Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

qcp

Subscribe to qcp's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

Judges and grand juries have increasingly lost faith in the Justice Department as the president uses it to reward his friends and go after his opponents. read more


Corporations, partnerships, trusts, limited liability companies, and other "artificial entities" have the right to vote in Delaware elections under some circumstances, a judge said in a novel ruling Tuesday. read more


Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said his department is "drawing up" plans to prevent inbound international flights from landing in what he called "sanctuary cities." read more


The optics for a president could not be worse: handing over billions of dollars to the very regime America has been at war against. Yet, that is the reality facing Donald Trump, who spent years criticising Barack Obama for sending "pallets of cash" to Iran under a 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated by the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany. The sum Mr Trump has to contemplate " $24bn (19bn), half of it to be paid upfront " would be released in exchange for a memorandum of understanding to end two similarly costly and politically painful months of fighting in the Middle East.


South Carolina lawmakers dealt President Trump's national redistricting effort a blow Tuesday when the state Senate voted against redistricting there after three weeks of rushed hearings and long debate. read more


Comments

More: And although the money itself belongs to Iran " the funds are frozen under sanctions " it would be a solution for Mr Trump, who broke his campaign promise and led America to war on Feb 28.

With no country other than Israel by his side militarily, and without any public or diplomatic backing from traditional allies, the US president promised that overwhelming force would bring a swift victory and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Instead, with higher oil prices and the chances of a global recession higher than at any time since the 2020 pandemic, peace will probably mean releasing those billions in cash to a regime that, despite Mr Trump's numerous promises and declarations, remains standing.

For the White House, the problem is not only the scale of the payment. It also sends a contradictory and electorally risky message to American voters as Washington's political calendar turns from war into a midterm election cycle.

For starters, the cash does not return a fully fledged peace agreement but something closer to a vague one-page document that provides "the framework for future negotiations".

If that is indeed the case " and statements from both sides in the conflict seem still very much at odds " it will be an endpoint a long way from Mr Trump's starting point.

Announcing the beginning of the war from Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home and resort, the president pledged to destroy Iran's missile industry and eliminate regional terrorist proxies. He also urged the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the regime.

Yet the one-page outline agreement appears to address none of those objectives, instead leaving them to be discussed during the 30 to 60-day period that is expected to follow. Indeed, on Monday, the president watered down his original demand that Iran's highly enriched uranium be handed over to the United States.

Releasing billions of dollars is as legally difficult as it is politically complex. Just $2bn (1.6bn) of Iran's assets are thought to be frozen in the United States. Much of the remaining money, calculated to be worth about $100bn (80bn), is held in international bank accounts frozen by the United Nations.

To release it, Washington would probably need to waive sanctions, cooperation from foreign governments and a mechanism to guarantee the cash not used by the regime to rebuild its nuclear weapons programme or fund its proxies.

More: Mullin appeared on Tuesday's edition of Hannity on Fox News, where he boasted that DHS has arrested "tens of thousands [of] gang members that are in categories of terrorists."

He provided no evidence for his claim that such an enormous number of "terrorists" have been apprehended.

The secretary then explained that DHS has been floating the idea of preventing international flights from arriving in certain cities, especially Newark, New Jersey, because of the ongoing protests at Delaney Hall, a detention facility holding up to 1,000 immigrants. He said local law enforcement is not assisting federal agents there.

"[T]he street, it belongs to the city, "Mullin said. "If it belonged to us, we would take care of it, but it belongs to the city, and they're barricading our employees from coming in and out of the facility ... Why are we processing international flights into the airport there? And we are currently, which we're not initiating it yet, but we're currently drawing up plans to say, listen, in these sanctuary cities where the local, radical left Democrats aren't allowing us to do our job and enforce federal laws, then we shouldn't be processing international flights into their cities either because they don't want us to enforce immigration."

On Monday, ICE agents fired pepper spray at protesters and Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) outside Delaney Hall. Kim said he was trying to broker an agreement between protesters and the agents. Several inmates at the facility are on a hunger strike. On Tuesday, Border Czar Tom Homan said the inmates will be force-fed "if it gets bad enough."

More: Among those who must comply with Bates' order are White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the National Security Council, Council of Economic Advisers and employees working within the Executive Office of the President. Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance are not covered by the judge's directive. The injunction takes effect at 9 a.m. on May 26.

The decision stems from a memorandum opinion issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel last month that claimed the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress' power. The office said Mr. Trump therefore didn't need to comply with it.

Two historical and government oversight groups, the American Historical Association and American Oversight, as well as the Freedom of the Press Foundation, sued to invalidate the Justice Department's opinion. They asked the judge to order White House officials to comply with the Presidential Records Act and preserve records.

In his decision granting that request for relief, the judge wrote that the Presidential Records Act is "likely constitutional," splitting from the Justice Department's determination.

"To adopt the government's position that the Act is unconstitutional would disable Congress and future Presidents from reflecting on experience, in defiance of the very words engraved on the National Archives Building in Washington: 'What is past is prologue,'" Bates wrote. "And while the presidency is a singularly important institution, that gravity does not free it from modest constraint. Quite the opposite. Each branch of government derives its authority from the trust placed in it by the People, and Congress has validly determined that this Act helps to maintain that trust by shining some light on the activities of the President and his aides."

The judge noted that there has not been another Watergate-level scandal since President Richard Nixon, which "suggests that the sunshine disinfectant of the Records Act is working as intended."

"It is not for this Court, [the Office of Legal Counsel], or the White House to second guess Congress's lawful determination " made pursuant to at least two different enumerated powers " that citizens ought eventually to have access to these records of presidential activities carried out in their name," Bates wrote.

More: Technically, officially, Mr. Hegseth's $1.5 trillion was a budget request, and it had thousands of pages of figures and line items to go with it. But what's even more astonishing than its size is that it wasn't really a budget, not in the way you or I would think of it.

The word "budget" ordinarily implies picking among options, living within your means. Earlier military budgets, even the most gigantic ones, made trade-offs " canceled weapons programs, deferred maintenance, smaller fighting forces, to name a few. Mr. Hegseth's plan avoids those choices almost entirely.

It would funnel more money to the traditional military contractors that Mr. Hegseth previously called out for feasting on a wasteful, bloated system. It would bankroll President Trump's weirdly retro military wish list. On top of all that, Mr. Hegseth has asked Congress for $350 billion that would come with far less oversight or accountability than the rest of the sum. And that's before the bill for the Iran war comes due; the Pentagon estimates it has cost $29 billion so far, up from an estimate of $25 billion a few weeks ago.

"They're just doing an all-of-the-above approach," says Todd Harrison, a military budget expert at the traditionally right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, so that they "don't have to make difficult choices."

Mr. Hegseth's team says it needs flexibility in order to keep up with the head-snapping pace of change in technology but promises the budget will be "fiscally responsible." Angus King, the usually hawkish independent senator from Maine, said that a quarter of the budget was "essentially a slush fund." It's a giant blank check with "Trust me" penciled in. So let me ask you: How much do you trust Pete Hegseth?

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy