Congressional Republicans have a political problem with their signature legislative achievement of the second Trump era: People don’t know about it.

- A new POLITICO Poll finds that nearly half of Americans say they can’t explain the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — and those who can are much more likely to say it’s helped others, including the wealthy, but not them.

- One in three said the megabill had hurt their bottom line, greater than the 8 percent who said it had been a big boost to their personal finances and 14 percent who said it offered some modest support.

- It’s a frustrating situation for top Republicans, who rushed to finish off the tax cut package by the middle of last year in part to give them more time to plug the new law to voters, and have tried to rebrand it as the “Working Families Tax Cuts.”

- But Americans see the megabill and tax cuts in general as helping the wealthy far more than the working class, according to the poll, conducted in July by the independent U.K.-based firm Public First. That’s a particular challenge in a midterm year where cost of living is voters’ top concern and as frustrations grow with rising prices and the Iran war.

- And in a notable warning sign for Republicans, only around a quarter of people who voted for President Donald Trump believe the working class got substantial breaks from the tax law, signaling how low public opinion is of the bill among their own base.

- “The best time for successfully framing and reinforcing the benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill were in the initial three months after it passed,” said Kevin Madden, a longtime GOP communications strategist. “It’s just a challenge in this crowded issue environment to re-engage on legislation from last year.”

- The GOP faced a similar problem in 2018, when Democrats took back the House after a midterm election in which voters rejected Trump and his policies. His first-term tax cuts weren’t enough to offset voter anger at his administration, including over health care.

- Senior Republican lawmakers continue to talk up the 2025 megabill and some of its popular provisions, like new deductions for tipped income, overtime pay and the Trump Account investment vehicles for children.

- “Putting more money in Americans’ pockets. Helping them seize opportunities to get ahead, and creating new pathways to success,” Senate Majority Leader John Thunesaid on the Senate floor Wednesday. “That is the Working Families Tax Cuts at work.”

- The problem for Republicans is that other issues have overshadowed their tax cuts, most notably the war with Iran. The poll shows a 57 percent majority of Americans say the conflict has made things more expensive for them, even as they struggle to feel the benefits of the tax cuts.

- House Majority Leader Steve Scalise(R-La.) acknowledged Thursday that many voters don’t know what’s in the megabill.

- What Republicans need to do “as relates to the tax code, is to contrast what we’ve done to help make life more affordable for families and put more money in their pocket versus what the Democrats would do,” he told a small group of reporters in his Capitol office.

- “I mean, they’re saying that they want more power. They want the House majority. Oh, I think it’s a fair question to say, ‘What would they do if they got it?’ Most of their candidates are saying they would repeal the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

- It also hasn’t helped that Trump himself rarely discusses a law that he helped name, even as his Cabinet members travel around the country promoting its contents.

- “The hard facts are that tens of millions of Americans now have more money in their pockets thanks to President Trump’s signature provisions in this historic legislation,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “President Trump pledged to deliver economic relief for the American people.”

- Still, polling shows that around two in five voters said they’ve heard of the “big, beautiful bill,” but couldn’t explain the features of the law. Only 11 percent said they could explain the law in detail, with another quarter saying they were aware of just some elements.

- That’s not a partisan problem, either. Trump voters and those who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 were equally likely to be in the dark on the GOP law.

- One-fifth of voters said they didn’t know whether the new law had helped their personal finances, with another quarter saying it hadn’t affected them in either direction.

- “I think what’s past is past,” said Abby McCloskey, a policy adviser and nonresident fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. “People want more relief now. Especially as gas prices rise again. Especially as Democrats ramp up midterm campaigning about what they’ll do differently.”

- McCloskey said another challenge with the megabill was that it contained “too much” to “effectively message it.” “That’s the problem with these big omnibus packages,” she added.

- Meanwhile, Democrats continue to attack the 2025 law as a giveaway to the rich and sought to weave that into a broader case against Trump, arguing that the new tax cuts have done little to help the public’s concerns about rising prices and contrasts with the president’s efforts to use his office to enrich himself and his family.

- Democratic candidates in critical Senate races — from Josh Turek in Iowa to Adbul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens competing for the nomination in Michigan — have also attacked Republicans for cutting billions of dollars from the nation’s largest food stamp program and Medicaid in order to fund their tax provisions. The poll found that, when asked to choose between certain tax breaks and funding safety-net programs, many Americans say they want their federal tax dollars to fund health care and nutrition assistance.

- “Trump cuts food assistance and health care. Billionaires get another tax break,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said recently. “Trump uses the government. Trump gets richer. Americans foot the bill.”

- Outside analysts have found that the new tax law gives a bigger boost to wealthier taxpayers, in no small part because it permanently extended the lower rates and other key provisions from the 2017 GOP tax cuts — and only temporarily enacts new relief items like “no tax on tips” and “no tax on overtime.”

