Authored by Owen Evans via The Epoch Times,
U.S. President Donald Trump renewed his threat of legal action against The New York Times on June 21, accusing the newspaper of publishing "treasonous" coverage that downplayed the impact of the nearly four-month war with Iran.
The New York Times Building in New York City on Feb. 5, 2024.Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times"I will be adding all of their false and ridiculous reporting to my multi Billion Dollar lawsuit against them. They are Criminals," Trump wrote in a June 21 post on Truth Social.
"The headline in the Corrupt and Failing New York Times: 'What Changed After Almost 4 Months of War? Analysts Say Not Much.' REALLY?" Trump wrote in a separate post.
"Their Military is DONE, their Navy is GONE, their Air Force is GONE, their Launching Pads, Missiles, Drones and Manufacturing of same, is almost GONE, their top two sets of Leaders are GONE, their Inflation is at 250%, their Economy is BROKEN, their Soldiers aren't being paid, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN, THE OIL IS GUSHING, and the U.S. Stock Market and Jobs are at record HIGHS," he added.
The Epoch Times contacted the NY Times for comment but did not hear back by publication time.
In another post, Trump included a screenshot of an X post from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who also criticized the NY Times.
"To say nothing has changed after Operations Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury is an insult to our men and women in uniform." Graham wrote in the post.
"To say nothing has changed denies the devastation to the Iranian economy created by the blockade and other economic pressures applied by President Trump.
"This analysis by the New York Times says more about their bias against President Trump than it does the undeniable facts about the state of play in Iran."
The NY Times piece published on June 21 said that "roughly 100 days later, as the United States and Iran have reached a somewhat vague memorandum of understanding to end the war, skeptics are expressing bafflement over what exactly has transformed."
"Neither the war nor the agreement ended what U.S. and Israeli officials regard as the main threats emanating from Iran. The country's nuclear program, while heavily damaged, was not eliminated - its fate punted to future negotiation," it added.
Prior Lawsuit
In September 2025, Trump filed the $15 billion lawsuit against the NY Times and its reporters, accusing the newspaper of defamation.
Trump filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Florida over articles and a book written by two NY Times reporters and published during the height of the 2024 election, alleging that they were crafted with "actual malice, calculated to inflict maximum damage" on him.
"Defendants maliciously published the book and the articles knowing that these publications were filled with repugnant distortions and fabrications about President Trump," the lawsuit reads.
A spokesperson for the NY Times at the time said the lawsuit "has no merit," calling it an attempt by the president to "stifle and discourage independent reporting."
"The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists' First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people," the spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email at the time.
Trump announced the lawsuit in a Truth Social post, saying that the NY Times had become "a virtual mouthpiece for the radical left Democrat Party" and cited its endorsement of then-Democratic presidential candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris.
"Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF," he said.
Aldgra Fredly contributed to this report.
Tyler Durden Mon, 06/22/2026 - 13:25The Keir Starmer experiment is officially over, as was growing increasingly clear over the weekend, especially with an interestingly-timed Trump Truth Social statement. Just under two years after capturing the keys to Number 10, the British Prime Minister has thrown in the towel after succumbing to an internal party mutiny following days of intense, closed-door speculation regarding his political survival.
Stepping up to the lectern outside Downing Street on Monday morning, a visibly defeated Starmer delivered the inevitable verdict to the press. "I will resign as leader of the Labour Party," Starmer announced.
“Burnham’s succession is looking more assured as one of the top potential rivals for the job, Wes Streeting, has said he would back Burnham. This makes it less likely any candidate will have to offer some policy red meat to the leftist MPs in the Labour party to win. As far as the markets are concerned, that is a good thing.”
— Simon White, Macro Strategist.
The Prime Minister confirmed he has instructed Labour's National Executive Committee to draw up a swift succession timetable. Leadership nominations will officially open on July 9, with the entire process scheduled to wrap up before the summer recess.
British mediai says that the aggressive timeline ensures a new Prime Minister will be installed well before Parliament reconvenes in September.
Starmer's abrupt (but not entirely 'a surprise') exit comes after his center-left Labour Party made it clear they no longer believed he could deliver a future electoral victory. He practically admitted as much on the steps of Number 10.
