Winning! Not you... Suckers

TrumpCoin, look at the loss.. Just look at the total crash. If you were stupid and invested, you got fucked and lost. Who won? Do I need to tell you? Not you, you got fucked.

Not good...

Drive 5 hours or fly 20 minutes? Remote towns suffer from lack of year-round flights

Sacha Pfeiffer

When Joe Castellana drives to Boston from his home in Provincetown, Massachusetts, at the very northern tip of Cape Cod, he considers himself lucky if the 120-mile ride takes two hours. That, he says, is "rare, very rare."

Because while Provincetown can be desolate in the winter, it's a tourism hot spot in the summer, when its population of 3,500 people balloons to 60,000. And during that high season, the drive to the state capital can be an extremely long slog.

"When I've had to go to Boston, let's say for a 10 or 11 o'clock appointment in July, I have to leave by 6 a.m.," Castellana says, "and sometimes that doesn't work."

So Castellana occasionally prefers to fly, but he can only do that about half the year. The reason: Cape Air, the sole airline serving Provincetown Municipal Airport, stopped offering year-round passenger flights to and from Boston two winters ago, calling them unprofitable. For Castellana and many other Provincetown residents, the loss is significant, since flying to Boston takes only 20 minutes in the air and the terminal is just a few minutes from the town center.

Yet town voters last month rejected a measure that would have provided Cape Air a subsidy to restore off-season flights. So unless you come by private plane, you can only fly to Provincetown from spring till fall.

Provincetown's ongoing effort to restore year-round air service is a microcosm of how difficult it can be to get commercial flights in isolated places. Many parts of the U.S. have no passenger air service, or only seasonal options. Meanwhile, a federal program called Essential Air Service, which pays airlines to operate in small, rural communities, is on the Trump administration's chopping block.

Most Americans who live in remote places want the option of flying for its speed and convenience, and airports can be economic engines that drive business and tourism. But flight routes to out-of-the-way areas are often money losers for airlines, since passenger demand can be low and erratic. As a result, attracting commercial air service often requires local, state or federal subsidies, which are increasingly hard to secure in an era of government belt-tightening.

"The challenge is really around the demand at acceptable revenue levels so that the service is sustainable," said John Twiss, Cape Air's vice president of planning, "and I think this is a problem across the country."

Indeed, more than three-quarters of U.S. airports have reduced their number of flights in recent years, and more than a dozen have lost commercial air service entirely, according to the Regional Airline Association, a trade group. It calls that downward trend an "air service crisis" that risks becoming an "air service collapse."

The declines are due to a mixture of factors, including reduced passenger demand during the pandemic, a pilot shortage, and increased costs for fuel, labor and maintenance. Combined, that "poses an existential threat to small community air service," the RAA says.

To bring back off-season flights, Provincetown voters were asked to approve a $332,000 "minimum revenue guarantee" for Cape Air that would have ensured a set amount of income for the airline in return for operating year-round, which it had done for more than three decades. The money would have come from a property tax increase, which turned off many residents.

"I didn't think the taxpayer should have that burden," said Catherine Skowron, a former long-time Provincetown resident who now lives in neighboring Truro and voted no on the subsidy. "If I want to start a business, maybe there are some loans I can get, but I don't go ask the taxpayers to fund my business so I can make a living, you know?"

Provincetown resident Tim Kanaley also voted no, worrying about a slippery slope for other seasonal businesses.

"Does that mean that a hotel or a B&B that is saying, 'Well, we might go out of business because we don't get enough business in the off-season. Now we want a subsidy' -- would that snowball? How far could that potentially go?"

Kanaley also said the flights "tend to be relatively expensive and therefore only appeal to a specific population," which he identified as "the wealthy people who are living in town."

Provincetown resident Christine Barker, a local real estate developer, voted yes. She says off-season flights could help the town build a year-round tourism economy that would create much-needed jobs. In the off-season, many full-time residents struggle to eke out a living working as artists and commercial fishermen.

Not having continuous air service is "disastrous because it's just too hard to get here," Barker said. "Without an airline to bring people in, people are not going to come in here in the off-season for a weekend from New York or Connecticut or Washington or New Jersey. They're not going to drive all of those hours just for a weekend."

The vote split town officials, too.

Provincetown's Town Manager, Alex Morse, voted for the subsidy, noting that year-round flights benefit not only affluent vacationers, but residents who want to fly to Boston for medical appointments, remote work, family visits, and connecting international flights.

"it's never good to lose a key part of your infrastructure," Morse said, "and it becomes more difficult for people to call this place home year-round when you have less and less connectivity to the rest of the country."

Provincetown's Finance Committee recommended against the subsidy on numerous grounds, including using property taxes to fund it, and because only Provincetown residents would pay for it yet residents of surrounding towns would also use the flights.

"It's a great airport -- we love it and support it as a town asset," said Finance Committee chairman Mark Bjorstrom, "and we were all pretty distraught when [Cape Air] pulled out two years ago and just went to seasonal [service]."

But he said he doesn't consider giving an airline a subsidy the same as investing in local infrastructure like roads and bridges.

"If we were building another hangar or another landing strip, that is infrastructure," Bjorstrom said. "But that's not what this is. This is a private enterprise that we would be subsidizing."

Ultimately, Provincetown voters rejected the subsidy. Town officials are now pursuing other types of local, state and federal funding, including a U.S. Department of Transportation initiative called the Small Community Air Service Development Program.

Provincetown is not eligible for Essential Air Service (EAS), a federal program that subsidizes flights in more than 170 communities nationwide, because the town is considered too close to Logan Airport in Boston and a different Cape Cod airport, in Hyannis, Massachusetts, to qualify. That program is in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, which calls its spending "out of control" and has proposed slashing its nearly $700 million dollar budget by more than half.

EAS has long been criticized for being inefficient and costly, a reputation documented by the research of Tony Grubesic, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Riverside.

"The biggest problem is that a lot of these airlines get subsidized, but there isn't a whole lot of customer interest in flying on those Essential Air Service flights, so what ends up happening is that they fly nearly empty, sometimes empty planes, between point A and point B," Grubesic said. "Literally nobody on those planes."

Still, the program has historically been immune to budget cuts, and Grubesic assumes it will remain untouchable.

"If you're a senator from New York or Nebraska or Kansas," he said, "having subsidized airports is a feather in your cap," so state elected officials want the flights because they please voters and attract economic development opportunities.

"If you want me to make a bet on this, I would say nothing's getting cut, because it doesn't matter if you're a red state or if you're a blue state," Grubesic added. "They all love getting this money."

For now, Cape Air's Provincetown service remains seasonal, running from May 14 to November 2. Provincetown also has ferry service to Boston, but it, too, ceases operations during winter.

If Provincetown were more accessible year-round, Barker, the local real estate developer, envisions a thriving off-season community that could more easily host winter weddings, board meetings, retreats for writers and artists, and other revenue-generating events.

"There's no reason why, as one of the richest nations on the planet, we can't figure out a way to have small planes servicing these areas," she said.

Castellana, who recently became a volunteer member of the town's Airport Commission in hopes of restoring off-season flights to Provincetown, agrees.

"Year-round air service would bring more year-round tourism and other kinds of business into the town," he said, "which translates to economic growth and employment."

Strike again

Stephen Colbert and late night hosts strike again as his show nears finale

Mandalit del Barco

Stephen Colbert invited his "best television friends," fellow late night hosts John Oliver, Seth Meyers and the two Jimmies— Kimmel and Fallon— to join him as his show on CBS/ Paramount Plus winds down. One of Colbert's final episodes was a reunion of the Strike Force Five, which is what the hosts have called themselves and the name of the podcast they hosted together three years ago.

"Late night is in a bit of a weird spot right now — spoiler alert," Colbert said. "The five of us being here right now, obviously, it's dangerous because we represent so much of late night. Jon Stewart is designated survivor. Someone has to survive for the president to be mad at," referencing the frequent host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show.

Colbert's final show will air on May 21; CBS canceled him months ago, citing financial reasons. But many fans think the reason is political, as Colbert has continuously skewered President Trump. He spent most of his monologue last night making fun of Trump.

During last night's show, Kimmel called out fans for not reacting to Colbert's cancellation by ditching their subscriptions to Paramount Plus.

"When I got knocked off the air for a few days, people canceled Disney+," quipped Kimmel, who was temporarily taken off the air by Disney and ABC amidst conservative backlash over comments he made in the aftermath of the assassination of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk. During his monologue, soon after, Kimmel said the "MAGA gang" was trying to score political points from the Kirk killing.

More recently, President Trump called for Kimmel to be canceled after the host made what Kimmel described as a "light roast" about first lady Melania Trump.