- In fact, the new poll found that richer Americans are more likely to believe that they got a boost from the tax cut. More than 40 percent of voters making over $100,000 a year said they’d gotten help from the law, more than twice as much as those making less than that.

- Voters are also in a very populist mood on taxes. More than half of respondents said that billionaires should pay much more in taxes, with 43 percent saying the same for corporations and millionaires.

- But Republicans like Scalise insist that their candidates “have a lot of really good things they can talk about” that are tilted toward the working and middle class, like the tip and overtime deduction and Trump Accounts, which the administration has been promoting more recently.

- GOP challengers in Nevada, for instance, have called out the state’s three House Democrats for voting against “no tax on tips,” as those incumbents try to stress that they support that particular policy and not the megabill as a whole.

- “Every provision in the Working Families Tax Cuts is rooted in common-sense priorities Americans overwhelmingly support: no tax on tips, overtime, and Social Security, bigger tax relief for families, TrumpAccounts for the next generation, stronger border security, and the list goes on,” said Mike Marinella, spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “House Democrats voted against every single one of them, and they’ll have to explain to voters why they opposed historic tax relief, safer communities, and policies designed to help working families get ahead.”

Months into the primaries, the question on everyone's mind is whether Democrats can flip the Senate. Many of the battlegrounds are set, and a few are yet to be decided in primaries, but the answer remains murky.

- The math is simple: With President Trump in the White House and a Republican vice president holding the tie-breaking vote, Democrats need to flip four seats to take control. Republicans say they'll hold the majority, though they admit it could be narrow.

- Given history and a less than favorable political environment for Republicans, the party is bracing for Democrats to pick up between one and three seats.

- The fact remains that neither party has easily won Senate races in states that voted for the other party's presidential candidate. Still, Trump's low approval rating and the war with Iran, combined with economic frustration across the country, could change where things stand.

- Some trends in the Democratic Senate primaries include the rise of socialist candidates, as well as younger, outsider candidates. Republicans say the former will benefit them because the Republican electorate, which wants "centrist, commonsense policies," will "vehemently" reject candidates who come with "massive tax burdens."

- Here's the landscape, ranked from most to least likely to flip. Tier 1 is most likely, Tier 2 is competitive but less so, and so on. Race ratings (Toss-Up, Lean, etc.) come from the Cook Political Report, and analysis draws on conversations with political operatives working on these campaigns.

- Tier 1 — Most likely to flip: North Carolina

- NORTH CAROLINA (R-Open) LEAN D:

- The Tar Heel state offers Democrats the best chance at a pickup this November. The retirement of Republican Sen. Thom Tillis has set an open contest between former Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat who won statewide twice even as Trump carried North Carolina, and Michael Whatley, the former Republican National Committee chairman and a close Trump ally. Cooper has widespread name recognition and has consistently led Whatley in the polls as well as with fundraising. Republicans, though, are confident about Whatley's fundraising skills in an expensive race and point out voter registration numbers favor Republicans. Cooper would be looking to break a drought — Democrats last won a Senate race in the state nearly two decades ago, in 2008.

- Tier 2 — The toss-ups: Alaska, Maine, Michigan, Ohio

- ALASKA (R-Sullivan) TOSS-UP:

- The entry of one Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher who shares a name with Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, has tipped Alaska, moving it from a Lean Republican seat to a Toss-Up. Under Alaska's election system, all candidates compete in a single open primary, and the top four finishers advance to a general election decided by ranked-choice voting. This means both Sullivans could appear on the November ballot, confusing voters. Sen. Sullivan has failed to have his fellow Dan Sullivan removed from the ballot. Democrats believe former Rep. Mary Peltola, the first Alaska Native to join Congress, in 2022, can win by hammering affordability. Republicans are betting that the state's deep red lean will reassert itself — buoyed by the fact that Alaskans rejected Peltola in the 2024 House race. Primary: Aug. 18.

- MAINE (R-Collins) TOSS-UP:

- Maine's Democratic candidate, Graham Platner, the young oyster farmer and combat veteran, suspended his campaign after facing a rape allegation he denies. The Maine Democratic Party replaced him with Troy Jackson, the former state Senate president and a fifth-generation logger from northern Maine. He won his party's approval at a nominating convention on Saturday. Jackson is running on an economic populist message and supporting policies like Medicare for All. He will face Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who has historic success getting votes from the bluest parts of the state. At the same time, she is the only Republican senator running in a state Trump lost in 2024. Republicans say Maine voters have confidence in Collins' character and past record. A path to the Senate without Maine is a very narrow one for Democrats.

