Financial edge

This is how close American households are to the financial edge

By Stephan Bisaha

Affordability has been a politically potent word, but an ill-defined measure of financial pain, often used as a reference to inflated prices.

But new research from the Brookings Institution released Wednesday describes affordability by comparing the rising costs of essentials against family incomes. By that measure, the report found, in 2024 45.5% of U.S. households did not earn enough to cover their necessities.

The report concluded that a mere $1,000 hike in the annual cost of living would leave another 3 million households unable to make ends meet.

That precarity is partly due to the gap between inflation and wages. In 2024, national wages saw just a small 1.3% bump, well below the rate of inflation of 2.9% that year, according to the Census Bureau.

"My main takeaway is that when we talk about affordability, we've been focusing on inflation. But there's the income side of the story that we often do not talk about," said Andre Perry, the director of Brookings' Center for Community Uplift.

For the new report, the Brookings researchers gathered household income data for every county in the U.S. and compared those incomes with the estimated costs of necessities like food and transportation in those places.

Households across the country are not earning enough

Housing, healthcare and childcare are especially large chunks of household budgets that families have little control over, said Hannah Stephens, a senior research assistant at the center. "In order to actually solve affordability, we have to deal with these larger, most structural costs that are harming households," she said.

For some families, closing that gap between essentials and income has meant skipped meals, increased debt and delayed medical care, the report found.

Those decisions are playing out across the country, though the data showed some divides across states and racial groups. According to the paper, in 2024, more than 50% of families in New York state could not manage on their incomes. And while households in Washington, D.C., outperformed the national average, with over 60% able to afford necessities, the city's Black residents were significantly worse off, more than 20 percentage points behind the district's baseline. At the same time, Hispanic households did better than the city as a whole, at 3 percentage points higher than the baseline.

There was a brief moment of relief from pandemic stimulus checks

This challenge is longstanding: More than 40% of households were not able to afford what they needed almost every year from 2014 to 2024, according to the report, except for in 2021 and 2022. During those years, Americans' bank accounts were boosted by federal stimulus checks and other forms of government aid meant to help with the COVID-19 pandemic recovery.

Yet the economic health of households relapsed in 2022, when inflation spiked and those federal assistance programs began to expire, shrinking the social safety net at the same time millions of families were moving closer to the edge.

Although the report cites an extra $1,000 in annual expenses as a tipping point many households cannot afford, it does not examine data from 2026, when new financial pressures may have already pushed more families past that point. Gas prices have risen 50% since the war against Iran started at the end of February. Overall, the Consumer Price Index was up 3.8% in April year-over-year — well above the Federal Reserve's 2% target.

A survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, also released Wednesday, found that food insecurity in the U.S. has reached levels not seen since 2020, in the depths of the pandemic. The agency polls people on whether they are relying on food banks or government assistance for their groceries — or are skipping meals.

Many families did receive an extra tailwind this year after Republican lawmakers' signature tax and spending bill led to bigger tax refunds. That's part of what's kept American consumers spending, according to the Bank of America Institute. Excluding spending on gas, year-over-year spending in April was up 4%.

Wages are rising much faster for families already making more

That report also found that incomes have grown quickly between 2025 and 2026 — but for higher-income families. Those households saw pay rise 6% this April compared to a year earlier. But the boost for lower earners was just 1.5%. Economists have been using the term "K-shaped economy" to describe unequal growth, where upper-income households increasingly earn and spend more, while lower-income families earn and spend less.

The Brookings affordability report found nearly 38 million households would be able to get by if workers' wages rose by $10 per hour. But that's a tall order in a nation where the federal minimum wage has been frozen at $7.25 an hour since 2009.

"It's dramatic, in the sense that we're not doing that," Perry said. "But can we do it? Yes."

Why isn't this a headline????

Iran targets US military base as nations trade fresh round of attacks

Story by Jack Davis

The sounds of war drowned out negotiations on Thursday as the United States and Iran traded military strikes.

The exchange ended Thursday with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps sending a ballistic missile at what it called “the U.S. air base identified as the source of the attack,” according to NBC News. It said the attack was in response to “blatant violation” of the ceasefire by the U.S.

Iran did not offer details, but Kuwait said its air defenses responded to “hostile missile and drone threats” and it was intercepting attacks.

Kuwait has an air base that has previously been targeted by Iran and its allies.

U.S. Central Command said on X that “Iran launched a ballistic missile toward Kuwait that was successfully intercepted by Kuwaiti forces.”

“This egregious ceasefire violation by the Iranian regime occurred hours after Iranian forces launched five one-way attack drones that posed a clear threat in and near the Strait of Hormuz. All drones were successfully intercepted by U.S. forces which also prevented a sixth drone launch from an Iranian ground control site in Bandar Abbas,” Central Command said.

The Wall Street Journal reported that drones were fired at U.S. and commercial ships. U.S. F/A-18, F-16 and F-35 jet fighters shot down the drones, then the F/A-18s destroyed a ground control unit, preventing further attacks.

Iran’s version of the incident was slightly different.

“Four vessels attempted to cross the Strait of Hormuz and enter the Persian Gulf without coordination with the security forces,” Iran posted on Telegram, according to The Times of Israel.

“They were warned, but after they ignored the warning, warning shots were fired at them, forcing them to return,” Iran said.

The attacks came as President Donald Trump threw cold water on hopes for an imminent deal to end the fighting.

"So far they haven't gotten there. We're not satisfied with it, but we will be, we will be. Either that or we'll have to just finish the job," Trump said, according to Fox News.

"But their navy has gone, as I've said a thousand times, their navy is gone. Their air force is gone. Everything's gone and they're negotiating on fumes. But we'll see what happens. Maybe we have to go back and finish it. Maybe we don't," he said.

"They thought they were going to outwait me, you know, ‘We'll outwait him, he's got the midterms.’ I don't care about the midterms. Look what happened last night. That was the prelude to the midterms," Trump said, referring to Tuesday night victories by candidates he endorsed in Republican primary races.

"Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I'm doing that for the world. I'm not doing it just for us," Trump said.

Nuts....

Former CIA officer charged with stealing millions of dollars’ worth of gold bars from government

By Holmes Lybrand, Zachary Cohen

A former CIA officer in Virginia has been charged with stealing tens of millions of dollars in gold bars and foreign currency from the very agency he worked for, according to an FBI affidavit and a source familiar with the matter.

David Rush was arrested last week in Virginia on one charge of theft of public money. He has not yet entered a plea and remains behind bars pending a detention hearing in the case.

The FBI alleges Rush became a senior executive government employee with top-secret clearance by lying repeatedly on applications about his military service and education, falsely saying he was a Navy pilot and had advanced degrees.

Court documents, however, don’t clarify why the CIA failed to detect Rush’s false claims before hiring and promoting him. He worked for the agency for 17 years, according to an FBI affidavit, and his claims were easily dispelled by investigators.

CNN has attempted to reach an attorney for Rush for comment.

After leaving the military and joining the government, Rush falsely “claimed 744 hours of Military Leave on his official timesheet” since being honorably discharged in 2015, taking in roughly $77,000 in fraudulent compensation, the FBI affidavit claims.

Late last year, Rush asked for “a significant quantity of foreign currency and tens of millions of dollars in gold bars for work-related expenses,” according to the FBI affidavit.

Two days before his arrest, the FBI searched Rush’s home, finding over 300 gold bars worth approximately $40 million along with $2 million in cash and “35 luxury watches, many of which were Rolex brand,” the affidavit says.

The remainder of the funds Rush allegedly stole have not yet been recovered.

Rush applied three separate times to work for the government and eventually was hired in 2009 and later promoted after lying about his time in the US Navy, falsely claiming he was a pilot, as well as falsely claiming he had bachelor’s and master’s degrees, the affidavit says.

The Navy told investigators Rush worked in part as an information systems technician during his service and the universities Rush claimed to have degrees from said they had no record of him.

Prosecutors alleged that Rush also falsely stated “he was the current Director of Test for a 145-person, 18-aircraft joint Army/Navy weapons test organization.”

In 2018, as part of his application for the senior executive service level, Rush also falsely claimed “he had an eleven-year tenure as a Thesis/Dissertation advisor at the Air Force Institute of Technology,” according to the affidavit.

He no longer works for the CIA.

In statements to CNN, the FBI and CIA said the person — who has now been identified as a CIA employee — was arrested on May 19.

“After a CIA internal investigation identified potential violations of the law, CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred the information to the FBI for a law enforcement investigation. The FBI is working closely with our partners at the CIA and the Department of Justice as we continue to investigate this matter fully. We are committed to following the facts, ensuring accountability, and pursuing justice in accordance with the law,” the FBI statement said.

What happens when there is bribery....

The last ‘little crappy ship’: What’s the future for the US Navy’s troubled LCS?

By Brad Lendon

The US Navy commissioned the last of its 35 littoral combat ships, the USS Cleveland, earlier this month at a pier in its namesake Ohio city.

