News
news · the day's top 10 · june 12th
storyflo · news
Jun 12, 2026 · 2 min listen
Listen · storyflo · news
news · the day's top 10 · june 12th
0:00-1:35
Live · Kokoro-82M
Former president Donald Trump sparked controversy after a recent interview in which he expressed enthusiasm for the current inflationary environment, a stance that has drawn sharp criticism as grocery prices climb for many American families. He argued that rising prices signal a strong economy and that consumers will ultimately benefit from higher wages and increased purchasing power, a view that clashes with the lived experience of households struggling to stretch limited budgets.
Economists warned that the rhetoric ignores the reality that inflation is eroding real incomes, especially for low‑ and middle‑income earners who spend a larger share of their earnings on food and essentials. Recent data show grocery prices have risen at their fastest pace in a decade, pushing food‑insecurity rates higher and prompting calls for targeted relief measures. Consumer sentiment surveys indicate growing anxiety about the ability to afford basic necessities, with many respondents citing grocery costs as a primary concern.
Political opponents seized on Trump’s comments, framing them as tone‑deaf and out of touch with ordinary Americans. Critics highlighted the disconnect between his optimistic portrayal of inflation and the tightening financial squeeze on families, suggesting the remarks could backfire for the Republican Party ahead of upcoming midterm elections. Some analysts speculated that the statement might be an attempt to rally his base by portraying inflation as a sign of economic vigor, even as broader public opinion turns increasingly negative toward rising prices.
The episode underscores a broader debate over how policymakers and public figures address inflation’s impact on everyday life. While some argue that temporary price spikes are a normal part of a growing economy, others contend that sustained high inflation demands concrete policy action to protect vulnerable consumers. As the cost of groceries continues to rise, the conversation is likely to remain a focal point in the political and economic discourse leading into the next election cycle.
President Trump responded to a question about the recent 4.2 percent annual inflation rate—its highest in three years and nearly double last year’s figure—by saying he loved the numbers and the inflation itself. He later tried to claim his remarks were taken out of context, but the statement resonated as families across the country continue to face higher grocery bills, rising rents and tighter household budgets.
In the same Oval Office interview, Trump labeled his predecessors as very stupid people and asserted that the crowd at his National Mall rally was larger than the one that gathered for Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic march. He also described ongoing strikes against Iran, saying the United States had hit Iranian targets the previous day and would strike again, while shortly after expressing a wish for worldwide peace on the eve of his 80th birthday.
During the press event, Trump signed the Secure America Act, a measure that allocates a substantial increase in funding for ICE and Border Patrol throughout his term. Critics argue the legislation reinforces a hard‑line immigration stance and provides resources for enforcement actions ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.
The episode highlights the stark contrast between the president’s public statements and the everyday reality of Americans coping with inflation‑driven cost pressures, as well as the simultaneous rhetoric of peace and the ordering of military actions abroad. The commentary underscores concerns about policy volatility and its impact on ordinary citizens as the nation approaches the November elections.
