标签： North America

A high-profile rift between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rocked Washington’s diplomatic efforts with Iran, marking the latest chapter in a long history of friction between Israeli leaders and sitting U.S. presidents.

The conflict erupted following an Israeli strike on Lebanese territory that triggered a sharp backlash from Tehran, which threatened to walk away from ongoing talks with the U.S. The development represents a major setback to Trump’s core goal of exiting the unpopular U.S.-Iran conflict, while also putting the future of the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global shipping artery — at risk as the U.S. works to broker a extended ceasefire and open negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

When pressed by reporters about an Axios report claiming he called Netanyahu “effing crazy” and accused the prime minister of ingratitude during a tense Monday phone call, Trump did not deny the outburst. Speaking to the *Pod Force One* podcast in an interview that aired Wednesday, Trump clarified: “I wouldn’t say angry. I was a little bit perturbed at his constantly fighting with Lebanon, you know.” He quickly added that he holds affection for Netanyahu, saying “I like Bibi a lot. And I work very well with him.”

Netanyahu downplayed the tensions, framing the disagreement as a routine difference common between close allies. “Sometimes we have, as in the best of families, you have these tactical disagreements,” he told CNBC in a Wednesday interview. “We always find a way to work them out, and we do so as great friends. We can disagree in the morning and be in agreement by afternoon.” Despite the repeated public disagreements between the two leaders, Netanyahu has long called Trump the “greatest friend” Israel has ever had in the White House.

Regional and foreign policy experts warn the public clash reflects deeper misalignment between U.S. and Israeli priorities, nearly 100 days after the two nations launched joint strikes on Iranian targets in late February. Brett Bruen, a former U.S. diplomat and president of crisis communications firm the Global Situation Room, told the BBC that Netanyahu has a well-documented pattern of pursuing his own agenda regardless of input from Washington. “Trump… decided to take the plunge with him, and is now learning a really hard lesson about what happens when you get into war with a pretty mercurial leader that has an agenda which doesn’t always align with your own priorities,” Bruen explained.

While both leaders share the core goal of blocking Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, their priorities diverge sharply on Lebanon. Israel has pledged to continue targeting the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia even as U.S.-Iran talks progress, while Iran has made a full ceasefire that includes Lebanon a non-negotiable condition for continued negotiations.

The friction comes as public opinion in the U.S. has shifted sharply against longstanding American support for Israel. A Pew Research Center poll published in April found that 60% of U.S. adults now hold a negative view of Israel, up from just 42% before the 2023 Hamas war began. Even prominent conservative figures have broken ranks, with some publicly claiming that Israeli lobbying pushed Trump into launching the war with Iran — a claim both the White House and Netanyahu’s office deny.

Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in March over the issue, saying “we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” In response, leading pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee accused Kent of pushing “old antisemitic tropes.”

Some analysts argue that Trump has political incentives to distance himself from Netanyahu to appeal to growing anti-war and critical voices among the U.S. electorate. “I think there is a political necessity now to create daylight between Israel and the US,” Bruen noted. “Whether it’s in Lebanon or in Gaza, there are things that Netanyahu has chosen to do which are politically problematic even for Trump or the Republicans.”

Trump’s current frustration with Netanyahu is far from unprecedented: the Israeli prime minister has a decades-long track record of clashing with sitting U.S. presidents from both parties. He had a well-documented public fight with Bill Clinton over implementing the Oslo Peace Accords, and his relationship with Barack Obama collapsed entirely after he delivered a 2015 speech to Congress criticizing Obama’s Iran policy without coordinating with the White House first. His relationship with former president Joe Biden also soured after Netanyahu publicly claimed the U.S. was withholding military ammunition, drawing sharp criticism from White House officials who called the comments “vexing” and “deeply disappointing.”

