Trump, 80, Claims Iran War Ended Eight Months Before He Started It

President Donald Trump falsely claimed Tuesday that his military campaign against Iran ended eight months before he started it.

In the latest installment of Senior Moment or Shocking Admission?, the president offered an outrageous defense against anyone complaining that his so-called “six-week war” had stretched on for more than seven months.

“We really ended it as soon as the B2 bombers hit, because that was the end of their nuclear [program], that was 95 percent of the reason we did it. Maybe 100 percent,” he said.

Trump was referring to a series of strikes using “bunker buster” bombs on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025. That was a full eight months before he ordered attacks in March 2026.

Clearly, those strikes didn’t actually end the war in the Middle East.

This particular comment is concerning in light of the Trump administration officials who have previously contradicted Trump’s claims that Iran’s nuclear program presented any imminent threat to national security.

If Trump’s initial bombing campaign had satisfied his desire for violence, then 22 U.S. servicemembers would likely not have been killed, hundreds more would not have been injured, and the Department of Defense wouldn’t have tried to cover it up. Multiple U.S. bases in the Middle East would still be standing, and the DOD wouldn’t have tried to cover that up, too. Hundreds of Iranian civilians, including dozens of school children, would still be alive. A U.S. battleship would never have been deployed for hundreds of days, leading to a number of attempted suicides. The Pentagon would not have spent more than $45 billion, and the U.S. military weapons’ stockpile would not have shrunk to dangerous levels.

If only Trump’s pissing contest with Iran had somehow ended before it ever started. Yes, if only.

Kash Patel’s FBI slammed Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed in a wildly partisan, and likely illegal, propaganda video Tuesday.

In a two-minute video posted on social media, the supposedly nonpartisan agency decried “democratic socialist leaders” for calling to defund the police. The video included footage of multiple Democrats calling to defund the police, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, current and former Representatives Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, and Ilhan Omar, and, of course, El-Sayed, who is running for office in November’s midterm elections.

“Not reform. Defund the police as policy,” the video’s narration stated. “As the path they said would keep you safer. In the cities that led the charge, the street told a different story. What followed was a complete failure.” There is little data that supports this, and crime rates have been in decline for years.

The video praised Patel’s leadership, and touted a major increase in the arrest of violent criminals. It’s worth noting that Patel has reportedly instituted a policy of double-counting these arrests with those made by other law enforcement agencies, and has faced criticism for his disastrous leadership.

Federal law clearly prohibits the use of government funds for campaign purposes, partisan political messaging, and propaganda. A wildly inaccurate attack ad against a Democratic candidate would more than count under all three of these categories—and it’s more than a little ironic that the FBI’s latest video preaching law and order likely violated federal law. But under the Trump administration, it’s clear that nothing will be done.

Recently, the Trump administration has used at least 5.6 million taxpayer dollars to buy a series of at least 15 campaign-style advertisements touting the president’s agenda ahead of November’s midterm elections. In order to make and air those videos, the Trump administration stole the money from the Department of Homeland Security, specifically from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

President Trump is preventing Maryland’s Democratic Governor Wes Moore from speaking at an event in Baltimore County in the state on Tuesday.

Defense firm Andruil Industries is announcing that it is building a two-million-square-foot submarine manufacturing facility in Sparrows Point, Maryland, a deal that Moore helped put together and that is expected to create thousands of jobs. Trump is visiting the site and speaking about the investment on Tuesday and is barring Moore from speaking, the governor told The Baltimore Banner.

“That’s correct,” Moore said to reporters following a debate with his Republican gubernatorial opponent, Dan Cox. “I will not be there later on today. This was going to be a deal that we helped break. This is going to be the largest private investment that we have seen in over a decade inside the state of Maryland.”

“If the president of the United States wants to bring the circus in town and tell me that I’m not allowed to speak, despite the fact we were the ones that helped bring the deal, then I will let the circus be conducted while I go back to the work of the people of Maryland,” Moore added.

An unnamed White House official told CNN that Moore was “graciously” invited as a guest but didn’t deny that Trump was blocking the governor from speaking.

