

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In "almost Shakespearean grotesquery," our cringe Buffoon-In-Chief just thrust himself into the World Cup final only to be unceremoniously booed, snubbed and cropped out of team photos. Then he again assailed Canada for smoke from their wildfires, though ours are much worse and they've often helped us with them. Still, our ever-gracious northern neighbor launched a new initiative to dutifully sweep the Rockies, vacuum the forests, hand-rake pine needles. Its acronym: F.U.C.K.O.F.F.
The headlines for Trump's Sunday gatecrash of another major sports event that really, really didn't want him there tells the vainglorious and mortifying tale: "Most Universally Hated President In History Mercilessly Booed," "Crowd Boos, Player Snub and Failed Photobomb: Trump's Big World Cup Day Out," and "Confused Old Fuckwit Imagines He's Won the World Cup." The Guardian also wins a Snark of the Year Award for the caption to its photo of FIFA's Infantino deep in conversation with a clueless Trump, both men standing under a blizzard of confetti, after he literally had to drag him off-stage: "Gianni Infantino carefully explains to Donald Trump he is not part of the Spanish team."
Some of the over 82,000 fans at New Jersey's Met-Life Stadium, where Spain trounced a listless, chaotic, often-thuggish Argentina 1-0, had earlier made their feelings clear when video briefly showed Trump ensconced in his glass-encased VIP digs and scattered boos rang out. By the time he finally lumbered and waddled stoop-shouldered onto the field at the end, it sounded like all 82,000-plus had reconsidered and joined in to jeer. Trailing behind him, looking like hostages trying to keep a safe distance to not catch any cooties, were Mexico's and Canada's leaders, the tournament's purported, far-less-despised hosts. Implausibly given....everything, but thanks to Infantino's long gross obsequiousness, Trump got to hand out awards.
And he did, though not without some drama: Several players hesitated, recoiled or refused to shake his hand. Then it was time to hand out the (seductively gold) World Cup. Little needy Donnie, a malignant narcissistic lump, swooped in to awkwardly “help” Infantino carry it like a five-year-old hungry for the feckin' ice-cream cone his dad is holding, “a lonely, grasping figure refusing to release a trophy he didn’t win.” Once they handed it to Spain’s captain Rodri, Trump, “malice wrapped in vanity,” painfully lingered in the limelight - camera! also person, woman, man TV - as Infantino struggled to yank him away for the iconic team hoist photo: "OK, grandpa, time to get back to your chocolate pudding." In the end, a patient Rodri gently nudged him out of the shot, but cringingly not off the stage, where he stood dazed and wobbling, our national farce and tragedy.
Steve Schmidt noted the clumsy resulting image's era-defining power, its display of the "breathtaking psychological fragility" of a "President Norma Desmond...incapable of understanding that the greatest office in the world confers responsibility, not ownership." "The character has been devoured by the caricature," he wrote of "self-parody made flesh," the small man so consumed by the need for adulation that, "Every trophy is his trophy. Every triumph is his triumph. Every stage is his stage." Later, in photos released both by FIFA and the Spanish team, Trump had mercifully, miraculously disappeared from both shots, because this is why God and Al Gore invented photoshop.
The awkward bit of theater with Spain came, lest we forget, in the wake of Trump's weeks of vilifying the nation and their prime minister Pedro Sánchez - first, for their refusal to allow the U.S. military to use Spanish bases to help illegally bomb Iran, then for the alleged failure of "bad" and "hopeless" Spanish people to pay enough for NATO defense spending. Despite Trump's ugly threats to "cut off all trade" with a longtime ally unforgivably following the law, it all suddenly vanished before the cameras, where Trump congratulated "a great team," even though they speak Spanish, and claimed there was "no tension" with the country’s leadership. Actually, he smirked, "I have no tension with anybody."
Tell it to Canada, which Trump has been moronically berating for "Willful Negligence," aka inexplicably allowing smoke from over 800 wildfires raging across some of Canada's 347 million acres to drift over our pristine shores. A few days earlier, joined by equally stupid MAGA lackeys, he raged the U.S. "is being unnecessarily invaded by filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air" at an "incalculable" (a big word he probs didn't write) cost, and "maybe they should pay us some damages" or billions more in tariffs, and he'd call Carney "to find out what they are going to do about it." "We are holding Canada responsible," he thundered, "for the fact that they are not properly maintaining their Forests, and Brush therein."
Like his long-ago claim during California wildfires that Finland's president told him they rake their forests and have no such problems - Finland when asked: "WTF" - this is an idiot's fever dream. Facts owe: This year, America has seen over 40,000 fires burn roughly 3.9 million acres, 157% its ten-year average. There are now over 70 uncontained U.S. fires being fought by nearly 18,000 people, with much of the Northwest - Colorado, Oregon, Washington - at National Preparedness Level 5, the highest, and up to 58 new fires a day. Air quality alerts affecting a million Americans are due to those fires, to blazes across 70,000-plus acres in Minnesota, and to 3,600 fires across 1.8 million acres, below the five-year average, in Canada.
In the face of politely unnamed U.S. pols mindlessly "chirping away," notes Ontario Premier Doug Ford, he has already asked for firefighters or "anything they can send" to help fight nearly 200 fires, some of which have crossed into Canada from Minnesota, that have forced entire First Nations to evacuate and many residents to sleep in their cars. Rather than complain maybe send help, he adds, "because we have done the same thing for our American friends," again and again. Even as Canadian officials issue air quality warnings from U.S. fires drifting north, a 56-year-old Canadian helicopter pilot from B.C. just died in a crash battling a fire in Colorado, the fourth firefighter death there this summer.
Meanwhile, a mindless, science-denying MAGA has ended support for dozens of climate initiatives, dismantled our largest climate research center and pushed for more fossil fuel carnage. On Sunday, with much of his country visibly on fire, Trump attacked the National Academy of Sciences - chartered by Abe Lincoln mid-Civil War "because even a nation shooting at itself understood it needed scientists" - because it's "run by Radical Left Dumocrats” who published costly, "fraudulent," “totally discredited” climate change manuals, which he ordered "Suspension and Debarment" officials to review. Also - cue dumbest timeline ever - Repubs jumped in to decry DEI-loving advocates who (gasp) may have tried to stop blessed oil and gas projects.
