Pope’s one-word message to the United States goes viral

 Just days into his papacy, Pope Leo XIV made headlines with a viral moment. During a press conference on May 12, a journalist asked if he had a message for the U.S. The Chicago-born Pope paused, smiled, and said just one word: “Many.” He then added, “God bless you all.”

Given Pope Leo’s past criticism of U. S. immigration policy and his balanced but outspoken stance on social justice, many see deeper meaning behind his words

Though critical of Trump-era policies, he also questions aspects of the Democratic agenda, preferring a nonpartisan approach centered on compassion and dPignity. His papal name, inspired by Leo XIII, reflects his focus on workers’ rights and fairness.

Trump Warned Fox Reporter Hours Before U.S. Began Strikes On Iran

 

President Donald Trump personally warned Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst about impending U.S. military action against Iran just hours before American forces launched a new round of strikes targeting the country’s military infrastructure.

The president later confirmed through social media posts that he believed Iran would face severe consequences after negotiations failed to produce an agreement.

“Iran’s Military is a complete and total mess,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

He added that much of the country’s naval and air capabilities “doesn’t even exist anymore” and warned that Iranian leaders would “pay the price” after taking too long to negotiate

U. S. Central Command announced that additional self-defense strikes began at 5:15 p.

m. Eastern Time against multiple targets in Iran at the direction of the commander in chief.

The military said the operations were conducted in response to what it described as Iran’s “unwarranted and continued aggression. ”

Yingst later reported that Trump told him “the bombing will stop shortly” after speaking directly with senior Iranian officials who had requested that the United States halt its military campaign

According to Yingst’s account, Trump also disclosed that 49 Tomahawk missiles were fired during the operation and that some targets were located within 40 miles of Tehran.

The president reportedly said American fighter aircraft were simultaneously operating over Iranian airspace to destroy radar installations and air defense systems in the southwestern portion of the country.

When asked what would happen if Iran refused to accept an agreement proposed by American negotiators, Yingst said Trump responded, “We’ll bomb the ‘S’ out of them tomorrow night.”

Trump also reportedly told the Fox correspondent, “We’ve hit them hard tonight. ”

Approximately two hours after the conversation, Central Command announced that the strikes had concluded successfully.

Military officials said U.S

Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy assets used precision-guided munitions against Iranian surveillance capabilities, communications systems and air defense sites that posed threats to American forces and commercial shipping in the region.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the operation before the strikes began, saying the administration remained open to negotiations while simultaneously preparing to use military force if necessary.

“If we need to negotiate with bombs, we’ll negotiate with bombs, and we’re very good at it,” Hegseth said during remarks at U. S. Central Command headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida.

He added that the night’s targets were intended to strengthen America’s diplomatic position while advancing military objectives

Hegseth also argued that U. S. capabilities to gather intelligence and penetrate adversary networks had improved significantly should broader combat operations become necessary.

Meanwhile, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. , suggested he remained skeptical that Iran’s leadership would ultimately agree to a deal with the Trump administration.

Kennedy, who recently received a classified briefing from Central Command commander Adm

Brad Cooper, said the president faces difficult choices if negotiations collapse entirely.

“I’m not sure that it will do any good in terms of destroying their weapons to do more bombing,” Kennedy said.

The Louisiana senator argued that any decision to introduce American ground troops would require extensive discussions with Congress and a review of intelligence supporting such a move.

Before the president sends in troops, we all need to sit down and talk about it,” Kennedy said

He added that lawmakers should receive intelligence briefings before any escalation involving U. S. forces.

The latest military action represents another escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran as negotiations continue alongside military operations.

Trump has maintained that military pressure and diplomacy are complementary tools designed to produce an agreement favorable to American interests, NBC News reported

The administration has not publicly indicated whether additional strikes are planned beyond those announced by Central Command, though officials have emphasized they will continue responding to threats against U. S.

personnel and international shipping.

Michelle Obama’s Podcast Remark About Being ‘Single’ Turns Heads

 

Former First Lady Michelle Obama made a casual remark about being single during a recent episode of her podcast, fueling ongoing speculation about a possible strain in her marriage to former President Barack Obama.

“Here she goes, right to the relationship! ” Robinson said, adding: “Brian, you don’t have to feel pressure. ”

Advertisement Chesky, however, played right along, noting, “Her and her husband have tried to set me up before. ”

Chesky, however, played right along, noting, “Her and her husband have tried to set me up before

That led the former first lady to say she was “very invested in Brian’s love life,” to which he said he “appreciated. ”

Advertisement The unusual exchange comes amid persistent speculation about the state of Michelle and Barack Obama’s marriage—fueled in part by the former First Lady’s notable absences from both President Donald Trump’s inauguration and the funeral of former President Jimmy Carter.