“It’s unfortunate that the Governor is now making a multibillion-dollar announcement about himself by throwing a tantrum over a federal initiative that will bring sorely needed jobs back to his state thanks to President Trump,” the official said.

Other Maryland Democrats, such as Representative Johnny Olszewski Jr., whose district encompasses the new facility, were scheduled to speak but pulled out after news that Moore wouldn’t be allowed to make remarks.

Trump has never been a fan of Moore, uninviting him from a bipartisan dinner that included nearly every other state governor, accusing him of committing electoral fraud, and blaming him for a sewage spill in the Potomac River. Meanwhile, Moore is leading his Trump-supporting Republican opponent, Dan Cox, in polls for November’s election.

A man was arrested Sunday for allegedly impersonating an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer and intimidating voters at a Miami polling site for Brazil’s presidential elections.

According to his arrest report, 46-year-old Danilo Alves Silva was aggressively pacing between polling locations and interacting with people who seemed to be “in fear” of him at Miami-Dade College’s Kendall Campus. He was wearing an ICE costume that he allegedly purchased on Amazon, complete with a blue “ICE raid jacket,” an ICE hat, sunglasses, jeans, and tactical boots, according to the arrest report. His face was covered with a camouflage mask and he was speaking into a handheld radio.

When confronted by detectives and sheriff’s deputies from the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office, Silva said that he was wearing the costume “so that I can come here to see people’s reactions.”

“The people were gathered and were clearly in fear that, as they portrayed it, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE agent was interfering with their election, possibly deporting individuals,” the arrest report reads.

Silva claimed that he himself was a Brazilian voter and he changed into the ICE costume after casting his ballot, apparently just to see what would happen. To make matters worse, he attempted to bribe law enforcement officers after his arrest, telling them, “I will get you paid if you let me go.”

Brazil’s closely watched presidential election is seen by many as a referendum on President Trump’s influence in South America, pitting right-wing Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of disgraced Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro, against leftist incumbent Lula da Silva. The election will move to a runoff in October.

This arrest comes amid widespread anxiety that ICE or other federal law enforcement officials at the polls may interfere in voters’ ability to cast their ballots on America’s Election Day, less than a month away. FBI Director Kash Patel himself hasn’t ruled out sending the bureau’s agents to voting locations in November, ostensibly to prevent “violations of the law,” though their presence would more likely frighten and intimidate voters. Impersonators like Silva could have the same effect.

President Trump accepted a diamond ring as a gift in June and seems to have stashed it away somewhere.

Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal are asking what happened to the “18-karat gold ring encrusted with 321 diamonds and 75 gemstones that the Antwerp World Diamond Centre (AWDC) gifted to President Trump,” in a letter addressed to the director of presidential gifts, the head of the General Services Administration, and the archivist of the United States.

“To date, we are not aware of any public reporting indicating the current location of the ring,” Warren and Blumenthal wrote in the letter, first reported by Newsweek. The AWDC, which represents the diamond trading industry in Antwerp, Belgium, delivered the ring to the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Bill White, a few weeks before the White House announced that European diamonds would be exempt from tariffs.

Warren and Blumenthal said when they asked the AWDC if the gift was a bribe to Trump, they were told it was a gift to the American people, not the president. The organization denied any connection between the tariff exemption and the ring, estimated to be worth close to $30,000, in a statement in August.

“The discussion about U.S. import ‌tariffs was entirely separate from [the gifted ‌ring],” the organization said.

In July, the White House claimed the ring had not been presented to Trump, the senators wrote. Federal law states that gifts given to the president by anyone other than a foreign government have to be screened, categorized, and evaluated by the White House Gift Office.

“If a gift is made to the President personally, it may be retained by the President, while those made out to the government of the United States are cataloged and distributed to the appropriate government agency,” Blumenthal and Warren’s letter states. “The circumstances in which AWDC gifted this ring, and the lack of clarity about its disposition, raise significant questions about whether the President has in fact accepted the ring as part of a quid pro quo agreement to reduce diamond tariffs.”

Trump has a history of taking gifts that are ethically questionable at best, like that luxury private jet from the government of Qatar. His lack of transparency could mean that the ring has been hidden away in the White House or one of his estates.