President Donald Trump has confirmed reports that he engaged in a tense phone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding Israel’s ongoing military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, offering one of the clearest indications yet of disagreements between the two longtime allies over how the conflict should be handled.

During an interview with New York Post columnist Miranda Devine, Trump acknowledged that he had become increasingly frustrated by the continued fighting and personally pressed Netanyahu to de-escalate the situation before it spiraled into a wider regional conflict.

“I was a little bit perturbed at his constantly fighting with Lebanon. At some point I said ‘Bibi, we gotta stop this. We gotta stop it,’” Trump said.

While Trump did not repeat other reported remarks during the interview, he confirmed that tensions had emerged between the two leaders as violence continued along Israel’s northern border. The conflict has become a growing concern for U.S. officials, who have been attempting to prevent further escalation involving Iran-backed groups throughout the Middle East.

Following the conversation, the United States helped facilitate a partial ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, the powerful Iran-backed terrorist organization operating in Lebanon. The ceasefire was viewed as an important step toward reducing hostilities, but the agreement quickly came under strain as Israeli officials accused Hezbollah of violating its terms.

As concerns mounted over the fragile truce, Israel issued fresh warnings to residents in southern Lebanon on Wednesday, urging civilians to evacuate certain areas. Israeli officials said the Israel Defense Forces were preparing additional military operations in response to what they described as continued Hezbollah aggression and security threats.

The growing instability has also complicated diplomatic efforts involving Iran. According to reports, Iranian officials suspended communications with U.S. negotiators, citing Israeli military actions in Lebanon as a major factor behind the breakdown in talks. The development raised new concerns about the potential for broader regional conflict involving multiple countries and armed groups.

Trump’s comments came shortly after an Axios report described an especially heated exchange between the American president and Netanyahu. According to the report, Trump warned the Israeli leader, “You’re f—— crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me.”

The reported remark quickly generated headlines and underscored the seriousness of the disagreement between the two leaders, who have generally maintained a close relationship throughout their years in public office.

Meanwhile, tensions elsewhere in the region continued to intensify. Kuwait issued a strong condemnation following a series of Iranian missile and drone attacks that officials said targeted civilian infrastructure inside the country.

In a statement posted by Kuwait’s foreign ministry, government officials denounced the attacks in unusually forceful language.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs expresses the State of Kuwait’s condemnation and denunciation, in the strongest terms, of the brutal and ongoing Iranian attacks using ballistic missiles and drones, the latest of which occurred at dawn today, targeting once again civilian and vital facilities, including Kuwait International Airport, resulting in the death of one individual, injuries to others, and damage to vital facilities, including diplomatic missions,” part of the statement declared, according to a translation of the Arabic-language post on X.

Kuwait’s Ministry of Defense later reported that a building at Kuwait International Airport sustained damage during the attacks and that multiple individuals were injured. The update was released through an official statement from the Kuwait Army General Staff Headquarters.

The rapidly developing events highlight the increasingly volatile security situation across the Middle East. Ongoing fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, deteriorating diplomatic talks involving Iran, and expanding attacks on civilian infrastructure have all contributed to growing concerns about regional stability.

Trump’s disagreement with Netanyahu represents one of the most public signs of friction between the two leaders in recent years and reflects the challenges facing the administration as it attempts to prevent the conflict from expanding into a broader regional war.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune is finding himself in an increasingly difficult position as President Donald Trump’s controversial “Anti-Weaponization Fund” faces mounting legal challenges and growing skepticism from members of his own party.

The South Dakota Republican declined to declare victory Monday after the Department of Justice announced it would comply with a federal court order temporarily blocking payouts from the fund until at least June 12. The decision followed a surprise ruling by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who reopened litigation connected to Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns.

While the Justice Department’s announcement appeared to signal a retreat, Thune suggested many Senate Republicans remain unconvinced that the controversy has been resolved.

“The way the statement is worded, I think it’s clear that they’re not proceeding with the fund, but obviously whether that’s sufficient to satisfy a number of our members is something we’re still sorting through,” Thune said.

However, it was a separate exchange that quickly grabbed attention.

When reporters asked whether he was concerned Trump might veto a broader funding package if Congress moved to prohibit the fund entirely, Thune responded with a short but pointed reply.

“Oh yeah, don’t you?”

The comment immediately sparked criticism from some conservatives who interpreted the response as dismissive or mocking toward the president at a particularly sensitive moment for Republicans.

The dispute comes as GOP leaders attempt to keep their conference united while negotiating a massive $70 billion immigration enforcement funding package. Democrats could attempt to force amendment votes targeting the Anti-Weaponization Fund, potentially putting Republicans in the uncomfortable position of choosing between supporting Trump’s priorities and avoiding a politically damaging battle ahead of the midterm elections.

Even some of Trump’s strongest Senate allies have signaled dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of the issue.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley argued that the White House needs to provide a much clearer answer.

“It’s pretty clear that the President has to say very explicitly that there’s not going to be a weaponization fund,” Grassley said.

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy was equally blunt while describing the broader funding negotiations.