Donald Trump abruptly backed away from his controversial new spy chief amid widespread grumbling on Capitol Hill. Is his notoriously tight grip on his party finally loosening? President Donald Trump’s second term has seen far less of the motion-sickness-inducing staff rotation that characterized his first term. But lately, as he lurches toward official lame duck status amid rising gasoline prices and an unpopular war, his team must be getting that old feeling again. Just look at the chaos surrounding the top post of America’s spy apparatus, where a lawmaker mutiny forced Trump to back down from an utterly unqualified pick. Trump shocked the intelligence community and Capitol Hill last week by choosing housing czar Bill “Little Trump” Pulte — a famously aggressive political attack dog with no national security experience whatsoever — as his temporary nominee to oversee America’s sprawling intelligence apparatus as director of national intelligence. But today, Trump announced a less controversial pick to take the job permanently: the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, Jay Clayton. It’s worth stepping back and considering how Trump got to this moment — his latest defeat at the hands of Congress. Pulte had built a reputation as an enforcer. He was unafraid to spark investigations of Trump’s political enemies on dubious fraud claims, or nearly throw down with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during cocktail hour at a private club. His unwavering loyalty to the president was the major reason why this zero-experience guy almost scored one of the top national security jobs in the country. Congress was outraged. Democrats threatened to tank a key part of Trump’s agenda if Pulte wasn’t pulled from the position. American spies rely on a federal law — Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — to intercept foreign communications. The findings inform the president’s daily briefing and have been credited with stopping terror attacks. The issue has taken on increased urgency with the start of the World Cup and America 250 events. The law could lapse this Saturday, largely thanks to Trump’s previous refusal to replace Pulte. Clayton’s nomination is a step in the right direction for Democrats. But it still may not be enough to convince them to extend the spy powers, because Pulte is still expected to become acting director on June 19. “If there was a way that Tulsi Gabbard will stay in her position until we could get [Clayton] confirmed, that could be a way out,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I’ve known and respected Jay Clayton for decades,” tweeted Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “Had this nomination been made a week ago, lots of pain might have been avoided.” The drama and bad vibes inside the White House reflect Trump’s sea of troubles as he heads into the second half of his last term. Tulsi Gabbard (who is still the director of national intelligence, by the way) was stunned when she received a phone call two days ago from her successor. “Today is your last day,” Pulte told her, according to Axios. But Gabbard planned to leave her post at the end of the month. So, she dialed the president to double-check. “What day works best for you?” Trump asked her. She replied: June 19. The entire debacle sparked discontent inside the White House, according to a MAGA operative. “Knives are out in some capacity. I mean, people are stabbing people,” the operative told Politico. “Like, it’s chaos. The chaos is like creeping back.” The White House wasn’t prepared for the fallout from the Pulte misstep, an administration official told Axios. “Nobody seems to know what the fuck is going on.” Another senior official, however, disputed that characterization to the outlet. “This admin official is a dumb fuck [who] clearly is not in the loop.” Who’s the dumb one now? Sounds like that first official was right! Donald Trump backed off threats to strike Iran “VERY HARD” tonight, claiming once again that a peace deal is at hand. “We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran, and we’re going to be subject to finalization of documents, which should get done over the next few days,” Trump told reporters… although there’s no particular reason to believe he’s finally right on the 39th time he’s made this announcement. A federal judge warned the Trump administration against reviving its $1.8 billion slush fund to pay victims of “weaponization” by the Biden administration. “Don’t play possum with this court,” District Judge Richard J. Leon said. Bad news, your honor: Trump’s team is still committed to paying out allies eventually, according to The Atlantic. Do you need a pardon? You’re better off going through influencers and operatives close to the White House, rather than the century-old process via the Department of Justice, according to more than 80 people familiar with Trump’s pardon process interviewed by Reuters.
