Getting killed......

High gas prices, cost of living send US consumer sentiment to all-time low

By Alicia Wallace

Americans just loathe this economy.

A closely watched measurement of US consumer sentiment fell to a fresh, all-time low in May, according to the latest survey from the University of Michigan.

The May consumer sentiment index dropped for the third consecutive month, falling to 44.2 and landing below the previous record low of 49.8 set in April.

The US-Israeli war in Iran and its subsequent oil supply crunch and price shocks have worsened sentiment that already was soured by years of high inflation and an affordability crisis.

“The cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month,” Joanne Hsu, director of the university’s Surveys of Consumers, wrote in a statement.

Consumers’ personal finances sank by 13% in May, she said.

The University of Michigan’s sentiment survey dates back to 1952: Americans are feeling worse now than they did during wars, the 1970s oil crisis, 9/11, the Great Recession, the Covid-19 pandemic and the inflation surge afterward.

Some of the sharpest declines in sentiment came from lower-income consumers and those without college degrees, she said, noting that increases in the cost of fuel and other essentials hit those groups particularly hard.

War, gas prices become an albatross

US gas prices are nearing all-time highs as the Strait of Hormuz – an important passageway for the shipping of oil and other critical goods – has been effectively choked off for nearly three months.

“Earlier this year, consumers may have reserved judgment about how long the Iran conflict would last,” Hsu said. “Three months into the conflict, consumers appear to be worried that supply disruptions are unlikely to be resolved quickly.”

Consumers are also concerned that the high oil and gas prices will spread through the economy and make other goods and services even more expensive, she added.

To that end, consumers’ year-ahead inflation expectations edged higher to 4.8% from 4.7% in April, and the five-year expected inflation rate jumped to 3.9% from 3.5%. The near- and long-term expectations are back at rates hit during the latter part of last year, when tariffs added to inflationary pressures.

Among the respondents with the biggest increases in long-term inflation expectations were those with political affiliations of independent and Republican, Hsu noted.

“For the latter group, long-run inflation expectations are currently more than double their February 2025 reading on a monthly basis,” she said.

Consumers’ expectations about the pace of future price hikes are closely tracked by the Federal Reserve. If people believe that prices will only continue to rise, they might spend more now and demand higher wages, and businesses might raise prices to accommodate higher demand and wages – thus raising inflation.

The dour sentiment reading comes at a time when a large swath of data paints a picture of a resilient US economy while the stock market continues to hit new highs.

Not all Americans feel that.

“The American consumer is treading water here, and the income tax refunds must be gone already or the money spent on the higher prices seen everywhere in the economy,” Christopher Rupkey, chief economist at FwdBonds, wrote in a statement to investors Friday. “The stock market record highs are having no effect whatsoever on cheering consumers up which means most Americans have the money locked up in 401K retirement accounts that cannot be drawn on to make life easier now.”

Now to prison.........

Tulsi Gabbard is resigning as director of national intelligence

By Kevin Liptak, Kaitlan Collins, Kristen Holmes, Kaanita Iyer

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced Friday that she’s resigning at the end of June, citing her husband’s diagnosis with cancer.

“Unfortunately, I must submit my resignation, effective June 30, 2026,” she wrote in a letter President Donald Trump. “My husband, Abraham, has recently been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of bone cancer. He faces major challenges in the coming weeks and months. At this time, I must step away from public service to be by his side and fully support him through this battle.”

Trump quickly praised Gabbard and announced Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Aaron Lukas will serve as acting director of national intelligence.

“Her wonderful husband, Abraham, has been recently diagnosed with a rare form of bone cancer, and she, rightfully, wants to be with him, bringing him back to good health as they currently fight a tough battle together,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that Gabbard has done “an incredible job, and we will miss her.”

Over the last few weeks, White House officials heard rumors that Gabbard was planning to leave. But as of two weeks ago, she was denying she was leaving the administration, a senior administration official said. On Friday, Gabbard met with Trump to deliver the letter, according to a source familiar.

In her letter to Trump, Gabbard said she couldn’t let her husband face the diagnosis on his own.

“Abraham has been my rock throughout our eleven years of marriage —standing steadfast through my deployment to East Africa on a Joint Special Operations mission, multiple political campaigns, and now my service in this role. His strength and love have sustained me through every challenge. I cannot in good conscience ask him to face this fight alone while I continue in this demanding and time-consuming position,” she wrote.

Gabbard’s tenure has been riddled with contradictory and confusing messaging, particularly on the US war with Iran, which at times put her out of favor with the White House.

Gabbard will be the latest Cabinet member to depart, following Trump’s recent ousters of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“While we have made significant progress at the ODNI — advancing unprecedented transparency and restoring integrity to the intelligence community — I recognize there is still important work to be done,” Gabbard wrote in her letter to the president, noting that she’s committed to facilitating a smooth transition.

At odds with Trump over Iran

Gabbard’s messaging on Iran had at times been at odds with the White House’s claims and justifications, beginning months before the war started in late February.

CNN reported in June 2025 — days before the US struck Iranian nuclear facilities — that multiple people inside the West Wing had grown disillusioned with Gabbard’s performance, with Trump seeing her as “off message” regarding the Israel-Iran conflict, according to one senior White House adviser.

Trump’s annoyance peaked earlier that month when Gabbard posted a video warning that the world was “closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before” and blaming “political elite and warmongers” for stoking “fear and tensions between nuclear powers.”

Trump viewed the video as a thinly veiled criticism of his consideration to allow Israel to strike Iran, and many inside the White House agreed Gabbard was speaking out of turn, a source told CNN at the time.

Later that month, Trump publicly rebuked his intel chief’s testimony to Congress that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, telling reporters, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having it.” The same day, Trump greenlit US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, known as Operation Midnight Hammer.

After the US-Israeli war against Iran began in February of this year, Trump and administration officials attempted to justify the conflict by claiming Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after those June 2025 strikes and posed an imminent threat.

However, in her prepared remarks to the Senate Intelligence Committee less than a month later, Gabbard said, “As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer (in June), Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.”

She did not read that portion of her prepared remarks during the congressional hearing. Pressed on why, she said it was because her “time was running long” but said, “yes” when asked whether that remained the assessment of the intelligence community.

During that hearing, Gabbard also refused to say whether Iran posed an imminent threat, instead saying, “The only person who can determine what is and is not a threat is the president.”

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” she added.

Gabbard’s top counterterrorism official, Joe Kent, resigned less than three weeks into the war, citing misgivings about the conflict and saying Iran did not pose an “imminent threat.”

Gabbard distanced herself from Kent, and when asked during a House hearing whether she found his comments concerning, Gabbard said, “Yes.”

Gabbard, who serves in the Army Reserves, is a former Democratic congresswoman who represented Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District, making history as the first American Samoan and practicing Hindu in Congress. She ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, touting herself as an Iraq War veteran with an anti-interventionist foreign policy, before leaving the party two years later.

She went on to endorse Trump in 2024, campaigning with him and helping him prepare for his debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Gabbard joined the GOP before the election and served on Trump’s transition team after he won. Trump tapped her to serve as director of national intelligence, the top post overseeing the 18 agencies that make up the intelligence community.

CBS... Fuck Off....

‘We were lucky’: Stephen Colbert’s ‘Late Show’ bids farewell in final broadcast on CBS

By Brian Stelter

Stephen Colbert put on an emotional and existential final episode of “The Late Show” Thursday night, thanking his staff, studio audience and viewers for eleven years of laughs.

Colbert walked on stage to deafening cheers at the Ed Sullivan Theater, where longtime friends and VIPs filled the rows of seats.

“If you’re just tuning into ‘The Late Show,’ you missed a lot,” he quipped, alluding to CBS parent company Paramount’s controversial and politically charged decision to cancel the show.

Paramount cited financial pressures, but many Colbert fans blamed political pressures, namely President Donald Trump’s contempt for Colbert’s frequent criticism of him. Paramount was urgently seeking the Trump administration’s approval of a media merger at the time Colbert was given marching orders last summer.

Trump celebrated Colbert’s final show in a Truth Social post, writing, “Amazing he lasted so long! No talent, no ratings, no life. … Thank goodness he’s finally gone!”

Colbert notably did not mention Trump at all during Thursday’s finale. Nor did he dwell on the symbolism of his show being taken off the air.

Instead, he expressed appreciation for his years at CBS, choosing to be grateful for the time he had, rather than angry about it ending.

When Colbert noted that he was beginning the final episode and his fans booed, he put up his finger and said, “No, no, we were lucky enough to be here for the last 11 years. You can’t take this for granted.”

The monologue was interrupted by celebrity friends like Bryan Cranston, Paul Rudd, and Tim Meadows, who all vied to be Colbert’s last guest. Ultimately it was Paul McCartney who sat down with Colbert for an in-depth interview.

“What could be more full circle than a crowd screaming for Paul McCartney at the Ed Sullivan Theater?” the show’s TikTok account asked in a post.

That’s because McCartney and The Beatles famously performed on “The Ed Sullivan Show,” on the same stage, in 1964.

On Thursday night, McCartney riffed about how he is resistant to change. Take the iPhone, with its constant software updates, he said: “I bought you. I don’t want you to change.”

Colbert sympathized, but seemed ready to adapt to the changing circumstances of his career.

In his monologue, he joked, “A lot of people have been asking me what I plan to do after tonight, and the answer is … drugs.”

But Colbert, true to self, also had some sincere things to say about his relationship with the late-night audience.

He harkened back to the way he introduced himself as a blowhard character on Comedy Central’s “Colbert Report” in 2005: “Anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news ‘at’ you.”

Once he moved from Comedy Central to the much bigger CBS stage in 2015, “I realized pretty soon … that our job over here was different,” he said. “We were here to feel the news with you. And I don’t know about you, but I sure have felt it.”

Colbert’s monologues and interviews tried to make sense of the news and noise. You’re “not crazy,” he sometimes said to viewers, when dissecting especially shocking stories.

Toward the end of Thursday’s finale, Colbert’s show imagined that an “interdimensional wormhole” had opened up at the theater and was threatening to consume all of late-night.

Colbert’s late night rivals-slash-friends arrived to help.

“At some point, this may come for all of our shows,” HBO’s John Oliver quipped.

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, alluding to his brief suspension last year amid Trump administration pressure, said the wormhole had appeared at his show back then, “but it went away after about three days.”

Jon Stewart, who hosts “The Daily Show” for Paramount’s Comedy Central, delivered a joke at the parent company’s expense: “Paramount strongly believes in covering both sides of any black hole that is swallowing everything we know and love, and the coverage must also include the positive aspects of the insatiable emptiness.”

The episode came to a close with two taped performances: First, Colbert, Elvis Costello and former “Late Show” bandleader Jon Batiste performed an old favorite of Colbert’s, Costello’s 1977 demo “Jump Up” about lying, hypocritical politicians.

