Iran spending bill

GOP rebels threaten Iran spending bill over Poland troop fight

A small but influential group of defense-minded Republicans is looking to extract concessions from the Trump administration on American defense of Europe.

Mark Satter

A splinter group of moderate House Republicans is threatening to derail an $88 billion Iran war spending bill unless American troops are returned to Poland.

Led by frequent Trump critic Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), the small cadre of GOP lawmakers could scuttle the emergency spending bill, which also includes farm aid and money to counter the Ebola virus. Bacon and his allies are trying to force the White House to make good on its plan to replace 4,200 American troops abruptly pulled out of Poland last month.

Just three defections could lead to serious trouble for Speaker Mike Johnson, given the narrow Republican House majority and expected widespread Democratic opposition to the measure, and concerns from GOP fiscal hawks about writing such a huge check.

The standoff is the latest clash between Republican defense hawks and a Trump administration that has largely ignored GOP worries about pulling forces from Europe — part of a larger push by the White House to force European nations to shoulder more of their own national security burden.

“We had five brigades, and we’re three now,” Bacon said about U.S. forces in Poland, considered a key ally of the United States. “It’s unsatisfactory. … If they want my support on the supplemental, they better come up and address it,” added Bacon, who described himself as the effort’s “spokesman.”

This month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the Pentagon would conduct a six-month review of American forces in Europe, and lashed out at NATO allies who declined to throw military support behind the U.S. during the Iran war.

“I stand with Don,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, (R-Penn.), adding that he wanted answers from the Pentagon on why the department is changing course on “unquestionable policy” that has lasted for generations.

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), also a member of the Armed Services panel, said while he would still support the supplemental, “we won’t have the votes to pass it without those two.”

The White House, Defense Department and Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The abrupt cancellation of a deployment of 4,200 Army soldiers to Poland in May caught American lawmakers, Army leaders and Polish officials by surprise. Two senior Polish defense ministry officials were immediately dispatched to Washington as Warsaw raced to figure out what had happened.

At the time, Bacon said it was “a slap in the face to the Armed Services Committee,” and panel Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) told Army Secretary Dan Driscoll that his committee was “not happy.”

In the days following the Pentagon’s announcement, President Donald Trump said he would send an additional 5,000 troops to Poland “based on the successful Election of the now President of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, who I was proud to Endorse.”

But those troops have yet to be deployed.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), also a member of the Armed Services Committee, said he hoped withholding votes from the supplemental would not be necessary, and that the Pentagon would soon replace the troops.

“I think it’s going to come through,” he said.

Compelling the public release of records

House votes to disclose which members settled sexual misconduct allegations with taxpayer funds

Rep. Nancy Mace was the only member to vote “present.”

Hailey Fuchs

The House approved a measure Tuesday compelling the public release of records showing which House members have used taxpayer dollars to settle sexual misconduct charges levied against them and how much money was spent.

The resolution, offered by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), directs the House Ethics Committee and the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights — which also handles claims of misconduct — to produce such information within 60 days. It passed nearly unanimously, 420-0, with only Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) — an outspoken advocate for victims of sexual harassment and assault — voting present.

“We need to know what’s been going on here in the House of Representatives in order to convince the people and assure the people that we are conducting the people’s business with the utmost integrity and treating the officers and employees of this institution with the respect that they deserve,” said Massie, in remarks on the chamber floor imploring his colleagues to support the measure.

Massie’s effort comes after Reps. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) were, earlier this year, forced to resign under the cloud of serious sexual misconduct allegations. The incidents forced a reckoning in the House, where members have historically struggled to show they take sexual assault allegations within their ranks seriously and to show they are prepared to root out bad behavior when necessary.

Facing such renewed public pressure, the House Ethics panel publicly reiterated its commitment to investigating claims of sexual misconduct among lawmakers. But in a statement in April, the committee also noted that it “does not handle sexual harassment lawsuits or have any involvement in settlements of such claims.”

In March, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to subpoena the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights for related settlements, and those materials revealed that the federal government paid more than $300,000 to settle claims against House lawmakers or their offices.

Congress ended the practice of the government footing the bill on members’ behalf in 2018, and the Ethics Committee has said it has, since that time, “not been notified of any awards or settlements relating to allegations of sexual harassment by a Member.”

In an interview during the vote Tuesday, Ethics chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) said he believed the information compelled by the resolution had already been shared. But he would still support the measure, he added, because there was “nothing problematic” about Massie’s proposal.

“Anything we can do to make sure that that information is readily available, we want to make that happen,” Guest said.

The House previously rejected a related measure from Mace that would have forced the Ethics Committee to release information on its investigations of lawmakers who have been accused of sexual misconduct. The top Republican and Democrat on the Ethics panel — Guest and Mark DeSaulnier (D.Calif.) at the time released a rare public statement to condemn the resolution, arguing it would have a chilling effect on victims.

In a video posted on X Tuesday afternoon, Mace questioned why the House was voting on Massie’s resolution, when the Oversight subpoena she championed had already compelled materials about the settlements to be shared with Congress.

“I guess it’s just political theater,” she said.

Medicaid Work Requirements

States Sue to Block Medicaid Work Requirements

RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz’s harsh new rules “punish those who cannot fend for themselves,” Democratic officials argue.

Julia Métraux

On Monday, officials in 25 states and Washington, DC sued Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz over the interim final rule for Medicaid work requirements established by President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The new rule, their lawsuit contends, “will create unnecessary bureaucracy and lead people who are either already working or eligible for an exclusion to lose or be denied coverage.”

As I previously reported, the rule released near the beginning of June was even more onerous than many state officials feared. It was a surprise to states that individuals already on Medicaid with serious health conditions would have to jump through further hoops to prove that they were unable to work:

State officials were blindsided by this medical frailty definition outlined in the new federal rule, which was never brought up in discussions between states and the federal government, Jennifer Wagner, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ director of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment, told me. “We have heard that this was driven more by the White House,” Wagner said. “I don’t think it was CMS intentionally misleading states.”

The lawsuit specifically raises the point that CMS “provided no indication

that it intended to place specific limits on States’ ability to rely on self-attestation” rather than requiring health care workers’ certification in all circumstances.

In a press release, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, who helped lead the suit, said that the “abrupt changes in [federal] implementation of the statute leave states insufficient time to adjust…or effectively communicate to members what is required.”

“This eleventh-hour attempt to further narrow protections for medically frail Medicaid recipients seeks to punish those who cannot fend for themselves,” said Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, who is also joining the suit, in a press release.

The lawsuit asks that a federal judge stay the interim final rule and vacate parts of it. The rule would otherwise go into effect in states with Medicaid expansion by January 1.

Attempt to Fire Fed’s Lisa Cook

Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Attempt to Fire Fed’s Lisa Cook

The decision preserves the central bank’s independence—at least for now.

Pema Lev

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, dealing a setback to Trump’s campaign to take control of monetary policy. The court’s 5-4 decision preserves Cook’s job as she continues to fight her removal, but it is not the final word on Trump’s bid to fire her. The narrow decision almost guarantees that this same dispute will return to the high court soon.

The majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts expresses explicit support for Fed independence. As an independent bank regulator, the Fed is run by a board of presidentially appointed governors who serve 14 year terms and are only removable for cause. The Trump administration argued that it had cause and that the Supreme Court could not review its removal decision. But the majority found the government’s arguments at odds with an independent Fed.

“To accept any one of those arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference,” Roberts wrote.

The decision comes at a time when the future of Fed independence is in doubt. Trump’s pick for Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, is awaiting confirmation by the Senate. Keeping Cook in her seat steadies the ship, if only a little. The majority’s decision, however, is explicitly “narrow.” It requires that Cook be given proper notice of the cause of her removal and an opportunity to contest those charges. The decision does not lay out what that process looks like. And it saves for another day—which will almost certainly come soon—a court decision on whether Trump’s obviously pretextual allegations will be enough to remove Cook.

In a post on Truth Social Monday, Trump called the Cook ruling “strictly procedural” and pledged to “take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!”

In short, this is a loss for Trump at this stage—but it may not be a permanent one.

In its ruling, the court declined to define what for-cause protection requires in order for a firing to be valid. Indeed, it hints that rather than leave it up to the president, it may ultimately be the final arbiter of what constitutes cause on a case-by-case basis. “Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her…may a final decision be made…And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges,” Roberts wrote.

“To be clear, the ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts,” the chief justice added. “In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts.”

Here are those facts, as we know them.

