Hegseth Struggles to Explain the “Imminent Threat” Posed by Iran

Defense Secretary Pete Hegeth went before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday to defend the mammoth $1.5 trillion budget request submitted by the Department of Defense. But under questioning from Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the Christian nationalist and noted drunkard struggled to provide basic information regarding the DOD’s main money pit: the ongoing Iran war.

Hegseth began by saying the U.S. wants to get Iran “to the table” and get them to give up their nuclear capabilities.

Smith noted that Iran doesn’t appear ready to do that, and that since the war started, Iran’s nuclear arsenal has “not been weakened in any way.”

“Well, their nuclear facilities have been obliterated,” Hegseth said, apparently referring to the Trump administration’s drone strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025.

“Woah, woah, woah,” Smith cut in. “Reclaiming my time for just a quick second here. We had to start this war—you just said 60 days ago—because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now you’re saying it was completely obliterated?” (Hegseth indeed justified the war back in March by saying Iran was close to having a nuke.)

“They had not given up their nuclear ambitions,” Hegseth said. “They had a conventional shield of thousands of missiles—”

“So Operation Midnight Hammer,” Smith said, referring to the June 2025 drone strikes, “accomplished nothing of substance?“

Hegseth began to waffle: “President Trump saw Iran at its weakest moment, took an action to ensure—in a way that only the United States of America could do, with our Israeli partners—to ensure their conventional shield was brought—”

“Yet they still haven’t given up their nuclear [capabilities],” Smith said.

Hegseth’s flip-flopping over whether Iran was close to nuclear weapons does not give one confidence in the officials managing this unpopular and unauthorized war. Adding financial insult to injury, the Pentagon also announced at the hearing that the Iran war has cost the nation a staggering $25 billion so far.

Pam Bondi may think that being fired as attorney general gets her out of a congressional subpoena, but the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform disagrees.

After missing her scheduled deposition April 14, Bondi will now testify before the committee on May 29, the committee announced Wednesday. At the same time, Democrats on the committee announced that they have filed contempt of Congress charges against Bondi, saying that she has “illegally defied our committee, skipped her deposition, and has refused to cooperate.”

“Bondi has extensive personal knowledge about the Trump Administration’s handling of the Epstein files, and regardless of her job title, her testimony and cooperation are crucial,” the committee’s ranking member, Representative Robert Garcia, said in a statement.

The Republican majority on the committee called the charges “theater and completely unnecessary” in a post on X, but stuck by its order to Bondi to testify.

“They were happy giving the Clintons a free pass for months,” the committee said, although President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have already testified before the committee. “We have secured Bondi’s appearance for May 29. Today, we’re marking up legislation to tackle fraud at the federal level and all Democrats can talk about is Epstein.”

Earlier this month, after President Trump fired Bondi, a spokesperson for the committee said Bondi would not appear for her April 14 deposition “since she is no longer Attorney General and was subpoenaed in her capacity as Attorney General.”

Until Wednesday, Republican Oversight Chair James Comer had drawn the ire of the committee’s Democrats for remaining silent on whether Bondi would testify, as well as for making drastic changes to the hearing process. It seems that he either was putting off the announcement until the last minute or was forced to announce a date after Democrats filed charges.

In either case, Bondi has a lot to answer for considering how the DOJ mishandled its files on Jeffrey Epstein on her watch. The DOJ’s Inspector General’s Office and the Government Accountability Office are both investigating the department’s rollout of the files. On Monday, journalist Katie Phang sued the DOJ for a “brazen, shocking, and ongoing violation” of the Epstein Files Transparency Act by failing to publish all of the government’s files on the convicted sex offender.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to render the Voting Rights Act obsolete.

Louisiana v. Callais was first brought to the court in 2025 by a group of white voters, who argued that a congressional map drawn to create a Black-majority district in Louisiana was unconstitutional. The conservative judges ruled that while Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act outlaws race-based gerrymandering, Louisiana’s map did not fit the bill, and in fact unnecessarily employed racial statistics when drawing borders.

Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor all dissented. In a scathing 48-page opinion, Kagan, joined by her fellow liberal justices, warned the ruling “demolishes the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.”