Still, Canada is a tolerant, peace-loving nation that tries to accommodate all comers, even a malevolent asshole who's never gotten any closer to a "forest" than Central Park, if even there. It also values its natural resources, including a 270-million-acre boreal forest, much of it roadless, whose vast ecosystem serves as a global carbon sink to purify air and water, regulate climate and offer a safe breeding ground to billions of birds. And if some random asshole neighbor to the north chides its inadequate forest management, Canada seeks to rise to the occasion - to, as it were, Be Better. Thus was born a bold new initiative from its Department of Forest Tidiness, which is now "pleased to confirm the message has been received loud and clear."
Canada's Forest Undergrowth Clearing & Kindling Operation for Foreign Friends, aka F.U.C.K.O.F.F., renders every able-bodied person ages 16 to 65 responsible for removing leaves, twigs, moss, bark, sticks, branches, pine needles, deadfall and shrubs deemed "insufficiently tidy by Congressional observers." After receiving government-issued rakes, gloves and safety vests, they must arrange all debris "into neat bilingual piles," to be painstakingly inspected by forestry officials. Further actions may include sweeping the Rocky Mountains, power-washing the Canadian Shield, vacuuming deserts, raking California, installing smoke-detectors across the Yukon and mandating that all fires contain and respect clearly marked provincial borders.
In Ontario, workers will be assigned 6.7 acres (40 NHL hockey rinks) of dense untracked country and a 26-hour work week; elsewhere, shifts surge to a hefty 18.3 acres (110 rinks) and 70 hours a week. Morning commutes start with a three-day canoe trip and 15-km hike through swamp; on-site, workers will hand-groom 300 billion trees, hand-rake an infinity of pine needles, make local beavers submit environmental impact reports and dodge grizzlies as needed. Finally, it notes, "Canada thanks Congress for sharing their extensive knowledge of forestry, wildfire behavior, climate science, geography and upkeep of a country containing 9% of the world's forests, and looks forward to receiving further practical advice from Washington."
Online, many Americans, after reportedly snorting their coffee through their noses, thanked Canada "for being great neighbors and allies," and apologized for - hands held hopelessly wide - "all this." "We are so, so sorry," said one. Another: "We're so incredibly sorry." Canadians joined in: "I'm in Alberta - I'll send water," "In B.C., have to get my mountaineering gear first. Sorry. eh?" and a generous offer to add a new organization, Canadian Undergrowth, Nature, and Tree Services: "I believe that with your cooperation, F.U.C.K.O.F.F plus C.U.N.T.S could really show Americans we take their health and well-being seriously." Organizers estimate their work will be completed "somewhere between Thursday afternoon and the collapse of human civilization," which should be any day now.
The Trump administration is coming under fire for its response to the outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a foodborne illness that causes explosive diarrhea and has so far been documented in more than two dozen states.
Public health officials still have not identified the source of the outbreak, which typically spreads via contaminated produce.
In an interview with Axios published Saturday, David Freedman, professor emeritus of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, suggested that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not been on top of tracking the outbreak the same way it has been in the past.
"Right now it's individual state health departments that are having to speak up," remarked Freedman, "because the CDC is really not following it on a day-to-day basis."
Omer Awan, vice chair and associate program director for the diagnostic radiology residency at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, told PBS in an interview published Monday that infections will likely only grow if the government doesn't track down the source of the outbreak quickly.
"Because we haven't pinned it down, that means that these cases are likely to disseminate," said Awan. "People are still eating the contaminated food that's leading to so many cases."
Awan added that mass firings at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under the leadership of anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., were hindering CDC's ability to track the disease.
"The HHS and the federal government laid off a lot of CDC employees," said Awan. "Many of them were the very employees that would track these particular outbreaks. And the other is that, from July of 2025 last year, the CDC has no longer required reporting cyclosporiasis. It's become optional to report this to the CDC's Foodborne Disease Active Surveillance Network."
Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care, pointed to the CDC decision to stop monitoring the cyclospora parasite as an example of the Trump administration putting Americans "in another shitty situation after laying waste to our public health infrastructure and gutting emergency preparedness."
"Because RFK Jr.’s CDC turned a blind eye to dangerous foodborne pathogens," Woodhouse added, "this outbreak spread quickly and states are now scrambling to do their own detective work on what’s causing it. The catastrophic cuts Trump and RFK Jr. made to disease surveillance and research keep coming back to haunt us, yet they want to cut even deeper to make up for their tax breaks for billionaires."
The Washington Post on Tuesday reported that both federal and state officials have launched an investigation into whether fast food chain Taco Bell "played a role" in the cyclosporiasis outbreak.
According to the Post's sources, some people who got sick from the disease said they had eaten at Taco Bell shortly becoming symptomatic, although others who were infected by the parasite said they had not eaten at the fast food chain before growing ill.
"Public health officials have said this season’s unusually high number of illnesses, now reported in more than 30 states," reported the Post, "means more information and more patients to help identify shared foods, shopping habits and restaurant visits among those sickened to help determine the source."
President Donald Trump's trade war, demand for the rapid expansion of energy-sucking artificial intelligence data centers, and cancellation of renewable energy projects have all gotten in the way of his ability to deliver on his promise to slash household electricity costs, according to US Energy Information Administration data released as the president's self-imposed deadline for cutting rates by 50% came and went this week.
The latest data from the EIA shows residential rates as recent as this past April, and finds that households paid an average of 18.83 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) that month compared with 17.55 cents in April 2025.
Since January 2025, when Trump entered office for his second term, prices have gone up by more than 18%, according to the EIA.
The data comes as the president reached the 18-month mark of his second administration—the deadline he gave himself to cut electricity rates in half.
"Under my leadership, the United States will commit to the ambitious goal of slashing energy and electricity prices by half at least,” Trump said at a campaign rally in North Carolina in August 2024. “We intend to slash prices by half within 12 months—at a maximum 18 months.”
"Every single thing that I promised, I produced," he added.
As Democratic research group American Bridge 21st Century said Tuesday, "Time's up, and so is your bill."
The 7.3% increase in the average electricity bill over the past 12 months alone shows costs soaring at roughly double the rate of inflation, reported 24/7 Wall Street.
The largest grid operator in the country, PJM Interconnection, reported a capacity price of $16.4 billion for power delivery in the 2028-29 period, according to the outlet. Reason also reported that data centers' electricity use added $6 billion to PJM's capacity auction, which utilities pay to guarantee future power supplies, with the costs flowing to ratepayers.
In the second quarter of 2026, utilities filed $9.2 billion in requests for rate hikes, up 26% from the same period in 2025, according to 24/7 Wall Street.
The EIA projected in May that residential electricity prices would rise by about 5% this year, with costs soaring the most in East Coast states.
