The hits keep coming against embattled Democrat candidate Graham Platner in the U.S. Senate race for Maine. The New York Times released a report Thursday in which former girlfriends of Platner described a disdain for women, with one alleging physical intimidation and mistreatment. Platner also allegedly made bizarre comments about how he would rape someone if that person broke into his home. Women romantically involved with Platner in the past described him as “demeaning to women and, in at least one case, even physically threatening.” Lyndsey Fifield, who dated Platner on and off from 2013-2015, spoke to the Times about her experience. She said that Platner “regularly grabbed her by the shoulders—sometimes hard enough to leave marks—and, on one occasion, yanked her out of a cab by her wrist after an argument when she wanted to stay in the car.” The report was released shortly before Thursday’s episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast.” Daily Signal national correspondent Tony Kinnett, who knows Fifield, addressing the new allegations against Platner on his show. ‘Deeply Troubling’ The Times report, Kinnett said, is “deeply troubling,” and there’s “a very good reason for a lot of panic on the inside of the Democratic Party because of some of these details.” Kinnett pointed out that the article describes Fifield as having “grappled with how to process her experiences,” which meant she “was re-experiencing trauma” as she “was struggling with how to phrase” what happened. “During one argument, she recalled, he twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out, telling her to remain there until she was ‘calm.’ Eventually, Ms. Fifield said, she fell asleep and left the next morning,” the Times reported, quoting Fifield as saying: “It hurt. It didn’t cause an injury. It didn’t break my arm.” Notably, this detail is not referenced until the 22nd paragraph of the Times story. Kinnett blasted the Times for how it covered the new allegations, echoing similar criticism from Daily Caller editor-in-chief Amber Duke. Kinnett suggested it would be different the situation for a Republican or a conservative Supreme Court nominee. Kidnapping, assault, domestic abuse, gun crimes, fetishizing violence.So proud of Lyndsey for going on record about this, but she shouldn't have had to. Platner's already documented behavior & actions should have ended his campaign months ago. https://t.co/NurHcr3FPt— Tony Kinnett (@TheTonus) June 4, 2026 Platner: ‘I Would Rape Them’ Platner also told Fifield “that rape was about power,” which “was something that stuck with her through the years.” “He said this a lot: If anybody ever broke in here, I would rape them,” Fifield shared, with Platner adding it would “not be in “a sexual way, not in a gay way.” As Fifield also said, “He was like, I would rape them to show them I’m dominant.” “Asked about those remarks, a Platner campaign official did not dispute them,” the article mentioned. The New York Times also mentioned that the Platner campaign “strongly disputes” claims of physical intimidation or altercations. “Throughout this campaign, I’ve been open about what was a very dark period of my life where I struggled with undiagnosed PTSD, too often self-medicated with alcohol, and was a far from perfect boyfriend. I take responsibility for all of that, and wish I had been better. Any characterization beyond that is false, and I believe, politically motivated. I’m not proud of who I was then, but I am proud of the work I’ve done since, and the movement we are building in Maine,” Platner said in a statement for CNN. He made similar statements when speaking with MS Now’s Chris Hayes about that report. Fifield: ‘I Couldn’t Stay Silent’ Early Friday morning, Fifield responded to the Times story with a lengthy X post. She said the New York Times approached her and she reluctantly agreed to share details of their relationship. “I couldn’t stay silent as he continued to lie and lie and lie,” Fifield explained. “I want my daughters to boldly speak out if they’re ever abused as I was.” Anyone who has ever extracted themselves from a relationship with a narcissistic abuser knows it isn’t clean or easy. I cringe remembering how many times I tried to play the “cool girl” or fawn in response to what was clearly abusive, coercively controlling behavior by Graham.…— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) June 5, 2026 Fifield also criticized the Times for its handling of the story. After first being approached in April, it took weeks for the Times journalists to publish the story. “They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more,” Fifield said. “I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.” Even so, Fifield wrote, the Times left out important details and published a quote from Platner’s campaign attacking her character. “After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?” she wrote on X. “The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive—long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so,” Fifield wrote. She added: “It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.” I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word…— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) June 5, 2026 ‘Tremendous Amount of Courage’ Rob Bluey, president and executive editor of the Daily Signal, spoke to CNN’s Jake Tapper about the Times report during a Thursday night TV appearance. Bluey previously worked with Fifield for several years. Bluey told Tapper that Fifield was a credible person, adding, “It took a tremendous amount of courage for Lyndsey to come forward and tell this story, along with the other women who are now speaking out.” He said “many of the other women are doing something that they feel is important now,” noting that Maine holds its primary election Tuesday. “Frankly, the voters of Maine need to make a decision,” which “is going to have big implications about whether Graham Platner is going to move forward,” he added. “I think these allegations need to be fully vetted.” Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, suspended active campaigning but is still on the ballot for Tuesday’s primary. Thursday’s report came out days after reporting from the Times on sexually explicit text messages that Platner sent to women who were not his wife, as well as a Kik profile. On Tuesday, Platner met with Senate Democrats in Washington, D.C.

