Vanessa Trump revealed Wednesday that she has been diagnosed with breast cancer and recently underwent a medical procedure as she begins treatment and recovery. The 48-year-old shared the emotional announcement in a post on Instagram, describing it as a “personal health update.” “I’ve recently been diagnosed with breast cancer,” Vanessa wrote. “While this isn’t news anyone expects, I’m working closely with my medical team on a treatment plan.” She also disclosed that doctors performed “a procedure earlier this week,” though she did not provide additional details about the stage of the cancer or specifics of her treatment plan. Vanessa said she is remaining optimistic as she navigates treatment with the support of her family and children. “I am staying focused and hopeful while surrounded by the love and support of my family, my kids, and those closest to me,” she wrote. She thanked her family and supporters while asking for privacy during her recovery. Ivanka Trump responded publicly, writing: “Praying for your continued strength and a swift recovery. Love you mama.” The post was also liked by Tiffany Trump as messages of support poured in across social media. Vanessa shares five children with Donald Trump Jr. The pair divorced in 2018 after more than a decade of marriage. In recent years, Vanessa has largely stayed out of the political spotlight compared to other members of the extended Trump family, though she returned to headlines after publicly appearing alongside golf legend Tiger Woods. Reports of the relationship circulated for months before the two confirmed it publicly in March, 2025. Vanessa concluded her statement by thanking supporters while asking for privacy as she focuses on recovery. “Thank you for your kindness and support it truly means more than I can express,” she wrote. “I kindly ask for privacy as I focus on my health and recovery.” This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

WASHINGTON, May 20 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order on AI and cybersecurity as soon as Thursday, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters, as pressure grows from parts of his political base to increase oversight of new AI models, such as Anthropic’s Mythos. The order would create a voluntary framework for AI developers to engage with the U.S. government about the public release of covered models, the sources said. Under the framework, the developers would be asked to provide their models to the government 90 days before public release, and also give pre-public access to critical infrastructure providers such as banks, one of the people said. Such an approach may represent a middle ground among Trump supporters. MAGA activists, including former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and political organizer Amy Kremer, have been pressing the White House to require AI developers to submit their most capable models for government security tests. On the other side of the debate are tech industry supporters such as venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and former Trump adviser David Sacks, who are resistant to mandatory requirements. Sacks in March stepped down from his role as Trump’s lead AI official and is now co-chairing the president’s tech advisory committee. Trump’s AI policies in his second term have largely reflected the tech industry’s perspective. NEW MODELS DRIVING DEBATE A White House spokesperson called any discussion about AI policy details “speculation.” A National Security Agency spokesperson directed Reuters to contact the White House when asked about details of the president’s plan. National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, who serves as Trump’s principal adviser on cybersecurity policy and strategy, did not respond to requests for comment. The balance of power between the two groups of Trump’s supporters has shifted, driven by the release of powerful new AI systems, including Mythos and OpenAI’s GPT-5.5-Cyber. The companies warn that the new models could supercharge complex cyberattacks, though some cybersecurity executives have said those fears are overblown. Mythos’ arrival prompted a battle among the president’s supporters to influence how he responds. The outcome of that debate could have a significant impact on the AI industry if the president’s decision slows the rollout of large language models or prompts the companies to change how a model performs to address safety concerns. Either option could hurt profits. Republicans have traditionally favored limited government and opposed regulations, but support is growing among their more vocal populist supporters to impose AI guardrails. The populist faction is asking Trump to require government approval of “potentially dangerous” AI systems before they’re deployed, according to a letter they sent to the White House last Friday. Kremer said it is “antithetical” to her political views to advocate for new regulations, but AI requires a different approach. “You can’t count on these people that are leading these AI companies to put our interests at heart and do what’s right to protect the American people,” she said. Kremer helped organize a January 6, 2021, rally that preceded the Capitol riot. She said in an interview that she was not among the thousands of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol that day. BIG TECH SUPPORT Tech executives are among the president’s largest political donors and most visible supporters. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and OpenAI’s Sam Altman sat front and center as he was sworn into office in January 2025. Advocates for the tech industry told Reuters they want to see the Department of Commerce’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation play a leading role in the Trump administration’s response to advanced AI models, adding that companies are willing to work with the scientists and cybersecurity specialists in that organization voluntarily. The National Security Agency has been involved in administration-wide discussions about how to respond to Mythos, according to two other people familiar with the matter, along with Cairncross. Lawmakers asked Cairncross to work with federal agencies to set up a process that would monitor “sudden frontier AI capability jumps.” “The past couple months have served as a massive wake-up call for the kinds of vulnerabilities that AI can create,” said former Rep. Brad Carson (D-OK), who now helps run a super PAC network whose funders include Anthropic. Holding back new AI models while the federal government vets them may allow the United States to gain a short-term advantage over adversaries but will not keep the technology out of enemy hands in the long term, said Neil Chilson, head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute, a nonprofit often aligned with the tech industry. “We need to make sure we’re deploying it and getting the most out of it, including by hardening our defenses,” Chilson said. Voluntary federal testing of new AI models has been in place for a few years, with companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic submitting their products for scrutiny by the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, known by a different name under former President Joe Biden. The Commerce Department announced in May that Google, xAI, and Microsoft had agreed to submit their AI models for security testing, though the details later disappeared from its website. The White House and Commerce Department did not respond to requests for comment about why the details disappeared. (Reporting by Karen Freifeld in New York and Courtney Rozen in Washington; Additional reporting by Raphael Satter and Alexandra Alper in Washington and A.J. Vincens in Detroit; Editing by Rod Nickel)

Two police officers who defended the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, are suing the Trump administration in an attempt to block a new $1.8 billion Justice Department compensation fund designed to provide relief to Americans the administration says were targeted by politically motivated Biden-era prosecutions. Former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges filed suit this week against President Donald Trump, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, claiming the administration lacks the authority to establish what critics have labeled an “anti-weaponization” fund without congressional approval. The lawsuit argues the fund could ultimately compensate some January 6 defendants and members of “paramilitary groups,” with the officers warning it could embolden political violence. “In the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald J Trump has created a $1.776bn taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name,” the complaint states. The Trump administration, however, has framed the program very differently — not as a reward system for rioters, but as a mechanism to compensate Americans who faced politically selective prosecutions and excessive legal punishment under the Biden administration. Vice President JD Vance defended the program during a White House press briefing on Tuesday, accusing the media of distorting the fund’s purpose. “This is about compensating Americans for the lawfare that we saw under the last administration,” Vance said. “Anybody can apply for it. Republicans can apply for it, Democrats can apply for it.” Vance also rejected claims that the fund would personally benefit Trump or his family. “Is $1 of this money going to the Trump administration? No. Is $1 of this money going to Donald Trump personally? No,” he said. When pressed on whether individuals convicted in connection with January 6 could potentially receive compensation, Vance said the administration would review claims individually rather than issue blanket exclusions. “We’re not trying to give money to anybody who attacked a police officer,” Vance said. “We’re trying to compensate people where the book was thrown at them, they were mistreated by the legal system.” The vice president argued the fund is part of a broader effort to “turn the page” on what the administration views as politically motivated prosecutions during the Biden years. “Let’s not prosecute people because they said the wrong thing, or because they had the wrong political candidate, or because they had the wrong viewpoint,” Vance said. Critics of the program point to the more than 1,500 pardons and commutations Trump issued for January 6 defendants earlier this year, arguing the compensation fund could become another avenue for rewarding political allies. Supporters of the initiative, however, argue that many defendants faced disproportionate charges, financial ruin, and years-long legal battles tied to what they view as prosecutions they believe were politically driven. The lawsuit comes as the administration continues to make anti-weaponization and transparency efforts a central political theme heading into the 2026 midterms.

Director Michael Bay is on tap to direct a movie based on the epic rescue mission to retrieve two downed American airmen in Iran. Bay, in partnership with Universal Pictures, is developing a feature-length film based on an upcoming 2027 book by author Mitchell Zuckoff. The book — and by extension, the movie — will tell the story of the two U.S. airmen who went down behind enemy lines in Iran during Operation Epic Fury. The project will describe how their F-15E Strike Eagle operating under the call sign “Dude 44” was shot down over Iranian territory in early April, just weeks after the United States and Israel launched a joint military operation in Iran. According to the planned adaptation, the pilot, known as Dude 44 Alpha, was located and extracted within hours. But the plane’s weapon systems officer, Dude 44 Bravo, remained stranded in the rugged Zagros Mountains. DON’T WAIT FOR HOLLYWOOD: WATCH THE DAILY WIRE’S “RACE TO RESCUE” NOW! For nearly two days, the injured Dude 44 Bravo actively evaded capture by Iranian forces, hiding in the mountains and ravines while he waited for the rescue mission he knew was coming. That eventual rescue came in the form of a daring night raid that included dozens of aircraft and hundreds of American special operations forces, all coordinating to fight off the Iranian forces — who were still desperately trying to locate the downed American first — and safely extract Dude 44 Bravo. Bay may have gotten his start directing music videos — for everyone from Styx and Donny Osmond to Vanilla Ice and Meat Loaf — but he is no stranger to bringing heroic military stories to the silver screen. In 2016, he directed “13 Hours,” a film based on the siege of the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that took place on September 11, 2012.

