Back in January, when he was having a fight with Fox News, Donald Trump skipped out on a Fox News–sponsored presidential debate and held his own rally and fundraiser for charities dedicated to military veterans. "We just cracked $6 million! Right? $6 million," he said at the Iowa event. And "Donald Trump gave $1 million." That wasn't true until Monday night, David A. Fahrenthold says at The Washington Post, after Fahrenthold had taken to Twitter to try to ascertain how many veterans' charities had received any money from Trump.

On Monday night, Trump called the home of James Kallstrom, chairman of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, and pledged $1 million, according to Kallstrom's wife. When Fahernthold asked Trump over the phone on Tuesday why it took him four months to follow through on his pledge, Trump said, "You have a lot of vetting to do." Fahrenthold suggested that perhaps Trump had only taken action because reporters were asking him about his pledge, and Trump shot back: "You know, you're a nasty guy. You're really a nasty guy. I gave out millions of dollars that I had no obligation to do." Trump also said that the fundraiser had rounded up about $5.5 million total, and that, despite the assertion of campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, no major pledgees had dropped out, though "some of them came through very late."

Trump said he would have his staff send The Washington Post a list of groups that received the donations, but hadn't as of Tuesday night. Veterans' groups have been trying to figure out how to apply for some of the remaining millions, since there is no application process. But at least one group has been contacted since Monday, the Boston Wounded Vet Bike Run, founded by Andrew Biggio. Biggio told The Post that a Trump campaign worker had called him out of the blue on Tuesday to ask for the nonprofit's phone number, and that he hadn't applied for any of the money. However, he did suggest how he got on Trump's radar: "I served in Iraq with Donald Trump's bodyguard's son." You can read more at The Washington Post. Peter Weber

More than nine months after the killing of George Floyd, the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is getting underway, though with a delay in jury selection.

Chauvin, the police officer who kneeled on Floyd's neck for over eight minutes while he said that he couldn't breathe, is facing charges of second-degree unintentional murder and second-degree manslaughter. Jury selection in his trial was set to begin on Monday, but was delayed until Tuesday, CNN reports.

The delay came after an appeals court ordered Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill to reconsider his dismissal of a third-degree murder charge against Chauvin, with prosecutors saying they'll file an appeal to "halt the selection process until the charges are set," NPR writes. The jury selection process was called off for the day on Monday pending a ruling on whether an appeals court will issue a stay in the case, The Washington Post reports.

After Floyd's death was captured on video and sparked nationwide protests last summer, former top prosecutor Susan Gaertner told The New York Times it's "going to be extremely difficult to pick a jury," noting that "there have been few incidents in our state that have had as much impact on the community," and it's "hard to imagine finding a juror who is enough of a blank slate to really give both sides a fair hearing."

But former chief Hennepin County public defender Mary Moriarty explained to CNN that the aim won't be to find jurors who don't know about Floyd's killing, but rather to ask, "No matter what a potential juror has seen or heard, can they set that aside and base their decision on evidence in court and the law the judge gives them?"

According to CNN, the jury selection process is expected to last around three weeks, with opening statements beginning "no earlier than March 29." Brendan Morrow

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has unveiled guidelines explaining which activities are safe for Americans who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 to resume.

The CDC on Monday released interim recommendations explaining that those who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 can visit with others who have been fully vaccinated "indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing." A person would be fully vaccinated two weeks after they've received a second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or two weeks after receiving one dose of Johnson & Johnson's vaccine.

Additionally, fully vaccinated people can "visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing," the CDC said. As an example, CDC director Rochelle Walensky said in a briefing that "if grandparents have been vaccinated, they can visit their daughter and her family, even if they have not been vaccinated, so long as the daughter and her family are not at risk for severe disease."

The CDC also said that those who have been fully vaccinated can refrain from quarantining and getting tested should they become exposed to COVID-19 and not have any symptoms.

However, the CDC said that fully vaccinated people should still continue to practice social distancing and wear masks in public, and they should also avoid medium or large gatherings. Plus, fully vaccinated people should still wear masks and practice social distancing around unvaccinated people at high risk for COVID-19.

Walensky called these guidelines an "important first step in our efforts to resume everyday activities," while warning there's still a "small risk" vaccinated people "could become infected with milder or asymptomatic disease and potentially even transmit the virus to others who are not vaccinated." Brendan Morrow

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) announced Monday that he won't be seeking re-election in 2022, meaning yet another Senate seat will be without an incumbent defender during next year's mid-terms.

