Does a Sex Assault Claim Kill a Political Career? It Depends.

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-09 21:16:00 — www.nytimes.com

Donald Trump’s Approach to Sexual Misconduct Allegations Sets GOP Apart

Donald J. Trump’s presidency marked a significant shift in how the Republican Party responds to allegations of sexual misconduct against its members. Trump won the presidency in 2016 despite accusations from at least six women who said he had groped or forcibly kissed them. He denied every allegation, but was later found liable by a jury for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll, resulting in a $5 million civil judgment that a federal judge ordered him to pay.

Throughout his time in office, Trump stood firmly by his nominees for high-profile positions, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, even when they faced their own allegations of sexual impropriety. Each nominee denied the accusations, and Trump’s steadfast support was echoed by the majority of his party.

This approach contrasted sharply with the Democratic response to similar allegations. In recent years, Democrats have often moved quickly to expel or pressure accused members to resign, sometimes at the cost of losing political talent and energy. For example, Senator Al Franken resigned under pressure after being accused of groping and forcibly kissing women, despite apologizing and later disputing some of the claims.

Trump’s posture, and the Republican Party’s broader response, has been characterized by a reluctance to act against accused members unless political stakes are high. This has allowed some of the party’s most powerful figures to remain in positions of influence, even as allegations swirled around them. Notably, Trump’s second-term nominees accused of sexual impropriety, with the exception of Matt Gaetz, were confirmed or continued to wield power.

The divide between the parties on this issue is reflected in public opinion. A 2018 NPR/Ipsos poll found that three in five Republican respondents would consider voting for a candidate accused of sexual assault, while a majority of Democrats said they would not.

In summary, Trump’s denial of all allegations against him, his support for accused nominees, and the Republican Party’s general reluctance to act swiftly on such matters have set a distinct tone in American politics. This approach has enabled accused conservative figures to maintain their positions, even as the country continues to grapple with the legacy of the #MeToo movement and the ongoing reckoning over sexual violence in public life.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/08/us/politics/democrats-republicans-sexual-assault-politicians.html

What Trump’s communism claims miss about Democrats and democratic socialists

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-07-09 16:49:00 — www.politifact.com

Trump Repeats False Claims, Labels Democrats as “Communists” in July Fourth Speech

Marking the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, President Donald Trump used his July Fourth address on the National Mall to attack communism and disparage Democrats, reviving rhetoric reminiscent of the Cold War era.

Trump’s Claims and Rhetoric

During his late-night speech, Trump declared, “Communism is a loser and it always will be,” and warned, “Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America. We’re not gonna let it happen.” In the days leading up to the event, he escalated his attacks, stating at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, “The Democratic Party is becoming a communist party. These are not social Dumocrats, these are hardcore, godless communists. They’re godless communists.”

Fact-Checking Trump’s Accusations

Trump’s repeated assertion that Democrats are communists is not supported by the facts. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which has endorsed a small number of congressional candidates, is an organization—not a political party—and represents only a fraction of the Democratic Party. Even if all DSA-endorsed candidates win, they would constitute a tiny minority in Congress.

The excerpt notes that this is not a new line of attack for Trump and Republicans, who have previously falsely labeled prominent Democrats, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, as communists. The fact-check further clarifies that while the DSA includes some members who identify as communists, the organization itself is distinct from the Communist Party, and its platform is not equivalent to a communist agenda.

The Reality of Democratic Socialism and Communism

Experts cited in the excerpt explain that democratic socialism, as practiced by most U.S. politicians who use the label, refers to support for robust social programs similar to those in many European countries—not the abolition of capitalism or private property. The DSA platform, while more radical than the mainstream Democratic platform, does not call for a communist takeover or the end of capitalism.

Additionally, the Communist Party USA has stated there are “zero” communists in Congress and dismissed Trump’s claims as “standard GOP talking points.”

Conclusion

Trump’s characterization of Democrats as “hardcore, godless communists” is a distortion that echoes the fearmongering tactics of the 1950s Red Scare. Fact-checking reveals that his claims are not grounded in reality: the Democratic Party remains a broad coalition, and the influence of communism within it is minimal. Trump’s rhetoric serves to stoke fear rather than inform, continuing a pattern of false and exaggerated statements about his political opponents.

