Yet another Republican lawmaker has condemned President Donald Trump's son for allowing a Russian oligarch to contribute a quarter of a million dollars to his Bahamas wedding blowout.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) spoke out against Don Trump Jr. during an interview on "Face the Nation" Sunday morning.

"Anytime someone gives a $250,000 gift, and they have ties to the Kremlin, that's wrong," Cassidy said. "With that proximity to power, being the president's son, you've got to give faith to the American people that Washington is not a swamp."

Cassidy was responding to the bombshell ProPublica report on Trump Jr.'s lavish, three-day wedding party on a pair of exclusive private islands, which appears to have been "heavily funded" by Umar Kremlev, the International Boxing Association chief with close ties to President Vladimir Putin.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have since launched an investigation and even Trump has tried to backtrack, claiming his son paid the oligarch back.

On Sunday, Cassidy expressed relief on the latter point — but suggested he wasn't 100 percent convinced it was true.

"It would be nice to have that kind of verified," said Cassidy. "And no, it shouldn't have been done in the first place."

The Republican senator addressed Trump Jr. directly as he explained his logic.

"Even though in your mind it might be a gift," Cassidy said, "the appearance of it is really bad!"

Other Republican lawmakers who have heaped scorn on Trump Jr. include Sen. John Curtis (R-UT), who in a video address to his constituents, said he was outraged.

"It just stinks," Curtis said. "It's corruption, I don't like it.... this is a big deal."

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) agreed, telling Washington Sun reporter Igor Bobic he felt the gift was "beyond bad."

“Don Jr. is worth somewhere between 300 million and 400 million dollars," Tillis reportedly said. "Unless he has a cash flow problem, why on earth would you accept money from a Russian oligarch who's actually gone on delegation meetings with Xi Jinping in China?”

White House chief economist Kevin Hassett faced rare pushback from Fox News’ Peter Doocy on Sunday after attempting to dismiss the growing economic anxiety among Americans.

According to polling cited by Doocy, only 23% of American voters describe the economy as “excellent or good,” only 12% describe their financial situation as “getting ahead,” and 62% believe grocery prices are a “major problem for their family.”

“I want to know which of these things sets off alarm bells inside the West Wing,” Doocy said. “Do any of those make you think, 'we've got a problem here?'”

Rather than address the underlying data, Hassett pivoted to discredit the polls themselves, claiming the findings were inaccurate “because [Democrats] hate President [Donald] Trump” and that the “far-left media” promotes inaccurate polls to damage the Trump administration's reputation.

“Look, I'm the White House economist, and all I can say is that polls, over and over again, uh, harm, uh, impressions about the economy because they poll way too many Democrats,” Hassett said. “It's a really strong economy, and rather than talk about the strong economy, people want to talk about these silly polls.”

Smiling, Doocy pushed back on Hassett’s outright dismissal of Americans' financial anxieties.

“No far-left media here, Kevin! It's the polls!” Doocy said. “Look, bringing drug prices down? Great! Very high DOW? Great! But would you admit, when you walk out of the White House, you ask anybody, somebody from in town, somebody from out of town, they would say that they think stuff is too expensive. Would you agree with that?”

Cornered, Hassett conceded that goods were too expensive, but immediately shifted blame away from Trump.

“Well, sure, we had 20% inflation under Joe Biden... Prices are higher because of the huge inflation that we inherited from Joe Biden, but inflation is way down over the last three months!” Hassett said as Fox News queued up a brutal splitscreen showing a gallon of diesel fuel being listed at $6.59, eight cents above the national average, which as of Sunday sat at an all-time high.

Hassett’s claim about inflation under the previous administration is false, with inflation peaking under the Biden administration at 9.1% in June 2022, and is a likely reference to cumulative price increases from 2021 to 2025, which rose around 21.5%.

Inflation was down over the past three months when using Hassett’s method of annualizing the data, but has increased when using the conventional 12-month inflation rate.

On Saturday morning, journalists arrived at the White House to do something reporters have done for generations: cover the president of the United States.

Some of them weren't allowed in.

CNN senior White House reporter Betsy Klein was turned away and her press credential deactivated. MS NOW correspondent Akayla Gardner was denied entry and had her badge confiscated. Politico White House reporter Cheyenne Haslett was also turned away and had her pass taken.

The day before, President Donald Trump had announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be banned from the White House, accusing the organizations of reporting "fake news."

As a journalist, I find what happened Saturday deeply troubling.

But as the editor-in-chief of Raw Story, I also believe it is important to explain why this matters — including to people who don't watch CNN or MS NOW, read Politico or agree with the coverage produced by any of these organizations.

Freedom of the press isn't a privilege reserved for journalists whose reporting the government likes.

In fact, that's when the principle matters least.

The real test comes when journalists publish stories that anger powerful people.

Presidents have every right to criticize news coverage. They can dispute stories. They can call reporters unfair. They can provide evidence they believe proves journalists wrong. And journalists, like everyone else, can make mistakes and should correct them when they do.

But government access cannot become a reward for favorable coverage.

Because once that line is crossed, the question facing a reporter changes.

They should be asking: Is this true? Is this important? Do our readers need to know this?

Instead, the question becomes: If we publish this, will we still be allowed in the room tomorrow?

That is a question no journalist should have to consider.

This is why independent media matters

At Raw Story, we spend every day reporting on people and institutions with enormous power.

Our reporters dig through court records and campaign finance disclosures. They investigate political organizations and the money behind them. They talk to sources. They attend hearings. They ask questions politicians would sometimes rather not answer.

Sometimes our reporting makes people angry.

That's part of the job.

Our obligation isn't to make the people we cover comfortable. It is to pursue facts, verify them and give our readers the information they need to understand what their government and other powerful institutions are doing.

That principle doesn't change depending on who occupies the White House.

And it shouldn't.

There is another kind of independence

There's something else I want Raw Story readers to understand.

Editorial independence also depends on financial independence.

Investigative reporting is expensive. Experienced journalists are expensive. Sending reporters into the field, fighting for public records, reviewing thousands of pages of documents and giving journalists the time to uncover stories that may take weeks or months all cost money.

Independent news organizations don't have unlimited resources.

We have something more valuable: readers who believe this work matters.

Raw Story has been publishing independent journalism for more than two decades. We've survived enormous changes to the media industry because readers have continued to show up.

They read us.

They share our reporting.

They subscribe.

And they donate.

That support means the people we cover don't get to decide whether Raw Story survives.

Our readers do.

We're going to keep reporting

I don't know where the dispute over White House access goes from here. The affected news organizations have said they intend to defend their First Amendment rights, and legal challenges may follow.

But I know what Raw Story will do.

We'll keep reporting.

We'll keep investigating.

We'll keep asking questions.

We'll correct ourselves when we get something wrong, and we won't change accurate reporting simply because someone powerful doesn't like it.

Because journalism that requires the approval of the government isn't independent journalism.

And right now, independent journalism needs people willing to stand behind it.

If you value a press that answers to its readers rather than the people it covers, I hope you'll stand with us.

Support Raw Story's independent journalism today.