A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



April 22, 2026

Another criminal...

And Then There Was Mills

Three scandal-plagued members of Congress have resigned in the past eight days. Florida Republican Rep. Cory Mills remains defiant.

Noah Lanard

At the start of last week, there were four members of Congress at risk of expulsion due to allegations of severe misconduct. Two of those members, Reps. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), quickly resigned. On Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) became the third member of Congress to resign in eight days. Now only one of the scandal-plagued members is still standing: Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.).

The allegations against Swalwell and Gonzales involved accusations of misconduct against women—including rape in Swalwell’s case. (The former California congressman has said that “allegations of sexual assault are flat false.”) Cherfilus-McCormick was indicted by a federal grand jury in November based on allegations that she and her brother stole government funding then used some of it to make illegal contributions to her campaign. A subcommittee of the House Ethics committee more recently found a pattern of “progressive and compounding corruption.” (The Florida Democrat resigned moments before the Ethics committee met to determine what, if any, punishment she should face.) 

The accusations against Mills, who remains under investigation by the Ethics Committee, are shockingly wide-ranging. As I reported in a February profile, the Florida congressman has been accused of:
  • Severely exaggerating his military record by falsely claiming to have been an Army Ranger, an Army sniper, and a Special Forces qualified medic—none of which are supported by records released by the Army 
  • Earning a Bronze Star through stolen valor and false claims about saving the lives of multiple former Army comrades in Iraq 
  • Punching someone during a trip to Ireland while serving in Congress in 2023
  • Threatening to share sexually explicit content of an ex-girlfriend and, according to court testimony, saying he would kill her future partners 
In October, a Florida judge placed a restraining order on Mills after concluding that he subjected his ex-girlfriend to “dating violence” via cyberstalking. Mills has defended himself by noting that he has never been criminally charged for that, or other, alleged misbehavior. That is true but highly misleading. Mills spent more than three hours in court as part of the restraining order case. He took the stand to defend himself but failed to convince a Florida judge to rule in his favor. (As part of his decision, the judge determined that Mills was not “truthful” about explicit material recorded during the relationship.)

Earlier last year, Mills was also implicated in an alleged assault involving a different girlfriend, although she later retracted the claim. According to bodycam footage and documents recently obtained by the Washington Post, police were on the verge of arresting Mills in relation to those allegations. The Post explained:  

Before changing her account, the woman had shown [officer] Mazloom bruises on her arms and marks on her face, the body-camera footage shows. Tearful, she told the officer that Mills had harmed her during an argument and forcibly removed her from his Southwest Washington penthouse apartment, according to the footage.

Subsequent bodycam footage reviewed by the Post showed the alleged victim talking on the phone. She then told Mazloom, the DC police officer, that “he wants me to say” that the marks “were from our vacation and that I bruise easily.” According to the Post, Mazloom told fellow officers that he understood the alleged victim had been speaking to Mills.

Mills, an Army veteran who became an international arms dealer before running for Congress, has made enemies on both sides of the aisle in Washington. On Monday, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who has been in a long-running feud with her Republican colleague, introduced a resolution to expel Mills from Congress. Mills is reportedly weighing introducing his own resolution to expel Mace. (His congressional office has not responded to multiple interview requests and requests for comment that I have sent between January and April.)

For now, Mills may remain safe from expulsion as the Ethics Committee investigation proceeds on an open-ended timeline. This fall, though, Mills is facing what is likely to be his first truly competitive reelection battle since he entered Congress in 2023. His likely Democratic opponent, Bale Dalton, is a former Navy helicopter pilot who served as the chief of staff for NASA.

In 2024, Mills won by 13 points in his Republican-leaning district. In a normal year with a normal Republican running for reelection, that would be an insurmountable challenge for Democrats. In 2026, as Democrats overperform in races across the country and Mills’ scandals become more widely known, none of the usual rules apply.

They are insane.......

Tech Billionaires Want Christians to Believe in AI

For Peter Thiel and JD Vance allies, the tech right is framing AI as a moral—even divine—mission.

Kiera Butler

In early January, a short essay by a little-­known AI entrepreneur turned internet philosopher named Will Manidis went viral on X. The post was mostly an attempt to explain why Boston, where Manidis lived before relocating to New York a few years ago, had failed as a tech hub. He pointed to a suite of reasons for the slow decline of the city’s once-crackling biotech scene, mainly the usual culprits of overregulation and overtaxation. But at the core of Manidis’ argument was something much deeper: The heart of the problem was the growing consensus among Boston’s stodgy elites that there was something unsettling and possibly even dangerous about the rapid pace of technological development. That mounting uneasiness about tech—and especially artificial intelligence—lay beneath the decisions that sealed the fate of Boston’s tech scene.

“The average American understands AI is a thing that wastes water, skyrockets power costs, and scams their grandparents in exchange for exposing children to deviant sexual content, sports gambling, and all other manner of sin,” he writes. “If we cannot articulate why innovation is a moral imperative, we can expect the entire technology industry to end up like Boston. First taxed, then looted, then exhausted. And we’ll be stuck wondering where it all went.”

Manidis, who describes himself as a Christian, writes about religious matters on X and his Substack. When I called to talk with him about this idea of tech as a “moral imperative,” he used a theological metaphor: “The mix of oligarchs and tech people and tech money and tech politics and the tech right,” he told me, “they’ve just been unable to communicate a coherent apologetic.”

His term—apologetic—refers to the project of defending the mysteries of faith to nonbelievers. The Christian tradition of apologetics is rich. Its brightest lights include St. Paul, Thomas Aquinas, and C.S. Lewis—all of whom made the case for their faith not by biblical invocation or surrender to the divine, but rather through engagement, rational arguments, and evidence. Manidis believes AI needs those kinds of defenders, because the public appears to be losing faith in it.

