Once again, the liberal ladies of The View have proven that they were more interested in pushing anti-Trump hysteria than engaging in honest political discourse. On Thursday’s show, the ABC daytime panel went beyond their usual whining and delved headfirst into conspiracy theory territory, suggesting that President Trump’s statements about the success of the U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, and calling out CNN for false reporting, was evidence that he wants to impose state-run media, like China and Russia. Yes, seriously.     Sunny Hostin actually claimed that Trump’s insistence on the success of the June 22 precision strikes against Iranian nuclear sites was an “attack on the free press” and reflected his preference for “state-sponsored television” like in communist China and Russia. This wasn't just an opinion, its reckless rhetoric being framed as facts, comparing the President of the United States to authoritarian despots because he stood by a military mission deemed successful by both the Pentagon and international organizations. Let’s be clear. The June 22 strike, ordered by President Trump, targeted Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency and the United Nations’ own IAEA reports, the strikes achieved their objective, which was to shut down Iran’s centrifuges at Fordow and completely destroy their plans of developing a nuclear weapon. This wasn't a political spin. It's a well-documented reality that Hostin ignored despite the show putting off stating their opinions until more information was released. But despite that, the women of The View couldn’t resist the urge to twist the narrative. Joy Behar demanded to know why Trump had to say he obliterated the Iranian facilities, as if presidential confidence in a successful military operation was somehow a cardinal sin. “Why does he have to come out and say he obliterated?! Why does he do that?!” she exclaimed. “And why do they let him do that?” The panel then spiraled into a familiar chorus of partisan griping. Ana Navarro derided Trump’s cabinet as unqualified loyalists. Sara Haines and Navarro mocked the administration for repeating the word “obliterate,” with Navarro condescendingly suggesting the White House needs a thesaurus. What they refused to acknowledge was that the operation was not only successful but also strategically sound. China and Russia, two of Iran’s traditional allies, remained silent. We avoided a larger conflict. There were no civilian casualties. And yes, Iran’s nuclear facilities are, by all meaningful measures, offline. Rather than engage with this outcome, the hosts chose to spin it into a media suppression narrative. Navarro, Hostin, and Behar accused Trump of trying to distract from supposedly contradicting intelligence reports, despite those reports being discredited by the Department of Defense as low-confidence, early-stage assessments leaked without authorization. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the now-leaked document had been dismissed internally due to its incomplete and unverified data. But in today’s media ecosystem, facts don’t matter if they don’t support the desired narrative. In the most irresponsible moment of the segment, Sunny Hostin went as far as equating Trump’s trust in U.S. intelligence and defense briefings with communist propaganda:  I think he is much more comfortable… with state-sponsored television… like Russia… China. You can't trust what you're hearing. This kind of accusation, that a president was seeking to destroy the free press simply because he refused to bend to the narrative of the left, was not just outrageous, it’s fear-mongering. And it’s precisely the kind of talk that erodes public trust and patriotism. By comparing Trump to brutal authoritarian regimes because he insists on defending a successful military action, Hostin and her co-hosts are not defending free speech, they were weaponizing it. In doing so, The View has become a platform for propaganda, not discussion.   The entire transcript is below. Click "expand" to read. ABC’s The View June 26, 2025 11:05:00 AM EST ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: 79 percent of Americans agree that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon. There’s obviously debate over these strikes, many people oppose the strikes. But I would say this; if they were successful, that is the most likely outcome to keep us from getting into a bigger war with Iran. China's sitting this out. Russia is sitting this out. We as of now are not on the cusp of World War III, and I would encourage people to walk that language back. And today, The International Atomic Energy Agency, which is housed by the United Nations, said that “the Iranian centrifuges at Fordow are no longer operational.” I’ve talked to a number of military experts from the Obama administration and the first Trump administration, who believe that these strikes were profoundly successful. But I’ll say this, I've been in the Pentagon press briefing room and briefed at that podium, and we had a rule of thumb: initial reports are often inaccurate. The fog of war is a real thing. It takes a while to get assessments and while I think this DIA report was accurate at the time, I don't think it’s gonna stand. I think we're gonna hear from Israeli intelligence, European intelligence and our other 18 intelligence agencies. JOY BEHAR: Why does he have to come out and say he obliterated?! Why does he do that?! GRIFFIN: He’s a politician–   [CROSS TALK] GRIFFIN: And he’s Trump. Have you met Donald Trump? BEHAR: And why do they let him do that? GRIFFIN: I don’t think anyone controls what he says. But I would point to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Caine who briefed today. And he was much more measured, he described the the operation, explained why it was successful, and praised our brave U.S. troops who carried this out. ANA NAVARRO: But when you say, “why do they”, who are you talking about who are “they”? BEHAR: The Republican Congress, his cabinet, people around him. NAVARRO: Because they let him– SARA HAINES: You’re waiting on the Republican Congress– NAVARRO: They let him do everything. BEHAR: I'm not saying they've done it or I'm hopeful– HAINES: For much lesser things they have not done it– BEHAR: I’m just– I– would– I’m praying they would. NAVARRO: I think the point– when you ask that question, the point is that if– it really highlights the difference between Trump's first term and Trump's second term. In Trump’s first term he had a General Mathis, you know, running DOD. He had a General Kelly at the Department of Homeland Security and then as his Chief of Staff. Today, he's got Pete Hegseth, a weakened Fox News host, whose biggest qualification to be Department of Defense Secretary is that he is a big suck-up to Donald Trump. And so then they all go out there and use the same exact language, right? They all use the word “obliterate”. I want to give them a thesaurus at least, because it was a drinking game and the word was “obliterate”, we'd all be dead of alcohol poisoning. They– They sound like trained parrots. [APPLAUSE] NAVARRO: Whenever– Whenever you see Trump picking a fight the way he's doing with CNN and MSNBC, my God, they're even berating Jennifer Griffin from Fox News. Whenever he's picking a fight with AOC– as he was doing from Air Force One– he's trying to distract so he's trying to pick that fight so that we talk about him trying to squash the free press asking legitimate questions, because we have been here before where presidents have exaggerated and lied. May I remind you, weapons of mass destruction. He's picking a fight to distract us from what these intelligence reports are saying and what is a legitimate debate and questions. BEHAR: From a Big Beautiful Bill that nobody likes– HOSTIN: I think its part distract– distraction, of course, but I think it's much more insidious than that. I think it really is an attack on the free press. I think he is much more comfortable like many dictators and many authoritarians with state-sponsored television. When you go to a place like Russia, and I've actually been to Russia, you watch television, you watch television in mainland China, you can't trust what you're hearing. And I think he is much more comfortable in that kind of space. And the other thing that I will say is, you know, the majority of Americans disapprove of the U.S. strikes and I agree with you, Joy, that one wants nuclear war, but we have, Russia has nuclear arms, the United States has nuclear arms, Pakistan, India– NAVARRO: Israel– HOSTIN: Israel. The only country that has actually used a nuclear weapon is the United States of America against Japan and so– BEHAR: But over the past many years– HOSTIN: But let me just also say this; and so, many international lawyers would argue that a U.S. military attack on Iran, under the present circumstances, would violate international law, and that is really my concern. BEHAR: I don’t trust Iran to not use it. (…)