Then McCartney, Costello and others sang the Beatles classic “Hello, Goodbye.” The show concluded by imagining the Ed Sullivan Theater existing inside a snow globe – a reference to the ending of the 1980s drama “St. Elsewhere,” suggesting all the years were just a dream.

After Colbert and his producers taped the final episode on Thursday evening, they headed to a star-studded wrap party nearby.

Colbert has said in interviews that he hasn’t had much time to think ahead to what he might want to do next, though he is on the hook to help write a new “Lord of the Rings” movie.

“I don’t have much better of an answer than most college seniors do, which is I’ve got to finish this first, because it takes almost the entirety of my brain to do this show,” he told People magazine. “So we’ll land this plane and we’ll check out the view from there.”

Starting Friday, the 11:35 p.m. window belonging to “The Late Show” will be controlled by Byron Allen, whose media company leased the time slot from CBS for his show “Comics Unleashed.”

Allen’s talk show features a rotating roundtable of comics who tell stories and riff on each other’s jokes, and it’s purposefully evergreen in nature so that the episodes can be repeated later, which means it noticeably lacks any political humor.

As for the famed Ed Sullivan Theater stage where the show was produced for decades, there are no firm plans for what will become of the 100-year-old performance space.

“The fact that nothing’s gonna come in here breaks my heart,” Colbert told Architectural Digest in a video tour of the theater. “But someone will figure it out, and I wish them all the luck in the world — because they’re gonna love it.”

Roundup Was Being Sprayed

Locals Didn’t Think Roundup Was Being Sprayed Near Lake Tahoe. So I Went to Find Out.

And lo and behold.

Nate Halverson

This past Sunday, I found myself walking across the snowless ski runs of Sierra-at-Tahoe in California, which sits on public land in the El Dorado National Forest. I had come to chase down a rumor.

Numerous Tahoe-area residents had told me the Forest Service’s plan to spray the controversial herbicide glyphosate—part of the agency’s forest restoration plan for about 75,000 acres scorched by the devastating 2021 Caldor Fire—had been delayed until 2028. A local news site, along with a major local environmental group—Keep Tahoe Blue—were telling people some version of that.

But I had my suspicions. I dug up maps from the Forest Service’s website, and headed to a spot where one of them indicated spraying might already be happening. It was strange to be standing in the middle of a ski run, with neither snow nor skiers around. But I knew if spraying were happening, it would be obvious.

Public uproar has echoed across the Tahoe area since April, when our yearlong Mother Jones investigation revealed that, in California, the fastest-growing use of glyphosate—the main ingredient in Roundup—is to spray forested areas, including this massive new project around Lake Tahoe. Everyone from environmentalists to an Olympic snowboarder and a prominent voice in the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement have since condemned the Forest Service’s plan. 

A petition on Change.org gathered about 10,000 signatures in less than two weeks. And people have taken to social media to call for action, generating hundreds of thousands of views, with companies and organizations like Patagonia and Greenpeace sharing information about the spraying. “Pesticides have no place in our forests!” Greenpeace wrote on its Instagram.

Snowboarder Hannah Teter, who won gold in the half pipe at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Torino, Italy, and Silver at the 2010 games in Vancouver, has voiced her opposition on Instagram, where she has 275,000 followers, as well as on her Facebook page.

“It’s so stupid. Everyone in Tahoe is so bummed,” she told me. “How the heck did they get this approved?”

The Forest Service did allow for public comment back in 2023 on its initially smaller proposal for herbicide use in the Caldor Fire scar, which most people in the area seemingly never heard about. Then a 2025 executive order by President Trump to expand timber harvesting on national forestland allowed the Forest Service to more than double its proposed herbicide use within the Caldor Fire scar without soliciting public feedback.

As the outcry grew over the past few weeks, news begin circulating on social media that the Forest Service was backing off. “They cancelled the plan!” one person wrote. “People showed up to meetings, called our representatives and it’s finally cancelled. OUR VOICES MATTERED ON THIS ONE.”

But that wasn’t true. At Sierra-at-Tahoe, I stood on a mountainside that clearly had been doused in glyphosate. The plants around me were nearly all dead—killed with the controversial herbicide, which the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has deemed a probable human carcinogen—and that a 2020 report from the US Environmental Protection Agency said likely harms 93 percent of endangered species.

Roundup’s manufacturer, Bayer, is currently on the hook for more than $12 billion in legal payouts to more than 180,000 people who say glyphosate made them sick—the company is now seeking immunity from some of its liability in a case recently heard by the Supreme Court. (In a statement, the company said glyphosate products are safe when used as directed and that regulators around the world have approved its use.)

Standing on the slopes of Sierra-at-Tahoe, it was clear to me that the Forest Service is moving ahead. It began spraying glyphosate in the Tahoe area last year, including here at the ski resort, and has been spraying elsewhere this spring. 

Down the ski slope from me, I could see hillsides teaming with life, painted in the lush greens and brightly colored petals of spring. But where I stood, next to a ski run called “Marmot,” the land was devoid of spring flowers; the bushes leafless, brittle, and dead by all appearances. Practically the only thing growing was what the Forest Service intended—pine trees: Its workers had hand-planted baby conifers all across the slope.

This scene of devastation is part of the Forest Service’s pivot towards embracing glyphosate in its efforts to reforest in the wake of massive wildfires. The agency’s herbicide use in the Tahoe area is mirrored by another fire-restoration plan in Northern California’s Lassen National Forest, where the Forest Service plans to spray about 10,000 acres with Roundup or a similar product.  