Last summer, right-wing luminaries converged at the annual National Conservatism Conference, a group that has emerged as a strong influence on the Trump administration’s policy decisions. The speaker lineup included some of ­MAGA’s most trusted interlocutors—for example, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, and White House budget director and Project 2025 architect Russell Vought. But lesser-known conservative thinkers appeared as well.

University of New Mexico psychology professor Geoffrey Miller, for instance, confronted Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar during a heated exchange reported by The Verge. The AI industry, Miller told Sankar, is “globalist, secular, liberal, feminized transhumanists. They explicitly want mass unemployment, they plan for UBI-based communism, and they view the human species as a biological ‘bootloader,’ as they say, for artificial superintelligence.”

Many aspects of Miller’s position are extreme, but his discomfort with AI is broadly shared. A Pew Research Center survey last November found that more than half of Americans say they are “more concerned than excited” about the technology, up from 37 percent in 2021, the year before ChatGPT launched. Historically, Republicans share this opinion slightly more than Democrats, but Manidis doesn’t think the messengers of the tech world are doing AI any favors bolstering support on either end of the political spectrum. For example, that one time in 2015 when Sam Altman, co-founder of OpenAI, famously opined that AI “will probably most likely lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime, there’ll be great companies.”

“What becomes incredibly useful for these people to do is to present their products as the answer to the meaning of life.”

“Why?” Manidis lamented to me on the phone. “Why would you say that? Like, come on, buddy.”

As if in response to Altman’s overblown rhetoric, some Silicon Valley oligarchs are attempting to run interference between two emerging camps in the religious right: AI’s cheerleaders on one side and its skeptics on the other. The likes of Palantir’s Peter Thiel and other religious techies such as Andreessen Horowitz’s Katherine Boyle and Anduril’s Trae Stephens are spearheading an effort to create the “apologetic” that Manidis called for. Bolstered by their own Christian zealotry, they argue that far from being the demonic force described by Miller, technology is more comparable to a savior—even a Christlike messiah. Not only are Christians called to embrace technology, but they have an obligation to do so, because progress itself is a moral good.

Culturally speaking, these tech elites are coded very differently from charismatic Holy Rollers who have had a long tradition of promising their followers that adherence to Christian faith and practices will yield material wealth. But essentially, they are offering a similar, though slightly inverted proposition: Tech can make you rich and a good Christian. Call it the prosperity gospel of technology. Much in the way they have shaped culture with social media algorithms, tech evangelists now are attempting to normalize the use and acceptance of AI by wrapping it in a spiritual message. They also have explicit policy goals, and the Trump administration appears to be heeding their call, with new federal efforts aimed at unshackling AI from safety regulations.

Greg Epstein is a humanist chaplain at Harvard University and MIT who has spent the last two decades building ethical communities for nonreligious people and, more recently, writing about the similarities between Silicon Valley and faith groups. In 2024, he published the book Tech Agnostic: How Technology Became the World’s Most Powerful Religion, and Why It Desperately Needs a Reformation. Epstein laments that while many have written about the cultlike aspects of the tech world, few have examined the motivations that lie behind making it that way. “What becomes incredibly useful for these people to do is to present their products as the answer to the meaning of life,” Epstein told me.

In Silicon Valley’s embrace of Christianity, he sees a marriage of convenience: “They’re trying to imbue wealth with meaning,” he said. “But they’re also trying to imbue a certain kind of meaning with wealth.” In other words, Christianity gets an elite, luxury-set rebrand, and in return, the tech titans get to sanctify their vast fortunes.

If one were to name a spokesperson for the anti-AI right, it would be hard to imagine someone more perfectly suited for the role than British writer Paul Kingsnorth. In his 2025 book, Against the Machine: On the Unmaking of Humanity, Kingsnorth, an erstwhile lefty environmental activist turned Orthodox Christian crusader, makes the case that technology, especially AI, is a semi-sentient being with its own anti-human, anti-Christian agenda. In prose so entertaining that you hardly notice how frantic and conspiratorial it all is, Kingsnorth conjures an ominous vision that implicates “the Machine”—or technology—in all manner of the political right’s favorite bêtes noires. He describes “progressive leftism and the Machine” as a “usefully snug fit” because they are both “suspicious of the past, impatient with borders and boundaries, and hostile to religion.” Both progressive leftism and the Machine, he concludes, “are in pursuit of a global utopia where, in the dreams of both Lenin and Lennon, the world will live as one.”

For example, Kingsnorth considers this technology demon to be the true culprit behind “mass gender confusion.” Moreover, the struggle for transgender acceptance is actually a step on the path toward permanently abandoning our bodies. “A young generation of hyper-urbanized, always-on young people, increasingly divorced from nature and growing up in a psychologised, inward-looking anticulture,” he writes, “is being led toward the conclusion that biology is a problem to be overcome.” Young people learn that the “body is a form of oppression and that the solution to their pain may go beyond a new set of pronouns, or even invasive surgery, towards ­nanotechnology, ‘cyberconsciousness software,’ and perhaps, ultimately, the end of their physical embodiment altogether.”

Those ominous predictions apparently struck a chord: Kingsnorth’s book was a New York Times bestseller and widely reviewed, especially among Christian critics. In Christianity Today, Justin Ariel Bailey was rhapsodic, calling the work “a trenchant and terrifying account of what modern people have sacrificed in exchange for technology’s promise of power and autonomy.”

To say that Silicon Valley’s Christian power players see things differently is an understatement—and they’re working hard to spread the countervailing message of technology’s godly promise. Leading this charge is Boyle, the Andreessen Horowitz partner who is an ally of Vice President JD Vance. Boyle, who shares thoughts about her Catholic faith openly on social media, runs a fund called American Dynamism, which, its website says, aims to back tech companies—in aerospace, defense, education, public safety, and other sectors—whose success “supports the flourishing of all Americans.” For her, the efforts to set guardrails around AI are nefarious, camouflaged, as she co-wrote with her colleague Martin Casado in a 2024 Wall Street Journal op-ed, as efforts “to promote safety.” In fact, they insisted, “We believe the true purpose is to suppress open-source innovation and deter competitive startups.”

Boyle, an ex–Washington Post journalist whose former colleagues recall her as pleasant, a bit distant, and always impeccably dressed, argues that tech not only is not evil, but also perfectly embodies the family-first values of many Christians. In a keynote address (PDF) at the American Enterprise Institute last year, she argued for a coming together between the tech sector and the American family so they could become allies against an overzealous government. “Much has been written about this nascent alliance between the tech right, or the so-called tech right, and this administration, and how weird it is for the transhumanists of Silicon Valley to find common ground with a MAHA mother in Missouri,” she said. “Except that they have identified a common evil. They know that the gravest threat to their businesses, their industry, their family’s health, and their freedom is a censorious and authoritarian state.”

Boyle highlighted the many ways in which technology could be a boon for families. Mothers could spend more time at home with their children through tech-­enabled remote work. Tech could also make both parents “more entrepreneurial” by allowing them to start businesses on platforms like Etsy. “This means a mother can now earn income while her child naps from the school parking lot,” she said. AI could be harnessed “to build infinitely patient and extremely knowledgeable tutors for every child in this country.”

But the biggest tech win of all for families, Boyle said, was that it could “help reshape the culture” to make motherhood high status. She continued: “Meme it, and we will be it,” concluding, “a single influencer on Instagram can have a greater effect on behavior than the smartest tax policies.”

One of Boyle’s most successful projects appears to support that hypothesis. Before she joined Andreessen Horowitz, Boyle was with another venture firm, General Catalyst. There, she invested in Hallow, which, with 24 million downloads across 150 countries, claims to be the world’s most popular prayer app. There is a free version that includes features such as chats with Magisterium, “an AI-powered tool designed to provide answers based on the teachings of the Catholic Church.” But for $69.99 a year, users can “choose from 10,000+ sessions, 5-60 minute lengths, 100+ guides, and 1,000s of music options to lead you deeper into relationship with Christ,” and have access to celebrity spokespeople (“pray a rosary with Mark Wahlberg”). Boyle sees Hallow’s success as evidence that people are hungry for religion. “What I think Hallow is showing is…this desperate consumer need that is manifesting itself,” she told Tablet magazine in 2021. But it also provides a wholesome experience for Christian users, who are deepening their relationship not only with God, but also with technology. (When I reached out to Hallow for comment, I received an email back from Hallow’s AI agent, promising a real person would get back to me. They never did. Boyle also did not respond to a request for comment.)

Boyle is not the only captain of Silicon Valley industry attempting to give AI’s reputation a Christian-friendly makeover. Trae Stephens, the billionaire in charge of the autonomous weapons company Anduril, has been a vocal proponent of tech apologetics in San Francisco. A leader at the nondenominational Epic Church in San Francisco, Stephens delivered a lecture in 2024 titled “God and Technology,” in which he argued that humans, like God, are creators and that “what our soul deeply longs for is progress in building a better future.” He assured listeners that if they chose “good quests” rather than empty or destructive ones, they would be fulfilling God’s plan. (Stephens did not respond when I reached out to him for comment.)

Stephens invoked a historical precedent to make his point. Some of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project, which created the atomic bomb, “were tormented by what they were doing,” he said. “And you could make a really rational argument in either direction. Was it a good thing to do? Was it a bad thing to do?” Stephens didn’t give any hint as to which he believed, though his professional life suggests the former.

His career and immense fortune were created by harnessing the power of AI to build “smart battlefields”—think of Anduril as the Waymo of drones and bombs. In a 2024 Wired interview, for example, Stephens spoke of “a classification of drones called loiter munitions, which are aircraft that search for targets and then have the ability to go kinetic on those targets, kind of as a kamikaze.” Since 2019, Anduril has been awarded more than $1.8 billion in government contracts.

As an answer to the classic “What would Jesus do?” question, “start robot wars” would be an unconventional response, to put it mildly. And yet, Stephens appears to endorse surrendering to tech. As he put it in his Wired interview, “The call that I have been trying to make to the tech community is that we have a moral obligation to do things to benefit humanity, to draw us closer to God’s plan for his people.”

“It’s almost as if [other AI companies] kind of think they’re creating God or something.” —Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta

To wit: In 2024, his wife, health care tech executive Michelle Stephens, co-founded ACTS 17 Collective, a Bay Area group for “thinkers, builders, artists, and leaders who are wrestling with what it means to live with purpose and conviction.” The name is a reference to a New Testament book that focuses on Christian apologetics and is also, conveniently, an acronym: Acknowledging Christ in Technology and Society. Garry Tan, the Christian president and CEO of tech startup incubator Y Combinator, has hosted ACTS 17 events at his home—which used to be a church—and Pat Gelsinger, former Intel CEO, also a Christian, has been a speaker.

Last year, ACTS 17 sponsored a series of four lectures by PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, who is Trae Stephens’ former boss, JD Vance’s mentor, Gawker’s murderer, and President Donald Trump’s megadonor. His subject? The Antichrist.

