A total ass sucking, dick licker.........

Brendan Carr Speaks Out on Jimmy Kimmel, the Media and Trump

In a new interview, Trump’s FCC chair defends his controversial strategy.

By Dasha Burns

Until recently, the Federal Communications Commission was not an agency that many Americans typically spent much time thinking about. That’s changed in President Donald Trump’s second term under FCC Chair Brendan Carr.

A telecom lawyer by trade who has risen up the ranks of the agency over the years, Carr has developed a strong relationship with Trump and gleefully taken on the president’s enemies in the media in a bid to bring them to heel.

While touring his office after our interview for The Conversation, Carr showed me a mug on his desk with an image depicting him as Trump’s pit bull taking on the media.

Carr’s persistent threats to pull broadcasters’ licenses, his spats with Jimmy Kimmel and The View, and his overall aggressive posture has raised alarm in the press and on both sides of the aisle. Even conservative Republicans have expressed concerns about the precedent that Carr is setting and the potential chilling effects on speech. But Carr doesn’t see it that way.

“It’s not our role to be the speech police,” he said. “It’s not our role to fundamentally transform editorial decisions, but there is a baseline level of regulation that Congress wanted. I think that is our job.”

Carr also refused to say it would be inappropriate for Trump to direct the FCC to investigate certain broadcasters or that there should be any limits on Trump using the FCC against media companies he doesn’t like.

“The president has every right in the world,” he said, “to push back on media.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. 

Republicans, yourself very much included, have historically stood for deregulation and limited government intervention, especially when it comes to speech. But the FCC is now playing a much more active role when it comes to broadcasters, news and editorial decisions. How do you square that?

The way I think about it is it’s really a blend of two different strains of approaches to this job. On the one hand, we do have a very aggressive, what you would describe as a traditional, deregulatory agenda. We have an entire proceeding called “Delete, Delete, Delete.” We’ve deleted over 2000 regulations from the FCC’s books at this point.

At the same time, we are appropriately adopting regulations, and you see that most notably in the media policy sector. I think that does reflect a broader debate perhaps on the conservative side.

Historically, you saw a lot of conservatives, Republicans when they got gavels — whether it was at this agency, other agencies, or in Congress — and they would sort of take the gavel and they would fly to the farthest flung corners of the country. They would bury the gavel in the sand, and they’d say we can’t legislate or we can’t regulate because one day Democrats will be back and they’ll do it and so we have to do nothing. And if you look at the history, here at the FCC in particular, during the Biden years, the FCC very much was, in my view, weaponized, and the gavel was used very aggressively in a lot of ways that weren’t covered by traditional media. And so my view is not to take the gavel and weaponize it, but also not to take the gavel and bury it in the sand. We should be appropriately applying and enforcing the laws that Congress passed.

Back in 2018, you testified before Congress, and you said the First Amendment operates as a restraint on the government and that your job as FCC commissioner was to avoid putting a thumb on the scale in favor of one speaker or the other. Has your understanding of the FCC’s role changed in that regard?

No, not at all. When you think about the First Amendment analysis, I think it’s important to think about the broadcast sector as opposed to any other forms of media distribution, whether it’s cable or podcasts or social media or someone’s soapbox. Broadcast is different because you have a license from the government and you’re required to operate in the public interest. So you get the license. You get to operate on the spectrum for free, but the spectrum is a public resource.

Think about it this way. Think about having a public park, and ordinarily the government allows someone to use the public park for a political demonstration. You can use it for an hour or two. There’s very little restraints the government can put on you. But let’s say the government gives you access to that park exclusively for seven years, and anyone else that wants to make a demonstration or parade is kicked out by the government. That’s much more akin to what we have in the broadcast space.

The model that Congress adopted is what we call public trustee. So you’re not just standing in your own shoes, you’re supposed to be accounting for and looking out for the broader public interest, including the view of people that were denied a right to the license.

In 2019, you posted on X that the FCC doesn’t have “a roving mandate to police speech in the name of public interest.” Since becoming chair, you’ve taken a pretty aggressive posture to enforcing that public interest mandate. What changed?

Well, I don’t remember the exact context of it, but to the extent that’s coming up in the context of social media, which is where we saw a lot of this sort of surge in government intervention, this surge in censorship, that statement is entirely clear. But the First Amendment always sits next to the public interest standard uniquely in the context of the broadcast area.

For broadcasts, do you agree with what you said, which is that a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the public interest is not something that the FCC has a right to do?

I don’t view the FCC as the speech police, and I don’t view that’s what we’re doing. In fact, this has been litigated to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has said that enforcing public interest obligations on broadcasters, and there’s a whole series of them, is not censorship and does not run afoul of the First Amendment.

But since the public interest definition is so vague, do you worry that even if just optically, it puts you in the position of seeming like you are censoring free speech?

Well, I don’t think it’s vague as applied to broadcasters who deal with this every day. For instance, there’s very specific manifestations of it, which is there is a political equal time rule. It’s both statutory but I think also part of the broader public interest standard, and so I think when you enforce those regulations, it’s actually pretty clear.

Now, historically, I do think there’s been weaponization at the FCC. If you go back to the Biden years, for instance, there was a local Fox broadcast TV station in Philadelphia that wanted to have their license renewed. And there was a petition to deny it by activists because they were concerned with content that was on Fox News cable, again, which is not regulated in the same way. And the Biden FCC entertained the idea, put it out for comment, and kept it out there all the way through the election.

So how is what you’re doing with the threats to pull licenses different than that?

What we’re doing is reminding broadcasters of their public interest obligations, and I’ll give you some specifics.

The FCC historically has had a political equal opportunity regulation, and that says if you’re a broadcaster and you choose to have one political candidate on, then the statute says you have to provide comparable time and placement to all other legally qualified candidates. And we have a proceeding right now on The View, which has had historically one political candidate on and hasn’t offered comparable time and placement.

You’ve opened investigations into 60 Minutes and NBC over alleged favoritism towards Kamala Harris in ’24. You’ve warned ABC affiliates of possible punishment for airing Jimmy Kimmel’s show before opening the door to taking away Disney’s broadcasting licenses and wielded the agency’s long unused equal time rules to successfully deter both The Late Show and The View from airing interviews with Democratic political candidates. When people take it all together, how do you defend against the perception that you’re using the FCC’s regulatory power to suppress speech that’s critical of President Trump and punish his political adversaries?

Well, again, I think the through line through all of that goes back to the main policy North Star that we have, which is this broader debate in the broadcast sector between those national programmers on the one hand and the thousands of individual TV stations.

But no other FCC chair has done that, and then you have a president come in who’s angry with certain news programs, who’s angry with the coverage of him, and then suddenly there’s this much more aggressive posture from the FCC. How do you explain that to the public?