As our investigation revealed, the deployment of glyphosate in California’s forestlands has been growing for decades, driven in part by the worsening fires, as companies and government officials scramble to harvest burned wood and replant trees for future timber sales. Glyphosate is among the effective methods—and the Forest Service says the cheapest—to get pine trees to grow back faster, as it kills any other plant that might compete for sunlight, soil nutrients, and water.

These new projects are expanding the agency’s historic use of the herbicide. In 2023, it  sprayed 14,900 pounds of pure glyphosate across California, according to an analysis of more than 5 million state records that my colleague Melissa Lewis and I compiled as part of our investigation.

The Forest Service has authorized the spraying of glyphosate over about 75,000 acres within the Caldor Fire scar at up to the legal limit of eight pounds per acre. This means the Tahoe project could deploy more than 584,000 pounds of glyphosate over the next few years. In a document outlining how to transform the fire-scarred land into an ideal timber producing forest, the agency noted that “multiple herbicide applications may be required,” which could further increase the total.

This approach treats portions of the National Forest similarly to farmland, where managers aim to maximize yields and minimize costs. After all, the Forest Service exists within the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The agency has not said exactly how much of the designated area around Tahoe it actually plans to spray, although its documents note that spraying herbicides is “the most effective method available for achieving reforestation objectives in the majority of situations.” Officials did not respond to my questions about how much glyphosate the agency will use, nor whether it still considers the chemical safe for people and the environment—especially now that we know that key research papers vouching for glyphosate’s safety were secretly orchestrated by its manufacturer.

This month, the nonprofit Keep Tahoe Blue sent a message to a concerned local, who then posted it online, saying “no glyphosate has been applied as part of the Caldor Fire Restoration Project, and the USFS has stated the earliest any potential herbicide application could occur is now 2028.” But this was inaccurate.

The Forest Service, as part of the Caldor Fire Restoration Project, has indeed been spraying outside the Tahoe basin, where officials plans to reforest 73,000 acres, including the work already done at Sierra-at-Tahoe.

A big source of confusion is that the Caldor Fire Restoration Project actually consists of two separate plans. One involves the Lake Tahoe watershed (a.k.a. the Tahoe basin), meaning the forest creeks that drain into the lake. This smaller portion of the project includes reforestation and potential herbicide use on about 3,000 acres. It was in relation to this area that the local news site SouthTahoeNow.com reported the Forest Service had held off on spraying until 2028.

But a Forest Service spokesperson told me there has been no delay or change of plans: The agency had never intended to spray in that section—which includes areas near Meyers and Heavenly ski resort—this year or next. But its public documents are unclear on this, and they don’t reveal when or under what circumstances that spraying might commence.

On May 7, the Forest Service posted maps online showing it had sprayed glyphosate around and within Sierra-at-Tahoe in spring 2025. When I called and emailed the local officials to confirm, I got a reply saying they’d need to consult with colleagues on the “East Coast” before answering my question. That’s when I decided to drive out and see for myself.

The Forest Service later confirmed that the area I visited indeed had been sprayed, and that the maps I found online were posted this month—a year after the spraying at Sierra-at-Tahoe—“to facilitate awareness.”

It also released maps showing where the agency is spraying in 2026. Those areas were either already treated with glyphosate in April, a government spokesperson told me this week, or the spraying is “ongoing” and expected to wrap up “within the next couple of weeks, weather conditions permitting.”

All of the spraying, they said, has been accomplished by crews using backpack sprayers. These tend to be contract workers, often Spanish speaking immigrants who may not be aware of the potential safety risks. Mother Jones obtained a photo of one work crew that was cited by a county inspector for failure to wear the mandated protective gear—their exposed skin was purple, covered with the chemical.

The spokesperson said the agency posts signs at locations where it sprays herbicides—and typically removes them within 48 hours. Several research papers indicate that glyphosate can persist in the environment and even plant tissue for months, even years, raising risks to the ecology and human health.

One Forest Service map shows areas outside the Tahoe basin that the agency plans to reforest as part of its restoration project—and which it says will likely require glyphosate and other herbicides. The USDA has defended the Forest Service’s use of glyphosate, noting that it relies on the EPA’s “use of gold-standard science to assess pesticide safety.”

Attorney George Kimbrell, co-executive director of the Center for Food Safety, scoffs at that assertion. “It has a well-established toxicity to the environment. And, for endangered species, Roundup is a significant risk,” he told me.

In 2020, the EPA concluded glyphosate was safe for humans when used according to the label, and any environmental concerns were outweighed by the benefits. But that decision was quickly challenged in court by Kimbrell, who represented a coalition of environmental and farm labor groups arguing that the agency did not adequately assess health and ecological risks.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, overturning the EPA’s decision, noting that most of the studies the EPA examined had “indicated that human exposure to glyphosate is associated with an at least somewhat increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma” and that the agency had shirked its duty in properly assessing the ecological risks. The EPA is expected to announce an update on its glyphosate safety assessment this year.

People in Tahoe, worried about glyphosate’s potential health and environmental harms, have begun organizing to slow or stop the Forest Service’s plan. That effort includes Kelly Ryerson—Glyphosate Girl on Instagram—an influential voice who visited the White House earlier this year with other members of the MAHA coalition.

