Europe wants in.

The US got Meta to change Instagram and Facebook.  Europe wants in.

The European Commission may be looking for bigger changes than Meta agreed to with 47 U.S. states.

By Eliza Gkritsi

The United States just made Meta change how it treats kids. The pressure's now on for Europe to prove its tougher tech laws can do the same — or go even further.

Forty-seven U.S. states settled a landmark lawsuit with Meta for $18 billion on Wednesday, agreeing with the tech giant to set guardrails on its addictive design to better protect teenagers from harm. It is the culmination of a yearslong battle in one of the largest consumer protection settlements in U.S. history.

From Brussels’ vantage point, it’s both a win for online safety and a loss of face for the European regulator, which has tried to get the social media giant to change its ways for years. 

The settlement on Wednesday details a series of changes that Meta needs to make to Facebook and Instagram over the next 10 years, including limiting daily time for minors on the platform, checking ages of users more rigorously and disabling cosmetic filters for teens.  

It has upped the ante for Brussels’ social media regulators.

“Ironically, 9 measures out of 12 are covered by the [Digital Services Act], our law since 2023. U.S. courts are going faster than the EU Commission. We must ENFORCE DSA NOW!” former European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who negotiated and enforced the EU's social media rulebook up to 2024, wrote on X after the news of the settlement.

German center-right lawmaker Andreas Schwab told POLITICO that Meta in the U.S. now "has even to go beyond what it offers to the European consumers.” Schwab, an architect of one of the EU’s Big Tech laws, the Digital Markets Act, called for Meta's policies in the two jurisdictions to be aligned. 

The European Commission in July accused Meta of breaching EU rules under the Digital Services Act by running addictive design features on Facebook and Instagram. In April, it accused Meta of breaking the same rules for not doing enough to keep under-13s off its platforms. The EU's investigation into addictive design and minors is more than two years old but has yet to yield concessions from the company or penalties for non-compliance.

Spanish center-left European Parliament lawmaker Laura Ballarín Cereza asked the Commission on Thursday why Meta has committed to making changes only for U.S. users while it is in a discussion with EU authorities over the same issues. How will the Commission “ensure that EU citizens are not left with weaker protections than those in the US,” she wrote. 

Thomas Regnier, spokesperson for digital policy at the European Commission, said in a statement that it “is in continuous dialogue with Meta, who still has the possibility to offer commitments in the EU.”  

Meta has said it disagrees with the Commission's April and July findings. If it doesn't make changes to the EU's satisfaction, the firm risks facing a fine of up to 6 percent of its annual global revenue, which would amount to a maximum of $12 billion. Even if the full fine is imposed, which is highly unlikely, it's well under the $18 billion it settled for in the U.S.  

Europe wants more 

However, the changes Meta has pledged to make in the U.S. may not be as far-reaching as they seem — or meet the EU executive's demands.

The Commission wants Meta to change, or at least offer users by default, a way out of the core addictive design features of its platforms — such as autoplay, infinite scroll and highly personalized feeds. The EU also demands remedies that limit time spent on the app and has previously dismissed Meta's time management and parental controls as not good enough.

The settlement's proposed changes are "business as usual,” Jessica Galissaire, senior policy researcher at think tank Interface, told POLITICO about the EU's investigation. The Commission is asking for more far-reaching changes to the addictive design of the service, rather than just curtailing access to it, she said.

“The platforms are starting to be scared of litigations," said Galissare. "It’s some steps in the in the right direction” but "we shouldn't settle for the lightweight changes that Meta is suggesting.”  

The settlement focuses on limiting access to the app at certain times as a default setting, and in many of these areas, teens or parents will be able to switch from these settings to less restrictive ones. Senior Commission officials have previously criticized Meta's parental controls for their complexity.

But Meta will only give users the option to turn off the features most closely associated with engagement maximization, like autoplay and personalized feeds, instead of making them the default for every child, said Francesca Pisanu, senior policy officer at child rights group Eurochild.