Trump's deadline for slashing prices—a promise he made as families were also struggling with rising grocery and housing prices—came as The Century Foundation (TCF) released a report titled "Power Failure: Rising Energy Debt Is Climbing into the Middle Class."
According to the report, energy bills have increased three times faster than the inflation rate since Trump took office for the second time, with the national average utility bill reaching $280 in early 2026—a 12% increase since the end of 2024.
The average household in 18 states is now paying more than $280 per month for utilities, and average costs have gone up by more than 20% in 10 states since Trump began his second term.
In March 2026, the national average overdue utility balance for a household was $817, said TCF.
"The Trump administration’s policies are actively contributing to and worsening the energy cost crisis," reads TCF's report. "The effects of the Iran war will only further increase household utility costs, while runaway data center expansions account for 63 percent of electricity generation capacity costs in the nation’s largest power market. Meanwhile, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act repealed clean-energy tax credits that would have lowered household electricity bills and aid programs to help low-income families afford their energy bills."
Without citing evidence, Trump's energy secretary, Chris Wright, claimed last week that AI data centers "are the greatest tool we have right now to stop the rise of electricity prices," but numerous analyses have tied the rapid growth of the sector—pushed by the White House—to higher household costs, as a typical "hyperscale" data center can use as much as 100 megawatts, the same amount of electricity as 100,000 households.
Trump has also made components of energy infrastructure more expensive, while the think tank Energy Innovation found in a recent analysis that the president's cancellation of solar and other renewable energy projects could leave households paying an additional $460 per year in energy costs by 2035.
"The bottom line is what the data shows," wrote Joel South at 24/7 Wall Street. "The specific promise, cheaper power by mid-2026, was not met."
Sen. Gary Peters on Wednesday warned that the independence of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors is at risk thanks to President Donald Trump.
Peters (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, called for a pause on efforts to confirm two Trump USPS nominees until the president puts forth a Democratic nominee to maintain partisan balance on the board.
In a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), chairman of the committee, Peters said it appeared as though Trump was trying to stack the deck of the board by only nominating Republicans to serve.
"Congress designed the Board of Governors to represent the public interest, and enacted specific requirements regarding governors’ qualifications and political affiliations," wrote Peters. "The statute authorizing the board dictates that no more than five of the nine Senate-confirmed governors be members of the same political party."
Peters said that, if Trump kept refusing to make any Democratic nominations, it would eventually result in Republicans having a five-to-one advantage on the board.
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented," said Peters, "and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
The Save the Post Office Coalition on Tuesday sent a letter to senators urging them to reject Jeffrey Brodsky and William Gallo, Trump's two nominees to the board, whom they argued "do not have a record of public service" and "do not reflect the public interest in protecting the public service mission of the Postal Service."
"Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Gallo are wealthy businessmen with close ties to President Trump who both come from corporate insider backgrounds," the coalition emphasized. "They lack the qualifications needed to lead the nation’s oldest and most cherished public institution."
Control of the USPS Board of Governors has taken on particular importance given Trump's efforts to use the Postal Service as a weapon against mail-in voting.
In March, the president signed an executive order that instructed the USPS to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to its voter lists. A federal court earlier this month blocked implementation of the Trump order, which is being challenged legally by congressional Democrats and all 23 Democratic state attorneys general.
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that a coalition of eight nonprofit groups involved in voter education and advocacy have valid constitutional and statutory claims in their lawsuit against the Trump mail-in voting executive order.
Specifically, the court found that some of the groups' members may be directly harmed by the Trump order "because those members include individuals who must rely on mail voting as they live overseas, reside out of state, have disabilities, or are unable to travel to the polls and vote in person."
Amnesty International is calling for a full investigation by the US government into the alleged bombing of an Ecuadorian fishing boat, the Fiorella, last January, as the family members of eight disappeared fishermen have spent months demanding answers about what happened to their loved ones in the midst of the Trump administration's boat bombing campaign in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
In "Operation Southern Spear," which the Trump administration has said is aimed at stopping drug trafficking from Latin America and in which at least 221 people have been killed in more than 60 bombings, US Southern Command has frequently announced strikes in the region since they began in September.
In the case of the Fiorella, the US military did not issue an announcement of a bombing after the boat "went up in smoke" on January 20, after which eight fishermen who were on board went missing in the midst of Operation Southern Spear.
Amnesty noted on Monday that in the case of two other Ecuadorian fishing vessels, Negra Francisca Duarte II and Don Maca, which were reportedly struck by drones in March and whose surviving crew members said they were captured and tortured by US forces, US Southern Command also did not publicly acknowledge the strikes, "despite reports from survivors stating that both vessels were allegedly sunk by unmanned aerial vehicles bearing markings attributed to the United States."
"If it were confirmed that the United States was responsible for the strike on the Fiorella, as well as for the strikes against the Negra Francisca Duarte II and the Don Maca, the total number of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and other serious human rights violations associated with these operations could be much higher than previously estimated," said Amnesty.
The group's Evidence Lab used a vessel monitoring system to reconstruct the route covered by the Fiorella, finding the boat set sail from Jaramijó with 10 crew members on January 15.
The boat lost its internet connection shortly after setting out and went in and out of international waters, also sailing in the Galapagos Exclusive Economic Zone, between January 15-19.
"During the first days of the trip, no major incidents were reported," said Amnesty. "However, from the fourth day onwards, the Fiorella was allegedly subjected to sustained monitoring by aircraft, patrol boats and drones bearing United States markings. Juan Carlos Valencia, the fishing boat’s captain, sent daily satellite messages to his family expressing his growing concern about the surveillance."
On the morning of January 20, the boat sent two skiffs out with baited hooks, and at around 1:00 pm the two crew members on one of the boats saw "a large column of smoke in the distance in the direction of the Fiorella." The two crew members on the skiff were rescued by another fishing boat two days later, but "nothing more has been heard of the Fiorella or the second skiff since," said Amnesty.
Three months after the Fiorella disappeared following the apparent attack, the local organization Standing Committee for the Defense of Human Rights reported that the 36 crew members who had been aboard the Negra Francisca Duarte II and the Don Maca had been detained by US personnel after their boats were struck by drones, before being eventually returned to Ecuador.
Amnesty International, which met with the families of the disappeared crew members from the Fiorella, said the relatives suspect their loved ones may also have been captured and transferred to another country by the US.
“The families of the eight individuals whose whereabouts are unknown fear that this is a case of enforced disappearance at the hands of the United States," said Ana Piquer, Americas director at Amnesty International. "The US and Ecuadorian authorities must confirm or deny whether state agents from either country were involved, take all necessary steps to ascertain the fate and whereabouts of the victims, and provide reliable evidence showing what happened to them."
