Pummeled by Ukrainian strikes....

Russia’s infrastructure is being pummeled by Ukrainian strikes. Now Putin wants to seize control of it

By Billy Stockwell and Darya Tarasova

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree giving the government powers to temporarily take control of “critical infrastructure” across the country, if private owners fail to protect it from escalating Ukrainian attacks.

The new measure comes as Moscow and Kyiv ramp up their air campaigns, with Ukrainian strikes deep into Russian territory sparking fuel shortages and bringing the war closer to home for ordinary Russians.

Kyiv has stepped up attacks in recent days on Ozon logistics hubs in Russia – a competitor to the frequently targeted e-commerce giant Wildberries – as it seeks to undermine Moscow’s war-driven economy. The decree, which came into force on Monday, says the new measures are being introduced “in connection with the growing threats to the security of critical infrastructure facilities of the Russian Federation.”

It covers a raft of sectors, according to the decree, including fuel and energy infrastructure, communications, transport and logistics facilities, among others.

If owners do not take sufficient steps to ensure the “security” of such facilities or restore their functioning quickly enough after attacks, the government can decide to implement “temporary administration,” the decree states. This effectively hands the Russian state control of the owner’s property, property rights and shares.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on Tuesday said, “quite often the owners of enterprises do not pay proper attention to taking measures to ensure security, anti-drone security.”

He also nodded to the support of Western nations for Kyiv as another reason why Moscow “must take measures” to, as he put it, “ensure our own security.”

Asked which companies could fall under the remit of the degree, Peskov told reporters the situation would be “analyzed primarily by the government, by the relevant agencies.”

“Wherever security measures are not being taken in critical areas, corresponding proposals will be submitted,” he added.

Meanwhile, Russia has increasingly been launching high-speed missile attacks across Ukraine, exploiting Kyiv’s shortage of US-made Patriot air defense interceptors, which the country heavily relies upon to shoot down ballistic missiles. It’s a shortage that has been made worse due to a global supply crunch amid the Iran war.

Russia launched two missiles and 150 drones at Ukraine overnight into Tuesday, with 124 drones shot down, according to the Ukrainian Air Force.

Amid the interceptor shortage, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Kyiv had received a “small number of Patriot missiles,” Ukrainian state media outlet Ukrinform reported Tuesday.

“I won’t say which country provided them either – we’ve also received a small number of Patriot missiles. I can’t say how many, but just a few. We need more,” Zelensky said in a meeting with his Estonian counterpart, Ukrinform said.

Will only get worse...

Nevada sues the Trump administration over ‘catastrophic’ water cuts as the Colorado River spirals into crisis

By Laura Paddison

Last week the Trump administration announced major cuts to the water Arizona, California and Nevada can take from the drought-stricken Colorado River; this week Nevada sued, calling the plan “fundamentally flawed.”

It marks what could be the first of many complex and lengthy legal wrangles over the crucial waterway — and is yet another sign of how fraught water sharing is becoming on a hotter, drier planet.

On Friday, the Department of Interior released its operating guidelines, requiring water cuts of roughly 20% across the three so-called lower basin states over the next two years. Even deeper cuts could follow if the situation on the Colorado River doesn’t improve.

Decades of severe climate-change fueled drought and years of heavy use have hammered the river which irrigates more than 5 million acres of farmland, generates hydropower and provides water to roughly 40 million people. Both of its vast reservoirs — Lake Mead and Lake Powell — have tumbled to record lows over the past few weeks.

The Trump administration plan came after years of negotiations between the seven states that rely on the Colorado River failed to achieve a deal on how to divvy up its shrinking resources. However, the plan imposes no mandatory cuts on the four upper basin states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming — which, unlike the lower basin, cannot be compelled to cut water by federal authorities. Many experts predicted litigation would follow.

Nevada is the first out of the blocks. The state, together with the Colorado River Commission of Nevada and Southern Nevada Water Authority, filed the claim in federal district court Monday.

In a statement announcing the lawsuit, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo, a Republican, said “Southern Nevada could lose more than 70 percent of its already meager Colorado River allocation while the Upper Basin states … are not required to contribute a drop.”

“The Department of the Interior can’t roll Nevada and solve the entire Colorado River shortage on the backs of the Lower Basin states … the solution needs to involve everybody. Until that happens, we are prepared to fight for as long as it takes,” he added.

Nevada’s argument goes to the heart of a key sticking point in the tense water negotiations.

The upper basin states say drought has already reduced what they receive from the Colorado River and cuts should be borne by the more water-intensive lower basin. The lower basin states argue everyone should share the pain.

A plan “that shifts all of the burden onto less than half the states is fundamentally flawed,” said John Entsminger, the general manager of Southern Nevada Water Authority and Nevada’s lead Colorado River negotiator.

He said the effects of the cuts on the state would be severe. “You’re just not going to be able to provide the level of water service necessary to maintain those essential services that the community requires,” he told CNN.

Interior did not respond to CNN’s request for comment on the lawsuit.

Nevada’s filing is “certainly not a bolt from the blue,” said Jason Robison, a law professor at the University of Wyoming, who added that other lower basin states and Tribal Nations may well also launch their own lawsuits.