The group met with President Trump and his staff and discussed the risks of glyphosate, among other issues. Trump has angered his MAHA base this year by taking action to protect Bayer from lawsuits, both via the Supreme Court case and in an executive order issued in February that sought to boost domestic protection of the chemical and shield it from legal liability.

Ryerson told me she is now committed to reversing the Forest Service’s plan in Tahoe. “It’s ludicrous,” she said. “To be spraying glyphosate in such an environmentally sensitive and pristine place, where it can get into the water that so many people drink, or swim in, I mean, who thought this was a good idea?”

Poised to Overtake Coal

Solar Electricity Is Poised to Overtake Coal in—of All Places—Texas

Looks like clean power isn’t a woke scam after all.

Julian Spector

The Texas sun keeps rising, as Texas coal wanes.

For the first time ever, solar is set to generate more electricity than coal in the power market managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Nobody is building new coal power plants in the state, but developers are adding more solar there than anywhere else in the country. As a result of those diverging trajectories, the federal government expects ERCOT will receive 78 billion kilowatt-hours from solar in 2026, and just 60 from coal.

This trend does have seasonal variations. Last year, solar output beat coal on a monthly basis from March through August, and this year it is expected to do so from March through December, per the US Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy.

Nationally, the combination of wind and solar surpassed coal generation in 2024, as noted in an analysis by Ember, a think tank that conducts research on clean energy. In other words, the solar industry is further along in Texas than it is nationwide.

The Texas solar surge undercuts the prevailing energy narratives coming out of the Trump administration, which has attempted to boost coal and gas as tools of ​“energy dominance,” while blocking or canceling American energy that comes from renewables. The Department of Energy, for instance, is keeping struggling coal plants on life support at great expense to taxpayers. Meanwhile, the Department of the Interior is blocking wind and solar developments that intersect with public lands.

Trump officials have argued that coal is more reliable than solar because it can generate power around the clock. But even with that advantage, coal plants in Texas can’t keep up with the total annual and monthly production from the rapidly growing solar fleet. This has not damaged grid reliability, because ERCOT meets evening demand with a diverse portfolio, including gas plants, nuclear, wind, and, increasingly, batteries, which store all that excess solar power for use when the sun stops shining.

Of course, Texas leaders did not set out to disprove the Trump administration’s energy claims. The maverick Lone Star State kept its electricity system out of the hands of federal regulators, and in the 1990s and early 2000s reformed it to promote free market competition instead of centralized planning by monopoly utilities. That market, coupled with lots of space and lax building regulations, has made an ideal environment for wind, solar, and batteries to flourish. Now, Texas is fortified with tens of gigawatts of new capacity with which to tackle heat waves and temper price spikes.

Deep-red Texas offers lessons for the liberal states that have committed to lofty climate goals yet failed to build much solar or batteries so far. They can’t immediately switch over to an ERCOT-style market, but they can take steps to speed up the time it takes to get permits and grid connection, dial back the level of deference to habitually conservative legacy utilities, and make sure that clean energy gets a fair shot in the race to serve surging energy needs. And it’s always a good time to reexamine old market rules that subtly privilege entrenched players at the expense of new entrants that would make cheaper and cleaner power.

After more of the rapid-fire solar buildout, EIA expects ERCOT will produce 99 billion kilowatt-hours of solar power in 2027, up 27% from 2026. At that point, the upstart industry will have left its well-established coal competition in the dust.

Yanked AI order

Trump yanked AI order after David Sacks raised industry concerns

The last-minute intervention by the president’s former AI czar came amid complaints from some tech companies, people told POLITICO.

By Sophia Cai, Cheyenne Haslett and Jacob Wendler

Thursday’s abrupt postponement of President Donald Trump’s much-awaited executive order on artificial intelligence came after former AI czar David Sacks voiced industry concerns about the measure to Trump, according to a senior White House official and two people familiar with the matter.

Sacks’ 11th hour intervention — and his arguments that the order could prove too onerous for the rapidly evolving AI industry — came even though he had been briefed about the directive in recent days, one of the people told POLITICO. The people were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations.

The executive order, which the White House planned to release Thursday afternoon, would have set in motion a voluntary oversight system in which developers of advanced AI models could submit their products to a review by federal agencies before releasing them, POLITICO previously reported. It was meant to address concerns that advanced AI products from companies like Anthropic could unleash devastating cyberattacks and other havoc if they fell into the wrong hands.

But during a conversation with Trump, Sacks told the president that companies were already cooperating, and that having the federal government review models before their public release would slow down innovation and harm the U.S. in its AI race with China, the senior White House official and one of the other people said.

Sacks did not respond to a request for comment.

The Silicon Valley venture capitalist was not the sole obstacle, one of the people said, citing opposition from some other industry leaders.

The proposal had gotten a mixed reception in the tech industry: OpenAI, developer of one of the most advanced AI models, has been supportive of the contours of the order.

Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s top lobbyist, told reporters last week that the company believed in the importance of collaborating with the government on AI safety. Lehane said the company was focused on “the ability to innovate, but doing it in concert with the government in a way that actually really prioritizes that safe deployment.”

Trump offered few details Thursday about why he delayed the signing of the order. The people familiar with the issue said his staff had not only briefed tech executives on the order but had invited several leading Silicon Valley leaders to the ceremony.

“I didn’t like certain aspects of it,” Trump told reporters Thursday morning. “I think it gets in the way of — we’re leading China. We’re leading everybody, and I don’t want to do anything that’s going to get in the way of that.”

