A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



July 08, 2026

5% defense spending plan

Trump hints at Spain's cooperation with NATO's 5% defense spending plan

By Maureen Chowdhury

US President Donald Trump said that a majority of NATO member countries have agreed to boosting defense spending to 5% of their GDP.

The president suggested Spain could also be on board, after Trump repeatedly criticized European allies over defense spending and singled out Spain earlier.

During his NATO news conference, Trump said that “most countries have agreed to it.”

“We have a couple of a couple of that didn’t. But I have a feeling they’re going to and pretty quickly; in fact, today they were very positive. One of them in particular was, I didn’t think a good team player, today was a great team player,” he said.

Some background: Spain is the only member of NATO that had refused to commit to the increased spending targets, securing an exemption to cap its military spending at 2.1% of its gross domestic product, instead of the higher 5% target that other nations plan to reach by 2035. Among NATO allies, Spain is tied for last in terms of defense spending as a percentage of the country’s GDP.

Asked about the lack of support from Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy during the war with Iran, Trump said:

“Well, I’ll tell you what, number one, Spain has been very bad. But, you know, Italy has been good and almost all of the countries have been good. They just had a bad moment.”

I would not cry if something happened to the worm........

DOGE Ended on July 4, But the Workers Whose Lives Musk Upended Are Still Reeling

“It’s hard to explain. Like, this is not a normal job loss.”

Anna Rogers

When Lucy found out she was pregnant in the summer of 2025, she might have been delighted. Instead, the news added to the uncertainty she’d been facing since that February, when she was among the first crop of federal workers fired by the Trump administration.

Her old bosses at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) wanted to rehire her, but human resources offered nothing in writing, and given how the administration had treated her already, she just couldn’t trust the proposal. (She would eventually return as a contractor, hence her request that I use a pseudonym—one former colleague, after all, had been fired for putting up a protest sign.)

President Donald Trump has claimed repeatedly that the career workers his minions drove out—roughly 317,000 were fired, quit, or took a buyout since he returned to the White House—are “getting private sector jobs” and making “twice as much money, three times as much money.” Even the judge who ruled those early firings illegal was under that impression. The workers “have moved on with their lives and found new jobs,” he stated last fall. “Many would no longer be willing or able to return to their posts.”

That wasn’t Lucy’s experience. She’d applied for at least 80 positions, resulting in just two dead-end interviews, though her PhD and ample work experience had made her well-qualified. By the time she knew she was expecting, she’d accepted a retail gig without health insurance. Similar stories abounded among her former colleagues.

I, too, left a job at the NIH last year—voluntarily, having seen the writing on the wall. My old workmates and I keep in touch via a group Signal chat, which, in addition to hand-drawn protest signs and pictures of pets, has been populated with tips for job seekers, mutual aid info, and countless employment postings.

Lucy, whom I hadn’t met prior to reporting this story, figured she wasn’t an outlier in terms of her difficulties finding suitable work. As the anniversary of the so-called Valentine’s Day Massacre approached, the members of one of her Signal chats began talking about designing a survey to assess how ejected workers were really faring.

Among the laid-off workers were plenty of people skilled in collecting and analyzing data—including Lucy, an epidemiologist, who raised her hand to help. “It came from me not being okay and wanting to see if other people were as not okay as I was,” she says.

“I’ve done a lot of different analysis projects, worked with a lot of data. I’ve never done something that was personal like this,” says Christa Reynolds, another fired NIH employee who helped crunch the numbers. “In one way, it was validating. In another way, it just was terrible.”

The data they collected—300 responses across 14 federal agencies and nearly every state—suggested that the fired workers had not, by and large, settled into high-paying private sector jobs. Many struggled to find work, with about 40 percent searching for at least six months. A year after Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cut them loose, almost 17 percent remained unemployed.

And not for lack of trying. Brier Ryver, who also helped design the survey, said they applied to at least 110 jobs after getting fired as a park ranger for a federal wildlife refuge in Florida. Wildlife conservation “is an extremely competitive field,” Ryver told me. Most of their applications were for local government positions, in dozens of states.