Family members reported that Ecuadorian officials have alluded to allegations that their loved ones were involved in drug trafficking and were therefore attacked by the US as part of Operation Southern Spear.
“The commander said to us: ‘You know what they went to do, so why are you looking for them?’" the daughter of one missing fisherman told Amnesty. "This made me really angry, and I said to him: ‘I’m here to look for my dad, all they did was go fishing. You should show some compassion and tell us the truth.’ The next day we went again [to the port authority] and they simply closed the door on us.”
The Ecuadorian Public Prosecutor's office has not submitted a formal request to the US for information to complete an investigation into the Fiorella's disappearance, said Amnesty.
“It’s as if the ship simply vanished and no one cares how it happened or what became of the people on board. Perhaps it just flew away? More than six months on from the disappearance, the Ecuadorian authorities must provide a clear account of what actions they have taken to establish the facts, what they know, what they do not know, and how they intend to address the legitimate demands of the families of those disappeared. The criminal investigation into these events must continue until those potentially responsible are identified and brought to justice,” said Piquer.
She added that "the Department of Justice and the investigative authorities of the US armed forces must investigate and establish possible criminal responsibility not only in relation to the Fiorella, but also for all other strikes on vessels on the high seas."
"Similarly, the US Congress must drive a parliamentary inquiry into this serious incident, with hearings and reports designed to establish the facts and determine the possible involvement of public agencies or private entities under its authority," she said. "In addition, all states must suspend international cooperation on intelligence and military equipment that could be used in such illegal operations."
Critics lit into US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he demanded on Tuesday that Congress pass President Donald Trump's plan for a $1.5 trillion military budget.
While testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Hegseth once again made a pitch for the president's massive defense spending proposal, going so far as to say that "not funding [the US Department of Defense] at $1.5 trillion is the greatest threat that our nation faces."
Pete Hegseth: Not funding this department at $1.5 trillion is the greatest threat our nation faces. pic.twitter.com/j2AvDMdpzg
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 21, 2026
In a social media post, economist Dean Baker put Trump's proposed budget into context by noting that the additional requested defense spending "is a bit less than $5,000 per household."
Baker also pointed out that the US already has a massive defense budget, writing that "before Bozo the president came in, we did fine on $860 billion," a total that is larger than the combined military budgets of China, Russia, Germany, India, and the UK.
Some Democratic lawmakers signaled their opposition to the $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request, which would represent an increase of more than 50% of what the US spent on its military in 2025.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) slammed Hegseth to his face during the hearing and pointed out that the unprecedented defense spending request was coming at a time when many Americans are struggling to afford gasoline and groceries.
"Secretary Hegseth, you are asking for unlimited money for bombs," Gillibrand said, "when people can't feed their families."
GIllibrand: So essentially you're asking for literally $1.5 trillion for a war that President Trump said he already won? Secretary Hegseth, you are asking for unlimited money for bombs when people can't feed their families. pic.twitter.com/MY03ohvj6W
— Molly Ploofkins (@Mollyploofkins) July 21, 2026
In an interview with MeidasTouch chief Washington correspondent Scott MacFarlane, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) predicted that Democrats’ response to Hegseth's demand for tens of billions of dollars in supplemental funding for the Iran war on top of the sprawling NDAA “is going to be a ‘hell no.’”
"How many times have we been told this war is over?" Ansari asked. "How many times have we been told that it's not a war?... I'm not giving another dollar to this."
“The response is going to be a ‘Hell No”
Rep Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) on how Democrats will vote on Pete Hegseth’s request for tens of billions of dollars for war pic.twitter.com/q9IQ9mYVH4
— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) July 22, 2026
Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) announced his opposition to the Hegseth budget in a social media post.
"Trump and Hegseth forced us into a disastrous, illegal war in Iran and now they want $1.5 trillion to keep it going," wrote Carbajal. "The American people want to end forever wars, not to fund them."
"We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place," said an attorney representing The New York Times.
The US Department of Justice on Thursday withdrew its subpoenas of New York Times reporters that were heavily criticized by free press advocates.
According to the Times, Deputy US Attorney Sean Buckley told US District Judge Arun Subramanian that "the government is prepared to unilaterally withdraw the subpoenas," which were issued earlier this month shortly after the paper published a story detailing security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
All Rise News reported that Buckley also told the court that the DOJ made a "mistake" when it issued subpoenas to phone companies for subscriber information and toll records for phone numbers used by one reporter’s mother and by two reporters’ spouses.
“That was an error,” Buckley said of the subpoenas related to reporters' family members. “It was a consequence of trying to move quickly.”
Eric Lipton, one of the Times journalists who had been subpoenaed, wrote in a social media post that he was "glad to hear" the government's decision to back down.
"Enormous thank you to the entire NYT legal team and outside counsel that has worked with such clarity and determination to challenge this," Lipton added, "from the moment we first heard FBI agents were starting to show up at our houses."
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times’ newsroom, called the DOJ's decision "an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press."
"We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place," McCraw added. "The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor. We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these."
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press celebrated the DOJ's subpoena withdrawal, while crediting Subramanian for pointed questioning of government lawyers.
"Targeting reporters to appease the White House has reached a dead end once again in the federal courts," the group said. "Judge Subramanian saw DOJ’s effort clearly for what it was: a brazen and careless government overreach."
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression described the DOJ decision as a "welcome reversal," but warned that the dangers posed to the First Amendment by the Trump DOJ were not over.
"Withdrawing the subpoenas does not erase the chilling effect of issuing them in the first place, and the DOJ should not reissue them," the group said. "Journalists should not have to choose between protecting confidential sources and facing government threats. A free press depends on reporters being able to pursue the truth, and on sources being able to share information the public has a right to know."
John Schwartz, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Journalism and Media, said there was a practical lesson to be learned from how the Times handled the Trump administration's efforts to force its reporters into court.
"Fight and you win," wrote Schwartz. "Always punch the bullies in the nose."
"We cannot allow this illegal, unconstitutional war in Iran to continue," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who introduced the House resolution.
For the second time in as many months, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives narrowly passed a war powers resolution directing President Donald Trump to end his illegal war on Iran, but later on Thursday GOP senators and Democrat John Fetterman blocked a similar measure in the upper chamber.
H.Con.Res.89, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and sponsored by 15 Democrats and one Republican, passed by a vote of 214-208, with co-sponsor Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and three other GOP lawmakers—Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.)—breaking ranks to cast "yes" votes.