The early sense among political analysts is that a candidate backed by former President Donald Trump will have the inside track to replace Blunt, given Trump's popularity in Missouri, a state he won by a commanding 15 percent in the 2020 presidential election. That was the highest share of the vote a Republican candidate had won in Missouri since former President Ronald Reagan in 1984. Old guard Republican senators are also stepping down in North Carolina, Ohio, Alabama, and Pennsylvania, which means the GOP could run as many as five Senate candidates from the so-called "Trump wing" of the party next year.

Democrats aren't hopeless in some of those states, but it seems likely Blunt's seat will stay within the GOP. In previous years, an open Missouri Senate seat might have suggested a more competitive inter-party contest was on the horizon, but that's probably not the case in a post-Trump world, The Appeal's Daniel Nichanian tweeted Monday. Indeed, it may be telling that Jason Kander, who gave Blunt a surprising run for his money in 2016, quickly announced he isn't looking to launch another campaign.

So, all things considered, it appears Blunt's retirement is another sign the GOP will continue to push itself closer to Trump. Tim O'Donnell

If there was anything more shocking for Britons than Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview, it might have been learning what American television is actually like.

Harry and Meghan sat down with Winfrey for an interview that aired on Sunday in primetime, drawing worldwide attention. And on Monday, Ayesha A. Siddiqi compiled a Twitter thread of British people's shocked reactions — not to what was actually said, but to the experience of watching pharmaceutical ads that ran during the special.

"Totally forgot about MEDICINE being advertised out there," one gobsmacked user wrote, while another simply asked, "How are the side effects of the medicine in American ads more lethal than the thing they're treating?" Others described these ads, which American viewers may not have given a second thought to after growing accustomed to them for years, as "surreal," "post-apocalyptic," and "unhinged."

The surprise was understandable, as Thrillist notes that "the United States is the only country, besides New Zealand, that legally permits 'direct-to-consumer' pharmaceutical advertising." And Tom Gara observed that the onslaught of pharmaceutical ads consisting essentially of "speed readings of lengthy lists of side effects" is "easily the craziest thing about American TV when you move here from abroad." Next time, perhaps these viewers should ask their doctor if watching American television is right for them. Brendan Morrow

"If there was a smoking gun" on the origin of the novel coronavirus that sparked the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party "buried it along with anyone who would dare speak up about it," a U.S. official told Josh Rogin in a Politico piece.

Rogin published a column in The Washington Post in April 2020 after someone leaked him cables sent in 2018 from American diplomats who visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They were concerned about lab safety and the fact that the lab's work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.

Following up on the column a nearly year later for Politico, Rogin reports that U.S. officials grew increasingly convinced an accidental lab leak was a possible coronavirus origin story that at least deserved further investigation (Rogin writes that many politicians and journalists conflated this theory with the false notion that the virus was a Chinese bioweapon.) The WIV was open about their research on coronaviruses, but a senior Trump administration official told Rogin many officials in the State Department and National Security Council came to believe Chinese coronavirus researchers had been taking more risks than previously thought.

Of course, as tensions between the Trump White House and Beijing rose, the matter of the coronavirus' origins became increasingly politicized, so finger-pointing narratives should be viewed with scrutiny. But Rogin notes an under-the-radar study from a group of Beijing researchers released in July 2020 did lead U.S. officials to consider, after consultations with experts, that the Beijing lab was conducting coronavirus experiments on mice fitted with humanlike lung characteristics long before the outbreak began, suggesting similar practices may have taken place in at the WIV.

But it seems unlikely that the speculation will clarify anything. "We'll probably never be able to prove it one way or the other," the official told Rogin. Read more at Politico. Tim O'Donnell

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle left the U.K. in "large part" because of racism, the Duke of Sussex told Oprah Winfrey in a new clip from Sunday's jaw-dropping interview.

Winfrey on Monday shared more clips from her conversation with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, in which the couple opened up about their decision to step back as senior members of the royal family last year. During a portion of the interview that didn't air on Sunday, Winfrey asked Harry if he and the Duchess of Sussex left the U.K. because of racism, and he acknowledged this played a major role.

"It was a large part of it," Harry said.

Harry went on to share an anecdote about being warned by someone he spoke with at a fundraiser that the media "will destroy your life" and that "the U.K. is very bigoted." Harry said he "completely" disagreed with the notion that the U.K. as a whole is bigoted, while agreeing that "the U.K. press is bigoted, specifically the tabloids."

But Harry added, "Unfortunately, if the source of information is inherently corrupt or racist or biased, then that filters out to the rest of society."

One of the biggest bombshells in Sunday's interview came when Meghan Markle revealed there were "concerns and conversations" in the royal family about "how dark [Archie's] skin might be when he was born." Meghan wouldn't reveal who raised these concerns, saying it would be "very damaging to them." But on CBS This Morning, Winfrey said Harry "wanted to make sure that I knew" that Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip weren't a part of these conversations. Brendan Morrow