Trump rehashes years-old grievances on Russia investigation after new intelligence report
— CSPAN (@cspan)
The backward-looking inquiries are taking place even as the Republican administration's national security agencies are confronting global threats. But they have served as a rallying cry for Trump, who is trying to unify a political base at odds over the Jeffrey Epstein case, with some allies pushing to disclose more information despite the president's push to turn the page.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Trump's attack prompted a rare response from Obama's post-presidential office.
Advertisement
'Our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,' said Patrick Rodenbush, an Obama spokesman. 'But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.'
Gabbard's new report on the Russia investigation
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, arrives for a closed-door hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the Capitol in Washington on Tuesday, June 17, 2025.
ERIC LEE/NYT
Trump's tirade, a detour from his official business as he hosted the leader of the Philippines, unfolded against the backdrop of a new report from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that represented his administration's latest attempt to rewrite the history of the Russia investigation, which has infuriated him for years.
Advertisement
The report, released Friday, downplayed the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election by highlighting Obama administration emails showing officials had concluded before and after the presidential race that Moscow had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in Trump's favor.
But Obama's Democratic administration never suggested otherwise, even as it exposed other means by which Russia interfered in the election, including through a massive hack-and-leak operation of Democratic emails by intelligence operatives working with WikiLeaks. Also, a covert foreign influence campaign aimed at swaying public opinion and sowing discord through fake social media posts.
Gabbard's report appears to suggest the absence of manipulation of state election systems is a basis to call into question more general Russian interference.
Democrats swiftly decried the report as factually flawed and politically motivated.
'It is sadly not surprising that DNI Gabbard, who promised to depoliticize the intelligence community, is once again weaponizing her position to amplify the president's election conspiracy theories,' wrote Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Several investigations found Russian interference in 2016
Russia's broad interference in 2016 has been established through a series of investigations, including special counsel Robert Mueller's report, which concluded that the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin's help but also found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy. A House Intelligence Committee report also documented Russia's meddling, as did the Senate Intelligence Committee, which concluded its work at a time when the panel was led by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who's now Trump's secretary of state.
A different special counsel appointed by the Trump Justice Department to hunt for problems in the origins of the Russia investigation, John Durham, did find flaws, but not related to what Gabbard sought to highlight in her report.
Advertisement
'Few episodes in our nation's history have been investigated as thoroughly as the Intelligence Community's warning in 2016 that Russia was interfering in the election,' said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
He added that every legitimate investigation, including the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee probe, 'found no evidence of politicization and endorsed the findings of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment.'
Gabbard's document was released weeks after a CIA report that reexamined a 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian interference. That new review, ordered by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, did not dispute Russia had interfered but suggested officials were rushed in the intelligence assessment they produced.
Seeking investigations of former officials
Ratcliffe has since referred former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey to the Justice Department for investigation. The department appeared to acknowledge an open investigation into both former officials in an unusual statement earlier this month, but the status or contours of such inquiries are unclear.
Besides Obama, Trump on Tuesday rattled off a list of people he accused of acting criminally 'at the highest level,' including Comey, his 2016 Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and former national intelligence director James Clapper.
He accused Obama, without evidence, of being the 'ringleader' of a conspiracy to get him. Obama has never been accused of any wrongdoing as part of the Russia investigation, and, in any event, a landmark Supreme Court opinion from last year shields former presidents from prosecution for official acts conducted in office.
Advertisement
Trump launched his tirade when asked about the Justice Department's effort to speak with Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend of Epstein, who was convicted of helping the financier sexually abuse underage girls.
'I don't really follow that too much,' he said. 'It's sort of a witch hunt, a continuation of the witch hunt.'