Colbert asked the group to make the case for late night shows to still exist. He asked them, "when you were starting out in comedy, did it ever occur to you that you'd be doing a job that the president of the United States would have strong feelings about?"

"You know what's even weirder?" Kimmel responded. "Doing a job that his wife has strong feelings about."

During the discussion about the president's attention to late night shows, Meyers joked, "The thing I like is that he always posts when the show actually airs. And I do wanna say I appreciate that he is watching linear television."

Last night's episode had a bit of the kibbitzing flavor of Strike Force Five, the podcast they created while on strike with the Writers Guild of America against major studios in 2023. It went on for 12 episodes, with proceeds going to the staffers of Colbert's show, as well as Jimmy Kimmel Live!, The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Late Night with Seth Meyers and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.

At the end of his show, Colbert announced Strike Force Five will be together again for an "emergency" podcast — on video — May 13.

He is so stupid.... Has no fucking idea about anything.. Brain damaged...

Nonprofit sues the federal government over plans to paint Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool blue

Anastasia Tsioulcas

A nonprofit is suing the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum over the decision to resurface the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on Washington, D.C.'s National Mall, and to paint the pool's basin blue.

The suit was filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF), an education and advocacy organization. In the suit, TCLF is asking a federal judge to halt the project, saying that the Trump administration failed to have the project reviewed federally, as is dictated by the National Historic Preservation Act.

The many ways Trump wants to change D.C., from buildings to statues to parks

President Trump revealed his plans for the pool do-over last month in "American flag blue," saying that the project would take one week and $2 million, and that it would be completed in time for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4. A few days later on Truth Social, the president posted a fake image of himself and several of his administration officials in swimsuits, along with an unidentified woman in a gingham bikini, lounging in the water with the Washington National Monument at the rear. (Swimming in the reflecting pool is prohibited by federal law.)

In a YouTube video posted by the White House on April 23, Trump called the pool "filthy dirty" and said it "leaked like a sieve." In that video, Trump said he was going to call three companies that he has worked with in the past — "all they do is swimming pools" — and say, "Give me a good price."

The New York Times reported last Friday that the contract for the reflecting pool's resurfacing was awarded in a $6.9 million no-bid contract to a company called Atlantic Industrial Coatings, which has never held any federal contracts.

An employee at the Atlantic Industrial Coatings confirmed in a telephone call on Monday that it has been contracted for this project, but referred all other questions to the Department of the Interior.

The Times reported on Monday that the final cost of the project could be upward of $13 million, per documents it says it has obtained. The Department of the Interior did not confirm the cost of the project, but wrote: "The contract price reflects the effort necessary to expedite the timeline of completing the leak prevention coating project—more people, more materials, more equipment and longer hours ahead of our 250th."

In an unsigned statement emailed to NPR Monday afternoon, the Interior Department wrote: "The National Park Service chose the best company to expedite the repair of the iconic Reflecting Pool ahead of our 250 celebrations. The choice of American Flag Blue will enhance the visitor experience by making the pool reflect the grand Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument. NPS is also investing in a state-of-the-art ozone nanobubbler filtration system and will now have a dedicated crew who will maintain the grounds' from wildlife. The Department is proud of the work being carried out by our Park Service to ensure this magical spot can be enjoyed for not only our 250th, but for many generations to come."

Critics of the project, including TCLF, don't share that vision – and are taking particular umbrage at the color.

"The reflecting pool should not be viewed in isolation; it is part of the larger ensemble of designed landscapes that comprise the National Mall," Charles A. Birnbaum, the president and CEO of TCLF, said in a statement emailed to NPR Monday. "The design intent, to create a reflective surface that is subordinate, is fundamental to the solemn and hallowed visual and spatial connection between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. A blue-tinted basin is more appropriate to a resort or theme park."

The National Park Service regularly cleans algae, goose droppings and other detritus from the reflecting pool. The last major renovation of the reflecting pool, which included the installation of a new circulation and filtration system, took place during the Obama administration at a reported cost of $34 million. A dark color will promote algae growth 

Before founding TCLF in 2008, Birnbaum served for 15 years as the coordinator of the Historic Landscape Initiative for the National Park Service.

TCLF has another open lawsuit against the federal administration: it is one of eight cultural and architecture groups currently suing President Trump and the Kennedy Center board over the planned renovations of the complex, which are planned to start in July.

New economic reality

Why Asia’s new economic reality is a warning for the world

By Stephanie Yang

In Asia, there are now two economic realities.

The oil shock is accelerating a divergence of economic fortunes across the region. One is driven by tech giants and the promises of artificial intelligence. The other is darkened by fuel scarcity and rising prices that threaten a humanitarian crisis.

As the disproportionate impact of oil shortages in Asia widens the divide, economists warn that the phenomenon has significant ramifications for monetary policy, political stability, and future economic growth across the continent – and other parts of the world that rely on it for trade.

Asia, which is heavily reliant on the Middle East for energy, has borne the initial brunt of higher prices driven up since shipping stalled in the Strait of Hormuz. But the impact isn’t spread evenly.

Advanced, tech-heavy economies in East Asia like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have bigger fuel reserves to draw on, as well as the cash to pay higher prices to secure more stocks.

Meanwhile, nations like India, the Philippines and Thailand, whose growth is dominated by traditional manufacturing and services, are facing greater struggles to secure fuel and offset slowing economic activity.

The stark contrast has become known as the “K-shaped economy.” The term refers to a steepening deviation between upper and lower economic classes, popularized after the Covid-19 pandemic disproportionately hit underprivileged groups. Economists said the war in Iran is having a similar effect.

Chinese is funding Iran

A network of Chinese oil refineries is funding Iran

Simone McCarthy

A few hundred miles from where Chinese leader Xi Jinping will roll out the red carpet for President Donald Trump this week, a shadowy ecosystem has long been at work pumping billions of dollars into Iran’s economy – now helping keep Tehran afloat in defiance of the US.

These are the ports, pipelines, and oil refineries of Shandong province and its borderlands, where the hulking architecture of oil storage tanks and spindly profiles of smokestacks jut up from barren, coastal flatlands.

Here, so-called “teapot refineries” – small, independent oil companies that operate with the permission of Beijing – quietly process US-sanctioned Iranian crude into gas, diesel and petrochemicals for the world’s second largest economy.

Now, as Washington looks to cut Tehran’s financial lifelines and force it to capitulate to end the war, these activities are being yanked out of the margins and onto the negotiating table between Trump and Xi.

Tensions around this trade are deepening – playing out against a backdrop in which Beijing seeks stability in its relationship with the US, but also holds close economic and diplomatic ties with Iran.

The industry in Shandong province cropped up decades ago to feed off the Shengli oilfields in the Yellow River delta, but now they import heavily from overseas – processing roughly a fifth of the oil China consumes.

And the source of those imports? Often sanctioned crude, analysts say.

China doesn’t acknowledge importing Iranian crude in its customs data, and the origins of the imported oil has already been obscured upstream. But Beijing also rejects what it calls “unilateral” US sanctions and has ordered companies not to comply with Washington’s sanctions on refineries.

Will not return to full capacity until 2027

Major UAE gas facility will not return to full capacity until 2027 after Iranian strikes

By Mustafa Qadri

A major gas facility in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) will not return to full operational capacity until 2027, after Iranian strikes hampered around 40% of its production, according to its operator.

ADNOC Gas said the Habshan site in Abu Dhabi – one of the world’s largest onshore gas processing facilities – is currently operating at “60% of the complex’s processing capacity” and is “working towards achieving 80% restoration by the end of 2026, with full capacity restored in 2027.”

The Habshan energy facility came under Iranian bombardment in April, triggering a fire that killed one person, according to local media.

Since Iran began attacking Gulf nations in response to the US-Israeli assault in February, the UAE said its air defense has intercepted 550 ballistic missiles, nearly 30 cruise missiles, and more than 2,200 drones.

In its statement Tuesday, ADNOC Gas reported a net income of $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2026, marking an 8% decline from the previous quarter. The state-owned company cited “increased regional uncertainty and difficult market conditions, which have caused major disruption in the energy sector and to maritime movements through the Strait of Hormuz.”

Iran’s blockade of the strait, a vital trade route, has caused energy prices to skyrocket by disrupting Gulf oil exports. The world’s top oil exporter, Saudi Aramco, warned on Monday that the oil market will not return to normal until next year if the reopening of the waterway is delayed for a few more weeks.

Ha Ha HAAAAAA... They are totally fucking him over.... And us...

