Turns Out a Massive Bribe Was Behind the FDA’s Vaping Decision

Donald Trump just wants to let the kids vape.

Eight days after Reynolds American, an American tobacco company with a history of government lobbying, threw $5 million at a Trump-backed super PAC, the Food and Drug Administration moved to ease restrictions on flavored vapes, allowing companies like Reynolds to roll out flavors previously banned because they were too marketable to minors.

The donation was made April 30 and revealed in a campaign finance filing posted Wednesday. It was first reported on by The New York Times.

Shortly after the $5 million donation, a Reynolds executive and two Reynolds lobbyists had lunch with Trump at his Florida golf club, and reportedly pressed the president on current FDA regulations. Trump pulled out his phone and called his appointed commissioner of the FDA, Marty Makary, to complain. Makary did not pick up.

The next week, The Wall Street Journal found that the president had become frustrated with Makary because of his refusal to approve blueberry, mango, and menthol vapes from one manufacturer due to health concerns. Under pressure from Trump, the FDA announced a few days later that it was removing some restrictions, and Makary resigned.

In his first term, Trump took some steps to control youth vaping, which was exploding in popularity. But on the campaign trail in 2024, he pulled an about-face, promising to “save vaping” in a poorly disguised effort to capture the youth vote.

Vapes from Chinese companies sold in American convenience stores and gas stations remain popular with young people, and have created a $6 billion market share. Instead of properly regulating those devices and reducing vaping rates, Trump would prefer that U.S. companies profit from the crisis, as well—and donate to his super PACs, of course.

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy is now vocally opposing President Trump after losing his primary election last week thanks to the president’s endorsement of one of his opponents.

On Wednesday, Cassidy held nothing back in criticizing the White House ballroom Trump is building, complaining in particular about the president’s lack of transparency.

“There’s no architectural plans. There is no environmentals. There’s no engineering. There’s no sense of when we ask, how did it happen to cost exactly a billion,” Cassidy told CNN. “It could cost a lot less, it could cost a lot more, I just don’t get it.”

Cassidy also attacked the Department of Justice’s new $1.776 billion “weaponization” fund, designed to compensate people who say they were politically targeted by the government (read: Trump supporters).

“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability. This is adding to our national debt. If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide,” Cassidy said in a post on X about the fund, created from a settlement agreement between Trump and the IRS.

It’s telling that Cassidy only feels emboldened to speak out once his political career is essentially over. He had plenty of earlier opportunities to publicly oppose Trump’s policies, especially considering he is a medical doctor and has seen some of the White House’s destructive public health decisions.

Instead, Cassidy voted to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a well-known anti-vaccine activist, as secretary of health and human services, and has refused to address Kennedy’s weakening of vaccine policies since then. In the end, it didn’t help him politically, as Trump still criticized him and backed Representative Julia Letlow in the Louisiana Senate Republican primary. Now he’s pretending to have some courage.

Donald Trump cannot be living the same reality as the rest of America.

The president aggressively dodged questions about the future impact of artificial intelligence Wednesday, claiming that nothing but good has come from the technology’s rapid implementation across industry.

“What’s your message to American families who are scared by the rise of AI?” asked a reporter on the tarmac of Joint Base Andrews. “They’re worried that their kids are not going to be able to have jobs someday because AI is going to take over—”

“No, I’ll tell you, AI has been amazing because right now we have more jobs, more people working right now, in the United States by far than we ever had before,” Trump interjected.

But that’s just not true. The lowest unemployment rate in recorded U.S. history was in 1953, when a postwar boom brought rates down to 2.5 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The lowest rate in the last 50 years happened in 2023, when unemployment dropped to 3.4 percent. Today, unemployment sits at 4.3 percent—and is gradually rising.

Beyond that, the initial rollout of artificial intelligence has decimated thousands of early-career opportunities and massively disrupted myriad industries, including the higher education system, which is currently pumping out thousands of degree-bearing professionals with nowhere to go.

Hours before Trump’s remarks, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta—which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—laid off 8,000 employees in favor of the emergent technology. All in all, analysts predict that AI and automation will claim 6 percent of U.S. jobs by 2030.

Trump, however, was not willing to speak to that. Instead, he decided to harp on his handling of the Iran war, suggesting that the economy was actually thriving due to the wildly unpopular Middle East conflict.

“The stock market is higher now than it was before I started the Iran situation, and on Iran—I had no choice because they were going to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. “Oil is going to come tumbling down.”