Last August, the president posted a criminal referral against Cook on Truth Social, his social media platform, and demanded she resign. The accusation—created by Bill Pulte, Trump’s Federal Housing Finance Agency director—is that Cook claimed primary residency on two different mortgage applications. If this charge sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same one Pulte cooked up against two other Democrats—and it has yet to win the day against any of the president’s targets because, at most, Pulte appears to have discovered clerical errors. Five days after Trump’s social media post, the president announced in another post that he was firing Cook.

Trump claimed that the mortgage document discrepancy dug up by a political lackey was sufficient cause to fire Cook, and that the courts couldn’t review his decision to boot her, anyway. In other words, Trump’s argument is that he can state any cause for removal he likes, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It’s an obviously absurd argument because it renders the “for cause” removal restriction meaningless. Cook sued, and a district court judge blocked her removal, as did the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump turned to the Supreme Court, which agreed to decide whether Trump could temporarily remove Cook while her legal challenge to her firing moves forward.

The Supreme Court handed down its ruling Monday in conjunction with a related case—Trump v. Slaughter—in which the court gave Trump the power to remove the commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission and other formerly independent agencies. That decision follows a string of cases in which the court’s this conservative majority found that the president’s power over the executive branch trumped Congress’ attempt to insulate agencies from political pressure. During Trump’s second term, the court had already waved through firings of Democratic commissioners on the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission on its shadow docket.

Logically, it’s hard to reconcile the court’s Cook decision with its rulings in Slaughter and other cases allowing Trump to fire independent agency commissioners. But the Federal Reserve Board’s independence is a pillar of the United States’ economy, and the US’s dominant global position makes that independence critical to the world economy, as well. Allowing Trump to turn interest rates, loans, bailouts, and access to the US banking system into political weapons would fundamentally reshape the economy and our democratic order. The Fed, in other words, is too important for one man to control.

To get out of this bind, Roberts—who wrote both the Cook and Slaughter decisions—insists that the Fed is simply different. Roberts’ opinion cites a history of independent bank regulators going back to the country’s founding and finds this history is relevant in determining whether it should uphold Congress’ legislative choice to make the Fed independent. “We see no reason to leave the public in limbo, or to sow doubt as to the status of one of our Nation’s (and the world’s) most important financial institutions,” Roberts wrote. “We would not so quickly unsettle this ‘special arrangement sanctioned by history.’”

This entire adventure stems from the Roberts Court’s own crusade to empower the president and hinder regulations disliked by big industry. The GOP-appointed majority has pushed forward its view of a “unitary executive” who controls all aspects of the executive branch, creating a roadmap for Trump to turn federal agencies into political weapons. Today, the court blesses Trump’s attempts to take control of most of the regulatory work that Congress deemed should be independent. But, at least to an extent, the Fed will be insulated from the consequences of that crusade.

Regulating Factory Farm Cruelty

“Save Our Bacon” Act Would Bar States From Regulating Factory Farm Cruelty

The issue of extreme confinement has sparked a “civil war” among pork producers.

Frida Garza

It’s been nearly eight years since Congress reauthorized the farm bill, the massive legislative package that funds programs run by the US Department of Agriculture. What used to be passed roughly every five years, the farm bill touches nearly every aspect of agricultural production in the US. It puts billions toward conservation programs, nutrition assistance, rural development, crop insurance, and climate-smart practices. 

But persistent disagreements between lawmakers over these and other programs have stymied the process of passing a new farm bill. The federal government has instead resorted to stop-gap measures and one-year extensions of a small handful of programs.

If farmers were hoping to see a new farm bill this year, they may very well be disappointed—as a new schism between the two houses of Congress was made clear this week, when the Senate agricultural committee released a draft of its farm bill that excluded a law known as the Save Our Bacon Act. The measure was included in the House draft farm bill earlier this year with vocal support by Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-Penn.), who chairs the House agricultural committee. 

Save Our Bacon (SOB), would override state and local laws like California’s Prop 12, which bans the sale of pork, chicken, and veal products that come from farms using the most extreme forms of animal confinement, such as gestation crates for hogs. Factory farming operations where animals have the least amount of space to move around result in a lot of manure, which is typically consolidated and stored in lagoons that can pollute the local air and waterways.

Advocacy groups argue laws like Prop 12 are common sense and popular among voters who want to know where their food comes from. There are currently 14 states with similar laws on the books, according to the American Meat Producers Association (AMPA), an industry group that opposes SOB.

“It’s just disappointing that we’re even talking about this because the farm bill should be about supporting sustainable farming and healthy food and food security. It should not be a way for large industry groups to overturn the will of voters,” said Molly Armus, who works on animal agricultural policy at Friends of the Earth, an environmental nonprofit. 

Armus notes that transitioning away from extreme confinement of livestock can have positive environmental and climate impacts if producers move toward a pasture-raised system. (Prop 12 only establishes minimum space requirements for animals.) A recent analysis from the USDA found that 27 percent of hog farmers, or 1 in 4, are already Prop 12 compliant—suggesting that the transition away from extreme confinement is underway. 

“Most hog farmers do not support the Save Our Bacon Act,” said Holly Bice, president of AMPA, which was founded last year in response to an earlier attempt to skirt Prop 12 in a previous draft farm bill. For many hog farmers, Prop 12 has “been an important opportunity for them,” said Bice, because investing in crate-free operations allows producers to sell their products at a premium. “It’s helped them keep their heads above water at a time when consolidation has increasingly driven out farmers,” she said.

However, Brent Hershey, a hog farmer in Pennsylvania and member of AMPA, said the issue of extreme confinement has sparked a “civil war” among pork producers. “The industry is completely divided on this,” he added. Personally, Hershey said, he was reluctant to change the way his operation did things, but after years of receiving negative feedback, he began to see things differently. Today, Hershey’s farm has been crate-free for three years. Passing SOB, he said, would be “devastating” for producers like him who invested time and money into improving their operations.

Experts also argue that passing a farm bill that allows industrial animal agriculture operations to skirt state laws sets a bad precedent for broader environmental and public health goals. 

“When you’re doing something that, in a more macro sense, erodes states’ abilities to rollback some of the more harmful aspects of massive commercial agricultural operations, how does that impact any law that could impact agriculture?” said J.W. Glass, senior policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. For example, he added, “How does it impact state laws to restrict the use of pesticides?”

In the Senate, at least for now, it seems like a measure that allows animal agricultural producers to skirt Prop 12 is a nonstarter. “That is why [Boozman] did not put this in his bill. He knew it,” said Sara Amundson, president of the Humane World Action Fund (formerly the Humane Society). “And that’s why it’s critical to keep up the noise on it.”

Still, it’s unclear what happens next—whether the House will fold and exclude SOB from its draft farm bill, or whether, if the two chambers of Congress cannot reconcile their differences on extreme confinement, the gridlock lasts into next year.

Saved Mail-In Voting

In a Rare Blow to Trump, the Supreme Court Just Saved Mail-In Voting—For Now

The surprise victory is unlikely to slow down the administration’s assault on voting rights.

Ari Berman

In a surprise victory for voting rights, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after Election Day, as long as they had been postmarked by the day of the election.

The 5-4 decision by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices, averts a major election disaster that would have injected chaos into the midterms. Fourteen states have mail-in ballot grace periods on the books, and 30 states accept ballots from overseas and military voters sent before or on Election Day but only received after. The New York Times found that during the 2024 election “at least 725,000 ballots were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within the legally accepted post-election window.” Changing mail-in ballot deadlines months before the general election could have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters who could have been unaware of the stricter rules, or have their ballots thrown out because of postal delays, or because they live in remote, rural locations in states like Alaska.

Overruling the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett affirmed that such laws are constitutional. “In sum, the election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day,” she wrote. “That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote—as it is in Mississippi. But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

“But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. “The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement,” Alito claimed, even though late-arriving ballots do nothing to change a voter’s choice on Election Day, since ballots are still required to be submitted by then.

President Trump has long spread conspiracies about mail voting and most recently attacked California’s protracted vote count as a “rigged election.” The administration’s latest plan to undercut mail voting would require states to hand over their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security for the Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots—a form of extortion that has generated furious pushback from election officials. The head of the Postal Service told the Senate they were following Trump’s directive, claiming that he wanted to ensure “the right ballots are going to the right people.” (A federal judge last week blocked key parts of a Trump executive order that authorized such a scheme.)

Alito’s dissent amplifies Trump’s conspiracies. “Today’s decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections,” he wrote. “Diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud.”

In fact, every major study has shown that mail-in voting is safe and secure, but the fact that four justices signed on to Trump’s crusade to get rid of mail-in ballots is highly disturbing and could embolden the president to attempt to take even more drastic steps to make it harder to vote.