Trump says Iran is "100%" going to stop uranium enrichment

By Alejandra Jaramillo

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he is confident Iran will stop enriching uranium and abandon any effort to build a nuclear weapon, even as negotiations between Washington and Tehran remain at an impasse.

“100% they’re going to stop,” Trump said during an interview on WABC’s “Sid and Friends in the Morning” when asked whether he believed Iran could be prevented from enriching uranium and developing a bomb.

Trump said he has been directly engaged with Iranian officials during the talks.

“I deal with them,” Trump said. “And they said that we’re going to get the dust. I call it the nuclear dust because it’s appropriate. And we’re going to get it.”

The president also said the US does not need to move quickly toward a deal.

“We’re not going to rush anything, we have a blockade,” Trump said.

The remarks come a day after Trump said the ceasefire between the US and Iran is on “massive life support” following Tehran’s latest counterproposal, which he described as “simply unacceptable.”

They don't take the secondary costs into account...

Iran war has cost $29 billion so far, senior Pentagon official says

By Haley Britzky

The US war against Iran has cost $29 billion so far — an estimate that was higher than the $25 billion figure senior Pentagon officials provided to Congress two weeks ago.

“So, at the time of testimony from [the House Armed Services Committee], it was $25 billion but the joint staff team and the comptroller team are constantly looking at that estimate, and so now we think it’s closer to 29. That’s because of updated repair and replacement of equipment costs, and also just general operational costs to keep people in theater,” Jay Hurst, who is performing the duties of Pentagon Comptroller, said Tuesday during a House Appropriations Committee hearing.

CNN previously reported that the $25 billion estimate Hurst provided to Congress in April was a lowball figure that doesn’t include the estimated cost of repairing extensive damage to US bases in the Middle East. One source said a more accurate estimate is closer to $40-50 billion, when accounting for those repair costs and replacing damaged assets.

Asked if he could provide a more formal accounting of the cost of the war with Iran with Congress, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon would “share what we can … when it’s relevant and required.”

“I think this would be the format that it would be required,” Democratic Rep. Pete Aguilar responded.

The drunk wants to go on a drunk trip......

Hegseth says he'll join Trump on China visit amid Iran uncertainty

By Haley Britzky

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers Tuesday that he will be with President Donald Trump on his upcoming trip to China, which comes amid uncertainty over the ceasefire with Iran.

Asked about the status of weapons sales to Taiwan, Hegseth responded, “The president’s on the cusp of a trip and I’ll be with him, and he will make all decisions related to that.”

Trump is expected to leave Washington for Beijing this afternoon.

Iran’s ambassador to China said Tuesday that Beijing “can be an important force for reducing tensions” between the US and Iran.

Trump said Monday that the ceasefire with Iran was on “massive life support” and is “unbelievably weak.” Hegseth has said the US military is prepared to restart operations against Iran if ordered to do so.

Hey stupid! He doesn't give a fuck about YOU!

Americans’ anger about the economy hits Trump and Republicans’ midterm prospects

By Ariel Edwards-Levy

It’s President Donald Trump’s economy – and most Americans aren’t happy with it.

A new CNN poll conducted by SSRS finds that 77% – including a majority of Republicans – say that Trump’s policies have increased the cost of living in their own community. Roughly two-thirds of Americans say that Trump’s policies have worsened economic conditions in the country. And Trump’s approval rating stands at 30% on the economy, a career low.

Economic unhappiness has become a fixture of the political landscape. Views of the US economy have remained underwater since the start of the pandemic, with the only exception a brief spike of optimism at the beginning of Joe Biden’s presidency.

That dissatisfaction gave the Republican Party a yearslong advantage on trust to handle economic issues. Now, it’s left the GOP with the brunt of the blame for Trump’s second-term policies.

In the latest poll, Democrats are more trusted than the GOP to handle central economic issues, including the cost of living, helping the middle class and inflation. Significant shares of the public, however, say they trust neither party on many of those same issues.

One-third of the public approves of the way Trump is handling helping the middle class. Just 26% of Americans approve of his performance on inflation and 21% on gas prices, with significant pockets of dissatisfaction even among those who overall support his presidency.

A majority of Republicans disapprove of his handling of gas prices. The share saying Trump’s policies have made cost of living rise is up 17 points overall since last year, and up 25 points among Republicans.

Distrust of both parties

The public is close to evenly split on which political party would do a better job of dealing with the economy. That contrasts with the GOP’s typical advantage on the issue during the Biden era: In one 2022 CNN survey, Americans said by a 15-point margin that the Republican Party’s economic views were closer to their own.

When it comes to cost of living, Democrats hold a 9-point advantage. That’s due in part to Republicans’ doubts about their own party: Democratic-aligned adults are 15 points likelier than GOP-aligned adults to say their party could better address the cost of living.

Democrats also lead by double digits on trust to handle income inequality, healthcare costs and helping the middle class, with a smaller edge on handling inflation. Republicans are ahead in trust to handle the stock market, with relatively close divides on which party would do a better job of dealing with taxes.

The divide on economic issues arguably leaves Democrats well-positioned on a set of issues with more populist appeal. The vast majority of Americans, 85%, describe themselves as working-class, middle-class or upper-middle class, and three-quarters say that the country’s economic system is unfairly geared toward powerful interests. By contrast, just over half of the public reports holding any investments in the stock market, including retirement funds.

But one possible warning sign for Democrats emerges here. On each of the issues tested, more than 30% of Americans – including half or more of political independents – say they trust neither party. And by an 8-point margin, the public says that there’s a bigger problem with the government giving help to too many people who “don’t deserve it” rather than failing to help enough people, suggesting some limits to the appetite for a more robust social safety net.

The poll finds registered voters closely split in their partisan preference ahead of the midterms, with 45% saying they’d support a Democratic candidate for Congress, 42% a Republican candidate, and 14% neither. Polling on congressional preference this year, including previous CNN surveys, has largely given Democrats the advantage.

Voters who aren’t sold on either party’s economic message tend to prefer the Democrats on the generic ballot, the CNN survey finds.

How important are economic issues to the midterms?

There’s no doubt that economic issues are at the top of many Americans’ minds heading into this year’s election season. But caring about an issue isn’t the same thing as deciding to vote on that basis.

Asked to pick which of six issues is the most important facing the country, 55% choose the economy and the cost of living, more than doubling the share who pick any single other issue.

In a separate question, however, 57% say that there are other political issues that matter at least as much as the economy when it comes to this year’s midterms.

Notably, the bloc of Americans that cares most about the economy appears to include some of the most politically persuadable. Sixty percent of “true” independents – those who don’t lean toward either party – say the economy matters more than any other midterm issues, as do 52% of those who report paying relatively little attention to political news. Partisans, and those who are more attuned to politics, are more likely to place weight on other issues.

Overall, Americans are about evenly split on whether or not they think that the midterm outcome is likely to have a major effect on their own finances – a shift from 2024, when amid Trump’s campaign promises to “end inflation,” most believed the presidential election could have a big impact.

The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from April 30-May 4 among a random national sample of 1,499 US adults drawn from a probability-based panel. Surveys were either conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. Results shown in this chart have a margin of sampling error of up to ±2.8 percentage points.

3.8% inflation, for what? Orange dumb-fucks stupidity...

US inflation rose to 3.8% in April, eroding Americans’ paychecks

By Alicia Wallace

For the first time in three years, Americans’ wages are no longer outpacing inflation.

Prices rose 0.6% on a monthly basis, driving the annual rate to 3.8%, the highest since May 2023, according to the latest Consumer Price Index data released Tuesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Economists had expected prices to rise 0.6% from March and for the annual rate to climb to 3.7%.

Prior to the late-February US-Israeli strikes on Iran, inflation had eased to 2.4%. Now, the energy price shock from the Iran war is further compounding longstanding affordability concerns for Americans weighed down by years of fast-rising prices.

However, at least in recent years, Americans’ pay growth has outpaced the rate of inflation. That changed last month: Annual inflation-adjusted average hourly wage growth went negative for the first time since April 2023.

Paychecks grew 3.6% from April of last year, on average; prices rose 3.8%.

This comes as Americans also have to contend with an energy price shock that’s rippling through the economy, making some of the most commonly purchased items even more expensive.

For example, prices of fresh fruits and vegetables, which are often transported by refrigerated diesel trucks, rose by 2.3%, the highest monthly increase for that category since 2010, BLS data shows.

While rising energy prices accounted for 40% of April’s monthly inflation gain, another contributing factor were higher housing-related price hikes (categorized by the BLS as “shelter”), which were boosted by a one-time adjustment related to last year’s historic government shutdown.

Shelter inflation, which is one of the heaviest weighted categories in CPI, jumped 0.6% for the month (double the pace notched in March).