But the senior White House official and the two people said the rollout unraveled after Sacks raised objections directly with Trump in the days before its planned release, blindsiding some White House staff involved in the process.

According to the White House official, Sacks had participated in a review of the EO this week, and White House officials believed he was generally happy with it and would support it.

But Wednesday night, he began to raise concerns, including fears that the voluntary nature of the agreement may one day become mandatory, the senior White House official said.

“Then, he called POTUS this morning unbeknownst to anybody, his own staff included, and derailed it,” the White House official said.

The reversal also came after industry officials raised concerns about a proposed voluntary review process for cutting-edge “frontier” AI models, according to four people familiar with the matter, who were granted anonymity to discuss private discussions. Industry officials had pushed for the White House to shorten the time frame to share new models with the White House from 90 days to 14 days, said three of the people.

Industry officials also pushed for the proposed order to give responsibility to the intelligence community to lead the effort to review new models, according to one of the people. A readout of the order shared with industry officials on Tuesday would give the National Security Agency final say on which systems are considered “covered frontier models,” with other agencies helping set up a classified benchmarking process within 60 days.

A draft of the order shared with POLITICO stressed the voluntary nature of the review: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.”

Four people familiar with the planning also said the delay was due in part to the fact that several leading tech CEOs who were invited on short notice could not attend. OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta were all expected to send lower executives in place of their CEOs, people familiar with planning said.

How Stupid They Are

‘Goes to Show You How Stupid They Are’: Tillis Lets Loose on Trump Advisers

The retiring Republican senator opens up about his YOLO approach and why he’s occasionally taken on Trump.

By Jordain Carney

Sen. Thom Tillis isn’t afraid to give his party, or the president, a dose of bitter medicine.

In an interview with POLITICO Magazine in his Capitol Hill Office, the retiring North Carolina Republican said his criticism — whether it’s directed at White House “sycophants” or an “incompetent” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who he wants to see fired — has the same end game: protecting Republicans’ Senate majority and Donald Trump’s legacy.

“I’ve made it clear to the president that my beef is with people who are giving him some sense that some of the decisions he makes are not without significant consequence,” he said. “And the consequence, in my opinion, is his legacy, and our election in November.”

Tillis announced last year that he would retire after two terms in the Senate, even as he’s relatively-young-for-a-senator at 65 years old, and he’s since been one of his conference’s most frequent troublemakers for Trump. He was a one-man blockade for Kevin Warsh’s Federal Reserve nomination until the Justice Department dropped its pursuit of Jerome Powell, and he has sunk nominees seen as Jan. 6 apologists. He said he is ready to “nuke” the administration’s new “anti-weaponization” fund.

And while he batted down the notion that he’s now in his YOLO era — “I’ve been YOLOing all my life” — he acknowledged that he can now speak out without having to worry about having his words used against him by Democrats or members of his own party back home.

Tillis’ political freedom has made him stand out in the Senate for being willing to say what many of his GOP colleagues are thinking but won’t put their name to. But while Trump has publicly criticized the senator at times, Tillis said the two still have a good, professional relationship.

“We’ve continued to have solid communications,” Tillis said. “But I’m not going to kiss this man’s ass or anybody else’s when I believe he’s not in a good place.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Bill Cassidy lost his primary, Trump endorsed Ken Paxton over John Cornyn, and Thomas Massie lost. Do you think there is room in the party right now for people who disagree with the president?

I think you’re probably going to see an increasing number of people disagree with the president as the primary cycles move on, and his contribution in [general elections] really depends on what state you’re in.

As we get closer to November, people will be even more and more attuned to “How does this help me politically, how is it good, sound policy and politics?”

You broke with the president before you announced you were retiring — Ed Martin’s nomination being a prime example — but do you think you are more liberated now?

Every time I’ve disagreed with the president it’s been almost exclusively because I think it’s divergent from Republicans’ interest in getting reelected this November. Every single time. The health care policy that got air dropped in the “big beautiful bill,” I knew it was going to be a problem. It is a problem now. Now everybody sees that. That’s why I objected to the reconciliation last year.

The reason I’m objecting to the ballroom and the slush fund for the DOJ — bad politics, really bad timing, bad policy. I mean, that’s the trifecta. Every time I have opposed this president is because I believe it’s at odds with getting Republicans reelected.

You’ve made the distinction frequently between what the president is doing and what some of his advisors might be advising him to do. Is that distinction important in your mind?

Yeah, I’ve tried to use the analog in the private sector. Do you really believe that the CEO of a Fortune 50 company can possibly know everything that there is to know about running that company? So I think other than maybe the president’s own instincts, invariably somebody is getting him to one position or another, you get rid of those folks and get some quality people behind them, and you will see different outcomes.

I think now, a lot of the sycophants over in the White House are just into this, “We don’t even need to deal with Congress.” It’s almost a brush aside, and that’s a mistake. It will have long-term negative consequences for the president and his legacy, and yes, I blame it on his advisers.

You’ve mentioned Stephen Miller by name before but are there other advisers that you are thinking of?

I think Hegseth misinformed him on the challenges [of Iran]. I suspect that Hegseth cast aside concerns he was hearing from some of the finest people that ever served in uniform and took his cowboy-ish approach to going into Iran. I’m glad the president did what he did in Iran. I’m not glad that he has Hegseth advising him on the details.