Adding to the chatter, Barack Obama recently acknowledged that he is in a “deep deficit with my wife” and has been working to plan enjoyable activities for the two of them

Michelle, for her part, has publicly voiced frustrations with her husband, citing his past habit of being late and his tendency to avoid meaningful conversations with his golf buddies, DailyMail. com reported.

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has since focused on those remarks, telling fellow podcaster Megyn Kelly that the former First Lady “really dislikes her husband, and it’s super obvious. ”

I’m not just saying that to be catty… I think I’m trying to feel compassion for her but her hostility toward the guy is unbelievable,” he added

The former Fox News star then went on to claim “there’s nothing more destabilizing than an unhappy marriage. ”

Kelly, herself a Fox News alumna, agreed with Carlson, adding that “everything Michelle says about her husband is negative. ”

I go to what’s positive and what I love about him.”

I go to what’s positive and what I love about him. ”

However, Michelle dismissed rumors of marital trouble during a recent appearance on a podcast hosted by entrepreneur and investor Steven Bartlett

When Bartlett raised the ongoing speculation—specifically pointing to her absence from Donald Trump’s inauguration, which some interpreted as a sign of a rift—he noted that it fueled talk of a possible split, with some suggesting, “there’s an issue with you and Barack, there’s a divorce coming. ”

And everybody would know it

If I were having problems with my husband, everybody would know about it,” she said with a laugh

Robinson joked, “If they were having a problem, I’d be doing a podcast with him. ”

And I know that about him

And I know that about him.

He knows that about me. ”

Michelle noted further that many young people give up on marriage too quickly, partly because they’ve been misled by an unrealistic image of a perfect relationship between her and Barack

I talk about these things because I think that people give up too quickly on marriage,” she said

Fine Pushes Omar Expulsion Vote As Dual Citizenship Bill Targets Congress

 

U.S. Rep. Randy Fine is signaling a potential vote to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar from Congress as he simultaneously pushes new legislation aimed at banning dual citizenship for members of Congress. The Florida Republican said the effort to remove Omar could move forward depending on the outcome of ongoing inquiries into allegations tied to her past.

 

Absolutely,” he said.

Fine’s comments come as he introduces the “Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act,” a proposal that would require members of the House and Senate to hold allegiance only to the United States. He framed the legislation as part of a broader push to ensure that elected officials are fully committed to American interests. “The bottom line is that you can’t serve two masters,” Fine said. “If you’re going to serve in the United States Congress, you should serve America ONLY,” he said. Supporters of the bill argue that dual citizenship presents a potential conflict of interest, particularly for lawmakers with access to classified information. Rep. Andy Harris said the concern extends beyond voting decisions to national security risks tied to sensitive intelligence.

“We’re waiting to get the data on the brother marriage thing, which I think is coming,” Fine said during an interview. “If it turns out that that is actually the reality, will there be a vote on the floor to expel this woman from Congress

“It’s not just about the vote,” Harris said. “It’s about access to our national security secrets. They get to learn things that people from their home countries would never get to know,” he said.

He said the issue is part of a broader effort to prioritize American interests within the federal government.

Fine and Harris specifically cited Omar and another state-level lawmaker as examples of officials they believe may prioritize foreign interests. Fine argued that some Democrats have demonstrated that U.S. interests are not their top priority, though he did not provide specific evidence to support that claim.

 

 

 

Harris also pointed to the number of lawmakers born outside the United States, raising questions about whether all prior allegiances have been formally renounced

However, the measure faces significant obstacles in the Senate, where Democrats hold control and have shown little interest in advancing similar proposals.

“The Senate will never, ever pass it,” Harris said. “But we want to get it done […] it’s about Americans first,” he said.

 

 

He said the goal is to “weed out” individuals with divided loyalties and reinforce public trust in Congress.

The proposed legislation would apply to both chambers of Congress and would require lawmakers to relinquish any foreign citizenship to remain in office

The renewed focus on Omar, combined with the legislative push, signals an escalating political battle over loyalty, eligibility and national security within Congress. Any move toward an expulsion vote would require a two-thirds majority in the House, a threshold that is difficult to achieve and rarely met.

No formal expulsion proceedings have been scheduled, and it remains unclear whether Fine’s effort will gain enough support to move forward. The situation continues to develop as lawmakers weigh both the allegations and the broader implications of the proposed legislation.

Major Update On Possible US-Iran Deal to End War

 

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and many members of the administration have been hammering out the final details on a possible deal to end the war in Iran.

Rubio reiterated U.S. warnings that the Strait of Hormuz must be reopened “one way or the other” when asked by a reporter about the U.S. strikes on Iran.

“The straits have to be open, they’re going to be open,” he said during a trip to India. “What’s happening there is unlawful, it’s illegal, it’s unsustainable for the world, it’s unacceptable.”

“There were some talks going on in Qatar today, so we’ll see if we can make progress,” Rubio said.

“I think it’s a lot of talking back and forth going on about specific language in the initial document, so it’ll take a few days. The president expressed his desire to make it. He’s either going to make a good deal or no deal,” Rubio added.

American military forces conducted what U.S. Central Command said were “self-defense strikes” in southern Iran on Monday, “to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces.”

The targets included missile launch sites and Iranian boats trying to place mines, Capt. Tim Hawkins, a Central Command spokesperson.

“U.S. Central Command continues to defend our forces while using restraint during the ongoing cease-fire,” said Captain Hawkins, who declined to say which ships came under fire, where they were located, or precisely where the other U.S. strikes took place.

Some of the dozens of American warplanes and nearly two dozen Navy warships, including two aircraft carriers and their escort ships enforcing a blockade against vessels trying to enter or leave Iranian ports in or around the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea, were threatened by Iranian surface-to-air missiles, a senior U.S. military official said.

The U.S. strikes were near the Iranian port and navy base at Bandar Abbas, the official said.

American and Iranian forces have clashed in other ways since a cease-fire took effect approximately six weeks ago.

But the strikes on Monday occurred as Iranian officials gathered in Qatar for negotiations on ending the war.

Iran said Monday that Tehran and Washington have struck understandings on many subjects in negotiations over a deal for ending the war, but warned that a final deal is not imminent.

“It is correct to say that we have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion,” foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said during a weekly news briefing.

“But to say that this means the signing of an agreement is imminent—no one can make such a claim,” he said, accusing Washington of shifting its positions.

Trump said if he makes a deal with Iran, it will be a “good and proper one,” criticizing the Obama administration’s record with Iran and accusing the former president of giving Iran “massive amounts of CASH, and a clear and open path to a Nuclear Weapon.”

A top administration official said on Sunday that the Iranians have agreed to a deal that would include getting rid of highly enriched uranium.

However, work is still being done to finalize the deal.

In a final deal, Iran would also have to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the U.S. lifting its blockade of the waterway.

If Iran agrees to lessen its nuclear enrichment, the U.S. would also be willing to ease sanctions.

The source said that most people agree on the basic ideas, and the Trump administration is pleased with how things are going, even though they are still working on finishing up the specifics.

The official said that Iran seems more open to making deals now than it did before the military operation.

The official said that the government wants to see a strong promise not to enrich.

They say it doesn’t matter if the promise is for 20 or 30 years; what matters is how it will be enforced.

The source said they think the deal will go further than the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal, which let enrichment go up to a certain point.

Colorado Supreme Court Blocks Democrat Redistricting Push

 

The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday rejected three proposed ballot measures that sought to change the state’s congressional redistricting process ahead of the 2028 elections.

 

The proposals, backed by a group called Coloradans for a Level Playing Field, were aimed at temporarily suspending Colorado’s independent redistricting commission—created by voters in 2018—and allowing voters to approve a new congressional map for the 2028 and 2030 election cycles.

Two companion measures would have separately paused the commission and implemented new district boundaries.

Had the initiatives qualified for the November ballot and been approved by voters, the revised congressional map would have taken effect for the 2028 elections

Supporters argued the changes were necessary to redraw district lines, while opponents contended they would have significantly altered the state’s current redistricting process.

In three separate opinions, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that each proposed measure violated the state’s constitutional “single subject” requirement, preventing them from moving forward, NBC News reported.

“Instead, it represents a seismic shift to Colorado’s longstanding redistricting process enshrined in the state constitution,” her opinion noted further.

“Changing the constitutionally mandated frequency of redistricting — however temporary the change — is not merely a mechanism to administer the new congressional district map,” Chief Justice Monica Marquez wrote in one unanimous decision

In a second unanimous opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that dividing the original proposal into two separate ballot measures still failed to satisfy the state’s single-subject requirement.

The legal challenge comes amid a broader national debate over mid-decade congressional redistricting.

The issue gained momentum last year after President Donald Trump encouraged Republican-led states to consider redrawing congressional maps in an effort to strengthen the GOP’s narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

A spokesperson for Coloradans for a Level Playing Field did not immediately comment on the rulings

Virginia Democrats advanced a comparable ballot measure this year that sought to bypass the state’s independent redistricting commission and adopt a new congressional map. Although voters narrowly approved the proposal, the Virginia Supreme Court later blocked it from taking effect, NBC News noted.

In its May 4-3 ruling, the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated the voter-approved congressional map, finding that Democratic lawmakers violated procedural requirements under the state constitution when placing the referendum on the ballot.

The ruling forced Virginia to redraw its congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and erased what Democrats hoped would become a 10-1 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation.

Democrats have faced additional hurdles in pursuing similar efforts in states where independent redistricting commissions control the map-drawing process, including Colorado

Before the ruling, Jeffries had strongly defended the effort and argued that Democrats had a strong legal basis.

“The law is with us in Virginia,” Jeffries previously said while promoting the redistricting plan.

The Virginia case comes amid a broader nationwide redistricting battle that has accelerated dramatically ahead of the 2026 elections.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries faced mounting criticism following the Virginia high court’s decision, as Republicans accused Democrats of overreaching in a high-stakes redistricting battle that ultimately collapsed in court

Republicans appear poised to enter November’s midterm elections with a significant advantage created by redistricting efforts across the country, as a coast-to-coast battle over congressional maps nears its conclusion.

House of Representatives.

Since then, both parties have engaged in an increasingly aggressive struggle over congressional boundaries, but Republicans currently hold the upper hand.

Jasmine Crockett Lost Her Primary, Called Texas Racist, and Is Now Refusing to Help the Democrat Who Beat Her

 

Losing gracefully is apparently not in Jasmine Crockett’s repertoire.

The Texas congresswoman — who entered the 2026 Senate primary as the progressive darling, burned through campaign cash, and got soundly beaten by James Talarico — is now doing what defeated politicians with no self-awareness do: making it everyone else’s fault and refusing to clean up the mess she helped create.

First came the racism card. Speaking at the Black Economic Forum earlier this month, Crockett declared that her primary loss wasn’t a verdict on her candidacy — it was racism. “It was a racist race,” she said flatly. “We live in America and y’all are celebrating 250, okay? We know what this country is.”

Let’s pause on that for a moment

The people who decided Jasmine Crockett shouldn’t be the Democratic Senate nominee in Texas were… Texas Democrats. Her own party. The same voters she needs to turn out in November. She just called them racist to their faces at a public forum. On the week of America’s 250th birthday, she used her platform to remind everyone that she thinks this country is fundamentally rotten. This is the same woman who wanted to represent Texas in the United States Senate.

And now, having torched half the bridges behind her, Crockett is refusing to campaign with Talarico — the candidate Texas Democrats actually chose. “People keep trying to say, well, Jasmine has to go and hold his hand. Nah, I don’t,” she announced publicly.

her Senate primary loss:

Jasmine Crockett is still fuming about her Senate primary loss

“It was a racist race.”

“But we live in America and y’all are celebrating 250, ok? We know what this country is.”

Her own party didn’t want her to win. Attacks America anyway. pic.twitter.com/d8TvtvRItZ

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) July 6, 2026

Just shut up. https://t.co/ws1bEFIZaw

— USA Features Media (@USAFeatures) July 7, 2026</blockquote>

She’s technically right that nobody can force her to campaign for him. But let’s be clear about what she’s actually doing: a sitting U.S. congresswoman is actively withholding support from her party’s Senate nominee in a must-win race, in her home state, because her feelings are still hurt four months after losing a primary. Whatever happens to Talarico in November, Crockett has made sure a portion of the blame lands squarely on her.

Here’s the part that should make Texas Republicans smile: Crockett isn’t wrong about Talarico

He is a genuinely terrible candidate for Texas — a “God is nonbinary,” anti-fossil fuel, pro-trans progressive who polls like exactly what he is in a state that isn’t California. He lost the primary in the wrong direction: winning by being too radical for Texas while Crockett lost by being not quite radical enough for the Democratic base.

The Democrats managed to field the one candidate who might actually make Crockett look electable by comparison. And now Crockett is going to spend the fall campaigning for down-ballot candidates nobody has ever heard of instead of the top of the ticket.

Susan Collins is watching all of this and feeling very good about her life choices.