Source article

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jul/09/Trump-communist-democratic-socialist-Chevalier/

Donald J. Trump: “A very big day in Palm Beach, Florida, where it was my Great Honor to have t…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-07-09 19:07:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Claims Palm Beach Airport Renamed in His Honor, Promises “Spectacular” Future

Donald Trump announced, “A very big day in Palm Beach, Florida, where it was my Great Honor to have the Palm Beach International Airport be renamed, by a spectacular vote, The President Donald J. Trump International Airport.” He went on to praise the area and the airport’s prospects, stating, “The Area is HOT, the Location is GREAT, and the Renovation will be SPECTACULAR. Thank you to all in Palm Beach for your Vote and your Confidence. This will soon be one of the Greatest and Most Spectacular Airports anywhere in the World!”

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s statement asserts that Palm Beach International Airport has been renamed after him by a “spectacular vote.” However, there is no evidence in the excerpt to confirm that such a vote took place or that the airport’s name has officially changed. Trump’s language exaggerates both the process and the outcome, presenting the renaming as a widely celebrated and completed event.

Additionally, Trump’s promise that the airport “will soon be one of the Greatest and Most Spectacular Airports anywhere in the World” is a sweeping prediction with no supporting details or evidence provided in the excerpt. This type of hyperbolic language is consistent with Trump’s history of making grandiose claims about projects and achievements.

Conclusion

Trump’s announcement about the renaming of Palm Beach International Airport and its future status relies on exaggeration and unverified claims. While he thanks Palm Beach residents for their “Vote and Confidence,” the excerpt does not provide factual support for the renaming or the promised renovations. Readers should approach such statements with caution, as they reflect a pattern of overstated achievements and unsubstantiated predictions.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/39914

Can Trump’s Arch Be So Tall? A Panel Led by His Allies Tentatively Says Yes.

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-09 16:51:00 — www.nytimes.com

President Trump’s Push for Giant Arch Sparks Legal and Historical Controversy

President Trump’s proposal to construct a 250-foot Triumphal Arch in Washington, D.C. has ignited a major dispute over the interpretation of federal law and longstanding city planning norms. The project, which is part of Trump’s aggressive federal construction agenda, is now at the center of a legal and regulatory battle that could reshape the capital’s skyline and challenge nearly a century of precedent.

Trump’s Allies Seek to Bypass Height Restrictions

For decades, the National Capital Planning Commission has enforced the 1910 Height of Buildings Act, which generally limits building heights in Washington to 130 feet. However, with Trump’s arch proposal, the commission—now led by Trump appointees—has given early support to a new, more lenient interpretation: that the height law was never intended to apply to federal projects, and therefore not to Trump’s arch.

The Interior Department, acting under Trump’s administration, argued in a memo that the act “does not reference federal buildings” and claimed “Congress did not intend” for the law to be interpreted as it has been for nearly 90 years. This stance directly contradicts the commission’s long-standing practice and the law’s historical application.

Efforts to Sidestep Federal Law

This attempt to reinterpret the Height Act is the latest in a series of moves by the Trump administration to bypass federal laws and norms in pursuit of rapid construction projects, totaling over $1 billion. If the commission formally adopts this new interpretation, it is expected to trigger further legal challenges, adding to lawsuits already filed by groups such as Vietnam War veterans and preservation advocates.

Democrats and local officials argue that the project violates multiple federal laws, including the Commemorative Works Act and a 1912 statute requiring explicit congressional approval for new structures on federal land in the capital. The original text of the 1910 Height Act contains no exception for federal buildings, and experts note that only Congress—not local authorities—can alter these restrictions.

Trump’s Direct Involvement and Resistance to Compromise

President Trump has reportedly been deeply involved in the details of the arch’s design and has rejected proposed revisions from his own appointees that would bring the project into compliance with the law. Alternatives suggested by commission staff, such as reducing the main structure’s height and shifting more height into a statue atop the arch, have been deemed unsatisfactory by Trump, who insists on maintaining the arch’s imposing scale.

A Precedent-Breaking Move

If Trump’s allies on the commission succeed in reinterpreting the law, it would overturn decades of established practice and raise questions about the commission’s future decisions. Legal and planning experts warn that such a move would be inconsistent with the commission’s own history and could undermine the carefully preserved character of Washington’s cityscape.

Conclusion

President Trump’s push for a monumental arch in the nation’s capital has become a flashpoint for debates over federal authority, legal interpretation, and the preservation of Washington’s unique skyline. The administration’s efforts to bypass established law and resist compromise highlight a broader pattern of challenging norms and legal constraints in pursuit of Trump’s ambitious construction goals. As legal battles continue, the outcome will have lasting implications for the capital’s landscape and the rule of law governing its development.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/us/politics/trump-arch-height-approval.html

Brussels wants action over Trump-Infantino red card controversy

Politics — 2026-07-09 15:15:00 — www.politico.com

European Lawmakers Demand Probe After Trump Lobbies FIFA to Lift U.S. Player’s Ban

Seventy-two members of the European Parliament are calling for an investigation into FIFA President Gianni Infantino after FIFA lifted the red card suspension of U.S. soccer star Folarin Balogun—an action taken days after President Donald Trump personally called Infantino to lobby for the ban to be overturned.

Trump’s Direct Intervention

According to the report, Trump called Infantino last Thursday to advocate for Balogun, who had received an automatic suspension after a red card in a match against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Four days after Trump’s intervention, FIFA’s disciplinary committee cleared Balogun to play in a crucial match against Belgium.

European Lawmakers React

The move has sparked outrage among European lawmakers, who argue that FIFA’s decision to change the rule on red card suspensions mid-tournament undermines the integrity of the sport. In a letter obtained by POLITICO and sent to the national football federations of the EU’s 27 member countries, lawmakers urged their counterparts to support an investigation into Infantino’s actions.

Renew MEP Barry Andrews, who authored the letter, called FIFA’s decision “a disgrace and perversion of justice,” and accused Infantino and FIFA of surrendering to the demands of the Trump administration.

Ethics and Accountability Demanded

The lawmakers emphasized that since FIFA enforces its ethics rules on all member associations, those same standards should apply to senior FIFA officials. They insist that the organization’s code of ethics requires accountability at the highest levels.

FIFA has not responded to requests for comment on the letter, and Infantino has previously denied influencing the disciplinary committee’s decision.

Broader Concerns Over FIFA’s Neutrality

This is the third letter from European lawmakers in two weeks demanding scrutiny of FIFA’s leadership. Previous letters have raised concerns about FIFA’s political neutrality and its decisions regarding Russian participation in youth tournaments. The latest letter, signed by MEPs from six parliamentary groups, represents the most widespread support yet for an investigation.

Conclusion

President Trump’s direct lobbying of FIFA to overturn a player’s suspension has triggered a significant backlash from European lawmakers, who see the move as a violation of sporting fairness and organizational ethics. The growing bipartisan support for an investigation highlights the seriousness with which European officials view political interference in international sports. As the controversy unfolds, the demand for transparency and accountability at FIFA remains at the forefront.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/07/09/world-cup-2026/eu-lawmakers-probe-trump-infantino-red-card-world-cup-00992268

WATCH LIVE: National Capital Planning Commission considers Trump’s triumphal arch plan

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-07-09 11:41:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump’s Claim on Funding for Washington Arch Project Contradicted by Public Spending

President Donald Trump previously stated that his proposed 250-foot triumphal arch in the nation’s capital could be funded with “unused funds from the hundreds of millions of dollars he said he has raised from corporations, donors and other wealthy people” for a new $400 million White House ballroom. However, the latest review of the project reveals that public money will, in fact, be used for both the ballroom and the arch, contradicting Trump’s earlier claim.

Federal Review Raises Concerns

Trump’s plan for the massive arch, which would tower more than twice as high as the Lincoln Memorial and nearly half the height of the Washington Monument, is currently under review by the National Capital Planning Commission. The commission’s staff has recommended that the design be revised to comply with the Height of Buildings Act, a federal law intended to preserve Washington’s historic skyline. Despite these required changes, the staff report notes that the arch could still reach Trump’s desired 250-foot height if the design is adjusted.