Today’s ruling should also not distract from the damage the Roberts Court has already done to voting rights. Its decision in late April, effectively destroying the Voting Rights Act, gave Republicans just enough time to dismantle majority-Black seats held by Democrats in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama. That was followed by a series of orders by the Republican-appointed justices on the shadow docket that expedited the GOP’s efforts to erase Black representation and give their party additional seats before the midterms.

Itokawa

Why are parts of this asteroid's surface so smooth? The answer seems likely to do with the dynamics of an asteroid that is a loose pile of rubble rather than a solid rock. The unusual asteroid Itokawa was visited by the Japanese spacecraft Hayabusa in 2005 which imaged and documented its unusual structure and mysterious lack of craters. Analyses of the border regions between smooth and rugged sections indicate that jostling of the asteroid might be creating segregation between large and small rocks near the surface, like the Brazil nut effect. The robotic Hayabusa actually touched down on one of the smooth patches, dubbed the MUSES Sea, and collected soil samples. These samples were returned to Earth and are not only giving clues to the ancient history of this unusual asteroid, but also about the early years of our entire Solar System. Computer simulations show that 500-meter asteroid Itokawa may impact the Earth within the next few million years.

Hits another wall

Trump’s election crusade hits another wall at the Supreme Court

The high court’s 5-4 decision is the latest snub for the president on an issue that’s a personal obsession.

By Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein

Donald Trump keeps learning the hard way: A president’s will — no matter the intensity of his rhetoric, the size of his pulpit and reach of his social media megaphone — is not enough to single-handedly remake America’s election system.

The Supreme Court on Monday dealt him a stinging defeat in a years-long crusade, ruling that states may accept mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked by that day.

The coup de grace, delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s own appointees, was simple: “The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.”

Trump’s high-court flop caps a year in which the president has attempted to bludgeon into effect his preferred version of American elections: He’s sought to impose strict voter ID requirements, which opponents say would disenfranchise thousands of voters, restrict mail-in ballots, which have become some states’ preferred voting method, and punish states that refuse to conform.

At every turn, the courts — and ultimately, the Supreme Court — have stymied his vision. Trump acknowledged the “tremendous loss” at the high court on Truth Social Monday, an apparent effort to reenergize his flailing effort to convince Congress to rewrite the election laws in his favor.

The justices’ decision is another indication that the conservative court — while more likely to side with the Trump administration’s views on a wide array of issues — is not deeply invested in Trump’s project to reshape how Americans cast their ballots.

For Trump, the issue is personal. He has long pushed false claims of election fraud to explain his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election, which saw a sharp increase in mail-in ballots as a result of the pandemic. And he has repeatedly expressed bitterness that the Supreme Court, including his three appointees, gave the cold shoulder to lawsuits challenging Biden’s victory.

Trump has repeatedly described the slow process of counting ballots in some states — sometimes stretching days after Election Day — as evidence that the results were being manipulated, despite foreknowledge of states’ counting procedures and repeated assurances from election officials, some of them Trump’s own GOP allies, that nothing was amiss.

Trump has spent the years since his 2020 defeat ginning up support among his own allies for an overhaul of elections. And he quickly embarked on that effort when he returned to power last year, describing it as one of his most critical priorities.

But Trump’s numerous election-related executive orders have been blocked over and over again by courts. Federal judges, including some of his own appointees, have prevented his Justice Department from forcing states to turn over their voter rolls — part of what the president’s critics say presages an effort to purge legitimate voters.

Lower courts have also blocked an effort to force the Postal Service to refuse to deliver ballots in states that didn’t share their voter rolls with DOJ; they’ve also blocked efforts to compel states to change voter registration requirements and halted plans to strip election funding from states that don’t accede to the president’s demands.

With each setback, Trump’s language has grown more apocalyptic. On Monday, he said the voting policy changes were necessary to counter “a powerful Communist Movement” in the country that is “more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th.” And he called out five Republican senators by name who he said were opposed to his policies.

The high court’s 5-4 ruling Monday grappled with Trump’s claims that permitting post-Election Day ballots could fuel perceptions of fraud in elections, particularly if late-arriving ballots helped flip the outcome in a key state or race.

Barrett, joined by the court’s three liberals plus Chief Justice John Roberts, called election fraud and the perception of it “serious issues.” But that problem, she said, was a matter for Congress.

“Like other such issues, however, they must be addressed through the democratic process,” Barrett wrote in her majority opinion. “If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives.”

Justice Samuel Alito, writing in dissent, countered that slow counting of ballots after Election Day — which can also include ballots that arrive on or before Election Day — has contributed to declining trust in election results.

Alito cited as evidence a study that also had another finding: Election officials can counteract that distrust by explaining to voters beforehand why delays in counting occur. And the same study also noted that the trust gap has been exacerbated by “elite-driven misinformation,” such as years of rhetoric from Trump himself calling into question the validity of votes counted after Election Day.

Nevertheless, Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, predicted the court’s decision will aggravate existing skepticism about the electoral process.

“By allowing States to continue receiving new ballots during these drawn-out processes, today’s decision will only exacerbate voters’ distrust,” Alito wrote.

Dismisses allegations

Senate Ethics dismisses allegations against Ruben Gallego

The Arizona Democratic senator was close friends with ex-Rep. Eric Swalwell, who was accused of sexual misconduct.

Hailey Fuchs

The Senate Ethics Committee has dismissed allegations of misconduct levied against Sen. Ruben Gallego, who stood accused by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of “campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.”

The charges came following the resignation of the Arizona Democrat’s longtime friend, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who was forced to step down amid accusations of serious sexual misconduct. Luna, a Florida Republican, sought to implicate Gallego by claiming in an interview on CBS that a woman would come forward about an “incident that occurred between the two of them at the same time and the event was sexual in nature allegedly.”

But in a letter to Gallego sent Monday — which he shared in a public news release — the notoriously inactive Ethics Committee cited Gallego’s “prompt contact with the Committee following media reports of the allegations and appreciated your full cooperation with the Committee throughout the investigation.”

Gallego has maintained he was unaware of the allegations against Swalwell and said in a statement he was a victim of “right-wing conspiracies peddled by far-right activists like Anna Paulina Luna, the White House, and their allies.”

He continued, “I look forward to an apology from Rep. Luna for weaponizing the ethics process while refusing to investigate historic corruption that’s making life harder for families.”

Luna, in a post on X, defended her referral to the Senate Ethics Committee.

“The good news about DC is everyone talks, and eventually the reporters come forward with your texts,” Luna wrote on social media. “Do yourself a favor and keep raising for your legal defense fund. Once a creep always a creep, and you’re gonna need it.”

Hearing confrontation

Postal Service chief snaps back at Hawley over hearing confrontation

The postmaster general criticized the senator’s lack of decorum during a committee hearing last week.

Emilio Perez Ibarguen

The head of the U.S. Postal Service fired back at Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) following a tense exchange between the two during a committee hearing on the fiscal health of the agency last week.

Hawley pressed Postmaster General David Steiner for updates on a case regarding a pile of undelivered mail that was found in a vacant lot in St. Louis during the hearing last Wednesday, and grew incensed after Steiner said it was “the first time I’ve heard about it.”

Hawley told Steiner later in the hearing that he should resign from his post because “you’re not doing the job.”

Steiner, in a letter sent to Hawley last week and viewed by POLITICO, said the Postal Service has no record of Hawley’s staff writing to the agency about mail dumping. He went on to call it “unfortunate” that the senator hasn’t attended a meeting with other members of the Missouri delegation regarding efforts to improve service in the state.

Members of Hawley’s local staff did call the Postal Service’s regional team shortly after the incident, Steiner wrote. The postal chief said the regional team promptly replied and said that the case was under investigation but that it couldn’t comment further.

Hawley doubled down on his criticism of Steiner in response to the letter Monday afternoon, writing on social media that the postmaster general “smirks his way through a hearing totally unprepared, leaves thousands of Missourians without mail, but takes THOUSANDS in taxpayer dollars himself as a BONUS for failing.”

“Return the bonus money. Do your job. Or resign,” Hawley continued.

Steiner wrote that the case is still being investigated by the agency inspector general, and any questions about its probe should be directed to them.

Hawley’s berating appeared to stick with Steiner, as evidenced by his concluding line in the letter.

“On a personal note I was raised in the South, and my mother taught me to treat all people with a respectful level of decorum,” he wrote. “I will expect that level from you in any future interactions.”

Housing bill

Johnson says housing bill will become law

House GOP leadership has warned Congress would override a presidential veto.

By Kelsey Brugger and Meredith Lee Hill

Speaker Mike Johnson says the landmark housing affordability package Congress passed earlier this month will become law — and that Republicans won’t have to take an uncomfortable vote to override a presidential veto to make that happen.