Just weeks into President Donald Trump's second term, the S&P 500 — which had risen over 20% in the previous two years — rocketed to record highs, driven up in part by a substantive increase in corporate earnings as well as the "Trump bump."After marking its all-time high of 6,144.15 on Feb. 19, the index soon began to slide, prompting anxiety among some investors and doom-saying from various analysts, especially over the potential impact of the president's tariff proposals. For instance, Andrew Brenner, head of international fixed income at National Alliance Securities, told the New York Times a month ahead of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcements, "The tariff rhetoric has become daily and extreme, sentiment is awful and trading is on edge."In the days immediately following Trump's April 2 announcements, the S&P 500 had its worst day since COVID-19 crashed the economy in 2020, then shed many trillions in market value, prompting more of the concerns and shirt-rending that would become customary over subsequent weeks. After months of doom and gloom, the S&P 500 hit a new record on Friday, marking a stunning comeback from April. At market open, the S&P 500 went north of 6,154.79.CNBC suggested that the comeback — what Bloomberg indicated is "shooting toward the second-biggest percentage-point recovery in history" — was driven in part by strong corporate earnings, a stable labor market, and new energy in the AI trade. It certainly doesn't hurt that trepidation over tariffs has largely given way to optimism over Trump's trade deals.The possibility that Trump might not ultimately implement his Liberation Day tariffs may also have been factored into investors' optimism. After all, the rise came on the heels of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt noting that Trump's July tariff deal deadline "is not critical" and "could be extended."There's also the matter of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's recent revelations to Bloomberg News that the U.S. and China finalized its trade deal this week and that the Trump administration has imminent plans to reach trade deals with 10 other major trading partners. "We're going to do top 10 deals, put them in the right category, and then these other countries will fit behind," said Lutnick.RELATED: Trump’s tariffs take a flamethrower to the free trade lie Photo by Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images"The markets are looking forward, seeing lower interest rates, less regulation in the banking sector, a shift from austerity to stimulus in Europe, and a less biting inflation and tariff environment," Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group, told CNBC. "This sure isn’t the stagflation story we've been told to brace for."Paul Stanley, chief investment officer at Granite Bay Wealth Management, said to CNN regarding the S&P 500's $9.8 trillion roundtrip, "The market is betting on continued progress on trade and a de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East is giving investors confidence."Entrepreneur and business expert Carol Roth told Blaze News that "it's important to remember that the market is not the economy, and that other factors, including the Federal Reserve and government policy, have impacted the market, particularly over the last couple of decades.""The president's heavy-handed approach to tariffs was not expected by the market, but as there had been more certainty gained regarding tariff policy and a belief that further de-escalation is more likely than escalation, the market has moved past that hurdle," explained Roth. "In recent days, commentary from Fed members that suggests a Fed rate cut may be on the table for July has supported risk assets."Roth noted, however, that "any long-tail effects from tariffs that show up later in the year, or challenges that arise from financing/refinancing our massive debt and deficit could shift the outlook and impact market returns."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered bad news to meddlesome federal judges on Friday in the case regarding the administration's implementation and enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship."A number of individuals, organizations, and states took the Trump administration to court over the order, which made it U.S. policy not to issue citizenship documents to a person whose mother was unlawfully in the country and whose father was neither an American citizen nor a permanent resident at the time of the person's birth. While the court punted on whether Trump's order was constitutional, it ruled 6-3 that the universal injunctions that U.S. district courts in each case hit the administration with, blocking implementation, "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."The high court granted the Trump administration's application for a partial stay of the injunctions, "but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."This is a developing story.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

