Trump blurts out expletive as he lashes out at Israel and Iran over ceasefire
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning had strong words for Israel and Iran as he accused both nations of violating a ceasefire agreement he announced just the night prior.
“We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard, that they don’t know what the f— they’re doing. Do you understand that?” Trump told ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott when asked if both nations were committed to peace.
Trump was clearly frustrated as he spoke with reporters before departing the White House for a NATO summit at The Hague in the Netherlands.
“Israel says Iran violated the peace agreement and the ceasefire agreement. Do you believe that Iran is still committed to peace?” Scott asked the president.
“I do, yeah. They violated it but Israel violated it, too,” Trump responded.
Scott then asked Trump if he was questioning Israel’s commitment to peace.
“Israel as soon as we made the deal, they came out and dropped a boat load of bombs the likes of which I’ve never seen before,” Trump said. “The biggest load that we’ve seen, I’m not happy with Israel. Ok, when I say now you have 12 hours, you don’t go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So I’m not happy with him. I’m not happy with Iran either.”
Neither Iran nor Israel have publicly commented on Trump’s remarks about the apparent ceasefire violations.
Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday morning, sources familiar with the call told ABC News.
A White House source provided a brief readout of the call: “President Trump was exceptionally firm and direct with Prime Minister Netanyahu about what needed to happen to sustain the ceasefire. The Prime Minister understood the severity of the situation and the concerns President Trump expressed.”
Trump said on social media Monday evening that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire, signaling a possible end to nearly two weeks of escalating air assaults by the two countries.
The agreement described by Trump involved two 12-hour ceasefire periods, starting at about 12 a.m. EDT starting with Iran. That would come “when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions,” Trump said in the post.
Israel would then follow with a second 12-hour ceasefire, Trump said.
After 24 hours, the war would be officially declared ended, according to Trump.
(NEW YORK) — New York City’s municipal races have brought disgraced politicians back into the limelight, as multiple candidates seeking a political comeback raised the question of whether voters will give them a second — or third — chance.
Among the slate is Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman whose downfall came after a slew of sexting scandals that culminated in a 21-month federal prison sentence, who is vying for one of Manhattan’s City Council seats.
But Weiner’s attempt at a third political comeback appears futile.
Though no candidate has reached the 50% threshold, as of the current vote count, needed to be declared the outright winner in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, election results from the New York City Board of Elections (BOE) show Weiner facing a fourth place finish in the five-person race as of Wednesday morning.
Assemblymember Harvey Epstein maintains a steady lead, while nonprofit leader Sarah Batchu and Manhattan Community Board Chair Andrea Gordillo battle for second place. Community advocate Allie Ryan trails behind Weiner.
Because of ranked-choice voting in New York City, more comprehensive results won’t be reported until a week later on July 1, when the NYC BOE runs ranked-choice tabulations. Results are expected to be certified on July 15.
Weiner’s scandalous past comes as New York City’s mayoral race faces its share of controversy as well, with former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo continuing to deny the sexual harassment allegations that led to his resignation nearly four years ago.
Cuomo, however, conceded Tuesday night in the Democratic primary after Zohran Mamdani held a healthy lead, but his campaign added that he was “looking toward November,” indicating he was not ruling out an independent run.
And though the federal investigation into incumbent Mayor Eric Adams over fraud and bribery was dismissed earlier this year, he continues to take heat as the first sitting mayor to be indicted as he attempts to court voters running as an independent.
Yet Weiner, 60, attempted to differentiate himself from the other candidates with checkered pasts by emphasizing accountability for his wrongdoings.
“All of that happened, and I accept responsibility for it,” he told ABC’s “The View” in May. “You won’t hear me do what some other people in public life have done — Donald Trump or Andrew Cuomo or Eric Adams: ‘I’m a victim, they persecuted me for no reason.’ I was dealing with very serious problems. I was dealing with what I now understand to be addiction.”
“I am saying ‘Yes, I did these things. I got into recovery. I tried to make my life better,'” he said. “And now I can be of service. And I’m a damn good politician.”
In 2011, Weiner resigned from his congressional seat after a sexually explicit photo was posted on his social media page — which he initially said was a hack, but later admitted was his own doing — in addition to revelations of more sexting content with various women online.
He attempted a comeback two years later in an unsuccessful New York City mayoral run. Despite his initial lead, his campaign was plagued by controversy as more sexually explicit messages and images became public, with Weiner operating under the alias “Carlos Danger.”
In 2016, new sexting allegations came to light which prompted his wife Huma Abedin to announce the couple’s split.