In an interview Monday night, Johnson said President Donald Trump is still “deciding” whether he’ll sign the bipartisan housing bill or just let it go into effect within 10 days of receiving the legislation while Congress is in session.

“There won’t be a veto,” he said. “He’s just trying to decide whether he’s signing it or not.”

Shortly thereafter, Johnson reiterated he believed the bill will become law.

“We agreed to talk about it again tomorrow,” Johnson said of Trump, with whom he met earlier in the day.

Trump, just hours before, said in remarks to the press “I don’t know” when asked about the housing bill’s fate.

Johnson’s comments come as Republicans are still reeling from Trump’s about-face last week, when he abruptly canceled plans to sign the legislation with great fanfare on Capitol Hill — suddenly saying he would hold the measure hostage until Congress passed a stalled GOP elections bill he’s been demanding for months.

While that bill, known as the SAVE America Act, has passed the House in earlier iterations, it does not have the votes to pass the Senate.

Congress does, however, have the votes to override a veto of the housing package, House GOP leadership has been warning the White House, according to three people granted anonymity to share their knowledge of private conversations.

Ukraine-modeled

Britain unveils its new Ukraine-modeled armed forces

The U.K. is learning from Ukraine’s war against Russia to build its own armed forces to prepare for a similar conflict this decade.

By Mason Boycott-Owen

Britain is announcing one of the biggest shake-ups of its armed forces in decades, and it’s using the experience of the war in Ukraine as a model.

The Defence Investment Plan, set to be published on Tuesday by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in one of his last acts before stepping down, shows the U.K. is copying Ukraine’s successful playbook to focus on “cheap systems destroying high-value targets and innovation cycles measured in weeks, not years,” the Ministry of Defence said on Monday.

The move indicates how the government intends to meet the goals of last year’s Strategic Defence Review, which warned that "state conflict has returned to Europe," after a funding crunch that prompted former Defence Secretary John Healey to unexpectedly quit earlier this month.

For decades, much of the U.K.’s military strength has rested on sea power, with large, expensive warships like aircraft carriers and submarines able to launch nuclear missiles forming a central part of what Britain can bring to bear in peace and war.

But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has upended the old model for European defense. It exposed the vulnerability of expensive systems, underlined the need for large supplies of cheap drones and munitions, and accelerated the shift toward autonomous systems, AI-enabled targeting and quick battlefield innovation.

'Leaner and meaner'

One of the most eye-catching policies in the DIP is an announcement that there will be no new money for up to eight Type 83 guided missile destroyers and Type 32 frigates — projects that had been a key part of rebuilding the size of the Royal Navy in the 2030s.

Instead, the U.K. will invest in at least six new Common Combat Vessels which will act as control ships for uncrewed systems which include Type 93 underwater anti-submarine vessels, Type 91 uncrewed missile platforms and Type 92 and Type 94 unmanned sensor platforms for the sky and sea — notable because, despite having no navy, Ukraine defeated Russia's Black Sea Fleet with a combination of sea and air drones and missiles.

The unmanned shift extends to Britain’s Royal Air Force, with officials on Monday night teasing the investment of a “national Collaborative Combat Air program” which will produce autonomous jets to fly alongside their crewed counterparts — something that is part of the British-Italian-Japanese Global Combat Air Programme to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet.

Tim Willasey-Wilsey, a senior associate fellow at the RUSI defense think tank, noted that although Britain needs to retain a large navy as a global trading power, the U.K. needs to shift its focus away from major projects to become “much leaner and meaner.”

Doubling down on drones

While the release of the much-delayed DIP meets a key demand from allies and the U.K.'s military-industrial complex, the implementation will rely on Andy Burnham, who is expected to take over as prime minister later this summer.

Under the plan, the U.K. will get some of the way to meeting NATO's new target of spending 3.5 percent of GDP on defense by 2035, but Britain's spending is off the pace of other allies like Germany, France and Poland and it has yet to set out a clear funding pathway to hitting that target. The new investment plan is set to add about £15 billion, the Financial Times reported, over the £270 billion defense budget over this parliament.

That includes £5 billion the government announced it is spending on a drone transformation, with the Ministry of Defence pointing to the 200,000 drones which are used each month by Ukraine as an example of the approach that needs to be copied.

“Technology on the battlefield is changing at lightning speed. The clear lesson from Ukraine tells us that drones have changed the character of warfare,” said Ross Exley, vice president of defense strategy at Hadean, a U.K.-based tech company which sits on the government’s Defence Industrial Joint Council.

The DIP will now fund Europe’s biggest drone testing center, which will work alongside a new task force to “continuously scale production” to get drones into the hands of British forces.

Willasey-Wilsey said it was “slightly ironic that Britain started training the Ukrainians back in 2022, and now they could be very much training us — they are showing us how war should be fought these days.”

“It’s warfare we couldn’t do. We wouldn’t last more than a few weeks," he said.

Amazing people support Paxton after all the criminal behavior......

Talarico and Paxton tied in latest Texas Senate poll

Paxton is running behind the incumbent Republican governor.

By Gregory Svirnovskiy

James Talarico and Ken Paxton are locked in a dead heat in the open Texas Senate race in a new survey released Tuesday, with the state emerging as a major battleground in the fight for the Senate.

A New York Times/Siena poll showed Talarico, the Democratic state lawmaker, and Paxton, the state’s Republican attorney general, tied at 47 points apiece among likely voters. Six percent of voters indicated they hadn’t yet made up their minds over who to support.

Paxton, who has been trailed by scandal, is running behind GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, who maintains a lead over his Democratic challenger, Gina Hinojosa. Respondents preferred him to Hinojosa —also a state lawmaker — by a 51 to 44 margin.

That’s even with President Donald Trump’s popularity underwater in Texas, a state he won by roughly 14 percent in 2024. Just 44 percent of voters approved of the job he is doing in the White House, with 53 percent of respondents expressing disapproval.

Texas has long been a white whale for the Democratic Party, and Talarico’s campaign is viewed as the most credible chance at winning a major statewide race since Beto O’Rourke’s narrow loss in the 2018 Senate race. Talarico boasts a massive fundraising advantage in the race.

Democrats believe that Paxton’s primary win over Sen. John Cornyn in May gave the party an opening in a state that has long eluded them. Republicans worried they’d be forced to part with as much as $150 million to keep him afloat.

But Paxton has worked to consolidate a Republican Party that was bruised during the grueling primary, which saw Trump back the challenger in the closing days of the race.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which backed Cornyn throughout the primary, set up a joint fundraising committee with Paxton in early June.

The New York Times/Siena poll was conducted by telephone June 19-27, with a random sample of 656 likely voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Hard time killing it

Trump now 'hates' his own trade deal. But he'll have a hard time killing it.

The North American trade agreement the president inked in his first term faces a review beginning July 1.

By Daniel Desrochers

President Donald Trump keeps saying he wants to walk away from the $1 trillion-plus North American trade deal he negotiated in his first term. Nobody believes he will.

But Trump’s refusal to commit to the tariff-lowering pact means that his administration must now enter a protracted period of negotiations with Mexico and Canada — extending what has already been a year of uncertainty for major U.S. industries like automakers and dairy farmers who rely on multibillion dollar supply chains and export markets across the continent.

“Uncertainty makes it hard for businesses to plan. It’s that simple,” said Anne McKinney, the vice president of the Americas program for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “One of the main benefits of USMCA is the certainty that it provides, the stability. And when companies don’t have that, it makes it harder to plan investments.”

When Trump signed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement in early 2020, he called it “the largest, most significant, modern, and balanced trade agreement in history.” Congress approved the pact, a renegotiated version of the 1990s North American Free Trade Agreement, by wide margins.

But while the trade deal continues to enjoy broad, bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, the president has done a 180 — part of a broadside against free trade that has included raising tariffs around the globe to their highest rates in nearly a century (before many of them were struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year).

Trump has taken a particularly aggressive stance towards the United States’ closest neighbors, singling out Canada and Mexico with tariff threats just days after winning reelection in 2024, and hasn’t let up. Earlier this year, he dismissed the three countries’ trade deal as “irrelevant.” This month he told reporters on Air Force One that he’s “not a big fan” and would rather have USMCA “terminated.”

“Trump hates the USMCA. He’s not happy with it” said an industry official close to the administration, who said the president was never enthusiastic about the deal and had grown frustrated by loopholes in the deal that allow countries outside the continent, primarily China, to benefit from the lower tariff rates. “If he knew how it was going to play out after signing it, I don’t think he would have signed it.” The person was granted anonymity to discuss conversations with the administration.