Some experts had predicted Arizona, which will endure the steepest cuts, would be first to sue, but it has yet to make a move. Doug MacEachern, the communications administrator at Arizona Department of Water Resources said the organization was “evaluating Nevada’s complaint, and we are working on a proper course of action.”

Litigation is always risky, however. It is both costly and time-consuming, with the potential to span several years. Nevada’s claims “are certain to be fought over tooth and nail at every level of the federal judiciary,” Robison said.

One immediate question is whether the court might halt the planned cuts, said Rhett Larson, a water law professor at Arizona State University. He believes this is unlikely given the difficulty of coming up with another way to manage water shortages and the uncertainties it would produce.

“The greater likelihood is that this case proceeds, the court allows the federal government to move forward with the Operating Guidelines for the next two years, and the parties continue to try to find a durable consensus deal,” he said.

Southern Nevada Water Authority’s Entsminger said the aim is to bring all seven states and the federal government back to the table to come up with a plan “so that everyone sacrifices a little bit, so that no one state has to suffer catastrophic reductions.”

It could work, Larson said. The states are not currently communicating well and legal action might give them the structure to set out their positions better. It also “imposes some risks on the Upper Basin states, and those risks might be enough for them to make some concessions,” he said.

But whether the lawsuit ends up a catalyst or impediment to a consensus is “anybody’s guess,” he added.

In the meantime, the Colorado River’s reservoirs continue to spiral downward, with little hope of immediate relief on the horizon from punishing heat and drought.

A truly inspiring person, she will be missed.

Big heels, bigger wigs: Dolly Parton’s singular style

By Jacqui Palumbo, Zoe Sottile

Adorned in rhinestones and elevating her 5-foot stature with sky-high heels and voluminous blonde wigs, Dolly Parton often joked, “it costs a lot of money to look this cheap!”

Parton’s looks on stage and off reflected both her Tennessee roots and her embodiment of over-the-top feminine glamour, an aesthetic articulated in her album title and self-anointed nickname “Backwoods Barbie.” She was rarely seen without long acrylic nails, a full face of makeup, and heapings of glitter.

The prolific musician, actor and philanthropist, who died on Tuesday at 80 years old, always had a tongue-in-cheek response to criticisms about her larger-than-life sense of style. She quipped about her hair being a fire hazard, would play her hit ‘9 to 5’ with nothing but her fire red acrylic nails as the instrument, and she unabashedly loved flashy clothes: shoulder pads, plunging necklines, a cinched waist, lace were all sartorial non-negotiables for the singer. But she paired it with a keen sense of self-awareness that only made her devout fanbase love her more.

“When I moved to Nashville in 1964, I already had some ideas about what I wanted to look like onstage — and off,” she wrote in her book “Behind the Seams” in 2023. “Country stars had to have big hair and some sparkles, and you had to have a Cadillac. I had the big hair but not yet the Cadillac — or enough sparkles.” She related to the clothes worn by famous fixtures on stage of the Grand Ole Opry, like Jean Shepard and didn’t shy away from the unconventional things that influenced her, telling People she even took inspiration from the famously risqué Frederick’s of Hollywood catalogs she flipped through when she was young.

Parton’s version of glamour wasn’t afraid to flirt with bad taste. “I want to look a little bit, you know, trashy,” she said last year. “I don’t mean it in a bad way. I just like that kind of almost artificial look. I like the overdone. I like the bleached hair.”

Persuasive style

Parton’s conviction was the backbone of her persona, and she recalled in “Behind the Seams” that when she first signed to Monument Records in 1965, the label president wanted to “flatten” her hair and dress her in “streamlined” clothes more fitting of ’60s pop stars. “But I hated everything about it. I felt naked,” she said.

Even her softer looks had volume, such as Parton’s cover for her 1973 chart-topping album “Jolene,” in stripes and billowing white shoulders and with her blonde mane framing her face.

But on stage and on red carpets she gravitated towards hot pink jumpsuits, icy blue off-shoulder gowns or pearl-encrusted cropped jackets. She worked with designers like Bob Mackie, who created a wing-like “Butterfly” gown for her TV special “Dolly & Carol in Nashville” in 1979, and dressed her and Oprah in complimentary looks for Parton’s variety show “Dolly.” In 2000, she attended a White House luncheon to talk about her book gifting charity Imagination Library in a vibrant, fringed yellow skirt suit with matching heels.

Fringe was another Parton trademark. Her looks often incorporated classic country motifs like cowboy hats or bell-bottom jeans, though usually made Dolly-appropriate with a healthy helping of sparkles and vibrant hues.

Parton wore some 300 custom outfits a year, styled by her longtime collaborator Steve Summers. He told Vogue that everything was custom for Parton, even if started as an off-the-rack dress. “There is an outfit in production every single day,” he said. “If she’s doing personal appearances, 10 outfits in a day is not unusual.”

Many stars have borrowed from Parton over the years: her goddaughter Miley Cyrus has appeared with her in synchronized outfits; Beyoncé has channeled her for her own take on “Jolene;” and Sabrina Carpenter has dueted with her, too, leaning into the unapologetic femininity (and butter-yellow curls) that made Parton an icon. But Parton’s style is something anyone can slip on, and her fans have often played dress-up with her, too. The British photographer Alice Hawkins spent a decade documenting herself and others living out their own Dolly-fied American dreams in her image, published in the book “Dear Dolly” in 2022.