When I began writing tonight’s Tel Aviv Diary entry, it looked as though we would once again be going to sleep not knowing whether we would be awakened in the middle of the night. The question hanging over everything was whether Iran would respond to the American attacks by firing missiles at Israel. I listened today to several well-known commentators who argued that we cannot “normalize” this situation. They are right. However accustomed we may become to living this way, there is nothing normal about ending the day uncertain whether sirens will send millions of people rushing to shelters before dawn. We are approaching three years in which various parts of this country have been subjected to waves of air raid sirens and warnings of missile attacks. Those living closer to the Lebanese border have experienced far more of them than those of us in Tel Aviv, but we have had our share as well. Not once, not twice, and certainly not just a handful of times. The danger may ebb and flow, but it never entirely disappears. Yesterday I heard David Makovsky, the well-known, veteran analyst and commentator on Israeli affairs, speaking on NPR. Makovsky, who works at a Washington, D.C., think tank and is currently visiting Israel, has devoted much of his career to studying and writing about the country. Having also lived here for a number of years, he is both a close observer of Israel and, generally speaking, a sympathetic one. During the interview, Makovsky spoke about how “Israelis have become accustomed to running back and forth to shelters.” Listening to him, I found myself thinking that he was missing something important. Yes, we have adapted to this reality. We have learned how to live with running back and forth to shelters because we have no alternative. But adaptation is not acceptance. However, no one I know wants to live this way. Nor should we have to. Nearly three years into the longest war in Israel’s history, millions of Israelis still go to sleep wondering whether they will be awakened by sirens before morning. Whatever resilience we have developed, that is not normal. Nor is there any clear path toward bringing it to an end. Wars rarely end on the battlefield. They end at negotiating tables. Military force can shape the outcome, weaken an adversary, and alter the balance of power, but sooner or later the fighting stops only when political leaders reach an agreement. The battlefield can determine the terms under which negotiations take place, but it cannot substitute for the negotiations themselves. Earlier today, President Trump announced that the United States plans to launch additional large-scale strikes against targets across Iran tonight. According to Trump, the attacks would be far more extensive than those carried out last night. Iran responded to yesterday’s strikes by firing missiles at American bases in Jordan and Kuwait. America’s stated objective has been to increase pressure on Tehran to agree to a deal. Iranian officials, however, insist that they will not be intimidated by U.S. military action. Just hours after signaling that additional strikes were imminent, President Trump announced tonight, Israel time, that he was canceling the attacks. Trump posted: Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening. Discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved, including the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others. The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized — Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly. DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The obvious question is: what has changed? Is there really an agreement, or is Trump simply trying to calm the markets? Just two hours ago, the conventional wisdom was that the gap between the American and Iranian positions was too wide to bridge. Now we are suddenly being told that an agreement is at hand. At this point, it is impossible to evaluate the significance of Trump’s announcement because we do not know what, if anything, has actually been agreed to. Until the details become clear, any serious analysis will have to wait. Israeli officials, meanwhile, say they are unaware of any new agreement to which Israel has given its approval. Just before publishing Trump said its a great agreement and that it would be signed in Europe this weekend. He said he spoke to Bibi. LIKUD TAKES AIM AT EISENKOT Likud operatives appear to be focusing increasing attention on Gadi Eisenkot, a sign that they may have concluded he represents their most serious political threat.
Most Americans remember the Declaration of Independence for a handful of soaring lines: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . .” But the majority of the document is actually not poetry: It’s a list of grievances and an indictment of King George III and his ministers. The Declaration is in reality a long, methodical, prosecutorial case against centralized power and that matters. Between June 11 and June 27, 1776, Thomas Jefferson sat in Philadelphia drafting what would become one of the most consequential political documents in human history. History tends to portray Jefferson as a philosopher floating above events in abstraction. That’s not quite true: in reality, he was building a legal argument for revolution. The Declaration was not written as emotional rebellion. It was written as justification. The founders understood something essential: If you are going to sever political ties with the most powerful empire on earth, you had better explain why. Not merely to foreign governments or future generations but to the American people themselves. That is why the grievances matter so much. Modern Americans often skip over them entirely, treating the list as repetitive filler between the famous introduction and the signatures at the bottom. That is a mistake. The grievances are the core of the document. They explain precisely what the founders believed tyranny looked like. And remarkably, today, many of the warnings still feel uncomfortably familiar. Jefferson accused King George III of: obstructing self-government, dissolving representative legislatures, manipulating courts, sending customs officials and revenue agents to the colonies to strictly enforce tax laws