In October, the BLS was unable to fully collect CPI data, resulting in an assuming that rental inflation was 0 for that month. As such, inflation at the end of last year was deceptively slower than it should have been.

The BLS uses a rotating panel for its rent surveys, and the next collection point for that October reading was six months later. So, it was expected that April 2026 would include a sharper-than-typical acceleration in the weighty “shelter” category.

The methodological payback from the October shutdown helped to boost a closely watched category of underlying inflation, said Oliver Allen, senior US economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.

Core CPI, which excludes the volatile categories of food and energy, rose by a stronger-than-expected 0.4% last month and 2.8% annually.

Stock futures slightly pared losses but remained in the red Tuesday morning: Dow futures were down 18 points. S&P 500 futures were 0.3% lower and Nasdaq 100 futures were down 0.75%. Treasury yields fluctuated but remain slightly higher. The 10-year yield traded at 4.43%, up two basis points.

Deceptive crisis pregnancy centers.

HHS Celebrates Mother’s Day With Pro-Life Pregnancy Advice

The federal government’s new website links to deceptive crisis pregnancy centers.

Alex Nguyen

On Mother’s Day, the US Department of Health and Human Services launched a website that promotes pro-life pregnancy centers for new and expecting mothers.

The federal government’s new site, Moms.gov, “offers guidance and information to support the health and well-being of mothers and their families,” according to a Sunday press release by HHS. The website also prominently features a link to find local pregnancy centers at Option Line. The pregnancy help contact center attempts to dissuade people from considering abortion, including by advising them to ask about the risk of physical harm from the procedure and by urging them to remember “it’s OK to change your mind.”

Decades of scientific research demonstrate that abortion is a safe way to end a pregnancy.

In addition to pregnancy centers, Moms.gov includes resources for nutritional guidance and links to set up $1,000 “Trump accounts” for children—all amid widespread cuts by Republicans to family support.

“Moms.gov delivers critical tools and support to help parents foster healthy pregnancies, strengthen young families, and create brighter futures for their children,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said in the press release. This is how you Make America Healthy Again.” 

Option Line’s locator tool provides a list of their “participating pregnancy centers” that offer “peer counseling and accurate information about all pregnancy options.” Many of the facilities that Option Line recommends are crisis pregnancy centers, according to Crisis Pregnancy Center Map, a national directory led by Drs. Andrea Swartzendruber and Danielle Lambert, two professors from the University of Georgia’s College of Public Health. 

Crisis pregnancy centers portray themselves as legitimate reproductive health care clinics but instead attempt to deter people from accessing abortion care and even some contraceptive options, according to the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. 

“As part of a pro-life, pro-family administration, HHS is committed to delivering critical tools to help parents foster healthy pregnancies, strengthen young families, and create brighter futures for their children,” HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard told Mother Jones on Sunday regarding the agency’s promotion of Option Line.  “The pregnancy centers and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) [which receive federal funding to provide primary care for underserved communities] listed on the website provide supportive services to expecting mothers.”

As my colleague Julia Métraux wrote last month, HHS has long pushed these crisis pregnancy centers, directly giving at least $34 million to 16 facilities between 2018 and 2024. In April, the Trump administration proposed plans to dismantle its Title X family planning program, switching from promoting contraception use and instead urging providers to concentrate on “optimal health (defined as physical, mental, and social wellbeing), not just medical intervention.”

Comet R3 PanSTARRS in Orion

Today’s composite image features something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue! Comet R3 PanSTARRS, streaking across the right of the image, likely originated from the Oort Cloud, meaning it is an old Solar System relic from billions of years ago. It’s bright extended ion tail glows blue as the gas escaping the comet’s core is ionized by sunlight. Astronomers are fascinated by comets for all sorts of reasons: comet compositions are untouched time capsules containing the building blocks of Solar System planets; comets may have delivered water to the young Earth; the behavior of cometary tails shed light on solar wind and radiation interactions. The background mosaic, featuring the Orion Nebula (M42), was taken over two nights of observation with the comet captured on the third night. The Orion Nebula is our nearest stellar nursery and, at about 2 million years old, is our something (relatively) new! Now at around 127.5 million kilometers from Earth, we wave goodbye to the borrowed Comet R3 PanSTARRS as it leaves the Solar System.

Erase Black House district

Supreme Court allows Alabama GOP to erase Black House district

The high court voted 6-3 to allow state to proceed with plan likely to squeeze Democrats to single seat

By Josh Gerstein

The Supreme Court has given Alabama the go-ahead to use a congressional map that will likely remove a Democratic incumbent from the state.

In a 6-3 ruling issued Monday, the court’s conservative majority granted a request from Alabama’s Republican leaders to lift an injunction that blocked the state from using a map the Legislature adopted in 2023. That map includes only one majority-Black district, while the current House map includes a second majority-minority district in which nearly half the population is Black.

The current map had been imposed by a federal court after it ruled that the Voting Rights Act required the state to draw that second district. State lawmakers had refused to do so, instead drawing a map that had only one majority-Black district. Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures was elected in 2024 under that new, court-imposed map.

Monday’s ruling removes the injunction that forced Alabama to continue using that map. The high court’s majority did not issue an opinion explaining its reasoning, but simply said the lower court’s decision should be reconsidered in light of the decision last month in Louisiana v. Callais, where the justices sharply narrowed the requirement to draw district lines to create so-called opportunity districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Under a law passed Friday by Alabama’s Legislature, the district lines the state sought to adopt in 2023 now go into effect as a result of the Supreme Court’s action. That would give Republicans an edge in six of the state’s seven House districts, netting the GOP one additional House seat they are favored to win in the upcoming midterms.

All the high court’s liberal justices dissented from the order Monday.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court’s other two Democratic appointees, said the Supreme Court’s conservative majority erred by summarily overturning the conclusion of a three-judge court that the 2023 plan was the product of deliberate discrimination against Black voters.

“That constitutional finding of intentional discrimination is independent of, and unaffected by, any of the legal issues discussed in Callais,” Sotomayor wrote.

Sotomayor noted that the lower-court finding at issue in the Alabama case rested on a violation not of the VRA but of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.

Under the newly passed law, the results of next week’s May 19 primaries in House districts unaffected by the map change will still be counted, but those in impacted districts will be ignored. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey is expected to schedule another round of primaries in those districts.

Sotomayor said it was “inappropriate” for the court to take an action that effectively changes Alabama’s district lines just days before the primary, adding that the court’s move “will cause only confusion as Alabamians begin to vote in the elections scheduled for next week.”

Vacating a lower court decision “is an equitable remedy, and the Court should not lightly wield it to unleash chaos and to confuse voters,” Sotomayor added.

Restore their new map

Virginia Democrats ask Supreme Court to restore their new map

It’s a longshot bid to overturn the decision by the state’s highest court to strike down Democrats’ redistricting referendum.

By Josh Gerstein

Virginia officials are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the state to implement the redistricting plan voters approved last month that could net Democrats as many as four additional congressional seats.

The state’s attorney general, Jay Jones, filed an emergency appeal with the high court Monday following an unexpected, 4-3 decision from the Virginia Supreme Court on Friday invalidating the ballot measure.

Jones asked Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals arising from Virginia, to issue a temporary stay that would allow election preparations to continue under the lines newly drawn to favor Democrats. Roberts did not immediately act but is likely to refer the request to the full bench of the Supreme Court for a vote.

The appeal is Democrats’ latest effort to shore up their response as Republican political leaders rush to gerrymander various states in the wake of the Virginia court’s ruling last week and the high court’s decision to narrow the Voting Rights Act in April.

Still, many legal experts have declared Jones’ request to be a long shot because federal courts typically defer to state courts on interpretations of state law.

The Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling against the new map rested on the definition of “Election Day” in state law, concluding that the period of an election encompasses the window for early and absentee voting and, therefore, lawmakers moved too slowly to initiate the referendum process, when early voting was already underway.

However, Democrats’ filing Monday argues that the definition the state court adopted of an “election” conflicts with longstanding federal law as well as the position the Trump administration staked out in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case. Jones also argues that the ruling from Virginia’s high court violated the Constitution by effectively usurping the state legislature’s authority.

“The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision … depended on a grave misreading of federal law that no other court, state or federal, has ever accepted and which numerous federal courts have expressly rejected,” Jones wrote.

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that language in the Constitution giving state legislatures the power to set the rules for federal congressional elections does not completely sideline state courts from overseeing the process.

However, writing for the high court’s majority at the time, Roberts declared that “state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.”

Roberts on Monday instructed the Republicans who challenged the Virginia referendum to respond to Jones’ appeal by Thursday at 5 p.m.