“The Voting Rights Act is—or, now more accurately, was—‘one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history,’” Kagan wrote. “It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed—not the Members of this Court.”

Kagan noted the ruling functionally eliminates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and allows legislators to wipe out minority districts whenever they feel like it.

“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” Kagan wrote. “Of course, the majority does not announce today’s holding that way. Its opinion is understated, even antiseptic. The majority claims only to be ‘updat[ing]’ our Section 2 law, as though through a few technical tweaks.… But in fact, those ‘updates’ eviscerate the law.”

Kagan continued: “A plaintiff will have to show—contrary to Section 2’s clear text and design—that the legislators were ‘motivated by a discriminatory purpose.’ That, as Section 2’s drafters knew, is well-nigh impossible.”

She concluded: “I dissent because Congress elected otherwise. I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. I dissent.”

Assistant Secretary of Defense Jules Hurst finally revealed the Pentagon’s estimated price tag for the U.S. military onslaught in Iran—and it’s a doozy.

“We’re spending about $25 billion on Operation Epic Fury,” Hurst said during a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday. “Most of that is in munitions, there’s part of that obviously is [Operations and Maintenance] and equipment replacement.”

Hurst confirmed the Pentagon planned to develop a supplemental funding request through the White House once they had made a “full assessment of the cost of the conflict.” The Department of Defense has previously asked the White House for $200 billion for the war.

Washington state Democrat and Ranking Member Adam Smith, who’d asked the Pentagon representatives to eventually provide an estimate, appeared surprised to get such an immediate response. “I’m glad you’ve answered that question because we’ve been asking for a hell of a long time and no one’s given us that number,” he said.

As Trump’s military campaign in Iran has neared the 60-day mark, the Pentagon has neglected to deliver real cost estimates since it claimed to have spent more than $11.3 billion in the first six days alone. Every dollar spent on Trump’s war has come from American taxpayers, and was spent without congressional approval.

The American Center for Progress previously estimated that the war had reached a $25 billion price tag at the end of March. For context, the group estimated that with that amount of money, the U.S. government could for one entire year pay for Medicare coverage for 3,106,000 people, or provide 29,614,000 children with free school lunches, or shelter 3,147,000 people in Section 8 housing.

Instead, Trump chose to spend it on weapons, all while telling Americans there wasn’t enough money for childcare, Medicaid, or Medicare. For the amount of money the Pentagon has spent on this war, the government could have provided 1,780,000 children with free childcare for a year.

In the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Justice Department attorneys are decamping from the Trump administration, leaving behind an enormous staffing void within the nation’s top law enforcement agency.

Thousands of experienced attorneys and staff have left the DOJ since Donald Trump returned to office, choosing a hasty exit over the possibility of being forced to prosecute unconstitutional cases at the president’s behest.

“What’s happening is long-term prosecutors are resigning because they’re refusing to go along with vindictive prosecutions, which are by their nature unconstitutional,” Stacey Young, an 18-year veteran of the agency, told MeidasTouch’s Scott MacFarlane. “In some cases, when prosecutors say no, they’re fired from their jobs for doing so, illegally.”

“And we’re also seeing people resign because of the culture those types of prosecutions create. So, the effect, the consequences, are devastating. The DOJ is losing countless lawyers because of it, the rule of law is being eroded, and the reputation of the department has really disintegrated,” Young said.

There were an estimated 10,000 attorneys working across the Justice Department before Trump returned to the White House. By September 2025, that number had been nearly halved: Justice Connection, an advocacy group that tracks DOJ departures, estimated that around 5,500 people (not all of them attorneys) had left the department, either by their own volition, by accepting the Trump administration’s buyout, or by being fired.

Just a fraction of those experienced employees have been replaced, causing a massive backlog of work. The immigration court system—which has been placed under tremendous pressure as a high priority within Trump’s second-term agenda—had a backlog of more than 3.3 million cases by the end of February 2026, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. In reality, that means that the lives of more than three million people are effectively on pause as they await legal decisions that determine their future, either in or out of the United States.

The Justice Department’s hard-right shift into the MAGA agenda has sparked concern among those in the legal community, who have argued that the agency’s recent politicization has undermined public confidence in the country’s legal system.