“The U.S. settlement establishes a combination of strong defaults, usage restrictions and parental controls, while the Commission’s preliminary approach more explicitly challenges the underlying engagement-maximising architecture of the platforms themselves,” said Pisanu. 

Leanda Barrington-Leach, executive director at the child rights group 5Rights Foundation, said: "Changes which focus on limiting children's access will not prevent continued exploitation and harm to children.”

For now, Meta has held back from committing to roll out the changes it will make in the U.S. to users worldwide. It has said it will monitor how these changes are working in the U.S. and continue to engage with other governments. That's despite officials' explicit requests to do so in the U.K., South Korea and elsewhere.

On Wednesday night, the U.K.’s Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Pat McFadden, told Sky News he expected Meta to extend the changes to the U.K., saying the government didn’t want “a situation where young people in America have got a higher rate of protection than young people in the U.K.”

Get their jobs back?

Fired Stars and Stripes journalists sue Pentagon to get their jobs back

The ousted publisher, editor-in-chief and a senior reporter say their firings violated their free speech rights as well as a law regulating government administrative policies.

By Jalen Beckford

Three fired staffers of Stars and Stripes are suing the government to get their jobs back, arguing they were illegally dismissed over coverage of deteriorating conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in an outlet that has historically provided independent coverage of the military.

In the suit, filed Thursday in federal court in Washington, the ousted publisher, along with the editor-in-chief and a reporter, say their firings last week violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment, as well as a law regulating government administrative policies.

Included as defendants in the suit are Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell and the Department of Defense, which provides funding to the publication that has long maintained editorial independence from the government.

Four legal organizations filed the suit on behalf of the ousted staffers.

“The Pentagon is trying to punish journalists for defending the established mission of Stars and Stripes,” Taryn Wilgus Null, senior counsel at Democracy Defenders Fund, one of the organizations, said in a statement. “Service members and their families need reporting that is independent of the officials it covers and is unafraid to criticize them when they deserve it.”

Publisher Max Lederer, Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin and reporter Lara Korte were dismissed on Aug. 21 over what the Pentagon characterized as insubordination stemming from an interview in which the journalist and her editor defended the editorial independence at the publication.

Slavin and Korte, a former reporter with POLITICO, said they were expressing their personal opinions in the July 5 interview with CBS News, and that the statements aligned with the Defense Department’s “own longstanding insistence” on the independence of Stars and Stripes.

They also noted the timing of their firings, which occurred weeks after the CBS interview but shortly after their outlet’s critical reporting on the Lincoln, where conditions for service members have allegedly deteriorated during a record-breaking Middle East deployment.

Lederer says he was directed by the Pentagon to fire Korte and Slavin a day after an Aug. 11 story on the Lincoln was published by the paper. The longtime publisher refused and decided to retire, later expressing in an interview with Stars and Stripes his concerns about the direction of the publication.

A Pentagon spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

Slavin and Korte ask in the suit to be reinstated to their positions.

The case marks just the latest dispute between the Defense Department and the press corps under President Donald Trump. Since Hegseth took over the department, restrictive press guidelines led journalists from dozens of organizations to give up their Pentagon press credentials. The department has since offered credentials to a new group of mostly right-wing outlets.

In June, the Pentagon deemed its press office a classified space and off-limits to journalists, ostensibly to make room for speechwriters.

“The Defense Department’s move to control Stars and Stripes is in step with its move against the Pentagon Press Corps,” David Schulz, director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School, one of the organizations that filed the suit, said in a statement.

“This Administration does not want an effective or independent press,” Schulz said. Its crackdown means the public today has less information about our military’s plans, purposes, actions, or accomplishments than at any point in modern history, even as active combat operations are being pursued in multiple arenas across the globe.”

Need to raise rates

In closely watched speech, Warsh signals Fed may need to raise rates

Any move to increase borrowing costs in September will likely invoke the frustration of President Donald Trump.

By Victoria Guida

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh on Friday laid the groundwork for a possible interest rate hike in the coming months, arguing that the economy is strong and the labor market is at full employment, while inflation is concerning.