I agree that we’re moving more aggressively, but we’re doing it all across the board. There is a unique focus, and I get it, on media, but you can see what we’re doing in the space economy where we’re fundamentally transforming it. You can see where we’re going after robocallers using really interesting new tools. You can look at it in national security where we’re doing things that the FCC has never done before.

The FCC order initiating the early license renewal of Disney ABC-owned stations, that came one day after President Trump called for ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel. Can you really say that was just a coincidence?

Yeah, that timing was entirely distinct from that.

Brendan!

Yeah. No, with the Disney case in particular, we had started a DEI investigation into Disney all the way back in March of 2025.

OK, but did you talk to the president beforehand?

We had been going through rounds of discovery and our versions of subpoena with Disney, and frankly, the view here within the agency was that Disney was being nonresponsive. Their responses were deficient, that they were being disingenuous and we had been telling them for weeks and months that if they didn’t start producing in that discovery process responsive information, that we were going to go to the next step, which was to call their license in for early renewal.

So the idea of bringing their license in for early renewal did not spring from any specific episode, and the timing of it was driven based on where we were in the discovery process. And it wasn’t the first one that we did.

Did you get a call or talk to the president either before or after you made that announcement?

Look, as a general rule, we don’t get into sort of any discussions that happen with the White House or don’t happen with the White House. But on this one, we’ve been very clear. The process here was put in place. Our decision to move forward was based on where we were in discovery with Disney.

I think it’s important to talk about what that Disney case is about. The Disney case is about evidence coming to light — and we haven’t made a final decision yet — that they had been discriminating inside the company based on race and gender in terms of hiring, promoting, compensation, workplace opportunities. If that all ends up being true based on all the evidence that Disney gets to put in, that’s a very concerning development, and it does raise fundamental questions about fitness to have a license. That has nothing to do with a program.

When do you think you’re going to make that decision? Before the fall?

Where we are with Disney right now is based on that investigation, we’ve called their licenses in for early renewal. A number of petitions to deny were filed. When you file to renew your license, you have to demonstrate that you’ve been operating in the public interest for the last several years. Petitions to deny have been filed. Disney will have a chance to file responses to those petitions to deny. There will then be a reply/comment period. And then it’ll be teed up for FCC action, and we’ll figure that out based on the record. And we haven’t made a final decision on what we’re going to do.

Do you think that the president should be able to direct the FCC to investigate a broadcaster? Trump calls you and says, “Hey check on what ABC is doing,” is that appropriate, and would you then go decide to check on what ABC is doing?

Whenever we make a decision at the FCC, we have to explain the basis for it: what’s the record evidence, what’s the law say, what’s the facts say. If it’s not grounded in those things, there’s bases that people can appeal and overturn it, so all of our decisions are going to ultimately be driven by the facts and the record before us.

Look, there’s no question that I’m broadly aligned with President Trump. President Trump tapped me to lead the agency.

Given that he calls people at 2:00 a.m., given how communicative he is with the members of his team that he’s close to, does that happen?

Well, again, just as a general matter, I don’t speak publicly about conversations with the White House or whether they happen or don’t happen.

You know that can sound dodgy.

I mean, maybe, but that’s sort of the consistent position that we’ve had.

Do you think that the president’s ability to use the agency’s licensing enforcement against media organizations he dislikes should be limited?

There’s a lot of points tucked into that question that I don’t necessarily agree with.

My view is pretty straightforward, which is that broadcasters have to operate in the public interest. And licenses themselves are not sacred cows. I think people have sort of taken this mindset that broadcast is like a newspaper, is like a podcast. It’s on a fundamental different regulatory footing, and what I’ve tried to be clear with people is that broadcast licenses aren’t sacred cows. There are things you can do to lose broadcast licenses, and if necessary, that’s the path that we’ll head down.

I’m curious what you disagreed with in that question. To me, it’s pretty simple: Should there be a limit on how much the president can use the FCC against media companies he doesn’t like?

I think the president has every right in the world, including a First Amendment right, to express his views, to push back on media. I think you see him do that all the time. He’s incredibly transparent. He’s incredibly direct.

But can he use the FCC to punish them?

Well, again, the FCC, our job is to enforce the Communications Act, and that’s what we do across the board. We do it in broadcast. We do it in space economy. We do it in national security.

Can you decide how and when to do it and how to prioritize it, and should the president be directing that?

Well, again, every decision we make is going to be based on the fact and the record and the law, and for commission decisions, it’s a product of a vote of three different people.

You said ABC’s decision not to broadcast President Trump’s recent election integrity speech live would come up in the review. I wonder what makes a network’s decision about a presidential address relevant to whether local stations should retain their licenses.

Well, what we said is that the decision by broadcasters to carry or not carry the speech is something that is likely to be raised by petitioners that are seeking to have the FCC not renew the license for the Disney ABC stations that are before us. So that pleading has been filed. We’ll take a look at it.

We have, also, ourselves. We are looking into this question itself about the decision to air programming or not. And again, I think this goes back to the dynamic between the national programmers and local TV because the entire idea of broadcast was that you wanted local TV stations to push back on the national programmers and have some give and take. We have rules that regulate what we call preemption. So if a national programmer wants to run a particular show, or doesn’t want to run particular programming, the local TV station has the right to preempt and to push back and make a different decision. And so all of these decisions ultimately go to what we’re called upon to do by the Communications Act, which is to assess whether they have been operating in the public interest or not.

But I think if you step back, you talk about President Trump. I think one of the things that President Trump has done so well is that he has run directly at the legacy news media. I think so many people that run for office, they feel constrained to govern based on the narrative that the traditional mainstream media has set. And that’s one of the things that’s set President Trump apart is he called out the fake news media.

As FCC chair, is it your job to reorient the editorial standards and decisions of the news media?

Well, I think it’s something that the news media should want to do on its own, and at the same time, I think it is our job to enforce the rules that are on the books. So for instance, if the national programmers are just running over all the local TV stations, they’re not actually finding what the local community wants to hear.

I think, fundamentally, the legacy media should want to do a course correction.

But is it your job to make them course correct?

Well, I think they should want to, and I think our job is to enforce the regulatory framework. We haven’t done that over the last 20 years, and I don’t think it’s produced helpful results.

But it sounds like you’re saying you want to, in whatever way you can, push the editorial of news media in a different direction.

Well, when it comes to broadcast. I mean, newspapers and cable are different, so we don’t have a regulatory framework. But with broadcasters, we do want to remind them that it’s not a podcast, you know? There are rules and regulations you have to follow. There is a public interest standard so there’s the equal opportunities rule, there’s the prohibition on news distortions, there’s regulations that go to broadcast hoax, and we think they should try to abide by those.