“Today’s bipartisan vote on my war powers resolution to end this war in Iran was a big victory for the vast majority of the American people who want President Trump to end this illegal war and focus on their lives right here at home," Jayapal said in a statement. "A majority of this Congress voted to end the war yet again, and sent yet another clear order to the president that Congress will not continue to tolerate this illegal war."
"The vote also put pressure on Republicans to stand up for their constituents and the Constitution," the congresswoman continued. "Out of respect for our US servicemembers, civilian lives in Iran and Lebanon, the American taxpayers, and our Constitution, we cannot allow this illegal, unconstitutional war in Iran to continue."
Massie said ahead of Thursday's vote: "American servicemen and women are dying, and gas and fertilizer prices are soaring. It’s time to end this war."
At least 18 US troops have been killed and more than 430 others have been wounded during the 145-day US-Israeli war of choice. Iran's Health Ministry said earlier this week that more than 3,500 Iranians, including at least 496 women and 384 children and infants, have been killed by US and Israeli attacks. More than 26,500 Iranians, including at least 4,000 women and 1,621 children, have been wounded.
Around 30 people have been killed by Iranian counterattacks targeting US-allied Mideast nations, while a simultaneous Israeli war on Lebanon has killed or wounded upward of 15,000 people, according to Lebanese officials.
"Trump needs to end his illegal war now," Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) said on social media.
Jayapal said in her statement: “From the beginning, this war has had no clear mission, no strategy, no end goal. Congress has not been consulted. And hostilities have been driven over and over again by a president who won his election by promising to end forever wars. This administration has clearly gotten us into a war they have no clue how to get us out of."
Later on Thursday, US senators voted 47-49 against advancing a similar war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) crossed the aisle to vote with nearly all Democratic caucus members, while Fetterman (D-Pa.) joined all other present Republicans in voting against the measure. GOP Sens. Katie Britt (Alabama), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Rand Paul (Ky.) missed the vote.
"When are Senate Republicans going to stand up?" Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber floor. "Senate Republicans lose credibility with the American people with every vote they take against ending Trump's war."
Minority Leader @SenSchumer (D-NY) urges GOP to support Iran war powers resolution: "When are Senate Republicans going to stand up? … Senate Republicans lose credibility with the American people with every vote they take against ending Trump's war." pic.twitter.com/XyCTq1TdKj
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 23, 2026
During his second term, Trump has ordered US military attacks or operations in Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen and a campaign of high-seas boat bombings in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The self-described "peace president" has ordered attacks on 11 countries through his two terms in office—the aforementioned nations, plus Afghanistan, Libya, and Pakistan during his first administration.
Trump has also threatened to attack, seize, or acquire by other means Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, and Mexico. He is also reportedly weighing strikes on Mali targeting al-Qaeda-affiliated militants.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and limit such action to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, unless lawmakers declare war or issue an authorization for the use of military force.
Congressional Democrats and legal experts have rejected Trump’s dubious argument that quitting his negotiated ceasefire with Iran resets the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day limit; absent congressional authorization, the statutory clock generally starts from the first US strike and continues uninterrupted until military action ends.
The first war powers resolutions passed during Trump's presidency came in 2019, when the House and Senate ordered the president to end unauthorized US military involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen. The Senate subsequently failed to override Trump's veto of the directive.
Last month, both the House and Senate passed resolutions directing Trump to halt his war on Iran. The president has almost entirely ignored the directives, prompting Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)—who authored both an unsuccessful war powers resolution in a bid to stop the US boat bombings and the successful Iran order passed last month—to say Thursday that he will try to sue the administration for failing to obey Congress.
"I'm dropping a resolution today... that we should be suing the administration for not following... the resolution that was passed in both the House and Senate," Meeks told reporters outside the Capitol, where lawmakers are set to go on summer recess.
"When we get back next week, I'm going to force a vote on that, so that we can now go to the courts and sue the administration for not following the will of Congress."
"The picture now coming into focus is that the intervention has been... little more than a pretext for extracting economic wealth that rightfully belongs to the people of Venezuela," said one economist.
Since President Donald Trump's operation in January to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the US has taken more than $13 billion in revenue from Venezuelan oil sales. But nobody, including Congress, is entirely sure where the money has gone.
The Financial Times, which reported the figure on Wednesday based on estimates of oil sales out of Venezuela since January, pointed out that the Trump administration has given vague and contradictory answers about who currently controls the revenues from the Latin American nation's largest export and source of wealth.
Trump said in the days after the US attack that Venezuela's oil wealth would be "controlled by me." At a rally on Wednesday, he boasted that the US "won in Venezuela" and had paid for the operation "many many times over" by "taking tremendous amounts of oil" from the country.
He added that "Venezuela is doing better than they've ever done before." But economic data from the country tells a very different story.
According to economist Francisco Rodríguez of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in the first quarter of this year, Venezuela had just 2.5% growth in its gross domestic product—its worst in five years. This is despite the fact that its oil exports grew by 25% during the first quarter.
He said this was likely "because the US didn’t transfer to the Venezuelan government the totality of its increased oil revenues."
While the executive order signed by Trump in January describes the proceeds from oil sales as nominally belonging to Venezuela, they are being held in accounts controlled by the US Treasury Department. It prohibits Venezuela from independently withdrawing from the accounts without approval from the secretary of state, Marco Rubio.
At a Congressional hearing this week, Michael Kozak, a senior State Department official, acknowledged that "it's their money, but they have to get our permission" to receive it.
While the State Department has claimed that “billions of dollars have been disbursed to the Venezuelan economy” and that “financial monitoring is under way to ensure funds benefit the Venezuelan people," the FT found little evidence that this is the case.
A website set up by the Venezuelan government to track exports from US-run oil sales shows just a single transfer of $300 million in March.
The administration has made explicitly clear that it is using the oil revenues as a tool to exert leverage over Venezuelan policy. In January, Vice President JD Vance said that the administration would allow Venezuela to sell oil as long as its policies "serve America's national interest."
A senior US official told The New Yorker that the administration has authorized about $6 billion to be disbursed to the government of Venezuela's interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, though there was no indication it had actually been transferred or spent.
Francisco Rodríguez said that even if it was, this "leaves an obvious question: where are the remaining $7 billion?"
He speculated that some of it might have been paid directly to joint venture partners, but noted that this would only account for a "fraction" of the difference and said there could be "other more complex explanations, beyond the possibility that the US is simply sitting on the money."
