和平解决的可能性“不高”。

英国广播公司（BBC）报道，鲁比奥星期四（5月21日）飞往瑞典出席北约外长会议前说，华盛顿倾向于外交解决手段，但他警告说，特朗普总统有权也有义务保护美国免受任何威胁。

他说，对于古巴，“外交途径仍是我们的首选”，但他补充说：“老实说，考虑到我们目前打交道的对象，这种可能性不高。”

古巴外长罗德里格斯指责鲁比奥“撒谎”，并表示古巴从未对美国构成威胁。

鲁比奥还指责古巴是“整个地区主要的恐怖主义赞助者之一”，罗德里格斯在X发帖强烈否认这一说法。

延伸阅读

传美国着手拟定针对古巴军事行动方案 美媒称特朗普对古巴“动武”可能性在增加

美国20日宣布以谋杀等罪名起诉古巴前领导人卡斯特罗和另外五人，涉嫌在1996年古巴流亡分子所乘飞机被击落事件中，犯下谋杀四人和破坏飞机等罪行，引发了特朗普要推翻这个共产主义国家的揣测。

同一天，鲁比奥向古巴发布一段西班牙语视频，将古巴的燃料和食品短缺归咎于古巴政府。鲁比奥还说，若古巴采取开放政策，美国将提供1亿美元（约1亿2700万新元）的援助。

Judge dismisses charges against ex-school official accused of neglect after 6-year-old shot teacher

May 21, 2026 / 1:57 PM EDT / CBS/AP

All charges against Ebony Parker, the former elementary school assistant principal accused of ignoring repeated warnings that a 6-year-old student had a gun hours before the child eventually shot and seriously wounded his teacher, were dismissed Thursday.

The ruling from Circuit Judge Rebecca Robinson, in Newport News, Virginia, came on the fourth day of Parker’s trial in response to a motion filed by the defense team for the former Richneck Elementary School administrator. She was facing eight counts of felony child neglect for her alleged actions around the shooting, but Robinson said Thursday that the court “is of the legal opinion that this is not a crime.”

Parker was charged in the January 2023 shooting in Newport News that left teacher Abby Zwerner wounded. Prosecutors had said the charges were for each of the bullets in the gun brought into Zwerner’s classroom. Each count could have carried a maximum penalty of five years in prison upon conviction.

Special prosecutor Josh Jenkins did not immediately return an email and a telephone message left at his office on Thursday. During opening statements earlier this week, Jenkins had sought to paint a picture of Parker as dismissive when employees at the school approached with concerns that a gun may have been inside the 6-year-old’s backpack.

Defense attorney Curtis Rogers told the judge in making his motion that Parker’s decision on the day of the shooting “wasn’t an act of neglect.”

“Her actions in no way indicated that she believed there was a firearm in the possession” of the child, Rogers said.

Ebony Parker looks on during jury selection for her trial at the Newport News Circuit Court in Newport News, Va., Monday, May 18, 2026. Peter Casey/The Virginian-Pilot via AP, Pool

Another defense attorney, Stephen Teague, said outside court that “we believe that the right outcome was reached and we’re thrilled for Dr. Parker. It was a great relief for her and we’re just happy that we were part of her journey.”

Parker was not called to testify during the trial. On Wednesday, a video interview of Parker conducted three days after the shooting by a school district human resources officer was played in the courtroom for the jury.

Parker said she was told about reports that the student had a gun in his backpack, but said she could not leave her office due to ongoing testing. A reading specialist who first reported the concerns then searched the backpack, but no gun was found, Parker said.

Parker then said the student’s mother would arrive to pick him up and go through the rest of his belongings.

Zwerner testified earlier in the trial that during recess on the school playground, the student wore an oversized jacket and kept both of his hands in his pockets the entire time. Zwerner said she sent a text message with that observation to the reading specialist, who had been tipped off earlier by students about the gun and reported it to Parker.

After recess, the student continued to wear the jacket in the classroom, where Zwerner was shot at a reading table. Zwerner spent nearly two weeks in the hospital, required six surgeries and does not have the full use of her left hand. A bullet narrowly missed her heart and remains in her chest.

Criminal charges against school officials after a school shooting are quite rare, experts say. The shooting sent shock waves through this military shipbuilding community and the country at large, with many wondering how a child so young could gain access to a gun and shoot his teacher.

A jury awarded $10 million to Zwerner in a civil trial last November, where Parker, who no longer works at the school, was the only defendant.