You’ve acknowledged that the FCC doesn’t regulate cable news content, but then why are you commenting on CNN’s coverage if it’s not in your purview?

Well, again, I think as a general matter, I think it’s important for the country that we do have trusted news outlets, and I don’t think that we’re there now.

I think we have a role to play. It’s not our role to be the speech police. It’s not our role to fundamentally transform editorial decisions, but there is a baseline level of regulation that Congress wanted. I think that is our job.

But there are a lot of folks that do see you as the speech police, and that even includes some Republicans. Ted Cruz said that of you, and he, in fact, said that one of your warnings sounded like a scene from Goodfellas. He called you a mafioso. He’s the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. What do you think Ted Cruz is missing about your approach here?

Well, I think that related to a sentence that I had used talking broadly about the Jimmy Kimmel show.

Do you remember what you said?

I do, yeah. And I think we’ve testified about this. We’ve explained it. We’ve gone on at length about it. And again, what we’re talking about there is that broader dynamic that we’re saying about trying to change the relationship between the programmers on the one hand and the local TV stations on the other.

So where does the mafioso come in?

I don’t know. That wasn’t my line.

You do have on your desk a mug with you as Trump’s media pit bull that you drink out of, right?

That’s true, yes.

Is there a part of you that sort of relishes the Grim Reaper-esque reputation that you’ve gotten?

I don’t know about that. Look, you just can’t take it too seriously.

The news cycles are going to go up. The news cycles are going to go down. You’re going to be villainized. People are going to like other stuff that you’re doing. And you just have to feel very confident in the decisions you’re making.

What would you say if a future Democratic FCC chair used the same theories and powers to investigate editorial decisions made by Sinclair or applied pressure on conservative talk show programs?

Well, again, what we’re doing is applying the law in an even-handed manner. I think if you look at past FCCs under Democrat control, we saw weaponization. We are going to see weaponization by Democrats again at the FCC. Are they going to blame me? Maybe. But again, the question for us right now is should we do nothing knowing that Democrats will weaponize it, or should we take the gavel and apply the law as we think Congress passed it? And that’s the decision that we’re making.

Why haven’t you looked at conservative radio or Sinclair or any of these others?

If there’s any issue with any of them, then we will. We’re happy to.

Let me pull back. Do you want to live in a country where federal bureaucrats monitor comedy shows for their political content, where the government can put TV licenses at risk over jokes or guests or editorial decisions that it doesn’t like? Are you comfortable with that scenario, whoever is sitting in the chair?

Well, I don’t agree with the framing. I think holding broadcasters accountable to the public interest is a fundamentally different thing than the framing of your question. I think holding broadcasters to public interest is something that we should do.

Do you worry at all that with your media pit bull approach, even without the technical enforcement measures, will have a chilling effect?

I don’t. I don’t think that complying with the public interest standard in broadcast — again, broadcast is unique. It has nothing to do with cable or podcasts.

Given we have streaming, cable, social media — so many Americans get their news on TikTok — do you think that the FCC has seen technology outpace some of its mission?

It’s an interesting question. A lot of focus now is obviously on AI, which the FCC has a small role in, not a big one. A lot of the conversation obviously has moved to social media, which I know you understand this, is not broadcast and doesn’t have the public interest obligations. You don’t have any of the rules or regulations that we’re applying.

I’m not scared of the clip we’re going to post.

Exactly. There’s no role for the FCC there at all.

Look, there is a world of the future of communication where it is all we call virtual cable like YouTube TV, where it is all social media, where it is all over the internet. And there’s a world in which all this regulatory structure that is applying to the broadcast space becomes largely irrelevant because the conversation and the investments have shifted away from broadcast. That’s entirely possible. But until then, we have that regulatory structure to impose.

You’ve been at the FCC for a long time. This does seem to be a new era of Brendan Carr. Do you feel like you have transformed under Trump? Because there are a lot of people that have known you…

I do get this. I do get variations of this question.

…for a long time.

Where did things go so wrong?

What happened? What happened to Brendan Carr?

And you’re like, “What is the origin story?”

I think it’s this blend of two different approaches. We do have this very traditional, almost libertarian-style deregulation. We’re getting rid of hundreds of pages from the federal regulation. I also think there’s a place appropriately for regulations, and I think it’s a broader reflection of where I think the conservative movement has gone.

Yeah, there’s still this very big deregulatory effort. There’s also this more populist approach that’s skeptical of concentrations of power and supports common sense regulations. And what we’ve been trying to do is you take a little bit of dereg, a little bit of reg, you put it together, and we make telecom great again.

Undermining US Credibility

‘It Wasn’t Part of Trump’s Plans’: Venezuela’s Feeble Earthquake Response Undermining US Credibility

Bodies remain in the rubble four weeks later as residents dig by hand for relatives.

By Eva Hartog

Cristian knows that his mother lies lifeless beneath the rubble. The only question is where.

The boyish 22-year-old uses his hands to show how the 12-story building where he used to live collapsed when a double earthquake struck Venezuela in late June.

First, it tipped sideways. Then, it folded in on itself, “like a flower closing,” he says, curling his fingers inward.

He was less than an hour’s drive away in Caracas when it happened. By the time he arrived on the scene, both the building and his mother were gone. With no rescuers in sight, he started to dig.

He’s still digging.

“My mom’s trapped in there. And nobody has helped me get her out, you understand?” Cristian said. “There’s been no help.” Like some other survivors, he did not want to give his last name for fear of reprisals for criticizing the government.

For many Venezuelans, the disaster has been a crystallizing moment, reminding them that despite the U.S. capture of former dictator Nicolás Maduro more than six months ago, they are still living under the same inept regime that they blame for decades of decline.

The disaster marks a “before and after,” said Trino Márquez, a sociology professor at the Central University of Venezuela. “From here on out, it’ll be much harder to contain public discontent.”

According to the government’s latest figures, more than 5,500 people were killed and 16,700 more were injured in the June 24 quakes; many people believe that is likely an undercount. NASA satellite data suggests some 58,000 buildings have been damaged or destroyed. A World Bank report released last week estimates the damage to physical assets at nearly $20 billion. Together, those tallies make the earthquakes the deadliest and most economically damaging disaster in Venezuela since the Caracas earthquake of 1812.

Hardest-hit has been the state of La Guaira, which is dense in government-built housing as a result of another deadly disaster: catastrophic mudslides in 1999 that killed an estimated tens of thousands of residents. Survivors were eventually moved into apartment blocks built under a flagship housing project touted by the government as a symbol of the socialist revolution. But many see the extensive damage those buildings suffered in the quake as evidence of something else altogether: corruption, poor oversight and a disregard for individuals’ lives.