and collect duties without colonial consent which meant taxation without representation. maintaining standing armies disconnected from civilian authority, expanding bureaucratic control, imposing authority without consent, transporting Americans overseas for trial, and cutting off local accountability. In other words: The founders were not merely rebelling against a king. They were rebelling against centralized power detached from the consent of the governed. That distinction matters enormously. The Declaration was not fundamentally an anti-British document. It was an anti-arbitrary-authoritarian power document. The Crown, in the founders’ view, had violated the political covenant (consent of the governed) that made legitimate government possible. That is why Jefferson frames the argument carefully: Governments are instituted to secure rights, but when governments become destructive to those rights, they lose legitimacy. That idea in the 1770s was revolutionary. Not because no one had ever criticized rulers before but because the Declaration relocated sovereignty itself. The old world assumed authority flowed downward: God → King → Subjects. The American founding increasingly argued: God → Natural Rights → The People → Government. With the Declaration, and then the Constitution, the people became sovereign and government became conditional rather than permanent. That single shift altered world history. And importantly, Jefferson did not invent these ideas alone in a vacuum. The Declaration drew from: English common law, Protestant resistance theory, Enlightenment philosophy, colonial self-government, and generations of local American political habits. Jefferson synthesized them into a single coherent moral argument and he did so under extraordinary pressure. Congress was moving rapidly toward independence. War had already begun with massive British forces threatening the colonies. Failure could mean execution for treason. Yet Jefferson still understood that military victory alone would not sustain a republic. America needed a philosophical foundation. That may be the greatest significance of the Declaration itself. The Revolution was not merely about replacing rulers. It was about redefining legitimacy. The founders were asserting that rights existed prior to government itself. That liberty was not permission granted by power and that free people possessed the authority to govern themselves. That remains the central American argument. And it remains deeply threatening to every system built on permanent centralized control. The administrative state depends on the assumption that citizens are too fragmented, uninformed, or irresponsible to govern themselves without constant management from above. Jefferson’s grievances reject that premise entirely. They assume the opposite: That concentrated power is the greater danger. That is why the Declaration still matters nearly 250 years later. Not because it is old. Because the argument never stopped being relevant.
This article is exclusive to paid subscribers because it’s our third essay of the week. Our subscribers are the sole support for this Substack. I hope you’ll encourage others to subscribe and, if your circumstances permit, become a paid subscriber yourself. It’s what makes my work and the work of my team possible. Editor’s note: Part I of this two-part essay analyzed the DOJ’s argument that the dispute about the $1.776 billion slush fund is now moot. This part analyzes why the DOJ fares no better before Judge Williams, who has reopened the settlement agreement to consider, among other things, “grievous” allegations that Trump and the DOJ engineered a fraud on the court. In Part I, I explained why Blanche’s telling a House Committee “we’re not moving forward with the fund” doesn’t moot the legal challenges. The government seems to believe that Blanche’s statement ends the matter. But, among other problems, the Anti-Weaponization Fund is the consideration Trump received in exchange for dropping his lawsuit. It is Trump’s to enforce. The government cannot provide something for value and then unilaterally take it back. Unless, of course, the entire thing was a contrived, collusive, unconstitutional arrangement from the start—which brings us to Judge Kathleen Williams. Trump originally brought his suit against the IRS in the Southern District of Florida, where it was assigned to Judge Williams. The suit was a loser from the jump. The IRS had prevailed in comparable circumstances, and its lawyers wrote a long memo urging the DOJ to move to dismiss Trump’s lawsuit. But there was a more fundamental problem, one that undermined the legitimacy of the lawsuit in the first place. Trump controlled both sides of this litigation. The case caption may have been Trump v. IRS, but in reality, the parties were both controlled by the president: Trump had “jumped the v.” Cases in which one party controls both sides are not “cases or controversies” under the Constitution and federal courts may not hear them. Judge Williams saw the problems early. She ordered briefing on whether the case presented a genuine Article III controversy at all, and appointed a formidable set of amici curiae to present the arguments that neither Trump nor his captured DOJ could be trusted to make. Fearing Williams’s scrutiny, DOJ filed a voluntary dismissal on May 18, two days before the scheduled hearing. But after Williams entered the dismissal, thirty-five former federal judges filed a motion pointing out that Williams could reopen the case and revisit the settlement to determine if it had been a fraud on the court. They argued that the lawsuit “was collusive from the start” and had been voluntarily dismissed solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of that scheme. Calling the judges’ allegations “grievous,” Williams reopened the settlement and issued an order that requires the plaintiffs to answer three pointed questions by Friday, June 12: whether the parties were truly adverse; whether the dismissal was premised on deception; and whether the court was the victim of a fraud. The order also invoked Rule 11, which raises the prospect that Williams could impose sanctions against attorneys that she finds have abused the judicial process.