But analysts do not predict that oil and gas costs will come crashing down—at least not anytime soon.

The average cost of gas nationwide is $4.55 per gallon, with large swaths of the U.S. pushing $5 a gallon, according to the AAA’s price tracker. That’s about 50 percent higher than prices were before the war started.

The situation has become so dire that Trump’s Cabinet members have stopped speculating as to when prices will actually go back down. Analysts, meanwhile, have projected that gas and oil costs will likely continue to climb—potentially even after midterms.

President Donald Trump’s proposed ballroom, which would boast lavish golden interiors and is totally needed for, uh, security reasons, is beginning to face backlash from Republicans as well as Democrats.

On Wednesday, Republican Senator John Kennedy told Samantha Handler of Punchbowl News that the GOP doesn’t have enough votes to provide $1 billion in taxpayer money to the ballroom project, and the amendment is expected to be removed from the budget bill going to the Senate floor this week.

Four Republican senators have publicly voiced opposition to public money going to the vanity project. They are Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Cassidy lost his primary last week, thanks in large part to a Trump endorsement of one of his opponents, and has also vocally spoken out against Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund, which was announced Monday. Collins and Murkowski are each expected to face tough Democratic challengers in the November midterms, while Tillis is retiring.

Just these four “no” votes would probably kill the $1 billion going to the ballroom given the widespread Democratic opposition to the project. A larger group inside the GOP is privately against the ballroom, according to five anonymous insiders who spoke with Politico.

The White House originally said the ballroom would be funded with approximately $200 million from Trump and “other patriot donors.” That number soon doubled to $400 million.

Senate Republicans, at the president’s behest, then attempted to sneak in a $1 billion sum for White House security—including $220 million for ballroom security—into the larger budget bill. The allotment was deemed spurious by the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian. Trump then, of course, tried to get her fired.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Trump has to comply with the Presidential Records Act, overruling an opinion from the Department of Justice last month.

The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion in April claiming that the act was unconstitutional because it unfairly restricted “the constitutional independence and autonomy of the Executive.” In response, two organizations, the nonprofit watchdog group American Oversight and the American Historical Association sued in federal court, and on Wednesday U.S. District John Bates ruled that the act is in fact constitutional.

“The original public meaning of the text of the Constitution, canons of interpretation, Supreme Court precedent, general principles of property law, and almost 50 years of practice confirm that Congress has the enumerated power to regulate presidential records under the [Constitution’s] Property Clause,” Bates wrote in his ruling.

Bates noted that Trump had no problem following the law during his first term as president. Bates’s order takes effect on May 26. It’s not clear if the White House is following the law at the moment, and it will likely appeal the ruling to a higher court, as Trump has shown little respect for recorded documents during his presidency.

Trump was charged with hoarding classified documents in his Florida estate in a case that was eventually dismissed thanks to a judge he appointed. In his first term as president, Trump also reportedly used to tear documents into small pieces and throw them on the floor. Trump doesn’t plan to keep any documents at his proposed presidential library, instead planning to make the Miami skyscraper more like a hotel as he doesn’t “believe in building libraries or museums.”

Donald Trump has signed an executive order that will require U.S. banks to take a closer look at their clients’ citizenship details.

The Tuesday order, titled “Restoring Integrity to America’s Financial System,” directs bank regulators and the government agencies to look into the legal status of people applying for credit cards or loans or opening bank accounts.

“My Administration will not tolerate national security and public safety risks caused by illicit cross-border financial activity, nor will it permit risks to our financial system posed by the extension of credit or financial services to the inadmissible and removable alien population,” the order states.

The White House wrote that America’s financial institutions should “be attentive” to the potential credit risks posed by extending loans to undocumented immigrants, specifying that that situation creates a “structural ‘ability to repay’ deficiency that undermines the safety and soundness of the national banking system” in the event that those individuals are deported.

Exactly how much risk these individuals pose is unknown, since banks have never collected information about their customers’ citizenship or immigration status, reported the Associated Press.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is expected to issue a formal advisory on the new regulations within the next 60 days that will specifically describe certain “red flags and typologies” employers are to be suspicious of, such as potential payroll tax evasion, the use of “foreign-identity documents,” the use of an individual taxpayer identification number (a code typically used by undocumented immigrants in place of a Social Security number), or the use of third-party payment processors that the order claimed could be indicative of “off-the-books” wage payments.