The student’s mother was sentenced to nearly four years in prison for felony child neglect and federal weapons charges.

Some Fed officials and staff are fretting about state of financial markets

2026-05-21T16:19:00.894Z / reuters.com

• Summary

• Latest Fed meeting minutes show staff and some officials worried about market risks
• Minutes show some Fed officials also want fresh tweaks to liquidity tools
• Market anxiety comes as Kevin Warsh nears control of Fed

NEW YORK, May 21 (Reuters) – When Kevin Warsh takes command of the Federal Reserve, he will do so as some central bank officials and staff have become increasingly anxious ​about the state of the financial markets and the risk that presents to the economy.

Meeting minutes for the central bank’s late-April Federal Open Market Committee showed that ‌staff as well as a number of policy makers are showing some anxiety about the state of finances, as they wonder how they can shore up the already expansive suite of tools the Fed has in place to deal with market woes.

The Week in Breakingviews newsletter offers insights and ideas from Reuters’ global financial commentary team. Sign up here.

Even as the war in the Middle East has darkened the outlook, stock markets have booked strong gains that many struggle to square with economic fundamentals. Bond markets around the world have seen big ​rises in yields as investors fret about inflation and the government financing outlook. There’s also increasing concern about how artificial intelligence investment is financed by debt, which increases the ​risk of market trouble should problems arise.

That conversation, which transpired at the Fed’s April 28-29 meeting, took place under the shadow of a looming ⁠changing of the guard at the central bank: Warsh is set to be sworn in as Fed chair on Friday, succeeding Jerome Powell, who will stay on for a time as a ​governor.

Warsh comes to the Fed as a critic of some of its key work over recent years, such as using aggressive asset buying as a tool to help calm markets in times of stress ​and to augment the stimulative power of its short-term interest rate target.

Warsh has also leaned toward a greater coordination with the Treasury Department in matters outside of monetary policy, which suggests possible changes for how the Fed uses its various liquidity tools to address financial stress.

Some fear the Fed will be less willing to step in in times of trouble and that the likely path toward accomplishing Warsh’s desire for a smaller Fed balance sheet ​would actually increase risk in the financial system.

NOTABLE VULNERABILITIES

In the meeting minutes, Fed staff “on balance continued to characterize the system’s financial vulnerabilities as notable. The staff judged that asset valuation pressures were elevated.” ​Fed staff seemed relatively sanguine on the state of household balance sheets but were worried about borrowing, most notably by hedge funds active in the government bond market.

Meanwhile, unnamed Fed policy makers shared at least some ‌of that ⁠assessment.

“Several participants noted that asset valuations remained elevated and that such conditions heightened the possibility of sharp corrections should adverse developments materialize,” while “many” officials noted concerns about private credit markets given the opacity of the sector.

The minutes said some Fed officials discussed “ongoing and potential operational improvements related to various liquidity tools” used by the central bank, including the discount window facility, standing repo operations and arrangements to provide dollars to other major central banks.

The minutes, in noting that officials voted to affirm the current currency swap lines, said “a few” Fed officials were interested in extending that arrangement beyond the ​current year, saying “a longer extension would be beneficial ​for financial stability.”

Fed officials have been pressing ⁠for some time to get more deposit-taking banks prepared to use the discount window lending facility, its long-running and frequently stigmatized tool to extend fast credit to banks.

The Fed has also been tinkering with various arrangements for its repo operations, which loan cash to eligible financial firms. The Fed ​has encouraged eligible firms to use the discount window as needed, with the same guidance extended to the repo operations, which tend to ​see elevated demand during ⁠calendar-based market liquidity challenges.

Fed liquidity tools are aimed at stabilizing markets during times of stress and ensuring the Fed retains firm control of its interest rate target. Variations of these tools and policy strategies have gotten notable workouts in recent years, amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the banking crisis that happened in the spring of 2023.

While the Fed has defended its tool kit—New York Fed System Open Market Account ⁠Manager Roberto Perli ​said on Tuesday that the current system “is demonstrably very effective”—others have criticized the entire regime and it’s unclear where ​Warsh stands on the matter.

The interlinkage between the Fed’s various tools, which help bind short-term rates, would be hard to dismantle piece by piece, and a return to the system the Fed used before the start of the financial crisis ​nearly two decades ago would be very challenging and take a long time to accomplish, in the view of many observers and current central bankers.

Reporting by Michael S. Derby; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama