During World War 2 in 1944, the Bretton Woods Agreement made the U.S. dollar the world's reserve currency. And 82 years later, it still enjoys that status. But liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a late June Substack column, lays out some problems the U.S. dollar is facing during Donald Trump's second presidency.

"We are now four months into a war that was supposed to last a couple of weeks," Krugman argues. "There is no end in sight as strikes and counterstrikes continue despite Trump's farcical proclamations of American victory and Iranian surrender. Sixteen months into his presidency, Trump has squandered all of America's credibility with the rest of the world. So let me add one more item to the tally of destruction: the supremacy of the dollar, the pre-eminent tool in America's toolbox of global financial power, has been seriously damaged by the rise of alternative payment systems — a rise that was greatly hastened by the Iran war."

Krugman explains exactly what he means when he speaks of the U.S. dollar's "supremacy" being "seriously damaged." And he cites Trump's "stunning failure" with the Iran war as a key factor.

"Let me be clear that I don’t mean that the dollar is close to losing its dominant role in global business," Krugman writes. "And I am definitely not claiming that the dollar's weakened status will make the United States substantially poorer. Instead, what I am talking about is the loss of a non-military tool of coercion — the power to punish that the dominant role of the dollar in international financial transactions gave the United States. That power is now greatly diminished because Trump's Iran war demonstrated to other nations that they can bypass the dollar-centered world payments system — largely thanks to China."

Krugman notes that the U.S. dollar's "importance in international financial transactions far outweighs the U.S. economy's global importance."

"America is by no means a dominant force in world trade or world GDP," Krugman observes. "There are, in fact, three roughly comparable-sized economic superpowers in today’s world: China, the United States, and the European Union. However, the U.S. dollar does play a dominant role in world finance…. Why does everyone use dollars? Because so many other people and businesses use dollars, which makes markets in dollars far more liquid and efficient than markets in any other currency…. What dollar dominance does do…. is give America a powerful economic weapon against other nations."

Krugman continues, "Transactions that involve dollar payments normally require transferring money between U.S. banks — which means that they are visible to and can be blocked by U.S. authorities…. The Iran debacle has demonstrated that using dollars and retaining access to the U.S. banking system, while convenient, aren't necessary. Iran's ability to withstand American pressure has demonstrated that U.S. sanctions are a lot less effective than in the past given that rogue actors can use the yuan and CIPS as a work-around. And as the Gulf States' actions show, even countries that are U.S. allies are now considering signing onto the Chinese payment system."

U.S. President Donald Trump's "memorandum of understanding" with Iran was put to the test when, on June 25, Iranian forces attacked commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz and the United States responded with military attacks against Iran. Conservative Journalist Bill Kristol examines the state of the "memo of understanding" in The Bulwark, arguing that Trump left Iran in a stronger position than it was in before the war.

"This military tit-for-tatting happened amidst a cacophony of competing understandings of the much-heralded memorandum of understanding signed two weeks ago," Kristol writes in The Bulwark. "It turns out that an agreement that Iran would 'make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels' is subject to very different interpretations of 'arrangements' and 'best efforts.' The United States thinks 'safe passage' should mean free passage. Iran thinks that if Iran can 'make arrangements,' it's allowed to — make arrangements. Who could have known there would be disagreement on this point? But the bottom line is that this is what a messy but unacknowledged surrender by the United States of America to the Islamic Republic of Iran looks like."

The Bulwark uses a clever "Wizard of Oz" analogy to describe Trump's Iran deal. In the famous L. Frank Baum children's story, the "man behind the curtain" isn't really the all-powerful individual he pretends to be — and The Bulwark compares him to the "man behind the curtain."

"You could emphasize his personal role in bringing about this sad state of affairs," Kristol writes. "In this case, you might rather want to go middlebrow and cinematic, and quote from the climactic scene of the 1939 movie, 'The Wizard of Oz.'"

The "new normal" with Trump and Iran, Kristol predicts, will find the U.S. in a state of "surrender."

"It will consist of on-and-off military tit-for-tats; endless diplomatic squabbling and propagandizing; a Strait of Hormuz that is quasi-open but not reliably so, and is mostly so at Iranian sufferance; no resolution with regard to Iran's nuclear program; and at the end of the day an Iranian regime that is emboldened, American allies that are uncertain and dispirited, and a United States that is unable to exert its power or will decisively," Kristol laments. "It's not good. But it's where we are…. You could point out how unlikely it is that Trump can 'militarily complete' the job he started."

Kristol adds, "You could suggest that this latest instance of Trumpian bluster does more to highlight than to cover up his weakness in this moment. And you could emphasize how foolish and reckless was his choice to start this war. So, citing T.S. Eliot is apt: We are at an important, even world-historical moment."

U.S. President Donald Trump isn't shy about saying who he likes and dislikes in Latin America. Trump often praises right-wing populists like Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele and Argentinian President Javier Milei, but he is no fan of progressive Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. And he used the U.S. military to remove former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from office, although Venezuela still has a leftist government under Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.

According to University of Chicago political science professor Michael Albertus, the far right continues to make significant gains in that part of the world. And Albertus, writing for the conservative website The Bulwark, stresses that the "Trump playbook" is being used extensively in Latin America.

"The political landscape of Latin America has changed dramatically," Albertus explains. "Within the span of several weeks, two of South America's largest democracies have elected leaders from the far right. In Peru, Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of the dictator who governed the country between 1990 and 2000, has apparently won a razor-thin runoff against leftist Roberto Sánchez. In Colombia, far-right outsider Abelardo de la Espriella defeated the candidate backed by the outgoing left-wing government of Gustavo Petro. These results follow a landslide victory in December by far-right candidate José Antonio Kast in Chile."

The political scientist continues, "Latin America is a complicated place, and each of these elections has its own national dynamic. But taken together, they tell a larger story of a resurgence in right-wing politics across the Andes."

Albertus describes that the "rightward shift" in Latin America as a "product of deeper forces reshaping the political landscape across the region" — including "a spiraling security crisis fueled by drug trafficking and organized crime" and a "migration shock centered on Venezuela."

"A new generation of right-wing politicians has learned — both from each other and from the Trump playbook — how to weaponize these forces to their advantage," Albertus observes. "And they have seized on the opening provided by mainstream parties that are either in collapse or that have earned a reputation for their incapacity to deal effectively with crime and migration. The question now for the defenders of liberalism globally is whether and how this can be contained."

Crime, according to Albertus, is a key factor in the wave of MAGA-like victories in Latin America.

"Chile's crime surge is real, even if modest by regional standards," the University of Chicago political scientist notes. "And hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan and Haitian migrants have provided a convenient scapegoat. Meanwhile, previous president Gabriel Boric's economic record was underwhelming: growth was anemic, inflation spiked in the aftermath of COVID, and many Chileans reported a desire to emigrate…. The combination of weakened institutions, metastasizing organized crime, and a Trump administration that has abandoned democracy promotion creates conditions in which democratic backsliding can happen quickly."

The GOP has become embroiled in a bitter and "extraordinary feud," according to a new report from The Washington Post, over the actions of a "virtually unknown" but vital Trump appointee within the Pentagon.

Elbridge Colby is the current undersecretary of defense for policy, a position which, the Post explained, "serves a vital role as the Pentagon’s chief strategist on issues such as counterterrorism and nuclear deterrence." Additionally, unlike his bosses, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg, he came to the position with actual prior Pentagon experience.

Despite that leg up, Colby has enraged many Republican lawmakers since he was appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed by Congress. The Post's report noted a particularly caustic relationship with Rep. Mike D. Rogers, an Alabama Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who took Colby "at his word" when he told the congressman that he was not aware of any upcoming overseas troop reductions. Rogers, who maintains a considerably close relationship with Romania, was then stunned and betrayed to learn that the Trump administration would be removing a key "Army brigade that had fortified NATO’s eastern flank since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine."

Colby claimed to the Post that a final order had not been issued in October when he took that meeting with Rogers, also stressing that he is "very careful about what I say and what I don’t say." Nonetheless, his relationship with the Republican-led chambers of Congress has only soured since then.

"In the months since, House and Senate Republicans have conducted more aggressive oversight of Colby than nearly any other Trump appointee," the Post detailed. "They have overruled his policies and blocked the confirmation of two officials nominated to serve as his top deputies. At least two prominent Republicans have publicly accused him of dishonesty. The extraordinary feud has become an open proxy war within the GOP, people familiar with the dispute said, as Republicans with starkly different ideas of America’s rightful role in the world each have argued their camp best represents President Donald Trump’s vision for an 'America First' foreign policy."

Colby came under scrutiny prior to his confirmation, particularly from GOP war hawks, for his comments attacking the idea of escalating U.S. support for Ukraine, while also dismissing the potential for a military campaign against Iran. Now, he has changed his tune considerably and voiced support for Trump's haphazard conflict with the Middle Eastern nation.

The report further noted that GOP critics have attacked Colby as something of an "enforcer of the Trump administration’s transactional approach to U.S. allies," demanding in speeches and posts "that partners from Europe to East Asia increase their defense spending and prepare for less American support." He has also drawn the ire of certain lawmakers for his attempt to block a congressional delegation from visiting Taiwan, fearing backlash from China.

Lawmakers have also vented during hearings about Colby's poor communication with Congress.

“You know who the hardest guy to get a hold of in the Trump administration is? The undersecretary of defense for policy,” Sen. Dan Sullivan, an Alaska Republican, told one of Colby's top deputies during their confirmation hearing.

President Donald Trump's "Board of Peace" initiative has been exposed as a plot to grant its member states "sweeping immunity," per a report from The Guardian, protecting them from "any arrest, detention or legal proceedings in the courts," among other things, as a result of its most contentious goal.

The Board of Peace initially began as part of Trump's plan to carry out a peace deal in Gaza and to facilitate the rebuilding of the region. By the time it was formally established, it had expanded into a more generalized international peacekeeping organization, with critics expressing concern that Trump, who would remain chairman even after leaving the White House, was using the group to try and replace the United Nations. Among the nations that accepted the invitation to join the board, many are considered to be authoritarian states or dictatorships, with prominent democratic U.S. allies declining to join.

On Saturday, The Guardian obtained a "sensitive but unclassified" four-page resolution, in which the Board of Peace plotted a "sweeping grant of legal immunity for itself," specifically for its actions in Gaza. The resolution would also permit the board to obtain property in the region "free of charge."

As the report noted, it remains unclear how broad the scale of this proposed immunity is planned to be.

"The four-page resolution, labeled 'sensitive but unclassified', extends broad protections to every member of the Board of Peace and its administrative affiliate, the office of the high representative (OHR), as well as to the Palestinian technocrats, international military forces and nonresident contractors lined up to perform work in Gaza," The Guardian explained. "It defines legal processes from which they would have immunity as 'any arrest, detention or legal proceedings in the courts or other entities in Gaza.'"