Multnomah County’s $51 billion climate lawsuit against America’s energy producers was never going to age well. It was built on activist science, conflicted lawyers, and a worst-case scenario its own modelers admitted was implausible. This month, the bottom fell out. In April 2026, the international scientific committee that designs climate scenarios for the United Nations officially retired SSP5-8.5 — the corollary to the infamous RCP 8.5 — declaring it “implausible” and dropping it from the framework that will underpin the next IPCC assessment. That is the very pathway that has powered nearly every catastrophic climate headline you have ever read, and it is the scaffolding behind tens of billions of dollars in damage claims now winding their way through American courts. For more than a decade, RCP 8.5 was marketed to judges, regulators, and reporters as “business as usual.” It was nothing of the kind. Its own creators designed it as a 90th-percentile stress test built on absurd assumptions — 12 billion people on Earth, technology frozen in place, a fivefold global increase in coal, more coal than geologists believe can even be mined. Scientists began warning that it was implausible in 2017. A 2020 paper in Nature said it “becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year.” The Biden EPA quietly pulled it from regulatory cost-benefit analysis in 2022. They knew. They used it anyway. By 2024, new academic studies citing RCP 8.5 were still appearing at a rate of 25 per day. The U.S. National Climate Assessment used it as recently as 2023. The Climate Judiciary Project trained more than 2,000 judges on materials built on it. And plaintiffs’ lawyers built billion-dollar damage claims on it. The institutional footprint is staggering. Over 140 central banks stress-tested the global financial system against it. The World Bank applied it across more than 100 countries. The United Kingdom built two decades of national adaptation planning around it. Germany, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and Japan each embedded it in building codes and flood maps. Multnomah County is one of the most brazen examples of how this fiction was weaponized in court. The county, home to the city of Portland, claims that major energy companies were a substantial factor in causing and exacerbating the 2021 heat wave and is seeking $51 billion in damages. The core of that claim is an “attribution science” study by Christopher Callahan and Justin Mankin that purports to assign dollar values to heat-related damages from individual energy producers — claiming Chevron alone caused as much as $3.6 trillion in losses. That study draws its projections directly from the high-emissions scenarios the U.N. has now retired. It gets worse. According to Chevron’s filings, plaintiffs’ lead attorney Roger Worthington had undisclosed financial involvement in at least two of the studies the county presents as neutral, peer-reviewed science. Early drafts of the Mankin study were hosted on Worthington’s law firm website. An early version acknowledged funding from the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project — the same group running “neutral” judicial education seminars — before that disclosure was quietly scrubbed from the published version. So the science was manufactured. The funding was hidden. The judges were trained on the same compromised material. And the underlying scenario has now been officially retired by the U.N. itself. This is not climate science. It is climate racketeering, exposed. Multnomah is not alone. The Boulder case heading to the Supreme Court next term, the Honolulu suit, the Minnesota complaint, and dozens of others all draw on the same body of work. Every active climate damages claim in the United States now rests on a scientific foundation that the international scientific community has formally repudiated. And the cost of letting these cases proceed falls squarely on American families. If courts award damages anywhere near what plaintiffs seek, the bill will not stop at the boardroom door. It will flow straight to consumers through higher pump prices, higher utility bills, higher insurance premiums, and a higher cost of capital baked into every barrel of oil and every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced in this country. Climate litigation is, functionally, a regressive tax imposed by trial lawyers rather than elected legislatures, hitting hardest the working families who can least afford it. Courts should treat this seriously. Judges should exclude RCP 8.5-based evidence and expert testimony at the gate, the same way they would exclude any other retracted study. The EPA’s rescission of its 2009 Endangerment Finding should accelerate — the regulatory edifice was built on the same retired scenarios. Central banks should rebuild their stress-test frameworks on plausible trajectories. And the Federal Judicial Center was right to pull its climate science chapter from the judicial reference manual earlier this year. Every state and federal court training program should follow. The doomsday scenario is officially retired. So is the case for these lawsuits. *** The Honorable Jason Isaac is the CEO of the American Energy Institute and previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.