Natan Sacks, a U.S.-Israel relations expert at the Washington-based Middle East Institute, told reporters that Netanyahu has a long history of tense negotiations with U.S. leaders. “He is a very difficult negotiator, not just in terms of being tough, but in terms of being very suspicious,” Sacks said. Even so, Sacks noted that Trump and Netanyahu have largely enjoyed a warm relationship: Trump broke longstanding diplomatic norms on Middle East policy, a shift that aligned closely with Netanyahu’s goal of rewriting regional rules to more aggressively confront Iran and its allied militias.

It remains unclear whether this latest public disagreement will cause lasting damage to the bilateral relationship between the two leaders. “It’s potentially significant. We don’t know if it was a one-time event or a harbinger of broader things,” Sacks said. “I would not rule that out. The president has changed his mind about many people in the past.” As thousands of civilians flee southern Beirut and traffic grinds to a halt across the region, the rift has left the future of the ceasefire, nuclear talks and global energy security hanging in the balance.

As the United States prepares to mark its 250th year of independence, anticipation is growing nationwide for a slate of landmark celebrations — but a series of events organized by a President Donald Trump-founded organization have sparked heated debate over whether the national anniversary is being turned into a political platform.

Two main entities are leading the national commemorations: America250, a nonpartisan body created by Congress a decade ago to plan inclusive, unpolitical celebrations, and Freedom 250, a public-private partnership established by Trump himself. Congress has allocated $150 million in federal taxpayer funding for the overall anniversary events, with Freedom 250 contributing millions more in additional spending for its own programming.

One of Freedom 250’s flagship events is a 16-day Great American State Fair, running June 25 to July 10 along the National Mall between the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument. The fair is set to showcase exhibits from all 50 U.S. states and six territories, alongside a multi-artist concert series that has already made headlines for high-profile drop-outs. Multiple scheduled performers including Martina McBride, The Commodores, Young MC and Bret Michaels have pulled out of the lineup, citing the event’s close ties to the Trump White House. Some artists added they only learned of the affiliation with Freedom 250 after they initially agreed to participate.

The walkouts prompted a sharp response from Trump on social media, where he threatened to scrap the entire concert series and replace it with a massive “Make America Great Again” rally, dismissing the departing artists as “overpriced singers, who nobody wants to hear, whose music is boring, and yet who do nothing but complain.” Vanilla Ice and Flo Rida remain on the event’s performance schedule as of press time.

Another high-profile Freedom 250 event coming to the nation’s capital is a UFC fight hosted on the White House South Lawn, scheduled for June 14 — which also marks Trump’s 80th birthday. Construction crews are currently building a custom fight arena on the South Lawn to accommodate an estimated 90,000 attendees. Trump first announced the plan to bring a UFC event to the White House last year, a proposal many political observers dismissed as unworkable at the time. While the event is organized by Freedom 250, both the White House and UFC president Dana White have confirmed that the mixed martial arts organization is covering the entire cost of the event, which will offer free tickets to attendees. White told the Sports Business Journal in January that “We’re eating the whole thing.”

This year’s annual July 4 Independence Day fireworks display in Washington D.C., normally managed by the National Park Service, has also been taken over by Freedom 250. The organization has planned a 40-minute show featuring more than 860,000 individual fireworks — a dramatic jump from the roughly 10,000 fireworks and less than 20-minute runtime of a typical annual display. According to *USA Today*, Freedom 250’s only requirement for pyrotechnics firm Pyrotecnico was that the display break the 2016 Guinness World Record for the largest fireworks display, currently held by the Philippines.