Parton even once joined the fun by entering a Dolly lookalike contest at a West Hollywood gay bar — which she lost. “I say it’s a good thing I was a girl or I’d be a drag queen,” she said in an interview recounting the episode.

And though guests who make the pilgrimage to her Tennessee theme park Dollywood may not dress as her — per the official rules, since she herself often attended — many still pay small tributes to her style with a touch of glitz.

Parton may have had a replicable sartorial style, but the core of it was a message that anyone could adopt, bedazzled or not: “I’m gonna be me, ‘cause I know who I am and you don’t.”

Don't use this tech....

Ring hopes new encryption tech will ease surveillance fears around its home security cameras

By Clare Duffy

Many Americans feel growing unease about the proliferation of cameras — in people’s hands, on homes and businesses, in public spaces for police use — that seem to be capturing our every move, sparking backlash, protests and users ditching or destroying devices.

Now Ring, one of the largest home security camera providers in the United States, is rolling out a new encryption technology that it hopes will give customers more confidence about the privacy of their cameras and footage.

It is the latest move by a security camera company to address consumers’ privacy and surveillance fears. Earlier this month, law enforcement technology firm Flock introduced new police auditing and accountability controls.

Ring’s update effectively means customers don’t have to worry about any third parties, including law enforcement and Amazon itself, viewing their home security footage without their consent, according to the Amazon-owned company. That was already Ring’s policy, but the new form of encryption reinforces that on a technical level.

The technology is called TAKE — an acronym for “throw away the key.” When stored in the cloud, a user’s videos will be kept in what Ring says is effectively a secure digital vault to which only the user has the key. The company says it will only get the virtual key to run features like video search for a limited time with a customer’s approval and then will “throw away the key,” so Ring doesn’t have ongoing access to the videos.

Ring will roll out the new encryption as the default security setting on all of its cameras starting in September.

“People are always going to have questions about, like, how do you store it? How do you protect it?” Ring founder Jamie Siminoff told CNN. “As a company we’ve done, I believe, a really good job with that, but this is the physical way of now giving them confidence … this is the show, not just tell.”

Ring has long faced criticism over its relationship with law enforcement.

The company faced intense scrutiny earlier this year after a Super Bowl ad about a lost dog feature prompted surveillance fears. Weeks later, Ring canceled a controversial partnership with Flock.

Ring says TAKE provides a similar level of protection as end-to-end encryption, where sensitive data is effectively scrambled when traveling between one trusted endpoint (like a camera) and another (like a customer’s phone) and no outsider can access it. But the company says the new technology is more effective for the multi-device, multi-user configurations used by many Ring customers.

Ring users can still voluntarily share footage with law enforcement if police request it through the company’s Neighbors app.

Ring began offering end-to-end encryption in 2021, following calls from privacy advocates, but it restricted how people could use their devices. The company says it will retain end-to-end encryption as an option starting in September.

The new technology may address some users’ fears about who can access Ring camera footage. But even non-Ring users have raised concerns about privacy violations when they walk by a neighbor’s home or walk up to a friend’s front door.

Siminoff said he hopes that Ring’s new encryption will help ease those fears, too — at least to some extent.

“I think there is an anxiety of, like, I just don’t know what’s happening with this (footage),” Siminoff said. “I think people will hear about this and then feel more comfortable when they see a Ring camera, knowing that there’s a default encryption on it, that it’s locked to the specific person.”

Only a tiny dick would do it.....

Trump targets a Great Lake and a great American in his latest quest for power

Analysis by Stephen Collinson

Take that, Canada and Camelot.

America’s bulldozer president plans to raze the Kennedy Center and rename Lake Ontario if he’s frustrated in one of his top legacy projects and his latest trade war.

The pair of threats made Tuesday seem absurd. But they epitomize a driving impulse of Trump’s second term: the belief that nothing can stand in his way.

And when reality doesn’t please him, he invents his own.

The twin episodes also raise the glaring question of why Trump fixates on such trifles even as his war in Iran grinds on and Americans despair at high prices for food, fuel and housing ahead of the midterm elections.

Is this really what the country voted for in 2024?

But the trolling is Trump at his most authentic. It shows how he wields the politics of spectacle to outrage elites, confound establishments and ignite media storms. It’s all a way of burnishing his outsider image and uniting his populist coalition.

There’s almost no institution that he won’t try to disrupt — or destroy, if it resists his power. No building, natural landmark or historic artifact is safe from the branding maestro’s eye. Courts, the Constitution and US allies be damned; Trump seeks to leave a mark on the landscape and the map to ensure the world remembers him.

But while the president sees openings for unaccountable power, his extreme reactions Tuesday also hint at growing impotence. His legal team is threatening to demolish the Kennedy Center only because the courts have confounded his plans to renovate it — and, perhaps not incidentally, to put his name on the front.

He might be kidding about renaming the vast body of water separating New York State and Ontario to Lake America. But his flex conceals potential failure: Canadians are refusing him a win in his latest trade war. Calling a lake a name most people won’t use seems a poor substitute for adding Canada as his coveted 51st state.

Disdain for an American hero

Trump’s latest threat to the Kennedy Center emerged in legal documents related to a court attempt to thwart his bid for control. His team warns that if renovations don’t happen, the center may need to be replaced by an open-air amphitheater.