*WINK WINK*: Far Be It for Us to Spread Gossip BUUUT This Saucy Lil' Nugget About Chris Murphy Is a DOOZY

Wow, She IS the WORST! Jennifer Griffin Can't Go 24 Hours Without Proving Pete Hegseth Right About Her

BREAKING: Judiciary Tyranny Loses! Supreme Court Rules Against Universal Injunctions (LAWSPLAINING)

Big: Supreme Court Rules on Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Cases

Watch: CNN Wheels Out Adam Kinzinger to Trash Trump's Iran Strike and Hoo-Boy Was It Hilarious

After having been expected to launch in May, DeepSeek R2 still isn't here. DeepSeek R1 went viral in early 2025, and there was an expectation that R2 would bring major improvements and even lower costs. DeepSeek R1 stunned the world and tanked the US stock market because its performance was similar to ChatGPT o1, but it was far cheaper to train and run. DeepSeek didn’t have access to the same hardware as US AI firms, like the newest Nvidia chips. Instead, it used whatever AI chips it could buy, legally or through the black market, and relied on software optimizations to train a reasoning model as powerful as what ChatGPT could offer. At the time, I pointed out that high-end hardware would still be needed to train frontier AI models, even if other AI firms adopted DeepSeek’s software optimizations. These companies would also need to invest heavily in data centers to ensure their services could serve millions of users without issues. It turns out access to advanced hardware is one reason DeepSeek isn’t able to ship the R2 reasoning model. Continue reading... The post What happened to DeepSeek’s revolutionary R2 AI? appeared first on BGR.

The United States and China have finalized a trade truce reached last month in Geneva, Switzerland, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.