“Steel. Strength. Power,” acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao posted on social media to mark the occasion.

Critics of the littoral combat ship (LCS) program had some other descriptions.

“Easy meat,” said one.

“An experiment that didn’t work,” said another.

And an expensive one. The price of the program is pegged at $60 billion, but a 2023 report from the investigative journalism site ProPublica said the eventual cost could top $100 billion.

“One of the worst boondoggles in the military’s long history of buying overpriced and underperforming weapons systems,” the ProPublica report said.

The LCS are at what the Navy calls the “low-end” of its surface ship fleet. They’re smaller than its guided-missile destroyers, carry fewer crew, and have less firepower and defenses, but they’re faster and able to operate in more shallow waters.

But after the ships have been plagued by a range of mechanical failures and mishaps since the first one was commissioned in 2008, they’ve earned a derisive interpretation of the LCS acronym, “little crappy ships.”

After the Cleveland entered the fleet last weekend on the shores of Lake Erie, the big question became – what now for the LCS?

How we got here

The LCS had its origins around the turn of the century, as naval planners looked for a smaller platform to work in coastal environments, where conditions might make larger warships like destroyers vulnerable, according to a 2017 Navy report.

The service was also facing the retirement of older, larger ships and was looking for ways to maintain its fleet size with smaller surface combatants that could be built more quickly and cheaply than bigger vessels, the report said.

Then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark decided to go with the LCS, a warship unlike anything the Navy had acquired before.

And that may have been part of the problem.

Critics argued “Admiral Clark first decided he needed a ship and only then turned to figuring out what the ship would do,” a 2014 report by then Undersecretary of the Navy Robert Work says.

In that report, written to explain the origins and complications of the LCS program, Work said the Navy got the shipped it asked for – “and in some key aspects a better ship than expected.”

But he acknowledged the ship’s development was “marked by constant change” that obscured its role and left it ripe for criticism.

The Navy acknowledged it was trying something different with the LCS.

“The LCS program marked a significant shift in how the Navy approaches shipbuilding and fleet modernization emphasizing flexibility, speed, and cost-effective construction,” a Navy fact sheet says, adding that the ships were to be rapidly reconfigured as missions – mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare or surface warfare – changed.

But the service didn’t settle on a single design, instead building two variants, the monohulled, steel-constructed Freedom class – like USS Cleveland – and the trimaran, aluminum-hulled Independence class.

A Navy fact sheet says it was expected there would be only one design chosen between plans submitted by builders Lockheed Martin and Austal USA, but two variants were chosen after competition between the two yielded “a highly efficient” shipbuilding process.

But two variants complicate logistics and supply chains, critics say.

The Independence class is the bigger of the two, 422 feet long and 104 feet wide, compared with 388 feet long and 58 feet wide for the Freedom class. The latter has the bigger displacement, at 3,450 metric tons to 3,200.

Neither uses propellor propulsion or rudders; instead, gas turbines power high-speed water jets. The design allows the LCS to operate in shallower coastal waters and avoid getting tangled in wires or cables, like those that might tether mines.

An LCS commander once touted the ships as “a military jet ski with a flight deck and a gun.”

In 2008, the first monohulled LCS, USS Freedom, was commissioned. In 2010, the first trimaran, USS Independence, followed.

Problems pile up

The LCS was envisioned as a key component of US naval power in areas dominating current headlines, like the Persian Gulf, where the US and Israel are at war with Iran, and the South China Sea, where the US and its allies are defending freedom of navigation.

Early proponents of the ship called it a “streetfighter,” according to the Navy report, speedy and able to combat small-boat swarms, but with the versatility to hunt mines like those Iran is reported to have laid in the Strait of Hormuz.

But problems began to mount. In January 2016, USS Fort Worth suffered damage to its propulsion system in Singapore. Though the problem was later found to be caused by operator error, the then-4-year-old ship was out of action for eight months.

And the incident was one of four mechanical problems with the LCS fleet in a year, staining the reputation of the ships’ reliability.

As the LCS problems materialized, Navy leaders thought money budgeted for the program could be better spent elsewhere.

In 2021, it began decommissioning the oldest of the ships – totaling seven to date – including the USS Sioux City, which was decommissioned in 2023 after spending only five years in a fleet where ships are expected to last 25 years.

An eighth, USS Fort Worth, is expected to be retired in July, but Congress blocked plans to decommission even more, citing the service’s need for ships and a wish to protect taxpayer investments of billions of dollars.

So, the Navy is forging ahead trying to make the best of ships its leaders didn’t want just a few years ago.

The 2026 Navy shipbuilding plan released earlier this month calls the LCS “an essential low-end fleet capability … capable of complicating adversary decisions,” saying it can be an effective mine countermeasures platform and armed with the Naval Strike Missile for surface warfare action.

“The strategy for LCS is a transition from acquisition to sustainment and modernization to keep these ships relevant, combat credible, and reliable through their service lives,” the plan says.

Analysts are skeptical.

“What remains to be seen is how useful they would actually be in a combat scenario, as they have never been in one,” Emma Salisbury, a non-resident senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s National Security Program, told CNN.

She said she’s seen no evidence that, in the current war with Iran, the three LCS deployed to the Middle East for minesweeping duties have done the job. When asked by CNN, US Central Command said it could not comment on what role the LCS have playing in the conflict.

When US Central Command announced in April it was beginning to set the conditions for mine clearing in the Strait of Hormuz, it was not LCS but destroyers that were the first to go through the waterway.

Since the war began, at least two of the three LCS assigned to the gulf for minesweeping have been spotted as far away as Malaysia and Singapore.

Carl Schuster, a former US Navy captain, told CNN the LCS lacks enough anti-aircraft defenses for any real war-time role in contested waters.

Though the Navy said in 2025 it had begun upgrading LCS defenses to counter drones, Schuster is unconvinced.

“They are easy meat to a cruise missile, drone or aviation platform,” he said.

“They are all but helpless in any kind of threat scenario. Even anti-pirate patrols are too dangerous in areas where there is a hostile air, drone, missile or swarm threat,” he said.

The LCS is “an experiment that didn’t work as advertised, so the US Navy does its best to use the ships for what it can,” Salisbury added.

Both Salisbury and Schuster see the LCS as primarily stopgaps for the Navy, likely to give way to a new generation of frigates that was announced last December.

Those ships, known for now as the FF (X), will be based on the Coast Guard’s Legend-class national security cutters. They’ll be bigger than the LCS, displacing 4,750 tons, according to a Navy document presented at a naval symposium in January reported by Naval News.

A Navy announcement of the new frigate from December 2025 said the service hopes to have the first hull in the water by 2028. The Navy could eventually field 50 to 65 of the new frigates, according to Naval News.

Schuster doesn’t see a bright or long future for the LCS fleet.

“They will be kept until the new (frigates) enter service in 3-4 years … Then they’ll be quietly retired one or two at a time.”

Do you think this will help....

Israeli PM Netanyahu says he directed the military to take over 70% of Gaza

By Dana Karni and Tal Shalev

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that he had directed Israel’s military to take over 70% of Gaza’s territory.

During an interview at a conference in the occupied West Bank, Netanyahu said that Israel is “tightening” its grip on Hamas. “We are now in 60% of the territory of the Gaza Strip. We were at 50%, we moved to 60%,” he said. “My directive is to move to – take it step by step – first of all 70. Let’s start with that.” As Netanyahu spoke, the audience called for him to take over all of Gaza’s territory.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued maps to international aid groups in late-April which already showed the military already controlling approximately 64% of Gaza.

The seizure of more of Gaza would force approximately 2 million Palestinians into a shrinking fraction of the coastal enclave’s shattered territory.

Under the October 2025 ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, Israeli forces withdrew to a demarcation line known as the “yellow line” which encompassed roughly 53% of Gaza.

On Tuesday, Hamas accused Israel of moving the line, saying this “constitutes an explicit and ongoing undermining of the ceasefire agreement, a serious violation of its provisions, and an exposed attempt to impose new facts on the ground by force, with the aim of entrenching military control over the Strip and undermining any real chance of stabilizing the situation or making de-escalation efforts succeed.”

So... When they say "weaponize department of justice" this is what they mean..

Justice Department launches a criminal investigation into Trump accuser E. Jean Carroll

By Hannah Rabinowitz, Paula Reid, Kara Scannell

The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the former magazine columnist who accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The investigation is focused on whether Carroll committed perjury in testimony tied to her two civil lawsuits against the president – one alleging he sexually abused Carroll in a New York department store in the mid-1990s, and a second for defaming her when in 2019 he repeatedly denied the assault, said she wasn’t his type and claimed she made it up to boost sales of a book.

Prosecutors’ theory hinges on a 2022 deposition statement by Carroll, 82, that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit, though it was later revealed that billionaire Reid Hoffman had paid some legal fees and expenses.

Carroll’s team declined to comment for this story. Attempts to reach Hoffman on Wednesday were unsuccessful.