“Every single county government and every single state government and every single university has a different website to apply through, so I had to create accounts for every single one,” Ryver says. “I’d stay up till 3 a.m. applying and overthinking and making my materials look as good as I can.”

Seasonal work was a nonstarter—at first. “I need benefits in some way, shape, or form,” Ryver explains. But as rejections piled up, their expectations grew more flexible: “I’m going to take little money over no money.”

In the survey, more than two-thirds of the workers who had found jobs reported taking a pay cut. One interpretation might be that federal salaries were “bloated,” as House Republicans misleadingly put it in a 2024 proposal to slash benefits for civil servants. But a fairer interpretation is that they took what they could get in a hostile job market—even if overqualified. “There are a lot of families who are two-fed households, one was probationary and the other was RIFed,” Lucy notes, using the acronym for “reductions in force,” a.k.a. layoffs.

The survey focused on probationary employees, whom the administration went after first. Legally, they were easier to terminate because they’d been in their roles less than two years, though many were longtime contractors or seasoned civil servants transferring from other positions. “Probationary sounds like they’re just out of college,” former IRS chief John Koskinen told one of my Mother Jones colleagues as DOGE hit his agency. “A lot of them came with very sophisticated backgrounds…They weren’t 25-year-olds. They were filling important positions.” 

Either way, many of the fired workers shouldered financial risks for the opportunity to serve the public. “I uprooted my life and moved across country to take this new position to a place where I had no community,” one of them, a single mother, wrote in her survey response. Another said their spouse had quit their job to enable the move. Nearly a third of the surveyed workers reported financial losses related to moving or housing instability. Some drew down their retirement savings—nearly one in six took out a loan.

The Federal Harms Tracker, a project of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, estimates that Trump’s layoffs have cost taxpayers more than $70 billion, and that’s not even counting the inevitable fallout when the country’s largest employer sheds more than 7 percent of its personnel. Nearly half of respondents in the probationary workers’ survey said they’d delayed major life events, like getting married or buying a home. “It’s comparable to the pandemic,” notes Tracy Hadden Loh, a fellow at the Brookings Institute who tracks economic indicators in the DC area to study the layoffs’ impacts.

A recent report by Loh and her colleagues found that home prices in DC, which boasted the nation’s highest unemployment rate in 2025, have dropped by a quarter compared to 2019, and inflation-adjusted rents have plummeted, though “no tenant feels like the rent went down.” Housing remains expensive relative to incomes, and as fired federal workers tightened their belts, the researchers saw declines in all types of spending.

But the majority of federal workers resided outside the capital, and unemployment spiked in states where they had the biggest presence. Locales with strong federal ties were also vulnerable. Ryver, for example, worked at the only wildlife refuge designated for the protection of Florida’s manatees: “The local economy was very based on manatee tourism.”

Ryver managed the commercial permits that allowed tour groups to operate, and assessed buildings, boardwalks, and other facilities to ensure they were safe for public use. The refuge was understaffed even before DOGE came along. “We were already drowning in work and deferred maintenance,” Ryver says.

Beyond the inevitable deterioration of government services, the firings have been terribly wasteful—a serious brain drain. “They lost all this money that they spent training us and recruiting,” Reynolds explains, and rehiring fired workers as contractors, which happens a fair bit, is generally more costly—and less stable. “I don’t feel secure,” Lucy told me. “I feel like any day they could pull my contract.”

“There can be people who, of course, get new jobs, and they can look fine from the outside, and they can feel better, but the nervous system is really changed,” says Rosalyn Beroza, a therapist who specializes in trauma. “It’s a state where none of the givens held, and you can draw a line between before and after—nothing feels the same afterwards. That’s what has happened to federal employees.”

Beroza, a DC local and daughter of a government scientist, has spent her entire life around civil servants. And so, in early 2025, she began assembling a network of therapists willing to offer free or low-cost therapy to departing federal workers. “The demand was huge,” she says. “I got so many people wanting help, and it was so sad.”