The report added later: "It is unclear if the document is attempting to relieve the Board of Peace and its affiliates from prosecution in international courts, in addition to potential claims in Gaza."

As the chairman, Trump would retain the ability to override this immunity, "pending majority support from his peace board." A representative for the board dismissed concerns about the intentions of the resolution.

"There is no operative resolution or immunity framework of the kind described in your questions," the representative told The Guardian. "Any suggestion that this process is designed to create lawlessness or impunity is wrong, misleading and gets the issue entirely backwards."

"Six lawyers specializing in US contracting law and international armed conflict reviewed the draft resolution for the Guardian," the report added. "If the resolution goes into force, they said, it is unclear how Board of Peace officials, soldiers, and contractors would be held accountable if there are shootings or accidents that affect Gaza residents, or even how the group might resolve routine disputes over business or land use there."

A former MAGA darling lashed out against the Trump administration this week, accusing it of manipulating the stock market as it tried to strategically hide signs that its Iran ceasefire is failing.

On Friday evening, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. had carried out new military strikes against Iran, claiming that they were in retaliation for an attack the Middle Eastern nation carried out on a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, which Trump called a "foolish violation" of the recent "memorandum of understanding" it recently signed. Iran claimed that the ship was targeted because it was using an unauthorized pathway through the Strait.

In a post to X on Saturday, the Kobeissi Letter, which tracks news about "global capital markets," highlighted something notable about the timing of the announcement.

"BREAKING" The US Pentagon delayed publicly announcing US strikes on Iran until after the US stock market had closed at 4 PM ET on Friday, per NBC News," the account posted. "The timing of the announcement was reportedly intended to 'reduce the immediate impact on financial markets.'"

This sort of effort has become commonplace during the second Trump term. Given that the president is famously known to be the most concerned about television ratings and stock market performance, his administration has frequently tried to manage the release of information that might cause markets to tumble, making sure that the news breaks after they close for the day, and preferably heading into the weekend as well.

This became especially evident during the Iran peace talks, when Trump would often hype up an impending deal as the weekend approached, only to then begin issuing threats again during the weekend, when markets would not be able to react to renewed hostilities.

Responding to the Kobeissi Letter's post, ex-congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a stalwart Trump supporter and darling of the MAGA movement, made the accusations clear.

"Two things here: 1. The ceasefire is not holding," Greene wrote in a post to X. "2. They are manipulating the markets for insider trading."

During a late June visit to the Middle East on Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with leaders of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait to discuss foreign policy matters — including President Donald Trump's ceasefire agreement with Iran. Trump's son-in-law Michael Boulos was sitting next to Rubio during a meeting with UAE's president, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in Abu Dhabi — and Boulos' presence is raising questions.

On X, formerly Twitter, Rubio posted a photo from that meeting, noting that he discussed the memorandum of understanding signed by the U.S. and Iran as well as "efforts to secure full and safe transit through the Strait of Hormuz" and "regional stability."

The New York Times' Edward Wong is among the reporters drawing attention to the fact that Boulos, who is married to President Trump's daughter Tiffany Trump, was sitting next to Rubio.

Wong, on X, observed, "Trump's son-in-law, Michael Boulos, sits next to Rubio in this meeting in UAE with Sheikh MBZ, the country's leader. Boulos is a businessman who has no official post (his father has one). He visited UAE in May 2025 with Trump for a business event."

Wong, in a separate tweet, noted, "On that May 2025 trip, Michael Boulos and Tiffany Trump were at a business roundtable in UAE at which President Trump gave a speech."

Speaking to reporters in Kuwait City, Kuwait, Rubio was asked about Boulos and responded, "Oh, Michael Boulos? His brother lives here. He was just at the meeting to catch up."

Rubio also told reporters, "I'm a good friend of Michael. So we had a chance to catch up."

But journalists are pointing out that Boulos doesn't actually serve in the Trump administration in an official capacity, and they find his presence during Rubio's meeting with Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan odd and Rubio's explanation vague.

CNN's Aaron Blake, formerly of the Washington Post, tweeted, "From Rubio's exchange with reporters on this — > Q: Sir, can you clarify — can you clarify what the role of Michael Boulos was today?.... RUBIO: Oh, he was there to see his brother who lives here. He was just there to see me and catch up."

Rubio was once a scathing critic of Donald Trump, repeatedly attacking him when they were competing for the GOP nomination in the United States' 2016 presidential race. But Rubio and Donald Trump later made amends, and now, he wears multiple hats in Trump's second administration. In addition to serving as secretary of state, the 55-year-old former U.S. senator is acting national security adviser.

Ever since the overthrow of the Fulgencio Bautista regime in 1959, Cuba has been shunned by the United States. Now, following the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and months of U.S. military strikes against Iran, President Donald Trump is indicating that a U.S military invasion of Cuba is possible. But conservative Washington Post columnist George Will fears that Trump could make a bad situation in Cuba even worse.

"After beginning the war, but before his conduct of it turned it into an embarrassment, President Donald Trump said: 'On the way back' from Iran, 'we will be taking over' Cuba 'almost immediately,'" Will explains. "Now, humiliated and bewildered, he hungers for a success before this autumn's elections."

The 84-year-old Will, who was a scathing critic of the late Fidel Castro, is no fan of the communist regime in Cuba — which has been suffering from a terrible economy, a crumbling infrastructure, and frequent blackouts. But he fears that if Trump does move forward with a U.S. military invasion of Cuba, things will only become more dire for the troubled island nation.