Somehow, the order was less severe than bank executives expected. Early reports on the executive order suggested that the White House was weighing whether to make it mandatory for financial institutions to collect their customers’ citizenship data.

Democrats are moving quickly to force congressional votes on President Donald Trump’s ridiculously corrupt slush fund.

After Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS resulted in the creation of a $1.8 billion pool of taxpayer money for him to essentially dole out to his allies at a whim, Democrats want to force Republicans to go on the record about whether they support such blatant fraud.

In the House, Representative John Larson has announced what Democrats are literally calling the SLUSH FUND Act, which would tax the fund at 100 percent, returning every dollar back to the government.

“The President should be focused on public service, not personal gain and profit,” Larson wrote in a press release. “Never in our nation’s history has a sitting president sought a settlement against their own government. Hardworking American taxpayers should not have to write blank checks to Trump, his cronies, and violent January 6th insurrectionists who attacked our Capitol.”

Jamie Raskin, a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, told The New Republic that he plans to submit another bill to block the slush fund and any future efforts to create similar pools of money.

“We need to put Republicans on the spot as to whether or not they are going to endorse this rank corruption, or whether they are going to stand up for basic constitutional values,” Raskin said, adding that he wants “straightforward legislation to block this outrageous misappropriation.”

Earlier Wednesday, Raskin moved to subpoena acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and other members of Trump’s Cabinet involved in the creation of the fund.

Raskin said his proposed bill will be backed by the entire Democratic caucus and that Democrats will seek a discharge petition to force a vote on it. Discharge petitions require majority approval from the House, so this plan may not work unless a few Republicans also vote to bring the bill to the floor. The New Republic can think of at least one GOP House member Dems can count on …

Not to be outdone, Senate Democrats are also planning to force votes on the slush fund as a budget bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security hits the floor in the coming days. Republicans are using the reconciliation process to try to approve the budget, which means Democrats can propose slush fund–related amendments that will automatically go to a vote.

For example, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen has said he will introduce a provision that prevents money in the fund from going to child sex offenders or those found guilty of assaulting police officers. “It’s time to see where Republicans stand,” he said.

The U.S. government indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro in federal court Wednesday for his alleged role in shooting down planes belonging to Cuban exiles in 1996.

Castro, 94, and five others were charged in Miami with conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, four counts of murder, and two counts of destruction of aircraft related to when the Cuban military shot down planes over the Florida Straits on a humanitarian mission to find refugees trying to escape Cuba, killing four people. Castro is accused of giving the order to fire.

The planes belonged to Brothers to the Rescue, a group founded by Cuban exiles that searched for Cubans fleeing the island in rafts. Three of the people killed were U.S. citizens, while one was a U.S. permanent resident.

“For nearly 30 years, the families of four murdered Americans have waited for justice,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a press conference in Miami Wednesday. “My message today is clear: The United States and President Trump does not and will not forget its citizens.”

The indictment appears to be part of the Trump administration’s growing pressure campaign to force regime change in the country.

“This isn’t a show indictment,” Blanche stressed when announcing the news. “There is a warrant for his arrest. We expect that he will show up here by his own will or by another way”.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked the U.S.’s January capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro when discussing Cuba, raising the possibility of Castro meeting the same fate. At the time, Rubio said, “If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I would be concerned, at least a little bit.”

For months, the U.S. has blocked oil shipments from arriving into Cuba, resulting in electricity blackouts across the country and protests in the capital, Havana. Earlier on Wednesday, Rubio posted a video message in Spanish addressed to the Cuban people.

“The reason you are forced to survive without electricity is not due to an oil blockade by America,” Rubio said, instead blaming the Cuban government for plundering “billions of dollars” and preventing electricity, food, and fuel from reaching the Cuban people.

Cuba’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs replied in his own post on X, saying, “The reason why the U.S. Secretary of State lies so repeatedly and unscrupulously when referring to Cuba and trying to justify the aggression to which he subjects the Cuban people is not ignorance or incompetence. He knows full well that there is no excuse for such a cruel and ruthless aggression.”

This story has been updated.

The president has turned his aim against the Senate parliamentarian amid his broiling quarrel with the Republican Party.

Donald Trump publicly lashed out against Elizabeth MacDonough Wednesday, writing on Truth Social that the upper chamber’s nonpartisan adviser should be thrown out because she was appointed by a Democrat years ago, and because of her staunch opposition to including bits and pieces of the SAVE Act in budget reconciliation bills—a position she is required to take by virtue of her job.