Russell Vought, director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, had promised to put federal workers “in trauma” and the data suggest he succeeded: In the survey Lucy and her colleagues designed, 95 percent of the fired employees reported new mental health symptoms, including nervousness, insomnia, difficulty concentrating, and thoughts of self-harm. “If it weren’t for my family, if it weren’t for my friends, my community around me, I would not be here,” Lucy says.

When I reached out to Reynolds, the mental health stats were the first thing she wanted to talk about, but she wasn’t sure the public would care. “I’ve heard other people be like, ‘Oh, well people lose their jobs every day,’” she says. “It’s hard to explain. Like, this is not a normal job loss.”

Beroza agrees. “It’s not an overreaction, because of the way that these firings took place,” she says. “It’s essentially a natural disaster, because you lose everything. You lose finances, but you also lose your identity, your sense of purpose, your sense of the future.”

If there were any guardrails, federal workers no longer trust them. “I expected some bad things to happen, but I thought that they would follow laws,” Reynolds recalls. If not, she figured Congress or the courts would step up. But Congress demurred and the courts were too little, too late.

Another survey, conducted last year by the Federal News Network, suggested that 95 percent of federal employees who stayed on have experienced increased anxiety and depression since Trump came back to office. More than four out of five considered quitting for mental health reasons.

In a recent analysis, the Government Accountability Office classified more than three quarters of last year’s federal departures as voluntary. But though opting into the deferred resignation program—Musk’s notorious “fork in the road”—was technically a choice, it wasn’t much of one. “Many people did that because they were told that their jobs were going to be eliminated, so how voluntary is that?” Loh, the economic analyst, asks.

I can relate. A few weeks after Trump returned to office, my government-supplied laptop wouldn’t let me log in. It turned out to be a technical issue, but for 30 minutes I thought I’d been fired. Colleagues had already been placed on administrative leave, articles and educational materials I’d worked on were scratched off federal websites, and I’d been all but prohibited from doing my job.

Once my first colleague was axed, I’d been jumpy at every email and increasingly nauseous every day I clocked in. When the password to my work computer was suddenly defective, I mostly felt relief. I put in my resignation a few days later. On paper, my departure was voluntary, though I wouldn’t have left if not for the hostility Musk, Trump, Vought, and the rest leveled at dedicated civil servants.

Like Lucy, despite countless applications, I spent more than six months unemployed, resorted to gig work to pay my bills, and (like one in four fired workers surveyed) began taking a psychiatric medication—in my case to deal with new heights of anxiety. It helped, but that period still haunts me.

Roughly 90 percent of the survey respondents reported that mental health symptoms triggered by their job losses were still affecting them a year later. Ryver recalls “some skill regression” as a result. “It erodes your cognitive abilities, your problem-solving abilities, to have to operate at such high levels of activation,” says Beroza, the trauma therapist.

Many fired federal workers say they wouldn’t go back to working for the government. Lucy, who did so out of necessity, can understand that. Her reinstatement process, too, was anxiety inducing. It lasted half a year, for most of which she couldn’t reach anyone in human resources and had nothing in writing—and no functional health insurance.

Which is why she had to find an obstetrician willing to see uninsured patients. During her first appointment, the doctor couldn’t detect a fetal heartbeat, and Lucy was told to schedule a followup. “Those were the longest two weeks of my life,” she remembers.

Her pregnancy, it turned out, wasn’t viable, which threatened to become a financial blow in addition to an emotional one. Lucy required a procedure the doctor’s office said would cost $5,000 out of pocket. She and her partner hit the phones and eventually learned she could get the same treatment at Planned Parenthood for $650—which still wasn’t easy. “That time would have been a lot less stressful if I had insurance,” she recalls.

In the workers’ survey, a third of the fired employees said they had delayed medical care. Those with chronic diseases reported worsening symptoms, one writing, “My life was in danger during that time.”

DOGE officially came to an end on July 4, according to the executive order that created it. The passing of this expiration date feels weirdly anticlimactic—perhaps because Musk and his underlings haven’t been active in the onslaught for some time now, or because some parts of the government are showing signs of returning to normalcy, at least on paper. Hard-hit agencies, including the IRS, are now hiring, sometimes at rates surpassing the earlier layoffs. Health and Human Services, where Lucy and Reynolds both worked, is looking to add 12,000 workers—20 percent more than it shed.

