President Donald Trump delivered a blunt two-word message to critics this week as debate continues over his administration’s newly signed framework agreement with Iran.

After days of criticism from opponents who simultaneously warned against military conflict with Iran while also attacking the administration’s diplomatic breakthrough, Trump took to Truth Social with a confident response that highlighted what he views as the early successes of his foreign policy strategy.

“You’re welcome.”

The president’s message came as administration officials continued defending the agreement and pushing back against widespread claims that the deal involves massive financial concessions to Tehran.

“OIL IS FLOWING, IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON (THE WORLD WILL BE SAFE!), THE STOCK MARKETS ARE ROARING, JOBS ARE AT RECORDS, AND PRICES ARE DROPPING (AFFORDABILITY!). OUR COUNTRY IS STRONG, SAFE, AND RESPECTED LIKE NEVER BEFORE. ‘YOU’RE WELCOME!’ President DJT,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

The post reflected the administration’s argument that the agreement represents a major strategic victory for the United States by achieving key national security objectives without committing American troops to another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Since the agreement was announced, administration officials have repeatedly sought to dispel rumors that the United States agreed to release frozen Iranian assets, provide direct payments, or immediately lift sanctions.

According to White House officials, none of those claims are true.

🚨 President Donald J. Trump has SIGNED the Iran Memorandum of Understanding at Versailles in France. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/JQ6qlbvFAF

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 17, 2026

Instead, the administration insists that any future economic relief will be entirely dependent on Iran complying with strict requirements regarding its nuclear program.

Vice President JD Vance reinforced that position during a White House briefing Thursday, where he fielded questions from reporters about the agreement and the administration’s expectations moving forward.

One reporter asked whether Iran’s leadership fully understands the leverage the United States possesses economically and militarily and whether that leverage will ultimately result in long-term behavioral changes from the Iranian regime.

“So, I certainly think they recognize the leverage that the United States has over them. We’ve seen that in a number of our conversations,” Vance responded.

“We’ve seen that just in their behavior over the last couple of days. They certainly recognize that the United States has great leverage. Will that ultimately lead to a change in behavior? I don’t know.”

The vice president acknowledged skepticism from critics who believe Iran cannot be trusted but argued that the structure of the agreement leaves the United States in a favorable position regardless of the outcome.

“You know, I’ve seen skeptics of the deal. People say the Iranians will never change their behavior. Well, maybe that’s true, and if so, they don’t get any of the benefits of the bargain. But isn’t it worth trying?” Vance asked.

“Isn’t it worth seeing whether this incredibly weakened position that the president of the United States has put the Iranians under, whether that motivates them to change their behavior, not just vis-a-vis the West, but vis-a-vis the Middle East?”

Vance also suggested that regional allies may offer the best indication of whether the agreement is likely to succeed.

“But I tend to think that you should trust the people who know the Iranians the best and who have the most to lose. What are the Gulf Arab states saying about this deal?” he said.

The vice president concluded by emphasizing what administration officials describe as a win-win framework for the United States.

“And if they change their behavior, big things are going to happen for Iran and for the world. If they don’t, no skin off our backs. Either way, we win. And that’s the way the president has set up this deal and this negotiation.”

Throughout the week, Vance has repeatedly rejected reports suggesting the agreement includes hundreds of billions of dollars in reconstruction funding or immediate sanctions relief.

According to administration officials, Iran must first permanently abandon any pursuit of nuclear weapons, eliminate enriched uranium stockpiles, and submit to extensive international inspections before any significant economic benefits can be considered.

Officials have also stated that future investment from Gulf nations could occur only after Tehran demonstrates full compliance with its obligations.

One of the most significant expected outcomes of the agreement is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes. The recent instability in the region created uncertainty in global energy markets and contributed to concerns about rising fuel prices and economic disruptions.

Supporters of the agreement argue that reopening the waterway, preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, maintaining economic pressure on Tehran, and avoiding military conflict collectively represent a major diplomatic achievement for the Trump administration.

