Fact check: 28 separate false claims Trump made this week

Fact check – In the fast-paced political landscape, it’s easy to lose track of the sheer volume of misleading statements made by public figures. President Donald Trump, during his recent public appearances, has consistently disseminated a series of inaccurate claims. These statements range from exaggerated economic assertions to unfounded criticisms of political opponents and repeated allegations about election integrity. Below is a detailed examination of 28 distinct falsehoods Trump has advanced in the past week, highlighting discrepancies between his claims and verified data.

Claim 1: Inflation levels during Trump’s presidency

Trump asserted that the inflation rate at the start of his administration was the highest in U.S. history. However, this claim does not hold up under scrutiny. When Trump took office in January 2025, the year-over-year inflation rate stood at 3.0%, which was lower than the current rate of 3.8% in April 2026. While this rate was higher than the final month of the Biden administration, which saw 2.9% inflation in December 2024, it remains well below the peak inflation of 9.1% recorded in June 2022 under Biden. Notably, this figure was significantly lower than the all-time high of 23.7% inflation in 1920 and the 14.8% peak during Jimmy Carter’s tenure in 1980.

“When we inherited, when we started, we had the highest inflation in the history of our country.”

Trump’s statement about inherited inflation was misleading, as the data shows that inflation under his leadership was not the highest in history but rather a moderate increase compared to pre-existing trends.

Claim 2: Progress in reducing inflation

Trump claimed that his administration had successfully reduced inflation, stating, “We had inflation, but we’ve got that down.” This assertion is incorrect. The latest inflation rate, as of April 2026, remains at 3.8%, matching the highest level since May 2023. Even in January 2025, the month he returned to the presidency, inflation was 3.0%, indicating no significant decline during his term.

“We had inflation, but we’ve got that down.”

While some products may have seen slight price reductions, the overall trend suggests that inflation has not been meaningfully curbed. The U.S. economy continues to face challenges that Trump’s claims fail to address.

Claim 3: Pre-war pricing trends

Trump claimed that prices were at their lowest before the war with Iran began, asserting that “we got the prices down and we got them down to numbers that in some cases people have not seen before.” This statement overlooks the broader picture. Through February 2026, average prices had risen by 2.9% compared to the start of his second term, indicating a steady upward trend rather than a historic low. Although certain items may have dropped in cost, the majority of goods and services saw increases, contradicting his narrative of widespread price decreases.

“We got the prices down and we got them down to numbers that in some cases people have not seen before.”

Trump’s claim about pre-war pricing was selective, emphasizing a few products while ignoring the overall consumer price growth. This approach masks the reality that inflation continued to pressure the economy even before the conflict escalated.

Claim 4: Inflation rates prior to the war

Trump insisted that inflation was “at 1.6% for the last three months just prior to the war.” This figure is inaccurate. In fact, the inflation rate for November 2025 was 2.7%, as was December 2025, and 2.4% in January 2026. By February 2026, the rate had stabilized at 2.4% again, with most of the data collected before the war’s outbreak. These figures demonstrate a consistent inflation rate, not the low levels Trump claimed.

Claim 5: Gas prices before the war

Trump claimed that gas prices were at their lowest before the war, stating, “I was down to, in many cases, less than $2 a barrel – a gallon.” However, this was not the case. On February 24, just four days before the war, GasBuddy reported that only four stations nationwide (out of approximately 150,000 monitored) sold gas for under $2 per gallon. By the war’s start on February 28, the AAA national average had risen to $2.98, with Oklahoma’s state average at $2.47—the lowest in the country. This illustrates a steady upward trend in fuel costs, contrary to Trump’s assertion of a price decline.

“I was down to, in many cases, less than $2 a barrel – a gallon.”

Trump’s claim about gas prices before the war was based on a narrow sample, cherry-picking data to support his argument while ignoring the broader context of rising prices.

Claim 6: Beef prices during Trump’s term

Trump shifted blame for high beef prices to Biden, then claimed that “prices are down” under his leadership. This is misleading. Beef prices have actually surged during his presidency, with the average price of ground beef reaching a record high of $6.90 per pound in April 2026. Even if May shows a slight dip, the average price in January 2025—Trump’s inauguration month—was only $5.55 per pound. This underscores that beef prices have not declined but have instead continued to climb.

Claim 7: Investment in the U.S. under Trump

Trump stated, “We have $18 trillion being invested in our country,” claiming this figure was based on 11 months of data and would rise further. This number is fabricated. The White House’s own data, as of Friday morning, showed that “major investment announcements” during his term totaled $10.6 trillion—a substantial gap between Trump’s claim and the actual figure. A CNN analysis in October revealed that the White House counted vague pledges, such as bilateral trade deals or economic exchanges, as investment, inflating the total.

“We have $18 trillion being invested in our country.”

Trump’s assertion about investment levels relies on extrapolating incomplete data and redefining investment to include non-specific commitments, which does not accurately reflect real capital inflows into the U.S. economy.

These claims exemplify Trump’s pattern of using selective data to shape public perception. By emphasizing specific moments or isolated trends, he often obscures the broader economic context. Fact-checking remains essential to distinguish between strategic rhetoric and factual accuracy, ensuring the public is not misled by repetitive or exaggerated statements. As the news cycle continues, the scrutiny of such claims will be crucial in maintaining informed discourse.

Kyle Busch, a 2-time NASCAR Cup Series champion, dead at 41

Kyle Busch, Two-Time NASCAR Cup Series Champion, Passes Away at 41

Kyle Busch a 2 time NASCAR – Kyle Busch, a decorated two-time NASCAR Cup Series champion, has died at the age of 41, marking the end of a storied career that spanned over two decades. The news of his passing was shared by his family and Richard Childress Racing on Thursday, following his hospitalization due to a severe illness. While the specific cause of his death has not yet been disclosed, sources close to the situation indicated that Busch had been unresponsive during a racing simulator test on Wednesday, prompting immediate medical attention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

A Legacy of Triumph and Resilience

Busch’s career was defined by a rare blend of skill, determination, and charisma. His two Cup Series titles, earned in 2015 and 2019 with Joe Gibbs Racing, solidified his place among NASCAR’s elite. The 2015 championship was particularly remarkable, as he overcame a devastating injury suffered in the first week of the season—multiple broken bones—before dominating the rest of the year. His ability to bounce back from adversity became a defining trait, earning him the nickname “Rowdy” and a loyal fanbase known as the “Rowdy Nation.”

Throughout his 22nd season in the top division, Busch accumulated 63 victories in 762 race starts, placing him ninth on the all-time wins list. His performances in other series, such as the Xfinity and Trucks Series, further underscored his versatility and dominance. Last weekend, he added another milestone to his legacy by clinching the Trucks Series race at Dover Motor Speedway, showcasing his continued relevance even as his Cup Series form dipped.

The Final Days and Unfolding Tragedy

Busch’s health had been a topic of concern in recent weeks. During the May 10 race at Watkins Glen, he reportedly asked for medical assistance on the radio, highlighting his discomfort. A substantial cough during that event, as he finished in 8th place, signaled his declining condition. Though his family had not publicly identified the illness, the team’s decision to transport him to a hospital shortly after the simulator incident suggested the situation had escalated rapidly.