“Inflation is running above our 2 percent target. So the Fed’s predominant focus right now should be on prices,” Warsh said in remarks at the Fed’s annual conference in Grand Teton National Park. While inflation numbers have recently been better than expected, “they do not tell me that underlying trends have meaningfully improved.”

“Market prices show confidence that we will deliver price stability,” he added. “And I can assure you, they’re right.”

Warsh, who took the helm of the central bank in May, has been under growing pressure to take a firmer stance on the Fed’s readiness to fight inflation. His words could help allay worries in financial markets, where global investors have been pushing up longer-term rates out of concern that elevated consumer prices will persist. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent over the past couple of weeks has made extraordinary moves to stem the run-up in bond yields, which also reflects fears that the U.S. will fail to rein in fiscal deficits and that massive borrowing by artificial intelligence businesses will put further upward pressure on rates.

Any move to raise borrowing costs in September will likely invoke the frustration of President Donald Trump, although he has spoken warmly of his new central bank chief and might give him more leeway than Warsh’s predecessor, Jerome Powell. Powell, who remains a Fed board member, was a frequent target of the president’s anger for resisting rate cuts.

But Warsh also had plenty of good things to say about Trump’s economy.

“For my part, today I am impressed by the overall performance of the economy, which appears to have strengthened,” he said. “One indicator of strength is how well an economy holds up to shocks. On that score, both Main Street and Wall Street have been remarkably resilient.”

“Certain sectors — like housing and agriculture — are showing strains,” he said, but added that rates overall did not seem to be dragging down economic activity.

And while he said recent graduates might be having some trouble finding work, which is an area of concern, “labor markets are consistent with full employment” — meaning generally that those who want a job can find one.

The speech, his first official address in his new role, diverges from his early practice of providing almost no opinion on the state of the U.S. economy, although he still did not employ typical central banker speak in signaling when an interest rate hike might come.

Instead, he said a “good majority” of his colleagues, as well as him, judged in July that it was better to have several more weeks of data “before deciding whether a change in interest rate policy was advisable.”

“And we expressed our joint readiness to act as circumstances might require,” he said.

Markets are now judging that a rate hike next month is more likely than not, according to CME’s Fed Watch Tool.

Omair Sharif, president of Inflation Insights, said in a note to clients that Warsh’s speech “gave the markets what they wanted, which was more detail on his views about the current data, particularly inflation.”

And the Fed chair was able to maintain his commitment to avoiding so-called forward guidance, where the Fed directly telegraphs its rate plans. Warsh has long criticized that practice, saying that markets should make their own assessments on the direction of the economy, and did so again Friday.

But how he handles September will affect how the world continues to judge the credibility of his commitment to getting inflation back down, said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, on the sidelines of the conference.

“Chairman Warsh was very clear that he views the labor market as being at full employment, and that he views inflation as being stuck considerably above target,” Strain said. “That suggests a standard policy response, which is to raise interest rates.”

“Markets are looking for clarity, and it remains to be seen whether this speech will provide additional clarity or additional confusion,” he added. “We’ll have to wait till September.”

Mulls further troop cuts

US probes NATO allies over military support as it mulls further troop cuts

The U.S. will examine European defense spending and military access as part of its review of American forces in Europe, said deputy Pentagon chief Elbridge Colby.

August 28, 2026 10:28 am CET

By Victor Jack

Deputy Pentagon chief Elbridge Colby on Thursday sounded out the support of NATO countries for key U.S. defense objectives, in a first test ahead of a critical review of American forces in Europe.

The rare visit by a senior U.S. official marks another step in the U.S. campaign to make Europe and Canada spend more on their own defense. Washington also wants to probe their loyalty after several NATO countries curbed access to their airspace and to American bases linked to the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

Overall, the review “will encourage, enable, and impel a transition to a more durable and powerful European-led conventional defense of the continent,” Colby told NATO’s 32 ambassadors, according to his published remarks.