Beyond the national capital, events are planned across all U.S. states and territories under both America250 and local leadership. New York City’s Times Square will host a special ball drop modeled after the iconic New Year’s Eve tradition, with eight separate drops marking midnight across each of the country’s time zones, each featuring a unique custom design. In Philadelphia, the birthplace of American independence, America250 will oversee the burial of a time capsule that will remain sealed until the nation’s 500th anniversary in 2276. “When it is opened in 2276, we want future generations to have a clear, authentic window into who we were at 250 – what we valued, what we built, and how we saw ourselves as a nation,” said Rosie Rios, chair of America250. Other national events include a 50,000-person concert at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and community block parties in cities including Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The anniversary preparations have also included a series of city beautification projects led by the Trump administration in Washington D.C., which have drawn both praise and criticism. The most controversial project is the repainting of the historic Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, the 2,030-foot landmark stretching between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, which workers began painting blue last month. Trump has framed the project as a much-needed restoration that will fix long-standing leaking problems, claiming the blue paint will last 40 to 50 years and eliminate maintenance issues. However, the work is facing a legal challenge from a nonprofit conservation group that argues Trump bypassed federal laws designed to protect historic landmarks from unapproved alterations, calling for a halt to the project.

The overlapping planning by two separate organizations — one nonpartisan and one closely aligned with the sitting president — has fueled ongoing questions about whether the national birthday celebrations are being politicized to benefit Trump ahead of what will be a pivotal presidential election year.

One day after California’s 2026 gubernatorial primary election wrapped up, the race to succeed term-limited Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom remains too close to call, with former British Conservative advisor and Fox News host Steve Hilton and ex-Biden Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra holding the top two spots in a historic field of more than 60 candidates.

Under California’s unique jungle primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the November general election regardless of partisan affiliation. However, the state’s heavy reliance on postal ballots means a final result will not be confirmed for several more days, as election workers continue processing the large volume of ballots cast on Tuesday.

Becerra, a longtime California Democrat who previously served in Congress and as California’s Attorney General before joining President Joe Biden’s cabinet, has positioned himself as a staunch opponent of former President (and current President-elect) Donald Trump, matching the state’s deep liberal base. His key policy pledges include a freeze on health insurance and utility rates to address soaring cost-of-living pressures for state residents. Trailing the leading two candidates is billionaire Democratic climate activist Tom Steyer, who has poured unprecedented personal funds into his campaign as vote counting continues.

Hilton, a British-American conservative who served as a senior strategic advisor to former UK Prime Minister David Cameron during the Brexit period before moving to California and launching a media career on Fox News, secured the endorsement of Donald Trump for the governor’s race. He has campaigned on a platform of upending the state’s long-dominant Democratic political establishment, proposing broad tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks to make the state more affordable for working and middle-class households. On key contentious issues, Hilton has vowed to address the state’s intractable homelessness crisis, roll back California’s longstanding sanctuary immigration policies, and increase cooperation with the federal government on immigration enforcement. If he advances to the general election, analysts expect Hilton will face an steep uphill fight: Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by a roughly 2-to-1 margin in California, and the state has not elected a Republican governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011.

What was widely expected to be a straightforward Democratic hold of the governor’s office devolved into chaotic intraparty competition after Newsom’s term-limit-induced exit opened up the seat. With no clear consensus Democratic frontrunner to clear the field, more than a dozen Democratic candidates jumped into the race, splitting the party’s voter base. High-profile Democratic contenders included former congresswoman Katie Porter, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan (who earned significant financial backing from Silicon Valley), and billionaire Steyer, whose massive ad spending pushed the race to become the most expensive gubernatorial contest in California history. The race was further upended in April when leading Democratic candidate Congressman Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race and resigned his congressional seat following unproven sexual assault allegations that he has repeatedly denied.

The split in Democratic support sparked widespread anxiety among state party leadership, who warned that a fractured vote could result in two Republican candidates advancing to the general election in the deep-blue state. The unusually large candidate field even included a longshot hopeful who legally changed his name to Barack Obama Shaw.

Alongside the high-stakes gubernatorial primary, California voters also participated in a closely watched Los Angeles mayoral primary. Incumbent Democratic Mayor Karen Bass secured enough support to guarantee her spot in the November general election, but the second place spot remains undecided as counting continues. The contenders fighting to advance against Bass are Democratic City Councilmember Nithya Raman and Republican reality TV star Spencer Pratt.