The Associated Press reported that Busch’s unresponsiveness during the test triggered an emergency response. Sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described the event as a sudden turn of events. Richard Childress Racing, his current team, confirmed the details to CNN but declined to provide further specifics. The tragedy unfolded just hours before his scheduled appearance at the Coca-Cola 600, a race that had been a key event in his upcoming calendar.

A Pillar of NASCAR’s Culture

Busch’s impact extended beyond the track, shaping the culture of the sport with his fiery personality and competitive edge. Known for his bold, sometimes controversial style, he became a symbol of the “Rowdy Nation,” a group of fans who adored his passion and unapologetic approach. His wit and intensity not only captivated audiences but also left a lasting impression on his peers, including Denny Hamlin, who called him a “rare talent” and a “once-in-a-generation” competitor.

As a driver who often embraced the role of antagonist, Busch’s presence in the garage was as memorable as his on-track achievements. His early career with Hendrick Motorsports saw him win the Rookie of the Year title in 2005, and he later became a central figure for Toyota in the Cup Series. The transition to Richard Childress Racing in 2023 marked a new chapter, with Busch driving the No. 8 Chevrolet and securing his final Cup victory at Gateway in June 2023.

Family, Team, and Reflections on Loss

Busch’s family and team released a heartfelt statement following his passing, emphasizing his role as a devoted husband, father, and son. “His sharp wit and competitive spirit sparked a deep emotional connection with race fans of every age, creating the proud and loyal ‘Rowdy Nation,’” said NASCAR in its tribute. The organization expressed profound grief, calling Busch a “future Hall of Famer” and a “fierce competitor” who would be remembered for his contributions to the sport.

Richard Childress Racing honored Busch by highlighting his qualities as a teammate and leader, noting his ability to inspire those around him. The team urged fans to respect the family’s privacy during this difficult time, asking for continued support through thoughts and prayers. NASCAR also requested that the public remain patient while details about his illness and cause of death are finalized.

Enduring Influence and Personal Tributes

Even as his career neared its conclusion, Busch’s presence remained influential. His ability to connect with fans through both his performances and his persona ensured his name would be etched in NASCAR history. Former driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. reflected on their long-standing rivalry and eventual reconciliation, calling Busch a “devoted husband, father, and son” who helped bridge differences between the two.

“Absolutely cannot comprehend this news. We just need to think of his family during this time. We love you KB.”

On social media, Denny Hamlin expressed his shock and sorrow, underscoring Busch’s popularity among fans and drivers alike. Earnhardt Jr. added that their relationship, once marked by tension, evolved into mutual respect, thanks to Busch’s initiative to open lines of communication. “We did some media together also to laugh through some of the things,” he said, capturing the essence of their dynamic.

Busch’s journey through NASCAR was as unique as his nickname. Born in Las Vegas, he rose to prominence with his aggressive driving style and ability to perform under pressure. His 2015 comeback win after a severe injury remains one of the most iconic moments in recent racing history, exemplifying his resilience and talent. As the sport mourns his loss, the legacy of Kyle Busch—both as a driver and a cultural figure—will continue to inspire future generations.

In his final race at Dover Motor Speedway, Busch demonstrated his enduring competitiveness, securing a victory in the Trucks Series despite challenges in the Cup Series. “You never know when the last one is,” he told the NASCAR on FOX broadcast after the win, a poignant reminder of the unpredictability of the sport. His words, now tinged with melancholy, resonate deeply as the racing community comes to terms with his untimely passing.

Kyle Busch’s career was a testament to perseverance, skill, and the power of connection. From his early days as a rookie to his role as a leader in multiple teams, he left an indelible mark on NASCAR. His death at 41 serves as a somber reminder of the fragility of life, even for those who thrive in high-stakes competition. As the sport honors his memory, it is clear that his influence will endure long after his final lap.

Trump and Netanyahu diverge on Iran war’s future in tense phone call

Trump and Netanyahu diverge on Iran – In a pivotal phone call on Tuesday, US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu found themselves at odds over the trajectory of the Iran conflict, a US official revealed to CNN. This exchange highlighted the growing tension between the two leaders as they debated the next steps in the ongoing struggle against Iran. While the conversation wasn’t their first in recent days, it underscored a critical shift in their strategic approach. Days earlier, on Sunday, Trump had expressed confidence in launching new targeted strikes on Iran, according to the official. These strikes were anticipated to be named Operation Sledgehammer, a move previously reported by CNN as part of broader military planning.

However, just 24 hours after that initial discussion, Trump abruptly announced a pause in the planned attacks, citing pressure from allies in the Persian Gulf. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates had reportedly requested a delay, leading to the suspension of the operation. Since then, the Gulf nations have engaged in intense dialogue with White House and Pakistani representatives, aiming to draft a framework that might pave the way for renewed diplomatic efforts. The US official and an unnamed Israeli source described the negotiations as progressing rapidly, though the outcome remains unclear.

“We’re in the final stages of Iran. We’ll see what happens,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday, reflecting his cautious optimism about the diplomatic path. He added, “We’ll either have a deal or we’re going to do some things that are a little bit nasty. But hopefully that won’t happen.” The remarks came as part of a broader strategy to balance military and diplomatic options, a decision that has sparked frustration among Israeli officials. Netanyahu, who has consistently advocated for a more aggressive stance against Tehran, argued that the delay could benefit Iran by giving it time to consolidate its position.

During the Tuesday conversation, Netanyahu made his dissatisfaction evident, urging Trump to proceed with the planned strikes. “Delaying the attacks is a mistake,” he reportedly said, according to the US official. The Israeli prime minister believes that any pause allows Iran to strengthen its defenses and negotiate from a position of strength. This sentiment echoes a recurring theme in his interactions with US leaders, where he has emphasized the urgency of military action. Despite his advocacy, Netanyahu’s concerns are not entirely new, as previous discussions have already acknowledged the differing priorities between the US and Israel regarding the Iran conflict.

Iran’s Nuclear Stance and Diplomatic Position

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, dismissed recent claims about the country’s nuclear activities, calling them “media speculation” on Thursday. “There is no basis in reality,” he stated, as quoted by Iran’s state-affiliated news agency, IRNA. Baghaei also cast doubt on the possibility of a breakthrough in talks with Washington, labeling all rumors as “not credible.” These comments come as Tehran continues to resist concessions on its enriched uranium stockpile, a key issue in the negotiations.

Reuters reported that Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had directed officials to ensure that near-weapons-grade uranium is not sent abroad. However, this directive had not yet been conveyed to the White House by Thursday morning, according to a US official. The delay in communication suggests a lack of alignment between Iran’s leadership and the American side, complicating the path to a resolution. Meanwhile, Trump reiterated his commitment to securing Iran’s enriched uranium, asserting, “No, no, we get the highly enriched. We will get it.” He added, “We don’t need it; we don’t want it. We’ll probably destroy it after we get it, but we’re not going to let them have it.”

Netanyahu’s frustration with the US approach has grown as the administration continues to prioritize diplomacy over immediate military action. An Israeli source described the prime minister’s disappointment as extending beyond the immediate conversation, affecting his inner circle. “There is a strong desire in the upper echelons of the Israeli government for renewed military action,” this source noted, highlighting the mounting pressure on Trump to act decisively. Yet, despite Netanyahu’s push, Trump has remained steadfast in his pursuit of a diplomatic agreement, framing the current situation as “right on the borderline” and emphasizing the potential to save lives through negotiation.

Iran’s resistance to giving up its enriched uranium has been a central point of contention. The country has maintained its stance, refusing to compromise on the issue. This position has raised doubts among Israeli officials about the likelihood of a swift deal. “Netanyahu is skeptical talks will produce an agreement,” another Israeli source said, adding that Iran’s refusal to relinquish its nuclear stockpile remains a sticking point. The divergence in perspectives between Trump and Netanyahu is evident: while the US leader seeks to explore diplomatic possibilities, the Israeli prime minister remains focused on the need for military escalation.

The ongoing negotiations have also drawn the involvement of Pakistan, which is acting as a mediator in the talks. This role underscores the complexity of the situation, as multiple parties attempt to bridge the gap between the US and Iran. However, the process has not been without challenges, with conflicting priorities and communication gaps hindering progress. Trump’s statement that he is “in the driver’s seat” during the talks highlights his belief in his ability to steer the outcome, even as Netanyahu exerts pressure to return to active combat.

As the situation unfolds, the stakes for both nations remain high. The US and Israel have different objectives in the conflict, with Trump seeking to balance military and diplomatic strategies, while Netanyahu insists on a more forceful approach. The tension in their conversation reflects a broader struggle between two visions of how to confront Iran: one focused on strategic patience and another on immediate retaliation. The outcome of these negotiations could shape the future of the Middle East, and the diverging paths of the two leaders add an element of uncertainty to the process.

With the White House and Israeli officials engaged in continuous dialogue, the hope is that a compromise can be reached before the situation escalates further. However, the conflicting priorities and the refusal of Iran to budge on its nuclear stance suggest that the road to a resolution may be long and arduous. As Trump continues to push for diplomacy, the question remains: can a deal be secured, or will the tension between the US and Israel lead to renewed military action?

Trump ousts Massie, and other takeaways from Tuesday’s primary elections

Trump ousts Massie and other takeaways – President Donald Trump’s retribution campaign steamrolled another Republican rival on Tuesday, with a Trump-backed challenger ousting one of the president’s leading intra-party antagonists, Rep. Thomas Massie, in a Kentucky primary. Former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein’s win over Massie continued a May political payback tour that has seen Trump take down five Indiana state senators who voted against his redistricting push two weeks ago, and two-term Louisiana Sen.

Bill Cassidy, who voted to impeach Trump in 2021, on Saturday. It was one of two key races on Kentucky’s primary ballots in which Trump demonstrated his lasting influence with Republican voters. Kentucky’s polls were the most closely watched on a day in which Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Oregon and Pennsylvania were also holding primaries.

Here are takeaways from Tuesday’s contests: Trump has vowed retribution against a number of Republicans over slights real and perceived. But years of battles over spending, the Jeffrey Epstein files, the United States’ support for Israel and more led the president to take Massie’s primary particularly personally. “Thomas Massie is a terrible congressman.

He’s been a terrible congressman from day one. Dealing with him is just horrible. I don’t think he’s a Republican.

I think he’s actually, I think he’s actually a Democrat,” Trump said Tuesday. The president personally visited Kentucky in March, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made a highly unusual trip to the district on Monday to campaign alongside Gallrein and urge voters to send Trump “reinforcements” in Congress, where the GOP is seeking to hold onto its narrow majority in November’s midterm elections. In Kentucky’s 4th District, which has routinely elected Massie by about 30 percentage points, voters took Trump’s side on Tuesday.

Massie’s loss is a reminder for Republicans in Washington and statehouses across the country that even with Trump’s approval rating slipping into the mid-30s and one of his most reliable demographics turning on the president, he is the party’s leader, he holds the power to force those who don’t follow him to pay a steep political price and he is eager to wield it. The race was one of the most expensive primaries in history, with $19 million being spent on advertising supporting Gallrein and $14 million on pro-Massie ads. Retiring Sen.

Mitch McConnell was once a political titan — the most powerful Republican in the nation and long a dominant force in Kentucky politics. But Trump soured on him when McConnell refused to parrot Trump’s lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election, and on Tuesday, McConnell’s reign ended with a whimper. In the Republican primary to replace McConnell, Trump’s pick, Rep.

Andy Barr, defeated former state Attorney General Daniel Cameron — who was once seen as McConnell’s political protege and rising star within the party, though that star shined less brightly after Cameron lost the 2023 governor’s race to Democratic incumbent Andy Beshear. Trump didn’t just endorse Barr. He further cleared his path to the nomination by convincing another top contender, businessman Nate Morris, to drop his campaign and accept an ambassadorship.

All three candidates got their start in politics interning for McConnell. But the primary showed just how much McConnell’s influence has faded in recent years. Cameron had turned on McConnell and fully embraced Trump during the primary.

And McConnell, in turn, had not endorsed a candidate. Barr’s nomination positions him as the overwhelming favorite to become Kentucky’s next senator. And if he wins, it will mark the replacement of a powerful voice that has at times broken from Trump with a staunch presidential ally on Capitol Hill next year.

In November, Barr will face Democratic former state lawmaker Charles Booker. He won the nomination over former Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath. It was a rematch of 2020, when McGrath narrowly edged Booker in the primary on her way to a loss to McConnell.

The GOP race to replace term-limited Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is headed to a June 16 runoff after no candidate cleared the 50% threshold on Tuesday. Trump-endorsed Lt.

Gov. Burt Jones will take on businessman Rick Jackson in the head-to-head. The two topped a pair of statewide elected officials: Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whose national profile rose after he refused to back Trump’s false claims about fraud in the 2020 election, and Attorney General Chris Carr.

The winner will face Democratic former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms in November. The Republican primary to take on Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff is also going into overtime — with Rep.

Mike Collins and Derek Dooley, the former football coach endorsed by Kemp, advancing to the June 16 contest. The winner will face a tall test in November: Ossoff’s campaign already has $32 million in the bank. Another chance for Trump to flex his influence — and reshape the GOP’s Senate majority in his image — looms in Texas, where Trump on Tuesday endorsed Attorney General Ken Paxton in his May 26 Senate primary runoff against four-term incumbent Sen.

John Cornyn. Trump’s endorsement of Paxton, a controversial figure with a long history of scandals who has aligned himself with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement, comes despite warnings from prominent Republicans that doing so could put the party at risk of losing the race to Democratic nominee James Talarico in November. Cornyn responded to Trump’s endorsement of Paxton by noting on social media he had voted with the president 99% of the time.

But he partnered with Democrats in 2022 to pass gun safety legislation, and was slow to get in line behind Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Paxton, meanwhile, rushed to court in 2020 to contest the presidential election. And Trump made clear that he was looked for personal loyalty.

In his Truth Social post endorsing Paxton, Trump called the attorney general “someone who has always been extremely loyal to me and our AMAZING MAGA MOVEMENT.” He said Cornyn is a “good man,” but added that he “was not supportive of me when times were tough.” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is up for reelection this year. But his primary night speech in Bucks County sure sounded like it contained the bones of a stump speech he could deliver often in the 2028 Democratic presidential primary.