Some NATO allies have bridled at the approach. Earlier this month the U.S. sent out a questionnaire, according to two European defense officials, asking allies to detail their views on subjects ranging from defense spending to U.S. foreign policy.

It’s a “scary exercise,” said a NATO diplomat, describing the survey as an attempt to get allies to “pledge their allegiance to the king.”

Colby on Thursday said the questionnaire wasn’t aimed at “dictating” terms nor at obtaining “a complete carte blanche” on U.S. military access, and praised countries for “rebuilding their military strength for collective defense.”

But, he added: “We need to be able to have the ability to operate effectively; we need predictability,” affirming that access to American bases in Europe is a key criterion in Washington’s six-month review of its military presence on the continent.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the review in June partly in response to the airspace and basing restrictions imposed by countries including France, Italy and Spain. President Donald Trump threatened to leave NATO over the constraints earlier this year. 

As part of its review, the U.S. sent a “terms of reference” document to allies this month, arguing it would examine issues like defense spending and expanded military access in Europe, according to a person familiar with the matter who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Reuters first reported the document.

The review process is also raising fears that allies will compete for a U.S. presence on their territory.

During the meeting with envoys on Thursday, “allies entered in a ‘beauty contest’,” said one NATO diplomat, “with everyone highlighting his [or] her country’s implementation of NATO 3.0” — a reference to the U.S.-led effort to make Europe take responsibility for its conventional defense.

Polish Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski told POLITICO that Warsaw was “ready to propose” different locations, “financing” and “logistics required” for a proposal to permanently station U.S. troops in the country. However, he insisted, “this review is based not on beauty offers, but on common interests.”

NATO ambassadors didn’t make specific offers to Colby in Thursday’s meeting but highlighted their progress on alliance military capability targets, defense spending and their offers to substitute U.S. forces as part of alliance war plans, the two NATO diplomats said. One described the meeting, overall, as “very constructive.”

U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, who commands American troops in Europe, is set to present Colby with military recommendations for the review next month, said the person familiar with the matter, ahead of a more formal decision on the review’s outcome by Hegseth in November.

Summons US ambassador

Belgium summons US ambassador again over jibe at health minister

This is not the first time the US ambassador has made controversial personal attacks against Belgian politicians.

By Daria Zakharova

Belgium’s Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot has summoned U.S. Ambassador Bill White for a second time this year, after he posted an Instagram story mocking the country’s Health Minister Frank Vandenbroucke.

“Who’s the biggest LOSER in Belgium?” asked U.S. President Donald Trump’s appointee in Brussels on social media, above a seemingly AI-generated picture of Vandenbroucke on a cigar box. In an apparent mockery of the minister’s push to change health warnings used in alcohol advertising, the box reads: “Damages every form of joy in life.”

“It is unacceptable that an ambassador uses such insulting language against a member of government,” Prévot said in a statement to POLITICO. The foreign ministry confirmed the summoning, which was first reported by news agency Belga.

A spokesperson for Belgium’s health ministry declined to comment.

A trade association for Belgian brewers are campaigning this week against a March law proposed by Vandenbroucke, which would change the health warning on alcohol advertisements — from “alcohol abuse causes health damage” to “alcohol causes health damage.”

White was previously summoned in February after he accused Brussels of antisemitism over a probe into three Jewish mohels in Antwerp suspected of performing circumcisions without the required medical qualifications. White called the investigation “ridiculous” and pressured Vandenbroucke to intervene, prompting the Belgian government to accuse him of interfering in the country’s domestic and judicial affairs.

Conner Rousseau, the leader of Vandenbroucke’s party Vooruit, also responded to White’s post on Instagram. The ambassador “knows nothing about healthcare” and “only follows what daddy Trump says,” Rousseau said.

The U.S. embassy in Brussels did not reply to a request for comment.

Delivers 8th straight blow

Appeals court delivers 8th straight blow to ICE’s mandatory detention policy

The 3rd Circuit said the Trump administration misinterpreted federal law.

By Kyle Cheney

ICE’s losing streak continued Friday as an eighth straight federal appeals court rejected the agency’s massive expansion of detention for immigrants with long-term roots in the U.S.