The Senate has kicked off the long, arduous process of debating amendments on a party-line budget bill to provide $70 billion to cover immigration enforcement for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term without any Democrat support. On Wednesday afternoon, in a party-line vote, the Senate advanced what Republican leadership calls the “Secure America Act.” The legislative push comes after Democrats refused to provide funding to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection during the longest ever shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. The party demanded restraints on the agencies in exchange for their support. The bill follows the process of budget reconciliation, which allows for enacting sweeping budgetary changes with a simple majority in the Senate.  Under this process, a motion to proceed triggers 20 hours of debate, followed by what is colloquially known as a “vote-a-rama,” in which infinite amendments can be introduced. Normally, the majority party advancing the bill simply votes to table most of the amendments in order to ensure the bill’s ultimate passage. Democrats took advantage of the process, attempting to force Republicans into votes on controversial issues. In some cases, Republicans who could face campaign attacks in 2026 for their stances in the vote-a-rama chose to side with Democrats on measures that had little chance of becoming law. For example, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced a motion to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to add a ban on creation of an anti-weaponization fund to compensate those the Trump administration considers victims of unfair prosecution. The motion narrowly failed, but Republican Sens. John Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska—both of whom are in competitive races in 2026—voted for it after Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., voted against it, ensuring it would not actually pass. The motion failed 49-50. An update on the Secure America Act— if Democrats had their way, they’d defund law enforcement. @SenateGOP is working to superfund ICE and CBP and keep our border secure. pic.twitter.com/Uu77D9mQix— Sen. James Lankford (@SenatorLankford) June 4, 2026 The Senate also killed an amendment from Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., which would effectively block new construction at the White House without congressional approval—an attempt to put Republicans on the record on whether they support Trump’s ballroom project. Merkley’s amendment, which required 60 votes, fell short of the support it needed.  However, six Republican senators—Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Lisa Murkowski and Sullivan of Alaska, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina—voted for it. If the Senate passes the final bill, it will have to be approved by the House before going to the president’s desk.  Any House amendment would require it to return to the Senate for approval and undergo another vote-a-rama. Related PostsSenate Tussles Over Ballroom Security FundingA Senate referee struck funding for security at the White House’s East Wing from a Republican budget bill on Saturday, in what Democrats are celebrating as a blow to President Donald Trump’s ballroom ambitions. Republicans, however, argue that the security funding is unrelated to the White House ballroom and will soon be restored. Republicans are…Senate GOP Leaders Pull a Bait-and-Switch With Reconciliation 3.0Conservatives have every right to feel betrayed by the Republican Congress’ recent antics. Free marketeers, from the U.S. House to homes across America, were told in April to accept Senate Republican Leader John Thune’s emaciated Reconciliation 2.0 bill. The South Dakotan employed a limited-use budget procedure that obviates that pesky 60-vote filibuster threshold and permits passage via simple…Reconciliation 3.0 Is the Best 250th Birthday Present Congress Can Give AmericaLeave it to the legacy media to turn a commemorative currency proposal into a five-alarm constitutional crisis. By now, you’ve probably heard about the scene at last week’s White House press briefing when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins confronted Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent about a proposed $250 bill featuring President Donald Trump. “Do you think politically it’s…

The war between affordability and climate activism continues to rage on in California after a recent decision by the California Air Resources Board to update its cap-and-invest program left both environmental activists and the oil industry upset. The program was first authorized in 2006 as a way to limit greenhouse gas emissions and incentivize “major polluters” to invest in cleaner energy. After multiple revisions to its goals over the years, CARB is now planning to achieve 40% fewer emissions than it had in 1990 by the year 2030. This is done through various methods, but the most effective is penalizing companies that naturally produce more emissions than others, such as oil refineries, by requiring them to pay for permits that allow them to continue emitting carbon. However, CARB had to rethink its goals after two major oil refineries shut down in the state, and officials are warning that war in the Middle East could leave Californians without much of the oil they depend on, making gasoline at the pump, and even air travel, unaffordable. Chevron was particularly outspoken on the subject, sending a letter to CARB warning that if the cap-and-invest program were made any stricter, it would raise gas prices for