While critics continue to debate the long-term prospects of the agreement, the White House maintains that President Trump has achieved exactly what he promised: applying maximum pressure on Iran while pursuing peace through strength rather than endless war.

For Trump, the message to his critics remains simple: the economy is growing, energy markets are stabilizing, America remains secure, and Iran remains under pressure. In his view, those results speak for themselves.

And his response to those who doubted the strategy was just two words long.

“You’re welcome.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing renewed scrutiny as questions continue to mount over his extensive use of so-called “behested payments,” a fundraising practice that critics argue has allowed powerful corporations, special interests, and wealthy donors to gain influence while operating outside traditional campaign finance rules.

The controversy comes as federal investigations involving both Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom continue to attract public attention, placing a spotlight on a fundraising system that has generated hundreds of millions of dollars during the governor’s political career.

At the center of the debate is a little-known California law that allows elected officials to solicit donations on behalf of charities, nonprofit organizations, government programs, and various public initiatives. These contributions, known as behested payments, are legal and are not considered campaign donations under state law.

However, critics argue that the system creates an enormous loophole that allows corporations and special interests with business before the state government to make large donations that may help build goodwill with elected officials.

According to California disclosure records, Newsom has reported more than $347 million in behested payments since 2011, a figure that dwarfs every other elected official in the state.

The number is particularly striking because it represents roughly 62 percent of all behested payments reported by California politicians over the last fifteen years.

State records show that California elected officials collectively directed approximately $556 million in behested contributions between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone was responsible for nearly two-thirds of that total.

The unprecedented scale of the fundraising has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum.

“There’s no question that Newsom has used this privilege far more frequently than other elected officials,” political strategist Dan Schnur told the Orange County Register.

To put the numbers in perspective, former California Governor Jerry Brown reportedly generated approximately $35 million in behested payments during his tenure—only a fraction of what Newsom has accumulated.

The issue has become even more politically sensitive because some of the donations were directed toward organizations associated with Newsom’s wife.

Records indicate that approximately $4.8 million in behested contributions flowed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

Critics argue that even if the donations were legal and used for legitimate charitable purposes, the arrangement creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Sean McMorris of California Common Cause has been among those raising concerns about the practice.

“The public is not stupid,” McMorris said. “There’s a reason why these politicians primarily reach out only to people, entities and special interests who typically have interests before them.”

McMorris also described behested payments as a system that is “ripe for abuse,” noting that politicians can direct substantial amounts of money without triggering many of the restrictions that apply to campaign contributions.

Additional questions have emerged because several major donors later received favorable state actions, contracts, or policy decisions.

Blue Shield reportedly donated $20 million to initiatives championed by Newsom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Months later, the company received a no-bid contract connected to California’s vaccine distribution efforts.

Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before later receiving a significant role within California’s Medi-Cal healthcare system.

Meanwhile, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria reportedly donated millions to organizations associated with Newsom and causes connected to his wife while benefiting from state decisions involving tribal gaming matters.

Critics acknowledge that proving a direct quid pro quo arrangement is often difficult. However, they argue that the larger concern is the appearance created when major donors with business before the government make substantial contributions tied to a sitting governor.

Assemblyman David Tangipa recently voiced those concerns.

“While something may be legal, we all know that it’s wrong,” Tangipa said.

The controversy arrives at a particularly challenging time for Newsom.

The governor recently acknowledged that both he and Jennifer Siebel Newsom are subjects of multiple federal investigations, although few details have been publicly released regarding the nature or scope of those inquiries.

In addition, Newsom recently agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine related to delayed disclosure filings involving certain behested payments.

Supporters of the governor argue that the funds have helped support worthwhile causes throughout California, including wildfire recovery efforts, healthcare programs, educational initiatives, workforce development projects, and disaster relief operations.