The event was private, with tickets reportedly costing $200, but transcripts were leaked to reporters. While Kingsnorth argues in his book that technology itself is the devil incarnate causing a one-world government, Thiel appears to believe the exact opposite: Anything preventing unbridled technological development—from overbearing government regulation to climate activist Greta Thunberg—is the Antichrist. “In the 17th, 18th century, the Antichrist would have been a Dr. Strangelove, a scientist who did all this sort of evil crazy science,” he said, according to the Washington Post. “In the 21st century, the Antichrist is a Luddite who wants to stop all science.” AI’s detractors, he reportedly claimed, were part of a plot to install a global government. “There are a lot of rational reasons I can give why the one-world state’s a bad idea,” he said. “But I think if you strip it from the biblical context, you will never find it scary enough. You will never really resist.”

Of course, exceedingly wealthy Silicon Valley dreamers with weird ideas are nothing new. (Juicero, anyone?) But for most Americans, these fever dreams may be a little too weird, says tech journalist Gil Durán, host of the Nerd Reich podcast and author of a forthcoming book by the same name. “If you read anything by Michelle [Stephens] or by Katherine Boyle—these things are pretty far out there,” he told me. He gave the example of Boyle’s American Enterprise Institute keynote in which she argued that the state was the enemy of the family. “That is an extremely bizarre thing for her to say, especially since American Dynamism is all about partnering with an authoritarian government,” he added in an email, in reference to the Trump administration. They have “no sense of calibrating for a mass audience,” he told me, “so as long as those are the people in charge of it, I’d say that chances are they’re going to fail.”

Still, there is some indication that Christian tech apologetics are working their way into the highest realms of political influence. Vice President Vance, in a sprawling 2020 essay titled “How I Joined the Resistance,” published in the Catholic publication The Lamp, chronicled his conversion to Catholicism. In 2011, Vance writes, he attended a lecture by Thiel that he describes as “the most significant moment of my time at Yale Law School.” In the talk, Thiel, who would later become Vance’s employer and then close friend, expressed frustration with the slow pace of technological progress. He argued that professional striving was a fundamentally empty quest for prestige and status and posited that he saw “these two trends—elite professionals trapped in hyper-­competitive jobs, and the technological stagnation of society—as connected,” Vance writes. “If technological innovation were actually driving real prosperity, our elites wouldn’t feel increasingly competitive with one another over a dwindling number of prestigious outcomes.”

That notion of endless empty striving is what Thiel’s Stanford professor, the late French Catholic academic René Girard, called “mimetic desire.” This phenomenon causes immense human anguish—and, according to Thiel, technological innovation can deliver us from it, and hence from suffering.

Vance, who does not seem to have ceased striving, now describes technology as a net good not only for American economic prosperity, but also for the human condition. In a speech at Boyle’s 2025 American Dynamism Summit, Vance quoted Pope John Paul II’s 1981 encyclical, Laborem exercens. Focusing on work and the individual, the pope made two fundamental points: Labor should be a greater priority than capital, and individuals should be more important than things. These decades-old teachings received an update from Vance, who factored in technology and AI. “In a healthy economy, technology should be something that enhances rather than supplants the value of labor, and I think there’s too much fear that AI will simply replace jobs rather than augmenting so many of the things that we do,” he said. “Real innovation makes us more productive, but it also, I think, dignifies our workers.”

Vance, whose views have been publicly criticized by both the current pope and the previous one, was obviously putting his own spin on the teachings—and he didn’t mention the decidedly un-Christlike fact that replacing workers with robots would further line the pockets of tech oligarchs. Nevertheless, his interpretation that AI promotes human dignity appears to be spreading. Last July, the Trump administration released “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan.” The report promises that AI will “usher in a new golden age of human flourishing” and will “increase the standard of living for all Americans.”

This rhetoric, of course, is precisely what Kingsnorth considers to be most dangerous: a hubristic quest to replace God with progress—and maybe even to become gods willing robots into sentient beings. “We will always seek some greater meaning, some transcendent truth, and if we can’t or won’t find the real thing we will attempt to create it,” he writes in Against the Machine. “This attempt is the story of modernity; the Machine is what we have created to fulfill it.”

But Kingsnorth appears to be shouting into a headwind of mimetic desire. In the past two years, as the most recent Pew poll shows, conservatives have become less skeptical of AI. In 2023, 59 percent said they were “more concerned than excited” about AI, but by late 2025, that number had fallen to 50 percent. Manidis, it seems, may not have to worry about the Boston scenario repeating itself after all.

Wicker slams White House

Wicker slams White House attacks on foreign allies

It was the sharpest rebuke yet from the Senate Armed Services Committee chair following months of Trump administration criticism of NATO and European allies.

Leo Shane III

The Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee condemned administration officials on Tuesday for their recent attacks on U.S. foreign allies, saying the partnerships are crucial to the long-term security of America.

“It is not helpful when American leaders speak of our alliances with derision,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) in a statement before a hearing on the posture of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific region. “We must be clear about the numerous political, strategic and moral benefits that our country receives from its alliances.”

Numerous GOP leaders — including President Donald Trump — have sharply criticized NATO allies’ decision not to assist in America’s war against Iran. And while Wicker has admonished the administration for previous saber-rattling against European allies, such as threats to withdraw U.S. forces from the continent, Tuesday’s remarks were his sharpest criticism yet.

Still, in keeping with his past statements. Wicker did not specifically criticize Trump. Instead, he more broadly condemned skeptics within his party who have labeled foreign partners as drains on America rather than assets — a rare public rebuke of the White House by a GOP Senate stalwart.