Agencies are recruiting former federal workers for many of the roles, but the vast majority of those workers are wary—if not shellshocked. When the Partnership for Public Service surveyed more than 11,000 remaining federal workers last fall, 58 percent said they were “less engaged” than a year earlier, and only 10 percent trusted the political leadership—which, as Reynolds points out, has “been upfront about not respecting us and not caring for our work.”

Reynolds doubts the damage this administration has wrought—on institutional knowledge and the trust and dedication of career employees—is reversible. “It gets beyond that personal feeling of hurt for being fired,” she says. Because even if federal agencies are repopulated, it’s hard to be confident they’ll adhere to the public-facing missions that once motivated Reynolds and other civil servants. “The long-term effects” of the layoffs, she says, “are definitely one of the more stressful things for me.”

He is a fucking brain-damaged turd....

Trump yelled at NATO leaders in public. In private, it was a different story.

The president started his visit to Ankara berating the NATO alliance. Something changed before he left.

By Paul McLeary, Victor Jack and Dasha Burns

President Donald Trump spent his first hours at the NATO summit publicly bashing the alliance and reciting a list of grievances that had allies fearing the worst.

Then he went behind closed doors and changed his tune.

The president was far more positive on Wednesday, when he gave a final 30-minute speech which left out his desire to annex Greenland or criticize Spain, his latest European punching bag, according to four people, who were granted anonymity to relay details of the private meeting. While there was some criticism, there were also plenty of compliments.

“We want to remain with you,” Trump said, according to a second participant in the meeting.

The shift was a notable about-face for a president who has threatened repeatedly to leave the alliance — and came after European leaders heaped praise on Trump for helping ensure allies boosted their defense spending. But those in attendance weren’t clear what specifically changed his stance.

“It was a bit unexpected, the mood in the room was a lot better than it seemed before,” according to one of the four people. “His mood seems to have swung.”

Trump bragged about the U.S. military’s prowess and thanked leaders from Poland, Germany, the Baltic states and Norway for their contributions to the alliance.

“We just had our NATO meeting, and it was a great meeting,” Trump said ahead of a separate meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “You probably heard it was a great meeting, a lot of…there was a lot of love in that room.”

His remarks represented a sharp turn from his condemnations on Tuesday and Wednesday when he lambasted NATO for failing to help with the Iran war and bristled at Spain’s refusal to spend more on defense. Trump went so far as to call for the U.S. and other countries to cut ties with Spain.

He didn’t mention any particular nations on the “naughty list” in the meeting, said one diplomat. “Just in his public remarks.”

The turnaround also underscores why European leaders remain on tenterhooks around the president, who relishes his own unpredictability. America’s carefully crafted diplomatic statements are increasingly a relic and what Trump says at one meeting may not represent his views at the next.

“I mean that’s what’s in the room,” said an alliance official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Let’s see what he says in public.”

European leaders have gone out of their way to praise the U.S. president during the summit. NATO chief Mark Rutte even told POLITICO that Trump’s push to boost defense spending is “great news” for allies.

But the tension is far from settled. Hanging over the remainder of the conference is the renewed hostilities with Iran and the issue of Greenland, which Trump has insisted needs to be “controlled” by the U.S.

Shortly after Trump’s earlier bombastic remarks about Greenland, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the island was not for sale, a position shared by her alliance colleagues.

“It is a well-known position of the United States that it wants to own and take over Greenland,” Frederiksen said. “I hope that it is equally well-known everywhere that this is not going to happen.”

Let's all say it... "HE IS A FUCKING IDIOT!"

NATO allies temper expectations for summit after Trump’s angry entrance

Whether the summit ends in reassurance or rupture may come down to Wednesday, when Trump meets Ukraine’s president and weighs in on the future of U.S. forces in Europe.