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

The president’s clear animosity has heightened tension around this year’s mandatory six-year review of the pact. The three countries have until July 1 to declare whether they want to renew the deal for another 16 years, something Mexico and Canada have already committed to. But the Trump administration is holding out. Without a new commitment, the agreement sunsets in 2036, but the U.S. could also pull out before then, with six months’ notice.

Withdrawal from the agreement, however, would not only enrage key political constituencies including farmers and manufacturers, it would upend more than $1.8 trillion in annual trade, sending prices for everything from car parts to avocados surging at a time when Americans are already unhappy with the president over untamed inflation.

“He knows he can’t pull out of it,” said Louise Blais, the special envoy to USMCA negotiations for Quebec. “Even if he announced he’s pulling out of it, you’d have a fight up on the Hill, because it is law in America, and he knows that. So we’ve got to put aside the noise from the reality.”

Trump’s refusal to recommit to the deal would force annual reviews of the pact for the next ten years, with no certainty on the end game. That would effectively put North American trade in purgatory: a liminal space that keeps the broad parameters of the USMCA in place but would stop short of the full, 16-year extension businesses crave to make investment decisions.

That’s a shift from the past three decades, when businesses have been able to count on low trade barriers across the continent thanks to the USMCA and its predecessor, NAFTA. In response, U.S. businesses have spread their supply chains across the three countries, in some cases criss-crossing borders multiple times as they build products. Trade integration deepened even more when Trump launched his first-term trade war against China. Canada and Mexico now consistently rank as the United States’ biggest trading partners.

“Allowing the agreement to default to yearly reviews would definitely create uncertainty and concern for farmers and ranchers at a time when American agriculture continues to face strong headwinds,” said Virginia Houston, the American Farm Bureau Federation senior director of government affairs in an email.

A former USTR official in the Trump administration, granted anonymity because their employer had not authorized them to speak publicly, doesn’t think the president and his advisers views an annual USMCA review “as the sword of Damocles, like all trade grinds to a halt or the agreement becomes defunct or something like that.”

“We’re closely integrated neighbors, and we need these trade arrangements to work economically for us all. And if you can do that through frequent negotiation, where that’s not too costly and disruptive, that seems like upside from the administration perspective,” the official said.

Trump’s mercurial decisionmaking would also cloud an annual review process, especially after the political pressures of the midterms and concerns about affordability ease.

“I would certainly never assume with Trump, even with the economy being the way it is, that he wouldn’t just pull us out of it,” said Liz Mair, a Republican political consultant. “The bottom line with Trump is that he really loves tariffs and he thinks they work.”

But U.S. trading partners believe Trump’s rhetoric is simply an attempt at strengthening his negotiating hand. Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s trade minister for the negotiations, said shortly after Trump’s comments that “Canada should not be emotionally vested in how American politicians speak to American voters.”

“Given how the issues of inflation, consumer pocketbooks, checkbooks in the U.S. are impacting the president’s approval ratings, further complicating U.S. economic prospects by throwing into question whether USMCA is going to survive or not, I think that puts some pressure on the U.S. government,” said Arturo Sarukhán, the former Mexican ambassador to the U.S. in an interview. “On top of that, you have the impact of gasoline prices. That combination of factors is what, I think, strengthens Mexico’s hand.”

Negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico have been progressing more quickly than those between the U.S. and Canada — a dynamic that trade lawyers noted is similar to how the original negotiations over USMCA unfolded in 2020.

But it’s unclear whether those talks will result in changes to the underlying USMCA or will look more like side deals on top of the existing agreement. One Mexican official, granted anonymity to speak frankly about sensitive trade discussions, said Mexico is pushing for a bilateral agreement similar to others the Trump administration has struck with major trading partners like the United Kingdom, European Union and Japan, and that would spell out areas where Mexico might get preferential treatment.

“I believe that we might be getting into a napkin agreement phase, or a phase one agreement, or whatever you want to call it, whatever Donald Trump has done with other economies in the world,” the official said.

Both Mexican and Canadian officials have acknowledged they will face some level of tariff, given Trump’s commitment to those policies. But they are hopeful the deal will lock in tariff rates that are lower than the rest of the world’s and maintain the continent’s economic integration.

“I think from our perspective we expect that there will be tariffs. I think companies are expecting that tariffs will be there to stay,” said Véronique Proulx, the CEO of the Federation of the Chambers of Commerce of Quebec. “But it’s predictability — which tariffs will be in place at what level.”

More corruption on the way...

Supreme Court loosens campaign finance laws, opening up flood of midterm cash

The change is likely to benefit Republicans, who brought the case and rely more on large donors.

By Jessica Piper and Josh Gerstein

The Supreme Court struck down limits on coordinated spending between candidates and political parties on Tuesday, a win for Republicans that will fundamentally change how tens of millions of dollars are spent in congressional elections.

The decision will have an almost immediate impact on the midterms. Removing the limit on coordinated spending effectively gives candidates direct control over a far greater amount of money being spent on their races. It is also likely to increase the flood of political advertising that hits the airwaves each fall.

The 6-3 decision, which divided the court along its usual ideological lines, held that the limits violate the First Amendment.

The decision is a blow to Democrats, who argued that eliminating the limit on coordination would put more power into the hands of large donors who can cut bigger checks to party committees than to candidates. Republicans tend to get more money from large donors, while Democrats have been more reliant on small-dollar donors.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, called the limits a “severe infringement on First Amendment-protected political speech.” He also argued the ruling eliminating the limits could bolster political parties generally.

“To uphold the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits here could therefore help consign political parties to continued second-tier status as compared to outside groups,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Weakened political parties distort the political system.”

NATO

NATO keeps America safe, former chief says

In an interview with WELT, former Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg explains how he views the differences between the U.S. and Europe — and what might be the key to keeping Donald Trump on board.

By Lara Jäkel

NATO leaders meet in Ankara next week, and the alliance’s former Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has a message for them: Show Donald Trump that defense spending is rising, keep supporting Kyiv and hammer home to Russia’s Vladimir Putin that the war in Ukraine was a "strategic failure."

Although Trump regularly attacks NATO members, denouncing them for low defense spending and not helping in the war against Iran, Stoltenberg underlined that allies should make the argument that U.S. security depends on the alliance. 

"I hope that the summit will be a strong sign of unity in NATO. That despite the differences, we are able to stand together against the key threats and challenges we face," Stoltenberg, now Norway’s finance minister, told WELT — which, like POLITICO, belongs to the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network.

Stoltenberg served as secretary-general from 2014 to 2024, a period that covered Trump’s first presidency, Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But the alliance during Trump’s second term is even more unstable.

Q: We’ve seen unprecedented disputes within NATO lately. Has this damaged the alliance irreparably?

It is, of course, a challenge for the alliance that we have more exposed disagreements than we have had for many years. But I continue to believe that NATO could remain a strong transatlantic alliance, because I believe that interests matter. And it is in the national security interest of the United States to have a strong NATO. The U.S. represents 25 percent of global GDP, but together with Canada and Europe we make up 50 percent of the world’s GDP and 50 percent of the world's military might. And this is not only about the resources, but also about geography. 

Q: Because of the proximity to Russia?

Yes. Norway has a land border with Russia. And just on the other side of that border, on the Kola Peninsula, there are some of the largest concentrations of nuclear weapons in the world: Russian nuclear submarines, strategic bombers, missiles. These weapons are not aimed at Norway or Oslo. They are aimed at Washington, New York, at the United States. But Norway helps to track the submarines when they leave their bases. We help to provide early warning for missiles and the launch of aircraft. And it is similar in Finland and many other European countries. This is crucial for the security of the United States — U.S. homeland defense starts at the European-Russian border.

Q: Despite this, the U.S. is withdrawing forces from Europe. What does this mean for deterrence? Do we need a European plan B if the deterrence provided by the U.S. fades?

I think it demonstrates that what we do in Europe now is of great importance: investing heavily in our own defense capabilities. For many years, the European allies hesitated and did not increase defense spending. After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, this has fundamentally changed; more and more allies are now reaching NATO’s target of spending 3.5 percent of GDP on core defense tasks. Europe is taking much more responsibility for its own security, which increases the likelihood of the U.S. staying committed to NATO and the transatlantic bond. But if that's not the case in the future, it's even more important that we have invested in European defense capabilities. 

Is that the key to keeping Trump on board?

Of course, there are serious disagreements on trade, on climate and also on security issues between the U.S. and Europe, and I'm not underestimating those challenges. But I think that the most important thing Europe can do to maintain the transatlantic alliance and to maintain a commitment from the U.S., also with President Trump, is to invest more. And that's exactly what we're doing. Regardless of what we think about President Trump and his positions on many issues, the message from the U.S., which has been formulated by successive U.S. presidents, that Europe has to spend more, and that we need fair burden-sharing within the alliance, is valid. It was also my main message when I was secretary-general. The criticism from President Trump is not primarily against NATO. It's against NATO allies not investing enough in NATO. This is changing. And that's a way of reducing the risk of the U.S. leaving and at the same time being prepared for a future where we see potentially less U.S. commitment to European security.