However, he said, "what is becoming increasingly clear is that the main reason Venezuela's economic recovery has been so sluggish is that, while the country is generating more oil revenue, it is not collecting on it."
In April, Kozak said the administration would provide quarterly reports on where the funds have gone. But Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee said they had not received them.
The lack of transparency has drawn concern from members of both parties in Congress, which Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said has been “kept in the dark.”
“Trump’s invasion of Venezuela has been about oil, power, and graft from the very beginning, with billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil revenue being controlled by the Trump administration without transparency or safeguards,” Castro told the Financial Times.
Even María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.)—who promoted a Trump-led regime change effort in Venezuela by saying it would be a "field day" for US oil companies—has called for the administration to publicize reports on where the money is going.
The question of what has happened to Venezuela's wealth is made more urgent by the twin earthquakes the country suffered in June, which killed about 5,000 people, injured 17,000, and left 18,000 homeless, according to government figures.
A World Bank report released Thursday estimated that reconstruction could cost close to $50 billion.
The earthquake has been met with calls for the US to lift its harsh sanctions on Venezuela, which have cost the country tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in lost revenue since 2015 and which advocates have said are further hobbling the nation’s recovery.
Trump ratcheted up these sanctions in the months leading up to his operation to overthrow Maduro, and many have remained in place following the earthquake.
The US has provided more than $386 million in earthquake-related assistance to Venezuela. But it's just a fraction of the oil wealth it appears to be holding.
Francisco Rodríguez said the apparent hoarding of Venezuela’s oil wealth does further damage to Trump’s claim that his intervention was meant to benefit its people, as well as the US.
“The bottom line is that this arrangement is not proving advantageous to Venezuelans,” Rodríguez said. "The picture now coming into focus is that the intervention has been, as its critics have long accused such actions of being, little more than a pretext for extracting economic wealth that rightfully belongs to the people of Venezuela."
"Susan Collins is directly responsible for handing ICE a blank check," said a top Maine Democratic official.
With Troy Jackson securing enough delegates to become the Maine Democratic Party's nominee for the US Senate at an unprecedented convention this coming weekend, party strategists and leaders have intensified their efforts to tie incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins to the Trump administration's grave abuses.
In an interview with The New Republic published Thursday, Devon Murphy-Anderson, executive director of the Maine Democratic Party, singled out Collins' votes to fund US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a significant vulnerability.
Anti-ICE protests in Maine erupted earlier this month after the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Colombian national Joan Sebastian Guerrero, who was killed by federal immigration agents in front of his six-year-old daughter during a traffic stop.
While Collins lobbied the US Department of Homeland Security to pause traffic stops in the wake of the shooting, President Donald Trump rebuffed her request and said the stops should continue.
Murphy-Anderson told The New Republic that Collins can't escape blame for ICE violence given her role in voting to hand the agency a record amount of money.
Last week, days after Guerrero was killed by a federal agent, Collins declined to say she regretted voting for additional ICE funding.
" Susan Collins is directly responsible for handing ICE a blank check," said Murphy-Anderson. "This is front and center now in our communities. And we are going to hold her accountable in November."
While attacking Collins' votes to fund ICE won't be the entirety of Maine Democrats' strategy for taking on Collins, Murphy-Anderson emphasized that the shooting of Guerrero is "viscerally" affecting voters "across broad segments of our electorate."
Jackson on Tuesday targeted Collins' votes for ICE in a social media post.
"Susan Collins lied to Mainers," Jackson wrote. "She helped destroy Roe v. Wade, she advanced Trump's $990 billion Medicaid cuts, and she gave ICE $70 billion continue its rogue terror campaign."
Susan Collins lied to Mainers. She helped destroy Roe v. Wade, she advanced Trump's $990 billion Medicaid cuts, and she gave ICE $70 billion continue its rogue terror campaign.
Together, we will replace her with a Senator who gives a damn about working people in this country. pic.twitter.com/2B8VmQJsuB
— Troy Jackson (@TroyJackson207) July 21, 2026
Maine Democrats' plan to make Collins' support for ICE an anchor around her neck drew praise from Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois.
"Anti-ICE is pro-freedom," Grossman wrote in a social media post. "That stance is moral, patriotic, and a political winner. Susan Collins' pro-ICE votes are an electoral liability she didn't have in previous races. And an ICE officer with a history of domestic abuse recently killed an innocent man in Maine. Definitely campaign on that."
Adam Gurri, founder and publisher of Liberal Currents, said that pinning ICE's actions directly on Collins was a smart tactic to undermine her image as a "moderate" Republican.
"We can’t let her play this game she’s been doing her whole damn career," wrote Gurri, "where she gives her vote to every evil policy but then play acts being the mediator for how the policy is deployed."
Journalist Jason Sattler argued that Collins' support for ICE funding opens up a new line of attack on her.
"ICE is her running mate," Sattler wrote.
One advocate warned that new Medicaid rules issued by the Trump administration would have "disastrous impacts on individuals and healthcare systems."
The Trump administration earlier this week unveiled a new rule that advocates said would make it harder for states to fund their Medicaid programs, compounding damage caused by expanded work requirements and other changes enacted under the 2025 Republican budget law.
The law bars states from creating new provider taxes—levies on hospitals and other healthcare providers—and limits existing ones. The new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rule, which is open for public comment until September, would codify the GOP law's changes.
Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said Wednesday that the CMS rule "goes beyond the harsh restrictions already imposed by Congress to further narrow the options that states have to fund Medicaid services and providers."
"Along with Congress’ other restrictions on taxing healthcare providers—restrictions that gut Medicaid funding in all states—CMS estimates this new proposed rule will cut $198.7 billion in state Medicaid funding over 10 years," Wright noted. "This rule comes at a time when states are already under significant budgetary pressure to foot the bill for the cost of implementing complex and unnecessary work reporting requirements; in tandem with a proposed rule that slashes Medicaid provider payments and further eliminates state flexibility."
“Taken together," Wright warned, "these three rules serve as a coordinated dismantling of the Medicaid program, including its eligibility systems, payment structures and financing mechanisms, with disastrous impacts on individuals and healthcare systems."
The Republican budget measure, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, includes roughly $900 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade. Millions of Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since the GOP law took effect.
Earlier this week, the entire House Democratic caucus implored CMS to "reconsider" its recently published Medicaid work requirement rule, warning it "will create an undue burden for beneficiaries with serious healthcare needs and put people at risk of losing coverage, while also creating significant implementation challenges for states."