"The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election," Starmer confessed. "I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace."
Defending his short and tumultuous tenure, Starmer attempted to frame his departure as an act of ultimate patriotism rather than a capitulation to party infighting.
"Every decision I’ve taken has been about putting the country I love first. That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour party," he said, adding: "I have spoken to his majesty the king this morning to inform him of my decision."
The Prime Minister's resignation was directly catalyzed by last week's by-election victory of Andy Burnham in Makerfield. Burnham, the fiercely popular former Greater Manchester Mayor, has long loomed as the "King in the North" and the ultimate threat to Starmer's sterile brand - according to many - of leadership. By securing a seat in the House of Commons, Burnham effectively checked Starmer into a corner.
"New leader will be in place before Parliament returns in September, I will remain in post until the contest is complete"
Keir Starmer announces he will resign as UK prime minister and leader of the Labour Party
Follow live updates and reaction: https://t.co/8HkQf7O9cD pic.twitter.com/oyZPA5C6Yc
With Burnham holding immense sway among rank-and-file MPs, the writing was on the wall. He now enters the upcoming leadership contest as the overwhelming frontrunner to be Britain's next Prime Minister.
* * *
BREAKING: President Trump confirms Keir Starmer is resigning as Prime Minister… before Starmer has confirmed it himself. The final humiliation. pic.twitter.com/yz33xD4rPt
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) June 21, 2026 Tyler Durden Mon, 06/22/2026 - 13:03Authored by Catherine Salgado via PJMedia.com,
Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) emphasized to Congress the importance of passing the election integrity SAVE America Act and rejected woke arguments against voter ID as racist and condescending.
Democrats’ idiotic arguments against requiring ID to vote include claiming that black Americans are somehow mysteriously unable to get IDs. Aside from the obvious elitism and racial prejudice of such a claim, it is practically impossible to live in America and not have identification. They are required at doctor’s offices, airports, bars, liquor stores, car rentals, welfare programs, and many more places. But somehow expecting IDs at polling places is unreasonable?
Democrats claim requiring proof of citizenship to vote is racist and discriminatory.
I’ve been Black my entire life, and that’s one of the most insulting arguments I’ve ever heard.
✅ Black Americans can get IDs.
✅ Hispanic Americans can get IDs.
✅ Asian Americans can get… pic.twitter.com/x4HefeGKFE
Hunt sarcastically said, “I've been black for my entire life. I had to bring up the most racist thing I've ever heard [which] is the insinuation by Democrats that black and brown Americans are too stupid to get an ID to vote, just like everybody else.”
The congressman continued, “I call this the soft bigotry of low expectations. Figuring out how to vote in this country is a very low bar, and we could all figure it out regard of your race, religion, color, or creed, and we should all want free and fair elections.”
Except Democrats know they cannot win so many elections as they do without fraud, nor can they expand their control to new areas. They have no positive results to run on, no record of making any city or state more prosperous and more free. They need fraud to survive.
Hunt told Congress, “With me today — I'm not gonna pull mine out this time, but I have six forms of government-issued ID. How did I acquire that? Personal responsibility in this country. I've also heard a lot about Jim Crow here today. I'm here to tell you, Jim Crow is over, and I know it because my parents grew up in it.”
Democrats were the party of Jim Crow, ironically. But now they scream “racism” whenever anyone points out that they are pushing an awful policy.
Democrats cheapen and exploit the suffering their predecessors caused for political reasons.
As Hunt said, “And I think it's actually insulting to those that actually experienced the ills of Jim Crow” to compare getting an ID to that era.
“Having an ID to vote in our national election should be a requirement, which is why I stand [here] today, urging my colleagues on the left to support this bill. If you want secure elections, if you want your vote to count, vote for the Save Act.”
Unfortunately, that’s precisely what Democrats don’t want.
This debate was never about IDs, or about black Americans’ access to IDs, or about constitutionality.
It was always about one political party believing in our Republic’s system of elections, and the other party hating our Republic’s system of government and believing they should decide who our leaders are instead of We the People.
Tyler Durden Mon, 06/22/2026 - 12:45