Shapiro repeatedly contrasted his accomplishments in the marquee presidential swing state with the “chaos, cruelty, and corruption” he said is coming from Trump and his administration. He criticized Trump’s Medicaid spending cuts. He attacked Trump over the war with Iran, which he said Trump “was wrong to get into, and has no idea how to get out of” and has sent gas prices soaring.

He said Trump’s tariffs “have made everything cost more.” “Instead of bringing down costs as he promised, Trump and his enablers are pinching the middle class and then saying he doesn’t care ‘even a little bit,’” he said, referring to Trump’s comments last week when the president was asked whether Americans’ financial situations are motivating his negotiations with Iran. “That’s cruel — and we experience his cruelty here in Pennsylvania every day.” Shapiro also accused Trump of “unmatched corruption,” and said his administration’s “entire goal” is to enrich Trump’s allies and “shield them all from paying the price for his conduct.” And he painted Pennsylvania as “the antidote” to Trump’s graft. Shapiro argued that four Republican-held US House seats that Democrats are targeting in November could be the key to swapping “a Congress of weak sycophants” now led by Republicans for a Democratic majority that he said would “bring some accountability back to our nation’s capital.” Pennsylvania Democrats hope that the path to winning back the US House runs through the Keystone State.

Now they have their candidates. Bob Brooks, the president of the Pennsylvania Professional Firefighters Association, built a broad coalition of state and national-level supporters ahead of Tuesday’s primary. He ran as an everyman, arguing he was best suited to win back working-class voters in Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District.

But he still faced a crowded primary field that included former Northampton County Executive Lamont McClure, former federal prosecutor Ryan Crosswell and energy engineer Carol Obando-Derstine, who was recruited into the race by the district’s former Democratic Rep. Susan Wild. Brooks will face freshman GOP Rep.

Ryan Mackenzie in November. The retired firefighter is one of four candidates endorsed by Shapiro, who campaigned with Brooks in the district earlier this week. The governor is also supporting Bucks County Commissioner Bob Harvie in Pennsylvania’s 1st District, Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti in the 8th District, and former television news anchor Janelle Stelson in the 10th District.

Harvie and Stelson won less competitive primaries while Cognetti ran unopposed. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, the former Auburn football coach, won the Republican primary for governor on Tuesday — making him the heavy favorite in November against Democratic former Sen.

Doug Jones. It’ll be the second time the two have faced each other. In his first run for political office, Tuberville defeated Jones by more than 20 percentage points in the state’s 2020 Senate race.

The two are competing to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Kay Ivey. Both parties’ Senate primaries to replace Tuberville, meanwhile, are headed for runoffs on June 16.

In the GOP contest — which will determine the prohibitive favorite in deep-red Alabama in November — Trump-endorsed Rep. Barry Moore led the way Tuesday, but couldn’t eclipse 50% of the vote. He’ll face either Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall or former Navy SEAL Jared Hudson; the two were neck-and-neck late Tuesday night as results were being tallied.

Democrats Everett Wess, an attorney, and Dakarai Larriett, a pet care business owner, will also meet in a runoff. This story has been updated with additional details.

Georgia Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms will aim to become first Black woman governor in US history

Georgia Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms Eyes Historic Role as First Black Woman Governor

Georgia Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms will – Keisha Lance Bottoms, a prominent Georgia Democrat, has made history by securing the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, aiming to become the first Black woman to lead a U.S. state. The former mayor of Atlanta is now positioned to challenge the state’s current Republican governor, Brian Kemp, in the November general election. Her nomination represents a major breakthrough in a political landscape that has seen shifts in representation and power over the past decade. If successful, Bottoms would not only redefine Georgia’s political identity but also serve as a symbol of progress for underrepresented groups in national leadership.

“This moment is a testament to the resilience and vision of Keisha Lance Bottoms and the Democratic Party’s commitment to inclusive governance,” said a political analyst familiar with the race.

From City Hall to State Capitol

Bottoms’ journey to the governor’s race began in Atlanta, where she served as mayor from 2018 to 2022. Her tenure was defined by tackling pressing urban issues, including pandemic recovery efforts, public safety reforms, and equitable economic policies. These experiences have informed her statewide campaign, which emphasizes revitalizing infrastructure, expanding healthcare access, and promoting education equity. Her ability to address multifaceted challenges in a diverse city like Atlanta has built a strong foundation for her gubernatorial ambitions, aligning her goals with the priorities of Georgia’s broader population.

As a key figure in the Democratic Party, Bottoms’ candidacy reflects a growing trend of Black women asserting leadership in state politics. She follows in the footsteps of Stacey Abrams, who nearly secured the 2018 governor’s race and ran again in 2022. While Abrams faced setbacks in her bids, Bottoms’ victory in the primary has sparked renewed optimism about the party’s prospects in Georgia. Her campaign has focused on bridging gaps between urban and rural communities, a strategy that resonates with voters across the state’s varied regions.

Competitive Primary and GOP Runoff

The Democratic primary race was a close contest, with Bottoms ultimately edging out her opponents to claim the nomination. Her win underscores the strength of her grassroots support and the party’s strategic focus on mobilizing marginalized voters. Meanwhile, the Republican primary remains tightly contested, with Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones and healthcare executive Rick Jackson set to face off in a June runoff. Jones, known for his political acumen, and Jackson, a former CEO, will vie to represent the GOP in the general election, adding to the anticipation of a high-stakes matchup.

Georgia’s political landscape has long been a focal point for national campaigns, with its balance of urban and rural interests making it a pivotal swing state. Bottoms’ candidacy has injected new energy into the Democratic base, which has historically struggled to maintain dominance in the state. Her focus on policy issues like Medicaid expansion and education funding appeals to a wide coalition, including working-class families and minority communities. These initiatives are seen as critical to addressing the state’s growing economic and social disparities, positioning Bottoms as a candidate with both a clear vision and practical solutions.

Bottoms’ campaign also highlights her deep ties to the Democratic Party’s progressive agenda, particularly in her advocacy for voting rights and social equity. Her 2018 bid for governor, though unsuccessful, laid the groundwork for her current pursuit. The state’s recent political pendulum—swinging from Biden’s narrow 2020 victory to Trump’s 2022 win—has intensified the stakes of this race. For Bottoms, the opportunity to lead as Georgia’s first Black woman governor is not just a personal milestone but a chance to reshape the state’s future.

Senators vote to block their pay during future government shutdowns

Senators Vote to Block Their Pay During Future Government Shutdowns

Senators vote to block their pay during – On Thursday, the Senate took action to prevent its members from receiving compensation during government shutdowns. This legislative move, spearheaded by Louisiana Republican Senator John Kennedy, has sparked debate over the financial implications of shutdowns and the autonomy of lawmakers to control their own salaries. The resolution, which will take effect in November following the midterm elections, aims to ensure that senators’ paychecks are suspended during any federal shutdown, regardless of the duration or cause. The measure’s immediate impact will be felt if another shutdown occurs, potentially saving millions in congressional pay while testing the resolve of lawmakers to forgo compensation.

Historical Context of Shutdowns

The push for the resolution gained momentum after two landmark government shutdowns in the past few months. The first, a 43-day federal government shutdown in 2025, marked the longest such event in over a decade. The second, a record 76-day shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security earlier this year, highlighted the potential for partial closures to become prolonged. These events, which disrupted essential services and sparked concerns about fiscal responsibility, have led to renewed calls for reforms to limit lawmakers’ pay during periods of government inaction.

Senator Kennedy, who has long advocated for measures to curb spending, argued that the resolution would provide a clear framework for ensuring that senators share the financial burden of shutdowns. “This is about accountability,” he stated in a press conference ahead of the vote. “When the government stops functioning, our salaries should stop too. It’s a simple principle, but it’s one that hasn’t been fully implemented before.” The resolution does not require approval from the House or the executive branch, making it a swift and binding action for the Senate.

Despite its procedural simplicity, the measure has raised questions about its constitutional validity. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that members of Congress must be paid from the Treasury, with no specific exceptions outlined. Critics, however, contend that the resolution could be interpreted as an overreach, as it introduces a scenario where pay is withheld without explicit legislative authority. Kennedy defended the proposal, asserting that it aligns with the spirit of the Constitution and does not violate its provisions. “The document doesn’t specify that pay can be guaranteed during shutdowns. It only mandates that it be paid from the Treasury. If the Treasury is closed, then the pay should be suspended,” he explained.

Political Backing and Debate

The resolution passed in a voice vote, signaling broad support within the Senate. However, not all members were entirely convinced of its legality. Some senators questioned whether the measure could be challenged in court, given the absence of a constitutional exception for shutdowns. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, expressed confidence in the measure’s viability. “I’m fully behind this, and I believe it has strong backing from both parties,” Schumer said in a statement prior to the vote. “It’s a pragmatic solution that ensures our leaders are not insulated from the consequences of shutdowns.”

While Schumer emphasized bipartisan support, the resolution’s passage has also underscored the Senate’s power to enact such changes independently. Unlike the House, which requires more extensive debate and approval processes for similar measures, the Senate’s ability to pass the resolution without presidential input reflects its unique procedural framework. This has led to discussions about whether the House should follow suit in the coming months, with Speaker Mike Johnson remaining cautious about the possibility. “The House has been considering similar ideas, but we’ll need to reach a consensus,” Johnson said during a recent interview. “It’s not something we’ve finalized yet, but we’re keeping it on the table.”

Lawmakers from both parties have expressed mixed reactions to the resolution. While some, like Kennedy and Schumer, praised its potential to cut costs and promote fiscal discipline, others raised concerns about its practicality. A key debate centers on the definition of “shutdown” and whether partial closures qualify for the pay suspension. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security shutdown earlier this year, though extensive, was not a full government shutdown. This distinction could affect how the measure is applied in future scenarios.

The resolution’s implementation is contingent on the Senate’s decision to withhold pay starting in November. This timing is strategic, as it aligns with the midterm elections, where lawmakers may seek to appeal to voters by demonstrating a commitment to fiscal responsibility. However, the measure also raises questions about its effect on legislative productivity. If senators are forced to forgo pay during shutdowns, could it lead to reduced enthusiasm for critical legislative work? Or might it serve as a deterrent against prolonged shutdowns, encouraging swift resolutions to prevent financial losses for both the government and its members?

Implications for Future Governance

Supporters of the resolution argue that it sets a precedent for accountability, ensuring that lawmakers do not benefit from government inaction. “When the government is shut down, the people are the ones who suffer. It’s only fair that the ones making the decisions also face some of the consequences,” said a Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity. This sentiment echoes the growing public frustration with shutdowns that have disrupted services like border security, healthcare, and national defense.

Opponents, however, warn that the measure could be used as a political tool to pressure the opposing party. They point to the 2025 shutdown, which was primarily driven by disputes over funding for the border wall, as an example of how such tactics might be leveraged. “While the intent is to promote fiscal responsibility, this could also be a way to force compromises by threatening to cut pay,” noted a Republican analyst. The resolution’s immediate effect will be limited, but its symbolic value is significant, signaling a shift in how lawmakers view their own compensation in relation to government operations.

As the Senate prepares to implement the new rule, attention will turn to the House and whether it adopts a similar measure. While Johnson has not confirmed plans for a House version, he acknowledged that the idea is under consideration. “The House has some proposals in the works, but they’re still in the early stages of discussion,” he said. The potential for a House resolution could lead to a broader agreement on limiting pay during shutdowns, though differences in legislative priorities may slow the process.

The resolution also highlights the Senate’s ability to act unilaterally on matters of compensation, which has historically been a point of contention. While the House often requires more consensus for such changes, the Senate’s quick action underscores its flexibility. This could have long-term implications for how future debates on pay and funding are structured, with senators potentially using the resolution as a template for other fiscal reforms. Regardless of its future adoption in the House, the measure has already reshaped the conversation around government shutdowns and the financial obligations of lawmakers.

CNN’s Ellis Kim contributed to this report, providing insights into the political and procedural aspects of the resolution. The decision to block pay during shutdowns represents a small but meaningful step in the ongoing effort to balance legislative power with fiscal accountability. As the U.S. government navigates potential future shutdowns, the new rule may serve as a reminder that even those in the highest ranks of government are not exempt from the consequences of their actions.

Fact check: Trump falsely claims the inflation rate was just 1.7% prior to the Iran war

Trump’s inflation assertion under scrutiny

Fact check – President Donald Trump faced renewed criticism over his inflation claims as newly released Consumer Price Index (CPI) figures revealed a 3.8% year-over-year increase in April 2026, marking the highest rate in nearly three years. In a recent address, Trump attempted to ease public concerns about rising costs by asserting that the inflation rate had been “just 1.7%” in the three months preceding the Iran war. “If you go back to just before the war, for the last three months, inflation was at 1.7%,” he stated Tuesday, a claim that sparked debate among analysts.

Reality check on pre-war inflation data

Contrary to Trump’s assertion, the CPI inflation rate for the three months prior to the Iran conflict remained above 2.7%. Specifically, the figures showed 2.7% in November 2025, 2.7% in December 2025, and 2.4% in January 2026. Even in February 2026, the month before the war’s outbreak, the rate was 2.4%, with nearly all data collected beforehand. This places the pre-war inflation levels significantly higher than Trump’s 1.7% claim, which was not supported by the numbers.

The Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation metric, the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index, also confirmed that inflation did not dip to 1.7% during this period. Instead, it hovered around 2.8% in November 2025, rose to 2.9% in December 2025, and remained at 2.8% in January 2026. The PCE index then climbed to 3.5% in March 2026, with the April 2026 report yet to be released. These data points underscore the inaccuracy of Trump’s statement, which omitted the context of higher inflation rates during the same timeframe.

White House defense of Trump’s claim

When asked for clarification on the 1.7% figure, White House spokesperson Kush Desai opted for a familiar strategy: deflecting from the specific discrepancy while affirming Trump’s stance. “President Trump is right: inflation was cool and stable prior to Operation Epic Fury,” Desai stated. “The President has always been clear about temporary disruptions as a result of Operation Epic Fury, and how energy prices and inflation will quickly drop once the Iranian nuclear threat is neutralized and the Strait of Hormuz is fully reopened.”

This response highlights a recurring tactic from Trump’s team to validate the president’s economic rhetoric, even when the data contradicts it. Desai emphasized the “temporary” nature of the inflation spike, linking it directly to the war with Iran. However, the evidence suggests that the pre-war inflation levels were not as low as claimed, and the war’s impact on prices was more pronounced than Trump’s narrative indicated.

Biden’s inflation legacy versus Trump’s claims

Trump’s broader comparison to Biden’s inflation performance also warrants closer examination. He claimed that current inflation levels are “much lower than under Biden,” but this statement depends on how one interprets the timeline. While Biden’s peak inflation rate of 9.1% in June 2022 was the highest in over four decades, Trump’s assertion that inflation is now “nothing by comparison” overlooks the more recent 3.8% CPI rate. The current rate is higher than the 3.0% inflation recorded in January 2025, the month Trump assumed office, and also exceeds the 2.9% rate in December 2024, Biden’s final full month in the White House.

Nevertheless, Trump’s argument holds some weight when evaluating the most extreme inflation levels. The 3.8% rate today is less than half of Biden’s 9.1% peak, which occurred during the height of the pandemic and supply chain disruptions. However, this comparison ignores the broader context of the two administrations’ economic challenges. Biden inherited a global crisis that included the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, whereas Trump’s current inflation surge is attributed to a war he initiated.

Clarifying core inflation and overall trends

Trump frequently refers to core inflation, which excludes food and energy prices, as a way to present a more favorable economic picture. Yet, in this instance, he did not distinguish between core and overall inflation, leading to a potential misrepresentation of the data. The core inflation rate during the pre-war months also reflected higher levels, with the CPI showing at least 2.5% in November 2025 and 2.8% in February 2026. This suggests that even when excluding volatile sectors, the inflationary pressure remained consistent with the overall trend.

Despite the evidence, Trump’s team framed the pre-war period as one of “cool and stable” conditions, implying that the conflict with Iran was the primary driver of rising prices. This narrative, however, downplays the sustained inflationary environment that existed before the war, which was influenced by factors such as supply chain bottlenecks, labor market tightness, and global energy markets.

Long-term economic performance: A nuanced comparison

When evaluating the inflation performance of the two administrations, it is essential to consider cumulative increases over time. Through April 2026, the total rise in consumer prices under Trump’s second term stands at 4.8%, while Biden’s equivalent period through April 2022 saw a cumulative increase of 10.5%. This means that the total inflation under Trump is approximately half of Biden’s, though the current 3.8% rate is higher than the 2.9% and 3.0% levels observed in late 2024 and early 2025.

Such comparisons reveal a complex economic landscape. While Trump’s recent inflation rate is lower than Biden’s peak, it is not as low as the average rate during Biden’s last 20 months in office. This nuance is critical for understanding the overall trajectory of inflation under both leaders. The data suggests that while Trump’s administration may have achieved lower peak inflation, the broader economic environment has been more challenging in the immediate present.

Fact-checking the historical context

Trump’s claim that inflation is now “much lower than under Biden” has been challenged by economists and journalists who note that the 9.1% peak in 2022 was not the highest in U.S. history. The all-time high of 23.7% occurred in 1920, during the post-World War I period, while Jimmy Carter’s presidency saw a peak of 14.8% in 1980. This context is important for avoiding historical inaccuracies in Trump’s economic comparisons.

Even so, Biden’s inflation peak remains the highest in modern history, outpacing any previous level since the 1980s. The current 3.8% CPI rate, while lower than that peak, reflects the ongoing challenges of inflation in the post-pandemic economy. Trump’s assertion that inflation is “much lower than under Biden” simplifies a more intricate narrative, one that highlights both similarities and differences in the economic conditions faced by the two leaders.

Foreigners with World Cup tickets won’t have to pay bonds to enter US, Trump administration tells AP

Trump Administration Waives Visa Bonds for World Cup Ticket Holders

Foreigners with World Cup tickets won t – The U.S. government has decided to suspend the requirement for foreign visitors from specific countries to pay up to $15,000 in bonds if they are confirmed World Cup ticket holders, according to a statement from the State Department shared with The Associated Press on Wednesday. This move marks a rare adjustment to the administration’s strict immigration policies, aiming to ease travel for fans attending the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which is set to begin on June 11 and will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Waiver for World Cup Ticket Holders

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Mora Namdar highlighted the decision in a recent statement, emphasizing the U.S. commitment to hosting a historic global event. “We are waiving visa bonds for qualified fans who purchased World Cup tickets,” Namdar said, noting that the exemption applies to those who enrolled in the FIFA Pass system, which streamlines visa appointments starting April 15. This waiver is expected to benefit at least some of the estimated 50 countries whose travelers must pay the bond, with five of those nations qualifying for the tournament: Algeria, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, and Tunisia.

The policy shift comes amid a broader effort by the Trump administration to tighten immigration controls, particularly targeting individuals from countries with high rates of visa overstays and other security concerns. Last year, the State Department introduced the bond requirement as part of this strategy, citing a desire to deter unauthorized stays and ensure compliance with visa terms. However, the World Cup exemption signals a temporary relaxation of these measures to accommodate the influx of international attendees.

Background of the Bond Requirement

The bond requirement, which demands payments of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 from visa applicants, was implemented as part of the Republican administration’s aggressive stance on immigration. These funds are intended to cover potential costs if a traveler fails to meet visa obligations, such as overstaying or not returning after their authorized period. While the policy has been criticized for creating additional financial burdens, it remains a key component of the administration’s strategy to monitor and manage migration flows.

Although the World Cup exemption is limited to confirmed ticket holders, it is significant. Prior to Wednesday’s announcement, ordinary fans—even those with verified tickets—were still subject to the bond requirement. The waiver now applies specifically to those who opt into the FIFA Pass system, which facilitates expedited visa processing for the tournament. This targeted approach allows the administration to balance its immigration goals with the need to support a major international event.

Impact on Travelers and Global Unity

Amid the policy change, critics argue that the administration’s immigration measures may clash with the unifying spirit of global sporting events. For example, while World Cup players, coaches, and staff are exempt from the bond requirement, travelers from Iran and Haiti face full restrictions, and those from Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal encounter partial limitations. These exemptions, however, are designed to ensure smooth operations for the tournament, which will see teams from around the world competing.

Additionally, the administration has introduced new requirements for foreign visitors to submit their social media histories as part of the visa application process. This measure reflects a growing emphasis on digital surveillance and monitoring. In recent weeks, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have also been deployed at airports when Transportation Security Administration personnel were not available, underscoring the administration’s proactive approach to border control.

Advocacy Groups’ Response

Several human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the impact of these measures on international travelers. Amnesty International and over 50 U.S. civil rights groups recently issued a “World Cup travel advisory,” warning fans about the challenges they might face when entering the country. The advisory highlights the restrictive climate under the administration, which could deter some from attending the event despite their enthusiasm for the sport.

The American Hotel & Lodging Association has also raised alarms, citing the bond requirement as a factor in the decline of international demand for U.S. hotel bookings. According to a report released this month, the association attributes this drop to visa barriers and geopolitical tensions, which have created uncertainty for travelers. Fans are now worried about potential delays, increased fees, and the administrative hurdles of securing a visa in time for the tournament.