“For decades, our alliance bonds, including NATO, have provided a comparative advantage over authoritarian states like China, North Korea, Russia and Iran,” Wicker said. “These alliances continue to pay dividends for the United States. People need to stop saying otherwise.”

Both Wicker and House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) have backed provisions in the annual defense authorization bill to strengthen ties with NATO and other foreign allies, even as Trump has suggested pulling back from those partnerships.

Wicker also voiced support for maintaining overseas military bases, saying the forward deployed troops provide a strategic advantage for America. Trump has suggested drawing down personnel from European and Pacific bases.

“Skeptics argue that the United States must shift the burden, and that word shift is what I have a problem with,” Wicker said. “I’m glad to see America’s allies stepping up, as they are doing all over the world. There’s a difference between burden shifting and burden sharing. The president has called for increased burden-sharing, and I support that.”

Adm. Samuel Paparo Jr., head of Indo-Pacific Command, testified at the hearing that U.S. troops in the region conducted more than 100 exercises with partner militaries last year, calling them key for military readiness and deterrence efforts. He lauded partner nations without directly responding to Wicker’s concerns about the administration’s stance.

A literal dick-head.........

Rick Scott holds up Coast Guard promotions

The Florida Republican said he’s trying to resolve an issue for a home-state shipbuilder.

Jordain Carney

Florida Sen. Rick Scott is blocking quick confirmation of hundreds of Coast Guard promotions as he tries to resolve a dispute involving a shipbuilder in his home state.

The Republican said in an interview Tuesday that he has placed a hold on the Coast Guard promotions, which prevents the Senate from easily clearing them unanimously and would force Majority Leader John Thune to set up time-consuming roll call votes on promotions that are usually agreed to with little fanfare.

“I’ve been talking … since Trump came into office about trying to resolve an issue they have with a boat builder in Florida. And they … won’t put the time in to get a result,” Scott said.

“I’ve met with everybody that I can meet with, and I want them to focus,” Scott said of the Coast Guard, adding that he wasn’t trying to dictate the outcome to the administration but emphasizing “you have to get this resolved.”

Scott didn’t specify which shipbuilder he was referring to. But Scott has been a longtime booster of a Coast Guard contract with Panama City-based Eastern Shipbuilding Group to deliver four new advanced cutters. A person granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter said the hold is related to the company.

Then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem scrapped plans for two of the boats last year, and ESG announced in November it would stop work on the two remaining boats “due to significant financial strain caused by the program’s structure and conditions.”

The tussle over the nominations comes as Thune is trying to quickly assemble and approve a new personnel package, telling reporters Monday night that confirming another tranche of President Donald Trump’s nominees is a priority alongside resolving the DHS shutdown and renewing soon-to-lapse surveillance powers.

Will it do anything

Bipartisan group rolls out labor rights notification bill

The new legislation would lay out requirements for labor rights notifications.

Jordain Carney

A bipartisan, bicameral contingent of lawmakers unveiled legislation Tuesday that would establish new labor rights notification requirements for employers.

The new bill — introduced by Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) in the Senate, and Reps. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) in the House — would mandate that all employers post and maintain notices to employees of their rights in the workplace, according to a copy of the proposal first obtained by POLITICO.

The “Know Your Labor Rights Act” also would require employers to notify new employees of those rights upon their hiring, and penalties would be imposed for noncompliance.

It has backing from Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien, who said in a statement it would “help put power back in the hands of working people.”

“American workers have a right to unionize in the workplace and fight for fair wages,” said Hawley in a separate statement. “That’s why I’m introducing legislation to ensure that employees have basic visibility into their fundamental rights.”

The proposal is part of a “pro-worker” framework championed by Hawley, who has urged his party to embrace more populist-leaning policies. It’s frequently speculated he could run for president in 2028, even as Hawley has batted that down.

As part of his larger framework, Hawley is also backing legislation that would accelerate the timelines for companies to negotiate initial collective bargaining agreements with unionized workers. Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) filed a discharge petition Monday to circumvent GOP leadership and force a floor vote on the House version of the bill.

Fucking whore.......

Cherfilus-McCormick resigns amid ethics investigation

Cherfilus-McCormick was facing numerous charges and bipartisan calls for resignation.

By Hailey Fuchs, Meredith Lee Hill, Calen Razor and Cheyanne M. Daniels

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick has officially resigned in the face of corruption charges at home and calls for her ouster in Washington.

News broke minutes before the House Ethics Committee was about to meet for a public hearing Tuesday afternoon to determine a punishment for the third-term Democrat, who was charged with stealing $5 million in Covid relief funds.

In a statement, Cherfilus-McCormick said the congressional proceedings did not constitute a “fair process” and that she was “choos[ing] to step aside” rather than “play these political games.”

“I will not stand by and pretend that this has been anything other than a witch hunt,” she said. “I simply cannot stand by and allow my due process rights to be trampled on, and my good name to be tarnished.”

Cherfilus-McCormick is facing a federal criminal trial in Florida over allegations that she stole millions from FEMA. She has pleaded not guilty and that case is expected to go to trial next year.

Her lawyer recently argued before a House Ethics subcommittee that pursuing her case at this juncture would jeopardize the fairness of her criminal trial. Lawmakers disagreed, ultimately finding “clear and convincing evidence” of dozens of charges related to improprieties.

On Tuesday, the adjudicatory subcommittee was poised to consider whether to recommend her expulsion from Congress — the most serious punishment the Ethics Committee can suggest. Only six members have ever been expelled, including, most recently, former Rep. George Santos, the New York Republican ultimately convicted of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. President Donald Trump later commuted his sentence.