The probe is the latest move in the department’s ceaseless, and somewhat strained, efforts to meet Trump’s demands to target his long-standing personal foes.

Under acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the department has pushed to speed up Trump’s campaign of retribution. But the cases he’s brought since taking the reins of the department in April have been heavily criticized and are likely to face challenges in court over allegations of politicization.

But Blanche has been recused from this matter because he worked as one of Trump’s personal attorneys on the Carroll appeals, according to a source familiar with the matter. Blanche has not attended meetings or been involved in discussions about the investigations, and the investigation is being overseen by other officials in the deputy attorney general’s office.

Senior leaders at the Justice Department referred the investigation to federal prosecutors in Chicago, according to two sources familiar with the matter. While Carroll’s deposition took place in New York, one of the individuals who helped cover some of Carroll’s legal fees, Hoffman, has a nonprofit based in Chicago.

Hoffman’s support of the case caught Trump’s attorneys off guard when it came to light on the eve of trial.

In a 2022 videotaped deposition, Carroll told then-Trump attorney Alina Habba that no one else was paying for her legal fees. But two weeks before the trial Carroll’s attorneys informed the judge and Trump’s lawyers that they secured funding from Hoffman’s nonprofit.

Carroll’s lawyers said she never met nor had conversations with anyone associated with the nonprofit. Habba said in court at the time that Carroll’s team “conspired to conceal the truth for nearly six months.”

The judge permitted Trump’s attorneys to question Carroll again in a deposition, which has not been made public.

When the trial began two weeks later Judge Lewis Kaplan said he saw no issue with Carroll’s credibility and blocked the lawyers from asking about Hoffman’s funding.

Caroll is still embroiled in multiple legal battles with the president. Juries awarded Carroll millions of dollars in damages, which the president is appealing. Trump has appealed the $5 million sexual abuse case judgement to the Supreme Court and has pledged to do the same with the $83 million defamation case.

The Supreme Court has deferred its decision on whether to take up Trump’s appeal twelve times. The most recent deferral was made Wednesday morning.

In a different case, the president unsuccessfully asked for the Justice Department to join the case as a defendant so that he could argue he is immune from liability. An appeals court panel of judges said the argument was raised too late in the legal process.

NGC 1514

What do you see in this crystal ball? The featured image shows NGC 1514, known as the Crystal Ball Nebula, observed by the Gemini North telescope on Maunakea, in Hawai'i. NGC 1514 is 1,500 light-years away and was discovered by William Herschel in 1790. This planetary nebula is formed when a star becomes a red giant and ejects its outer gas layers. The ejected shell of gas is heated up by the core of the star to temperatures hotter than the surface of our Sun: that makes the gas shine, creating beautiful images like this one. The slightly asymmetrical shape of the Crystal Ball Nebula reveals a secret: the bright star in the center has a companion. As the two stars orbit each other with a period of about nine years, they shape the gas around them. In about 10,000 - 25,000 years the nebula will be dissipated by their stellar winds.

A scandal-plagued, impeached, forced to take remedial ethics classes, and admitted to breaking securities laws

They’re All Ken Paxton Now

Texas Republicans chose a candidate who embodies something essential about the party under Trump.

Tim Murphy

When President Donald Trump endorsed Texas attorney general Ken Paxton earlier this month in his race to unseat four-term GOP Sen. John Cornyn, it fell to Lindsey Graham—as it so often does—to say the loud part loudest. 

Sure, Cornyn is Graham’s colleague. And Paxton is a scandal-plagued hack lawyer who has been impeached by members of his own party; forced to take remedial ethics classes; admitted to breaking securities law; reported to the FBI by his employees; investigated by own his state bar association; and whose wife has filed for divorce on “Biblical grounds.” But what Graham actually feared about the prospect of Paxton winning their primary was telling. “I think we’ll win Texas no matter what,” the South Carolina senator told reporters. “The truth of the matter is, Paxton will cost more money.”

For now, it’s Cornyn and his national Republican allies who have just lit giant bags of cash on fire, spending at least $92 million to produce the single worst primary performance for an incumbent Senator in almost fifty years. Next up for Republican funders after Paxton’s victory on Tuesday is an expensive general-election against Democratic state Rep. James Talarico that could help decide control of the chamber. 

Paxton’s win was not surprising, with Trump’s late endorsement perhaps more a reflection of the underlying realities than a determinative factor itself. But the margin was nonetheless stunning. Paxton won Republican voters by nearly two-to-one. Of the state’s 254 counties, all but one went for the AG. The exception was tiny Kennedy County—Cornyn carried it 6 votes to 2.

Incumbents almost never lose like this. But it’s not even the only time it’s happened this month. Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who angered Trump by voting for conviction at the second impeachment trial, recently became the first incumbent senator to finish outside the top two in a primary since the 1940s, according to the Downballot. Last week, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie lost by nine points after bucking Trump on the Epstein files and the Iran war. Before that, the president helped take out six Republican legislators in Indiana who had blocked his push to redraw the state’s voting maps. Trump is more unpopular than he’s ever been in the general electorate. But among Republican primary voters, the bond has never been tighter.

Trump has always hovered over the Texas race in instructive ways. Cornyn and his supporters spent most of last year running a series of extremely blunt and ultimately kind of amusing attack ads with the goal of tanking Paxton’s numbers and scaring the president away. After the first round of the primary, when Cornyn unexpectedly came out on top in a three-person field, Trump said he was going to endorse one candidate soon and ask the other candidate to drop out, so the party could unite against Talarico. Paxton was quick to say that he would consider dropping out if the Senate would pass the SAVE Act, an omnibus voter suppression and election-malfeasance bill that’s somehow also anti-trans. The SAVE Act didn’t pass and Paxton’s bluff was safe—and in the end, Trump took another month to endorse.

Cornyn’s trajectory is instructive, although there are vanishingly few pre-MAGA Republicans left to take note of it. He was a less partisan attorney general than Paxton, in his previous life in Austin. In his current one in Washington, Cornyn passed a modest, bipartisan gun control law after the massacre in Uvalde, and called Trump “reckless” after January 6th. A lot of people in the chamber seemed to respect him. There is not even a billow of smoke about a messy personal life. But there has also probably never been a point in the last two years of Trump’s rule where anyone has thought, Well, John Cornyn will put a stop to this. He, too, told a story about what MAGA does to Republican officeholders, about how people who might know better simply find a different version of themselves. When Democrats in the state escaped to Illinois last summer to deny quorum, it was Cornyn who suggested the FBI be used to track them down. This was the fallacy of his campaign—that in order to stop Paxton, he must essentially become him. But there was no substitute for the real thing. 

As I explained in a profile of Paxton several years ago, the newly minted Republican nominee embodies something essential about the GOP in the age of Trump. He is remarkable not for his smarts or charisma, but for his willingness to do what is asked regardless of what might be proper. Shame can only hold you back. Under Paxton, the AG’s office has been a fully weaponized agency, that has launched frivolous but harassing investigations of voting rights groups and immigrant aid organizations; targeted Trump critics and Democrats; and built the legal foundation for overturning a presidential election. He has been elected over and over again by running against the enemies of Donald Trump and Christian nationalists—a Jewish Republican speaker; business-minded Republicans in the state legislature; a Bush scion; and now a white-haired elder statesmen who looked like someone who might broker a grand bargain even if he never really did.

It’s fitting that when Paxton was impeached in 2023, it was for allegedly using his office to benefit the interests of a single donor. While he was acquitted by the state senate and has denied wrongdoing, that kind of concierge service is the secret to his staying power. Increasingly, it’s just how you get ahead in Republican politics—not by blocking and tackling, or constituent services, or quietly building a reputation, but doing what is asked by the big guy.

Trump is who they want to be—saying and doing what he wants, making deals, getting rich. But Ken Paxton is all that most of them are: A bad lawyer looking to get ahead, background music in someone else’s story. After all, the Senate Republican caucus already includes two other former state attorneys general who signed the Texas AG’s shoddy brief seeking to throw out the results of the 2020 election. Graham and the rest will welcome him, even if it costs $100 million to get him there, because whoever was left of the old guard has retired or been forced out. There’s no more delusion about what a Republican senator is or needs to be in Trump’s second term: They’re all Ken Paxton now.

Climate Experts Alarmed

“Mind-Bogglingly Crazy”: Climate Experts Alarmed by Europe’s Deadly Spring Heatwaves

“Our bodies have not had time to acclimatize.”

Ajit Niranjan

Malcolm Mistry knew it was going to get “very warm, very quickly” on Monday morning but a slow start out of bed delayed his plans for an early game of cricket with his son. It was already 10 a.m. by the time the pair arrived at the sun-soaked nets of their local club in south-west London, and to the embarrassment of the 48-year-old scientist, who played cricket in his youth, his body was struggling after just half an hour of bowling.