The Supreme Court just threw out Louisiana’s redrawn congressional map in a huge blow to the Voting Rights Act, an essential pillar of the Civil Rights Movement.

In a 6–3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Louisiana’s redrawn congressional map, which was redrawn with considerations of race thanks to a group of Black voters who had challenged the state’s original version, was unconstitutional.

“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” the court wrote in its decision for Louisiana v. Callais.

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority decision, joined by the five other conservative justices, while Justice Elena Kagan filed her dissent, joined by the other two liberal justices.

Following the 2020 census, Louisiana’s state legislature drew a new voting map, which produced one majority Black district. A group of Black voters sued, arguing that the map had violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race. A federal district court sided with the voters, and the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the decision, ordering the state to draw a new map. A new map was created that had two congressional districts that were majority Black.

But then, a group of voters who described themselves as “non-African-American” challenged the new congressional map, arguing that because it had been drawn to consider race, it was unconstitutional gerrymandering, in violation of the equal protections clause of the U.S. Constitution. While a panel of federal judges initially blocked Louisiana from using the new map, the Supreme Court paused that decision, allowing the state to temporarily use it.

The Supreme Court’s decision will not only affect election results in conservative-led Louisiana for years to come, but it has severely undermined the ability of voters to challenge discrimination under the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits “discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts,” according to a 1982 report from the the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

This story has been updated.

Republicans are realizing most Americans don’t like President Trump using the Justice Department to persecute those he believes have personally wronged him.

In the midst of a contentious midterm cycle, some on the right have politely suggested the man in the Oval Office focus on the issues that got him elected. But Trump isn’t one to take advice from others. On Tuesday, his administration announced it was filing charges against former FBI Director James Comey and an aide of longtime White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci.

With an unpopular Middle East war, deportations continuing to frighten residents, a poor job market, and high gas prices, Trump’s personal revenge tour is unsurprisingly unpopular. In a March CNN survey, two-thirds of Americans said the president hasn’t paid enough attention to the most important issues facing the country, a sharp increase from the 52 percent CNN reported a year prior.

“No Republican wants to run on ‘I stand with Donald Trump’s retribution tour,’” Barrett Marson, a conservative strategist, told The Washington Post.

Another GOP consultant, longtime Trump critic Whit Ayres, went even further. “[It’s] exactly the opposite of what most Americans would like to see the president and the Department of Justice focused on,” Ayres told the Post. “They’re worried about inflation and the economy, and many of them are worried about how the war in Iran will end.”

Even some Senate Republicans have pushed back against Trump’s allocation of resources. North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed skepticism that the DOJ’s case against Comey held water. The case is built on a photo Comey posted on Instagram last year, in which seashells on a beach are arranged to write out “86 47.” While “86” is a term originally used in the restaurant industry to get rid of or cancel a dish, the DOJ is arguing this constitutes a threat to Trump’s life.

“I’ve used ‘86’ a lot of times,” Tillis told the Post. “I’ve never said it with the intent of killing somebody.”

Tillis also said he would rather see U.S. Attorney W. Ellis Boyle prosecute “drug [and] human traffickers” than go after Comey. “I want to make sure Mr. Boyle, when he gets confirmed, is focusing on that sort of stuff,” he said. “Somebody’s going to have to convince me that this rises to the level of that kind of bad.”

In the latest forecasts, Democrats are heavily favored to reclaim a House majority in November, though redistricting could throw a wrench in that. They have about a 50 percent chance to take the Senate, as well. Republicans need every policy win they can get from the White House, but an ailing Trump isn’t giving them much to work with.

The number of President Donald Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters is dwindling, according to a recent poll.

Only 18 percent of Americans strongly approve of Trump’s job performance, down from 34 percent at the start of his second term, according to an Economist/YouGov poll published Tuesday.

The polls found that just 37 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat approved of Trump’s job handling, while a whopping 59 percent disapproved, matching Trump’s disapproval rating from the beginning of March, which was his highest ever during his second term. Trump’s net approval rating was -22 points, just above the previous low of -23 points at the end of March.