By Felicia Schwartz, Paul McLeary and Jack Detsch

America’s NATO allies had hoped President Donald Trump would arrive in Turkey’s capital in a dealmaking mood. Instead he came out swinging, leaving allies once again guessing at his commitment to their defense.

Trump revived a host of grievances against NATO within hours of landing. He said what happens in Ukraine doesn’t affect Washington and repeated his assertions that Greenland should be controlled by the United States.

NATO allies announced billions in new weapons deals and laid out plans for increased spending. And across the grounds of the Bestepe Presidential Compound, many attendees were hanging on to hope that the outcome of the summit could still be positive — but frustrated that the mood had soured so quickly.

“We’re all doing exactly what the Americans demanded and what we have to do for our own security,” a NATO diplomat said. “But a morning of big new defense spending is now overshadowed by complaints over Greenland.”

Allies were especially surprised given Trump’s aides had said ahead of the summit that the U.S. was looking for a constructive two days.

“He’s already taken us off a unifying positive objective,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D.-Del.) “It is so often the case that the president provides his own counter-programming to his own administration.”

NATO’s members have made considerable effort to keep this week’s summit low-key, hoping like last year, that Trump will leave striking a positive tone and without causing any lasting damage to the alliance.

A number of attendees at the meeting of the 32-member alliance worried that Trump’s sour mood would carry over into Wednesday, when they are looking for him to clarify Washington’s intentions for troop pullbacks in Europe, voice support for Ukraine at a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and hold a news conference before he returns to Washington.

Even if Trump’s comments cast a shadow over the proceedings, his grievances and posturing are not a surprise, said a former NATO official, who like others, was granted anonymity to to discuss sensitive diplomacy.

“It’s all priced in by this point. Everyone expects it,” the official said.

Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen said her country’s position on Greenland hasn’t changed, even as Trump has continued to advocate for American control of the strategic territory.

“I hope it is just as well known that the position of the Kingdom of Denmark is that this is not going to happen,” she said, adding that Denmark wants to expand its cooperation with the U.S. in the Arctic.

Allies are hoping this year’s summit will be successful like last year’s, a second former NATO official said.

Last year after a combination of charm and flattery from Rutte, an alliance commitment to 5 percent defense spending and a similarly short program, Trump went home declaring the summit a win.

The former official noted that in Trump’s first term, the second NATO summit he attended was the toughest. Trump berated Germany as “captive” to Russia in that meeting, escalated his spending demand to 4 percent, and privately warned allies he’d “go it alone” if they didn’t pay up. Then he went to Helsinki and embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Is the same happening?” the former official said. “Everyone will try to bury it/ignore it because the priority is to avoid tensions and let it pass.”

The NATO leaders’ statement is longer than last year’s but still shorter than the summits of years past. A draft viewed by POLITICO contains only six points. The participants, including Trump, reaffirmed their commitment to the Article 5 mutual defense pact and agreed that Russia poses a long-term threat to NATO’s members. It also states that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.

Some attendees focused on the bright spots. Even if Trump threw out early punches on Tuesday evening, his mere presence sends a strong positive signal, said Giedrimas Jeglinskas, a former NATO official and Lithuanian parliamentarian.

“The bigger message of reassurance is a simple fact that President Trump is in Ankara for the leaders’ summit,” Jeglinskas said. “There is a positive momentum in Ukraine, which received Trump’s nod. The summit declaration is short and sweet and, importantly, touches on all the right themes.”

Is he dead?

Mitch McConnell’s absence is throwing Trump’s Pentagon budget boost in doubt

The former GOP leader has been absent as the bipartisan appropriations process he helps oversee has run aground.

By Leo Shane III, Connor O'Brien and Jordain Carney

Sen. Mitch McConnell’s three-week hospitalization and uncertain health status is threatening to upend the defense budget process at a critical moment ahead of the midterm elections.

The 84-year-old Kentucky Republican was admitted to a Washington hospital June 14 for undisclosed medical issues. His staff maintain that McConnell remains engaged in Senate work but have not offered any information on when he will return to Capitol Hill.