Had he continued for another hour, Mistry reckons he would have probably suffered from heatstroke. Had he and his son stayed until noon, they would have found themselves straining their bodies in direct sunlight while a nearby weather station logged the UK’s hottest May temperature since records began.

“I could feel I was panting a bit more heavily,” said Mistry, a leading climate and health researcher at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “That’s when I said to myself: ‘I need to stop here right now, immediately, before something happens.’”

The dark side of a gloriously hot European summer, excess mortality data compiled by experts such as Mistry shows, is an almost unfathomably large death toll—one that society rarely treats as a crisis. In 2024, summer heat in the EU claimed roughly three times more lives than car crashes, 16 times more than murderers, and more than 10,000 times more than terrorists.

This year, summer highs are striking before spring is even over. It may herald worse heat to come as parts of Europe brace for yet another torrid season of punishing extremes.

Temperatures over the weekend reached dizzying highs in the UK, which shattered its historical temperature record for the month by a full 2 C. The Monday peak of 34.8 C at London’s Kew Gardens was followed by a “tropical night” at Kenley airfield, with lows that did not drop below 21.3 C, and was beaten on Tuesday with a high of 35.1 C in west London. The Met Office said the temperatures would be “exceptional in the UK even in mid-summer, let alone in May.”

In France, where Monday highs surpassed 37.1 C in the south-west, the national warning system was activated for the first time in May since it was introduced in 2004, and seven deaths were linked to the heat. Météo-France said abnormally hot periods had occurred in the month in previous years, “but nothing comparable to this one.” Spain may endure temperatures as high as 40 C this week.

“Early-season heatwaves are especially hazardous because our bodies have not had time to acclimatize,” said Garyfallos Konstantinoudis, an environmental epidemiologist at Imperial College London, who estimates an extra 250 heat-related deaths will have occurred in England and Wales between Saturday and Monday.

“This exceptional spring heatwave is far more than an uncomfortable disruption to our sleep, work or study,” he said. “For vulnerable groups without access to cooling—particularly elderly people, the very young and those with underlying health conditions—these temperatures are quite simply dangerous and potentially fatal.”

The specific trigger for the record temperatures is an area of high pressure trapping heat. It comes on top of a global rise in average temperatures, which has increased the likelihood of extremes and made unprecedented highs an increasingly common reality.

Peter Thorne, a climate scientist at Maynooth University in Ireland, said: “We know beyond a shadow of a doubt” that the climate crisis had made heatwaves such as the latest one stronger and more likely. “But nevertheless, many of the records being set, particularly in the UK and France, are mind-bogglingly crazy.”

“This latest heatwave in Europe is a brutal reminder of the spiraling impacts of the climate crisis, both human and economic,” Simon Stiell, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary. “The main culprit is the world’s addiction to burning coal, oil and gas, and destroying forests. Many other parts of the world are also getting hit hard, such as India and other parts of Asia. The science is clear that human-induced climate change is making these heatwaves more frequent and extreme.”

Farmers across the continent have begun to sound the alarm over weather projections in recent weeks, with a regional lobby group in the Netherlands recently warning of stress from prolonged heat and drought. Last month, the young farmers association in Aragón, in Spain, warned of a possible “catastrophe” for cereal crops because of extreme heat and lack of rain.

Scientists have warned that El Niño, a warming weather pattern projected to return in a particularly potent form this year, could lead to even hotter temperatures in 2026. Current projections foresee it reaching moderate strength in the summer and peaking toward the end of the year, though official scientific bodies have warned that projections made before the end of spring are subject to great variability.

“What matters much more than hype around an upcoming El Niño is that we have permanently shifted the climate,” said Thorne. He compared it to walking into a casino and rolling a seven on a six-sided dice.

“I expect numerous notable extremes in Europe this summer because that is our new reality—but exactly what, where, when and with what impacts is not predictable,” he added. “But if you don’t lose this time, there is always next year. And coming back to the casino analogy, in the end the house always wins.”

Simon Stiell, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary, said: “This latest heatwave in Europe is a brutal reminder of the spiraling impacts of the climate crisis, both human and economic. The main culprit is the world’s addiction to burning coal, oil and gas, and destroying forests. Many other parts of the world are also getting hit hard, such as India and other parts of Asia. The science is clear that human-induced climate change is making these heatwaves more frequent and extreme.”

Has Some Questions

Elizabeth Warren Has Some Questions for the Private Prison Executive Running ICE

Donald Trump’s pick to lead the agency spent more than a decade at GEO Group.

Sophie Hurwitz

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a few questions for the head of ICE. On Wednesday, the Massachusetts Democrat sent a letter to David Venturella, the new acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, asking him to disclose any financial entanglements with the private prison giant GEO Group, where Venturella previously worked.

GEO Group is a major ICE contractor that operates a network of immigration detention centers, including Delaney Hall in New Jersey, where reports of detainee mistreatment have led to days of protests. The company has told investors that it is “preparing for what we believe is an unprecedented opportunity to help the federal government meet its expanded immigration enforcement priorities.”

In her letter, shared exclusively with Mother Jones, Warren asked that Venturella recuse himself from all matters that could benefit GEO Group, such as contract negotiations; that he make his ethics disclosures and related documents public; and that he answer a series of questions to clarify his potential ethics conflicts.

“Americans should not have to wonder whether ICE enforcement priorities are being driven by the financial interests of politically connected detention contractors,” Warren wrote to Venturella. “Your career can be characterized as a continuous, decades-long trip in and out of the revolving door between ICE and the private prison industry.” 

Venturella is one among many past and present ICE officials with deep ties to the private prison industry, but his connections are among the most egregious. He spent more than a decade as an executive at GEO Group, eventually managing the company’s federal contracts. Now, as Venturella takes the helm at ICE—he was appointed May 12 and is slated to start the job May 31—GEO Group is having a great year. 

“Last year was the most successful period for new business wins in our company’s history, and we expect 2026 to be a very active year as well,” said GEO Group CEO George Zoley on a May 6 earnings, call touting the “new growth opportunities” that the firm “captured in 2025 and are normalizing in 2026.”

ICE contracts drove a year in which GEO made “up to approximately $520 million in new incremental annual revenues…the largest amount of new business” the company has ever drawn in a single year, Zoley said on that call. With Venturella leading ICE, he could now be in a position to negotiate contracts with his own former employer.

“Given your track record and previous employment at GEO Group, I request that you recuse yourself from all matters that could directly or indirectly benefit GEO Group, including through the award, writing, and execution of federal contracts,” Warren wrote. “Additionally, I request that you make your ethics disclosures, waiver agreements, recusals, and all related ethics guidance public.”

Venturella, legally, will eventually have to release some of this information—as a senior government official, he’ll theoretically be compelled to file a public financial disclosure document within 30 days of his May 31 appointment. There, he’ll list other positions held and money earned. (Venturella’s predecessor, Todd Lyons, filed a very sparse disclosure, featuring only funds related to his spouse’s employment by the Pentucket School District.) 

“Communities across the country are increasingly alarmed that the Trump Administration is building a deportation machine designed not only to terrorize immigrant families, but also to enrich a small network of politically connected contractors and former officials,” Warren charged. “Your longstanding ties to GEO Group and the resulting ethics concerns surrounding your appointment only deepen those fears.”

While employed by GEO Group, Venturella made at least $6 million and negotiated major contracts to reopen shuttered facilities. Venturella and ICE did not answer requests for comment prior to publication.

For the stupid people, see why he is a threat? No? Hence the stupid...

Trump threatens Oman in latest play to open the Strait of Hormuz

“Oman will behave just like everybody else or we’ll have to blow them up,” he told reporters at the White House.

By Gregory Svirnovskiy

President Donald Trump rejected a plan that would see Oman and Iran jointly charge a toll for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, threatening harsh consequences for the U.S. ally if it follows through on discussions that have reportedly taken place with Tehran.

“Oman will behave just like everybody else or we’ll have to blow them up,” he told reporters Wednesday at a White House Cabinet meeting. “They understand that. They’ll be fine.”

Opening up the strait, a critical transit lane for some 20 percent of the world’s oil, has emerged as a lodestar in negotiations to end the three-month U.S. war against Iran. The Middle East country effectively closed the waterway soon after it was first attacked by the U.S. and Israel in February. The strait has remained choked off, even after the president announced a ceasefire in April contingent on Iran fully reopening it.

Global gas prices are on the rise as a result. And near-nonexistent transit through the strait has raised the specter of a worldwide food crisis on the horizon, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization warned last week.

Oman, which has long enjoyed positive relations with Washington but is not a member of Trump’s Abraham Accords, has been a key interlocutor in behind-the-scenes negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and more recently in the push to end the war between Tehran and Washington.

But Trump on Wednesday reiterated his position that Iran would have no control over the waterway as part of a peace deal to end the war.

“The strait’s gotta be open to everybody,” he said. “It’s international waters. Nobody’s going to control it. We’re going to watch over it. We’ll watch over it, but nobody’s going to control it. That’s part of the negotiation that we have.”