Ethics Committee members were beginning to arrive for the scheduled 2 p.m. hearing when news of Cherfilus-McCormick’s resignation began to spread. Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), a member of the adjudicatory subcommittee that was considering her case, seemed to be caught off-guard by the developments.

The panel opted to gavel in as planned, and House Ethics Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) read Cherfilus-McCormick’s resignation letter into the record. He announced that since Cherfilus-McCormick was no longer a member of Congress, the panel would no longer have jurisdiction over the case and would not deliberate over a punishment.

Guest also defended his panel’s handling of the matter, which spanned years since the Office of Congressional Conduct delivered a referral to the Ethics Committee in 2023.

“This was not a rush to judgement as some claim,” he said.

Cherfilus-McCormick alerted at least one colleague of her plans to resign ahead of her official announcement, and she was seen speaking with members of the Congressional Black Caucus on the floor Monday night. According to three people granted anonymity to share private conversations, the CBC gathered to discuss their colleague’s options, including to resign before the Ethics Committee’s scheduled meeting. Several of them urged her to take this route.

Ahead of her resignation, CBC Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) advised Cherfilus-McCormick to “focus on her wellbeing.”

“This is a heavy heavy situation to find yourself in. She has a criminal court proceeding that she needs to focus on,” said Clarke. “She has a family she needs to focus on. This institution is great and I know she loved her job here but her wellbeing is most important.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who is also a member of the CBC, told reporters that Cherfilus-McCormick “did the right thing for her constituents. I think Americans should be entitled to the presumption of innocence and their day in court.

“House Democratic leadership will work with her staff to ensure that the needs of the people in her congressional district are met during this transition,” he continued.

Years of losses and a struggling stock price...... Normal...

Former Republican Rep. Devin Nunes out as Trump Media CEO

The Truth Social parent company's shake-up comes after years of losses and a struggling stock price.

By Declan Harty

Former Rep. Devin Nunes is out as CEO of President Donald Trump’s social media company, in a major shake-up.

Trump Media & Technology Group, the Truth Social parent company whose largest shareholder is Trump, said in a statement Tuesday that Nunes would be succeeded by Kevin McGurn, an adviser to the company, who will take over as interim CEO effective immediately. It did not offer a reason for Nunes’ unexpected departure.

“I want to thank Devin Nunes for his dedicated service to the Company over the past four years, and congratulate Kevin McGurn on his appointment as Interim CEO,” said Donald Trump Jr., who sits on the company’s board and oversees a trust holding his father’s shares in the company. “Kevin brings deep experience across media, technology, and capital markets, as well as a strong understanding of Trump Media’s operations and strategic priorities.”

The C-suite overhaul lands after years of repeated losses at Trump Media, a company that was once billed as a conservative challenger to Silicon Valley giants and the next gem in Trump’s vast business empire. The company recorded a net loss of more than $712 million and revenues of $3.7 million in 2025. Trump Media shares have struggled all the while as well. The stock, which trades under the ticker “DJT,” closed at $9.82 on Tuesday — marking a more than 75 percent decline since Trump’s inauguration.

Best known for Truth Social, the president’s preferred online megaphone and a critical source of advertising dollars for the company, Trump Media has announced a series of pivots over the last year in a push to expand its business.

That includes into everything from cryptocurrencies and the prediction markets to traditional financial products. The company unveiled a more than $6 billion deal in December to merge with fusion company TAE Technologies. And earlier this year, Trump Media said it was considering spinning off Truth Social into a separate company after the TAE deal closes.

Nunes, a staunch Trump ally, has led the company since stepping down from Congress in 2021 to take the CEO job. In a post on Truth Social, he wrote that it was “an appropriate time” for McGurn to take over as CEO and “steer Trump Media through its current transition phase.”

His exit is the third among Trump Media’s senior ranks in recent weeks.

Eric Swider, who helped bring the company public, resigned from the board this month, and Robert Lighthizer, who served as Trump’s U.S. Trade Representative during his first term, did the same in March. The company said at the time of reporting both departures that neither were due to any “dispute with management or the Board.”

EU’s mega energy crisis

How the EU’s mega energy crisis plan will — and won’t — help

There’s only so much the EU can do to address the fallout of the chaotic war in the Gulf.

By Ben Munster

The European Commission will present a sweeping emergency energy package on Wednesday, as it attempts to fend off a looming energy crisis.

If only it knew what problem it was trying to fix.

Since the Iran war broke out on Feb. 28, the EU has swung between wildly divergent policy impulses as the chaos in the Persian Gulf progresses at breakneck pace. It began with anxieties around high prices that were already simmering before the war. That morphed into concerns around Europe’s gas supplies, before the bloc’s dwindling jet fuel stocks and jitters over refinery capacity took center stage. 

Dangling above it is the war itself, as Donald Trump's shifting objectives and erratic diplomacy do little to secure the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial waterway at the center of the energy woes. 

Draft documents obtained by POLITICO show that the EU's raft of measures on Wednesday will attempt to deal with these fast-moving targets simultaneously — within the bounds of reality.

Primarily, the EU is either advising countries to use existing laws or is introducing subtle, temporary changes to make those rules more effective. Proposed changes to subsidies rules will allow countries to cover up to 70 percent of the cost of wholesale power bills until December, and up to 50 percent of the extra fuel costs caused by the crisis for some sectors. The Commission will also work with countries to develop targeted tax cuts to bring down energy bills.

But a good portion of the EU's response remains, necessarily, either long-termist or fully improvised, reflecting both the fast-changing reality and the difficulty of dislodging decades of fossil fuel dependence.

Some measures are simply a continuation of the EU's ambitious, years-old climate agenda, including commitments to speed up the decarbonization of Europe's grids, mobilize green investment, and encourage increased adoption of green home appliances. Others appear to have been designed on the fly to address a situation that remains impossible to track, with measures to increase member country coordination, reduce demand, and boost information sharing to better understand the problem.