His absence, and a lack of details around what caused his hospitalization, has prompted speculation on social media about the severity of his condition and his ability to serve out the rest of his term. And it comes at a pivotal moment for President Donald Trump and defense hawks’ often conflicting visions for building up the military.

McConnell — who chairs the Senate Appropriations panel that controls Pentagon spending — has been a powerful critic of the administration’s approach to securing a $1.5 trillion boost for the military. His support will be key in moving any funding plan forward, and his absence could stall or kill those hopes.

In an email to reporters Tuesday, McConnell spokespeople pointed back to a statement released Thursday that said the senator was still in the hospital but “continues to improve and is working closely with his staff.”

After finishing 18 years as top Republican leader, McConnell announced in February 2025 that he would step down from his seat in January 2027, ending his four-decade career in the chamber.

GOP colleagues have largely said they are in the dark about his health. But the top two Senate Republicans — Majority Leader John Thune and Majority Whip John Barrasso — said Tuesday that they had spoken with McConnell this week after initially speaking with the Kentucky Republican a day after his hospitalization. Neither spokespeople for Thune or Barrasso, nor McConnell’s staff, indicated Tuesday when McConnell would return. They “discussed the Senate’s July work period, including the need to pass the NDAA,” said Kate Noyes, a spokesperson for Barrasso.

This is not his first major medical scare. McConnell spent several weeks in the hospital after a fall in March 2023. Later that year, he froze during a news conference, prompting questions about his mental acuity and overall health. Since then, he has frequently relied on a wheelchair and his Capitol Police detail to get around given his mobility issues.

“Our prayers are with him,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told reporters late last week when asked if he had heard from McConnell. “Again, it’s sad. I will say, there’s nothing good about getting old. It’s been hard to watch, you know, kind of what happened after his fall and stuff.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), responding to the online speculation, said in an X post Tuesday, “Many of us aren’t speaking about Mitch McConnell’s condition because we know nothing about his condition.”

His hospitalization coincides with the administration’s latest push for a third party-line budget reconciliation measure, one that would supply about $350 billion in extra funding for the Defense Department. Lawmakers are already moving a fiscal 2027 spending bill that would provide a record $1.15 trillion budget for the military.

Trump wrote on social media Tuesday that he is “calling on House and Senate Leadership to make this their Number One Priority, and ensure that 350 Billion Dollars in Recon 3.0 moves out of the Budget Committee as soon as Congress is back in session.”

But McConnell has downplayed the idea, saying at an Air Force budget hearing just days before his hospitalization that “it’s safe to conclude there will not be another reconciliation bill.”

Since stepping down from GOP leadership last year, McConnell has frequently advocated for increased defense spending. But that approach has focused on growing the Defense Department’s base budget, not using reconciliation or other nontraditional funding gambits to boost military funding.

Over a series of budget hearings, McConnell has highlighted concerns about several major priorities — including the development of advanced fighter jets and missile production — that administration officials have proposed funding through the complex budget reconciliation process.

The senior senator has argued that taking those out of the traditional bipartisan appropriations process risks forgoing proper oversight and prioritization of those critical items, given the political uncertainty associated with a GOP-only path.

“The reliance of this budget request on one-time reconciliation spending is really quite a risky approach,” he warned Army leaders during a May hearing on their funding requests.

Trump lashed out at McConnell during a June 11 Oval Office meeting with reporters, calling him an “angry man” who is “disloyal” to the Republican Party.

The White House doesn’t necessarily need McConnell’s vote to advance a third reconciliation bill. But his absence is another complication for GOP leaders, who are already facing a tough path to convincing 50 of their 53 members to rally behind a plan. With McConnell absent, Thune can only lose two senators.

While Thune hasn’t ruled out a third bill, he’s also been clear that he doesn’t yet see a plan that can pass — and most Senate Republicans want to see what can first get through the House.

McConnell has aggressively advocated for an internationalist approach to national security, particularly defending U.S. involvement in NATO, as Trump pursues more isolationist policies. He has backed efforts to arm Ukraine and criticized the president’s efforts to negotiate an end to the war with Russia.