In 2017, Weiner was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison after one of his sexting scandals was found to involve a 15-year-old girl. Following his release, he was also designated a Level 1 registered sexual offender, classified as a low-risk to reoffend.
During his appearance on “The View,” Weiner emphasized that he was still in recovery for sex addiction.
He also recognized that he would receive blowback during his campaign, but he did not think his past should hold him back. He cited a need for change among Democratic candidates as his reason for getting back into politics.
“When I woke up in November of ’24 and saw the election results — but more than who won, I looked around New York City and saw how many fewer Democrats even turned out to vote. And I started to say to myself ‘something is seriously wrong here,'” he said. “We’re hardcore anti-Trump territory and Trump did better.”
Weiner presented a more moderate platform than some of his Democratic counterparts. According to his campaign website, some of his goals include increasing police presence, protecting undocumented immigrants but deporting violent criminals, taxing the rich, and eliminating waste.
Amid the Trump administration’s battle with Harvard University, hundreds of grants worth millions of dollars for medical research have been canceled.
The White House has accused Harvard of allowing antisemitism to go unchecked on campus and of not ending diversity, equity and inclusion practices.
In a letter on April 11, the Trump administration argued Harvard “failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment” and proposed terms including changing the school’s governance, adopting merit-based hiring, shuttering any DEI programs and allowing “audits” to ensure “viewpoint diversity.” The administration then said it was withholding $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contract value to the institution.
Harvard has taken steps such as renaming the Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging to the Office of Community and Campus Life. Additionally, Harvard’s president said the school is committed to making changes to create a “welcoming and supportive learning environment” but argued the Trump administration’s requests go too far.
At least 350 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF) and elsewhere been canceled at Harvard Medical School, excluding the School of Public Health and the School of Engineering, a Harvard University faculty source told ABC News.
Harvard has said the loss of research funding interrupts work on topics including tuberculosis, chemotherapy, pandemic preparedness, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. The school has also said the Trump administration’s threats have endangered its educational mission.
The Trump administration did not immediately reply to ABC News’ request for comment.
This includes research for studying biotic resistance, identifying the earliest precursors of breast cancer, breaking barriers to deliver effective drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, studying microbial evolution and researching cures for ALS.
Scientists at Harvard say the cancellations of their research grants are collateral damage in the battle with the Trump administration and worry some scientific breakthroughs will never be discovered.
“I will say that receiving a grant from the NIH is very challenging,” David Sinclair, a professor in the department of genetics at Harvard Medical School, told ABC News. “It takes years of work and a lot of effort. You have to go through peer review, and it can take years to get this money, and when you get it — I’ve literally dropped to my knees with gratitude of receiving one of these grants. These are a big deal, and they literally are our lifeblood, and to just have that terminated is devastating.”
‘What do I say to her’?
Sinclair was inspired to find a cure for ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), a debilitating neurological disorder, after his partner’s mother was diagnosed with it.
“We’ve watched her descend from an active, healthy lady in her 70s to now, where she’s on a breathing machine and being saved by a tube,” he said. “And our house is an ICU unit with nurses 24/7 and for us, it’s a race against time.”
Sinclair said within the last month, his lab had a breakthrough using artificial intelligence to find both synthetic and naturally occurring molecules that may reverse the aging process and treat ALS.
Sinclair received word on May 15 that two grants of his were being terminated. One was an NIH grant awarded to Sinclair’s lab on a project to reverse the aging process and the second was a career award given to a postdoctoral researcher in his lab on the ALS project.
The career award grant was paying for the salaries of the researcher and two people working under her. Now all three are effectively without salaries unless another form of funding can be found.
Sinclair said in the interview that he had not told his partner’s mother that the ALS grant has been canceled.
“I just feel so concerned for the patients who, like my partner’s mother, are counting on us scientists to find treatments and cures for what ails them,” he said. “And what do I say to Serena’s mom? I haven’t talked to her yet. What do I say? That the research that looked so promising is now terminated? That her life is counting on us, and she’s just one of millions of people in this country who are counting on the research at Harvard Medical School to make the breakthroughs that will literally save their lives.”
Similarly, on a search for stopping debilitating diseases, Joan Brugge, director of the Ludwig Center at Harvard Medical School, was studying how to identify the earliest precursors of breast cancer with a goal of designing treatments to prevent them from becoming cancerous.
The work was supported by an approximately seven-year grant from the NIH’s National Cancer Institute totaling at about $600,000. The grant was in its sixth year with 1.5 more years left.