I think Hegseth is largely responsible for why we’re in this, “Are we in a war? Are we not in a war? Are we in a cease fire? Are we not in a cease fire? Do we have a deal? Do we not have a deal? Are they going to have nuclear capabilities? Are they not going to?” All of that I’ll lay at the feet of Pete Hegseth and his incompetence.

What are your views on this “anti-weaponization” fund the administration has created and is there anything you think Congress can do to put guardrails on that?

I don’t have any interest in seeing that money go over. It’s an embarrassment to think that Republicans came up with this idea.

I mean this is coming back from Police Week last week, and now we’re doing what I think is probably the most insulting thing you could possibly do to Capitol Police and the responding law enforcement agencies that are on that plaque in the Capitol now.

But is there anything you think Congress can do?

Yeah, nuke it.

Will this fund impact how you are thinking about attorney general nominees? Todd Blanche didn’t rule out that it could go to Jan. 6 defendants and is a possible nominee.

It will absolutely go into the mix, as will some of the prosecutions that have moved forward, a number of other things will go into the mix in my consideration for whether or not an AG gets confirmed.

When you say prosecutions, which ones do you mean?

I’m thinking about the picture that right now is the only basis I have for a new indictment against Comey. Some of the other bogus lawsuits from now no-longer-acting acting U.S. attorneys. All that, I want to know whose fingerprints were on it. I don’t think big DOJ knew about the Powell investigation, so I wouldn’t hold that against them, that was a boneheaded move in the bowels of DOJ. But anything where they were in the decision loop, yeah, they got a lot of questions to answer to get my support.

What is your relationship with the president like?

We’ve continued to have solid communications. We haven’t probably talked for a week or two, but we had a flurry of probably either two or three phone calls or text exchanges over the past month. I will have a good relationship with the president for as long as he wants to, and then I’ll have whatever relationship he wants to have if he changes his mind. Right now, it’s been mutual respect.

I’ve made it clear to the president that my beef is with people who are giving him some sense that some of the decisions he makes are not without significant consequence, and the consequence, in my opinion, is his legacy, and our election in November in reverse order.

Right now, I’m worried about the election in November. I’m also concerned with his legacy, because, as I’ve told the president before, I actually care about his legacy as a Republican, and as somebody who wants every president to be successful, and Republicans especially more so, he has people working for him who couldn’t give a shit about his legacy. This is just another ticket they punch as they go up the ladder.

Do you think some people would be surprised that you have a good relationship with the president?

Yeah I think they don’t believe it. The president and I have never had a heated discussion. I remember back when I filed the Mueller bill, he was frustrated with it, but there was no threatening. You know, he and I both use profanity, but that’s usually in equal measure. People will never know what we talk about, because I don’t share private information, but these are discussions that I’ve had ongoing.

I called him Saturday morning a couple of weeks ago, he answered the phone. He wasn’t happy with me, because it was in the middle of the Warsh thing. He was frustrated, but I’ve had a professional relationship. I hope I finish my career on that foot — purely up to the president.

Do you think part of it is because you don’t leak your conversations — or some other reason?

I think the president reserves a certain amount of his capacity for people that he may disagree with, but maybe he respects the fact that they have the courage to speak to the most powerful man in the world in a way that they should if they’re interested in his well-being and the well-being of the Republican Party. Other people may have a different way to engage him, but I’m not going to kiss this man’s ass or anybody else’s when I believe he’s not in a good place.

You mentioned to me earlier this year that you think Republicans hold the Senate. Is that still your expectation?

I think the path gets narrower, but I think we hold the Senate. I get that maybe some of the redistricting makes everyone feel like we’ve got a better shot at holding the House. I still find it very difficult because you’ve marginalized some districts by reducing the partisan advantage. I think you’ve got the potential for a kind of a historic sort of wave election where some of our folks stay home and some of our opponents’ folks come out more than normal.

Why do you think Republicans keep the Senate? Democrats believe they have a real chance.

I think they definitely have a chance. If you’d asked me a year ago, I would have found it impossible to believe that they would even have a chance, but I still put us being at 50 or with a majority in the 75th percentile.

If you guys lose the House does that change the dynamic — does it force the administration to reckon with Congress more?

No. That’s why we’ve got to lower the temperature, try to find ways to work with Democrats. My guess is, if they get a gavel in the House, they will come in with a fury and vindictiveness that I don’t know what happens in that Congress next year.

The party that starts acting like the consensus builder, they’re the ones who are going to gain this nation back and govern it again. In between, it looks like it’s just going to be political ping pong, which is unproductive and really not in the best interest of the American people.

What do you think your party looks like in 2028 and beyond?

It’s kind of hard to judge that, because you’re going to have the MAGA base, you’re going to have some other candidates come on the scene that are going to want some of the MAGA base.

Look, you’ve got a party right now that can’t call itself truly conservative. It’s become a populist party that has embraced policies first put forth by Elizabeth Warren, for example. Some of the housing policy is not sound conservative free market policy.

Do you have a preferred candidate for 2028?

No, not yet, because I don’t think that, as vice president, JD has any structural advantage going into that election cycle.

I think it’s going to be wide open, and I think it’s going to be people saying, “Are we going to have a populist, not always conservative candidate to choose from? Are we going to have somebody who maybe embraces some of the populist ideals, but believes the party needs to get back to a conservative root? Or is it some sort of upstart with a completely different message?”

Right now we’ve got a real big gap between conservative principles and what we’re standing for right now nationally. Can be a good thing — it got enough votes to get the president elected. I don’t know if it’s enough votes to get enough Republicans elected in Congress,

Do you think all of Trump’s voters stick with the party once he’s not on the ballot anymore?

He gets people out that are not going to vote down-ballot, but when he’s not on the ballot, are they going to come out? I think the answer is probably no. I mean some of these people, they may have never voted for a president before until President Trump.

Are you in your YOLO era?

I’ve actually had a YOLO attitude since the day I decided to run against a two-term Republican incumbent in a primary in North Carolina to begin my legislative career. So I’ve been YOLOing all my life.

The only thing that’s changed [since the retirement announcement] is I don’t have to worry about the cost of the words that I use anymore. If I were running for reelection, I would still want to communicate the same thing, but I may have to sit down and think about every word from every angle, so that I have to spend another $10 million to correct a misconception or B roll that the Democrats get. I don’t have to worry about that.

What are the things you want to get done in the next seven or so months?

I’d love to see Pete Hegseth fired because he’s incompetent and doing a horrible job. That’s kind of on a Christmas wish list, but what I mainly want to do is get Republicans reelected in November, including bringing them back a majority in the House.

As critical as I am of Republicans, a Democrat-controlled Washington concerns me more. It may seem counterintuitive, but every once in a while, you’ve got to recognize when your party’s having problems you want to correct them before it matters, and that is on Election Day.

Do you think the administration is taking into its calculus that some of the actions could hurt your party in November?

I believe that there are people in the White House who couldn’t care less about what happens in November, and that goes to show you how stupid they are.

Because if they don’t get Republicans reelected, they’re going to create the most miserable two years of this president’s life, beginning in 2027. And they will just surf on to something else, saying, “Sorry, boss, didn’t see that coming,” and they’ll just surf off to somebody else to be a parasite on in the future in their little political roles without any accountability whatsoever.

WR 134

This cosmic snapshot covers a field of view over twice as wide as the full Moon within the boundaries of the high-flying constellation Cygnus. Made using astronomical narrowband filters, the image highlights the bright edge of a ring-like nebula traced by the glow of ionized hydrogen and oxygen gas. Embedded in the region's expanse of interstellar clouds, the complex, glowing arcs are sections of shells of material swept up by the wind from Wolf-Rayet star WR 134, the brightest star near image center. Distance estimates put WR 134 about 6,000 light-years away, making this telescopic frame over 100 light-years across. Shedding their outer envelopes in powerful stellar winds, massive Wolf-Rayet stars have burned through their nuclear fuel at a prodigious rate and end their final phase of massive star evolution in a spectacular supernova. Their stellar winds and final supernova explosion enrich the interstellar material with heavy elements to be incorporated in future generations of stars.

Sending 5,000 troops

US sending 5,000 troops to Poland as it draws down forces in Germany

The announcement came after a planned training exercise was put on hold, alarming officials in Poland and angering members of Congress.

By Jacob Wendler

President Donald Trump said Thursday that the U.S. would deploy an additional 5,000 troops to Poland, an apparent reversal of his moves to reduce the presence of American forces in Europe to punish NATO for a lack of support with the Iran war.

Trump made the troop announcement in a social media post with few details, suggesting it was connected to the election last year of nationalist President Karol Nawrocki. The announcement came shortly after his administration abruptly canceled a large training exercise in Poland — later saying it had only been delayed — and said it would withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany.

The Pentagon referred questions to the White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for clarification about the announcement.

A Polish official and a NATO representative, granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics, said they were taken aback by the decision, which the administration did not discuss with allies in advance.

Trump has long been a critic of NATO and demanded that European nations increase their spending on the organization. He also repeatedly expressed anger over the refusal of some member nations to support the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran.

Poland’s military was alerted that the Pentagon had decided to cancel a 4,000-troop deployment to the country last week — blindsiding the country and stunning U.S. defense officials — POLITICO previously reported.

Vice President JD Vance later dismissed the reports in a Tuesday press conference, telling reporters the planned deployment had been delayed but not canceled after Republican lawmakers condemned the move.

That came after the Pentagon announced plans to withdraw 5,000 troops from military bases in Germany earlier this month following Trump’s clash with the country’s leader over the Iran war. Nawrocki said earlier this month that he would ask Trump to send the troops to his country. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania also jockeyed for an increased U.S. military presence in their countries following the announcement.

“Based on the successful Election of the now President of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, who I was proud to Endorse, and our relationship with him, I am pleased to announce that the United States will be sending an additional 5,000 Troops to Poland,” the president said in his social media post. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Nawrocki, who was elected in June 2025 with the support of the nationalist Law and Justice party, has largely aligned with the Trump administration since taking office — setting him on a collision course with the country’s pro-EU prime minister, Donald Tusk.

Tusk had previously said that Poland would take “any opportunity” to increase the U.S. military presence in the country but warned against “poaching” troops from other allies in Europe. Polish officials discussed the presence of U.S. troops in their territory with Trump administration officials in Washington this week, according to a Polish readout of the meeting.

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, meanwhile, told a defense conference in Warsaw earlier this month that additional U.S. forces would “be welcome in Poland” regardless of where they were originally deployed.

POLITICO previously reported that U.S. defense officials were stunned by Trump’s initial announcement that he would be pulling troops out of Germany — which strongly contrasted a monthslong review by the Pentagon of its global troop footprint. The move came after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said publicly that Washington was “being humiliated by the Iranian leadership.”

Still, Trump has suggested that the cuts could go even further, telling reporters that “we’re cutting a lot further than 5,000” troops in Germany.

Not funny