A divided panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that ICE’s novel interpretation of mandatory detention laws distorted a 30-year-old statute that was generally meant to require detention for people who recently crossed the border.

The panel also concluded that ICE detainees with extensive ties to the U.S. have a constitutional due process right to a bond hearing.

The issue is almost certainly destined for Supreme Court resolution. Though eight appeals courts have rejected ICE’s position, two have endorsed the administration’s approach. The Justice Department and ACLU have asked the justices to take up the matter in its next term, which begins in October.

Under ICE’s new view of the law, people who have lived inside the U.S. for years could still be treated as “seeking admission” to the country and therefore subject to mandatory detention without bond. That shift in ICE’s approach threatened millions of people — many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children — with abrupt arrest and detention, even though the vast majority have no criminal records.

And it has led to an extraordinary flood of emergency lawsuits from people detained by ICE under the new policy. A POLITICO analysis indicates that judges have rejected ICE’s new position more than 90 percent of the time, in more than 13,000 cases challenging the new policy. In the meantime, the policy has wreaked havoc on tens of thousands of lives and subjected people to months of detention that courts later determined was illegal.

Like the other circuits that rejected ICE’s policy, the 3rd Circuit majority — Obama appointee Patty Shwartz and Clinton appointee Theodore McKee — said that Congress’ immigration reforms in 1996 did not contemplate mandatory detention for millions of people, and in fact no prior administration believed such a mandate existed.

Trump appointee Jennifer Mascott dissented from the ruling, contending that the majority’s interpretation would create a perverse result: Those who presented themselves for inspection at the border would be subject to mandatory detention while those who evaded detection and remained in the U.S. illegally would be afforded bond hearings.

But the overwhelming majority of courts to consider the question have rejected that assessment, suggesting Congress may have intended to ensure that those with deep ties to the country — who had planted roots and become members of their community — were not abruptly shunted into detention facilities without at least a chance to secure bond.

The best evidence, they say, is that no previous administration, even Trump’s first, had claimed such a sweeping mandatory detention existed. And even the Supreme Court had previously suggested that bond hearings were the norm for people residing in the interior of the country.

Only one appeals court — the Richmond-based 4th Circuit — has yet to weigh in on the policy.

Already nervous

Republicans were already nervous about November. Then Trump restarted his trade war.

The president's actions are set to reverberate especially hard in a handful of states crucial to the party’s hopes of keeping their Senate majority.

By Jordain Carney and Mia McCarthy

Republicans were already struggling to defuse simmering voter frustrations over the cost of living ahead of the midterms. Then President Donald Trump rekindled his trade wars.

Trump’s latest actions — especially his decision to impose 50 percent tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods, inviting retaliatory duties from America’s No. 2 trading partner — has sparked new pushback from GOP lawmakers and candidates.

His moves are set to reverberate especially hard in a handful of states crucial to the party’s hopes of keeping their Senate majority. That includes northern border states, such as Maine and Michigan, as well as agriculture-heavy battlegrounds like Iowa and North Carolina that have been buffeted for more than a year by Trump’s embrace of hardball trade tactics.

“We’ve got 71 days, and right now we don’t have a positive message to tell farm country,” said retiring GOP Sen. Thom Tillis, whose North Carolina seat is at risk of flipping into Democrats’ hands in November.

Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Canada is creating “tension,” Tillis added, and that “the party that owns that tension is the party that will probably suffer the consequences in November.”

Even the president’s latest bid to ease price pressures on Americans has generated unease among Republicans. While he touted his decision last week to temporarily allow the duty-free import of 300,000 metric tons of foreign beef as a win for consumers, the announcement was met with little praise from GOP lawmakers, who instead worry the bigger political impact will be to alienate key constituencies in rural states hosting competitive House and Senate races.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said in an interview Tuesday he’d spoken this week with the small farmers and ranchers who would bear the brunt of Trump’s beef import holiday.

“I think it could hurt us at the polls,” he said. “That’s a very strong group.”