Another canceled grant was a fellowship for a postdoctoral researcher in Brugge’s lab. These grants support costs such as training, tuition and fees and child care, according to the NIH.
“These kinds of things are going to affect our ability to make progress in the way we want,” Brugge told ABC News. “This is not right. Why should Americans be deprived of potential benefits from this research?”
Claims of antisemitism
Steven Shuken, a postdoctoral researcher at the Gygi Labs at Harvard Medical School, was studying what the barriers are in developing treatments for Alzheimer’s disease.
He said drugs don’t penetrate the blood-brain barrier very well, resulting in failures to receive FDA approval to treat Alzheimer’s disease.
“They seem to have some effectiveness at some dose, but once you get up to the high dose that you need to see the effect, there are these terrible side effects that come up,” he told ABC News.
In order to improve future drugs’ efficacy and reduce side effects enough to make them safe and effective for Alzheimer’s patients, Shuken teamed up with Boston Children’s Hospital to see if they could leverage the chorid plexis, a section of the blood-cerebral spinal fluid barrier as a pathway without side effects.
Shuken had been awarded a K99/R00 grant, which is for postdoctoral scientists completing research that will eventually lead to a tenure-track or equivalent faculty position.
The K99 portion supports one to two years of postdoctoral research training and the R00 portion supports up to three years “contingent on the scientist securing an independent, tenure track faculty position,” according to the NIH.
Two weeks ago, he received news that the K99 grant – which was awarded last year for two years – was terminated and there is no policy that supports activating an R00 on a K99 that’s been terminated, effectively terminating the R00 as well.
Shuken said no reason was given for the grant terminations, but he said he did see the letter sent to Harvard from the NIH citing semitism.
Trump and other members of his administration have accused the university of fostering antisemitism on its campus, specifically related to pro-Palestinian demonstrations amid the Israel-Hamas war.
“Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination — all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry — has put its reputation in serious jeopardy,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a letter in March.
The administration’s joint task force, made up of the Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration, is conducting a review of Harvard, saying it is part of an effort to remove alleged antisemitic conduct and harassment.
Last year, a federal judge in Boston ruled that Harvard “failed its Jewish students” and must face a lawsuit over antisemitism on campus. Some Jewish students had claimed Harvard had been indifferent to their fears of walking through the campus and facing alleged harassment from pro-Palestinian protesters.
However, some Jewish students and faculty members, such as Shuken, said he has not experienced antisemitism during his time at Harvard. He said if there is antisemitism occurring on the main campus, he’s not sure why retaliatory grant cuts are affecting the university’s medical school.
“I will note that I work at the Harvard Medical School quad, which is a half-hour shuttle ride away from the main campus,” he said. “So even if there is antisemitism on the main campus, which — as far as I can tell — is dramatically exaggerated in certain news outlets, if it’s happening over there, it’s not happening where I work.”
Michael Baym was also affected by the grant terminations at Harvard. He said there is a disconnect between the political battle raging between the Trump administration and Harvard and the grants awarded to the medical school that were cut as a result.
“Our lab studies bacteria. None of the content of this research is related to a contemporary political or is part of a contemporary political battle,” he told ABC News. “There’s no sense in it. It’s bacteria; how can bacteria be antisemitic?”
Harvard has said it is resolved in its commitment to combatting antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias.
Grants are not gifts to Harvard
Baym’s laboratory at Harvard Medical School studies the biology of how bacteria become resistant to biotics and what things keep them from gaining resistance. The World Health Organization has called microbial resistance one of the world’s top public health and development threats.
Earlier this month, Baym learned that five grants to his laboratory and researchers in his lab were being terminated. This included an NIH five-year flexible award to support all basic research in the lab and two NSF grants, one to help study bacteriophages that kill biotic-resistant bacteria, and the other to help study the basic biology of the vectors of biotic resistance.
Additionally, an NIH graduate student grant for a project looking for new bacteriophages was terminated as well as two NIH postdoctoral fellowships that were on the same grant. The total cost of the grants canceled was $4.35 million.
Baym said what he thinks many people don’t understand is that the grants are not monetary gifts from the government to a rich, private university. They are contracts awarded by panel of impartial experts directly to researchers and to projects. In this case, the researchers happen to conduct their work at Harvard.
“That’s what’s being cut,” he said “These grants, this is not a gift to build a dorm. This is a research contract that’s being terminated, right.”
Michael Desai, a professor of organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard, who was also subject to grant terminations, agreed, saying the grants don’t support operations of the university and Harvard’s endowment, valued at $53.2 billion, cannot cover all the costs of grants that were terminated.