"Communist Cuba, a threadbare museum of Marxism, has always attracted tyranny tourists, leftist pilgrims eager to experience, briefly, applied socialism," Will argues in the Post. "The only good its evil ever produced is 'Against All Hope,' Armando Valladares' magnificent 1986 memoir of 22 years as a political prisoner. Beatings were never perfunctory, always ferocious and imaginatively cruel.… Other than those pilgrims, no one believes the Havana regime has a shred of legitimacy. What should be done?"

The Never Trump conservative continues, "For decades, Communist Cuba, a mendicant nation prickly about its revolutionary dignity, depended on subsidies from the Soviet Union, then on bartered oil from Venezuela. Now, it experiences electricity blackouts sometimes lasting 22 hours a day. Some airlines have stopped serving Havana because fuel is scarce for return trips. Tourism has evaporated."

But Will emphasizes that while Cuba's situation is dire, Trump doesn't appear to have a coherent game plan.

"In January," Will observes, "Trump said, 'Cuba is ready to fall.' Into what? Has Trump thought through his vow to 'take care' of Cuba with a 'friendly takeover' during 'a little brief stopover'? Before he skittered away from demanding Iran's 'unconditional surrender,' he jovially said of Cuba: A U.S. aircraft carrier will 'stop about 100 yards offshore, and they'll say: Thank you very much. We give up.' Such a cutup. Our Metternich from Midtown Manhattan is not intimidated by the aphorism that if you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans."

President Donald Trump is growing increasingly desperate, one international relations expert cautioned, and it's only growing worse as he remains stuck in a "geopolitical trap."

Speaking to Greg Sargent at The New Republic, author and University of Illinois Professor Nicholas Grossman explained that the world is inching closer to "a very serious crisis" in the oil markets "because of reserves running down and the ships not leaving the [Strait of Hormuz] in time to replenish that.”

Meanwhile, Trump is attempting to claim that the strait is open and that there are no tolls. In an all-caps Truth Social post, he promised that all was well and that Iran made it clear to the U.S. that everything was open. Last week, when Trump claimed that there is a "deal" and that negotiations are yielding positive results, Iran responded with its own message to the contrary.

"The Strait of Hormuz is ‘open’ — but it’s mined, half-empty, and subject to tolls both sides say they might charge," an Associated Press report in Fortune said on Monday. After Trump's comments on Truth Social, the Wall Street Journal reported that for the first time in decades, Iran is selling oil using the U.S. dollar.

Grossman explained that Trump's challenge is that the things he says don't match "the facts on the ground."

"And this is the type of big-scale supply-demand, hard physical reality that he can bulls—— his way through for some time, kind of delay for a time, but cannot totally manage to hoodwink people when there are ongoing economic problems, when costs are rising, when we saw recently inflation numbers, in large part due to the war, getting back to levels that we haven’t seen in a few years," Grossman said.

These are the kinds of things that people notice, he told Sargent.

"And he really seems desperate about it — where usually he’s able to either bully people into saying that it’s going well, or turn it into a domestic political he-said-she-said back and forth, or just somehow bulls—— his way through it, change the subject. And this one is just stubbornly not doing it because the reality of it is too big," he said.

Congress is working toward funding the war as well as Trump's other demands, but continuing to sell the Iran war to the public is another matter.

"That’s not going to work at all. People can see the economic effects, and those are likely to get worse rather than better as the effects really reverberate out. And they never supported the war in the first place," Grossman also said.

Sargent said Trump has created a kind of "triple wammy" with the cost of the war, his request for even more money and his approval. The host began the show by citing a devastating segment in which a Fox News anchor pointed to a new poll showing that Trump has a lower approval rating than former President Joe Biden ever did at any point in his presidency.

The pandemic caused a global economic crisis, but Americans appeared to understand why the economy was in rough shape. That isn't the case during the second Trump term, where voters link economic issues to Trump's tariffs and the Iran war, polls show. It's all a trap of his own making, the men discussed.

Tensions between the Trump administration and the Italian government flared when U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni "begged" to be in a photo with him during the recent G7 Summit in Évian-les-Bains, France. Italian Deputy Prime Minister Antonio Tajani was so offended that he canceled a visit to the United States. Now, according to liberal SiriusXM host Zerlina Maxwell, Italian media outlets have a devastating new insult for Trump — including those on the right.

During a late June appearance on SiriusXM colleague Dean Obeidallah's show, Maxwell — who has been living in Sicily — was asked how Trump is being covered in European media. And she noted that Italian media routinely describe Trump as a coglione, a crude yet funny term that essentially means "idiot" or "imbecil" in Italian.

Maxwell, sounding amused, told Obeidallah, "The headline that's going pretty viral right now is they call him coglione. I'm not saying that completely correct, but it means idiot. Like, roughly translated, right? It's one of the first words I learned in Italian. And I think that's because of the little kerfuffle with Meloni in that Trump claims she begged him for a picture — and she's like, 'I and Italy don't beg.'"

Maxwell continued, "And I think that Italy that doesn't beg — that's the thing that I think that people are buzzing about."

Maxwell noted that in Sicily, her "community" is a "combination of expats from all over the world and all over Europe" as well as Sicilians.

"It's a mixed bag in terms of how much people are even talking or thinking about Trump on any given day," Maxwell told Obeidallah. "But I think this latest thing is something that — I expect people to bring this up to me. Because I've seen it in my feeds on the Italian pages that I follow. The algorithm is now giving me that."