But the energy troubles continue to be so broad, multifaceted and fast-changing that observers doubt that whatever the EU comes out with on Wednesday can satisfy capitals gearing up for potentially years of turbulence. Expanding subsidies, for instance, "may give some comfort to some but is unlikely to make a dent," complained one national official.

The painful reality is that a truly effective response requires time — and money — that many countries simply don't have.

"Not every country dependent on fossil fuels can quickly turn to electricity but this is the only solution," Žygimantas Vaičiūnas, Lithuania's energy minister, told POLITICO. "Nobody can forecast the future for global markets — sometimes we are hostages of the situation."

How did we get here?

When the war started, talk of an EU-wide policy response was seen as premature if not outright irresponsible. EU officials and energy ministers signaled optimism for the first two weeks, pointing to the bloc's diversified supply and the growth of renewables as evidence this crisis wouldn't be as bad as the one that followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

In meeting after meeting, officials said supply was secure and that the main risk was rising prices. Instead of rolling out concrete measures, the European Commission — the EU's executive — was content to remind countries of the limited tools already available under EU laws such as tax cuts and subsidies, while urging them to hasten efforts already underway to decarbonize and electrify their economies.

If anything, the message was one of vindication — the green transition and sweeping diversification efforts set into motion years ago were the correct course, and the EU just had to go further. But as the war progressed, that position became harder to defend.

The early confidence was rooted in the EU's limited exposure to the Strait of Hormuz. Even though the waterway accounts for around 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, the EU's imports from the region are comparatively small. Most come from the U.S., Canada and Norway, as well as Azerbaijan and Algeria.

But a pressing supply issue soon emerged nevertheless: the EU's reliance on natural gas.

The EU bought only a small amount of its natural gas from the Gulf, but the growing uptake of liquefied natural gas — the seaborne, supercooled gas that the bloc switched to as it sought to wean itself off the piped Russian variety — presented a new problem. Unlike pipes, LNG tankers are often free to pursue business wherever it's most lucrative, meaning the closure of the strait threatened a fierce global competition for dwindling supplies, redirecting ships from Europe to Asia.

The event that seemed to crystallize the EU's growing gas problem came with a quite literal bang in the middle of a summit of European leaders on March 19, when the bombardment of two huge natural gas fields in Qatar knocked out 3 percent of global supply in a matter of seconds. Several EU countries were exposed, including Italy and Belgium, which both faced significant loss of supply after the boss of Qatar's top energy company declared force majeure on contracts with the countries, warning that it could take up to five years to rebuild production capacity.

The threat of a long disruption suddenly became very real. Officials were now aware that even if the war ended, the wrenching changes to global energy supply chains could last years, with permanent effects on prices. And it only added to fears over the EU's unusually low gas reserves, depleted following sharp drawdowns over the winter.

The same day as the leaders summit, the EU began to tease out a more concrete set of policies to respond to the turmoil, with hints of "targeted and temporary" changes to subsidies rules, the EU's carbon market and even — softly, softly — a windfall tax on energy companies. It also called on countries to soften demanding gas storage targets to avoid panic buying and further price spikes. But countries were already starting to take matters into their own hands, with Italy's Giorgia Meloni, for instance, visiting Algeria and Saudi Arabia to shore up new supplies.

Pointedly, however, the Commission also resisted calls for structural changes to the EU's green agenda, in the face of a concerted attack by a cohort of fossil-fuel-dependent countries.

Dive-bombing into the discourse

But even as the gas situation looked to be improving, a bigger problem began to overshadow it. The bloc's supply of jet fuel and diesel — unlike gasoline, crude oil and natural gas — drew heavily from the Gulf, with around 40 percent of EU supplies transiting Strait of Hormuz.

Since late March, that worry has dominated policy discussions. It began with the EU urging governments to get citizens to travel less to conserve fuel, and has since blossomed into talk of mandatory fuel sharing, warnings against hoarding fuel, and — per the latest draft — gentle encouragement for Europeans to take up "eco-driving" lessons as a possible voluntary measure.

But even with the 400 million barrels of oil released by a group of wealthy countries under the auspices of the International Energy Agency in March, analysts warn that the continent has only six weeks left of jet fuel supplies. Some member countries, meanwhile, are quietly worried about cuts to domestic production of refined fuel, compounding the bloc's dependence on foreign imports.

The pace of the proliferation of new concerns appears to have undermined the Commission's ability to formulate an effective response that's well-suited to all members and doesn't blow up the single market. In the draft of the sweeping proposals set to be announced Wednesday, key sections on jet fuel are yet to be filled in among the more-fleshed-out proposals on state aid and tax cuts.

The Commission's response has also been contradictory, with officials denying there's a fuel crisis even as airports warn of flight cancellations and the EU executive itself pushes Europeans to cut transport use.

Evidently, one issue is just how limited the EU's understanding of its own energy mix is: The proposals expected on Wednesday include measures to increase the mapping of jet fuel dependencies and European refining capacity.

Coordination is also an issue. While groups are regularly convened to discuss supply issues, most real coordination takes place bilaterally between the Commission and countries, according to two energy officials involved in such discussions. It's no surprise one energy minister in a meeting earlier this month went so far as to call for a WhatsApp group to share information about supplies, and that the EU is looking into reviving a controversial effort to coordinate gas purchases.

Earlier this week, the Netherlands went out on its own, launching emergency measures and announcing an additional release of oil stocks — bypassing the EU’s own glacial effort to coordinate the release.