Five weeks after the twin quakes, the coastal area still resembles, in the words of one resident, “a warzone.” The dust of pulverized concrete hangs in the air; the decomposing bodies trapped in the wreckage have drawn swarms of flies.

A former golf course has been turned into a makeshift camp, with tents of different sizes — some bearing the logos of USAID and Samaritan’s Purse, a U.S.-based charity — linked by narrow, muddy footpaths. At meal times, long lines form at the stand of World Central Kitchen, one of several foreign NGOs that remain in the area after most international search-and-rescue teams returned home.

The overwhelming scale of the foreign aid has had the unfortunate effect for the government of eclipsing their own efforts. Uniformed Venezuelan personnel, particularly members of the military, are a presence but often appear to be carrying out largely passive duties, such as manning checkpoints or waving through traffic.

At the camp, soldiers assigned to maintain security watched a soccer match on a screen while volunteers continued to work their way through the rubble nearby. Only a relatively small number appeared to be actively involved in clean-up efforts.

“They come to help with the search for half an hour, then they leave,” one man grumbled. Behind him, one of his adult sons slept on a bare mattress, his leg bandaged after falling into a hole while clearing rubble. His other son, the man said, had continued the daily search for missing relatives.

The landscape is punctuated by what look like giant molehills, each mound a composite of concrete, rebar, personal belongings and human remains.

Scores of volunteers, mostly men, pick through the wreckage, many equipped with little more than gloves and shovels — if that. Stumbling upon a corpse is considered a cause for joy.

“Even though they’re no longer with us, they deserve to come out of there,” says Lorena Laya, 24, who managed to retrieve the remains of her stepmother and younger sister from the debris but is still searching for her father and 15-year-old brother.

“I’ve seen some ‘professionals’ toss the bodies around or handle them without proper care. They may be dead, but they deserve to be treated with respect. And so do those who survived.”

Coming more than six months after U.S. forces captured Maduro, the quake is the biggest challenge yet for the U.S.-backed interim government of acting president Delcy Rodríguez.

Its response has been twofold. On one hand, it has opened the country to scores of foreign journalists, aid organizations and U.S. troops. The deference shown to the visitors — with Rodríguez personally awarding medals to rescue dogs from countries including the United States — marks a sharp break from decades of hostility towards the Western world.

On the other, it has occasionally reverted to what one Western diplomat jokingly called its “empire-strikes-back” habits.

When, at a press conference, a Spanish journalist pressed the president to address accusations that government help after the quake had been slow to arrive, a visibly irritated Rodríguez lashed out at those allegedly trying “to politicize” the tragedy, calling it “disgraceful.”

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello separately has taken to Instagram to denounce journalists critical of the government’s earthquake response as “paid propagandists” spreading “disinformation.” Cabello and state media have seized on comments made by Gianluca Rampolla, the United Nations resident coordinator ⁠in Venezuela, who has said there were no barriers to aid entering the country, to defend the government response.

But in La Guaira and elsewhere, bitter resentment towards the government is still widespread, even among some traditionally considered staunch supporters of the Chavista government. Among the complaints are that official rescue efforts were virtually nonexistent during the crucial first 72 hours, that they were woefully under-equipped once they did arrive and that officials have been more interested in photo opportunities than in owning up to past mistakes.

“In this area alone there are thousands of police and other security organs,” said one volunteer who took leave from his job in the Venezuelan National Guard to join the search effort.

“If each of them spent even two hours helping out here, we wouldn’t be in this situation,” he said, adding he risked losing his job.

Several residents recounted with satisfaction how they heckled the local mayor during a visit, one of several displays of public anger toward officials in recent weeks. A video shared widely online shows residents shouting “Get out!” at Rodríguez during a visit to one of the affected areas in late June.

“People have lost their fear,” Márquez, the sociologist, said. “This could be the Delcy government’s Malvinas moment,” he added, referring to the 1982 war known in the UK as the Falklands war that accelerated the collapse of Argentina’s military junta by exposing it as incompetent in the eyes of its own population.

The U.S., however, appears set on dragging her through the crisis. Shortly after the quake, U.S. chargé d’affairs John Barrett, the highest ranking American on the ground, told Venezuelan media he had “a great deal of confidence” in how the authorities were handling the disaster.

“I have seen total transparency and a concern for taking care of the people,” he added.

Visiting senior U.S. officials have publicly shaken hands with Cabello despite the fact that he is still on a U.S. wanted list and his former close ally Maduro sits in jail.

To many Venezuelans, those actions have sent an unequivocal message that Washington, which they see as actually running the country, is throwing its weight behind the current government, no matter how unpopular it may be.

Seemingly eager to turn a page on domestic tensions, the White House instead has shifted attention onto planned talks in August between the interim government and opposition-minded former lawmakers, with the eventual goal of holding new national elections. Notably, the talks will not include Venezuela’s most popular opposition leader, María Corina Machado, who, according to multiple reports, was thwarted in her efforts to return to Venezuela by the White House.

While many Venezuelans said they welcomed any step towards free elections, however modest, they also voiced concerns about the U.S. commitment to democracy and real change. The Trump administration’s anointment of Rodríguez and focus on profiting economically from the intervention has been especially discouraging to victims of Maduro’s repression.

“After January, we were hopeful, but seven months later it’s all about oil negotiations and nothing else,” said one woman at a rally organized by the Alliance for the Freedom of Political Prisoners rights group in Caracas.

Since the government passed a new amnesty law earlier this year, some 700 prisoners have been released but hundreds of others remain behind bars.

“U.S. diplomats are sitting down with the exact same people that are keeping our loved ones hostage… It feels like we’re being mocked,” the protester said bitterly. She asked to remain anonymous out of fear that speaking out would have repercussions for her incarcerated husband.

“People expected that Maduro’s departure would usher in a quick democratic transition,” Márquez said. “It didn’t happen because it wasn’t part of Trump’s plans, but that comes at the price of discrediting the U.S. leadership,” in the eyes of many Venezuelans, he said. The Rodríguez government’s faltering earthquake response further undermines U.S. standing.

Since January, “the perception of the U.S. has shifted from being the hero of the story to increasingly being questioned by the public,” said Ricardo Ríos, a Caracas-based public opinion expert.

Preliminary polling data for July suggests Venezuelans are grateful for U.S. aid following the disaster — which Barrett has said exceeds $310 million — but also that the politically active segments of the population are troubled by Washington’s undisguised support for an increasingly unpopular government.

“The poor handling of the disaster has destroyed Rodríguez’s ratings. Roughly 90 percent of the population now rejects her,” added Ríos, who heads the polling and consulting firm Poder & Estrategia. “From an electoral standpoint, that’s irreversible.”