The State Department amplified the president’s harsh rhetoric in a social media post at the conclusion of the Cabinet meeting.

Bloomberg News first reported on the talks between Iranian and Omani officials. A spokesperson for the Omani Embassy in Washington could not immediately be reached for comment. A person who answered the main line at the embassy said it was closed for Eid.

Fuck them...

China accuses Dutch warship of ‘provocative acts’ in South China Sea

The conflict comes as Dutch naval deployments in the Indo-Pacific become increasingly visible.

By Milena Wälde

Tensions flared Wednesday between China and the Netherlands after a confrontation between a Dutch frigate and the Chinese navy off the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.

Senior Captain Zhai Shichen, spokesperson for the Chinese navy's Southern Theater Command, said in a statement that naval and air forces used “necessary measures” — including warnings and electronic jamming — after the HNLMS De Ruyter allegedly “illegally intruded” near the Paracel Islands and launched shipborne helicopters into Chinese airspace.

He also accused the Dutch side of “seriously” undermining stability in the South China Sea and urged it to “immediately stop its infringement and provocative actions.”

The confrontation unfolded near the Paracel Islands, a strategically important archipelago of some 130 islands that Beijing seized from Vietnam in the 1970s and now controls through a network of military outposts and surveillance capabilities. China strictly controls travel to the region, and individual or commercial vessels are not allowed in the islands' territorial waters.

The Dutch Defense Ministry disputed Beijing’s account, telling POLITICO that HNLMS De Ruyter was operating “in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).”

The ministry said the frigate is sailing through the South China Sea and making port calls across the region “to strengthen diplomatic, security and economic ties” with partner countries.

It declined to comment further on “operational details.”

The incident follows another encounter last week near the Philippines, when the Dutch frigate’s commander said a Chinese military helicopter briefly approached the vessel before peeling away. “They asked who we were and we replied, and that was enough,” Commander Rodger de Wit told a local newspaper.

The Netherlands has become increasingly active in the Indo-Pacific in recent years, sending warships through the South China Sea as part of a broader push to deepen security ties in the region. In 2021, the frigate HNLMS Evertsen sailed through the region alongside the British carrier strike group led by HMS Queen Elizabeth and in 2024, HNLMS Tromp held exercises with U.S. Navy ships in the contested waters.

China claims most of the South China Sea, despite a 2016 arbitration ruling in The Hague finding Beijing’s sweeping claims had no legal basis under international law — a decision China rejects.

Florida property tax cut

In one of his final acts, DeSantis calls for vote on sweeping Florida property tax cut

If Republican legislative leaders go along with DeSantis' plan, it will give the GOP a way to argue it is addressing the state’s persistent affordability crisis heading into the midterms.

By Gary Fineout

Gov. Ron DeSantis is calling for a sweeping property tax cut that, if approved by voters this fall, would spare millions of Florida homeowners from paying taxes on their primary residence — and provide DeSantis with a key policy win as he prepares to end his second term.

The GOP governor on Wednesday rolled out his long-awaited plan he wants the Legislature to pass during a special session he scheduled to run from June 1 to June 3. If Republican legislative leaders go along with DeSantis’ plan, it will also give the GOP a way to argue it is addressing the state’s persistent affordability crisis heading into the midterms.

“That is the best way we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of people, particularly those who are trying to make ends meet,” DeSantis said during a press conference in Tampa to announce his proposal. “I think a lot of people need relief. I think a lot of people have been wondering, where can we get it? We’re showing a pathway to be able to get that done that I think is going to be transformational for people.”

DeSantis’ effort to overhaul property taxes will be likely be his last substantive policy push during his eight years in office. But he has two potential obstacles: The governor must convince a supermajority of the Legislature to place the item on the ballot, and then he must sway 60 percent of those voting in November to approve the tax cut. DeSantis has been openly feuding with Republicans in the state House that he must now rely on to put the measure before voters.

DeSantis has not yet distributed a copy of the legislation he wants lawmakers to pass, although he did circulate a one-page summary online. But the governor said he wants to increase the state’s homestead exemption from $50,000 to $250,000, a move that would wipe out property taxes for about 60 percent of Florida residents who now qualify for the exemption. He wants to increase that exemption level even more over the next few years, but he would leave that timing up to state legislators.

The plan pitched by DeSantis would also call for placing a 5 percent limit on how much the value of commercial and non-residential property can increase each year. He additionally wants to require anyone who relocates to Florida after Jan. 1, 2027, to wait five years before getting the larger tax break.

State Senate President Ben Albritton quickly endorsed the governor’s plan before all the details were released. In a memo to senators, Albritton said the proposal cuts property taxes in a “straightforward and substantial way,” then linked the plan to the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America.

“I can’t think of a more meaningful way to celebrate America’s 250 then the passage of $250,000 in tax relief for every Florida homeowner,” Albritton wrote. “I believe this amendment will provide meaningful relief for Florida families, while protecting businesses from extreme tax increases and safeguarding local funding for public safety, education and our clean water infrastructure.

State House Speaker Daniel Perez — who previously zinged DeSantis for not releasing a detailed plan — was more circumspect in his response and noted that the Florida House had already passed a property tax cut proposal during the regular session that was never considered during by the Senate.

“We are pleased the governor has finally gotten around to share an actual proposal,” Perez said in a statement. “We look forward to reviewing it once we have received th elanguage.”

One clear bit of leverage DeSantis has right now: The Legislature will have to vote on the property tax proposal before the governor has signed the new state budget. DeSantis has line-item veto power and could eliminate spending items being sought by legislators who go against him.

The proposed amendment, which the governor called “historic,” will likely draw swift and fierce opposition from those fearful that the tax overhaul will take away billions now spent on schools, cities and counties including money spent on core government functions such as police and first responders.

DeSantis — who has said he will not endorse raising other taxes to offset property tax losses — said he also wants to create a stand-alone fund to provide grants from the state to local governments to continue “core local services.” But the potential loss to school districts could be billions that even the state may have trouble replacing.

State House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell said Democrats were “open to solutions that create affordability,” but she questioned the potential impact to local governments and schools and whether it would result in residents having to pay fees to use libraries and parks.

“Any such maneuver the governor is talking about ... we know would have devastating consequences,” Driskell said. “We’re very concerned with what we have seen from the governor so far.”

Democratic State Sen. Lori Berman told POLITICO she wasn’t yet sure what her caucus’ messaging would be leading up to the property tax special session, but would have a better sense by Thursday after she has had “a chance to talk to members.”

DeSantis has been calling for property tax cuts for more than a year, arguing that homeowners should not be “renting” their primary residence from the government due to ongoing tax bills. He repeated that assertion Wednesday.

“I really look forward to the day where a Floridian, and if this passes, will be a reality, where you really do own your own home,” DeSantis said.

The Florida House passed its own property tax overhaul during the regular session, but its proposal — which would have eliminated an estimated $18 billion in tax revenue — kept intact property taxes paid to school districts. House Republicans acknowledged that they were concerned about the potential political backlash if they cut funding to schools.

Becerra opening lead

Poll shows Becerra opening lead in California governor’s race

The Democratic frontrunner is in position to draw a Republican matchup in November.

By Jeremy B. White

Xavier Becerra has opened a sizable advantage over his closest Democratic rival in the California governor’s race, according to a new Public Policy Institute of California poll, positioning him as the favorite heading into the final week of the primary.

The mid-May PPIC tally puts Becerra atop the primary field with 23 percent of the vote, followed by Republican Steve Hilton at 20 percent. Both Becerra and Hilton have created separation from Becerra’s closest Democratic rival, Tom Steyer, who registered 15 percent support.

Barring a major political disaster, that outcome would put Becerra on a glide path to succeeding Gov. Gavin Newsom, given California’s overwhelmingly Democratic electorate.

“He’s in a very strong position now,” said PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. “If there are two Democrats, we’ll see what happens, but if it’s a Democrat and a Republican, we know what the voter registration shows in California.”

Steyer’s campaign pushed back on the poll, noting it did not capture the latter part of May — a period in which Steyer has increased his attacks on Becerra, running advertisements that highlight his support from the oil industry.

Democrats have spent months fretting that two Republicans could squeak past a crowded Democratic field, boxing the majority party out of the November election. But the latest polling suggests they are more likely to see a long-serving Democratic official advance next week, maintaining their party’s 20-year lock on the governorship.

While a Becerra-versus-Hilton matchup could remove much of the drama from the governor’s race, the poll showed several ballot initiatives are likely to be far more competitive fights.

A proposed one-time wealth tax on California’s billionaires currently has a 54-45 lead with voters, PPIC found — a solid starting point. But that number comes before a well-funded opposition has fully revved up. Billionaires have already poured money into counter-measures and an early ad salvo, and they are likely to outspend the health care union backing the measure.