Another fucking lie after another fucking lie............

‘A bad look’: Republicans want more details on ballroom security funding request

The $1 billion line item in a party-line bill otherwise focused on immigration enforcement is causing political heartburn.

By Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill

President Donald Trump and his deputies have a major sales job ahead of them on Capitol Hill as multiple GOP lawmakers questioned a proposed $1 billion in Secret Service security spending that could be used at least in part for Trump’s controversial White House ballroom project.

The provision, which gives $1 billion to the Secret Service for “security adjustments and upgrades,” has threatened to overshadow what Republicans wanted to make the main focus of the package — tens of billions of dollars in new immigration enforcement funding. But the White House and many lawmakers argue the funding is necessary after the shooting at last month’s White House Correspondents Dinner.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the funding’s inclusion Monday and predicted that most GOP senators will ultimately vote to support what the Secret Service says it needs.

“They have a job to do, and we want to make sure they’re able to do their job effectively so that we keep the president of the United States safe,” Thune said. “So I think most of our members are — if they are getting briefed on what the money is going to be used for — are probably going to be in a good place.”

Secret Service Director Sean Curran is expected to discuss the request at the Senate GOP’s closed-door lunch Tuesday, according to three people granted anonymity to disclose private scheduling.

GOP leaders are hoping to have the bill on the Senate floor next week, after votes in the Senate Homeland Security and Budget committees.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has emerged as a pivotal vote, was among several Republicans who said they needed more information, with Tillis telling reporters he was “looking forward to seeing the details this week.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who chairs the Homeland Security panel, said Monday that he does not support the funding’s inclusion in the bill. He cannot act directly to strike it since the Secret Service provision is not in the portion of the bill under his committee, but he said it was a “possibility” it gets stripped out before it hits the floor.

“I’m not sure it’s anything we’ll ever vote on,” Paul said, while declining to say how he would vote if it stays in: “We’ll see if it gets to that.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who could block the funding as a member of the Budget Committee, declined to comment multiple times Monday on the decision to include White House security funding. He previously wanted to expand the scope of the party-line bill, but leaders rejected his push, arguing it needed to be focused solely on immigration enforcement.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is in a difficult reelection campaign, said “I don’t know” if the $1 billion is for the ballroom itself and wanted clarification during Tuesday’s closed-door lunch.

“Obviously, there have been three or four attempts on the president’s life, and that’s extremely serious, and we’re in a heightened era of political violence, but the ballroom itself should be paid for by private donations, as the president had indicated,” Collins said.

To get the ballroom-related language through the full Senate on party lines, as expected, Thune can lose no more than three Republicans, with Vice President JD Vance breaking a tie.

Senate Democrats are preparing to argue the provision is an impermissibly narrow “earmark” that doesn’t comply with the strict rules governing the budget reconciliation process, which is how Republicans are aiming to sidestep a Democratic filibuster. Conversations with parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough are underway as of Monday, according to three people granted anonymity to disclose the private discussions.

MacDonough’s rulings on the reconciliation process tend to be final, and if she says the provision is in compliance, Senate Democrats are expected to then force a floor vote to strip it out.

Among the Republican senators being closely watched are Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Paul, who both opposed a preliminary measure setting out the fiscal blueprint for the immigration enforcement bill. Paul said earlier this year that he would support approving the ballroom through reconciliation but warned he supported putting in only a “nominal” amount of taxpayer money for the project, which Trump has said will be privately financed.

The challenges in the House are no less daunting, with Speaker Mike Johnson working with a razor-thin vote margin. Just getting the budget blueprint approved was a grueling process that culminated in a vote that was left open for more than five hours as Johnson scrambled to resolve unrelated policy fights among Republicans.

Now a growing group of House Republicans is privately complaining to their leaders about the White House security money that can be used on the ballroom, arguing it sends a tone-deaf message as voters struggle with higher gas and grocery prices.

“It’s a bad look. It’s bad timing. It’s bad all around,” another House Republican said.

Some House GOP leaders privately doubt the measure has the votes to pass, according to four people granted anonymity to describe behind-the-scenes discussions, but they’re hoping it gets stripped out in the Senate first.

Trump has said he wants the immigration enforcement funding on his desk by June 1, and House leaders are scrambling to make that happen next week before a planned Memorial Day recess. They have already started discussing the potential need to keep the House in session for at least part of the holiday weekend.

Curran and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin have already started their sales pitch, sending a letter last week to top House and Senate Republicans laying out in broad strokes how the funding would be used.

“The $1 billion in funding included in the reconciliation bill will assist the USSS in delivering critical security upgrades at the White House to minimize threats, including the security components to the East Wing Modernization Project, in addition to other critical missions for the USSS,” they wrote.

Still, some Republicans facing tough midterm campaigns are publicly apprehensive.

“Listen, I want to see the details,” Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) said last week. “I want to know exactly what those dollars are going for, what are the security measures put in place … and then how they came to that figure.”

Rep. Jen Kiggans, another vulnerable Virginia House Republican, said she would not be “speculating” on the request. But, she added, “I look forward to getting back to Washington and working through that process.”

Rep. Mike Haridopolos (R-Fla.), a staunch Trump ally, said in an interview Monday that he was “not going to make a decision till I know all the facts,” while voicing some support for having a secure location for the president, members of Congress and White House guests to gather.

“All I’ve seen is $1 billion dollars,” he said, adding that he might be convinced if administration officials “walk through why it’s justified.”

Inflation surges to 3 year high....

'Out of control': Inflation surges to highest point in 3 years, driven by energy

Gasoline has risen above $4.50 per gallon, nearly $1.40 more than what it was a year ago.

By Sam Sutton

Inflation climbed faster than at any point in the last three years in April as fuel and food prices surged due to the war in Iran.

The Labor Department on Tuesday reported that the consumer price index increased at an annual rate of 3.8 percent — the highest since May 2023 — with rising energy costs accounting for more than 40 percent of the spike. Food prices at grocery stores and restaurants also rose, and shelter prices shot up. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy costs, ticked higher at a rate of 2.8 percent.

The rapid escalation of living costs has created a political headache for the White House and Republicans as they prepare for a bruising midterm election season that will be defined by affordability issues. A new CNN poll conducted by SSRS found that just 30 percent of Americans approve of President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy, an area that had been the president’s strong suit prior to his second term. An overwhelming majority — 75 percent of Americans — think the war with Iran has had a negative effect on their finances.

“Today’s inflation data confirms what everyone can see: Costs are out of control, and President Trump is responsible,” Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said in a statement.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Kush Desai reaffirmed Trump’s position that the disruptions from the conflict are temporary and that the president’s “long-term economic agenda continues to deliver.”

Desai also attributed a recent decline in prices for hospital services and drug costs to Trump’s health care agenda, and added that the administration “remains laser-focused on delivering growth and affordability on the home front while working to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat.”

Trump has been buoyed in recent weeks by favorable reports indicating the economy has avoided strain despite the shock to global energy supplies. GDP grew at an annual rate of 2 percent during the first three months of the year — improving on the weak expansion reported at the end of 2025 — and back-to-back jobs reports surpassed expectations, which has spurred hopes of a labor market rebound. But that resilience has failed to improve Trump’s political standing with voters, and the GOP’s inability to sway Americans on pocketbook issues has weakened the party’s prospects for the midterm elections.

The near-closure of the Strait of Hormuz has damaged supply chains for 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas supplies as well as other commodities that are key inputs for the production of food, semiconductor chips and plastics.

The price of gas has risen above $4.50 per gallon, nearly $1.40 more than what it was a year ago, according to AAA. Industry analysts expect fuel costs to remain elevated even if traffic picks up through the Strait of Hormuz. Gulf state officials have cautioned that it could take months, even years, to rebuild the energy infrastructure that has been damaged during the conflict.

The release of strategic petroleum reserves and sanctions relief on Russian and Iranian oil supplies have failed to quell price increases. Trump over the weekend suggested a reprieve on federal gas taxes, a policy that has found currency with right-wing populists like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Capitol Hill.

But the president’s affordability woes were a problem before voters were getting reminded of rising prices with each trip to the gas station. And his broader cost-of-living agenda — which includes programs to address prescription drug prices and housing market reforms — hasn’t broken through.

Tuesday’s CPI report contained data suggesting tariff-related price increases have moderated, particularly with regard to certain goods like home furnishings, and the spike in shelter prices was largely due to statistical distortions that occurred when the government shutdown disrupted operations at the Bureau of Labor Statistics last year.

But the rise in overall inflation “matters a lot for consumer pocketbooks,” said Matt Bush, a managing director for macroeconomic research and market strategy at Guggenheim Partners. And that could be a “hit to real income growth and a risk to consumer spending moving forward.”