“The reconciliation bill looks like a broken arm with the bones sticking out,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy also dismissed suggestions that the Justice Department’s promise to follow the court order should end the controversy.

“Saying you’re going to follow a court order doesn’t tell me anything. You have to follow the court order.”

Last week, Judge Brinkema ordered the administration to halt any efforts to establish or operate the fund pending a June 12 hearing. In response, the Justice Department said it “disagrees strongly” with the ruling but would nevertheless comply.

The department defended the fund, arguing it was created to compensate Americans who were unfairly targeted by government actions.

According to the DOJ, the program was intended to address “the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people” and would be open to anyone who believed they had been subjected to government weaponization or political persecution, regardless of political affiliation.

Despite that defense, reports indicate the administration may now abandon the initiative altogether. One source familiar with the situation told Axios that the fund is “dead for now.”

Still, ending the fund may not fully eliminate the controversy. Critics argue the settlement included another significant provision reportedly granting Trump, his sons, and Trump-affiliated businesses protection from future IRS audits. Whether those protections would remain in place if the fund is terminated remains unclear.

The White House referred questions about the matter to the Justice Department.

The $1.776 billion fund originated from a settlement connected to Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS after a former government contractor leaked his confidential tax returns. The administration has maintained that the money was intended to compensate victims of government “weaponization” and “lawfare,” phrases Trump has frequently used to describe what he believes was politically motivated targeting of conservatives.

Opponents, however, argue the fund lacks congressional authorization, sufficient oversight, and a clear legal foundation. Several lawsuits have challenged the arrangement, including legal actions brought by government watchdog organizations and law enforcement officers involved in the January 6 Capitol riot response.

For now, Thune remains caught in the middle of a growing political storm. Democrats see an opportunity to deepen divisions within the Republican conference, while many conservatives continue demanding a more definitive answer from the Trump administration. As legal challenges continue and tensions rise on Capitol Hill, the Senate majority leader is left trying to prevent a controversial funding dispute from becoming an even larger headache for Republicans.

Christine Drazan, the former Oregon House Minority Leader, secured victory Tuesday in Oregon’s Republican gubernatorial primary, emerging from a crowded field as Republicans look to reclaim the governor’s office in a state Democrats have controlled for nearly 40 years.

The Republican primary featured several notable candidates, including former Portland Trail Blazers player and businessman Chris Dudley, state Rep. Ed Diehl, and Marion County Commissioner Danielle Bethell.

Drazan entered the race with strong statewide recognition following her narrow defeat to Democratic Governor Tina Kotek in the 2022 gubernatorial election.

Throughout the campaign, candidates focused heavily on issues such as homelessness, public safety, drug policy, and the rising cost of living. Republicans argued that Democratic leadership in Salem and Portland has failed to effectively address these growing concerns.

Diehl centered his campaign on lowering taxes and cutting government spending, while Bethell emphasized homelessness, public safety, and government accountability.

Dudley, a former NBA player and political newcomer, campaigned as an outsider with backing from prominent Oregon business leaders, including Nike co-founder Phil Knight.

Republicans believe mounting voter frustration over crime, homelessness, and affordability could make Oregon’s upcoming gubernatorial race more competitive than in previous years. Drazan is now set to face incumbent Governor Tina Kotek in November, according to Fox News.

Kotek has faced criticism over the state’s homelessness crisis, including increases in the unsheltered population, struggles to expand housing capacity, and concerns surrounding education and transportation funding. Despite the criticism, she faced little opposition in her bid for a second term.

Meanwhile, Republican candidates endorsed by President Donald Trump continue to notch primary victories across the country, often defeating incumbents who either opposed Trump or declined to fully support his agenda.

Among the most notable defeats was Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who lost his Tuesday primary to former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein.

The developments come as Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said Republicans could potentially outspend Democrats during this election cycle, reversing a long-standing Democratic fundraising advantage.

Speaking with Breitbart, Gruters argued that Republicans are entering the midterm cycle with stronger financial footing and greater coordination across the conservative movement.

Host Mike Slater asked Gruters to put the reported $70 million Democrats spent during Virginia’s recent redistricting battle into perspective.

“How much money is that for the parties?” Slater asked.

Gruters responded, “The DNC has minus 4 million [dollars], and it wasn’t the DNC that plowed $70 million: It was the collective.”

“So, if you look at the collective on the right, we may have $800 million,” he continued.

“The collective on the left may have $350 million, and when you have the court, there’s gonna be a court case that is ruled on in the next week or two, coordinated campaign limits, which will magnify that, which will allow full coordination and allow the parties to spend at the candidate rate, which is massive for us,” he said.

Gruters argued the current financial environment could represent a major shift from previous election cycles.

“When you have that financial advantage, people, you know, people don’t know that the Democrats routinely spend more than us on election cycles, because they have more massive donors and that will write massive checks,” he said.

“But this time, this cycle [we] will either spend a parity or will outspend them, and that’s never happened before,” he added.

According to Gruters, the Republican National Committee is currently in a much stronger financial position than the Democratic National Committee.

He stated that the RNC currently has “about $125 million” available, while describing the DNC as operating with negative cash reserves.