Most immediately, Trump is trying a familiar device by adopting an apparently outlandish legal argument to game the judicial process. Judges have previously ruled that the president lacks the authority to change the building’s name or to authorize major structural work. That power resides with Congress — not the presidentially appointed trustees he’s lined up to empower his takeover bid.

But the saga is also remarkable for Trump’s obliviousness to the optics of taking over a living memorial to an assassinated president who staved off nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Perhaps he’d like to deal an insult to a great American and Democratic dynasty that still enjoys the historic recognition that he seems to crave, but that so far eludes him.

It’s hard to argue that — for all Trump’s showbiz nous — his interest has been anything other than disastrous for the Kennedy Center. The Washington National Opera and the National Symphony Orchestra have left home. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that ticket sales and donations plummeted after Trump’s board voted to put his name on the building. Farcical scenes followed, with a tarp covering the facade after the president was ordered by a court to erase his name from alongside that of the 35th president.

Critics will likely see the new threat to destroy the center altogether as yet another act of revenge, or an attempt to cover up another embarrassing Trump project, along with the botched renovation of Washington’s Reflecting Pool.

Trump, however, insists he’s beautifying a capital that has been left to decay in recent times. And it’s true that cleaning up fountains, parks, statues and some public buildings has been in many cases an aesthetic improvement.

Meanwhile, another legal showdown threatens to halt construction on the ballroom that is replacing the White House East Wing, which he tore down in another legally questionable power grab. And his proposed towering arch that would overshadow the capital’s sacred sight lines is seen by many as a future memorial to presidential hubris.

But there may be political mileage for Trump in the Kennedy Center imbroglio even if he loses the legal fight. Turfing the capital’s cultural deep state out of their palace of the arts is hardly likely to harm Trump’s populist credentials.

The troller, trolled

 

The president’s social media threat to rename Lake Ontario was a gesture of mockery and contempt toward a loyal neighbor that has long been sending its sons to die in America’s wars — sacrifices Trump ignores.

Canada vowed Tuesday to match his tariff threats dollar for dollar after accusing him of infringing its sovereignty with demands embedded in trade-deal proposals.

His posting of a map showing the new potential “Lake America” seems a juvenile gesture, but it was also a telling insight into his political methodology.

Trump loves trolling. His most viral posts often create outrage in the political establishment, among his foes and in traditional media. This serves to please his base and right-wing media.

Trump’s proposal to Make one of the Great Lakes Great Again is not even a new move. It mirrors his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America, announced during his inaugural address last year. When he did so, Hillary Clinton, his vanquished 2016 opponent, couldn’t contain her giggles. For Never-Trumpers it was a moment of ridicule. But the episode turned out to be a glimpse of an incoming president with a habit of redrawing maps to suit his monarchical whims.

A few weeks ago, Trump mused about declaring the Strait of Hormuz, which is under an Iranian stranglehold, US territory. A president can’t just declare a foreign waterway he doesn’t control part of the United States. But the troll delighted conservative pundits and for a little while turned attention away from his failure to end a war he claimed that he’d won after a few days last winter.

All presidents use naming rights as a tool of political power, to reflect their ideology and to try to define their age.

But Trump takes it to another level, fittingly for a serial brander who made his fortune putting his name on hotels and golf courses, steaks and sneakers.

His administration has renamed military bases, warships and mountain peaks to empower what it sees as its anti-woke crusade. It hauled out the old name for Mount McKinley in Alaska, for example, which had been renamed Denali by President Barack Obama after its historic Native American title.

And CNN reported last week that the Pentagon — under its testosterone-fueled new moniker the Department of War — is considering renaming an aircraft carrier under construction, potentially for Trump. It had been slated to honor Black Pearl Harbor hero Doris “Dorie” Miller.

In his online troll about Lake Ontario, the president said there was no need to mention the province because two-way trade with the US would soon peter out.

But of course the troller in chief can himself be trolled.

“Let’s just call it Lake Natalie so we know you’ll start protecting our Great Lakes,” Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan wrote on X, in an arch reference to White House executive assistant Natalie Harp, the president’s ubiquitous aide.

Of course....

Trump Just Used a $500 Million Clean Steel Grant to Fund a Coal Furnace

Congress had earmarked the money to advance low-carbon tech. Whoops.

Maria Gallucci

A $500 million Biden-era grant to decarbonize steelmaking has been refashioned by the Trump administration to upgrade a coal-fueled blast furnace in southern Ohio.

On Friday, Cleveland-Cliffs confirmed that the US Department of Energy had changed the scope of the previously awarded funding for Cliffs’ Middletown steel mill—the longtime economic engine of Vice President JD Vance’s hometown. Vance and Energy Secretary Chris Wright visited the plant on Friday to tout the federal investment.

“The DOE’s support for this project is a testament to the importance of preserving the blast furnace route to produce automotive-exposed grade steels in the US,” Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves said in a statement. The Middletown plant makes steel used in the exposed parts of cars, trucks, and SUVs.

Today’s announcement makes official what Cliffs has been signaling would happen in recent months. The change of plans has drawn pushback from green-steel advocates and some Middletown residents, who say they are dismayed that funding meant to slash industrial emissions could potentially amp up local air pollution instead.