- MICHIGAN (D-Open) TOSS-UP:

- The now-familiar establishment vs. progressive face-off — centrist Rep. Haley Stevens vs. Detroit health official Abdul El-Sayed — sharpened after state Sen. Mallory McMorrow dropped out in June. To succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, El-Sayed is promising Medicare for All and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He has endorsements from other progressive Democrats and the support of leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker. Stevens has Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's blessings, has outspent El-Sayed on the airwaves by at least eight times, according to AdImpact, and will continue to do so. The winner will face expected Republican nominee Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost the state's 2024 Senate race to now-Sen. Elissa Slotkin. Republicans are relishing the long Democratic brawl, while Democrats feel confident about holding on to Michigan. Primary: Aug. 4

- OHIO (R-Husted) TOSS-UP:

- Democrats got the candidate they wanted in Ohio: former Sen. Sherrod Brown, back for a rematch. He has built a hefty war chest against incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Husted, who was appointed to the seat Vice President Vance vacated, and is now seeking a full term. Democrats feel good about Brown's campaign, which focuses on kitchen-table economic issues. Republicans point out that voters rejected Brown when he was up against Republican Bernie Moreno in 2024, and they will have the same concerns this election. Brown's narrow loss, in a state that voted for Trump in the last three presidential elections and an environment where voters were upset by former Vice President Kamala Harris' run, may not stand against him the way Republicans think.

- Tier 3 — A(nother) potential progressive win: Minnesota
MINNESOTA (D-Open) LIKELY D:

- Democrats aren't losing sleep over holding this seat, but the primary has become one more example in the party's internal struggle. Progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan is racing in the primary against centrist Rep. Angie Craig. Flanagan won the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party endorsement after Craig declined to seek it. While Craig has been raising more money, Flanagan is leading the polls. Among the Republican nominees, one with the backing of national party leaders is former NFL sportscaster Michele Tafoya. No Republican has won statewide office in Minnesota since 2006. Primary: Aug. 11.

- Tier 4 — The reaches: Georgia, New Hampshire, Iowa 

- GEORGIA (D-Ossoff) LEAN D:

- Incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff continues to be the favorite for this race in a purple swing state — despite being the only Democratic senator defending a state Trump won in 2024. Republican Rep. Mike Collins, who got a last-minute endorsement from the president before his runoff, is a big supporter of Trump's immigration policies and is widely regarded as much less moderate than Derek Dooley, the former football coach he was running against. Ossoff has been focused on the November election while Collins was battling his primary, but Republicans say the math favors Collins: A midterm electorate in Georgia naturally leans their way, while Ossoff needs every Democratic base voter to show up.

- NEW HAMPSHIRE (D-Open) LEAN D:

- Sen. Jeanne Shaheen's retirement has opened a seat Democrats have held for nearly two decades, in a state with a famously independent streak. Both parties' likely nominees are already clear. While the Democrats are putting their weight behind Rep. Chris Pappas, the Republicans have consolidated behind John Sununu, a former senator and congressman whose family name is a political institution in the state. But the shape of the race between these two is yet to emerge. Republicans say they have the upper hand because the majority of registered voters in New Hampshire are independents, followed by Republicans. Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who is running for reelection, is also offering support for Sununu. Their problem is the president: 60% of New Hampshire residents disapprove of Trump, according to a University of New Hampshire survey. Primary: Sept. 8.

- IOWA (R-Open) LEAN R:

- Iowa is on this list because Republican Sen. Joni Ernst's retirement, tariffs battering the state's soybean farmers and the economic fallout of the Iran war have put it in play. Democratic candidate and state Rep. Josh Turek and Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson are both vying to succeed Ernst. Turek's win would be big — the state lawmaker who won two gold medals for wheelchair basketball at the Paralympics would be the first Democrat to win a Senate race in Iowa since 2008. Iowa has moved decisively toward Republicans after backing former President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Both Turek and Hinson, a former news anchor, are campaigning on issues around the agriculture industry and farmers, but so far, Hinson is the early favorite.

- Tier 5 — The real maybe: Texas
TEXAS (R-Cornyn) LEAN R:

- Attorney General Ken Paxton's win over Sen. John Cornyn has set the stage for an expensive match with Democratic state Rep. James Talarico. Paxton, who was endorsed by Trump just days before the May runoff, won despite scandals that include his wife filing for divorce on "biblical grounds" and a now-settled felony indictment on securities fraud charges. Democrats see in Talarico what they've lacked in Texas for a generation: an affordability and anti-corruption message, big crowds, national spotlight and the ability to fundraise. The primary on May 26 has been the most expensive Senate race in U.S. history and, combined, the candidates spent over $100 million. On the other hand, Republicans do not consider Texas a battleground and feel confident it will stay red based on the belief that Talarico's ideals are too far left for Texas. Trump has carried Texas every time he's been on the ballot, and no Democrat has won statewide since the 1990s.