Gas tax

Trump’s gas tax holiday pitch faces early Capitol Hill headwinds

President Donald Trump’s push for a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax has bipartisan backers. But it’s far from a sure thing.

By Pavan Acharya, Amelia Davidson and Meredith Lee Hill

Interest in a gasoline tax holiday is growing on Capitol Hill following President Donald Trump’s endorsement Monday — but the proposal is also facing pushback from some key Republicans balking at cutting a major source of federal funding.

High energy prices stemming from the ongoing conflict in the Middle East prompted Trump to suggest pausing fuel tax collections “till it’s appropriate.” He said, “It’s a small percentage, but it’s still money.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) released legislation Monday that would suspend both the 18-cent gasoline tax and the 24-cent diesel tax for 90 days. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said she would soon follow with a House bill.

But Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who chairs the Senate Finance subcommittee with jurisdiction over energy issues, said Monday evening he would not support a suspension of the federal gas tax “right now,” citing the federal debt and deficit.

“Even if we pass something right now, it would take a long time to be able to work through the process, but we’ve got to pay attention to our debt as well,” Lankford said in an interview.

Pushing through a gas tax holiday would be a first for Congress. When then-President Joe Biden pitched a holiday in 2022 as prices at the pump increased to record highs in the months following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Democratic leaders opted not to move that effort forward.

Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) was lukewarm when asked for his take. “I’ve not in the past, obviously, been a fan of that idea,” Thune told reporters. “But, you know, I’ve got some colleagues out there who think it’s a good idea, and so we’ll hear them out.”

House Republican leaders are currently discussing how to handle Trump’s push, according to three people familiar with the talks and granted anonymity to speak candidly. They had hoped the administration could find a way to act on its own in a limited manner, the people said, but it’s looking unlikely at this point.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) reacted to the proposal by slamming the president’s decision to attack Iran but didn’t reject the idea of a tax holiday.

“Let’s not pretend 18 cents of gas tax relief per gallon makes up for the damage created with this war,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “Eighteen cents isn’t [$1.50], which is how much the price of gas has gone up since this war started.”

Cost concerns

The federal gasoline tax is the main funding source for the Highway Trust Fund, which has been on life support for decades, and some lawmakers are looking to shore up through a new fee on electric cars and hybrids.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Sam Graves (R-Mo.) — who is working on a new highway bill — last month told POLITICO he opposed a gas tax holiday. His office did not respond to requests for comment on the policy Monday.

Suspending the gas tax, said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), is “not a good long-term strategy” and “just creates more work for us on the Highway Trust Fund.” “We’ve already got a Highway Trust Fund that doesn’t have enough money,” Tillis said in an interview.

But Hawley’s bill — and legislation from Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) — would use general fund dollars to make up for revenue losses from a fuel tax holiday.

Doing that, however, may anger budget hawks. Fiscal conservative Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said Monday, “I’ll cut every tax you can, but I’d like to balance the budget, too.”

Late last month, the Bipartisan Policy Center projected that a five-month suspension of the gas tax would increase federal deficits by about $12 billion.

Senate Republicans Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Jim Justice of West Virginia and Tom Cotton of Arkansas all welcomed Trump’s proposal Monday. Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota said he’d also consider it but maintained that such a measure might not be necessary because the current spike in gas prices was “temporary.”

Prices at the pump were averaging $4.52 nationally as of Monday, according to AAA, up more than 40 percent from a year ago. Though that average price has stayed about the same in recent days, prolonged conflict could drive up the cost per gallon near the $5.01 all-time record set in June 2022.

Pappas told POLITICO he hadn’t spoken directly with Democratic House leadership about his bill. A holiday is “gaining some steam right now,” he said. “We’ve got some more work to do to, I think, get members on both sides of the aisle bought in.”

Little ratbag

Rod Stewart praises King Charles for putting ‘little ratbag in his place’ on US trip

Do Ya Think I’m Being Mean About Donald Trump? Yes.

By Paul Dallison

Legendary singer Rod Stewart appeared to diss Donald Trump during a meeting with King Charles.

During an event in London to mark the 50th anniversary of the charity The King’s Trust, the veteran rocker told the monarch, “May I say, well done in the Americas. You were superb. Absolutely superb. You put that little ratbag in his place,” according to a video clip of the conversation.

Last month, Charles was in the U.S. and gave an address to Congress in which he pushed back against Trump’s attacks on Britain and NATO. In a speech at a state dinner, the king joked that “if it wasn’t for us, you’d be speaking French!”

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

In a 2025 interview with the Radio Times, Stewart said he and the U.S. president used to be friends but that was no longer the case.

“I’m not a great fan of Trump,” he said. “I knew him very, very well. I used to go to his house. I live literally half a mile away [in Florida] … We’re both on the beach. I used to go to his Christmas parties. He’s always been a bit of a man’s man. I liked him for that. But he didn’t, as far as I’m concerned, treat women very well. But since he became president, he became another guy. Somebody I didn’t know.”

After Trump criticized British and NATO troops — saying they “stayed a little back, a little off the front lines” in Afghanistan — Stewart posted a video on Instagram in which he said: “I may just be a humble rock star. I’m also a knight of the realm, and I have my opinions. I was born just after the war [World War II], and have great respect for our armed forces that fought and gave us our freedom. So, it hurts me badly, deeply, when I read that the draft dodger Trump has criticized our troops in Afghanistan for not being on the front line.”

Stewart doesn’t hold back with his political opinions. Last year, just before his appearance at the Glastonbury Festival, Stewart urged British voters to back Nigel Farage. He told the Times: “We’re fed up with the Tories. We’ve got to give Farage a chance. He’s coming across well … I know some of his family. I know his brother, and I quite like him.”

And in 2017, Stewart apologized after being filmed seemingly miming an Islamic State-style execution with friends in the desert near Abu Dhabi. In a swiftly deleted video clip, Stewart appeared to get a male friend to kneel down, held him by the hair and made what looked like a cutting motion across his throat.

In a statement, Stewart said: “From re-enacting the Beatles’ Abbey Road crossing to spontaneously playing out Game Of Thrones, we were simply larking about pre-show.

“Understandably, this has been misinterpreted and I send my deepest apologies to those who have been offended.”

Your tax dollars for the golden toilet..........

Trump officials pitch GOP on ballroom funds

A growing number of Republicans are complaining funding President Donald Trump’s ballroom security sends a tone-deaf message as voters struggle with higher gas and grocery prices.

By Jordain Carney, Meredith Lee Hill and Calen Razor

Administration officials are trying to win Hill Republicans’ blessing for $1 billion in security funding that could go toward parts of President Donald Trump’s ballroom project.

Secret Service Director Sean Curran is meeting Tuesday with Senate Republicans. He’ll face several senators who aren’t convinced or are outright opposed to green-lighting the money.

Expect Curran and GOP leaders to pitch the funding as necessary for White House security improvements and helping the Secret Service keep up broadly with growing threats.

The funds are part of a larger party-line spending package that would mainly support immigration enforcement. Trump has given lawmakers until June 1 to clear the legislation.

Things aren’t looking easier over in the House, where a growing number of Republicans are complaining its inclusion sends a tone-deaf message as voters struggle with higher gas and grocery prices.

“It’s a bad look. It’s bad timing. It’s bad all around,” said one House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Some House GOP leaders privately doubt the measure has the votes to pass, according to four people granted anonymity to describe behind-the-scenes discussions, but they’re hoping it gets stripped out in the Senate first.

As we scooped, conversations with the Senate parliamentarian are already under way and bipartisan meetings — known as a Byrd bath — are expected later this week. Sen. Rand Paul, who said Monday he opposed the ballroom security funding measure, predicted it’s possible that provision gets stripped out during the review.

Coming up next week: The Senate Homeland Security panel will vote on its portion of the party-line bill, which does not have the ballroom language in it. The Judiciary Committee, which does, postponed its planned markup — with Chair Chuck Grassley pointing to the panel’s drawn out rules as the reason.

The Senate Budget Committee will also need to hold a meeting next week to compile the full bill. Notably, panel member Sen. John Kennedy declined multiple times to discuss the ballroom project Monday night. The Louisiana Republican has previously tried to expand the scope of the bill beyond immigration enforcement.

Senate Republicans are aiming to begin floor consideration of the bill next Wednesday to pass it and send it to the House by Friday. That timeline has House GOP leadership already discussing the likelihood they will need to remain in session for at least part of Memorial Day weekend to finish their work.

Vile and racist language

Top House Democrats slam Jen Kiggans over radio host’s ‘vile and racist language’

A spokesperson for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is the latest to speak out.