"This rule will require beneficiaries to frequently prove and verify their exemptions in order to maintain coverage, which will cause confusion, create bureaucratic burdens for patients seeking care, and, as a result, will lock patients out of lifesaving treatments," the lawmakers wrote. "Forcing vulnerable patients to exhaustively document their symptoms simply to maintain access to basic
healthcare is both imprudent and inconsistent with federal law."
Regulators announced the penalty as President Donald Trump is considering new tariffs against the European Union.
A day before President Donald Trump was expected to announce new trade tariffs on the European Union, the bloc's regulators on Thursday announced it had fined Google for anticompetitive business practices related to its search engine and app store.
Google has violated the Digital Markets Act (DMA), said the European Commission, by giving priority to its own services in search results and by preventing app developers from steering customers to cheaper products or app stores other than Google's Play Store.
The commission fined Google €460 million ($524 million) for its breach of search engine rules and €430 million ($490 million) for the app store violation, bringing the total fine to more than $1 billion—a fraction of the tech giant's assets. The fine was announced a day after Google parent company Alphabet reported a quarterly profit of $112.1 billion.
Brussels-based journalist Dave Keating quoted Alexandra Geese, a member of European Parliament representing the Green Party, as saying that "the size of this fine is disappointing and bears no relation to the damage Google has done to the European economy."
"Plenty of people would dodge the fare if the fine were cheaper than the ticket," said Geese.
The fine comes weeks after the European Court of Justice upheld a $4.67 billion fine from 2018 over the unfair advantage it gave to its own apps by pre-installing the apps on smartphones.
Teresa Ribera, the commission's executive vice president for a clean, just, and competitive transition, said Thursday that the DMA promises protections for "fairness, choice, and innovation in digital markets for the benefit of all European citizens.”
“The best products should succeed because they’re better, not because they’re owned by the company running the search engine,” said Ribera.
Kent Walker, Google's president of global affairs, claimed the fine would cause "product degradation" and said the company is evaluating a possible appeal.
The fine, he said, will force Google "to strip away real-time search features Europeans love—like instant pricing and direct availability for hotels, flights, and restaurants—and dismantle safety protections on Google Play."
The company has 60 days to comply with the penalty and could face further fines of up to 5% of its global revenue if it fails to do so.
Google has been fined more than $10 billion euros by the EU for anticompetitive behavior since 2017.
Ribera called on the company to return to the negotiating table with European regulators to determine its full compliance with the DMA.
“It is quite a strong message to Google to say: We expect from you a serious proposal in terms of compliance,” she said. “The intention of our regulation is to ensure well-functioning markets, not to punish anyone. But, of course, in certain cases, we need to come up with sanctions.”
The fine was announced hours before Trump's tariffs against 60 countries were set to expire; the president has threatened new tariffs against the European Union in retaliation for what he and Republican lawmakers view as unfair targeting of US tech companies.
But Ribera told reporters that the European Commission is "bound by the law" and announced the fine despite fears in the EU that Trump could retaliate with higher tariffs than the ones he levied last year.
“I don’t think that any of us being part of the Commission could be respected," said Ribera, "if we could decide whether to do or not to do because someone else is trying to tell us what to do.”
"By voting for this budget resolution, Republicans are saying that this war is more important than lowering Americans’ costs."
House Republicans on Wednesday approved a $95 billion budget framework that would pump more money into US President Donald Trump's illegal Iran war and push states to adopt restrictions on voting rights, all while Americans struggle to afford groceries and other necessities.
Every present House Democrat and just three members of the GOP caucus—Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Kevin Kiley of California—voted against the budget measure, which would yet again set in motion the filibuster-proof reconciliation process that the Republican majority has used to ram through tax cuts for the rich, attacks on safety net programs, and other unpopular agenda items.
The new budget blueprint, which is seen as facing tougher prospects in the narrowly Republican-controlled Senate, would provide up to $73 billion in additional funding for the US military, mostly for the Iran war. The measure also includes $10 billion to prod states to adopt voter ID requirements, a top priority of the Trump administration ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Leor Tal, campaign director at the Unrig Our Economy coalition, said in response to Wednesday's vote that "once again, Republicans in Congress chose to put their unnecessary war in Iran over the American people."
"It is unconscionable that any member of Congress would vote to put a cent of taxpayer money towards this war that is raising Americans’ costs and costing servicemembers their lives," said Tal. "By voting for this budget resolution, Republicans are saying that this war is more important than lowering Americans’ costs. It’s time for Republicans in Congress to put an end to this seemingly endless war."
Analysts have placed the financial cost of the Iran war at roughly $1,100 per American household so far, accounting for higher prices for energy, groceries, and other essentials. With families across the country reeling from federal food aid cuts implemented under an earlier Republican budget package, a recent poll found that two-thirds of Americans say they would describe the cost of groceries as unaffordable—up from 45% prior to the US assault on Iran.
The budget measure that House Republicans adopted on Wednesday would do nothing to alleviate the nation's worsening cost-of-living crisis, which Trump has repeatedly dismissed as a hoax perpetrated by his political opponents.
"With grocery bills on the rise and skyrocketing gas prices at the pump, working families are struggling to make ends meet, and Republicans have no plan for them," Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said Wednesday. "Taxpayer dollars should be used to support the American people, not double down on this president’s failed agenda and foreign wars. Congress needs to cut off funding for the war before more Americans are killed, not write a multi-billion-dollar blank check to the Pentagon."
In a separate vote on Wednesday, House Republicans voted to authorize an unprecedented $1.15 trillion military budget for the coming fiscal year. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chairs of the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, said in a joint statement that "while millions of Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities, Congress is choosing to authorize over $1 trillion for the Pentagon, once again funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to defense contractors instead of investing in the needs of working people."
"The American people are sick and tired of funding atrocities abroad and want this war with Iran to end," said Omar and Pocan. "Yet year after year, the Pentagon fails its audit with virtually no accountability, while Congress continues to increase military spending. We should be investing in affordable housing, healthcare, education, and good-paying jobs—not bankrolling defense contractors."
"If Republicans actually wanted to stop congressional stock trading, they’d pass our bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
The US House of Representatives on Wednesday held a series of key votes, including one in which over a dozen Democrats helped Republicans pass a purported congressional stock trading ban, even though the GOP tacked on a voter suppression provision demanded by President Donald Trump.
The chamber passed the Stop Insider Trading Act (HR 7008) in a 232-198 vote. The Democrats who voted in favor are Reps. Kathy Castor (Fla.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Susie Lee (Nev.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), Chris Pappas (NH), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Darren Soto (Fla.), and Derek Tran (Calif.).