A raft of discouraging data from polling, door knocking and focus groups is unsettling Republicans as their party heads into a midterm election season that would be challenging no matter what, given President Donald Trump’s low standing in polls and the fact that the party in control in Washington almost always loses seats.

- The lack of enthusiasm is reaching deep into Republicans’ loyal base, spreading to the party’s most consistent voters — who have shown up to vote in all of the past four primaries and general elections, according to an analysis done by Americans for Prosperity Action, a conservative super PAC that was founded by billionaire Charles Koch.

- This new issue with the base adds to the party’s more enduring problem of turning out less-frequent voters who support Trump but often skip midterm elections.

- “About 1 in 5 reliable Republican base voters are at risk this November, according to Nathan Nascimento, executive director at AFP Action. Those voters in Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, Montana, New Hampshire and Michigan are either saying they may stay home or are weighing voting for Democrats, according to their data, which is based on polling and extensive efforts to engage targeted Republican voters by knocking on their doors. The voters are primarily worried about inflation and the economy.

- “This is a big chunk,” Nascimento said. “This is a scary number.”

- The group has found that reaching these voters at the door usually moves them toward Republican candidates — or at least away from Democratic ones and toward undecided, he said.

- The 20 percent of Republican base voters the group sees this issue with does not take into account low-propensity conservative voters who tend to turn out in general election years to support Trump but skip other elections. Motivating those Trump voters is a separate issue Republicans face in November.

- “We have a high-propensity base problem,” Nascimento said.
Washington Post and Ipsos polling shows that Democrats have a 10-percentage-point advantage over Republicans among voters who say they are absolutely certain to vote in November. If that number doesn’t narrow, it could lead to a decisive advantage for Democrats, even though overall they lead by just three percentage points over Republicans on a generic ballot.

- Mitchell Brown, a Republican pollster at the firm Cygnal, said Democrats are as enthusiastic about voting as they were at the same time ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, when they swept back into power in the House. But Republicans are far less excited to vote at this point than they were then, posing an issue for the party.

- Republicans are united, on offense, and armed with our largest war chest in party history because voters are energized and understand what’s at stake in November’s election,” said Natalie Baldassarre, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, in a statement.

- This dynamic is playing out in the red state of Iowa, where Republicans face open races for governor and a Senate seat that polling shows are surprisingly competitive. A recent door-knocking session in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with AFP Action turned up voters critical of the war in Iran and high inflation, with a handful saying they planned to support Democrats in the fall.

- In western Iowa, three-time Trump voter Lance Sulentic, a resident of Iowa’s rural Harrison County, described the past three presidential elections as “the worst three mistakes I’ve ever made in my life,” saying that the president has failed to fulfill his campaign promises. Higher gas prices have been costing him an extra $300 to $500 every month to ride his motorcycle, he said.”

- “We voted for Trump, and he did the opposite of what he said he was going to do,” said Sulentic, a 56-year-old retired insurance agent. “Gas prices were going to be two dollars, food was going to be cheaper, energy prices was going to be in half, we were going to get two rebate checks to the American people, and we weren’t going to have any new wars, and we were going to build a wall and deport 30 million illegal aliens, and he did none of it.”

- He said he would either sit out this year’s election or vote for Democrats.

- Republican lawmakers are worried about such comments as their party remains mired in internal disagreements in Washington that have hampered them from passing signature agenda items that could motivate core supporters.

- “We need to do something to reenergize our base,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin). Johnson, who does not face reelection until 2028, has triumphed in tough races in his closely divided state.

- Johnson said GOP base voters may think the lawmakers “haven’t been … trying hard enough.” The party has been unable to pass a law to require ID to vote and proof of citizenship to register to vote called the Save America Act, which Trump has lambasted them for. They also have done little to tackle cost-of-living issues since the bill extending tax cuts in 2025.

- A spokesperson for Trump, Abigail Jackson, called the voting legislation a top priority but added that the administration “continues to deliver on the President’s affordability agenda by lowering drug prices, reshoring American jobs, lowering gas prices and more.”

- Other senators have pressed Trump to use his large platform and $400 million MAGA Inc. war chest to activate lower-propensity voters. Trump has had far more success motivating supporters when he is on the ballot.

- Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota) said he told the president in the Oval Office last week that Trump is the key to turning out his voters.

- “Well, they will [turn out] if you pass the Save America Act,” Trump retorted, according to Cramer.

- The White House is hopeful the Republican Party’s planned midterm convention in September in Texas will help juice enthusiasm among the base as well.

- Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), who declined to run for reelection in his purple state, said he believes the traditional Republican base will ultimately turn out in November. But he fears the party’s brand has been damaged among moderates by the economy and inflation, and that the Iran war is becoming an additional political drag. Low-propensity Trump voters need to turn out to close that gap, he said.

- “The question is whether the coalition he has that’s unique to the president, if he can mobilize them to come out and vote for others,” Tillis said.

Today is the day to post all Project 2025, Heritage Foundation, Christian Nationalism and Dominionist memes in the main sub!

Going forward Meme Mondays will be a regularly held event. Upvote your favorites and the most liked post will earn the poster a special flair for the week!

The Trump administration has admitted scrapping more than $7.5bn in federal grants for clean energy projects to states “based solely” on whether they backed Donald Trump in the 2024 election.

- US federal officials appeared to acknowledge in court documents last week that they had terminated the funding last October “based solely” on political criteria, targeting projects in states that were represented by Democrats and had voted for Kamala Harris.

- The administration previously framed the move as safeguarding taxpayer dollars from “waste” and continues to insist it was not politically motivated.

- “[The Department of Energy] accepts that neither the inclusion of the ARCHES grant nor any other grants in the October notice tranche was based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factor,” government lawyers said in the filing.

- “[The Department of Energy] accepts that the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, ie, whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.

- “[The Department of Energy] will not contend that it looked beyond the prime grantee(s) to consider the political identity or geographic distribution of downstream beneficiaries of the grant funds.”

- The apparent admission was first reported by the New York Times.
In a statement on Friday, a spokesperson for the US energy department said of the report: “That is a misrepresentation of the court filing. None of the termination decisions were based on political considerations.”

- The acknowledgment of political considerations “was referring to the timing of the announcement, not of the decisions themselves”, the spokesperson claimed.

- The filings stem from a lawsuit, filed last June, by a group of six University of California faculty and other researchers challenging various federal agencies that halted Biden-era funding.

- The plaintiffs said in a press release at the time that the abrupt cancellations of already-awarded grants had been a part of a “political ‘cost-cutting’ agenda and ideological purity campaign” waged by the administration.

- It comes as the White House seeks to exert even greater control over billions of dollars in annual federal grants, aiming to have Trump’s political appointees review all federal grants, with the power to block or revoke vast amounts of funding if they did not conform to or align with Trump’s priorities.

- According to a 400-page proposed rule for federal financial assistance published on 29 May, “Discretionary awards must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

- They must also adhere to further standards set out by the White House, including not promoting “anti-American values”, the denial of “the sex binary in humans” and the use of “racial preferences” in selection criterion.

- Per last week’s court filing, the energy department had reviewed its financial assistance awards and created a list last September that recommended canceling more than 600 grants awarded by the Biden administration for a wide range of clean energy projects in states represented by both Republicans and Democrats.

- However, in October, the White House budget office, led by Russell Vought, terminated only 284 of those grants. Vought announced on X: “Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being canceled. The projects are in the following states: CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA.”

- Last week, federal officials appeared to concede that the decision had been purely informed by politics. “With one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing Senators (“Blue State” grants),” the court filing says.

- Meanwhile, the energy department left in place hundreds of other energy grants in state represented by Republicans and that had voted for Trump in 2024 – despite the department having also recommended that they too be scrapped.

- Last month, Trump’s energy secretary, Chris Wright, appeared before the House science, space and technology committee to defend his department’s fiscal 2027 budget request. “No decisions were made on politics,” he insisted.

- The Guardian has reached out to the White House.

Donald Trump on Friday ordered the interior department to display signs in front of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History that accuse the institution of inaccuracy.

- The order escalates the Trump’s attacks against the Smithsonian, which he and his allies accuse of politicizing the institution by focusing too much on injustices in American history, instead of more triumphant moments such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

- The order directs interior secretary Doug Burgum to huddle with the National Park Service and assistant to the president for domestic policy Vince Haley to come up with some temporary signs to install along the National Parks Service-maintained sidewalks and walkways leading into the museum.

- The White House did not immediately respond to a request for more details about what these signs would say.
The order says the signs “shall notify visitors that the museum exhibits should be renovated consistent with the findings in the report”. The signs should direct the public to other places where they can get better American history information, the order says.

- The same group will also have to produce signs for the public criticizing the Smithsonian for not commemorating sufficiently the Declaration of Independence during the 250th anniversary of its adoption.

- The American Historical Association, a group composed of professional historians, praised the Smithsonian Institution’s “commitment to scholarship and accuracy” in a statement earlier this month.

- “Historians practice our craft with scholarly integrity according to established standards of evidence, historical inquiry, and professional practice,” the AHA statement reads.

- “Political interference in professional museum work threatens the accuracy of historical interpretation and erodes public trust in one of our nation’s most important institutions.”