A survey conducted for Bloomberg by the Brazilian pollster AtlasIntel in June found that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s approval rating in Venezuela had fallen 15 percentage points since February, dropping below Trump’s, which has fluctuated beneath 50 percent.

In La Guaira, as a middle-aged man sitting beside a makeshift shelter let out a piercing wail, Cristian, the student, said it could mean only one of two things.

“He’s either overwhelmed by the scope of the search, or he’s found the person he was looking for,” he remarked matter-of-factly.

With every passing day, as the bodies further decompose in the sweltering heat, the searchers’ chance of stumbling upon anything remotely resembling the person they once knew gets smaller. After weeks of looking, one mother finally found her son in the rubble — but only his head.

“At some point, after all this, I’ll have to see a psychologist or something,” said Cristian.

A day earlier, he recognized a mattress among the debris and felt a surge of hope. It meant he was getting closer.

Endorses billionaire tax

California Democratic Party endorses billionaire tax

The party’s executive board broke with several labor unions and Gavin Newsom on the measure.

By Blake Jones

The California Democratic Party on Sunday endorsed a November ballot measure to tax billionaires’ wealth, bucking Gov. Gavin Newsom and the influential labor unions that oppose it.

The party’s executive board narrowly voted to back the measure after earlier votes to endorse it and remain neutral failed. Rep. Maxine Waters attended the board meeting in San Diego, encouraging key yes votes to get Proposition 40 over the finish line, according to three people with knowledge of her efforts granted anonymity to discuss the politically fraught issue. The measure had previously garnered few endorsements from high-ranking elected officials in the party, including just one member of California’s congressional delegation, Rep. Ro Khanna.

Proponents of the tax initially fell just short of the 60 percent threshold needed to get the party’s backing, but later picked up a handful of votes to secure an endorsement. SEIU-UHW, the union that spearheaded the one-time, 5 percent levy on billionaires, quickly cast the outcome as evidence that rank-and-file Democrats were lining up behind the progressive proposal.

“This endorsement puts to rest the idea that California democrats are not united by the billionaire tax — they are,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, said in a statement. “Polling shows that more than 80% of registered Democrats support this critical solution to our healthcare crisis and now the Democratic party of California has officially embraced that strong support through this endorsement.”

Both sides raced to whip support ahead of the weekend vote, rolling out endorsements and polls to bolster their respective cases. A document shared with POLITICO and characterized as being used by the opposition broke down in detail how different party members might vote and who could be persuaded.

Waters’ support — adding to previous backing from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — seemed to energize party activists, some of whom chanted her name during the votes, according to one attendee. A representative for Waters’ campaign, when reached, did not immediately comment.

The party also voted to oppose two billionaire-backed measures to undercut Prop 40.

The wealth tax has divided labor unions, drawing opposition from the California Teachers Association and other powerful groups, in part because it has complicated efforts to extend an income tax on the wealthy that funds schools — a measure that will also appear on the November ballot. SEIU-UHW has pitched its wealth tax as a way to offset federal health care funding cuts, but opponents have warned the one-time levy will have unintended consequences, including driving ultrawealthy residents and their tax dollars out of state.

“Governor Newsom, Democratic Candidate for Governor Xavier Becerra, the California Teachers Association, California Professional Firefighters, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and so many others are standing together against Prop. 40 because it’s bad for our budget, bad for our economy, and bad for our future,” a spokesperson for one arm of the opposition said in a statement after the vote. “We need smart, durable solutions to our biggest challenges, not unreliable, untested schemes that shortchange healthcare, education, and public safety.”

The big finger....

Trump keeps escalating his trade threats. This time, Europe isn’t biting.

The EU believes Trump’s latest threats are best answered with strategic patience, not retaliation.

By Stefanie Bolzen and Camille Gijs

Washington is again ratcheting up the pressure on the European Union with new tariff threats. Brussels’ response is strikingly different from a year ago: Don’t retaliate, don’t put on a show for Donald Trump, and don’t let him dictate the timetable.

Trump’s recent threat to “immediately initiate” a trade investigation over the European Commission’s $1 billion fine against Google came on top of new tariffs on the EU and dozens of other trading partners, and continuing pressure from Washington over drug pricing.

But rather than sounding alarms and scrambling to respond to this new phase of Trump’s global trade war, the EU has shown public restraint — a reaction that suggests that the 27-member bloc has become less susceptible to Trump’s pressure tactics.

This year, European capitals saw their united rejection of Trump’s Greenland ambitions fail to trigger a wider transatlantic rupture. His most sweeping tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court, and their successors have drawn legal challenges. Now, with a chance that Trump’s grip on Washington loosens in the November midterm elections, Europeans are happy to play for time.

“It is a strategy of buying time through dialogue,” Bernd Lange, a German member of the European Parliament and chair of its Committee on International Trade, said in an interview. “The Commission’s approach is to move away from anything that could be seen as legally binding and focus instead on dialogue forums, consultation and areas where cooperation is possible.”

Last year, Brussels repeatedly bristled at Trump’s tariff threats, which at times reached as high as 50 percent, before agreeing to a trade truce at the U.S. president’s golf resort in Turnberry, Scotland. After months of delays that tested Washington’s patience, the EU fulfilled its side of the bargain by passing legislation in June to allow U.S. industrial and some agricultural goods to enter the bloc duty-free.

A USTR official, granted anonymity to share the administration’s thinking, credited the EU for implementing “key commitments,” in the Turnberry deal, “such as massive tariff reductions for U.S. exports, and has made concrete commitments on a number of other burdensome regulatory matters.”

“Any technical talks will be about implementing the remaining commitments, and the U.S. side anticipates this will move at pace,” the official added.

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

The EU law, however, also includes guardrails should Trump threaten the bloc again.

It didn’t take long for him to do so.

While the 10 percent tariff the U.S. government rolled out July 23 does not violate the Turnberry agreement, which caps U.S. duties on most EU goods at 15 percent, Trump’s threats to investigate Europe’s digital restrictions in the wake of the Google fine would likely do so. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has yet to launch an official investigation, but the official there confirmed to POLITICO that the agency expected “to initiate the investigation soon”. That could allow the White House to layer on more tariffs on EU imports.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is also conducting a separate trade investigation into Germany’s pharmaceutical pricing and has suggested he could launch similar reviews of other European countries’ drug pricing practices as well.

Those investigations, however, will take months to resolve, if not longer.

“The second phase of the trade war touches a nerve in Europe: sovereignty. Whether it concerns taxation, health care systems or competition policy, these are areas the EU sees as core to its autonomy,” said Jeromin Zettelmeyer, a former International Monetary Fund and German government official who now heads Brussels-based think tank Bruegel.