Riley Rogerson

Democrats are hammering Rep. Jen Kiggans after the vulnerable Virginia Republican concurred with a Richmond radio host saying Hakeem Jeffries should get his “cotton-picking hands” off Virginia politics.

“Ditto, yes, yes to that,” Kiggans responded.

Christie Stephenson, a spokesperson for Jeffries, called the moment a “stunning failure of judgement for a so-called moderate Member of Congress representing a large, vibrant African American community in Virginia.”

“Extremists who endorse disgusting, vile and racist language are pathetic,” she said in a Tuesday statement. “Jen Kiggans has no interest in our nation’s progress toward a multi-racial democracy and apparently craves a return to the days of Jim Crow racial oppression in the South. That’s why MAGA Republicans in legislatures and courts across America have launched a full-scale assault on Black representation.”

Minority Whip Katherine Clark, the No. 2 Democratic leader, called it “brazenly racist language” and said Kiggans should resign. No. 3 leader Pete Aguilar said she should “apologize then get the hell out of the House.” The Congressional Black Caucus also called on Kiggans to resign.

Kiggans did not apologize, suggesting Democrats were only trying to distract from their loss in the state’s court. She said, however, the host “should not have used that language and I do not -and did not - condone it.”

Kiggans is one of the House’s most vulnerable Republicans. Democrats attempted to redraw her district in their favor, but the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the map Friday, giving Kiggans’ reelection campaign new life. Now Democrats are making clear that they will use her comments to campaign against her as they battle to beat her on Election Day.

Jeffries has yet to address Kiggans directly, but he reposted Clark’s statement calling for her resignation on X on Monday.

“The voters of Virginia will hold her accountable at the ballot box in November,” Stephenson said.

The racism shines through...........

As Republicans carve up Black districts, Democrats pivot to a new midterm message

Democrats will be unable to respond to the GOP’s redistricting gains before the November elections, and are now turning the mapmaking fight into a political messaging battle.

By Andrew Howard

Democrats are changing their redistricting strategy — again.

Just two weeks after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised to invoke “maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time,” his side has been forced to shift drastically into a defensive posture thanks to a pair of court rulings that moved the House map toward the GOP.

Now, with little to no chances left to redistrict ahead of November to counter GOP gains of 10 favorable House seats or more, Democrats are stuck doing something they know all too well: blaming President Donald Trump, and hoping it will spur voters to turn out for them in the midterms.

In statements and interviews since Virginia’s Supreme Court struck down state Democrats’ new congressional map and the high court narrowed the Voting Rights Act, the party is arguing that Republicans’ aggressive moves to dismantle Black- and Hispanic-majority districts in the South will outrage voters of color and spur them to the polls in record numbers.

“Given the highly unfavorable political environment confronting House Republicans, the extremists will not meaningfully benefit from their scandalous gerrymandering scheme,” Jeffries said in a Monday “Dear Colleague” letter. “Quite the opposite. Democratic enthusiasm and resolve have grown more intense.”

Democrats are looking to turn that argument into a political silver lining. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has begun recruiting candidates to run in Southern states where GOP lawmakers are mulling redraws — like South Carolina, where the party is betting Republicans will miscalculate and accidentally create a new battleground seat, according to one person familiar with the effort granted anonymity to discuss it.

There are also numerous districts on the DCCC’s list of battleground seats where Black voters — who are being targeted by the Southern redraws — make up significant shares of the population and could be motivated to vote by what Democrats see as attempts to suppress the community’s sway.

“Democrats are gonna be able to go into African American communities and say, ‘Republicans are doing everything they can to take away your political power,’” said Democratic strategist Ian Russell, who served as the DCCC political director in 2014 and 2016 and still works on House races across the country. “That’s a really salient message.”

But Democrats are inarguably on worse footing in their bid to retake the House than they were less than one year ago. Republicans have drawn maps across the country, starting in Texas, in hopes of shoring up their majority.

Democrats have had some wins: California Gov. Gavin Newsom backed a measure in his state last year that gave Democrats an edge in five more seats, countering Texas. But the courtroom loss in Virginia was big, and it came after Democratic-aligned groups spent more than $60 million convincing voters to back the state’s redistricting effort.

Republicans are celebrating the redistricting push that once looked unlikely to create gains for the party.

“Two weeks ago people were dooming and asking wAs rEdIsTrIcTiNg wOrTh iT?” James Blair, a top political lieutenant for President Donald Trump who hatched the redistricting plan, wrote on X over the weekend. “…16 net seat swing to GOP…”

The party is still hoping for some legal victories. Virginia Democrats filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, asking justices to issue a temporary stay on the state court’s decision. And Jeffries laid out other legal challenges in Missouri, Florida and Wisconsin in his “Dear Colleague” letter, something National Democratic Redistricting Committee President John Bisognano pointed to in an interview.

“I’m not ready to call 2026 completely closed yet,” Bisognano said. “But I recognize it’s obviously late in the year.”

On Saturday, Jeffries huddled by phone with the Virginia Democratic delegation to weigh next steps, according to one person briefed on the call and granted anonymity to discuss it. One theory floated on the call — though not taken too seriously — was lowering the forced retirement age of the Virginia Supreme Court in order to replace those judges and get a new ruling, the person said. But Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and other top state Democrats have already rebuffed the idea.

The consensus among lawmakers on the call was to focus their resources on two GOP-held districts in the state that are already in play. Virginia GOP Reps. Jen Kiggans and Rob Wittman were already top targets for Democrats this cycle.

But that decision makes one thing clear. Democrats’ redistricting fight — at least in 2026 — will be played out in a political messaging war and not through mapmaking itself.

There’s also a growing blame game about failed efforts to redistrict in Illinois and Maryland, including frustration with Democratic Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson and Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, according to two national Democrats, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations.

The party was unable to roll Ferguson in order to pass a new map, despite Gov. Wes Moore’s lobbying and pressure from other Democratic groups. In Illinois, one national Democratic operative was frustrated that Pritzker tied his state’s redistricting fight to Indiana, given the already-clear reality at the time that other GOP states — like Florida — would eventually move forward with redraws.

“Maryland could still take action,” Bisognano said. “People in the state could take action if they found the will — and so far they have not.”

But that move is still unlikely, and for now, Democrats are stuck placing the blame on Republicans and hoping it lands.

“The American people see that Republicans have been trying to rig the system because they know they are losing across the country,” DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene said in a Monday podcast appearance. “Instead of listening and actually sitting down with people across the country and understanding the struggles they’re facing … [Republicans] decided the only way that they can stay in power is to break the system.”

Fraud and abuse

Fact-checking Trump and Musk's claims that they are cutting government 'fraud and abuse'

NPR

Elon Musk and President Donald Trump said they have uncovered massive "fraud" in the federal government.

During Oval Office remarks Feb. 11, Trump said that their efforts to cut spending turned up "billions and billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse."

Trump added: "We found fraud and abuse, I would say those two words as opposed to the third word that I usually use, but in this case, fraud and abuse."

Trump and Musk used the word "fraud" or "fraudster" combined about a dozen times during their Oval Office question-and-answer session.

So far, neither Musk nor the Trump White House has shown evidence of criminal activity.

On Feb. 12, during a White House press conference, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt for evidence of fraud.

"I love to bring the receipts," Leavitt said. She cited three contracts for $36,000 for diversity, equity and inclusion programs at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, $3.4 million for the Council for Inclusive Innovation at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and $57,000 related to climate change in Sri Lanka.

"I would argue that all of these things are fraudulent," Leavitt said. "They are wasteful and they are an abuse of the American taxpayers dollar."

When PolitiFact asked about these claims, the White House press office pointed to an April 2024 Government Accountability Office report that found the "federal government loses an estimated $233 billion to $521 billion" every year to fraud.

The White House also sent a list of dozens of Department of Government Efficiency "wins," including canceled media outlet subscriptions and contracts for DEI initiatives, consulting and administrative expenses.

"Nothing they have identified is, to my knowledge, evidence of 'fraud' or 'corruption.' Fraud and corruption are crimes," said Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at George Washington University. "This administration simply has different spending priorities than the last administration. But to label all of it as fraud or corruption is extremely misleading."

Trump has torn down governmental fraud-finding tools. He fired more than a dozen inspectors general whose job was to ferret out fraud and inefficiencies. He paused the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from taking bribes from foreign officials.

Government reports show that fraudulent spending is a measurable problem for the federal government. But the evidence that DOGE has uncovered new examples has not yet been proved.

Here's an overview of how the government deals with waste, fraud and abuse.

Fraud is not the same as waste or abuse

Waste, fraud and abuse are not interchangeable terms.