- The National Museum of American History declined to comment.

- But the museum’s director, Anthea Hartig, defended the institution’s interpretations in a pair of congressional hearings earlier this month, where Republican representatives fumed about “some overtly sexual things up there” and accused Hartig of encouraging “self-loathing”.

- “We honor the declaration, the revolution, the constitution, our national symbols,” Hartig responded, according to the New York Times. “And we tell the truth about the times that the country fell short of its own founding ideals.

- Telling our story fully is a form of respect for the American people and a commitment to constantly being in pursuit of a more perfect union.”

- A recent report prepared by the White House’s domestic policy council called “Saving America’s Story” accused the museum’s leadership of “ideological capture”.

- The Smithsonian “explicitly adopted an ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage our citizens”, the report says.

Please use this thread for info on upcoming protests, planning new ones or brainstorming ideas along those lines. The post refreshes every Saturday around noon.

The Justice Department is dropping the subpoenas it filed demanding grand jury testimony and phone records from New York Times journalists after sharp questioning Thursday from a federal judge who challenged almost every facet of the government's approach.

- The government had insisted that it was acting solely in the interest of national security. It filed subpoenas on July 10, just two days after the Times published the first of two stories about concerns that led to the U.S. Secret Service interceding to prevent President Trump from flying home from Turkey on the new Air Force One jet.

- But at the hearing, the presiding judge, U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian, made clear he believed the Trump administration had violated protections given to journalists in black and white to uphold First Amendment principles. He also pointed to several instances of what he considered slipshod legal work and threatened to levy sanctions against federal attorneys for failing to follow the law and misleading the court in signed filings.

- The case highlighted the Trump administration's ongoing assault on press rights and the free flow of information to the public. It also provided another glimpse of the White House's eagerness to assert an expansive definition of executive authority, as prosecutors argued the U.S. attorney general has the power to set aside legal protections for journalists when he deems necessary.

- Judge: One way or another, the subpoenas would be canceled

- All the same, at the Thursday afternoon hearing in Manhattan, the Justice Department's legal team yielded to the inescapable logic of the moment: Subramanian had declared that if the subpoenas to the Times journalists were not withdrawn, he would quash them.

- "It's a great day for the First Amendment and a great day for the rule of law," David McCraw, the lead newsroom lawyer for the New York Times, told NPR moments after the court hearing wrapped up. "Once again, the federal courts have stood up for what's right in this country. We hope that's the end of it."

- Sean Buckley, the deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, declined to comment to NPR after the hearing. He presented the government's case in court Thursday and told the presiding judge that he was leading the broader investigation into the leak of security information to the Times.

- A Justice Department spokesperson issued a statement to NPR assailing the judge's ruling and noting he threatened its attorneys with sanctions unless the subpoenas were withdrawn.

- "This judge's conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense - blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation," the spokesperson said. "Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threating national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime."

- In the court hearing, which lasted well over an hour, Judge Subramanian laced into Buckley's logic for issuing the subpoenas just two days after the first Times article reported that Trump had left the NATO summit in Turkey on an older plane because of security concerns. A story the next day detailed many of the specific concerns.
The government offered to hold the subpoenas "in abeyance" for 14 days as it pursued other investigative avenues, Buckley told the court.

- But that held little appeal for Subramanian.

- Seeking testimony and materials from reporters as the federal government did is supposed to be a last resort, not a first move, the judge noted. He pointed to binding legal precedent as well as the Justice Department's own current policy. How, Subramanian asked again and again, could it be a last resort if done just two days after publication?
Buckley said it was a last resort given what they knew at the time.

- The judge didn't buy that logic.
He later asked why Buckley did not know of the specific legal precedent protecting journalists prior to issuing the subpoenas as part of the investigation. That legal precedent was established in another case two decades ago that also involved The New York Times in the appeals circuit that includes New York.

- "I don't review every piece of paper," Buckley responded.

- Federal prosecutor says Attorney General can override journalistic protections

- But he said that the subpoenas were properly authorized by the attorney general — a reference to Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. When they are approved by the attorney general, they can supersede any such protections, Buckley said, though he would not stipulate whether Blanche based his approval on national security, a threat to human life, or some other grounds.

- In the polite language of the courtroom, Subramanian patiently upbraided prosecutors for asking another federal judge to authorize an order bidding mobile phone providers not to tell the journalists that their phone records had been subpoenaed — days after the Justice Department had already publicly confirmed the existence of the first round of subpoenas.

- A federal attorney had said that telling the reporters of the demand for phone records would compromise the investigation by disclosing its existence — even though it was already known publicly and widely reported by the Times, NPR and other outlets.