Maxwell pointed out that the term coglione isn't just being used to insult Trump in liberal or progressive media outlets in Italy; she's also seeing it on a regular basis in an Italian "right-wing newspaper."

"In the right-wing newspaper," Maxwell told Obeidallah, "that was the headline — that Trump is an idiot."

Obeidallah both noted how right-wing Meloni is politically, stressing that even on the right, Trump is making enemies.

Obeidallah said of Trump and Meloni, "She's fighting back. She's like, 'Worry about your own popularity, buddy. You're talking about my popularity. You're very unpopular.' He's alienating everyone."

Jared Kushner's investment fund, Affinity Partners, and its ties to Saudi Arabia not only drew scrutiny from Democrats; even conservative Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky) warned that it "crossed the line of ethics." According to Mother Jones' Casey Michel, Kushner was "denied top-secret clearance" — that is, until his father-in-law, President Donald Trump, stepped in and "overruled intelligence officials."

"Of course, it wasn't just Saudi Arabia that saw Kushner as a pliable source of influence," Michel explains in Mother Jones. "The United Arab Emirates, whose own despot had cultivated Kushner years before, began tossing money at Affinity Partners around the same time. So did the Qatari regime, which slipped back into America's good graces as it was helping bail out Kushner's family company. To date, firms linked to the UAE and Qatar have invested at least $1.5 billion in Kushner's fund. With more modest infusions from smaller investors, nearly all foreign, Affinity's asset pool grew and grew, topping $6 billion and generating more than $100 million in management fees for Kushner and his partners…. The investments themselves weren't enough of an ethical hornet's nest, the contracts Affinity signed give the regimes troubling leverage over Kushner."

Michel adds, "They allow investors to pull out after a five-year window, which means Saudi Arabia and Qatar have the power to implode Affinity in the middle of Trump's second term, decimating Kushner’s standing — a financial sword of Damocles that, by extension, dangles over the federal government."

A former White House official, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told Mother Jones, "There was a risk the Saudis were playing him."

Michel notes that according to NBC News, Kushner's application for a top-secret security clearance was initially rejected because of fears "about potential foreign influence." But when Trump overruled intelligence officials, Kushner was, Michel reports, granted "access to America's most closely held secrets."

"As MBS (Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman) tucked Kushner further into his pocket," Michel reports, "other regimes tried to replicate the Saudi success. One year into Trump's first term, U.S. intelligence analysts reported that officials from a range of foreign countries had 'privately discussed ways they can manipulate Jared Kushner,' the Washington Post noted, 'by taking advantage of his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties, and lack of foreign policy experience.' They'd hit on the same conclusion as MBS: Kushner was tractable, and perhaps the best vector for influencing Trump."

Michel continues, "One of those countries was Israel…. Russia had a similar epiphany. Once Trump was sworn in, Kushner became a Kremlin target second only to Trump himself. President Vladimir Putin, federal documents show, tasked businessman Kirill Dmitriev with courting top White House officials, and Dmitriev took a particular interest in Kushner."

According to Michel, "Kushner's assertion" that he "would play no role in a second administration crumbled as soon as Trump returned to power" — and foreign powers have been "quick to recapitalize on his proximity to the throne."

"(Kusner) and his partners are traveling the world, gleefully raking in cash as they cultivate relationships with sordid regimes and kleptocratic leaders in the interest of making a buck," Michel warns. "The world burns, and Jared Kushner gets richer."

The "madman theory" of politics argues that when a leader comes across as unhinged and volatile, adversaries will back down — as they don't know what the person will do. That theory was applied to U.S. President Donald Trump during the Iran war, with some of his supporters arguing that he would come out on top because Iranian leaders would be genuinely afraid of him. But according to NOTUS reporters Akbar Shahid Ahmed and Jasmine Wright, Trump's ceasefire agreement with Iran underscores the fatal flaws of the "madman theory."

"President Donald Trump has handled his war on Iran with his signature brand of unpredictability, veering from threatening 'a whole civilization will die' to cheering diplomacy and Iranian freedom," Ahmed and Wright explain in a NOTUS article. "It's not clear how much he'll have to show for it. The U.S. and Iran are expected to begin talks soon toward a permanent end to the war. They have 59 days to agree on contentious issues, including Iran's nuclear program, economic sanctions and a new regional arrangement governing the Strait of Hormuz."

The NOTUS reporters add, "It's a particularly delicate period, but Trump remains deeply volatile. The negotiations will test the 'madman theory' of foreign policy the president leans on: assuming adversaries will cave because they don’t know how far he will go. They will also test whether U.S. officials can reach mutually agreeable terms when their boss might shift the goalposts at any time — an especially significant task given how massive the global cost of resuming conflict with Iran has become."

Alan Eyre, a former diplomat, recalls that President Richard Nixon articulated the "madman theory" during the Vietnam War. And Eyre told NOTUS that Trump "is doing what he does because he can't do otherwise, and that's the biggest threat."

Eyre added, "He has no strategic messaging.… He's going to sabotage negotiations, not just by moving red lines, which I think he probably will do, but by saying stuff in the media that's going to have an effect."

Wendy Sherman, who helped negotiate former President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, believes that Iranian leaders will "go into this thinking they have the upper hand." And she argues that the "madman theory" is proving "toothless" with Trump and Iran.

Sherman told NOTUS, "Initially, there was belief by some that the madman approach might work, but it has been shown to be toothless. At the end of the day. Trump has agreed to a bad deal because the war didn't turn out the way he wanted it to."