Funding Discrepancies

While Trump had assured the public that private donations would cover the costs, the report makes clear that some public funds will be used for the ballroom and the arch. The White House has not released a cost estimate for the arch, leaving unanswered questions about the full extent of taxpayer involvement.

Public Opposition and Legal Challenges

The project has faced criticism from opponents who argue that the arch would disrupt the iconic views between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, views designed to symbolize post-Civil War reunification. A group of veterans and a historian have filed a federal lawsuit to block the construction, citing concerns about the impact on these historic sightlines.

Conclusion

President Trump’s statements about the funding of the Washington arch project are contradicted by the latest findings, which confirm that public money will be used despite his previous assurances to the contrary. As the project undergoes further review and faces legal challenges, the debate over its impact on the capital’s landscape and the use of taxpayer funds continues.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-national-capital-planning-commission-considers-trumps-triumphal-arch-plan

Ukrainians Cautiously Welcome Trump’s Announcement About Patriot Missile Systems

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-09 09:57:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump’s Shifting Stance on Ukraine: Promises, Praise for Putin, and a New Patriot Pledge

President Trump’s approach to Ukraine has been marked by sharp reversals and unpredictable rhetoric, leaving both allies and adversaries uncertain about his true intentions. This week, expectations were low for Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey—a reflection of Trump’s history of “zigging and zagging” on support for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

During the meeting, Trump made a surprise announcement: the United States would license Ukraine to produce Patriot air-defense systems. “That’s really cool, right?” Trump said. “This way you can’t complain that we’re not giving them enough.” The announcement was met with cautious optimism in Kyiv, where skepticism remains high. As one Kyiv resident put it, “Words are not actions. When he will actually give it, I will say, ‘Well done.’”

Trump’s record on Ukraine is fraught with contradictions. He has previously claimed he could end the war in 24 hours, described Zelensky as a “dictator without elections,” called him ungrateful, and berated him in the Oval Office. At the same time, Trump has repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, sometimes echoing Putin’s demands. Last month, Trump asserted that the United States had “nothing to do with” the war in Ukraine, despite the country’s ongoing requests for military aid.

Analysts suggest Trump’s apparent shift toward supporting Ukraine may be motivated by recent Ukrainian successes on the battlefield. “If I understand President Trump’s logic, he always wants to be on the winning side,” said Viktor Shlinchak, head of the Institute of World Policy. However, the reality is that manufacturing Patriot systems is a complex, years-long process, and Ukraine’s immediate needs remain unmet.

Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy has forced Ukraine to become more self-reliant, accelerating domestic weapons production and forging new international partnerships. Meanwhile, Zelensky has publicly criticized the United States for slow weapons deliveries and shifting focus to other global conflicts.

The bottom line: Trump’s latest promise to license Patriot production is a significant gesture, but his history of erratic statements and shifting loyalties has left many Ukrainians wary. As the war continues, Ukraine’s leaders and citizens are watching closely to see if Trump’s words will finally translate into meaningful action.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/world/europe/ukraine-patriots-trump-russia.html

Trump tells reporter she'll be killed if Iran strikes Air Force One: 'If I go, you go'

Administration News — 2026-07-09 08:36:00 — thehill.com

Trump Tells Reporter She Would Be Killed If Iran Struck Air Force One Amid Rising Tensions

President Trump, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One after the NATO summit in Turkey, told a reporter that she would also be killed if Iran struck the presidential jet. This comment came as tensions between the United States and Tehran continue to escalate.

During the gaggle, Trump was pressed about security concerns related to Air Force One. In response, he made the stark remark about the potential consequences if Iran were to target the aircraft, directly addressing the reporter’s safety.

This exchange highlights Trump’s often provocative communication style, especially when discussing matters of national security and foreign threats. His comment, delivered in the context of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions, underscores his tendency to make blunt and sometimes alarming statements when challenged by the press.

While the president’s remark may have been intended to emphasize the seriousness of the threat, it also serves as another example of his willingness to make personal and dramatic statements to reporters. Such comments have drawn criticism in the past for their tone and potential to escalate anxieties during already tense geopolitical situations.