“Cleveland-Cliffs and JD Vance need to get rid of coal and go back to the original project that would clean up the air we breathe and improve our health,” Donna Ballinger, who lives in the shadows of the Middletown steel mill, said Friday in a news release shared by the Sierra Club.

Cliffs initially planned to use its half-billion-dollar award to replace its aging blast furnace with cleaner, hydrogen-ready technology and electric furnaces. In March 2024, the Biden administration’s DOE chose Middletown as the place to unveil its broader, $6.3 billion program for decarbonizing key US manufacturing sectors, which was primarily funded by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

Globally, iron and steel production generates roughly 9 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions every year, and the vast majority of that pollution comes from using coal in blast furnaces. Replacing the centuries-old technology is considered key to limiting the worst impacts of climate change, and global efforts to clean up steelmaking are advancing, though in fits and starts.

Cliffs’ original project would’ve replaced coal with natural gas—and eventually hydrogen—eliminating roughly 1 million tons of planet-warming emissions. But after President Donald Trump took office in 2025, the Ohio-based steelmaker recommitted itself to using ​“beautiful coal” at the Middletown steel mill.

Under its current plan, Cliffs says it will refurbish and optimize the 73-year-old blast furnace so that it can run for potentially another two decades. The manufacturer will also install a cogeneration plant that uses waste gases from the blast furnace to generate steam and electricity for the steel mill’s operations. Cliffs said it will invest $500 million of its own money to match DOE’s grant.

Cliffs first outlined the new direction in a February air-permit application submitted to Ohio’s environmental regulator. It wasn’t clear then whether this work would be funded by the DOE, given the nature of the grant program.

However, in July, Goncalves said during an earnings call that the company aimed to redirect the $500 million grant to align with the Trump administration’s priorities. Friday’s announcement cements those plans, with the DOE having ​“established a framework for Cliffs to finalize negotiations and implementation plans” for the Middletown project, Cliffs said.

In a news release, the DOE said the company ​“determined that the business case for the original project scope no longer made sense given customers’ unwillingness to pay a ​‘green premium’ for steel. Working with the DOE, Cleveland-Cliffs identified a viable alternative that will upgrade and improve the efficiency of its existing coal-fired blast furnace” while also capturing waste gas.

A former DOE official noted that Congress legally mandated that the grant funding be used to, in the words of the Inflation Reduction Act, enable ​“advanced industrial technology”—defined as something ​“designed to accelerate greenhouse gas emission reduction progress to net-zero at an eligible facility.”

The Middletown project’s revised scope will move the steel mill away from achieving net-zero emissions, not toward it, the former official said.

As Cliffs sees it, the steelmaker is ​“going above and beyond a standard blast furnace reline, to include the most advanced technology available,” Goncalves said in Friday’s statement, referring to the cogeneration plant and other planned energy-efficiency improvements.

“Cleveland-Cliffs is making a decisive investment in the future of American steelmaking and manufacturing,” he said.

There needs to be blood.....

All the Democrats’ probes

House Dems’ efforts if they take back the majority could provide a backbone for the accountability message the party intends to continue into the 2028 presidential election season.

Calen Razor

Democrats are readying a long list of investigations they want to launch into Donald Trump.

Reps. Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin, who would lead the Oversight and Judiciary committees, respectively, if the party takes back the House, said they’re wasting no time in preparing an all-out oversight campaign targeting Trump, his family and his administration.

Both know that House Dems’ efforts now could provide a backbone for the accountability message the party intends to continue into the 2028 presidential election season.

“We are going to be looking at systems of bribery, kickback and financial corruption and opportunities for disgorgement and restitution to the American people,” Raskin said. “That would be No. 1.”

Topping their long list of controversies they want to probe: Trump’s acceptance of a Qatari jet for use as his new Air Force One, and his family’s massively profitable cryptocurrency investments.

Raskin also said he intends to probe what he deems “fraudulent and vindictive prosecutions,” including those of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Garcia, meanwhile, said he is determined to fill in gaps he sees in the GOP-led investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

White House spokesperson Olivia Wales responded to Democrats’ plans by stating the president “will continue to draw a sharp contrast with his commonsense agenda and radical Democrats who want to massively raise taxes, defund the police, and are soft on crime.”

Garcia and Raskin’s preparations in some ways resemble how their predecessors planned ahead of the 2018 midterms. But that year, Democrats tiptoed around the prospect of impeachment for fear of alienating voters, then launched a flurry of investigations aimed at Trump once they were in power.

Now, after two impeachments that failed to remove Trump from office and with a party base intent on pulling no punches, House Democrats are reluctant to take anything off the table — while also recognizing the limitations of impeachment as a check on Trump’s power.

“Nobody on the Democratic side is afraid of impeachment,” Raskin said this week, adding that he considers it a “tool in the toolbox.”

Angered farm-state Republicans and agriculture industry groups

Trump scoffs at ‘affordability’ issues. The White House knows it’s a big deal.

The move angered farm-state Republicans and agriculture industry groups who say they were “blindsided” by the announcement.

By Myah Ward and Grace Yarrow

President Donald Trump often dismisses “affordability” as a political attack line from Democrats. He’s still worried about it.

The president’s latest bid to lower beef prices is a last-ditch effort to ease consumer strain at the grocery store, a key driver of negative sentiment. The move, which angered farm-state Republicans and agriculture industry groups who say they were “blindsided” by the announcement, underscores the growing concern inside the White House that stubborn inflation could doom the GOP’s prospects in November.