“At the same time, Trump no longer appears as politically untouchable as he did at the start of his presidency. Weakening poll numbers ahead of the midterms, controversy over the Iran war and legal setbacks in the U.S. Supreme Court have exposed vulnerabilities,” Zettelmeyer said.

In the meantime, EU officials are keeping channels to Washington open. The thinking in Brussels is that every public confrontation plays to Trump’s preferred negotiating style, whereas slower legal and technical processes give the EU more room to manage disputes on its own terms.

Nor is German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in a rush to offer concessions to the Trump administration on drug pricing, according to a European official familiar with the issue who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks. Berlin expects the U.S. trade investigation to take at least a year, the person noted.

Brussels is in close touch with Berlin on the probe, which it believes could be a blueprint for other possible U.S. trade investigations into France and Italy’s pharmaceutical policies. Ditte Juul Jørgensen, head of the Commission’s trade department, recently met with German officials in Berlin to focus on a way forward on drug pricing.

The Commission has adopted a similar strategy on transatlantic disagreements on digital policy.

While the Trump administration has pressed for broader talks, including on the enforcement of the EU’s competition rules governing Big Tech platforms, Brussels has taken pains to keep the discussions at a technical level.

In early July, a group of officials from the European Commission’s trade and tech departments headed to Washington for what a Commission spokesperson described as “a dialogue on the dialogue.”

A senior Commission official said the meeting was about seeing where the two sides could “partner up,” with Brussels looking at holding a “high-level” meeting with Washington in the fall and a series of technical rounds in between.

“From the EU’s perspective, both sort of genetically as an organization and tactically, they would be happy if as many of the discussions as possible moved to the technical level in dialogue committees rather than have it be, like, Donald Trump and somebody going at it on Twitter or in competing press statements,” said Dmitry Grozoubinski, a former trade diplomat for the Australian government and the founder of ExplainTrade, an outlet based in Geneva.

The Commission responded with characteristic restraint after Trump threatened retaliation over the latest Google fine. After the U.S. president’s Truth Social post, Brussels emphasized it would seek “technical-level contact” between the EU and the U.S., said deputy chief spokesperson Olof Gill. A meeting at a higher, political level hasn’t yet been confirmed.

However, several people familiar with the matter confirmed they were expecting a reaction from the U.S., possibly in the form of a new 301 investigation.

“I have not heard anything yet on timing for the launch or scope of the Section 301 investigation,” said a U.S. tech industry representative, who was granted anonymity to discuss the conversations with administration officials. “But I believe this has been in the works for some time as a means of leverage in U.S. negotiations with the EU.”

Europe’s strategy depends on shifting disputes out of Trump’s preferred arena of public confrontation. But officials acknowledge that this bet rests on one unpredictable factor: Trump himself.

“We cannot let our guard down,” another Commission official said. “Trump may change course at any moment. His focus is on how markets react to his policies, not on how the EU behaves.”

Data center development

Kansas’ data center boom is shaking up the governor’s race

Republican and Democratic rivals are attacking each other over their positions on data center development in the final stretch of the primary.

By Liz Crampton

The fight over data centers has suddenly become a defining battle in the race to run Kansas — on both sides of the aisle.

Gubernatorial hopefuls are trying to leverage the issue to weaken their rivals in the final stretch before Tuesday’s primaries, with attack ads, dark money and accusations of flip-flopping roiling the race. Democratic state Sen. Cindy Holscher and GOP state Sen. Ty Masterson, two of the top contenders in their respective fields, are bearing the brunt of the criticism.

Republican businessman Philip Sarnecki has spent more than $300,000 on ads attacking Masterson for voting for a bill last year to expand data center construction and give 20-year tax breaks to developers, accusing him of being beholden to big tech.

On the Democratic side, Holscher voted for the same bill but has now staked out a populist stance calling for a moratorium on data centers — an appeal to the same grassroots base that has put her in a strong position to win. Her primary opponents are attacking her as a flip-flopper, and social media ads fueled by anonymous backers keep highlighting her past vote in support of data centers. She’s up against state Sen. Ethan Corson, whom Gov. Laura Kelly endorsed, and Overland Park Mayor Kurt Skoog.

The brawl shows just how divisive and complicated the politics of data centers has become, as politicians in both parties struggle to define a clear winning position on the mass hubs amid growing voter backlash. A July POLITICO Poll found that Americans are increasingly souring on data centers, a trend that’s especially evident among Democrats but crosses partisan lines.

Republican and Democratic candidates are harnessing that opposition to gain an edge in crowded primaries, a rare moment of partisan crossover that speaks to its potency.

In Kansas, a state with nearly 40 data centers and many pending proposals, local opposition to the industry has animated city council meetings from Wichita to Kansas City. Several towns, like Topeka, have chosen to pass one-year moratoriums to give leaders more time to study the proposals.

Now, the state’s top race is getting caught in the crossfire, as Democrats look for a way to hold onto the governor’s mansion after eight years under Kelly — and Republicans grow bullish about taking back the seat in a red state that voted for President Donald Trump by 16 points in 2024.

“It’s bleeding across both primaries and it’s blurring traditional party stances,” said Bob Beatty, a political science professor at Washburn University in Topeka, who said the rapidly shifting politics speak to a growing “fear around AI.”

Tuesday’s Kansas primaries will help show the party bases’ appetite for data centers — signaling whether voters are looking for a leader who takes a strong position against new developments or a middle-of-the-road approach aimed at bringing in more tax revenue.

Both Masterson’s and Holscher’s campaigns are dismissive that the attack ads will work.

“It’s a very kind of kitchen sink approach here at the end,” said a Masterson campaign adviser, granted anonymity to speak freely about the race. The aide argued that the attacks have been ineffective against the state Senate president, especially given he’s the Trump-endorsed candidate in a state the president won three times.

Holscher, who said in an interview she regrets her vote, argued her new position reflects where people across the state stand now: “This is a unifying issue in terms of where people are on it, urban and rural as well as young and old,” she said in an interview. “I’m the only Democrat in this race to call for a moratorium on data centers because we have to get these guardrails in place. We are having our people and our resources exploited.”

Data center construction — and hostility towards them — exploded after passage of the 2025 legislation backed by Holscher and Masterson, which saw widestrong bipartisan support and was signed by Kelly, a pro-business Democrat.

Masterson has said that “folks build here on our terms, or they don’t build here,” and that local communities should be in charge of deciding whether they want the infrastructure. He supports a Kansas version of the White House’s position on data centers — a voluntary commitment designed to prevent them from driving up utility bills.

But several of his Republican opponents take a more hardline approach by calling for an outright moratorium, like Sarnecki and Insurance Commissioner Vicki Schmidt, another candidate in the top tier of the field.