The beef imports have jolted races in Iowa, where GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson, who is running to succeed retiring Sen. Joni Ernst, said in a social media post that the imports were “a bad idea” that would create “more uncertainty and instability for our farmers.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Zach Nunn, another Republican who is seeking reelection, said Friday at the Iowa State Fair alongside Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins that Trump is “right” that “we want to make sure that people can afford to eat” but that “we don’t do it on the backs of our cattlemen.”

But it’s the hefty Canada tariffs that could create the bigger problem for the GOP. Four border states — Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire and Alaska — as well as manufacturing-heavy Ohio are on the front lines of both the midterms and Trump’s North American trade war.

The economy is consistently the top issue for voters of both parties. Fifty-six percent of U.S. adults said cost-of-living concerns are among the top issues facing the country in a recent POLITICO Poll.

A notable share of Trump’s own voters hold negative views about the current state of the economy — and how he is trying to improve it. A 33 percent plurality of Trump’s 2024 voters said rising prices are among the biggest failures of Trump’s second term, according to the survey conducted earlier this month by London-based Public First. Just 16 percent pointed to improving the cost of living as one of his biggest successes.

Among Trump voters who said things are less affordable now than a year ago, most blamed the Iran war (52 percent), but a sizable share (42 percent) blamed Trump’s tariffs on imported goods.

Vice President JD Vance defended the Canada tariffs Monday during a stop in Maine, saying Trump was taking long-overdue action to address unfair trade practices. But Sen. Susan Collins, who did not appear at the Vance event citing a scheduling conflict, told reporters over the weekend that she believed the Canada tariffs were a “mistake.”

“We produce a lot in Maine — our blueberries, our potatoes, our lobster, our lumber — that is processed across the border,” said Collins, who voted to undo prior Trump levies targeting Canada. “If it comes back with a huge tariff on it … that increases the cost of eating, building homes.”

Former Republican Sen. John Sununu, who is running to recapture his New Hampshire Senate seat this fall, said in a statement to POLITICO Tuesday that “it makes no sense to start a trade war with our closest neighbor” as Democratic nominee Rep. Chris Pappassuggested Sununu “stands with Trump.”

“Canada is an important and valued trading partner for New Hampshire,” Sununu added. “As Senator, I’d encourage both sides to continue to negotiate and keep trade flowing between our countries.”

In Alaska, a group aligned with Senate Democrats has been hammering GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan with ads for months related to “raising costs” and tariffs as Democrats have sought to put in play a state Trump won handily three times. Multiple political forecasters now view the Alaska Senate race as a tossup between Sullivan and former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola.

Campaign representatives for Sullivan and for former Rep. Mike Rogers, who is the GOP Senate nominee in Michigan, did not respond to requests for comment about the Canada tariffs.

The fallout from a trade war with Canada could also impact Republicans’ affordability message as they attempt to hold onto the House.

“The president picked an unnecessary fight with a friend,” retiring Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said in a text message Tuesday. “The trade war will hurt both Americans and Canadians and for no good reason.”

The latest trade anxiety is landing amid broader economic woes that can be traced in large part to energy price spikes associated with the Trump-initiated war with Iran — a conflict that has dragged on for months longer than many GOP lawmakers privately hoped. Democrats, in turn, have spent months using those price spikes and voters’ dissatisfaction with the war as ammunition to sink Republicans in key states that could hand them majorities in both the House and Senate.

Republicans have taken comfort in the Democratic infighting that has marked primary season and the ascendance of hard-left nominees in many races — including in Michigan, where the GOP hopes to flip the seat being relinquished by retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters. The new Canadian tariffs, however, threaten to distract from Rogers’ campaign to paint Democratic opponent, Abdul el-Sayed, as too extreme for the state.

“Americans are paying more for everything because GOP Senate candidates have served as a rubber stamp for Trump’s chaotic tariffs at the expense of their states,” DSCC spokesperson Tommy Garcia said in a statement Tuesday. “Come November, voters will hold them accountable for making life more expensive.”