Q: The NATO summit is coming up in a few days. Are you worried it might be yet another public display of differences within the alliance?

I hope it can be a strong manifestation of NATO unity. That despite the differences and disagreements, we are able to stand together in addressing the main threats and challenges we face, and also send a message of support to Ukraine.

Q: On Ukraine, there seemed to be some new hope after the G7 summit for continued U.S. support and progress toward a fair peace. Do you share the optimism?

What we do know is that the more support we provide to Ukraine, the sooner this war can end, and the more likely it is that it will end in a way where Ukraine prevails as an independent democratic nation in Europe. I think it's also crucial to recognize that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been a strategic failure by President Putin.

Q: During your time as secretary-general, you worked hard toward bringing Ukraine closer to NATO membership. That seems to be off the table at the moment.

Membership in the near future is, as far as I know, not on the agenda, because some of the big NATO allies are not supporting that. But Ukraine is closer to NATO than ever before. NATO allies equip, train and work with the Ukrainian army. I think we should now focus on mobilizing maximum support to Ukraine.

I guess it was a bridge to far for the crazy ones.....

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship

The justices ruled that the Constitution guarantees U.S. citizenship to virtually everyone born on American soil.

By Josh Gerstein

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s attempt to upend more than a century of legal consensus that virtually everyone born on American soil is a U.S. citizen.

The court’s ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, invalidates an executive order Trump issued on the first day of his second term seeking to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and of people studying, working or visiting the U.S. on time-limited visas.

The ruling Tuesday is the second major blow the conservative-leaning high court has dealt this year against a pillar of Trump’s policy agenda. In February, the justices knocked out the centerpiece of his trade policy by overturning sweeping tariffs Trump imposed on imports from around the globe.

Five justices — Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberals — agreed that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship. Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with that conclusion, but said Trump’s executive order is invalid because it violates a federal statute.

So true....

 

True......

 

Geofence warrants... They don't seem to care about all the other privacy losses...

Supreme Court restricts use of geofence warrants

By Nina Totenberg, Grady Martin

The Supreme Court on Thursday restricted the use of a relatively new law enforcement technique that allows police to tap into giant tech-firm databases to see who was near the scene of a crime.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Elena Kagan said that the technique, known as geofencing, violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.

Geofencing entails drawing a virtual fence around a geographic area where a crime was committed. The government can then seek a warrant to require a tech company to search its data to identify any of its users who were within the geofence at the time of the crime.

This case stems from a robbery in the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia. A man stole $195,000 from a bank, but after two months, the case had gone cold. That is, until detectives served a warrant on Google, asking for the location information of cellphone users in and around the bank for the hour before and after the crime was committed.

Complying with the warrant, Google initially found the names of 19 people who were in or near the bank, but Google pushed back, ultimately providing the police with the names of just three people whose location data showed they were at the bank. When police went to the home of one of them, they found a pistol matching one seen on security camera footage of the robbery and nearly $100,000 in cash. That man, Okello Chatrie, later confessed and was convicted of the crime.

His attorneys argued in filings to the court that geofence searches violate the Fourth Amendment because they allow the government "to search first and develop suspicions later." The geofence warrants in this case directed Google to search millions of users' location histories, meaning that millions of people were subjected to a search despite never having done anything suspicious.

But the government argued in its filings that because people can choose not to give companies like Google their location data, that data is not constitutionally protected.

Upholds grace periods for mail-in ballots

The Supreme Court upholds grace periods for mail-in ballots, siding against the GOP

Ashley Lopez

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Mississippi law that allows election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days after it.

The ruling is a loss for the Republican Party, which brought the case, ahead of this year's midterm elections.

Eighteen states and territories, including Mississippi, have such mail ballot grace periods. Most of the states are Democratic-led, including California, Illinois and New York. A dozen additional states have grace periods for ballots returning from overseas, like from military members.

The court's ruling was 5-4, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett authoring the opinion, joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's liberal wing of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"[T]he election-day statutes require the electorate's choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote—as it is in Mississippi," Barrett wrote. "But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward."

Justice Samuel Alito authored the dissent, writing in part that the "majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."

How the battle over grace periods ended up at the Supreme Court

These grace periods have historically provided voters time to get their absentee ballots to officials in case there are any issues with the Postal Service — as well as any other unforeseen issues, such as weather events.

But Republicans have been fighting these grace periods in recent years — an effort led by President Trump.

Ahead of the 2024 election, the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign filed legal challenges — including one against Mississippi's law — alleging that these grace periods violate the Constitution. They argued that Congress sets the end of an election, not states.

At the time, many of the lawsuits were dismissed by judges across the country, but the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Republicans, setting up the Supreme Court case.

Trump also signed an executive order last year — which was quickly blocked by lower courts — that required that all votes be received by Election Day during federal elections.

Many state officials, particularly in Democratic-run states with universal mail-in ballot programs, raised concerns about such a requirement.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said in a statement last year that more than 250,000 ballots that had been postmarked on time arrived after Election Day during the 2024 election.

"Had this rule been in effect," he said, "those voices would have been silenced, especially in rural areas where mail delivery can take longer."

Kind of a dick...

Bill Maher receives Mark Twain Prize amid uncertainty at Kennedy Center

By Camila DeChalus, Isabelle D’Antonio

Comedian and Trump critic Bill Maher on Sunday received the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the Washington institution that is entangled in a legal battle over President Donald Trump’s effort to overhaul it.

The center — which Trump has sought to put his stamp on — was set to temporarily close its doors for a yearslong renovation, but is now faced with difficult financial choices after a judge ordered it to continue operating. Plummeting ticket sales, artist withdrawals, political controversies and a diminished staff have made restarting a full-scale programming schedule a challenge, multiple sources familiar with the operation previously told CNN.

Maher noted the potential closure during remarks on the red carpet before the event, saying, “This is the last show here for at least two years.”

“It is a beautiful building. They keep talking about how they need to renovate. It looks perfectly fine to me. I don’t see one thing that needs a single thing changed,” he said.

The performing arts center has been at the center of Trump’s remaking of Washington, DC — and the limits he faces in enacting his wishes. Two weeks ago, the Kennedy Center complied with a judge’s order in removing Trump’s name from the building, which was added by the president’s handpicked board of trustees.

The administration has told the court the name is gone — but a tarp still covers the spot where it hung, leaving the removal hidden from public view.

“Finally, an award from my dear friend, ironically at the Trump Kennedy Center. No — oh right, we fixed that,” actor Woody Harrelson quipped onstage during the Sunday event.

Maher has been a target of the president’s ire, but also dined with Trump at the White House in 2025. The comedian praised the president after the dinner, though their relationship has remained tense. In February, Trump called Maher a “jerk,” dismissed their 2025 White House dinner as “a total waste of time,” and said the comedian suffers from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

“I’d rather be fighting and yelling — that’s his way of talking,” Maher told CNN on the red carpet ahead of the event. “I’d rather the channels be open; anything is better than the channels being shut off.”

The White House in March initially denied that the comedian would be awarded the honor, which is an annual lifetime achievement award given by the Kennedy Center.

“Believe me, when they asked me and called and said, ‘Would you accept this?’ I did not have to ask twice. Of course, after the president tried to get the show canceled, they actually did have to ask twice,” Maher joked during his speech.

As Maher was accepting his award, he was “interrupted” by the president — or rather, comedian Matt Friend’s portrayal of him.

“Why are we giving this low-ratings, lightweight jerk the Mark Twain Award?” Friend joked, repeating insults the president has used against Maher.

The “Real Time with Bill Maher” host joins a list of past honorees that includes Richard Pryor, Carol Burnett, Dave Chappelle, Jon Stewart and Conan O’Brien. (Maher’s HBO show is also presented on CNN on Saturdays. HBO and CNN are both part of Warner Bros. Discovery.)

The 27th annual ceremony, which will premiere on Netflix on July 21, featured guests including Louis C.K., Whitney Cummings, Jay Leno and John Mellencamp, many of whom made jokes revolving around Trump.

“President Trump not happy about Bill getting this award. You think he’s mad now? Really, finds out next year the recipient is Bad Bunny,” Leno joked, referring to the Puerto Rican rapper, whom Trump has criticized.

Guests on the red carpet, meanwhile, emphasized the importance of comedy in the divided political environment.