As the most populous state in the United States and the world’s fifth-largest national economy, California’s gubernatorial race carries national political significance. The state has been at the center of America’s most divisive policy battles in recent years, from immigration regulation and climate action to the ongoing homelessness and housing affordability crises. Currently, Californians are also grappling with record-high gasoline prices, driven in part by ongoing tensions from the U.S.-Iran conflict and the state’s status as having the highest fuel taxes in the country. Outgoing Governor Gavin Newsom, who is term-limited from running for re-election, is widely rumored to be planning a potential 2028 presidential campaign.

In a stunning upset that has upended expectations for 2026 Iowa Republican politics, three-term U.S. Congressman Randy Feenstra — a longtime loyal ally of Donald Trump who entered the race as the clear frontrunner and secured a last-minute endorsement from the former president — has conceded defeat in the state’s GOP gubernatorial primary. His challenger, Zach Lahn, a farmer and small business owner, ran an unapologetically populist, Trump-aligned campaign centered on slogans like “Make Iowa Healthy Again” and “Iowa First,” and capitalized on deep grassroots frustration with Washington political insularity.

Lahn’s platform centered heavily on restricting foreign and out-of-state entities from purchasing Iowa agricultural land, paired with fiery rhetoric criticizing what he frames as out-of-touch “global elites” exerting undue influence over state policy. His campaign drew institutional support from Turning Point USA, the prominent conservative organization, as well as a coalition of Iowa grassroots conservative activists who painted Feenstra as too embedded in the Washington establishment to deliver meaningful change for Iowa voters.

The upset marks a rare black mark on what had been an unbroken winning streak for Trump’s political endorsements in 2026 primary contests. Just weeks prior, Trump-backed challengers unseated incumbents including Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie and Senator Bill Cassidy, while Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured the state’s Republican Senate nomination over incumbent John Cornyn — a race where polling already pointed to a Paxton victory even before Trump’s backing.

The outcome also comes amid a quiet stretch for Trump, who has largely stepped back from public appearances over the past six days, limiting his public output to pre-taped interviews with conservative aligned media outlets and posts on his social platform Truth Social. One recent Truth Social post claimed that negotiations with Iran over the ongoing regional conflict have “been going on continuously,” though multiple diplomatic sources have indicated the talks have produced little tangible progress to date.

Domestically, it has already been a difficult week for Trump: his team recently scrapped plans for a proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that was designed to compensate people who claimed they were targeted for political investigation by prior presidential administrations.

Political analysts note the Iowa result may signal a growing erosion of Trump’s political standing in a state that has backed him in three consecutive presidential elections, but where shifting economic realities have soured voter opinion. Trump’s broad trade tariffs on Chinese goods, and China’s resulting retaliatory tariffs, hit Iowa’s critical agricultural sector particularly hard. More recently, the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict following Israeli military operations has driven sharp increases in fuel and fertilizer costs, delivering a second economic blow to the state’s farming community. A recent joint poll from YouGov and The Economist puts Trump’s net approval rating at negative 20% among Iowa voters.

For Iowa Democrats, the opening has sparked new optimism about flipping the open governorship in November’s general election, where Lahn will now face Democratic State Auditor Rob Sand. Democrats are also competitive in the race for open U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Joni Ernst: centrist Paralympian Josh Turek, who earned backing from national Democratic party leadership, won his party’s primary nomination and will face Republican former Congresswoman Ashley Hinson in the fall.

Nonpartisan election analysis groups have reclassified both the gubernatorial and Senate races as either toss-ups or leaning Republican, a shift that reflects the newly competitive landscape in Iowa. Once a reliably Democratic-leaning state, Iowa has shifted sharply red in federal and statewide elections over the past 15 years, but the current political shifts mean the Hawkeye State could now hold the key to Democratic control of Congress and key governor’s mansions heading into the next election cycle. With control of national political majorities hanging in the balance, Iowa’s upcoming general election contests are set to be among the most closely watched in the nation this cycle.