That fear is fueled by internal polling, reviewed by Trump and his team, which shows grocery prices top the list of Americans’ cost-of-living worries, according to a person close to the White House, who like others in this story was granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking. That polling matches public surveys: A recent Associated Press-NORC poll showed 80 percent of Americans had changed their grocery habits because of high prices, and 41 percent said they were worried about being able to afford food over the next few months.

“The White House understands prices are too high, and we’ve got to do everything in our power to make it look like, ‘Hey, we understand your problem, and we’re out there, and we’re going to do everything we can to bring prices down between now and Election Day,’” the person said.

This story is based on interviews with 11 people, including administration officials, people close to the White House, ranchers, beef industry officials and economists.

The plan that so rankled farm-state interests: Last week Trump, responding to Americans’ concerns about their grocery bills, announced a proposal to temporarily remove duties on 300,000 metric tons of imported beef, which he said suppliers have agreed to sell at a 25 percent discount that will be passed on to consumers.

Trump’s gambit, though, may come too late to meaningfully impact prices at the supermarket before the election. And the move, a version of which the White House shelved in May amid internal divisions, produced predictable backlash from farmers and ranchers who say they are already being squeezed, as the war in Iran drives up diesel and fertilizer costs to near record levels and the escalating trade war with Canada adds another layer of uncertainty for the agriculture industry.

“We were blindsided by the announcement,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, a trade group representing cattle producers. “We had no inkling that the president was going to continue on that same path that he was on earlier and appeared to have withdrawn, and now he’s right back at it again.”

But over the last three months, the price of beef has continued to inch higher, driven by demand and a decades-low cattle inventory diminished by severe weather, industry consolidation and high operating costs. Ground beef last month averaged $6.89 per pound, up from $6.75 in May and $5.55 when Trump returned to the White House, according to government data.

And with the midterms in less than three months, White House aides are increasingly focused on an affordability message, betting that addressing Americans’ broader concerns is worth temporarily enraging ranchers, a loyal GOP constituency.

“It had to have come to that it was broad enough in appeal that they said, ‘OK, it’s worth the hit on farmers and ranchers in these swing states — like we get more bang for our buck,’” said a second person close to the White House. The person continued that beef should be just one of several products the administration targets in the run-up to Election Day.

“I would be throwing the kitchen sink there, and saying, ‘here’s 10 other things that I’m doing to make your life better,’” the person added.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. A USDA spokesperson said the president’s announcement, which comes during a time of record high demand for beef, will help address supply shortages and shows his “commitment to lowering the cost of everyday goods for the American people.”

As the White House touted its economic message in early 2026, the president’s team argued that the spring tax cuts and other key provisions from last year’s GOP legislation would boost the economy and ease household costs — well-timed for midterms. But allies concede that the president’s war in Iran has instead wiped away many of those predicted gains, complicating that message as Democrats center their midterms pitch on affordability.

Trump, whose message often meanders between touting the roaring economy he’s created and blaming his predecessor for lingering issues, said his plan for beef was driven by the voters.

“We want to get the beef prices down, so we’ll get them down a little bit, and that’s what people want. That’s what the voters want,” Trump told reporters late last week, while also addressing the outrage from ranchers and farm state Republicans. “The ranchers are great. They’re my people. I love the ranchers. They’ve done a fantastic job, but they admit that we need a little help in order to get the prices down, so that’s what we’re doing.”

But beef industry groups, long allied with the president, were shocked by the announcement, which is expected to be followed by an executive order within the next two weeks. Industry leaders are now scrambling for details such as where the beef will come from and in what timeframe.

The USDA spokesperson noted that as the president looks to address consumer prices, the administration is also cutting regulations for farmers and ranchers while “rebuilding our nation’s cattle supply.”

“And it’s working — we have seen the number of American cattle grow for the first time in years,” the spokesperson said. “The president and his administration will continue investing in the future of the American rancher.”

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins — who has privately objected to previous beef import plans — was informed the president was moving forward on Thursday evening, according to one person familiar with the talks. She was heading out of Washington for a roundtable with farmers and remarks at the Iowa state fair as the announcement was being finalized.

Rollins, speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, said she had not talked to the president about this specific announcement. She said Trump is working closely with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on next steps, and that she is not “privy” to disclose which countries are in ongoing talks with the U.S.

Because details are sparse, it’s unclear what impact Trump’s move will have on prices, economists say.

“We’ve got to be pretty cautious on projecting a price decrease for ground beef, even with this potential surge in imports,” said Joshua Maples, associate professor of agriculture economics at Mississippi State University. “It’s going to depend on how this plays out. Certainly, this will boost supplies for a time period, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s going to translate to lower prices.”

And there could be long-term consequences that force the United States to become even more reliant on foreign producers. Top beef industry groups and experts have pointed out that Trump’s announcement discourages cattle ranchers from growing their herd. Why invest, the argument goes, if foreign beef could flood the country at lower prices.

“If we’re encouraging people into the business, and then you’re going to start to import, what does that say?” said Oscar Gonzales, vice chair of the California Horse Racing Board and a top aide and adviser to former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack during both the Obama and Biden administrations. “Mixed messages, for sure, and wrong signals being sent to American producers.”