“Just because we are on opposite sides of the aisle, doesn’t mean we don’t relate to the opposite side from time to time,” radio host Stephen A. Smith told CNN.

“When either side gets mad at me because I put them in jokes —jokes that work — my lesson to that is simple: You want to not get mocked, stop being funny,” Maher said in his speech.

$6 billion of assets frozen in Qatar will be returned

Iranian President says $6 billion of assets frozen in Qatar will be returned

By Aida Karimi and Tim Lister

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has said that half of Iran’s frozen assets held in Qatar will be returned to Tehran.

Pezeshkian was quoted by the semi-official Tasnim news agency as making the announcement during meetings with senior Iranian clerics in the city of Qom.

“Based on the plans made, $6 billion out of the total $12 billion of Iran’s resources in Qatar will be returned to the country, and the necessary follow-ups are also underway for the return of the remaining part of these resources,” Pezeshkian was cited as saying.

CNN has reached out to the White House for comment on the claim.

The memorandum agreed earlier this month by the US and Iran stipulated that Washington “undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation” of the agreement.

Iran has long insisted in the talks that the return of assets frozen in overseas banks must be part of the process following the signing of the memorandum.

Willing to go

Weekend escalation shows how far Iran is willing to go to control Hormuz

By Mostafa Salem

Escalation over the weekend between Tehran and Washington underscored that the Strait of Hormuz remains the most precarious issue threatening the ceasefire, as the two rivals clash over competing interpretations of who ultimately governs the vital oil chokepoint.

Traffic at the strait is now effectively partitioned into multiple routes. Iran insists that vessels use its own designated corridor and has fired on ships using other routes, rendering all alternatives unsafe.

Tehran remains unrelenting even after the US military struck Iran in retaliation for the Islamic Republic’s attacks on transiting ships. It is signaling that it will aggressively defend its newly acquired control of the strait, even if that means putting its own infrastructure at risk to preserve its greatest gain from the war.

The weekend’s escalation triggered a sharp drop in the number of ships transiting the strait after more than a week of optimistic traffic recovery in the corridor, observers say.

But as vessels pull back from the other routes, traffic through the Iran-approved route remains steady, shipping experts say.

Despite the setback, maritime experts remain optimistic. They view the return to calm today as a sign that an all-out conflict is still unlikely. Instead, the exchanges appear driven by competing interpretations of control over the Strait.

“The Strait of Hormuz remains the principal flashpoint, but also the principal focus of ongoing negotiations,” Dimitris Maniatis, CEO of maritime risk consultancy Marisks told CNN, adding that Washington and Tehran “demonstrated a willingness to retaliate while simultaneously preserving the diplomatic track.”

As long as dialogue continues, Maniatis assess that there “remains a realistic window of opportunity for commercial transits under carefully managed conditions,” although the “security environment remains fragile and capable of changing with little warning.”

Oil prices

Why oil prices are rising so tepidly after weekend of conflict

By David Goldman

Oil prices are rising after a weekend of back-and-forth strikes near the Strait of Hormuz. But not by as much as you’d think.

Brent crude was up just 0.6%. US oil prices are up only around 0.8%. And oil remains below where it had traded before the war started.

What’s going on here? Sure, the US and Iran agreed to end hostilities in the strait. But there are 3 reasons why oil has tumbled so low and is staying there.

Supply: The cushion of record oil supply before the war has kept a cap on prices throughout the conflict. They never approached record highs despite the strait’s closure creating the largest oil supply shock in world history. And oil analysts expect OPEC to start producing rapidly again soon, potentially creating another massive supply glut.

Demand: As prices rose and oil became scarce in some parts of the world – particularly Asia, demand fell much more sharply than expected. That was particularly true in China, which rapidly switched to alternate fuels during the war – and the industry expects demand may never fully return.

Trump: Inventories in the US are at critical levels. President Donald Trump recognizes that: He said as much two weeks ago. The market believes he is hugely incentivized to keep the strait open. And, like clockwork, the president announced in a social media post Monday that US and Iranian negotiators will meet tomorrow.

Doesn't know what the fuck is happening...

Trump says meeting with Iran will take place in Doha Tuesday

By Aileen Graef

US President Donald Trump said the US will meet with Iran in Doha on Tuesday.

“IRAN HAS REQUESTED A MEETING. IT WILL TAKE PLACE TOMORROW IN DOHA!” he posted on Truth Social early Monday.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s chief negotiator, had previously told reporters that no technical working group meetings have been scheduled for this week.

A senior US official, meanwhile, told CNN yesterday that technical talks regarding the memorandum of understanding were “on track” as planned despite a recent exchange of fire.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News shortly after the president’s post to say there will be high-level talks with technical talks on the sidelines.

“Well, I just spoke with the president about it. Iran has requested a meeting this week, so Special Envoy (Steve) Witkoff and Jared Kushner will be flying to Doha for high-level meetings this week as we continue to discuss the memorandum of understanding,” she said.

Stupidest foreign policy ventures in US history

Trump and Iran: Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Or: How not to go to war.

David Corn

Donald Trump’s war in Iran is one of the stupidest foreign policy ventures in US history.

I know that’s not a new or hot take. When he attacked Iran on February 28, it immediately became clear that he had no idea what he was doing. Karoline Leavitt, his press secretary, said he had initiated the attack based on a “feeling”—while negotiations to limit Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs were ongoing.

Trump then had a tough time explaining to the nation what the hell this war was for. To eliminate a nuclear program he had claimed was obliterated by a previous bombing raid? To address an “imminent threat” because Iran was, he falsely claimed, within two weeks of developing a nuclear bomb? To achieve regime change? To wipe out Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles? To protect Iranian anti-government protesters? To diminish Iran’s ability to strike at US allies and bases, if Israel attacked Iran? To end Tehran’s support of terrorism? To “get rid of evil”?

If you don’t know why you’re warring, it’s tough to figure out when to stop. After all, what counts as victory?

Then the war became mostly a matter of addressing unintended—but utterly predictable—consequences. Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz, which was an easy-to-foresee possibility, and sparked a global economic crisis. Trump had no plan for that—just as he had no plan to achieve any of the assorted aims he had expressed at different times. Now the mission was to undo what his war had caused.

So dumb. Trump spent gazillions of taxpayer dollars on this endeavor, only to end up fighting for a return to the status quo. He had to put out the fire he started. And thousands of Iranian civilians—including an estimated 168 schoolgirls—have been killed, as well as 13 American servicemembers. It’s a pointless loss of treasure and lives. With the higher gas prices, the war so far has cost Americans $132 billion. This folly has also raised food prices—which has an especially dramatic impact on poorer, food-stressed nations. It further strained US ties with its closest allies.

The signing this week of a memo of understanding between Washington and Tehran to end the war highlighted the imbecility of this action. The terms met none of the revolving goals Trump had tossed out. It kicked down the road any discussion of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic programs. But the deal handed the repressive government of Iran much-desired deliverables, such as an end to sanctions, an unfreezing of assets, and a $300 billion reconstruction fund. Iran could immediately start to sell oil. Ka-ching! It only had to keep the strait open, as it had always done prior to the war. It looked as if Trump was rewarding the mullahs with tremendous riches for doing what they used to do for free. Art of the deal, right? Trump had previously called for a “unilateral surrender” from Iran. This was not that.

Critics of all ideological stripes blasted the deal. Hawks and Republicans saw it as a total sellout, as well as an abandonment of Israel. (The agreement called for an end to Israeli attacks in Lebanon—a provision that did not please the Netanyahu crowd.) The New York Post lambasted Trump. Neocons exclaimed on podcasts, “What’s going on?” 

Democrats and liberals noted this was the equivalent of an American surrender to a government still presumably committed to running a repressive regime and supporting terrorism, and it fell far short of the agreement that the Obama administration had forged with Iran in 2015. It was good that the fighting was over—at least for the moment—but nothing had been settled. Only the most cultish of Trump cultists (Jesse Watters, I’m looking at you) could hail the deal as a masterpiece of statesmanship and a win for the United States.

Trump signed the MOU during a trip to Versailles, which in a previous era hosted the signing of a notoriously lousy accord that led to a conflagration we call World War II.

What was especially ludicrous was how Trump and his crew talked about the deal. On March 1, the White House declared that Trump had attacked Iran to “destroy its ballistic missile arsenal.” On Wednesday, he said it was no biggie for Iran to retain ballistic missiles: “If other countries have them, it’s a little unfair for them not to have some.” He added, “Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but [Iran] can’t have them? It doesn’t work that way.”

As for Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium—which is now not suitable for use in a nuclear bomb but could be refined to weapon-grade level—Vice President JD Vance on MSNOW said, “One of the core parts of the agreement is that the [International Atomic Energy Agency] and the United States are going to help Iran destroy the highly enriched stockpile, and that’s something that’s spelled out very clearly in the MOU.”