Numbers and Process Details

Initially, the number of travelers affected by the bond requirement was thought to be relatively small, with officials estimating around 250 individuals from the five World Cup-qualified countries. However, this figure is expected to grow rapidly as more fans purchase tickets and some opt out of the visa process. The waiver was the result of a months-long discussion between the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and FIFA, with the policy being debated in multiple meetings at the White House and other Washington offices.

The bond system itself is part of a larger framework to manage immigration. Under this system, visa applicants from affected countries must pay a bond that covers potential costs if they overstay or breach visa terms. The bonds are refundable if the traveler adheres to the visa rules or if the application is denied. This financial incentive is intended to ensure compliance, but it has added a layer of complexity for international visitors.

The decision to waive bonds for World Cup ticket holders underscores the administration’s recognition of the event’s importance to U.S. diplomacy and international relations. By prioritizing entry for fans, the government aims to showcase its ability to host global events while maintaining its focus on immigration control. However, the policy also highlights the tension between these competing priorities, as some travelers face stricter conditions than others.

As the countdown to the World Cup begins, the impact of this waiver on the event’s attendance and economic benefits remains to be seen. While it provides relief for a subset of fans, the broader implications of the administration’s immigration approach will continue to shape the experience of those visiting the U.S. for the tournament. The balance between security and accessibility will be a key topic of discussion in the weeks leading up to the first match on June 11.

“We’re going nowhere”: J Balvin takes the global stage as a World Cup opening ceremony headliner

The waiver has been praised as a positive step, but it also serves as a reminder of the administration’s commitment to its immigration agenda. With the World Cup acting as a platform for international collaboration, the decision to exempt ticket holders aligns with the event’s goal of bringing people together, even as other travelers face more stringent requirements. The administration’s approach will be closely watched to see whether it can reconcile its immigration priorities with the spirit of global unity the tournament embodies.

Mexico’s ‘out of reach’ World Cup tickets cause discontent among fans

The combination of the bond waiver and the broader immigration policies has sparked mixed reactions. While some fans welcome the change, others remain concerned about the overall restrictions and additional requirements. The administration’s measures, though designed to address security and migration issues, have raised questions about their effectiveness in the context of a high-profile international event. As the World Cup approaches, the focus will remain on how these policies affect the flow of visitors and the success of the tournament’s global outreach efforts.

‘Are you completely trustworthy?’: Musk’s attorney presses OpenAI CEO in trial

Are you completely trustworthy – On Tuesday, the legal showdown between Elon Musk and OpenAI escalated as his attorney, Steven Molo, initiated a cross-examination of Sam Altman, the company’s CEO, with a pointed question: “Are you completely trustworthy?” The courtroom buzzed with tension as Musk’s team sought to challenge Altman’s leadership and OpenAI’s shift from a nonprofit mission to a profit-driven model. The lawsuit alleges that Altman, along with OpenAI’s president Greg Brockman, breached their charitable trust by allowing the company to adopt a for-profit structure, undermining its original goal of advancing artificial intelligence for the public good.

Microsoft, a key investor in OpenAI, is listed as a co-defendant in the case. The suit centers on accusations that OpenAI’s board members and executives were misled by Altman’s actions, leading to a change in the company’s governance. Musk’s legal team emphasized the conflict between Altman’s vision and the board’s control, arguing that the CEO’s decisions prioritized personal gain over the collective mission. Altman, however, defended his approach, asserting that he remained committed to OpenAI’s nonprofit objectives and that the board’s actions were driven by misunderstandings rather than malice.

Trust and Control: A Central Conflict

Musk’s attorney focused on Altman’s credibility, citing earlier testimony from OpenAI board members and former executives who described him as dishonest and responsible for fostering a culture of deception. Altman, in response, branded himself as “an honest and trustworthy business person,” though he admitted to being unaware of specific allegations. He also criticized the board’s handling of his removal as CEO in 2023, calling it an “incredible betrayal” that was “very public” and “very painful.” “If I knew how difficult and painful this was going to be, I never would have tried,” Altman said, reflecting on his decade-long tenure at OpenAI.

“I’m very grateful I didn’t, because other than my family, this has been the most meaningful thing in my life I could imagine.”

Altman’s return to the CEO role after his ousting was swift, with a new board installed just days later. His testimony underscored the emotional weight of the situation, framing the board’s actions as a betrayal of his leadership and vision. Meanwhile, OpenAI’s attorneys painted a different picture, suggesting Musk had sought total control of the company from the outset. They argued that Altman’s efforts to balance power were met with resistance, leading to the current legal battle.

The lawsuit also hinges on the broader issue of control over artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI with human-like cognitive abilities across all domains. Altman highlighted this as a core reason for OpenAI’s founding, stating that the cofounders believed no single individual should dominate AGI development. He claimed Musk wanted “total control” of any for-profit OpenAI entity, promising to reduce it over time. However, Altman expressed doubt that Musk would ever relinquish that power, citing his experience with startup leaders who rarely cede authority.

“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control and that he would have had that had we agreed to the structure he wanted.”

OpenAI’s cofounders, including Ilya Sutskever, testified about their concerns regarding Altman’s leadership. Sutskever, who played a pivotal role in Altman’s removal, stated he spent months gathering evidence to support claims of the CEO’s deceptive practices and poor management. He later admitted to regretting the decision to oust Altman, calling it a “hair-raising moment” in OpenAI’s early days. Altman had almost abandoned the project in 2018, believing Google’s DeepMind was far ahead in AI research. Musk’s response to a question about what would happen to OpenAI if he died—saying it might pass to his children—had given Altman pause, though he eventually joined the company.

OpenAI has consistently denied Musk’s allegations, arguing that the billionaire had pushed for a for-profit structure and only initiated the lawsuit after failing to secure control. The cofounders claim Musk is now attempting to harm a competitor, leveraging the case to undermine OpenAI’s progress. During the trial, evidence revealed that Musk once criticized OpenAI in an email, calling it a “serious counterweight” to DeepMind’s AI research. At the time, Google was widely regarded as the leader in the field, and Musk’s remarks highlighted his frustration with OpenAI’s direction.

The stakes of the case are significant. A ruling in Musk’s favor could force OpenAI to revert to its nonprofit model and strip Altman and Brockman of their board roles. It could also compel the company to return over $130 billion to its nonprofit arm, potentially altering its financial strategy and timeline for an initial public offering (IPO). The IPO, which is scheduled for later this year, represents a major milestone for OpenAI, and the lawsuit threatens to disrupt its plans.

Despite the legal challenges, OpenAI remains steadfast in its defense. The company’s attorneys emphasized that Musk’s control over the board was a key factor in the conflict, with Altman’s removal seen as a necessary step to ensure balanced governance. “Musk eventually resigned because he lost confidence in OpenAI and didn’t think it would be successful,” one attorney suggested during the trial. This narrative contrasts with Musk’s assertion that he was the victim of a power grab, with his legal team arguing that Altman’s leadership had led the company astray.