One Florida rancher, who was granted anonymity to avoid reprisal, said Trump’s plans mark the latest economic obstacle for the industry and will make it harder to expand their operation. The rancher said their family has depleted savings and retirement accounts in recent years to keep the business afloat, arguing that the administration hasn’t listened to producers.

“It’s frustrating when they make it seem like they want to help,” the rancher said. “That’s great. Please help us. But they don’t really understand what they’re saying, what they’re proposing, what it’s going to do to the market or to the people that are living these lives.”

Pay $17 Billion... I guess they are admitting guilt....

Meta agrees to pay $17B, adopt kids’ safety features to resolve states’ lawsuits

The tentative agreement is a massive concession from the tech giant.

By Tyler Katzenberger

Meta has reached a tentative $17 billion settlement with nearly all U.S. states that would also see the social media giant make sweeping changes to dramatically restrict minors’ access to Instagram and Facebook, the California Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

The pending agreement is a monumental concession without precedent by one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful tech companies. It would end a pivotal trial over claims brought by California and more than two dozen other states that Meta intentionally hooked kids on its platforms, while misleading users about their potential harms. The deal would also resolve claims brought by other states and some U.S. territories in different proceedings.

“We have secured a settlement with Meta that will make social media less dangerous for our kids and make a world of difference for children and their families,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. He said the terms of the deal call for “massive transformations that will reduce the risk of harm.”

The impact of the concessions Meta has agreed to make will be limited to the U.S. but nonetheless far-reaching, as the company is set to implement protections that online safety advocates have been trying to extract from Congress for years. Instagram and Facebook boast hundreds of millions of American users, many of whom are the teens and parents who would experience the new child safety features most directly.

According to Bonta’s office, the settlement, which must be approved by a federal judge, demands that Meta build guardrails into its platforms to limit minors’ access to two hours each day and block them entirely between midnight and 6 a.m. unless a parent decides to override the restrictions.

Default settings will also block Meta from sending minors notifications between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., with similar prohibitions applying during school hours from mid-August to mid-June.

Restrictions could get even tighter. If social media competitors like Snapchat, TikTok or YouTube agree to follow suit, daily time limits would drop to one hour, and the nighttime access block would last from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., according to the terms of the proposed settlement.

Within minutes of the settlement becoming public Wednesday, Meta urged TikTok and YouTube to adopt the new child safety standards “because we know that when teens are restricted on one app, they simply move to another.”

“Its success depends on all other social media platforms following Meta’s lead,” Meta Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney said in a statement.

The settlement will further limit how minors engage with Meta products by requiring the company to conceal the number of “likes” and other reactions to their posts and those they view, banning so-called “beauty filters” and allowing them to deactivate personalized feeds that use algorithms to fine-tune content recommendations and maximize user engagement. Meta would also have to report to an independent auditor and institute more stringent age assurance measures to identify young users, among other safety commitments.

Meta will pay the $17 billion to states over ten years, according to Bonta’s office. Most of the kids’ safety features will remain in place for the same ten-year period, according to Meta.

For Meta, the settlement will abruptly end the trial prosecutors from California and a coalition of other states had waged in an Oakland courtroom. By resolving the case, the company avoids the possibility of an even more damaging result had the jury found it liable for mental health harms that young users claimed they suffered from excessive use of Meta products. It allows CEO Mark Zuckerberg to avoid testifying and cuts short attorneys’ questioning of Instagram head Adam Mosseri, which began Tuesday.

Bloomberg first reported settlement talks between Meta and state prosecutors Tuesday evening.

The settlement could also sway the outcome of hundreds of other pending lawsuits alleging Meta, Snap, TikTok and Google, YouTube’s parent company, designed similarly addictive platforms that caused anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and in some cases, death by suicide or drug overdose.

California is expected to receive between $1.5 billion and $2.1 billion from the settlement, according to Bonta’s office. The governor and state lawmakers would decide how to spend the money.

Texas, Florida and New Mexico appear to be the only three U.S. states not listed as part of the settlement terms as described by Bonta’s office.

It would not be the first time Meta has paid up as part of child harm cases, though payouts in past cases have been significantly smaller. In March, a Los Angeles jury ruled that Meta and Google owed $6 million in penalties after finding the companies liable in another teen addiction case.

And just this month, a federal court in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay the state nearly $1 billion in penalties after its attorney general successfully argued its platforms endangered kids. The court also directed the company to implement similar design changes, such as silencing nighttime notifications and enforcing strict screen-time limits for young users.

Doesn't matter, will get smeared in election....

‘It's put up or shut up time’: Battleground Republicans want the Darline treatment

The president went to great lengths to push his candidate over the finish line in South Carolina, but Republicans want the same support in races that will actually determine control of Congress.

By Alec Hernandez and Aaron Pellish

President Donald Trump notched a major win on Tuesday night. Republicans in battlegrounds wonder if it was the best use of his time and money.

Sen. Darline Graham defeated Rep. Ralph Norman in South Carolina’s snap Senate GOP runoff, handing Trump a revitalizing win after several of his endorsed candidates fell in recent primaries.

It was a victory that Graham, a complete political unknown six weeks ago, could not have pulled off without Trump’s steadfast support, underscoring just how much his influence still matters among the Republican electorate in the deeply conservative state.

