Ahead of the deadly shooting in Midtown Manhattan Monday, Donald Trump’s administration cut more than half of federal funding for gun violence prevention from the Justice Department, Reuters reported Tuesday.  

In April, the Trump administration terminated 69 of the 145 community violence intervention grants awarded through the DOJ, cutting a whopping $158 million in grants that previously totaled more than $300 million. 

The grants provided federal funding to community-based organizations, local governments, and universities working on evidence-based strategies to prevent violence. A DOJ official said that the grants had been among thousands currently under review, and had been terminated because they “no longer effectuate the program’s goals or agency’s priorities.”

The Biden-era White House Office for Gun Violence Prevention was also “dismantled on day one” of the Trump administration, according to its former director, Greg Jackson. 

The Trump administration’s efforts to shift funding and focus away from gun violence prevention is especially concerning given that shootings, and mass shootings, are known to surge in the warm summer months. 

In classic Trump style, the president responded to the deadly Monday night shooting in Manhattan with name calling. “I trust our Law Enforcement Agencies to get to the bottom of why this crazed lunatic committed such a senseless act of violence,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social. “My heart is with the families of the four people who were killed, including the NYPD Officer, who made the ultimate sacrifice. God Bless the New York Police Department, and God Bless New York!”

Other Republicans have issued their own weak responses, with Louisiana Senator John Kennedy winning the award for most idiotic comment of the day. 

The status of the U.S.-Vietnam trade deal allegedly reached four weeks ago remains uncertain, after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent admitted Tuesday that he hasn’t even seen it.

Trump announced a supposed agreement between the two countries in a July 2 post on Truth Social, claiming that Vietnam’s exports would be subject to a 20 percent tariff and its “transshipped” goods to a 40 percent tariff. In return, Trump said, the United States was getting “TOTAL ACCESS to [Vietnamese] Markets for Trade.”

The announcement, Politico would report days later, shocked Vietnamese negotiators, who thought they’d agreed to a rate of about 11 percent—which Trump reportedly scrapped and nearly doubled during a later phone call with Vietnam’s general secretary, who’d not been involved with initial negotiations.

Complicating the matter was the absence of “any paperwork indicating a final agreement that includes those tariff rates” and the fact that neither country “formally signed off on a deal.”

Accordingly, the day after the alleged agreement, CNBC asked Bessent about its status. He replied: “I haven’t spoken to [Trump trade representative] Jamieson Greer, who’s heading the team. My understanding is that it’s finalized in principle.”

To date, it remains unclear if it’s been finalized in any more meaningful way. Vietnam has yet to confirm the rates about which Trump boasted, leading CNBC to, once again, ask Bessent whether there is an agreement on paper.

Bessent’s answer on Tuesday was similar to the one he gave 26 days ago. “I didn’t work on that deal,” he said. “But I assume that we do.”

“You haven’t seen that paperwork?” CNBC’s Eamon Javers pressed.

“Ambassador Greer, who is a seasoned veteran with an encyclopedic memory and knowledge of all this, keeps all that,” Bessent replied, stumbling slightly over his words.

Bessent based his assumption that there’s a written and signed agreement on the trade deals reached with Indonesia and the Philippines. Notably, Indonesia contests some of Trump’s claims about its deal, and details about the Philippines deal remain scant beyond Trump’s Truth Social posts.

The trade-deal gray area is not just confined to Southeast Asia, as Trump’s approach to his negotiations and announcements has sown widespread confusion.

For instance, the Financial Times reported last week that officials in the U.S. and Japan have significant disagreements over the terms of their deal—which, despite being the “largest deal in history,” according to Trump, is not recorded on paper. In fact, no legally binding one is to be drawn up, the FT reports.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee was forced to clarify that it had not actually un-endorsed Florida Representative Randy Fine for his grotesque statements wishing starvation on Palestinians.

AIPAC responded Tuesday to a Times of Israel report claiming that the group appeared to have “dropped” its endorsement of Fine, after he went missing from the group’s database of pro-Israel candidates.

“This reporting is based on an unsourced speculative piece,” AIPAC wrote in a statement on X. “We will be endorsing candidates for the 2026 election throughout the cycle. Current endorsees for 2026 so far are listed on the AIPAC-PAC website.

“As Rep. Fine was elected only in April, consideration of his endorsement will take place later in the cycle, as is the case with many other freshmen members of Congress,” the statement continued.

It turns out that it was simply wishful thinking to believe that the pro-Israel action group would ever draw the line at cheerleading famine—or advocating for violence against protesters.

But AIPAC’s response doesn’t quite add up. It’s not clear why........

© New Republic