At the 2026 G7 Summit in Évian-les-Bains, France — which concluded on Wednesday June 17 — U.S. President Donald Trump met with leaders ranging from French President Emmanuel Macron to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Right-wing Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also met with Trump at the G7, but Italian officials are angry over a comment Trump made about her — so angry that the deputy prime minister canceled a visit to the United States planned for June 21-22.

On X, formerly Twitter, The Hill's Julia Manchester reports, "Italy’s foreign minister cancels his trip to the U.S. after President Trump reportedly say Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni 'begged' him for a photo at the G7 Summit."

It is the "begged" part, according to Manchester, that Italian officials found offensive.

One of them is Italian Deputy Prime Minister Antonio Tajani, who also serves as Italy's minister of foreign affairs.

On X, Tajani posted, "The serious and offensive words of President Trump towards Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni offend all of Italy. For this reason, I have decided to cancel my visit to the United States scheduled for the next 21 and 22 June."

The Rome-based Tajani, now 72, is a veteran of Italian politics. During the 1990s, he was a spokesman for then-Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Tajani was a founder of the center-right Forza Italia party along with Berusconi, and he was president of the European Parliament in the late 2010s.

In a video posted on X, Meloni said, "Donald Trump's statements are completely made up. I am frankly astonished. I don't know why ⁠the president of the United States behaves like this towards his allies. It is not the first time, moreover. I can only say it is disappointing that he does not show the same determination with the enemies of the West and of the United States, whose leaders he instead treats with far greater indulgence. There is one thing he should remember: neither I nor Italy ever beg."Italian politician and activist Alessandro Di Battista, known for his work in the Five Stars Movement, addressed the controversy as well.

In response to Tajani's post, Di Battista tweeted, "Stop buying US gas instead of Russian gas. You're pathetic with these stupid things here!"

According to India Today, the Trump/Meloni controversy "marks a significant deterioration in relations between the two right-wing leaders, who had appeared to stabilize their previously strained relationship during the G7 summit in France."

Reuters reports, "Meloni said she was 'astonished' by (Trump's) comments, which were 'completely made up.' She also chided him for acting with far greater deference to the enemies of the West than he does towards old, established allies. Underscoring how much Trump's comments have angered Meloni's government, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani announced he was cancelling a planned visit to the U.S. next week. The latest exchange marks a sharp deterioration in ties, coming just days after signs emerged at the G7 Summit ⁠that the two right-wing leaders had steadied a previously strained relationship following tensions this year over the war on Iran."

Reuters adds, 'Video from the event in France showed Meloni and Trump deep in conversation, sitting side-by-side on a small sofa, but the U.S. leader suggested he had merely indulged her by chatting with her."

U.S. President Donald Trump's ceasefire deal with Iran is drawing vehement criticism not only from Democrats and Never Trump conservatives, but also, from some of his supporters. Danny Zaken, an Israel-based journalist for Israel Hayom — which is owned by billionaire GOP donor Miriam Adelson — has been a strong supporter of Trump's Israel policy. But in a blistering op-ed for Hayom, he attacks the deal as a disaster for Israel, the United States and the Middle East in general.

"From where I sit, near Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the people of Israel since the days of the kingdoms of David and Solomon, I say to you: You made a colossal mistake," Zaken writes. "You failed by signing a surrender agreement with a murderous and cruel terror regime. You severely harmed American interests and the democratic and human values of the enlightened world, and you turned over the hourglass toward the next war, which your successors will have to deal with in the years to come. In doing so, you sealed the fate of many thousands of people: civilians, women, children and the elderly, whom the regime in Iran will torture and murder, just as it murdered more than 40,000 of them at the beginning of the year; citizens of neighboring countries whom Iran and its terrorist proxies will murder; fighters who will be killed in the war against Iran and the terrorism it operates. And yes, many Americans too, just as Iran and its emissaries have murdered throughout the years of the mullahs' regime."

Hayom denounces Trump's Iran deal as a "violation of every promise you made."

"You could have been the greatest president of all in this era, alongside Woodrow Wilson, who won World War I and created the foundation for the international framework of the new world; alongside Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who defeated the Nazis and Japan; and behind George Washington and Abraham Lincoln," Hayom argues. "Then, you would have deserved not only the Nobel Prize you covet, but eternal recognition and respect from everyone in the world who mocked you, and there are many such people. You could have been that president, as you claim to be, but you failed. You missed the opportunity."

Hayom adds, "Instead, unless you change course against the advice of your vice president and envoy, you will be remembered forever as the president who brought about the humiliation of great America and gravely damaged its strategic power and its leading status in the world."

President Donald Trump has pulled an about-face after months of feuding with Pope Leo XIV, per a report from The Daily Beast, sharing the Catholic leader's words to try and defend his disastrous Iran deal.

The U.S. and Iran this week signed a major new deal to end their ongoing conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while also creating a 60-day ceasefire for further negotiations. Other provisions in the deal, including a $300 billion fund for Iran to rebuild and the lifting of sanctions on the Middle Eastern nation, were met with considerable vitriol from Republicans, with some tarring it as possibly the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”

"Under the framework, Iran would regain access to frozen assets, receive sanctions relief, and continue to use the Strait of Hormuz as leverage," The Daily Beast explained in its Thursday report. "But broader questions surrounding nuclear power, missiles, regional proxies and long-term enforcement remain unresolved, with some critics describing the deal as a monumental strategic failure."

One surprising figure who was supportive of the deal, prior to the release of its full terms, was Pope Leo, who shared a post on Monday praising the progress being made towards peace.