But South Carolina’s Senate seat will not dictate the balance of power in Washington, and GOP strategists working on critical swing state campaigns are eager for Trump to finally direct his attention to them.

“The message coming out of this is that obviously the president’s support is still super powerful. The president’s operation still has the ability to move the needle in a lot of these states,” said a Republican strategist working on several battleground races, including in Georgia, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about Trump’s involvement. “Hopefully, this is a sign of things to come that the president is willing to get involved and really start to move the needle in some other places that obviously matter a little bit more than South Carolina.”

Trump’s persistent backing of Graham defined the race: He championed her appointment to her late brother Sen. Lindsey Graham’s seat, he coaxed her into the race with an early endorsement, stood by her as she stumbled on the debate stage, and flew down to Myrtle Beach for a rare political rally that few of his chosen candidates have enjoyed this cycle. MAGA Inc., Trump’s behemoth super PAC, even spent a slice of highly sought after cash from its $400 million stockpile in the closing days of the race.

And yet, the president hasn’t taken a meaningful step into the states that will matter in a few short months — even as battleground Republicans have been clamoring for him to spend his MAGA Inc. money.

“It’s now or never. It’s put up or shut up time, and it’s really time to start to see if he’s going to get serious,” the GOP strategist said. “You’ve got September and October to really move the needle here, and it just doesn’t seem like there’s any sense of urgency, or like we understand that we are down big in some of these states.”

During her victory speech in Columbia, Graham acknowledged Trump’s heavy hand: “Our victory would not have been possible without you, and we are truly grateful,” Graham said of the president. “South Carolina is truly Trump country.”

Norman’s take on the president’s participation was not as rosy: “The president got involved. He has that right. That’s his prerogative,” Norman said in his concession speech Tuesday, prompting jeers from the crowd at his election night watch party. “Y’all,” he continued, “his policies are good. I never understood why he got in this race. It is what it is, and I’ll accept it.”

Norman’s bewilderment reflected several national and South Carolina Republicans’ confusion as to why the president would expend energy for the safe Republican seat when his MAGA allies like Mike Collins in Georgia, scandal-plagued Ken Paxton in Texas and Michael Whatley in North Carolina are facing tough Senate battles against Democratic opponents.

“There’s the principle,” said a North Carolina-based GOP strategist who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the battleground picture. “If you’re not Trump and you have these people shoved down your throat, you’re like, ‘Okay, are you gonna help?’”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some Republicans are worried that though Trump helped power Graham’s win, the president’s overall unpopularity may be more of a curse than a boon in any highly competitive battleground state. A series of Trump-backed candidates lost gubernatorial and congressional primaries in recent weeks, including in Georgia and Iowa.

Republicans overall are facing a tough election environment given the ongoing and unpopular war in Iran, backlash to the administration’s highly-visible deportation agenda and voters’ persistent cost of living concerns.

“You have a president and maybe even a vice president that are just so underwater politically in the polls, that they might be a help by not intervening,” said Matthew Bartlett, a GOP strategist and former State Department official in the first Trump administration.

Still, Trump swept the battlegrounds in 2024, and his ability to boost Graham despite her foreign policy debate gaffe and questions about her political inexperience serves as a reminder of his electoral prowess to campaign officials.

The question remains when — or if — he’ll throw them a presidential life raft.

“I wouldn’t count on the money if I were in these states,” said the North Carolina-based Republican strategist. “He still could. I’m just saying, I wouldn’t count on it. We’re not dealing with somebody that’s, you know, super calculated in the way they plan.”

For months, Republicans across the country have watched on as the president has continued to amass a remarkable pile of cash — and many have implored him to empty his pockets in their races. The president told reporters last week that he’ll spend “a lot of that money” to boost “Republican candidates that I think are good,” without being specific.

However, what some saw as a distraction from the greater Republican cause this year, others read as the first few drops of Trump’s cash flood.

“If they’re going to spend 800 grand in South Carolina, they’re going to spend in the midterms,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist based in Texas who worked on Sen. John Cornyn’s failed reelection campaign and is now backing the GOP ticket. “It signals they’re going to make a substantial investment in the midterms because you don’t make an 800-grand investment in South Carolina and say, ‘Yeah, we’re going to let everybody do their own thing.’ This was in some ways a test case.”

Trump’s targeted support for Graham — the kind that some Republicans are banking on to shift the dial later this fall — paid off for her in dividends on election night. Horry County, the site of the president’s marquee rally with the candidate late last week, resoundingly broke for Graham.

Trump’s backing also helped open the door to endorsements from key South Carolina Republican figures, including fellow GOP Sen. Tim Scott, who helped Graham shore up support in his Charleston-area home base, Gov. Henry McMaster, and two members of the state’s congressional delegation, Reps. Russell Fry and William Timmons.

Outside spending also proved crucial to Graham’s success. Her campaign and its allies outspent Norman by more than $5 million in the runoff alone, according to AdImpact.

Trump’s allies took a victory lap after Graham’s victory was confirmed Tuesday evening.

“The power of the Trump endorsement is alive and well in South Carolina,” said Mike Hahn, a GOP strategist involved in the midterms. “A good opening salvo for the team at MAGA Inc. and the president ahead of the midterms.”