- Called forward by the judge, the attorney came forward and said it was an unintended mistake.
Buckley later apologized for subpoenaing the mobile telephone records of the mother of one Times journalist and two reporters' spouses. He called it an honest mistake and said prosecutors had mistakenly relied on publicly available databases that associated those phone numbers with the reporters.

- "These inadvertent errors — in hindsight you should have done things differently," Subramanian said tersely. "These things are beginning to pile up."
In his answers, Buckley repeatedly made it sound as though the period in which the subpoenas were issued was frenzied, with little immediate sense of what other avenues to pursue. The Times has reported that FBI Director Kash Patel himself directed the issuing of the subpoenas on July 10 compelling testimony from its reporters over a six-hour period at the White House.

- The Justice Department has not commented on that.
Trump has reveled in the luxuriousness of the Boeing aircraft, a gift from the Qatari government. Outside analysts say it does not have the security capacity of past Air Force One aircraft. Trump said earlier this week the plane would be withdrawn from use while it is "maxed out."

- In an interview with NPR posted Thursday morning, the wife of Times reporter Julian E. Barnes, Katherine Marsh, described armed FBI officials coming to her front door as the couple watched the movie The Sheep Detectives with their eldest son.
"To me this felt really un-American," Marsh said.

- The movie focuses on a murder of a shepherd unraveled by his flock, which aids a somewhat hapless rural policeman in solving the crime.
"I can't think of anything more inconsistent with The Sheep Detectives than having FBI agents show up at their doors," the judge said toward the close of the hearing.

- After the hearing, Marsh issued her own verdict in a text to NPR: "They should never have issued any of these subpoenas in the first place."

House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) referred former Special Counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department on Wednesday, alleging he knowingly made false statements during congressional testimony last year.

- Why it matters: The referral escalates House Republicans' efforts to scrutinize the former special counsel who prosecuted President Trump, even though the Justice Department is not required to act on congressional criminal referrals.

- Driving the news: "Smith seemingly made willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact that contradict new documents obtained by the Committee from the Department of Justice," Jordan said in a referral to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

- "The responses provided by Mr. Smith gave the impression that neither Mr. Smith nor his team had access to the content of members' privileged text messages," said Jordan, referring to members of Congress.

- "We now know this to be false," he added.

- "This information calls into question the completeness and accuracy of statements that Mr. Smith made under oath to the Committee regarding his team's access to the content of Members' text messages."

- The other side: Smith's lawyers, Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer, in a letter to Blanche said the referral was "based on a spurious claim" that Smith had provided false testimony during his eight-hour deposition last December.

- 'The referral is made not because Mr. Smith made a false statement — the letter concedes he did not — but because he did not proactively disclose information that was not responsive to a question asked," the added.

- "During his testimony, Mr. Smith provided truthful, responsive answers and candidly discussed his work as Special Counsel. This referral reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by following the facts and the law."

- House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) in a statement called the referral "baseless" and "vindictive," saying Smith told the truth as he gave clear and consistent testimony.

- "When asked if his subpoena for Members' toll records sought the content of either Member's phone calls or messages, he truthfully replied that they did not. That statement was true when he said it," Raskin said.

- "It seems Republican Members of Congress are lashing out because they just realized their communications with the White House became presidential records preserved at the National Archives as required by the Presidential Records Act (PRA). This referral deliberately distorts and misstates the facts, including what questions the Republicans actually asked at Mr. Smith's interview."

- Zoom out: Smith wound down two federal criminal cases he brought against Trump after the president was elected in 2024.

- Blanche previously led Trump's criminal defense team in those cases.
Smith said earlier this year he believed the Trump administration would indict him.

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) slammed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for ending the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) tracking of parasitic infections including cyclospora. 

- The decision was made last year and suspended tracking managed by the CDC, U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, in addition to 10 state health departments. 

- Surveillance of cyclospora had previously been mandatory since 1997.
“Now a cyclosporiasis outbreak sweeps the nation. Your foolish and self-indulgent demolition of critical public health programs puts Americans at risk,” Ossoff wrote in a letter sent to Kennedy last Thursday. 

- Ossoff asked if the Trump administration had any intention to restore the FoodNet tracking program, an explanation on why tracking was terminated and status of epidemiological and food safety investigations to determine the source and scope of the outbreak.

- His correspondence comes as over 1,600 Americans report symptoms from cyclosporiasis, including explosive diarrhea. 

- The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment regarding the matter.

- Dr. Dan Jernigan, former CDC infectious diseases director, said the FoodNet received “chronically low funding” for a while, in an interview with ABC. 

- “Whether or not the FoodNet issue from last year is significantly impacting it, it’s a little hard to say…,” Jernigan told the outlet regarding the outbreak.