“I welcome with satisfaction the reaching of an agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, which will be signed on Friday, as an encouraging result of patient work in dialogue and negotiation,” the Pope's post read. “I hope that the agreement may help strengthen mutual trust, security, and stability in the Middle East, promoting paths of dialogue and cooperation among peoples.”

Prior to this, the Trump administration had been engaged in a seemingly one-sided feud with the first-ever American Pope, making public statements chastising him over comments calling for treating immigrants with dignity and decrying the violence of the war in Iran. In that context, then, it was surprising to see Trump take to Truth Social on Thursday with a post sharing news of the Pope's support for the deal, in an attempt at countering his own party's discontent.

“Oil is flowing, Iran can never have a nuclear weapon (the world will be safe!), the stock markets are roaring, jobs are at records, and prices are dropping (affordability!)," Trump's all-caps post read. "Our country is strong, safe, and respected like never before. 'you’re welcome!'"

In its report, the Daily Beast also highlighted further criticism of the deal from former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

“This agreement is far worse than I expected,” McFaul said. “To reopen the Strait — a Strait that was open before the war — we and our partners are transferring billions to the autocrats. We get nothing else — no elimination of enriched uranium, missiles or terrorist support."

When U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian digitally signed a memo aimed at ending the war between the two countries and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, outgoing U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) slammed the deal as a major victory for Iran and loss for the United States. Cassidy declared that the late President Ronald Reagan "is rolling over in his grave" — a sentiment that former GOP strategist Steve Schmidt wholehearted agrees with in a blistering Substack column.

The Never Trump conservative emphasizes, however, that Trump alone is not to blame for the "dangerous" ceasefire deal and argues that history will judge his "loyalists" harshly for going along with the agreement.

"America has produced giants in public service," the 55-year-old Schmidt writes. "George Marshall. Dean Acheson. James Baker. Brent Scowcroft. Men who understood that American power isn't measured simply by bombs, aircraft carriers or divisions of soldiers. It's measured by credibility, alliances, restraint, deterrence and the confidence of friends and adversaries alike. Whether one agreed with every decision they made is beside the point. They understood the weight of history. Donald Trump's national security team has demonstrated something very different."

The ex-GOP strategist, a founder of The Lincoln Project, continues, "Steve Witkoff. Pete Hegseth. Marco Rubio. JD Vance. Jared Kushner, whose influence over Middle East policy has remained profound long after leaving formal office. History will judge them alongside Donald Trump — not because they exercised independent leadership, but because they chose loyalty over candor, politics over strategy and performance over statecraft."

Schmidt argues that although Trump talked tough during the war and demanded "unconditional surrender" from Iran, the ceasefire agreement "bears little resemblance" to that "rhetoric."

Schmidt praises Cassidy's "Reagan is rolling over in his grave" comment as "remarkable words" coming from a Republican.

"The deeper problem extends beyond one agreement," Schmidt explains. "It concerns the quality of leadership that produced it. America once selected national security leaders because they possessed experience forged in war, diplomacy and difficult judgment. This administration rewards something else — TV appearances, personal loyalty, and absolute deference to one man. No serious national security team should function as an echo chamber…. But history has a ruthless habit of remembering the moments when nations confused loyalty for competence and spectacle for strategy."

Schmidt adds, "The men who surround Donald Trump want to be remembered as architects of American strength. History may remember them instead as something far smaller: the little men."

On Wednesday, June 17, U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian digitally signed a memo aimed at ending the war against Iran (which Trump launched in late February) and reopening the Strait of Hormuz — a Middle Eastern waterway vital to the flow of oil in that part of the world. Trump has been saying that nothing less than "unconditional surrender" from Iran would be acceptable, but according to Zeteo's Asawin Suebsaeng, White House insiders are privately saying that the deal puts the Iranian regime at a major advantage and the United States at a major disadvantage.

Suebsaeng, in a First Draft column for Zeteo (published by progressive ex-MS NOW host Mehdi Hasan), argues, "The U.S. government's propaganda machine is kicking into overdrive to try to convince you that no, President Trump won it — very strongly, actually. But to disprove it, you don't need to consult your own lying eyes, to ask Trump's liberal critics, or even to ask neocons furious with the president for failing to fully deliver the mass murder of Iranians that he once promised. You can just ask members of Trump's own administration, who broadly are not buying the a–– covering bulls––. That's what I did."

Many Never Trump conservatives, from MS NOW host Joe Scarborough to The Bulwark's Bill Kristol to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, are vehemently condemning Trump's Iran deal — which they believe puts Iran in a stronger position than they were in before the war.

But privately, according to Suebsaeng, Trump insiders are highly critical as well — even though they are afraid to say so publicly.

A senior White House official, interviewed on condition of anonymity, believes that Iran is coming out of the Trump ceasefire deal at a major advantage.

The official told Zeteo, "They've got him by the b––. We want out, and (the Iranians) know we don't have all the cards.”

Vice President JD Vance, Suebsaeng notes, is publicly claiming that the U.S. is the one in the driver's seat with the Iran ceasefire deal. But the Zeteo journalist stresses that no one in the White House he spoke to "believes the U.S. is negotiating from a position of strength, no matter how many times JD Vance says we are."

"Trump lost this one, badly," Suebsaeng warns. "He will soon have more time to focus on his administration's true top priority: His war on the American people."

Republicans continue to rip President Donald Trump's latest Iran deal to shreds, according to a new report from The Hill, with at least one lawmaker saying that "Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave" in reaction to it.