A Republican-backed bid to require voter identification at the polls starts in a much more precarious place. Just 49 percent of voters supported the proposal, while 71 percent of registered Democrats and 58 percent of independent voters opposed it — blocs likely receptive to arguments framing the idea as an extension of President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Neither the voter identification measure nor the wealth tax have formally qualified for the November ballot, although proponents have submitted enough signatures for both to suggest that’s likely.

And despite Democratic furor around the risk of a general election lockout, 59 percent of Californians like the state’s nonpartisan primary system in which the top two vote-getters advance. That suggests an incipient effort to do away with top- two could have trouble gaining traction.

Vows 100 percent tax

Newsom vows 100 percent tax on DOJ ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ payouts

His pledge mirrors Democratic efforts in New York and New Jersey.

By Tyler Katzenberger and Nick Reisman

Gavin Newsom vowed Wednesday to tax any payouts that California residents receive from a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that Donald Trump secured in a settlement with his own Justice Department, as Democratic lawmakers in states across the country ramp up efforts to counter the president on the measure.

“Anyone from California that receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100 percent of those proceeds,” the California governor told reporters during a press conference in his office, calling the settlement a “slush fund.”

Newsom’s pledge mirrors legislation unveiled earlier this week in New York by Democrat Alex Bores, a state assemblymember and House candidate, that would assess a 100 percent tax against payouts from the fund. Trump announced the fund last week as part of his $10 billion settlement with the DOJ in his lawsuit against the IRS, and Democratic efforts to undercut any payouts are picking up across the country.

Democratic state lawmakers in New York are pushing for a vote by next week to fully tax payouts from the fund. Queens state Sen. Mike Gianaris in an interview said his measure was in the process of being introduced in the Democratic-dominated Legislature.

“There’s widespread, bipartisan agreement that this is baldfaced corruption at its worst and if we have the ability in New York to combat it by ensuring that none of this money benefits anyone in our state’s borders, I’d expect there’d be widespread support for that idea,” he said.

Bores in a text message Wednesday night said he was working on getting his bill put up for a vote next week as well. Time is running short in Albany, where lawmakers are scheduled to end their legislative session late next week and will have a heavy docket of bills to approve.

In New Jersey, a Democratic state lawmaker said he was already working to draft a bill to set up a 100 percent tax on recipients of the funds.

“I think it’s brilliant — because the slush fund is completely corrupt and utterly appalling,” state Sen. Andrew Zwicker, a member of his chamber’s Budget committee, told POLITICO in an interview. “I think it’s a brilliant counter move to Trump’s corruption.”

Democrats and even some Republicans have blasted the fund. Trump didn’t consult lawmakers before announcing it and refused to rule out payouts to people who were convicted of crimes in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. Congressional Democrats have proposed their own legislation aimed at countering the fund.

Trump last week defended the fund as restitution for people “badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration.”

Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential candidate who has frequently sparred with Trump, also on Wednesday signed a measure aimed at restricting federal officers from intimidating voters and countering federal attempts to seize California’s voting rolls — legislation he said was aimed squarely at countering the president and his allies.

“He pardoned all of those folks that were beating up cops and absolved them, providing them 1.776 billion dollars. So not only do you get a pardon, you get rewarded,” Newsom said. “That’s why this is needed.”

In recent months, Trump has directed his Department of Justice to seize 2020 election ballots from certain states in pursuit of his baseless claims of election fraud. He’s declined to rule out sending in the National Guard or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to polling places in the November elections.

Cuba invasion

Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

The Navy’s presence in the Caribbean has not reduced despite the Iran war.

By Paul McLeary

The Pentagon has spent months positioning the troops and weapons needed for the U.S. to launch a military attack on Cuba — all it needs is a final go-ahead from Donald Trump.

The president has floated an invasion of the island after economic and political pressure failed to topple the Communist government. But the Navy’s built-up presence in the region — the largest in the world outside the Middle East — would allow the U.S. to act immediately.

These strategically placed assets set the table for military action, from a capture of Havana’s leadership much like the seizure of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, to a series of precision strikes. And they open the possibility that the U.S. throws itself into the third international conflict of the Trump administration.

Cuba is “in a lot of trouble,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday at a full Cabinet meeting. “Having a failed state 90 miles from our shores is a threat to the national security of the United States.”

The armada in the region is slightly smaller than it was in January when the U.S. captured Maduro. But the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group entered the Caribbean in May, along with several guided missile destroyers and cruisers that can launch precision missiles at targets onshore. An array of advanced American drones and surveillance aircraft have also circled Cuba for months, according to flight tracking sites. The USS Kearsarge amphibious ships and escorts, which carry 2,500 Marines, are off the coast of Virginia preparing for a new deployment, and could replace some ships heading home.

The surge provides a variety of military options, although the Pentagon would need additional troops for a massive ground invasion.

The Nimitz arrived in the region on the same day as the U.S. indicted former president Raul Castro, in what appeared a public show of force. “The Nimitz is likely there primarily for intimidation, though it could be used in a military operation if needed,” said Mark Cancian, a former Pentagon official and now a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The ship, along with fighter planes based in Florida and Puerto Rico, would probably play a role in any military action in Cuba, he said. “Air strikes are possible to take out their air defenses to allow broader air operations or, perhaps, destroy their leadership with the idea of establishing a relationship as we have with Venezuela. Raul Castro would be their first target.”

But the administration faces a timeline to act. Many of the biggest warships deployed in the summer are approaching 10 months at sea, far beyond the usual six to seven months. This has caused defense officials to worry about overextending crews, and adds to the stress on a naval force that is also conducting a blockade of Iranian ships in the Arabian Gulf.

The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. The Navy declined to comment on current deployments. Naval Forces Southern Command did not respond to a request for comment.

“These back-to-back long deployments will add up over time,” said a defense official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about military operations. “Keeping them out there so long creates more problems in the long run when it comes to refitting and repairing those ships once they come home.”

The prolonged missions come on the back of the record-setting 11 month deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, which ended this month after sailing from Europe to the Caribbean for the Maduro operation and then to the Middle East for the Iran war.

The Nimitz is also extended on what was expected to be its final deployment of a 50-year career. It was initially set to sail to Norfolk, Virginia, to have its nuclear-powered engines removed, but the Navy has decided to extend its life until 2027.

The USS Iwo Jima and USS Fort Lauderdale amphibious ships have also remained since the summer, although the Marine Corps announced Wednesday that they will return to Norfolk next week.

But the long deployments take a toll on the crews and Marines, who had planned for a normal rotation and are now months past their initial scheduled return home.

“You don’t sign up for an easy time, you know any deployment is going to be uncertain,” said Joe Plenzler, a retired Marine Corps officer. “But extending deployments like this, when it feels really open-ended, that starts to bleed into retention. How much more likely am I able to convince my family to do another enlistment and stick with it?”

Gutting southern Dem districts

Republicans are gutting southern Dem districts. Dems might front-load the South in its 2028 primaries to respond.

Democrats could put up to two southern states in their early primary window for 2028 as the GOP looks to erase their power across the South.

By Lisa Kashinsky

Democrats are weighing whether they can use their 2028 primary calendar to try to rebuild their party’s strength in the South amid aggressive GOP gerrymanders.

As Democratic National Committee members meet in D.C. this week to discuss which states will lead the next presidential nominating contest, the GOP push to dismantle majority-Black districts and dilute Democrats’ power across the South is ratcheting up the selection stakes. Some members are now advocating for two southern states to make the cut as the Callais ruling adds fresh urgency to Democrats’ long-running debate over how to amplify the voices of Black voters who have long been the party’s backbone.

“As we consider how we draw the map for 2028, we need to also take into consideration the impact of the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act,” Donna Brazile, a longtime Democratic strategist who sits on the Rules and Bylaws Committee that runs the state selection process, said in an interview.

“I’m also of the view that if we can have maybe two southern states, maybe this is time to rebuild the Democratic Party across the South,” she added. “The fact that we only could play in one or two southern states last presidential cycle — that is just not acceptable.”

Brazile, a Louisiana native who twice served as acting DNC chair, is also pushing each of the 12 states jockeying for positions in the early window on what steps they’re taking to protect voting rights and access.

At least one southern state is guaranteed a spot in the early lineup given the RBC’s regional approach to the 2028 calendar. But there are four regions and up to five slots, leaving one spot as a true wild card. Multiple RBC members on Wednesday expressed an openness to having two states from the South in the early window, as a way to both bolster the party’s standing with Black voters and better align with the nation’s population shifts.

“It would be really important to send a message that the South is a real battleground,” said Susan Swecker, a RBC member and former Virginia Democratic Party chair. Prioritizing two states from the South, she said, would send a “strong message to [President] Donald Trump and his cronies that we’re not going to take it anymore.”

Carol Fowler, a former South Carolina Democratic Party chair who also sits on the RBC, said Democratic voters are “going to be very disappointed if the DNC disregards … what is happening in the South right now to our Democratic voters, and in particular to our Black voters.”

Fowler and Swecker, who stood side by side as they spoke to POLITICO, are friends. But their states are on a collision course in the calendar debate.