consumers and possibly force more California oil refineries to shut down. After extended deliberation, CARB released its new decision. In an attempt to soften the blow to refineries, manufacturers, and various other industries facing rising compliance costs, CARB doubled the Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive Fund from $2 billion to $4 billion and created $800 million in additional compliance support to help businesses deal with those rising costs. The board also agreed to slow the rollout of emission permit reductions so businesses aren’t shocked with the new costs all at once. CARB has long said its program is the best way to reach California’s climate goals while still maintaining affordability for Californians. “The program is the most cost-effective way for California to achieve its statutorily mandated climate goals,” CARB said in an April 2026 update. Gov. Gavin Newsom released a statement after the decision, saying, “California’s nation-leading Cap-and-Invest program has proven that we can cut pollution, create jobs, and invest in a cleaner future at the same time.” Newsom went on to criticize President Donald Trump for what he views as “ongoing chaos and uncertainty” regarding how war in the Middle East could impact gas prices. However, critics say this decision by CARB was not enough and still prioritizes the agendas of climate activists over everyday Californians. In an article by News from the States, Zach Leary, a lobbyist for the petroleum association, said California needs to lock in a higher level of free permits permanently. “The state is acknowledging that affordability and ambition are not getting along very well right now.” In an article by Edward Ring, director of water and energy policy at the California Policy Center, he argues that this decision by CARB is too little, too late, and that unless a more major change is made, further refinery shutdowns are inevitable. “You can’t siphon tens of billions out of an industry that operates on thin margins and not expect their plants to accumulate a deferred maintenance debt and backlog of unfulfilled upgrades that has by now put them on a potentially irreversible trajectory toward permanent shutdown,” Ring wrote. The debate over cap-and-invest is ultimately about more than emissions targets—it’s about whether California can pursue its climate ambitions without making everyday life more expensive for the people who live there.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin fired back at Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing over claims that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is lawless, dangerous, and unconstitutional. “We’re doing the job that Congress gave us the authority to do,” Mullin said. “If you don’t like the laws, you can change them.” "We’re not picking and choosing which laws we enforce. We're simply enforcing the law. Period. Full stop." @SecMullinDHSWATCH IN FULL: Secretary Mullin opening testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee. pic.twitter.com/elhQfA3af6— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) June 2, 2026 During the Tuesday Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security hearing titled “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request for the Department of Homeland Security,” Murphy accused ICE and DHS of violating court orders. “Every day, this agency is breaking the law at scale and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. The DHS does not implement the law any longer; it makes up the law,” the senator charged. Murphy argued that the committee should not choose to fund agencies that allegedly break the law. “We swear an oath when we arrive here to ensure that their money is not used to fund unconstitutional or illegal behavior,” the senator said. “Every single day, this agency is violating the Constitution and the law. This cannot continue.” Secretary Mullin, who was sworn in less than three months ago, used up the time for his opening statement to fire back at Murphy’s attacks. “I do have an opening statement here, but wow. Senator Murphy, the outlandish claim you made there is just flat wrong,” Mullin said. “What’s unconstitutional that we’re doing? We swore to uphold the Constitution just like you swore to uphold the Constitution,” the secretary added. “We’re simply enforcing the law. Period. Full stop.” Mullin also accused Murphy of recklessly spreading dangerous rhetoric about DHS and ICE. “When you throw out reckless terms and you start referring to our agents as being dangerous, unconstitutional, and lawless, that’s why our agents’ death threats are up by 8000%.” “I know that’s not what you want, but your political theater, that’s what it causes. When you start looking at assaults on our officers, they’re up by 1300%.” Mullin said. The secretary argued that the federal government needs to prioritize immigration enforcement and continue to fund ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. “If you don’t want Customs and Border Patrol, and their job is to control our borders and the customs entry points, then be honest with the American people and say ‘we want open borders,’ but don’t sit there and accuse us of a bunch of stuff that you know isn’t true,” Mullin told Murphy. The hearing came after a reconciliation bill stalled in the Senate due to a dispute over an included anti-weaponization fund that gave the Department of Justice an additional $1.776 billion. The disagreement over the reconciliation bill and DHS funding threatens another partial government shutdown if Congress cannot agree on a budget by June 30.