The Government Accountability Office says waste is "using or expending resources carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose." Abuse is "behavior that is deficient or improper." Fraud "involves obtaining something of value through willful misrepresentation" and is labeled after a legal process.

"Fraud is a very high legal standard," said David M. Walker, who serves on the federal government's Defense Business Board, which advises the Defense Department on business management.

To qualify as fraud, an activity has to be illegal with evidence of intent, which is "the most difficult thing to prove," he said.

Walker, the former U.S. government comptroller who led the GAO under Democratic and Republican administrations, said most of the examples he has heard from DOGE could be characterized as waste and abuse. Walker offered the Paycheck Protection Program, which Congress passed in March 2020 to help small businesses cover payroll early in the COVID-19 pandemic, as an example of a program that had fraudulent payments that the government later caught. The U.S. Small Business Administration inspector general later estimated $64 billion in fraud.

The Government Accountability Office is staffed with auditors, and federal inspectors general  offices have auditors and law enforcement on staff. Both refer suspected fraud to investigators.

"Anytime someone looks at data (spending data for example), you will see anomalies that catch your attention and warrant review," said Robert Westbrooks, the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee executive director who worked in government oversight roles during Democratic and Republican administrations. "That does not necessarily mean the transaction is fraudulent or wasteful."

Westbrooks reviewed the White House list of DOGE "wins" and said he saw no evidence of an intent to deceive.

"Waste is in the eye of the beholder," he said. "Fraud, on the other hand, is determined by a court."

Before Trump, inspectors general found criminal activity

Congress passed the Inspector General Act of 1978 in response to anti-corruption efforts that started after the 1972 Watergate break-in and cover-up that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation. An agency inspector general's mission is to conduct independent and objective audits, investigations and inspections and prevent and detect waste, fraud and abuse.

Only the president can remove Inspectors general. Trump fired 17 inspectors general Jan. 25, prompting a lawsuit by many seeking to get their jobs back. The lawsuit says Trump did not follow the law that requires him to notify Congress 30 days before he removes inspectors general. (Trump also pushed out a handful of inspectors general in spring 2020.)

Trump later fired U.S. Agency for International Development Inspector General Paul Martin following a Feb. 10 advisory that the federal government's pause on foreign assistance posed financial risks. (The unsigned notice came from the USAID inspector general.) The notice said the government's pause on foreign aid put more than $489 million of food assistance at risk of spoilage or diversion and limited officials' ability to respond to fraud and waste allegations.

In the past, many inspectors general have found fraud.

The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency issued an annual report for 2023 that highlighted federal efforts to combat fraud, waste and abuse. The report showed that inspectors general work led to more than 4,000 prosecutions and that inspectors general identified nearly $93.1 billion in potential savings.

The findings resulted in about 3,000 suspensions, reprimands and terminations for federal contractors and federal, state and local employees.

Inspectors general in recent years have found fraudulent activity in COVID-19 relief programs, including $5.4 billion in pandemic relief loans obtained via fabricated Social Security numbers.

Inspectors general at other agencies have also found wrongdoing that prompted prosecutions, including a bid-rigging scheme related to NGO contracts funded in part by the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Another probe led to a $6.9 million settlement with an international nongovernmental organization over inflated invoices. The inspector general also suspended or prevented some organizations from doing business with USAID.

$400-million lie

'It was always a scam': Trump's ally torches his $400-million lie wide open with a desperate scare tactic, and now his own party is revolting

Story by Atlanta Black Star News

The American people could now be on the hook for what critics say is one of President Donald Trump’s most expensive vanity projects.

Just months after promising a lavish White House ballroom would cost taxpayers nothing, Trump allies were suddenly on Capitol Hill, making the case for the exact opposite, while also pointing to an attempted assassination at the Washington Hilton as proof the project can’t wait. 

The shift didn’t just catch Democrats off guard; it also split Republicans who have spent years warning about runaway spending, only to now face a $400 million construction bill tied to a president known for ideas that don’t always deliver.

The ballroom fight is now boiling down to whether a recent security scare is being used as cover to move forward with a project Trump once insisted would be paid for entirely with private money. 

The proposal faces steep odds in Congress, where divisions within Trump’s own party may prove just as decisive as Democratic opposition. 

‘Sad’: Trump Loses It After Pool Gets Tagged — Goes on Bizarre Rant, Posts Unhinged Photo With His Inner Circle Leaving Fans Confused About Who’s Missing

Trump’s earlier stance was clear. In February, he said, “We did this with no charge to the taxpayer whatsoever. This was all donations by friends of mine and people who love our country, love the White House. Not one penny. And it’s very expensive ballroom.” 

That assurance now clashes with a Senate push to use public funds — a reversal critics say fits Trump’s habit of making sweeping promises upfront, then moving the goalposts when reality catches up.

The change in direction comes after a would-be assassin tried to storm the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last Saturday night, forcing Trump and other top officials to leave after gunfire erupted. The incident rattled lawmakers and gave Trump allies an opening to argue that holding large events outside the White House complex is no longer safe.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, leading the charge, framed the proposal as urgent and necessary. 

“America has a problem, and we intend to fix it,” Graham told reporters, according to NBC News. “This is not about Trump. It’s about the presidency of the United States. It’s about the person who occupies that office not being put at risk if they choose to go off campus.”

He doubled down on the security argument. 

“It’s very difficult to have a bunch of important people in the same place unless it’s really, really secure,” he said, according to The Hill. “The times in which we live are unusual. I’ve been up here for a while now, I’ve never felt the sense of threat that exists today.”

The plan calls for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom on White House grounds, complete with what Graham described as “military stuff” and a “Secret Service annex” beneath it. He argued the cost could be offset through fees, but made clear he doesn’t want the project relying solely on private donors. “Private donations can be used, but I think they should be used for buying china and stuff like that,” he said.

Other Trump allies are balking at the price tag, especially given the national debt. Florida Sen. Rick Scott questioned the need for taxpayer funding at all. “I don’t know why you would do it” with taxpayer money “if it’s all funded,” he said, adding, “We have $39 trillion in debt. Maybe we ought to stop spending money.”

Others echoed that skepticism. Sen. Josh Hawley said, “If you’ve got private donors who want to do it … I prefer that to the taxpayer being on the hook.” 

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was more direct: “I am always conservative, and he already has the money,” Paul said. “And I’m not against putting in reconciliation and doing a nominal amount. I’m not for funding the whole $500 million. I think he’s already raised the money through private means.”

Democrats, meanwhile, have shown little interest in backing the effort, even while condemning the violence that prompted it. 

Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz pushed back on the broader premise. “…We can’t be society where there’s no public events and everything happens in a reinforced ballroom,” he said. “So whether there would ever be 60 votes for for a ballroom — I haven’t counted yet, but I also haven’t found any Democrat who says yes.”

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin added, “At this point no. There’s obviously a lot of questions about how much it costs, how many people will be accommodated.” He also raised concerns about transparency: “Who’s paying for this? What’s the arrangement? This administration has too many times come up with deferment of payment to special interest sources. We don’t know the details.”

Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania is the only Democrat who has spoken out in favor of the ballroom. He suggested that opponents of the project have “Trump derangement syndrome.”

“After witnessing last night, drop the TDS and build the White House ballroom for events exactly like these,” Fetterman said on X, without saying whether taxpayers should foot the bill.

Outside Washington, critics suspected the matter was another one of Trump’s schemes. 

Meidas Touch editor Ron Filipkowski wrote: “He never had the money to pay for the ballroom. It was always a scam. We were always going to have to pay for it. They were just waiting for the right moment to hit us with the bill. This is now the time.”

Others questioned the timing and focus. “Absolute non-stop ballroom talk for almost 48 hours straight since Saturday from every member of the party,” one commenter observed. “Nothing else, no other topic is on their mind at all. Tell me again the whole thing wasn’t staged cause I’m very gullible and will believe you.”

Another critic framed it in simpler terms: “Maybe they should explain why average people should care about a billionaire’s wet dream of a ballroom at a building average people aren’t even allowed to go to.”

Supporters, however, leaned into the security argument, even if skeptics saw inconsistencies. “Trump and his followers are very concerned about security. A secure ballroom will help keep the President secure. Also, here is Trump at a very secure UFC match, a very secure Super Bowl, and a very secure golf event. Because it’s all about security.”

Adding another layer to the debate, Trump acknowledged that materials for the project wouldn’t come entirely from the United States, undercutting his long-running “America First” messaging. When asked about the granite, he said: “It was carved in Italy. It came from another location. You know where? Africa,” before adding, “Yeah. Is that OK?”