In all, five states are competing for at most two southern slots: South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee. Georgia and North Carolina are positioning themselves as critical battlegrounds that best reflect Democrats’ diverse and changing electorate. But those two states, and Tennessee, face logistical hurdles between state election laws and GOP leaders that make it unlikely they’ll be able to move up their primaries.

Democrats’ efforts to elevate Georgia failed in 2024, making it less likely that RBC members would be willing to roll the dice on one of those states again — giving Virginia an opening even as Georgia Democrats argued Wednesday it would be different this time around, particularly if they win this year’s gubernatorial and secretary of state races.

North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said in an interview that national Democrats’ investment in her state’s presidential primary would boost down-ballot candidates in critical races. That includes contests for three state Supreme Court seats that could give the party leverage to counter GOP gerrymanders that have further tipped the state’s congressional delegation toward Republicans.

“While Democrats have gone through the last two years trying to go mano-a-mano with Republicans on redistricting, North Carolina will be the first state in the country where we can go on the offense [against] Republicans rather than the defense when it comes to redistricting after that 2028 cycle,” Clayton said. “I cannot do that, though, if we don’t get the resources to those down-ballot candidates.”

But it will be tough to topple South Carolina, a longtime early primary state that former President Joe Biden propelled to the front of the pack in 2024. Some Democrats acknowledge that Republicans’ failed attempt to target Clyburn’s seat likely bolsters the state’s argument to stay high on the list.

Democrats have pledged an aggressive response to Republican efforts to erase blue seats across the South. But they were dealt a significant blow when Virginia’s top court thwarted a map that could have given them an edge in four House districts, and they face limited options to counteract GOP maneuvers in red states. Still, Republicans have faced setbacks of their own, with GOP lawmakers earlier this week blocking their own party’s effort to draw out Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn in South Carolina and an Alabama court tossing a map that would have left Democrats in the state with just one House seat, though it’s being appealed.

Gerrymandering is just one of the factors RBC members are grappling with as they weigh which states will have an outsized role in choosing the Democratic Party’s next leader. The half-dozen states that made their pitches on Wednesday faced questions that ranged from their demographics to their voter-protection efforts.

Southern states are also facing fierce competition for the No. 1 slot from other regions. New Hampshire, which has traditionally held its primary first, positioned itself Wednesday as a proven proving ground for presidential hopefuls. Nevada, which presents Thursday, plans to argue that it’s the most representative of the coalition of working-class and diverse voters that Democrats need to win back. Even Iowa, which Democrats discarded after their botched 2020 caucus, is fighting for a way back in.

The jockeying is overt: New Hampshire and Michigan Democrats carted in swag bags of local sweets and other state-themed paraphernalia on Wednesday. Nevada hosted an evening reception for RBC members. South Carolina previously sent around copies of Clyburn’s latest book.

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel told POLITICO that the VRA fallout “makes it even more important to have diverse states as part of this conversation.” But he said that could also mean putting a state like Michigan, which he said is the most racially diverse of the midwestern battlegrounds, in the early window.

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley also said it’s “important to elevate the voices of color” within the party. Asked by POLITICO whether that meant a southern state needs to be first, he said that “a southern state needs to be within the early states.”

South Carolina, which usually votes later in the early window, “has been the decider for the last 20 years of who the nominee is,” Buckley said. “That can’t get much more powerful than that.”

Inflation rises

No solace: Inflation rises and the economy slows as the Iran war drags on

The combination of forces bearing down on the economy spells trouble for Republicans in the midterm elections.

By Sam Sutton

Inflation is running hotter than at any point since President Donald Trump returned to office, and the economy grew at a slower pace in the first quarter than previously estimated, the latest disappointing news for the administration on the issue that’s at the top of voters’ concerns.

The Commerce Department on Thursday reported that the personal consumption expenditures index — the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge — climbed at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in April, driven by surging energy costs. The so-called core PCE, which removes volatile food and energy costs, ticked up at an annual rate of 3.3 percent. The department also downshifted its estimate for gross domestic product growth to 1.6 percent from 2 percent for the first three months of the year.

Even though the monthly inflation report was tamer than most economists assumed, “I would not take much solace from today’s result,” Omair Sharif of Inflation Insights told clients in a note. “Core inflation is likely to be firmer next month and risks to the upside from the lagged impact of the energy surge remain in place.”

The combination of forces bearing down on Trump’s economy spells trouble for Republicans in the upcoming midterms. The president’s economic approval rating is at an all-time low. Gas prices have been stuck above $4 per gallon for weeks due to the war with Iran, according to AAA. Yields on long-term government debt and mortgage rates have spiked as inflation rose — and are now being further stoked by rising energy costs and mounting piles of government debt.

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

And while the economy remains healthy by many metrics — unemployment is low, equity markets are booming, and public companies are consistently outperforming Wall Street’s expectations — popular measures of economic sentiment have cratered. The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index dipped this week as the inflationary effects of the war took hold.

Consumer sentiment is at a record low, according to the University of Michigan’s closely watched survey, dipping even below the pits reported at the height of the pandemic and post-Covid-19 inflation.

That has provided considerable fodder for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.

“Americans are struggling, but Trump and Republicans in Washington can’t be bothered to help,” Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) said after the PCE report was released. “Unless you can cut a check for his ballroom, Donald Trump clearly couldn’t care less about you.”

Anti-Weaponization Fund

Trump's 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' could carry a big tax bill, some experts argue

Federal income tax experts tell POLITICO money from the DOJ's Judgment Fund, which the new $1.8 billion program is drawing on, is generally taxable.

By Bernie Becker

President Donald Trump isn’t supposed to directly profit from the dismissal of his lawsuit against the IRS.

And yet, he could still owe taxes on the money going to set up a central feature of that deal — the $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

Some tax practitioners say the way that the fund, which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced May 18, is structured likely makes it an income tax liability for the president, potentially costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

The argument stems from the fact the Trump administration is setting up its new “anti-weaponization” initiative through the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund, which Congress set up decades ago to automatically pay federal court settlements.

Payments from the fund can only be made to actual litigants, and proceeds from legal settlements generally are taxable, with an exception for compensation for medical injuries or sickness.

Senior administration officials and critics alike have said this is a particularly unusual use of the Judgment Fund, with little to no precedent for how the money setting up the “anti-weaponization” pool might be taxed. The White House referred questions to the Justice Department.

But effectively, a range of federal income tax experts said Trump appears to be the beneficiary of the $1.8 billion, even if the money is eventually routed to others through the five-person commission responsible for disbursing the fund.

“It’s unique and we haven’t really seen anything like this before,” said Lawrence Zelenak, a tax law professor at Duke University School of Law. “But I think the tax analysis is actually not all that complicated.” He added that Trump was “more likely than not” on the hook for taxes on the $1.8 billion.

Taxable for recipients

There are more potential tax consequences that could stem from setting up the new fund.

Payments from the fund, which officially totals $1.776 billion, could also be taxable for recipients, who could include people who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Plus, Trump might face problems with the gift tax, which donors can face on large transfers of money or property.

It’s also possible the public never learns much about how those questions shake out, because they delve into individuals’ private tax matters.

But those consequences — and whether Trump would owe taxes on the fund at all — add yet another wrinkle to the debate over an agreement that’s unprecedented in many ways.

Trump and other members of his orbit are now also shielded from any pending audits or tax claims, raising further questions about how the IRS might decide who owes taxes on the money flowing from the Judgment Fund.

The settlement agreement’s language appears designed to close off any debate about whether or not the compensation fund creates a tax liability for Trump. One of the officials to sign off on it was Frank Bisignano, the IRS’s chief executive officer.

According to the agreement, the fund “does not represent the value of any current claim” by the plaintiffs in the case, which include Trump, two of his sons and the company overseeing many of the family’s business ventures.

Instead, the $1.8 billion “is based on the projected valuation of future claimants’ claims” under the “anti-weaponization” fund. By the administration’s rationale, that means the money flowing into the fund is “not taxable income as to Plaintiffs, who receive no economic benefit from this Settlement Agreement.”

Some experts are sympathetic to that argument. Andy Grewal, a tax law professor at the University of Iowa, said that the tax consequences of payouts from the fund would be the more pressing question.

Trump, Grewal said, “has no control over whom the money goes to, and so it would not be income to him.”

Other income tax experts were also hesitant to weigh in on whether beneficiaries of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” would owe taxes on that money, without further details about how those payments are doled out.

Still, Brandon DeBot of the Tax Law Center at New York University said that it wouldn’t be unusual for settlement funds essentially to be taxed twice — first on the payment to a litigant, with further liabilities possible if money is then given to others.

Future audits

Democratic officials, both in Congress and blue states like New York and California, are pushing proposals that would place 100 percent tax rates on fund disbursements to anyone convicted in connection with the Jan. 6 riot.

But DeBot said any questions about how and whether those payments are taxable shouldn’t distract from Trump’s own liability on the $1.8 billion.