Just two weeks after it was first unveiled, a controversial $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded plan backed by former and current President Donald Trump to compensate his political allies has been formally scrapped by the U.S. Department of Justice, collapsing under overwhelming bipartisan pushback that included open revolt from members of Trump’s own Republican Party.

The proposal, labeled the “anti-weaponisation” fund, emerged from a legal settlement that ended a lawsuit Trump had brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The initiative framed its payouts as compensation for Americans the Trump administration deemed wrongfully targeted by the prior Biden administration, and included a controversial provision that permanently blocked new tax audits of Trump, his family members, and his business entities. While the White House maintained the fund was open to applicants from all political parties, administration officials repeatedly refused to rule out extending payouts to rioters who participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, triggering immediate outrage from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The swift rejection of the plan from congressional Republicans marked one of the most high-profile examples of growing intraparty pushback against Trump in his second term, showing that the president does not hold unchallenged control over his own party even after returning to the White House. Lawmakers across the GOP warned that the proposal represented an unforced political error at a moment when Trump and the party were already grappling with major headwinds: an unpopular ongoing military conflict in Iran, soaring domestic gasoline prices, and Trump’s persistently low approval ratings that threaten to undermine Republican prospects in the upcoming midterm elections.

“This was a total self-inflicted wound and completely unnecessary,” a senior anonymous former Trump adviser told reporters, adding that the controversy highlighted “the president’s myopic view sometimes — he’s going to do what he wants to do regardless of whether it hurts Republicans.”

Intra-GOP criticism boiled over days after the plan was announced, during a tense closed-door May 21 meeting between Senate Republicans and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has served as the public face of the fund initiative. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz described the meeting on his podcast, noting “multiple senators yelling at the attorney general, saying this feels like self-dealing.”

To escalate their pressure, congressional Republicans halted progress on a critical, long-delayed immigration spending bill that would fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, two agencies central to Trump’s immigration policy agenda. Bipartisan opposition further mounted as Senate Majority Leader John Thune publicly urged the White House to abandon the plan, and Democrats pledged to block the immigration bill indefinitely until the fund was scrapped. Multiple advocacy groups also filed federal lawsuits to block the initiative, and a federal judge issued an order last Friday forcing the DOJ to suspend the fund pending legal review.

On Monday, the Department of Justice announced a temporary suspension of the program, citing the court order. But critics including many Republicans demanded a full, permanent cancellation. On Tuesday, Blanche formally confirmed to House lawmakers that “we’re not moving forward with the fund,” bringing the short-lived initiative to a close. Even so, the controversy is far from over: Blanche declined to commit to a formal written end to the plan, leading many critics to argue the door remains open for the Trump administration to revive the proposal at a later date. Legal challenges from advocacy groups will also move forward, even after the administration’s announcement.

“Litigation provides a safeguard to make sure” Trump cannot resurrect the scheme, explained Norm Eisen, co-founder of the Democracy Defenders Fund, which is one of the plaintiffs in the ongoing legal action against the administration. Senate Democrats have already announced plans to pass a permanent legislative ban on the program, framing the fund as a corrupt “MAGA slush fund” that enables tax fraud by the president and his allies. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argued that the administration’s verbal commitment to end the plan is not enough, saying “Blanche and Trump’s words are worthless. The only way to stop Trump’s nearly $2 billion MAGA slush fund and his blank check to commit tax fraud is to abolish it by law – permanently.” The issue is already set to become a central campaign talking point for Democrats ahead of the fall midterm elections, as the party looks to flip control of Congress from Republican hands.

This latest controversy follows a string of recent breaks between Trump and congressional Republicans in his second term. Last month, multiple Senate Republicans joined Democrats to pass a war powers resolution aimed at limiting the duration of the Iran conflict. Last year, Republicans also joined Democrats to force the DOJ to release sealed documents related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, after months of pressure that ultimately forced Trump to concede to the release.