But the MOU said nothing about this. And Trump sent conflicting signals about what he hoped to do about this half ton of material that ostensibly was one of the key reasons for the war. At one point on Wednesday he said, “We’re going to get it.” At another, he remarked, “I don’t think anybody could get at it.” (This material is apparently beneath a mountain that was bombed last year by US and Israeli warplanes.)

Trump zigged and zagged on another issue. At the start of the war, he said, “We’re now totally independent of the Middle East. We don’t need their oil.” A few weeks in, he reaffirmed this: “It doesn’t really affect us. We have so much oil. We have tremendous oil and gas, much more than we need.” On Wednesday, he asserted that if he didn’t agree to the MOU, we “would run out of reserves at about four weeks…We would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”

Once this war was about ballistic missiles and highly enriched uranium and oil was no concern. Now, who cares about the missiles or the uranium? And Trump had to give Iran so much to get the oil flowing. Meanwhile, instead of regime change, it’s likely there’s been regime worsening. As for helping the Iranian people rise up against the tyrannical mullahs? Fuggedaboudit.

No sane person expects consistency from Trump. But during a war, erraticism is particularly dangerous and idiotic. His impulsive attack on Iran has accomplished none of his stated objectives. It’s been a foolish waste.

During a press conference on Wednesday at the G7 meeting in France, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick standing behind him, Trump mused, “In war, terrible things happen. Like you mentioned…the [girls’] school gets hit. Other things get hit. Bad things happen in war. War is a nasty place. I see it. I see it better than maybe anybody has ever seen it.” Yes, even at this point, Trump was claiming he understands this war better than anyone else. But he had no vision of what this war was for, of how to wage it, or of how to win it. This was a vanity project for him. He thought he could unleash violence and chaos—threaten to commit war crimes and destroy an entire civilization—and end up the star triumphantly bathed in military glory and, oddly, deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

In the end, this disaster does not demand deep analysis. It was a foolhardy move from a narcissistic numbskull who now cares more about a ballroom, an arch, and a reflecting pool than the carnage and damage he wreaked. A stupid war is yielding stupid results—and with Trump its author that’s no surprise.

Survive a Brutal Heat Wave

How to Survive a Brutal Heat Wave in Italy

It may or may not involve lots of gelato.

Jessica Lionnel

With Western Europe in the grip of a punishing early-summer heat wave, maximum health alerts have been issued in Rome, Paris, and even London. Thursday was the UK’s and Switzerland’s hottest June day on record, with each just below 100 degrees F, while France endured its warmest day ever on Wednesday, with temperatures in some areas rising to approximately 111 degrees F.

The toll of the sweltering temperatures driven by a heat dome has been stark: French authorities have recorded at least 48 drownings as people try to escape the heat, while hot cars have tragically claimed the lives of three young children. Spain is seeing a similarly tragic reality. Between Sunday and Thursday alone, an estimated 327 people lost their lives to the extreme conditions, according to data from the Spanish health ministry’s monitoring system.

Italy, where I live, is under severe strain too. Even though this is the country that holds the title for Europe’s hottest-ever temperature (119.8 degrees F in Sicily in 2021), the current climate is testing those limits once again. On Friday, the Italian Ministry of Health placed 18 major cities on strict Level 3 red alert (bollino rosso), indicating immediate risk to even healthy adults. These cities include Rome, Milan, Florence, Venice, Turin, Bologna, Genoa, and Bari.

That warning seems prescient—of the five people who have died so far, one was a 61-year-old male in the Piacenza area who collapsed while working in his vineyard. Though this initial toll seems small compared to those in Spain and France, Italy has recorded the highest heat mortality in Europe for three consecutive summers, capturing a grim toll of roughly 18,800 deaths in 2022, 13,800 in 2023, and over 19,000 in 2024. (Numbers for 2025 aren’t in yet.)

Moreover, even as other places in Europe are looking toward relief this weekend, meteorologists warn that Italy’s anomalous heat wave will not ease significantly until early July. Yet, tourism figures for this summer indicate a record-breaking 172 million people are slated to come to the Bel Paese in July and August. Oh, and remember—we do not really do air conditioning in this country (more on that in a moment). If you are heading our way, how will you cope?

The Italian health ministry offered sage advice in their recent circular titled “Protect Me From the Heat”: Avoid going out between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. (when the weather is at its hottest), limit alcohol and coffee (sorry), dress in natural fibers such as linen (do this anyway), eat lightly (again, sorry), and drink at least a liter and a half of water.

Always carry a bottle with you, too; in both the countryside and cities in Italy, you are bound to come across a water fountain. If filling water from somewhere public grosses you out, fear not; there is a knack to it. There should be signs saying Acqua Potabile (drinking water) above the fountain. If it says Acqua Non Potabile, it’s a no-go. If you’re headed to Rome, there are specific drinking-water fountains called nasoni, named because they resemble long noses. There are about 2,500 dotted around the Eternal City.

On a much broader spectrum, there is an app called Acquea that pinpoints over 150,000 points with drinkable water throughout Italy. Run by Rome’s water company, Acea, the app also gives out the sodium and calcium levels of the liquid from the fountains and has a built-in tracker to monitor hydration (small amounts of sodium are essential to rehydrating effectively).

Lunch during hotter times tends to be a no-cook affair. Instead of devouring a plate of hot pasta or a whole pizza come midday, opt for timeless Italian summertime classics such as prosciutto-wrapped melon, a refreshing caprese salad, or an insalata di riso (rice salad) tossed with light ingredients such as vegetables and eggs. Back in 2023, the Italian Ministry of Health even advised swapping out pranzi freddi (cold lunches) for gelato instead. “Consuming an ice cream or a milkshake can be an alternative to a midday meal,” the guide suggested.

Speaking of sweet treats to cool down, Sicilian granita is a semi-frozen dessert similar to a slush, but with fresh ingredients and a more crystalline texture. Originating on the Italian island, but now found everywhere in Italy, popular flavors of granita include lemon and strawberry. In Rome, grattachecca (shaved ice) is king come the summer months. Vendors manually shave ice off of a block and into a cup. The ice is then drenched with flavored syrups, making for a perfect Roman summer street food.

Coffee doesn’t have to be a complete no-go either. There are plenty of cold coffee options, such as caffè shakerato, a drink made by vigorously shaking coffee with ice and a sweetener in a cocktail shaker, or caffè leccese, a sweet, almond-based coffee from Puglia made by placing almond syrup and ice cubes in a glass and topping them off with espresso.

While mastering the local food and drink menus is a delicious way to stay cool, surviving an Italian summer also requires a bit of structural strategy. Wherever you are staying or plan to eat, make sure you call before you book to inquire about whether they have air conditioning. The reason it is not a given in Italy is a somewhat unique belief called colpo d’aria (hit of air). According to Italian lore, a sudden exposure to a cold draft while you’re hot is believed to cause neck aches, stomach cramps, earaches, and headaches. Fortunately, recent market data shows unit sales have increased by 16 percent since last year, providing a glimmer of hope that this attitude is changing given the heat waves.

If you find yourself AC-less, the shutters found on the facades of all Italian residential properties can provide much-needed respite. Do as Italians do and keep them closed during the morning to stop the sunlight from getting in and warming up your hotel room.

The boiling weather doesn’t necessarily mean you have to skimp on major landmarks, either—it just means you may have to switch it up. If you fully intend to brave the heat between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m., make sure you get tickets in advance to avoid queuing for hours in the blistering sun.

More importantly, make sure your midday landmarks are indoors; standing in the center of the Colosseum at noon during a heat wave is a surefire way to ruin your day. But Italy has plenty of crisp indoor sights to see, such as art galleries and museums, catacombs, and stone churches filled with art.

Taking a stroll (passeggiata) and sightseeing at night is also just as nice as doing it in the day. You’ll probably meet more locals along the way too, as they seldom step out when it is boiling. During summer, main attractions stay open until 7 p.m., and even offer exclusive night openings; after-hours entry at the Vatican or visiting the Colosseum by moonlight allow you to see world-class history under the stars.

And remember, Italy is more than its cities. With tourists never being too far from a beach or hills, and train travel being cheap (and air-conditioned!), holidaymakers can always substitute a day wandering around cobblestoned streets for white sands or grassy paths to keep out of the humidity. By learning to adjust your clock, leaning into the art of the pranzi freddi, and treating the midday heat as an excuse for an extra gelato, you won’t just survive the intense Mediterranean summer, you will get to experience Italy in a safer way, exactly the way the locals have become accustomed to.