“Trump, his family, his business, and DOJ should not be able to turn off the consequences of the standard tax rules through their private agreement,” he said.

And because Trump’s protections are only for pending audits, it’s possible that the IRS could look into whether the president should or did count the $1.8 billion as taxable income at some point.

The agency usually has up to three years after a return is filed to initiate an audit, which opens the possibility that an IRS in the next presidential administration could examine Trump’s returns for 2026 and beyond.

“I don’t think there’s any way that this purported agreement not to audit the president can bind any later administration,” said Brian Galle, a tax law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

GOP money panic

Paxton win sparks GOP money panic

The challenge for both parties is that Texas is a uniquely expensive state to campaign in.

By Alex Gangitano, Erin Doherty, Jessica Piper and Samuel Benson

Republicans are bracing for a Texas-sized cash drain.

After Attorney General Ken Paxton’s win over Sen. John Cornyn on Tuesday, nine state and national GOP strategists and donors told POLITICO they fear that their already record-breaking Senate primary will become an even more costly general election campaign — one that siphons party resources from key battlegrounds.

Some of them estimate the race could force the party to spend as much as $150 million for Paxton in a state that Republicans never expected to be truly competitive. A Democrat has not won statewide office in Texas since 1994.

But Paxton, a polarizing figure who many national GOP donors have been hesitant to embrace given his extensive baggage, is facing off against state Rep. James Talarico, a prolific fundraiser and candidate widely viewed as a rising star within the Democratic Party, setting up a potential once-in-a-generation clash in the Lone Star State. And everything is bigger in Texas — including the cost of running a campaign.

“We’re a big state, we have a lot of people, 30 million plus Texans, we have 20 media markets,” said Brendan Steinhauser, a Texas-based Republican consultant who ran Cornyn’s 2014 campaign. “So it takes millions of dollars to not only run television and radio ads, but to reach the population through mail and digital ads and text messages.”

One GOP donor compared the late stages of the Texas runoff — which came to a head when President Donald Trump issued his 11th hour endorsement of Paxton — to a “horror movie.”

“It means that $100 million will have to go to bail out the Texas seat instead of helping win seats in Maine, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and elsewhere,” said the person, who, like many others in this article, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Last night will go down as one of the worst self-inflicted political wounds of all-time.”

“No one is happier than Democrats. Even if Paxton holds the seat — as is likely, though not guaranteed — donor funds will be diverted from critical races,” a second GOP donor concurred. “And Cornyn, one of the Republicans’ best fundraisers, will be sidelined.”

Cornyn, whose long political career came to an end this week, was expected to shoulder more of the general election burden himself as a strong fundraiser with a deep network of longtime donors, built from his stint as chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But Paxton’s fundraising has lagged, and he’ll likely need to rely on national Republican groups — and President Donald Trump’s $350 million MAGA Inc. war chest — to compete.

Some Senate Republicans expect Trump to foot the bill to carry Paxton over the finish line.

“Talarico’s going to raise all sorts of cash,” said a Senate GOP strategist. “There’s a very clear view that Trump took out one of the largest, most successful fundraisers in Senate history, and it’s a huge hole to fill. So the expectation is that Trump will fill that hole. He’s a prolific fundraiser and has a huge war chest.”

Trump congratulated Paxton on his victory in a Truth Social post early Wednesday morning and said he “will do some nice, big, beautiful rallies for Ken,” whom he endorsed last week. But a spokesperson for MAGA Inc. declined to provide details of their strategy: “We don’t disclose our battle plans through the press,” spokesperson Alex Pfeiffer said.

The tensions over money come as Republicans face a tough midterm environment: Trump’s approval ratings remain well underwater, gas prices are up more than 50 percent since February and the unpopular war in Iran has not come to a clean end. Democrats are growing more bullish about their chances of flipping the House and the Senate each day.

Some within the GOP have worried the White House is misreading the political landscape and underestimating voters’ frustrations by not doing more to boost candidates in key Senate battlegrounds, like Maine, North Carolina and Georgia.

Other Republican super PACs have also raised big bucks, led by the Senate Leadership Fund, which had $166 million in the bank at the end of March. But those funds, though massive, are still finite. And an expensive state like Texas risks eating into them quickly.

GOP donors are “very frustrated” that Paxton will require more fundraising help in the general election than they think Cornyn would have, said a former Trump administration official, who has been having conversations with many of them. “They hate seeing their time wasted on a state that leans Republican. They want their money on offense, not defense,” the person said.

A third GOP donor compared Paxton to former Republican Rep. Todd Akin, who lost his 2012 bid for a Missouri Senate seat to then-Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill when he said a body can shut down a pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.”

“Texas is a complex place. The question is, can you get a deep number of MAGA voters… and then get Cornyn establishment voters to convert to [Paxton]?” the person said. “That’s going to be difficult, and so you’re gonna have to spend a lot of money .”

The potential for Texas to suck up major resources goes both ways. If Democrats are serious about engaging, their donors and party groups will need to pony up, too — and their major super PACs have lagged Republicans in fundraising so far.

“Texas is not breaking its 32-year Republican streak for a woke freak who thinks there are six genders,” said Republican National Committee spokesperson Zach Kraft. “If Democrats want to light a pile of cash on fire, we will hand them the match.”

The more than $40 million that Talarico has already raised, while significant at this early stage in the race, is just a small fraction of what the total spending would be if outside groups from both parties get involved. There are also questions over how much Democratic-affiliated groups may ultimately be willing to spend, as they eye much cheaper targets in states like Iowa and Alaska, where they’ve already pledged resources.

Democrats “remain bullish about Texas,” said Lauren French, the spokesperson for the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC, adding “there is every likelihood we’ll make a mark there.”

Republicans are already looking to negatively define Talarico as the general election kicks off in earnest. A pro-Paxton super PAC released an ad last week branding the state representative as “weak” and “weird.” Talarico, after the runoff, made an appeal to Cornyn voters for their support and characterized some of his past controversial comments as mistakes.

The challenge for both parties is that Texas is a uniquely expensive state to campaign in. Its more than 18 million registered voters are dispersed across 20 different television markets, the most of any state. Driving from one side of the state to the other takes at least 12 hours. And the state’s diversity — Hispanic voters in the Rio Grande Valley, multiracial cities, sprawling suburbs and vast rural agricultural swaths — prove vastly different from one another in how candidates seek to tailor their messages.

“Paxton’s nomination signals that Republicans are going to have to spend a lot more money than they wanted to in Texas, and Democrats need to spend a lot more money than they anticipated in order to take advantage of an opportunity,” said Matt Angle, a longtime Texas Democratic strategist.

Early general election polling shows Talarico holds a slight lead over Paxton.

The high cost of the state has some Democrats looking elsewhere. Oath, a Democratic-aligned fundraising platform that helps donors give to campaigns where their dollars will have the largest impact, has given a relatively low score to Talarico, due to the sheer amount of money that will be poured in. Brian Derrick, Oath’s cofounder, anticipates total spending in the Talarico-Paxton general election will surpass $550 million.

“The types of donors we’re advising are looking for maximum [return on investment] of their donations,” Derrick said. “And the Talarico race in particular isn’t going to be high ROI if you’re donating $1,000. It’s going to be mostly fought out by super PACs that are funded by seven- or eight-figure donors, in large part.”

The 2024 Texas Senate race, which was not a premier race for either party, still attracted $210 million in spending, according to data from the ad tracking firm AdImpact. The plurality of that came from the campaign of Democratic candidate Colin Allred, who dropped $85 million on ads, while both parties’ major super PAC arms played only small roles.

The final week of that race alone saw $35 million spent across TV and digital ads, according to AdImpact. But with Paxton as the Republican nominee and Democrats putting the state in focus in what they hope will be a wave year, the totals are likely to far exceed that.

“It is unfortunate that lots of financial resources have been spent on a primary contest for a Senate seat we already hold, when resources could have been made available for a competitive seat that we would like to get back,” said one Georgia-based GOP strategist. Republicans in Georgia are locked in a bitter June runoff for the state’s Senate seat.

Paxton’s victory in the primary came despite being wildly outspent by Cornyn and his allies. The attorney general’s Senate campaign committee had just $2.3 million in the bank as of earlier this month.

He’s already ramping up fundraising for the general election and has plans for a fundraiser with lobbyists on June 2, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO. The event will be hosted by AxAdvocacy — the lobbying firm linked to GOP strategist Jeff Roe’s consulting firm Axiom Strategies, which Paxton hired to run his race. The invite lists Texas Sen. Ted Cruz as a special guest.

The attorney general has acknowledged it will be an expensive race, thanks in large part to his opponent’s fundraising ability. “I need your help,” he said in his victory speech Tuesday night. “We know James Talarico is going to raise more money than any Democrat in America.”

Indeed, within two hours of Paxton’s victory, Talarico hauled in $600,000, his campaign said — the strongest two-hour stretch of his entire campaign.