Senate Republicans decamped to their home states earlier this month hoping that they would be able to use the August recess to focus on selling last year’s GOP tax cuts and a growing economy as they try to convince voters to overlook their cost-of-living concerns.

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, who is seeking reelection in the reliably red agriculture state of South Dakota, said he thought his party is “in pretty good shape” to keep the majority. He added, though, that Republicans will need to “work hard” and “focus on what voters back home care about, which is the price of gas, price of groceries, making sure that in our ag economy we’re focused on helping to bring prices up for our commodity products.”

Others in the GOP have put voters’ affordability concerns in less rosy terms, including Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.).

“I’ve been the voice that’s been saying, ‘You people are living in a cave if you don’t see that folks out there … are hurting,’” Justice told reporters last week. “And we need to absolutely be more in tune with them.”

Misuse of Flock cameras

Hawley probes misuse of Flock cameras

The investigation comes amid reports of officers allegedly using the cameras to stalk women and the technology leading to false arrests.

Alfred Ng

Sen. Josh Hawley announced he is investigating Flock Safety over concerns that its network of traffic cameras has been misused by police to improperly track people.

A letter Hawley (R-Mo.) sent to Flock Wednesday calls for the company to provide documents and information about police departments misusing its technology, its data retention policies, its surveillance capabilities and its safeguards.

Hawley’s investigation comes amid reports of officers allegedly using the cameras to stalk women and the technology leading to false arrests.

“Your company’s internal policies are, in practice, the only safeguards for hundreds of millions of Americans,” Hawley said in the letter. “People across the country are now discovering that fact and demanding answers from their elected officials.”

Hawley is requesting answers by Sept. 8, according to the letter, which was first reported by Axios.

Flock Safety said it received the letter.

“We will be responding directly to the questions raised and we look forward to working with Senator Hawley and the Subcommittee to provide additional context about how our technology works, the safeguards built into our platform, and how law enforcement agencies use Flock to solve crime and find missing people,” company spokesperson Paris Lewbel said in a statement to POLITICO.

Seafood counter-tariffs

Canada backtracks on seafood counter-tariffs

Ottawa had initially intended to slap 25 percent levies on U.S. seafood imports as of Sept. 8.

By Nick Taylor-Vaisey

Canada’s government has pulled back on retaliatory tariffs targeting Maine seafood.

Following feedback from an anxious Canadian seafood sector that warned the government about the industry’s vulnerability, Canadian Fisheries Minister Joanne Thompson announced late Wednesday that Ottawa has made “targeted adjustments” to its tariff list — and removed seafood and fish sector products altogether.

The heavily integrated cross-border seafood trade had so far evaded tariffs. Earlier this week, Ottawa intended to slap 25 percent levies on U.S. seafood imports as of Sept. 8.

In a call Tuesday for stakeholders affected by the tariffs, several industry representatives peppered senior government officials with questions about the government’s decision to target their sector, why they weren’t consulted in advance and what happens if the Trump administration slaps counter-tariffs on Canadian seafood.

The sector’s cross-border trade is worth more than $5 billion a year, including Canadian exports that add up to about $4 billion. Seafood products often travel back and forth; Maine lobsters are regularly processed in Canada before they’re shipped back for consumption.

Kris Vascotto, executive director of the Nova Scotia Seafood Alliance, told the call — which included hundreds of tariff-impacted stakeholders — that he was “blindsided” by the news that Ottawa dragged his sector into the trade war, according to a recording of the briefing obtained by POLITICO.

In an interview with POLITICO, Vascotto said that he generally backs Ottawa on the trade file — but nobody reached out to his sector before unveiling counter-tariffs.

“We are strongly supportive of our federal government protecting our national and economic sovereignty in these trade discussions,” he said. “It’s just unfortunate that we were not consulted and able to provide advice that might have helped the federal government make good decisions.”

Nick Leswick, the deputy minister of finance, was the most senior public servant on the Tuesday call. He was joined by Patrick Halley, the finance department’s lead on international trade, and Scott Winter, the director general for trade policy.