The Kansas Comeback PAC, linked to Sarnecki, has challenged Masterson’s vote for the 2025 bill. “After 20 years in politics, Ty Masterson has mastered the game,” the TV ad by Kansas Comeback PAC says. “Thousands from big tech. Rewarded them with tax breaks.”

On the Democratic side, it’s difficult to tell who’s leading the field given limited public polling. Holscher’s supporters have cast the race as a choice between a populist fighter and a safe establishment figure, and they believe she will be boosted by the national tailwinds propelling leftwing candidates in states like Colorado, New York and Michigan. One survey from June, conducted before the candidates began running ads, had Holscher up by 27 points.

Corson is also backed by former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Lt. Gov. David Toland, and supporters believe he has the necessary crossparty appeal to win the general election in conservative Kansas. Kelly cut a TV ad on his behalf that started to run in major media markets last week.

While Holscher now wants to pause construction to give time to develop regulations, Corson supports construction moving forward with data center development, with guardrails around energy costs and water usage.

“Cindy seems to think that we should just go along with her flip-flopping and not making up her mind and doing what’s politically convenient for her race, and that’s not what we’re going to do.” said Ty Dragoo, chair of the Working Kansas Alliance, a group of more than 23 unions. Corson has raked in endorsements from trades unions like those represented by Dragoo’s group.

“Our north star is to get jobs, to get high-paying jobs, and to get sustaining jobs, and we’re not going to deviate from that.”

Holscher says her experience holding town halls throughout the state, including in deep red areas, opened her eyes to the depth of the opposition to the developments, which have sparked concerns about human health and environmental harms like water usage.

“She’s been listening, and people just want to be heard,” said Democratic state Rep. Linda Featherston, a Holscher supporter. “You have to be out amongst the people listening to what they have to say and not just brushing them off.”

But Holscher’s push for a moratorium has alienated some county, state and labor leaders who see an opportunity for data centers to boost the state’s economy. Corson is advocating for a local-first approach where communities get to decide whether they want to welcome the industry, while at the same time instituting statewide regulations so that the facilities pay energy costs, minimize water usage and ease the tax burden on residents nearby.

“Ultimately, these decisions should be made by communities, not by politicians in Topeka,” Corson said in a statement. “I believe some communities will look at a potential project and decide to move forward, and when they do, my Department of Commerce will work side-by-side with them to make it as beneficial for the community as possible. But other communities will decide that a data center is not a good fit, and as governor, I will absolutely respect that decision.”

Corson’s war chest also puts him in a good position to face off against likely opponent Masterson, who will bring the force of the national GOP’s deep pockets. The Republican Governors Association has already placed a nearly $7 million TV ad reservation in major Kansas media markets starting immediately after the primary.

Do you really think they will follow it???? Want to buy a bridge????

White House finalizes voluntary AI oversight framework

The administration is preparing to brief leading AI companies on its blueprint for reviewing advanced AI models.

By Cheyenne Haslett and Owen Dahlkamp

The White House has a framework for how to review advanced AI models, according to an administration official, but did not detail it or say whether it would be released to the public.

AI companies are expected to review a draft Tuesday at a meeting with the Office of the National Cyber Director, according to four people familiar with the planning who were granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The framework will shape how the federal government works with the country’s leading AI developers before and after their most advanced models are deployed, and comes as the Trump administration seeks to address potential safety and national security risks while pursuing a mostly light-touch regulatory approach to the technology.

“The voluntary framework outlined in the June 2nd executive order was complete by the deadline,” said a White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal policy deliberations. “Discussions with industry about next steps are underway.”

The framework has not been released to industry, which was working closely with the White House on its contours over the last few weeks, and it’s unclear if it will be publicly released. The order does not stipulate one way or the other, though the voluntary nature of the order raises questions about how companies that aren’t briefed by the White House on the framework will be able to opt in, should it not be released more widely. The deadline for the framework was Aug. 1, 60 days after the executive order was signed, according to the order.

Meta, Anthropic and Google will be among the companies in attendance at the ONCD meeting, three of the people said.

Google, OpenAI and Anthropic jointly reviewed a draft and submitted edits in late July, as POLITICO previously reported.

The four companies did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last-minute grassroots revolt?

Michigan’s GOP governor primary is getting weird

John James has Donald Trump’s coveted endorsement and leads in the polls. Can he fight back a last-minute grassroots revolt?

By Emilio Perez Ibarguen

Michigan Republicans haven’t had a better shot to win the governorship in over a decade. Deciding who should take it is turning into an ugly, hyper-online brawl.

With widespread name recognition and an endorsement from President Donald Trump, Rep. John James appears poised to be the GOP nominee ahead of Michigan’s primary Tuesday.

But the West Point graduate once thought of as a rising star within the national GOP is facing stiff resistance from an outspoken grassroots wing of the state party, which is rallying around his sole remaining competitor.

“I think you’re gonna be surprised when this race comes down,” said Oakland County GOP Chair Vance Patrick, who endorsed businessperson-turned-outsider candidate Perry Johnson in the closing weeks of the race. “It’s getting really interesting.”

As James and Johnson careen toward a contest to decide who faces likely Democratic nominee and current Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, the campaigning is getting weird. Johnson has launched increasingly caustic and personal attacks against James, who has led the field since he entered the race.

And Johnson cuts an odd figure for a leading contender: He is perhaps best known for his quixotic 2024 presidential bid, which came after a 2022 gubernatorial campaign fell apart amid a nominating petition scandal.

But state party officials and grassroots activists have also shared publicly and privately a litany of complaints about James: resentment over too many debates missed early on in the campaign, not enough visits to specific parts of the state, frustration over him giving away a battleground House seat Democrats are targeting this cycle to run for a new job after losing two previous statewide elections.

Nonetheless, even his detractors insist that Republican voters will rally around the eventual nominee. Patrick, whose county party — which includes parts of metro Detroit that fall within James’ district — received $13,350 from the Johnson campaign, said Republicans “will join lockstep behind the guy that wins the primary.”

The intra-party consternation comes at a pivotal moment for Michigan Republicans, who’ve watched eight years of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s leadership — and yawning statewide victories — with disdain.

Meanwhile, Democrats appear ready to elevate Benson, who has built a $6.4 million war chest as of mid-July — albeit dwarfed by Johnson’s personal wealth — thanks to a prolific fundraising advantage. The secretary of state appears to be en route to easily beat Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson for the nomination.

And Trump winning the state in 2024 is no assurance for Republicans, who saw their Senate candidate falter to now-Sen. Elissa Slotkin in the same year. Now, the GOP is facing an uphill battle amid rising gas prices brought on by a deeply unpopular war in Iran that is causing headaches for the party nationwide.