Critics, however, maintain that the destination of the money does not eliminate the ethical questions surrounding the process itself.

At the heart of the controversy is a simple question increasingly being asked by lawmakers, watchdog groups, and voters alike: Should elected officials be allowed to solicit unlimited donations from corporations, special interests, and organizations that have business before the government they oversee?

That question becomes even more significant, critics argue, when some of those donations ultimately benefit organizations connected to a politician’s family.

For years, behested payments remained a little-known feature of California politics. Today, they are emerging as a central issue in a broader debate over transparency, ethics, influence, and whether powerful political figures are operating under a different set of rules than the public they serve.

As scrutiny intensifies and federal investigations continue, the growing controversy surrounding Gavin Newsom’s fundraising practices is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama shared an unexpected story of heroism during a recent podcast appearance, revealing that she once saved a close friend from choking while dining out with her daughter, Malia Obama, and several younger companions.

The story emerged during an episode of *IMO*, the podcast Obama co-hosts with her brother, Craig Robinson. Guest Kevin Hart appeared on the program when the conversation turned to memorable life experiences and unexpected emergencies.

“I gave one of my girlfriends the Heimlich at dinner,” Obama recalled.

According to Obama, the incident occurred while she was dining with a longtime friend, her daughter Malia, and two of Malia’s friends. What began as a routine dinner quickly turned into a frightening medical emergency.

Michelle explained that she was already aware that her friend suffered from an esophageal condition that occasionally caused food to become lodged in her throat.

“We’re the same age, and you know, you start having swallowing problems. Things just stop,” Obama said.

“But [Michelle’s friend] had chewed her food; she had told me before that she had this esophageal issue where things will get stuck, so I knew that about her.”

The former first lady said her friend had finished eating and stood up from the table when the situation suddenly became serious.

“I think she coughed up something, and it got stuck in her throat. She was straining, and I said, ‘Are you OK?’” Obama recalled.

Recognizing the signs of choking, Obama immediately moved into action despite never having performed the Heimlich maneuver before.

“I had never done the Heimlich before, and it dislodged it. It just popped up right away,” she said.

The quick response apparently prevented what could have become a far more dangerous situation.

While Obama was praised for her calm reaction under pressure, she jokingly teased the younger members of the dinner party for failing to respond.

According to the former first lady, Malia and her friends largely froze as the emergency unfolded.

Michelle said the younger group “pushed away from the table” during the incident rather than stepping in to help.

Afterward, she confronted them about their lack of action.

“I looked at the kids, and I was like, ‘What were you all doing?’” Obama said.

“They were like, ‘You’re right, we were useless.’ They realized that that was a mother moment.”

Kevin Hart expressed admiration for Obama’s quick thinking and ability to react during a crisis.

“How good is your life to throw out a casual hero story of, yeah, I saved a life,” Hart said.

The story provided a lighter and more personal moment during a week in which the Obamas have remained in the public spotlight for other reasons.

Michelle and former President Barack Obama have been promoting the opening of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, a major project years in the making that is expected to become a centerpiece of the former president’s legacy.

At the same time, Michelle Obama found herself unexpectedly drawn into another national conversation following comments made during a UFC event attended by President Donald Trump.

During a post-fight interview, UFC fighter Josh Hokit made controversial remarks about the former first lady while celebrating a victory inside the Octagon. The comments generated widespread reactions online and quickly became a topic of discussion across social media and cable news.

Neither Michelle Obama nor Barack Obama has publicly responded to the remarks.

Instead, the former first lady has continued focusing on public appearances, media interviews, and promotion of the presidential center.

For many listeners, however, the most memorable moment from her recent podcast appearance was not political at all. It was the image of a former first lady calmly stepping into action during a medical emergency while younger members of the group stood frozen in shock.

The story offered a reminder that even for some of the most recognizable figures in America, unexpected moments can arise without warning—and sometimes the person who saves the day is simply the one willing to act when everyone else hesitates.