McConnell’s hospitalization coincides with a partisan standoff over defense spending that has ground the appropriations process to a halt in the Senate.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) delayed a markup scheduled for late June because McConnell’s absence meant Republicans could not advance their proposals on party lines with Collins and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Appropriations Democrat, at loggerheads over spending levels.

The setback came after Collins initially delayed an early June markup for the measures, which cover the departments of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, Commerce and Justice, among other agencies, because of the standoff with Democrats over defense and nondefense spending levels.

Asked Tuesday about the status of the defense bill, a McConnell aide, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, pointed back to the larger appropriations stalemate, not the Kentucky Republican’s absence, as the holdup.

His absence has impacted other chamber business. The Senate last month approved a resolution to cut off military operations against Iran, a major, if symbolic, rebuke that could have been defeated with full GOP attendance. McConnell was one of two Republicans to miss that vote.

He, too, could be a key Republican vote in favor of the administration’s proposed $88 billion supplemental funding package, which would help cover the costs of the Iran war, as well as aid for farmers and Ebola virus prevention.

Though he was already hospitalized when the White House made that funding request, McConnell had previously voiced his support for the Iran war and the necessity of paying for military expenditures associated with it.

“With more funding, there’s spare production capacity to be tapped this year, in FY26. We can build more munitions, produce more spare parts for airplanes, repair ships, invest in dilapidated military infrastructure, and deepen our cooperation and co-production with allies. We shouldn’t wait another year to seize these opportunities,” McConnell said March 4 during one of only five floor speeches he has given this year.

G189.6+3.3


What happens when one of the stars in a binary goes supernova? This image combines visible (yellow), ultraviolet (purple) and infrared light (cyan, red and orange) to show two supernova remnants and their surrounding environment, about 6,000 light-years away. The younger one is the well-known Jellyfish Nebula in the center (mostly in yellow). If we could see it by eye, it would appear larger than the full moon in the sky. The filament shown in purple is part of an older, overlapping supernova remnant, G189.6+3.3. A new study used data from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope to piece together their story. Astronomers believe that there were two stars in a binary system, then the first one exploded as a supernova, kicking away its companion, which also exploded as a supernova tens of thousands of years later, creating the superimposed supernova remnants we see today. The bright star on the right is actually a triple star system named Propus.

NGC 6769 and NGC 6770


Some 190 million light-years away, far beyond the bright stars and nebulae of the Milky Way, these three galaxies are drawn together by gravity in a mesmerizing cosmic dance. Clearly distorted by galactic-scale gravitational interactions, large spiral galaxies NGC 6769 and NGC 6770 are seen face-on, with luminous galactic disks scarred by obscuring interstellar dust lanes. Their young blue star clusters along drawn out spiral arms are spawned in star forming regions that resulted from collisions of massive molecular clouds. Below, spiral NGC 6771 presents a more edge-on perspective, its boxy central bulge due to tidal star streams. Of course, in the distant future a merger of the three galaxies is inevitable. At the estimated distance of this galaxy trio, known to some as the Devil's Mask, the sharp telescopic frame spans over 300 thousand light-years within the boundaries of the far southern constellation Pavo.

NGC 6188


Where can you find dragons fighting in the night sky? In the southern constellation of the Altar: Ara. The dragons are, of course, actually made of suggestively shaped gas and dust. The celestial home of the mythological battling beasts is cataloged as NGC 6188 and located about 4,000 light years away near the edge of a large molecular cloud. Massive, young stars of the embedded Ara OB1 association were formed there only a few million years ago, sculpting the dark shapes and powering the nebular glow with stellar winds and intense ultraviolet radiation. Joining NGC 6188 on this cosmic canvas, visible toward the lower right, is unusual emission nebula NGC 6164, also created by one of the region's massive stars. This impressively wide field picture, captured from Queensland, Australia, spans over 2 degrees (four full Moons).

Holiday and stuff

 Been out for the holiday and other things.. What did I miss?? Is Mitch dead yet?

June 30, 2026

Iran spending bill

GOP rebels threaten Iran spending bill over Poland troop fight

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

Mark Satter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But those troops have yet to be deployed.

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

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