Finding a nominee who can win over independents and compete in the mother of all swing states is paramount, some Republicans say, and they’re not sure James is it.

“There’s a large amount of Republicans that do not like him,” said Hassan Nehme, a former vice chair of the Michigan GOP and current candidate for state Legislature, referring to some voters’ hesitance about James’ voting record.

The Johnson campaign has launched vitriolic personal attacks at James throughout the race. Johnson, who is white, has referred to James, one of the few Black Republicans in Congress and the sole Black candidate in the race, as a “DEI candidate,” and accused him of playing the “race card” during a recent debate. James, in turn, has characterized Johnson as “desperate.”

The campaign has also turned to promoting an unsubstantiated rumor, while providing no evidence, about James’ personal life, reposting social media posts that attack James.

Tori Sachs, a senior adviser for the James campaign, characterized Johnson’s attacks in a statement as “lies” that are exposing “a desperate, career candidate who has no grasp on reality and no friends that he didn’t buy.”

“Never-Trumper Perry Johnson has burned through over $70 million attacking Trump and James with lies, only to crash toward his third loss in three cycles,” she said.

Such plays are emblematic of Johnson’s campaign strategy, which has leaned heavily online and embraced a constituency of right-leaning grassroots organizers. On social media, he’s employed artificial intelligence to construct sometimes bizarre ads, including a six-minute long odyssey in which he doggedly pursues James on foot, bus and helicopter in order to debate him.

Brian Szmytke, a campaign spokesperson for the Johnson campaign, reiterated in a statement that “John James is unelectable in a general election,” listing several attacks levied during the campaign.

The scrappy turn in the campaign intensified when former state Attorney General Mike Cox, who was also courting voters skeptical of the GOP establishment, dropped out of the race in mid-July. But even before then, Republican officials across the state had expressed doubts about James.

That the Johnson campaign has attacked James on such personal terms points to the campaign’s dire straits, said John Sellek, a Michigan-based Republican political consultant.

“We’ve turned a corner since Cox got out, where the Perry Johnson campaign has been throwing haymakers on what look like less than prime issues because they know the end is here,” Sellek said.

That’s all despite a huge spending advantage for the self-funding Johnson.

He has spent over $32 million getting on the airwaves, while James’ campaign has spent $2.4 million, according to advertising insight firm AdImpact.

“All the typical support mechanisms are moving toward James, even though he is being wildly outspent,” said Sellek.

Before appearing in a set of televised debates held in July, James had abstained from participating in several debates held earlier in the primary. James at the time defended skipping the events, saying he was more focused on uniting the party than bickering with candidates. But some voters took his absence as a sign of disengagement from the grassroots.

Daire Rendon — the Republican Party chair for Michigan’s 1st District, which covers the entire Upper Peninsula and swaths of northern Michigan — suggested that James doesn’t connect with voters in her rural region.

Rendon, a former state representative who was charged for her alleged involvement in a scheme to unlawfully access voting machines after the 2020 election, noted that “we don’t see John James much.”

“They are going to gravitate towards candidates who spend time learning about [the Upper Peninsula], and who show up,” said Rendon, who pleaded not guilty and whose case is ongoing.

Detractors have also criticized James for running for governor in the first place, viewing the contested House seat he’s leaving behind as more valuable amid the GOP’s slim majority and as Republicans stare down an unfavorable midterm cycle. Trump also initially took issue with his gubernatorial ambitions, grousing about it publicly, before endorsing him in June.

“You don’t blow off 80 million in an investment to get you elected to Congress, and in one term leave,” said Muskegon County GOP Chair Tim Cross. (James was first elected to the House in 2022.)

James, however, also appears to have a slew of grassroots support himself. Several Michigan Republicans touted James in interviews with POLITICO, including former state legislator and Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido, who said James is “a proven leader, and he’s gonna continue to go ahead and govern and lead.”

Public and private polling appears to indicate that James remains comfortably in the lead. An internal poll, shared with POLITICO, of more than 700 likely primary voters conducted for the Cox campaign in the days before he dropped out in mid-July showed James leading with 36 percent points, with Johnson trailing at 23 percent and Cox at 21 percent.

Likely Cox voters split for Johnson over James as their second choice, 44 percent to 38 percent respectively.

James, the Cox campaign wrote in a memo to donors and supporters attached to the polling, “benefited by hundreds of millions of dollars targeted toward voters, specifically in Southeast Michigan, over the past several election cycles, coupled with the endorsement of President Donald Trump, creating a scenario where James’ lead is largely insulated.”

Now, the James campaign is rolling out its line of endorsements ranging from state representatives, senators and conservative activists, with Trump’s endorsement as a crown jewel.

The president brought James on stage at a late July rally outside Detroit, where the candidate asserted, falsely, for the first time that Trump won Michigan in 2020. James had previously said that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, though he said earlier this cycle that he was “screwed” that year when he lost his Senate bid.

“You have to win,” the president told James onstage Monday. “You have to win.”

TACO Monday....

Iran signals no immediate U.S. talks after Trump says negotiations to resume

Washington says negotiations will resume Monday.

By Milena Wälde

Iran said Monday there are currently no direct talks with the United States, after President Donald Trump said negotiations would resume. Speaking at his weekly news conference, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran’s current negotiations are limited to Oman and focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

“Our negotiations are with Oman. We are focused on an understanding on a route that will ensure the safe passage of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz,” Baghaei said at a news conference, according to Iran’s state news agency IRNA.

He added that “the focus of the negotiations with Oman will be on this issue,” while “the issues related to Iran and the United States should be examined in the next stages to see where the situation will go.”

U.S. President Donald Trump said negotiations with Iran would resume Monday, after scrapping a planned military strike over the weekend. Speaking on Sunday, the American leader also refused to set a deadline for reaching a broader deal with Tehran.

“They knew the extent of the attack because they saw it forming. Now what we’re doing is we’re talking to them in the form of a negotiation. It begins tomorrow afternoon, and we’ll see,” said Trump, talking to reporters aboard Air Force One.

Asked whether he had imposed a deadline, the U.S. president responded: “Would I rather make a deal? I’m not looking to kill people because people die, a lot of people die, and we don’t want that.”

Trump’s remarks came on the heels of his early Sunday announcement on Truth Social that the U.S. was shelving a “massive attack,” after Iran and several Middle Eastern countries asked Washington to pause military action while negotiators worked toward an agreement. He said the framework under discussion included the “Immediate, Complete, and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT” and an end to Iran’s nuclear threat, adding that Israel had also agreed to pause strikes.

Baghaei stated there would be “no significant change” in the situation in the Strait of Hormuz as long as Iran remained under what he described as U.S. military pressure.