It’s not all that surprising that Trump is falling out of favor as his so-called “Golden Age” falls apart at the seams.

The president’s handling of the economy has left Americans with a historically poor view of the economy. A Gallup poll published Tuesday found that 55 percent of Americans said their finances were getting worse, up 53 percent from the year before and 47 percent from the year before that. While Americans are worried about paying their bills, Trump’s most urgent desire is to construct a gaudy ballroom adjacent to the White House—now using taxpayer dollars.

Gallup found that Americans are also the most concerned about energy prices that they’ve been since 2008, as Trump’s reckless war with Iran has brought global energy trade to a screeching halt. Trump’s extended military campaign in Iran has also proven to be a sticking point for Americans, increasingly so as it nears the 60-day mark.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, President Trump posted a wild threat to Iran on his Truth Social page.

“Iran can’t get their act together. They don’t know how to sign a nonnuclear deal. They better get smart soon! President DJT,” the post read, accompanied by a picture of Trump wearing a dark suit and tie, holding a military rifle and standing in front of several explosions on a hill with the text “NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!🇺🇲” at the top.

What this means for negotiations or the ceasefire is anyone’s guess, but U.S. intelligence agencies are exploring how Iran would react if the president declared unilateral victory in the two-month war, Reuters reports. Senior administration officials have reportedly asked for the assessment, trying to figure out if it could help the president and his fellow Republicans in the midterms.

Polls indicate that the war is highly unpopular and could contribute to heavy losses in Congress for the GOP. No decision has been made on the “unilateral victory,” according to Reuters, but intelligence reports indicate Iran would consider it a win with no guarantee that it would help Trump and the GOP politically.

Is Trump attempting to look tough with this post, hoping to scare Iran into a deal that makes him look good, or is it a warning that he plans to escalate the conflict? In either case, Trump has backed himself into a corner with no good solutions.

Publicly, Donald Trump has promised a quick and resolute end to the war with Iran—but talk of the conflict is entirely different inside his inner circle.

The president has told his aides to prepare for an “extended” blockade of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz as negotiations with Tehran drag on, according to U.S. officials that spoke with The Wall Street Journal Tuesday.

That language has permeated recent meetings, including a Monday discussion in the Situation Room, reported the Journal. Officials said that Trump assessed his other options—which include reinstigating violence or walking away from the conflict altogether—and decided that continuing to squeeze the country’s economy was the best choice.

His decision has been reflected in his recent social media posts, emphasizing the White House’s intent to prolong the war unless Iran signs away its nuclear program.

“Iran can’t get their act together. They don’t know how to sign a nonnuclear deal. They better get smart soon!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in the early hours of Wednesday morning, sharing an AI-generated image of himself wearing a tuxedo and sunglasses with a semiautomatic gun in his hands as a landscape, presumed to be Iran, explodes in the background.

In another post attacking German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Trump claimed that he was “doing something with Iran, right now, that other Nations, or Presidents, should have done long ago.”

Trump reportedly intends to amp up pressure on Iran until its leadership caves to his key demand: ending its nuclear capabilities. But the reality of Iran’s nuclear progress is still murky.

Prior to the war—which never obtained congressional approval—Trump ordered strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear sites, hitting Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan on June 22. At the time, the Trump administration claimed that the one-off air raid had set Iran’s program back by “years.”

Joe Kent, then director of the National Counterterrorism Center, sparked a maelstrom in Washington when he resigned over the issue last month. Kent argued in his resignation letter that he could not “in good conscience” support the war in Iran. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” he wrote at the time.

In the eight weeks since the war began, the U.S. and Israel have killed thousands of Iranian civilians and obliterated Iranian civilian infrastructure. Thirteen U.S. soldiers have also died in the process.

Meanwhile, the ongoing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has caused a global energy crisis, choking off a critical tradeway for the Middle Eastern oil trade. In the U.S., lagging oil and gas deliveries have caused transportation costs to surge, affecting virtually every commodity on the market. At the time of publication, the average cost for a gallon of gas was above $4.22, according to a AAA analysis. In some areas of California, such as San Francisco, Napa, and San Jose, gas was well above $6 per gallon.