The fourth African Regional Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty is convening in Accra, Ghana, this week. There, parliamentarians and civil society leaders from across Africa will seek to respond to the many contemporary challenges affecting African families, cultural identity, and national sovereignty. Topping the agenda at the conference will be a discussion of the draft African Charter on Family, Sovereignty and Values, which its proponents hope to adopt this week and bring to the African Union for consideration. The Charter emphasizes the family, formed from the marriage of a man and woman, as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It urges governments to protect the family in law and policy, to strengthen sovereignty in the face of cultural and economic imperialism, and to preserve Africa’s traditional values. It notes that African countries should reject any international agreements that impose sexual and reproductive health rights or gender ideology in opposition to African cultural traditions and domestic laws. United Nations agencies—primarily the U.N. Population Fund, the World Health Organization, and U.N. Women—are the major drivers and implementers of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) programming in Africa. While diplomats at the U.N. go to great lengths to avoid defining the controversial “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” U.N. agencies use it as a broad umbrella term to include contraception; “safe” abortion; “comprehensive” sexuality education; and the enjoyment of “sexual rights,” including those based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression.   Throughout Africa, the issue of sexual and reproductive health rights has extensive external support from U.N. entities and Western donors, but it remains very controversial at the national and local level. U.N. entities fund non-governmental organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation, EngenderHealth and MSI Reproductive Choices. The U.N. Population Fund partners with such organizations to deliver SRHR through programs like 2gether 4 SRHR, which operates throughout East and Southern Africa. As an intergovernmental organization, the African Union appears to be following a trajectory heavily influenced by the European Union, the U.N., and other progressive actors. The African Union is not a supranational organization like the EU (which makes binding laws over its member states), and African Union leadership’s decisions and opinions are often ignored or blocked by African member states. Nevertheless, the national governments and parliamentarians coming together for this week’s conference are responding to several recent African Union actions that have necessitated a coordinated response to defend life, family, and national sovereignty. For example, the Pan-African Parliament advanced a draft model law on gender equality and equity to harmonize national legislation with multilateral instruments such as the Maputo Protocol and the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. These documents advance a progressive agenda that conflicts with traditional pro-life and pro-family beliefs. The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights—the African Union’s human rights body—recently reiterated its position that abortion access is a legal obligation under the Maputo Protocol, irrespective of many national laws that protect unborn life. And last year, the African Union proposed a Convention on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls, which risks introducing controversial policy changes under the guise of protecting women. It contains vague and expansive definitions of key terms—such as “gender,” “family,” and even “violence”—that depart from established understandings in African legal frameworks. Left undefined, these terms could be interpreted to require far-reaching legal shifts, including the incorporation of contested gender identity concepts or new obligations related to abortion policy. Equally concerning is the treaty’s reliance on external international frameworks and “soft law” instruments that embed these same ideas. By referencing such documents, the convention risks importing “evolving international norms” that have not been democratically debated or agreed upon by African states. Hence the need for the new African Charter on Family, Sovereignty, and Values. At last year’s interparliamentary conference, Ugandan First Lady Janet Museveni warned attendees that “too often, aid is not offered freely, it now comes with conditions that threaten to redefine our societies according to foreign standards, thereby eroding the values we hold sacred and undermining our right to govern ourselves.” Uganda is no stranger to this phenomenon. When Uganda’s legislature passed its Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2023 to prohibit sexual relations between persons of the same sex, its government became the target of unrelenting pressure from the international community to repeal or moderate the law. The World Bank immediately announced that it would halt any new public financing to Uganda and then froze all funding for nearly two years, until it had determined that there were sufficient safeguards in place. It is not unusual for donor countries and international organizations to use a combination of carrots and sticks to motivate developing countries to conform to their priorities. While such practices sometimes serve benign foreign policy interests or noble human rights goals, they are increasingly employed by progressive actors to advance a radical social agenda centered on promoting abortion and gender ideology.   A recent report on the World Bank’s practice of conditioning loans and other financing on recipient countries’ social and demographic policies—including liberalizing abortion laws—discussed several examples from Africa. The European Union’s core foreign assistance instrument is the Gender Action Plan III, which prioritizes sexual and reproductive health and rights programing alongside gender-based violence prevention and women’s economic empowerment. From 2021 to 2023, the EU gave €415 million of bilateral funding for SRHR to sub-Saharan African countries alone. That is a large sum of donor dollars for contraceptives and abortions, especially when compared to the €273 million allocated by the EU in the same time period for programs to treat malaria and other infectious diseases. In its foreign and development policies, the United Kingdom also emphasizes sexual and reproductive health and rights as a central priority. Its flagship program, Women’s Integrated Sexual Health, supports SRHR service delivery across multiple African countries and partners with International Planned Parenthood Federation. Clearly the leaders attending this week’s Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty are responding to a multitude of threats. African leaders are accustomed to the ideological colonization and policy obfuscation that international progressives push. This new African Charter is a reminder to the rest of the world that family values and African sovereignty are at risk, and Africans care. The U.S.—particularly under this administration that values life, family, and sovereignty—should support these courageous African leaders in their ongoing cultural and political battlefront.