Also on hand: Martin Moen, the Global Affairs Canada senior bureaucrat who chairs the interdepartmental Canada-U.S. Trade and Economic Task Force.

The sector reps repeatedly asked officials for a game plan if the Trump administration layers on pain with counter-tariffs. Each time, officials promised a follow-up meeting.

“All I can say is the message is heard loud and clear,” one official said.

Ottawa is offering relief to tariff-exposed sectors in the form of remission payments and says that workers put out of a job will be able to access beefed-up income support measures.

Maine’s lobster sector was also bracing for impact. About half of the annual catch is processed in Canada.

In a statement, Sen. Angus King hadwarned of “devastating consequences” as the lobster trade gets more expensive for Mainers — and could have worsened if Trump responded with counter-tariffs. “If the president doesn’t relent, this hammer blow to hardworking Maine people,” King said, “would devastate the Maine lobster industry and leave many of these hardworking people literally high and dry.”

Signs controversial beef import plan....... Fuck you Ranchers who voted for me....

Trump signs controversial beef import plan despite ranchers' backlash

A slew of Republican lawmakers and beef industry allies have come out against President Donald Trump's plans that aim to lower the cost of ground beef.

By Grace Yarrow

President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday that aims to lower ground beef prices by dramatically boosting imports from other countries despite outrage from Republicans and allies in the beef industry.

Trump’s proclamation will remove tariffs from 300,000 metric tons of imported lean beef trimmings for 90 days. He said the countries supplying the beef would sell it at 25 percent below current market prices, as he first announced on Truth Social Friday.

The administration is also eyeing a separate group of industry-friendly policy updates to roll out alongside the import plan, in hopes of quelling wrath from the beef industry and some Republican lawmakers, according to two people familiar with the plans who were granted anonymity to discuss them. Some of the changes the White House is considering — like mandating country-of-origin labels on beef products sold in the U.S. — would require congressional action.

The president’s move is the latest in a series of efforts to ease consumer strain at the grocery store ahead of the midterms. And it comes as White House officials and allies are increasingly worried that stubborn inflation could harm Republican prospects in November — with aides betting that addressing Americans’ broader affordability concerns is worth temporarily enraging ranchers, a loyal GOP constituency.

Trump’s proclamation does not specify which countries will supply the beef imports, as questions have swirled about which countries even have the supply of trimmings to export in the short term. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told reporters Tuesday that she was not “privy” to that information and that U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer was working closely with Trump on the details of the imports.

Trump said he could also halt the increased imports if beef prices don’t come down or if countries do not sell at a 25 percent discount the president said he had negotiated.

“If the action taken in this proclamation does not result in a lower sale price of imported ground beef, I may end the action taken in this proclamation in order to, among other things, prevent a windfall to foreign producers,” Trump said in the proclamation.

The additional lean trimmings — used for ground beef — will be imported during three 30-day tranches, the first of which will open on Sept. 1.

The White House had drafted a similar executive order for Trump to sign in May, but delayed and then shelved the plans as his inner circle was divided on the scope of the new imports. The import plans have rattled cattle markets and infuriated key agriculture groups and Hill Republicans who typically support the Trump administration’s policies.

A new wave of industry backlash from the American Farm Bureau Federation, Livestock Marketing Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and United States Cattlemen’s Association took hold before the White House released Wednesday’s proclamation.

“This announcement has already driven cattle markets sharply lower and undermines producers at a critical time of year when they are marketing cattle and making herd-building decisions,” leaders of four agriculture industry groups wrote in a letter to Trump that was obtained by POLITICO.

“We urge you to reverse course on this 90-day import plan and work with us instead on solutions that strengthen, rather than weaken, America’s capacity to feed itself,” they wrote.

Congressional Republicans contend that Trump’s proclamation will disincentivize ranchers from further investing in building their cattle herds to increase beef supply in the long term.

“With cattle inventory at 75-year lows, we must focus on policies which empower ranchers to rebuild our domestic herd,” Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) posted on X Wednesday.