Gregg Carlstrom says the immediate shock of the Iran‑Israel conflict is already being felt in U.S. grocery aisles, with gasoline at $7 a gallon and eggs near $6 a dozen. The real danger, however, lies in the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint that handles roughly a third of the world’s oil trade. Even a brief shutdown would force tankers onto the longer Cape of Good Hope route, driving up freight costs, insurance premiums and, ultimately, retail fuel prices. The market’s reaction is already baked into futures contracts, so a quick diplomatic settlement may not erase the price surge that’s built in.
The ripple extends beyond crude. Much of the world’s nitrogen‑based fertilizer is produced in the Gulf from natural‑gas feedstock, and a Hormuz blockage would choke shipments of both raw ammonia and finished fertilizer. That would push up fertilizer prices, inflating the cost of staple crops and feeding into higher grocery bills worldwide. Jet fuel, which also relies on Middle‑East crude, would climb, raising airline ticket prices and pressuring airlines already strained by pandemic‑era debt.
Medical supplies and other critical imports that travel through the same shipping lanes are also vulnerable. Countries that depend on Gulf‑origin pharmaceuticals, sterile equipment and even basic chemicals could see supply gaps, forcing hospitals to tap reserves or turn to costlier alternatives. The combined effect of higher transport costs and tighter commodity markets would feed broader inflation, eroding purchasing power even for households not directly buying oil.
Gulf governments are growing uneasy about the lack of a clear endgame. Their economies, heavily weighted toward oil exports, would suffer from sustained price volatility and reduced shipping throughput. Leaders are therefore accelerating diversification plans—investing in renewables, tourism and tech—to cushion against a prolonged conflict. The next few weeks are decisive: a swift cease‑fire could limit the shock, but any protracted stalemate will likely embed higher energy and
The Trump administration’s upbeat assessment of the Iran war masks a growing strain on global oil logistics. Prices at the pump have risen sharply, and more than a hundred tankers are stuck in queues, a bottleneck that threatens to tighten supplies far beyond the immediate combat zone. Even NATO, traditionally a guarantor of maritime security, has signaled a reluctance to intervene in the Strait of Hormuz, leaving the crucial chokepoint vulnerable and raising doubts about the coalition’s resolve.
Roxane Farmanfarmaian, a Cambridge political scientist with deep family ties to Iran’s oil establishment, offers a broader lens. Her father, a former director of the National Iranian Oil Company and an original OPEC signatory, fled the country after the 1979 revolution, giving her a personal connection to the sector’s history. She argues that the conflict should be understood not just as a battlefield clash but as a structural shift in the world’s energy architecture, with reverberations that will outlast any ceasefire.
From Europe, policymakers are watching the disruption with alarm, fearing that prolonged blockage of the Hormuz corridor could force a rapid pivot to alternative suppliers and accelerate the push toward renewable energy. Gulf Arab states, meanwhile, are balancing their own security concerns with the economic fallout; many rely on the same shipping lanes for their oil exports and are wary of any escalation that could destabilize the region further. Inside Iran, public sentiment is split between nationalist rallying around the war effort and growing frustration over economic hardship, a dynamic that could influence Tehran’s strategic calculations.