Taking aim at Trump on Wednesday, Congresswoman Sydney Kamlanger-Dove (D-Calif.) said that "the Stock Trader in Chief made 21,000 stock trades in his first year back in office. I 100% support a stock trading ban for Members of Congress AND the president and VP. But the bill Republicans brought to the floor was only about appeasing Trump."
"It caters to Trump's election conspiracy theories by enacting haphazard voter ID restrictions, and it conveniently excludes him and JD from the ban," she added, referring to Vice President JD Vance. "I voted no."
Many other House Democrats joined voting rights advocates in opposing the bill in the lead-up to Wednesday's vote, with Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-NY) denouncing it as "a Trojan horse—using the premise of congressional ethics reform to advance a broader effort to restrict access to the ballot box."
In a letter to Congress earlier this week, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) warned that "the Voter ID Act—which mostly mirrors a section of the deeply unpopular SAVE Act—aims to impose onerous new requirements on voting. It would demand Americans provide ID to cast a ballot but only accept an unreasonably narrow list of acceptable types of documentation. It excludes widely held and reliable forms of ID that young people and voters of color disproportionally rely on, while failing to account for the diversity of tribal identification practices."
As for the stock portion of the bill, CLC wrote, it "would not actually ban lawmakers from trading stocks or stop members from unduly profiting from their official positions," and "contains exceptions that regrettably swallow the few new rules it does try to enact."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Wednesday renewed her call for passing the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act.
In addition to HR 7008, the House on Wednesday passed an annual military spending package and a budget reconciliation framework that includes $10 billion for election-related grants.
By adding SAVE America Act provisions to unrelated measures, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is trying "to placate Mr. Trump and far-right House Republicans who are furious that the voting restriction bill has run aground in the Senate," The New York Times noted. "The moves are unlikely to budge Senate Republicans; they consider the bill dead, given that it cannot draw the 60 votes needed to move forward in that chamber."
As for the chamber's Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and his party's Election Protection Task Force on Wednesday brought together various experts, including Ian Bassin of Protect Democracy, former White House ethics czar Norm Eisen, lawyer Marc Elias, Vanita Gupta of New York University School of Law, and Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward.
"We all know that Donald Trump wants to steal America's elections, plain and simple. And Democrats won't let it happen," Schumer said. "We are looking at every very way to prevent him from stealing the elections. He's desperate. He's made life harder, more difficult for Americans. He wants to steal the election because he knows he can't win the election. Our job is to stop it. And so, we are doing many things. This month we're talking about Trump's corruption."
"But one of the things we are doing is a tabletop exercise where some of the experts on election reform will challenge us with certain scenarios that Trump might use. We're looking at things he would do to undo elections before Election Day, on Election Day, and after Election Day," he explained. "And we had one tabletop exercise three, four weeks ago. And it greatly strengthened our knowledge and ability to anticipate what he might do and how to thwart him. That's what we're doing here today. And whatever he does, we will be ready to respond."
Congress already passed one resolution last month, but Trump has defied it, claiming that his latest attacks are part of a new war against Iran.
Democrats introduced another war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday that they hope will strengthen their efforts to stop President Donald Trump from continuing to escalate his war with Iran.
Both houses of Congress already passed a war powers resolution in June, but it was not signed by Trump and lacked the force of law.
Trump has refused to comply with its order to withdraw troops from hostilities in the region, claiming that his renewed attacks on Iran this month constitute a new conflict that resets the 60-day countdown before Congress can intervene.
According to Politico, Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expects the resolution to come to the floor for a vote on Thursday, just before Congress adjourns for a five-week summer recess.
The resolution, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Wednesday, is expected to have the support of every Democrat, as well as Reps. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who voted for the last resolution.
A co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.), said on Wednesday that Democrats, as well as these "Republicans of courage and conscience," were united in their goal of sending "a message that this war has got to stop."
Jayapal said recent developments, including the deaths of four US soldiers over the past week, had raised the urgency of ending the war now.
"This war has killed 18 US service members, cost billions of taxpayer dollars, and displaced millions of civilians," she noted.
A new resolution may also strengthen a separate effort by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who is planning to introduce legislation that would block any additional federal funding for attacks against Iran not authorized by Congress. He also said he was preparing a lawsuit challenging Trump's continuation of the war without congressional approval, which he has called "legally baseless."
As the administration requests tens of billions more in military spending in order to fund the war, Democrats in the Senate last week blocked debate on the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The House passed the NDAA on Wednesday with limited Democratic support, though it did not contain the separate Iran War funding package.
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
Sen. Gary Peters on Wednesday warned that the independence of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors is at risk thanks to President Donald Trump.
Peters (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, called for a pause on efforts to confirm two Trump USPS nominees until the president puts forth a Democratic nominee to maintain partisan balance on the board.
In a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), chairman of the committee, Peters said it appeared as though Trump was trying to stack the deck of the board by only nominating Republicans to serve.
"Congress designed the Board of Governors to represent the public interest, and enacted specific requirements regarding governors’ qualifications and political affiliations," wrote Peters. "The statute authorizing the board dictates that no more than five of the nine Senate-confirmed governors be members of the same political party."
Peters said that, if Trump kept refusing to make any Democratic nominations, it would eventually result in Republicans having a five-to-one advantage on the board.
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented," said Peters, "and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
The Save the Post Office Coalition on Tuesday sent a letter to senators urging them to reject Jeffrey Brodsky and William Gallo, Trump's two nominees to the board, whom they argued "do not have a record of public service" and "do not reflect the public interest in protecting the public service mission of the Postal Service."
"Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Gallo are wealthy businessmen with close ties to President Trump who both come from corporate insider backgrounds," the coalition emphasized. "They lack the qualifications needed to lead the nation’s oldest and most cherished public institution."
Control of the USPS Board of Governors has taken on particular importance given Trump's efforts to use the Postal Service as a weapon against mail-in voting.
In March, the president signed an executive order that instructed the USPS to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to its voter lists. A federal court earlier this month blocked implementation of the Trump order, which is being challenged legally by congressional Democrats and all 23 Democratic state attorneys general.
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that a coalition of eight nonprofit groups involved in voter education and advocacy have valid constitutional and statutory claims in their lawsuit against the Trump mail-in voting executive order.
Specifically, the court found that some of the groups' members may be directly harmed by the Trump order "because those members include individuals who must rely on mail voting as they live overseas, reside out of state, have disabilities, or are unable to travel to the polls and vote in person."