“There’s all kinds of specific purposes that donors have designated for their money to be spent on,” he told ABC News. “The other thing is that Harvard already spends roughly 5% of the endowment every year. The way to think about it is a retirement account … and it’s supposed to last for hundreds of years, rather than dozens.”
“If they spend more than they already are, then it will, over the course of 10 to 20 years, just be gone, and the university would have to shut down,” Desai added.
Fear of losing scientists to other countries
At the time of the terminations, Desai’s work was focused on microbial evolution and population genetics, which looks at how microbial populations — microorganisms — adapt to new conditions.
Desai had three grants terminated on May 15, two from the NIH and one from the NSF.
The NIH grants totaled about $300,000 to $350,000 per year in direct costs plus a little under $200,000 per year in indirect costs, and the NSF grant was about $100,000 per year in direct costs and another $69,000 in indirect costs, Desai said.
Desai said he wasn’t surprised the grants were terminated due to news that the Trump administration was planning on freezing grant money, but he expressed concern for the younger scientists whose research and salaries were being supported on these grants.
“There’s a battle, as we all know, between Harvard and the Trump administration,” he said. “It centers around things that have absolutely nothing to do with science. There’s broad support for the kind of science we and many other people at Harvard are doing. I don’t think it’s an intended target, but it’s certainly getting caught up in the battle.”
Desai emphasized the broader impact grant freezing could on have U.S. scientific dominance, highlighting the potential for young American scientists to go aboard or international scientists to not come to the U.S.
“Over the past 15 years that I’ve been at Harvard, I can’t think about how many hundreds of emails I’ve gotten from the smartest people in China and India and Europe and all over the world asking if they could come work with me or my colleagues across the country and basically bring all of their talents to essentially work for us, to work for trying to increase the United States’ technological dominance in the world,” he said.
Desai went on, “I kind of worry that 10 years from now, our smartest students are going to be writing professors in research institutes in China hoping that they can go do science to make China stronger. The bottom line is if we don’t invest in this stuff, other people certainly will.”
(WASHINGTON) — Longtime Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., announced Wednesday that he will not seek reelection in 2026 and will retire after serving for over four decades in Congress.
“In my heart, I know it’s time to pass the torch,” Durbin said in the video. “The threats to our democracy and way of life are real, and I can assure you that I will do everything in my power to fight for Illinois and the future of our country every day of my remaining time in the Senate.”
Durbin, 80, has served in the Senate since 1997 and won reelection to the Senate four times. Coupled with his time in the House, Durbin has served in Congress for 44 years.
“We are also fortunate to have a strong Democratic bench ready to serve,” Durbin said in the video. “We need them now more than ever.”
His departure will set up a contentious race among Illinois Democrats vying to fill the seat in a solidly blue state.
“It has been an honor serving alongside Sen. Dick Durbin in Congress. I have long admired his focus on creating jobs in Illinois, bringing down costs for working families and protecting benefits for veterans and seniors,” Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Ill., said following Durbin’s announcement. “As a dedicated public servant for more than four decades, Sen. Durbin has been a strong voice for Illinoisans, ushering into law many historic bills as a long-time leader in the U.S. Senate. I am grateful for the legacy he leaves behind that has helped improve millions of our Illinois neighbors.”
It will also leave a void in Democratic leadership in the Senate. Durbin, as Democratic whip, has served as the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat since 2004. Now, Democrats will need to reshuffle to fill Durbin’s position.
There are a number of younger Senate Democrats who have been working to make names for themselves this Congress, and its not clear who might jump into that leadership race. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is currently the No. 3 Senate Democrat, and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., is the No. 4 Senate Democrat. Either of them could enter the contest.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., praised Durbin in a statement following the announcement.
“Dick Durbin has been more than a colleague — he’s been a trusted partner, one of the most respected voices in the Senate for decades, my dear friend, and, of course, my former roommate,” Schumer said. “His deep commitment to justice, his tireless advocacy for Americans in need, and his wisdom in leadership have left an indelible mark on this institution, the United States, and his beloved Illinois. The Senate — and the country — are better because of his service. To my friend, Dick: Thank you, for everything.”
Durbin has served as the top Democrat, in his capacity as either chairman or ranking member, of the Senate Judiciary Committee since 2021. He helped to confirm 235 federal judges under former President Joe Biden.
Durbin is now the fourth Democrat to announce plans not to run in 2026. Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Tina Smith, D-Minn., are also retiring. Sen. Michael Bennet is running for Colorado governor despite his term not ending until 2028, and if he wins, he will vacate a fifth Democratic seat.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