Looking ahead, Farmanfarmaian warns that the war’s legacy will likely reshape alliances and market dynamics. Prolonged instability may erode confidence in traditional oil hubs, prompting investors to diversify away from the Gulf. At the same time, the strain on NATO’s credibility could embolden other regional powers to assert greater control over maritime routes. The combined effect could usher in a new era of energy geopolitics, where the battlefield extends into financial markets, diplomatic negotiations, and domestic politics across multiple continents.
New to News Not Noise? Read more here. Subscribe for the latest. Follow us on Instagram for daily news and analysis. Who Gets to Be American: The Trump administration wants to end birthright citizenship as we know it. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order trying to dismantle birthright citizenship; multiple groups sued, and a court temporarily blocked the order. Now the fight is before the Supreme Court – and the stakes are enormous: a decision for Trump could redefine who is automatically considered America, test the limits of presidential power and challenge one of the core promises written into the Constitution after the Civil War. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments on April 1. Justices seemed skeptical of the administration’s case, which critics say runs contrary to the Constitution and decades of legal precedent. Trump attended the hearing, becoming the first sitting president to do so; he abruptly left when the ACLU’s lawyer began her arguments in defense of birthright citizenship. The Court is expected to release a decision by July. The Background: Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment. It was confirmed in a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1898 and a 1952 law, which held that anyone born in the US is a US citizen. As recently as the 1990s, a majority of Americans actually opposed birthright citizenship — but today the idea is widely supported, with Democratic voters almost universally in favor. The Trump Team’s Arguments: The Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment was intended only for formerly enslaved people and their descendants. It claimed “we’re in a new world” from the one that passed that Amendment. “It’s a new world,” Chief Justice John Roberts responded, “but it's the same Constitution.” Trump’s lawyers argued that the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case involved a child of “domiciled” immigrants, and therefore does not automatically settle this issue for everyone born here. Their point is that the child in that case was born to immigrant parents who were living in the US as their home, not just passing through. Even conservative Justices sounded skeptical. The DOJ also claimed birthright citizenship promotes illegal immigration and repeatedly warned about “birth tourism,” the idea that some people travel to the US to have children who become citizens. Federal regulations prohibit this and a 2020 study estimated that “birth tourism” accounted for less than 1% of children born that year. The Response: Lawyers for the ACLU argued that birthright citizenship draws on centuries of American tradition and legal precedent. They pointed out that if the people who wrote the 14th Amendment had wanted it applied more narrowly “they would have said so.” What’s Next: The Court generally tries to avoid ruling on the Constitution itself where possible, so Justices may base their decision on the 1952 law. If they conclude Trump’s anti-birthright executive order violated that law, the Trump administration could still push Congress to legislate against birthright citizenship. Legislation against birthright citizenship has been introduced in almost every session of Congress for the last three decades. It has never passed. Impact: Ending birthright citizenship could affect over 250,000 babies every year, and would fall hardest on Hispanic and Asian families. It could take years and billions of dollars to establish the bureaucracy required to determine the citizenship of children born here. One new study warned that ending birthright citizenship would create an underclass of millions of US-born children. Other critics warn it would have disastrous economic effects. Petty: After leaving the Supreme Court hearing, Trump complained the US is the “only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship.” That’s not true; dozens of countries around the world have similar policies. Trump also railed against the “STUPID” court system and “Dumb Judges and Justices” who rule against his policies, like tariffs. Please share this newsletter with family, friends, and anyone who wants to get the news and turn down the noise. If you’d like to sponsor our newsletter or our Instagram content, please reach out to us at [email redacted].
Donald Trump is a disgrace to the global unity that the World Cup represents. Today, I talk about how Trump is alienating our allies, assaulting American freedom, and why it must stop: Subscribe now Leave a comment
Send this story to anyone — or drop the embed into a blog post, Substack, Notion page. Every play sends rev-share back to storyflo · news.
We’ve simplified responses to 👍 / 👎. Past comments are archived but no longer visible.