Trump is under pressure from conspiracy-minded segments of his political base to release more about the Epstein case. Democrats say Trump is resisting because of his past association with Epstein. Trump has denied knowledge of or involvement with Epstein's crimes and said he ended their friendship years ago.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Japan Trade Deal Raises Fears He Gave Away Too Much
(Bloomberg) -- US industries and protectionists are raising alarms with President Donald Trump's pact with Japan, saying it risks undercutting his stated goals of rebalancing America's trading relationships and reviving domestic manufacturing. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US Why the Federal Reserve's Building Renovation Costs $2.5 Billion The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Trump and his top negotiators on Wednesday hailed the deal as a potential model for other countries hoping to win tariff concessions, citing Tokyo's pledge to create a $550 billion fund for US investments. The president's decision to grant Japan relief on automobiles, however, provoked criticism that the agreement wouldn't address the main source of the US's trade deficit with Japan even as it disadvantages Detroit's Big Three. Around 80% of the US-Japan trade gap is in cars and car parts. Tuesday's announcement marked the latest signal that Trump is willing to negotiate on industry-specific duties on products including chips and pharmaceuticals, potentially undermining the most durable pillar of his tariff strategy. The reaction underscores the risks of the president's transactional negotiating style. Industries that have championed much of Trump's trade strategy and stand to benefit from robust levies on foreign rivals could be left in the lurch as his plans shift. 'Any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no US content than it does North American built vehicles with high US content is a bad deal for the US industry and US auto workers,' said Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council that represents Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV. Trump defended his approach, which resulted in a deal to reduce Japan's country-specific rate to 15% and put US levies on cars and parts at the same level — lower than the 25% global charge on vehicles. 'I WILL ONLY LOWER TARIFFS IF A COUNTRY AGREES TO OPEN ITS MARKET. IF NOT, MUCH HIGHER TARIFFS! Japan's Markets are now OPEN (for first time ever!). USA BUSINESSES WILL BOOM!' Trump posted. His Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, on Thursday called gripes from US automakers 'silly' and said that manufacturing executives he spoke to 'are cool with it.' 'When your competitor goes from 25% against them to 15% against them, I guess you're a little bummed out. But come on, there's no tariff if you build it in America,' Lutnick said on CNBC. Lutnick argued in a Bloomberg Television interview on Wednesday that the deal was also ratcheting up pressure on South Korea and Europe to make additional concessions or risk their automakers being left at a significant disadvantage. And White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump's approach was breaking down barriers for US products abroad. 'Thanks to President Trump, these countries around the world are agreeing to open their markets to American-made products and goods for the first time, which will lead to a boom in sales and profits for American businesses right here at home,' she told reporters Wednesday. Even so, automakers and other industry stakeholders were crying foul Wednesday. They warned that giving Japan an unlimited reduction on auto tariffs undermines the use of those levies not just for cars, but also metals, semiconductors and other goods. 'Unlimited imports at tariff rates below existing Section 232 rates critically undermine' the intention of the law and could actually encourage offshoring, said Jon Toomey, executive director of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, an advocacy group representing import-threatened industries that supports tighter trade controls. The provision on Japanese autos is far more expansive than the steel and aluminum tariff reduction Trump gave the UK, which allows a limited quota of imports to enter the US at a reduced rate. Industry-specific tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act are seen as a more lasting tool than Trump's country-based tariffs for boosting the competitiveness of US-made goods, since they rest on stronger legal footing, and some have endured across multiple presidencies. Industry groups also say the product-specific rates provide certainty needed to drive investment in domestic manufacturing plants. Other countries already are clamoring for sectoral tariff relief, and the US-Japan trade deal sends a signal that they are up for negotiation, people familiar with the matter said. Two of those individuals predicted the agreement will also add leverage to the auto and oil industries' pleas for relief from steel duties. 'It doesn't make sense to allow for unlimited vehicle imports at 15%, while charging rates of 25% on auto parts and 50% on steel,' Toomey added. It's also unclear how and when the $550 billion investment fund might come to pass — or if it will prove to be as illusory as investment pledges Trump secured during his first term from China in exchange for scaling down tariffs. Although Beijing promised in 2020 to buy $200 billion in additional US agricultural commodities and other goods, ultimately only 58% of those purchases materialized amid the pandemic, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Trump administration officials cast the Japan deal, as well as frameworks with Indonesia and the Philippines, as incentive for other major partners, including the European Union and South Korea, to bring their best investment and purchasing pledges to the table. 'It spurs other deals along,' White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said in a Bloomberg Television interview. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made clear the investment plan helped Japan secure its tariff reduction, telling Bloomberg Television: 'They got the 15% rate because they were willing to provide this innovative financing mechanism.' Lutnick said on the network that under the arrangement Japan will serve as a financier providing equity, loans and other support for manufacturing plants, infrastructure and other projects in the US. Other countries will be under pressure to follow the investment model, said a senior administration official who asked for anonymity because details haven't been formally announced. The investment deals could prove especially attractive to Trump, who frequently extols planned spending in the US announced since his January inauguration. The president and top administration officials also regularly tout the surge in revenue from new tariffs, which have already brought in $113 billion this year, according to the Treasury Department. The US-Japan deal's emphasis on investment suggests the promise of more revenues has taken priority over the push to protect domestic industries, one person familiar with the matter said. While direct foreign investment in the US could help expand domestic manufacturing and artificial intelligence capacity, it won't necessarily make the country's exports more competitive on its own. And some analysts raised doubts about whether Japan's promises to open its markets to US products would prove meaningful. The administration cast Japan's concession to accept cars made to US federal motor vehicle safety standards instead of subjecting them to additional regulatory requirements as a boon for Detroit. Even so, a major impediment to US auto sales in Japan is the American designs themselves — not just trade barriers. Put simply, Japanese consumers are less interested in driving Fords and GMs than Americans are in Toyotas and Hondas. Japan sells the US about 84 cars for every one the US sells there. 'American cars that are big just don't comport well with the needs, desires and demands of the Japanese public' said Colin Grabow, an associate director at the Cato Institute's trade policy center. 'It's unclear what the payoff here is.' --With assistance from Keith Laing, Hadriana Lowenkron, Joe Mathieu, Tyler Kendall and Stephanie Lai. (Adds Lutnick comments in ninth and 10th paragraph) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border What the Tough Job Market for New College Grads Says About the Economy ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
4 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Trying To Ban ICE Agents Wearing Masks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A growing coalition of Democratic-led states is pushing legislation that would prohibit federal agents from wearing face coverings during immigration enforcement operations. California, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have introduced bills that would require federal officers to display visible identification—with limited exceptions for safety or undercover purposes—as part of a progressive effort to increase transparency and limit the agency's expanded powers under the Trump administration. Why It Matters Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has come under increased criticism for deploying agents in plain clothes and face coverings during operations, a tactic officials say is necessary to protect agents and their families from threats. The agency's approach has drawn heightened scrutiny amid the Trump administration's aggressive push to deport millions of undocumented migrants, placing ICE at the center of a highly visible crackdown on immigration. What To Know At the federal level, House Democrats have introduced the No Anonymity in Immigration Enforcement Act, which would require ICE agents conducting enforcement operations within the United States to display clear identification—with limited exceptions for public safety threats. Exceptions would be permitted only in limited circumstances, such as when there is an imminent threat to the agent's life or risk of serious bodily harm or when protective gear is necessary for health or safety reasons. In any case where an exception is used, a supervisor must review and document the incident within 48 hours to assess whether it was justified and determine whether disciplinary action is warranted. Senate Democrats have introduced the VISIBLE Act, which mandates that agents from ICE and Customs and Border Protection wear legible identification showing their names and agency affiliations. It would also prohibit the use of most face coverings during operations. Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the bill, saying the measure seeks to increase transparency and accountability in federal immigration enforcement. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended agents' continued use of face coverings, even as the agency faces mounting criticism for obscuring personnel identities during enforcement actions. "I've said it publicly before, I'm not a proponent of the masks. However, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it," Lyons said on CBS's Face the Nation. Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a news release: "I am deeply concerned about the prospect of ICE agents continuing to go about immigration raids in plainclothes, masks, and without identifiers that indicate what agency they're representing. The rules governing law enforcement should extend to federal immigration agents." Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Andrea Renault/STAR MAX/IPx At the state level, California is leading the way with its No Secret Police Act, introduced in June by Democratic state Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín. Senate Bill 627 would prohibit all law enforcement officers operating in the state, including federal agents, from covering their faces during enforcement actions unless in specific, limited circumstances such as SWAT deployments, medical masking or undercover work. The California Senate Public Safety Committee advanced the bill last week, but it faces a legal gauntlet, particularly over whether a state can dictate how federal officers dress. In New York, Democratic Assemblymember Tony Simone introduced the Mandating End of Lawless Tactics (MELT) Act earlier this week. The MELT Act mirrors California's SB 627 by banning masks for state, local and federal officers, and it would require law enforcement officers to clearly display their names or badge numbers and ban most mask use during public duties. Violations would constitute misdemeanors. In Massachusetts, Democratic state Representative Jim Hawkins filed a similar bill on July 9, focused specifically on ICE personnel. He argues that ICE's use of face coverings in routine operations blurs the line between law enforcement and intimidation. In Pennsylvania, Democratic state Representatives Paul Friel and Rick Krajewski are preparing to introduce the Officer Visibility Act in early August. The bill would ban face coverings during public enforcement operations unless medically required or part of a covert investigation. What People Are Saying Tom Decker, a former director of ICE's New York field office, told Newsweek: "President Trump and his administration are doing exactly what he promised in his campaign, strengthening our borders and removing public safety threats from our communities, to include aliens in violation of our immigration laws." Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a statement shared with Newsweek: "I'll keep fighting to pass commonsense legislation, like the No Masks for ICE Act, to keep our communities safe." Scott Mechkowski, a retired ICE agent who worked for the agency between the mid-1990s and 2019, previously told Newsweek: "I think everyone knows the reasons for the masks. Every agent knows they would be doxxed [publicly identified] as would their families." John Sandweg, who served as acting director of ICE under former President Barack Obama from August 2013 to February 2014, previously told Newsweek: "If you're getting arrested by an officer or agent in a mask, especially if at that point they've not yet identified themselves as a federal officer, it creates a risk of bystanders thinking, rushing in to help, which could create the risk of violence or harm caused to the bystanders." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "ICE officers are being doxed, physically assaulted, and attacked—in some cases, their families are even being threatened. Instead of spending their time further demonizing heroic ICE officers, Democrat politicians should dial back the rhetoric and tell their supporters to stop attacking law enforcement." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CBS: "It's for the safety of those individuals or the work that they're doing as far as protecting their identity so they can continue to do investigative work."
Chicago Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How US adults feel about legal abortion 3 years after Roe was overturned, according to AP-NORC poll
Three years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state abortion bans, most U.S. adults say abortion should be legal — views that look similar to before the landmark ruling. The new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. That level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising. The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it. Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realize they're pregnant. In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. Last year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 U.S. adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65% in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57% in June 2021. The new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases. More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that group. Similarly, about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in 2024. Adults in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any reason. Democrats support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most instances. Seeing what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom. She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless. 'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.' But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern. 'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.' Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned. 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. She said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.' The vast majority of U.S. adults — at least 8 in 10 — continue to say their state should allow legal abortion if a fetal abnormality would prevent the child from surviving outside the womb, if the patient's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, or if the person became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Consistent with AP-NORC's June 2024 poll, about 7 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies. In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. This is a major concern for Nicole Jones, a 32-year-old Florida resident. Jones and her husband would like to have children soon. But she said she's worried about access to abortion if there's a fetal abnormality or a condition that would threaten her life in pregnancy since they live in a state that bans most abortions after the first six weeks of gestation. 'What if we needed something?' she asked. 'We'd have to travel out of state or risk my life because of this ban.' There's less consensus on whether states that allow abortion should protect access for women who live in places with bans. Just over half support protecting a patient's right to obtain an abortion in another state and shielding those who provide abortions from fines or prison time. In both cases, relatively few adults — about 2 in 10 — oppose the measures and about 1 in 4 are neutral. More Americans also favor than oppose legal protections for doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills to patients in states with bans. About 4 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' favor those protections, and roughly 3 in 10 oppose them. Such telehealth prescriptions are a key reason that the number of abortions nationally has risen even as travel for abortion has declined slightly.