“Over the years, she has been brutal to Republicans, but not so to the Dumocrats—So why has she not been replaced?” Trump wrote. “There are many fair people who would be qualified for that vital job.

“The Republicans play a very soft game compared to the Dumocrats. It is their single biggest disadvantage in politics. The Dumocrats cheat, lie, and steal, especially when it comes to Votes in Elections, but stick together, whereas the Republicans allow the Elizabeth MacDonoughs of the World to stay in power, and brutalize us,” Trump continued.

MacDonough became the first woman to serve as Senate parliamentarian in 2012, after she was appointed by then–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada. In his post, Trump incorrectly claimed that MacDonough was appointed by former President Barack Obama, although she was hired during his second term.

The Senate parliamentarian’s role is to advise lawmakers on both chambers’ rules and procedures, and to review spending packages for line items that the Senate cannot make good on. She is also required to oppose policy-oriented provisions in reconciliation bills, a regulation known as the “Byrd rule.”

Yet MacDonough earned the ire of the president over the weekend for doing exactly that, when she nixed the last line item in the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill: a $1 billion allowance for security funding for Trump’s White House ballroom.

She ruled that the funding provision could not be included as it violated budget reconciliation rules in its current form, an outcome that surprised no one on either side of the aisle, reported Fox News.

Trump was so irate about MacDonough’s decision, however, that he reportedly phoned Senate Majority Leader John Thune to fire her. Thune was not responsive to the request.

“We’re going through a process that we go through every time we have a reconciliation bill and the people on both sides are mad at the parliamentarian,” Thune told NOTUS Tuesday, clarifying that he would not consider firing MacDonough. “That’s been true.”

Thune’s spokesperson Ryan Wrasse said in a social media post over the weekend that the party would continue to revise the language of the legislation until it earned MacDonough’s approval. “None of this is abnormal during a Byrd process,” Wrasse wrote Saturday.

Apparently unsatisfied with Thune’s response, Trump has brought his attacks against MacDonough into broad daylight, offering up her continued employment to the court of public opinion.

In the same lengthy Truth Social post, Trump urged Republicans to “kill the filibuster” (something that the party will likely never do) and pass the SAVE Act, the voter restriction bill that was shelved earlier this month.

“If we don’t pass at least one of these two provisions quickly, you will never see another Republican President again,” Trump wrote, going on to suggest that Democrats will henceforth be able to create two additional states out of Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. He also claimed that Democrats would pack the Supreme Court with as many as 21 justices and eliminate the filibuster anyway.

“Get smart and tough Republicans, or you’ll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!” Trump concluded.

For all his bellyaching, the cost of Trump’s White House ballroom project has vastly exceeded his initial projections. Last summer, Trump told the American public that the renovation would cost $200 million and be paid for entirely by private donations. In the months since, Trump has tacked on extra construction to the site and doubled its construction expenses to $400 million.

The price tag grew to $1 billion when Republicans offered to ramp up security at the site, offering taxpayer dollars to foot the bill in the wake of another assassination attempt on the president’s life last month.

Police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6, 2021, are suing the Trump administration over its creation of a $1.776 billion slush fund for President Trump’s allies who claim they were unfairly targeted.

The lawsuit, filed by former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and current Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges in U.S. District Court, alleges that the fund is illegal and violates the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, which states the government can’t pay debts “incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.” They note that the fund could be used to pay the rioters, and also fund violent organizations.

“If allowed to begin making payments, the fund will directly finance the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters who threatened plaintiffs’ lives that day, and continue to do so,” the officers’ lawyers wrote in the legal filing. “Militias like the Proud Boys will use money from the fund to arm and equip themselves. The fund will grant their [past] acts of violence legal imprimatur.”

The plaintiffs are asking for a federal judge to declare the fund unlawful, to block officials from setting it up, and to reverse any payments that have already been made. The lawsuit alleges that creating the fund also broke federal law, as the government can only settle lawsuits after the attorney general declares that such a payment “is in the interest of the United States.”

“The payment of $1.776 billion into the Anti-Weaponization Fund to settle Trump v. IRS was patently not ‘in the interest of the United States,’” the lawsuit states. “Rather, it was a misappropriation of taxpayer funds orchestrated by the President to reward his allies and the rioters who committed violence in his name.”

It will be interesting to see where this lawsuit goes, and whether it reaches the Supreme Court, which may or may not rule in favor of the president. One hopes that it would see the legal problems with a fund that the president can spend on people who break the law in his name.