This week, details began to emerge about the latest peace deal signed by officials in the U.S. and Iran, aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz and issuing a 60-day ceasefire to allow for further negotiations to take place. Elsewhere, the deal will also, among other things, end the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports and create a $300 billion fund to help the nation rebuild.

While the deal also calls for Iran to swear off ever developing a nuclear weapon, it does not call for an end to its nuclear program altogether. This, and the economic benefits given to Iran, have prompted considerable backlash against the deal from Republicans in Washington, with some, like Sen. Bill Cassidy, tearing the bill apart in no uncertain terms and saying that the terms are not worth what the U.S. had to sacrifice to get here.

“Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave,” Cassidy wrote in a social media post, calling the Iran war and this ensuing deal. the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”

He continued: “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal. Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped."

Sen. Thom Tillis, an outspoken Trump critic within the GOP, also made a similar point about the losses incurred during the war.

"You got to do the balance of accounts: A hundred billion roughly, maybe more, spent today, 13 dead, 365 wounded, injured, our partners in the Middle East bombed, they’ve had casualties," Tillis laid out. "There’s got to be a lot of return on that... We set out by saying we were going to drive down to zero their nuclear capability. Now we’re equivocating on that... There’s a lot of work to be done to convince me that we’re on the right path."

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, typically known to be a loyal MAGA follower, also spoke out against the deal for giving money to "theocratic lunatics," but stopped short of directly blaming Trump for the bad terms.

"History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea," Cruz said. "I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal."

When U.S. President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran in late February, he insisted that doing so was a matter of national security and that his goal was to prevent the Iranian regime from developing a nuclear weapon. But according to The Atlantic's Jonathan Lemire, the war ended up hurting the United States and Trump much more than it hurt Iran.

"President Trump lost," Lemire writes in The Atlantic. "The war he waged against Iran promises to conclude in a humbling whimper with the signing of a ceasefire agreement later this week. The United States is left weaker — diminished militarily, strategically, economically, and perhaps morally. The war, which the United States fought alongside Israel, accomplished none of the goals that Trump named at the outset. Instead, it only empowered the hardliners in Tehran and arguably emboldened them to someday seek a nuclear weapon."

Lemire continues, "Despite that, the president was so desperate for the war to end that he repeatedly backed off his threats — allowing Iran to call his bluff — and upbraided his close ally Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for responding to attacks in the region in a manner that jeopardized the negotiations."

Trump, on Sunday, announced a ceasefire agreement with Iran that reopens the Strait of Hormuz — a waterway vital to the flow of oil in the Middle East. But according to Lemire, the "tentative deal" is not the "clear win" for the U.S. that Trump claims it is.

"Within the administration," Lemire explains, "there is a divide on the deal, but Trump sided with those advocating for the war to wind down, no matter the terms, as fears mount about the economic toll on Americans and the political costs for Republicans in the midterms. Trump's own anger masks a desperate desire to find an offramp from a conflict that did not go the way he had planned, an outcome that has threatened to leave the United States — and Trump — reduced in the eyes of the world. For a decade, Trump has dominated the global stage and wielded extraordinary executive power. But now, he is saddled with low poll numbers and unhappy Republicans, and he may soon have to contend with a Democratic Congress."

Trump's Iran deal, Lemire observes, is drawing strong criticism from some GOP hawks — including radio host Erick Erickson, who argued that "Trump has surrendered to Iran."

"As the war dragged on, it became clear that Trump's goals for the conflict were going unfulfilled," notes Lemire, a former Associated Press (AP) reporter who is often featured on MS NOW. "The Iranian navy was damaged, but Tehran's ballistic-missile capability survived, as did its ties to militia proxy groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. The hardline regime in Tehran appears poised to sell oil again and receive up to $300 billion in funding from Gulf states that it could use to rebuild. Iran has tightened its grip on the Strait of Hormuz and demonstrated that it can close the waterway at will. Although Tehran has promised not to build a nuclear weapon, no enforcement mechanism has been established."

President Donald Trump arrived late to Wednesday’s G7 summit, crossed the room where world leaders were already seated and had started their meeting, and offered an excuse before joining the group: “I’m the boss.”

According to The Daily Beast, Trump’s colleagues “laughed awkwardly” at his “crass joke.”

President Emmanuel Macron, who is hosting the meeting in Évian-les-Bains, France, greeted President Trump by saying, “Well, hello.” Trump — who was nearly one hour late — turned and faced the table before making his declaration.

“A self-satisfied smile flashed across Trump’s face after he delivered his one-liner, as he walked around to his seat next to Macron, who greeted Trump with a more restrained handshake,” The Daily Beast reported.

“Hello! How are you?” Macron asked.

Trump also invited members of the media to stay for the meeting, although they were later ushered out of the room.

“Would you like to stay for the meeting? It’s OK with me,” Trump said.

“It’s not clear why Trump was delayed,” The Daily Beast noted. “A White House source claimed to NBC that he had been ‘on some very important calls with people back in the States.'”

Leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom are also in attendance for the G7.

“All have welcomed the news that an agreement has been reached between Washington, D.C., and Iran, saying in a statement that it ‘provides an historic opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring any nuclear weapon and tackling the threats related to its regional and ballistic activities,'” The Daily Beast reported.

The G7 leaders also released a statement that said, “President Trump has delivered a deal that we support in reopening the Strait of Hormuz.”

Trump also posted a diatribe Wednesday morning attacking Democrats — whom he called “Dumocrats” — in his lengthy Truth Social statement. He declared, “for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it.”