Legacy and Future Implications

As the trial progresses, the focus shifts between the personal and professional dimensions of the dispute. Altman’s testimony has shed light on the emotional toll of his ousting, framing it as a painful yet necessary sacrifice for the company’s future. “I was not trying to deceive the board,” he reiterated, though the board’s testimony painted a different picture. The conflict over AGI control, the company’s mission, and leadership dynamics has become the heart of the legal battle, with each side presenting contrasting narratives about the path forward.

OpenAI’s cofounders, including Sutskever, have acknowledged the complexity of the situation, with Sutskever’s vote to reinstate Altman signaling a willingness to reassess the board’s decisions. However, the rift between Musk and the original team has left lasting implications, raising questions about the company’s direction and the role of its leadership. The trial has also brought attention to the broader debate over corporate governance in the AI industry, with Musk’s case serving as a test case for the balance between innovation and accountability.

With the trial in full swing, the courtroom has become a battleground for competing visions of OpenAI’s future. Musk’s attorneys continue to press Altman on his trustworthiness, while OpenAI’s defense highlights the strategic necessity of his leadership. The outcome could redefine the company’s identity, its financial structure, and its place in the global AI landscape. As the arguments unfold, the weight of history and future possibilities looms large, shaping the legacy of OpenAI and the individuals who built it.

Rebels jeered Putin’s troops out of a key African town. Now his regional grip is slipping away

Rebels Jeered Putin’s Troops Out of a Key African Town. Now His Regional Grip Is Slipping Away

Russian Forces Retreat from Kidal, Marking a Shift in Africa’s Power Dynamics

Rebels jeered Putin s troops out – Last month, Russian troops pulled out of Kidal, a crucial town in northern Mali, under the scorn of the very rebels they were deployed to combat. This withdrawal signaled more than a tactical loss; it represented a symbolic defeat for Moscow’s ambitions in the Sahel region. Analysts note that the retreat has shaken the Kremlin’s reputation as a reliable security partner in Africa, a role it has increasingly sought to fill since Western nations withdrew from the continent’s conflict zones. The loss of Kidal, once a strategic stronghold, has exposed vulnerabilities in Russia’s military strategy and raised questions about its long-term influence in the area.

The Rise of a Unified Rebel Front

The pullout followed a coordinated assault by militants tied to al Qaeda and Tuareg separatists on April 25, the most significant offensive in over a decade. These simultaneous attacks overwhelmed several military bases in northern Mali, accelerating the collapse of state control in the region. The alliance between these groups, which had previously operated separately, created a formidable challenge for Moscow’s Africa Corps. As a result, Mali’s government found itself in a precarious position, with its forces unable to halt the rapid advance of insurgents.

“The town is now free,” declared the Azawad Liberation Front (FLA) on social media on April 26, signaling their victory over Russian-backed security forces.

The FLA, a primarily Tuareg separatist group, capitalized on this momentum to negotiate the Africa Corps’ evacuation. Video footage of Tuareg fighters jeering at retreating Russian vehicles circulated online, capturing the moment of symbolic triumph. This event marked a turning point in the region’s conflict, as it demonstrated the growing strength of local insurgent movements and the diminishing effectiveness of Russian military interventions.

Historical Context and the Africa Corps’ Role

Kidal, located approximately 1,000 miles northeast of Mali’s capital, Bamako, had been under the control of the Malian army and Russian mercenaries since 2023. This capture ended nearly a decade of rebel rule and was seen as a testament to Moscow’s growing dominance in the Sahel. However, the town’s strategic value has now been overshadowed by its symbolic role in the current crisis. The Africa Corps, now directly managed by Russia’s Defense Ministry, has struggled to maintain control as the rebels regroup.

The Sahel region, spanning over 3,000 miles across Africa just south of the Sahara, has become a focal point for global terrorism. Countries like Senegal, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Cameroon, and The Gambia face persistent threats from extremist groups and separatist movements. Russia’s presence in this volatile area has grown since 2022, when Western forces, including France and the United Nations, began to withdraw from operations in the region.

Mali’s Military Junta and Russian Support

Mali, a former French colony long plagued by insurgency, is currently governed by a military junta that came to power after a series of coups in 2020 and 2021. After cutting ties with French forces and UN peacekeepers, the regime turned to Moscow for security assistance. The Africa Corps was deployed to bolster the junta’s efforts, but the recent setbacks have undermined this partnership. The fall of Kidal has revealed the fragility of Russia’s support, as local forces continue to resist control.

The assassination of Malian Defense Minister Sadio Camara further complicated the situation. A Russian-trained officer and key architect of the country’s pivot to Moscow, Camara was killed in a suicide vehicle bombing near Bamako. The al Qaeda-linked group Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam al-Muslimin (JNIM) claimed responsibility, highlighting the deepening threat to the junta’s stability. With JNIM now mobilizing to block Bamako and call for a Sharia law-based revolt, the regime’s reliance on Russian forces appears increasingly precarious.

Russia’s Transactional Approach in Africa

Russia’s strategy in the Sahel has been characterized as a balance of power: security for resources. This model has been evident in the country’s partnerships with African nations, where military cooperation is often tied to economic agreements. The 2023 Russia–Africa Summit in St. Petersburg underscored this approach, with Putin announcing defense pacts with over 40 countries. Yet, the groundwork for this influence was laid by the Wagner Group, which operated in regions like Libya, Mozambique, and the Central African Republic (CAR) long before the Africa Corps took over.

In CAR, one of the world’s poorest nations, Wagner’s legacy persists despite the group’s leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, having died in 2023. CNN investigations revealed that companies linked to Wagner had secured mining rights for gold and diamonds, enriching Moscow’s economic ties with the region. While the CAR government credits Russian instructors for stabilizing its military, these achievements remain tenuous as armed rebels continue to challenge state authority.

The Fragility of Russian Influence

The transition from the Wagner Group to the Africa Corps has not stemmed the tide of rising insecurity in Africa. Despite Moscow’s efforts to project strength, the recent events in Mali and CAR illustrate the limits of its involvement. The Africa Corps’ withdrawal from Kidal, coupled with the loss of key allies like Camara, has weakened its position in the region. Analysts suggest that Russia’s influence, while growing, is still dependent on the cooperation of local regimes and the effectiveness of its military operations.

As Western influence in Africa wanes, Russia has emerged as a preferred partner for nations seeking security without the constraints of human rights oversight. However, this shift has not been without challenges. The Africa Corps’ ability to maintain control is now in doubt, and the region’s instability continues to test Moscow’s resolve. The events in Kidal serve as a reminder that even the most ambitious military ventures can falter in the face of determined local resistance.

Broader Implications for Global Security

The situation in Mali reflects a broader pattern of Russia’s rise as a global security provider. From Syria to Venezuela, Moscow has demonstrated its capacity to support regimes in times of crisis, but its success in Africa is now being questioned. The Africa Corps’ retreat from Kidal marks a critical moment, as it signals that Moscow’s grip on the region may not be as unshakable as once believed. With the Sahel remaining a hotbed of conflict, the future of Russian influence in Africa will depend on its ability to adapt to evolving challenges and local dynamics.

As the region’s instability continues, the question remains: can Russia sustain its role as a security leader in Africa, or will its presence be reduced to a temporary intervention? The withdrawal from Kidal has set a precedent, and the next steps in the Sahel could redefine the balance of power between Moscow and its African allies.