In summary, President Trump’s statement to the reporter aboard Air Force One reflects his characteristic approach to addressing security concerns—direct, personal, and unfiltered. As tensions with Iran remain high, the president’s words continue to shape the public discourse around U.S. foreign policy and the safety of those who travel with him.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5960525-donald-trump-air-force-one-iran-strike-threat/

U.S. Begins Second Day of Strikes Against Iran

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-09 06:15:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Declares Iran Cease-Fire ‘Over’ as U.S. Launches Major Strikes, Offers Dubious Claims About Negotiations

For the second consecutive day, the Pentagon reported that U.S. forces struck dozens of military sites in Iran, following President Trump’s assertion that a three-week-old cease-fire between the two countries was “over.” The strikes, which targeted around 90 Iranian military sites along the southeastern coast, were described by U.S. Central Command as retaliation for “recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews.” In total, the U.S. has hit approximately 170 targets in the past two days—far surpassing previous rounds of retaliatory action.

Trump’s Statements and Shifting Tone

Earlier on Wednesday, President Trump told reporters at a NATO summit in Turkey that while the United States would probably hit Iran “hard,” he did not expect a return to all-out war. “I don’t think it’s going to start again,” he said. “I think it’s going to go very quickly.” However, later that day, Trump escalated his rhetoric in a social media post, warning that if Iran attacked ships again, “it will get much worse!”

Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump claimed that Iran was eager to negotiate despite the renewed hostilities. “They called a little while ago. They want to make a deal so badly,” he said, but then cast doubt on Iran’s reliability: “I just don’t know if they’re worthy of making a deal. I don’t know that they’re going to honor the deal.” Notably, Iranian officials have made no public statements about new negotiations, contradicting Trump’s assertion.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s claim that Iran is desperate to make a deal is not supported by any statements from Iranian officials. In fact, the excerpt makes clear that “the Iranians have said nothing about new negotiations.” This is a significant distortion of the diplomatic reality, as talks between the two countries have been paused and Iran has accused the U.S. of violating the June 18 agreement intended to end the war.

Additionally, Trump’s optimistic prediction that renewed conflict “isn’t going to start again” and “will go very quickly” is at odds with the ongoing escalation, as evidenced by the scale and intensity of U.S. military strikes and the absence of a clear diplomatic path forward.

Conclusion

President Trump’s public statements on the Iran conflict continue to feature exaggerations and unsupported claims, particularly regarding Iran’s willingness to negotiate. While the U.S. military campaign intensifies, Trump’s rhetoric alternates between minimizing the risk of war and issuing threats of further escalation. The facts on the ground, including the lack of Iranian engagement in new talks and the ongoing hostilities, contradict the president’s narrative and highlight the gap between his statements and the unfolding reality.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/08/us/politics/us-iran-strikes.html

Fact-checking the first debate between Ed Markey, Seth Moulton in Massachusetts U.S. Senate contest

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-07-08 17:40:00 — www.politifact.com

President Donald Trump has threatened to veto a bipartisan housing bill unless the Senate passes an unrelated voting bill called the SAVE America Act, according to recent fact-checking of statements made during a Massachusetts Senate debate. The housing bill, which aims to expand access to affordable mortgages and limit large corporate purchases of single-family homes, is on track to become law as long as Trump does not follow through on his veto threat.

Trump’s stance on the housing bill demonstrates his willingness to use legislative leverage to advance unrelated priorities. In this case, he tied the fate of a widely supported housing measure to the passage of a separate voting bill, a move that could delay or derail much-needed housing reforms.

The fact-check also clarifies that, despite claims made during the debate, the bill’s progress now depends on Trump’s decision. If he vetoes the housing bill, it would block reforms designed to help low- and middle-income Americans access homeownership and accelerate homebuilding.

This episode highlights how Trump’s approach to legislation can create uncertainty for bipartisan efforts, even when there is broad support in Congress. As the bill awaits the president’s decision, the outcome will directly affect Massachusetts voters and millions of Americans seeking affordable housing options.

Source article

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jul/08/Ed-Markey-Seth-Moulton-Mass-Senate-debate/