The draft of Wednesday's proposals still broadly hews to the line set out by the EU executive as the war got going, focusing on providing better incentives for the green transition, including reduced grid tariffs and murky commitments to mobilize green funding.

But these provisions have proved controversial, too, with some countries, especially in the rich North, arguing that expanding subsidies risks distorting the EU's single market and undermining years of careful green investment planning. Others warn they don't go far enough, leaving national capitals to handle the bulk of the response.

Vaičiūnas, the Lithuanian energy minister, applauded the EU's decision to encourage countries to unleash new funds for the green transition, but expressed concern that smaller countries — and some debt-burdened bigger ones — would be unable to generate the financial firepower to make the most of relaxed rules.

"In principle, these exemptions make more freedom for member states, but the financial burden is on their shoulders," he said, calling for EU-wide financial instruments, such as common debt, to supplement the regulatory changes and help countries finance heat pumps, batteries and electric vehicles.

To Vaičiūnas, finishing off Europe's fossil fuel dependency is the only durable solution to the energy madness prompted by the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran — and there's no quick fix for that.

Drink Drink Drink said the bitch.....

Patel lashes out at press over story painting him as drunk and AWOL

The FBI director denied being intoxicated on duty and defended his celebration with the men’s Olympic hockey team.

By Josh Gerstein

FBI Director Kash Patel lashed out at the news media Tuesday with a combative public rebuttal to an article that claimed his drinking had sometimes left him difficult to contact, alarming colleagues and his security detail.

Appearing before reporters for the first time since The Atlantic exposé was published last week, a defiant Patel framed the story as part of a deliberate effort to disparage him, pointed to the libel suit he filed Monday against the magazine and warned other journalists they could be next if they echo the allegations.

“I can say unequivocally that I never listen to the fake news mafia and when they get louder, it just means I’m doing my job,” Patel said in response to questions during an unrelated announcement at Justice Department headquarters. “I’ve never been intoxicated on the job, and that is why we filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit. And any one of you that wants to participate, bring it on.”

Patel insisted at length that he has put in more work hours than any of his predecessors and that his efforts have translated into fewer murders, more espionage arrests and fewer opioid deaths. “I’m on the job. I’m the first one in. I’m the last one out,” he said.

But the FBI chief also sought to address an image that has fueled perceptions he sometimes overindulges: video of him guzzling a beer in February while celebrating in the locker room with players of the U.S. Olympic Men’s Hockey team just after they defeated Canada to take the gold medal in Milan, Italy.

“I’m like an everyday American who loves his country, loves the sport of hockey and champions my friends when they raise a gold medal and invite me in to celebrate,” Patel said.

During the press conference about the federal fraud indictment of a prominent civil rights group, Patel and an NBC News reporter got into a verbal tangle after the journalist pressed Patel on a claim in an Atlantic article: that after an incident where Patel could not log in to his FBI computer, he told colleagues he was concerned he was locked out because he’d been fired by President Donald Trump.

“The problem with you and your baseless reporting is that is an absolute lie. It was never said. It never happened. And I will serve in this administration as long as the president and the attorney general want me to do so,” Patel said. “I was never locked out of my systems.”

“Your lawsuit says the opposite,” the reporter, Ryan Reilly, shot back.

“Anyone that says that … is lying,” Patel replied.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche responded to a question about Patel’s alleged inebriation by criticizing the Atlantic story, which he said he had not read, for relying on anonymous sources and making inaccurate claims.

“My concerns are completely around the anonymous reporting that comes forth constantly,” Blanche said. “But when you have a bunch of people who are hiding behind closed curtains saying things we’re not willing to say publicly, and there’s certain parts of the article that are blatantly false, because apparently, I was told something that I wasn’t. It’s suspicious.”

In a statement following the filing of Patel’s lawsuit, The Atlantic defended its journalism.

“We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit,” the statement said.

Dems big win in the gerrymandering wars

Virginia voters give Dems big win in the gerrymandering wars

The new map could wipe out Republicans' gains so far in the race President Donald Trump kicked off last summer in Texas.

By Erin Doherty

Virginia voters on Tuesday approved Democrats’ effort to gerrymander the state, giving the party an edge in its bid to reclaim the House in November.

The new map would give Democrats the chance to flip four seats currently held by Republicans. Its adoption could put Democrats slightly ahead in the national mid-decade gerrymandering wars — a result few thought possible when President Donald Trump picked the fight by pushing Texas Republicans to redraw their map last summer.

The result is a major win for Democrats’ hopes of retaking Congress, and showed their ability to mobilize voters distrustful of partisan redistricting and push back against Trump in the Democratic-leaning state. It’s also a victory for Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger in her first national test as governor, after she faced pressure to take a more active role in the campaign’s final stretch.

Virginia’s contest saw an explosion of outside spending and the involvement of national heavyweights like former President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, as both sides raced to convince people to vote during an off-cycle April election. Even Trump, who largely stayed on the sidelines of the battle, joined an eleventh-hour tele-rally on Monday to urge voters to reject the redistricting ballot measure.

“This is really a country election. The whole country is watching,” the president said.

Democrats entered the final stretch of voting cautiously optimistic despite tight polling numbers, buoyed by their five-seat gain in California last November and an unexpected new seat in Utah drawn by the courts. Those seats, and the new Virginia map, effectively wipes out the gains Republicans made in Texas, Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri.

Still, one major threat still looms over Virginia’s map: The state’s Supreme Court could nullify the redistricting effort, a move that would effectively void the election results.

And this cycle’s gerrymandering fight isn’t over yet. Florida GOP lawmakers could act as soon as next week to unveil a new map that could offset Democrats’ new advantage.