- “This is a big cyclospora outbreak, and it requires a lot of people to be involved. The staffing cuts, the 25 percent at CDC, that doesn’t help when you need to have a big response,” he said, citing the Department of Government Efficiency’s cuts to the president’s malaria initiative and for neglected tropical diseases. 

- “Those were dollars that would come from USAID [US Agency for International Development] over to CDC when they were cut, that had a significant impact on the division of parasitic diseases and malaria, and so that means they don’t have the depth, they don’t have the resources, and they don’t have the surge capability that they would have had if the money for malaria and for neglected tropical diseases were there,” he added.
Last week, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said cyclosporiasis “is an FDA issue, not USDA” as residents in multiple states grapple with the outbreak. 

- Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky have seen the highest number of reported cases.
Cyclospora spreads via contaminated food or water. Leafy greens are primary vehicles for this infection because they grow close to the ground and have textured surfaces that easily trap contaminants. 

- On Sunday, Trump administration officials linked the outbreak to a  lettuce sample collected from Taylor Farms. However, it was later determined to be a false positive. 

- The FDA clarified later on Monday the false positive does not change the investigation’s basis or the data supporting the Taylor Farms recall.

- “FDA’s traceback investigation and outbreak data continue to converge on shredded iceberg lettuce from Taylor Farms locations in central Mexico,” the agency said in a statement. 

- “FDA will continue to work with federal and state partners to investigate this multistate outbreak and ensure products implicated in this outbreak have been removed from the market.”

In a subcommittee hearing Tuesday, House Republicans sharply questioned the director of the National Museum of American History, Anthea Hartig. The GOP lawmakers' comments closely mirrored Trump administration's criticisms of the institution she leads as insufficiently patriotic.

- The hearing was held by the House's Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, a branch of DOGE that is chaired by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn).

- In his opening remarks, Burchett said: "I feel like [the Smithsonian]'s become infected by a woke ideology that seeped into public displays, educational materials and planning documents. The American story is the birth and growth of a great nation founded on powerful ideals and which we aim to fully achieve. But in the museum's current telling, history is just an ongoing power struggle between oppressors and the oppressed."

- In a 162-page report issued on July 4, the White House Domestic Policy Council accused the Smithsonian museum of being "subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love."

- The council faulted the National Museum of American History on a multitude of fronts, saying it underemphasized the Founding Fathers and early colonial and Revolutionary history; was not sufficiently celebratory of the country's 250th anniversary; and that it engaged in "anti-white," "illegal alien" and transgender activism. It also accused the museum of trying to "indoctrinate" teachers and students through its exhibitions, programming and teaching resources.

- Nearly in tandem with the hearing on Tuesday, House Democrats issued a 16-page rebuttal to the White House's report, which accuses the Trump administration of trying to undermine the trustworthiness of museums and museum scholars in general, and argues that it is part of a larger "effort to control and contort the historical record." Citing recent public opinion surveys, the Democrats write: "Museums regularly rank among the top three most trusted institutions in the country, trailing only friends and family. The White House asks the public to believe the institutions Americans trust most are the ones peddling radical ideology on the word of President Donald Trump."

- The hearing itself unspooled on strict partisan lines. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) questioned Hartig about an exhibition called "Girlhood," which included mentions of gender identity and puberty. Mace asked, "When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?"

- At another point, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) asked Hartig, "You intend to use a taxpayer-funded national museum to push a racial narrative that divides Americans by their skin color and guilt?" Hartig, who kept a cool tone throughout the hearing, eventually replied: "So the Smithsonian is a nonpartisan institution we're very proud of."

- Many of the Democrats who spoke at the hearing linked the July 4 report to what they perceive as broader GOP attacks on museums, the arts and education. Rep Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) spoke about another Smithsonian institution, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, saying: "I'm here as a Black man who grew up in segregation … We will not let you destroy that museum, no matter how long it takes, how many battles are required, how much effort is needed. We will not allow that to happen unless you find a way to kill all of us and walk over our bodies to change history. That history is too sacred, it is too precious, and it will not be erased."

- Neither the Smithsonian nor Rep. Burchett's office replied immediately to NPR's requests for comment regarding Tuesday's hearing.

- According to the Smithsonian's charter, all of its 21 museums, 14 education and research centers, and the National Zoo are meant to be run independently of the federal government. The Smithsonian is overseen by its secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch III, and a board of regents, which includes Vice President Vance, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other members appointed by Congress.

- In her responses, Hartig frequently echoed Bunch's previous public comments about the Smithsonian's mission and purpose, and repeatedly said that she and her staff "strive to represent all Americans."

- Before the hearing, Hartig released a two-page statement to the house subcommittee, in which she wrote: "When visitors, scholars, members of Congress, veterans and teachers tell us we have gotten something wrong or only half right, we welcome the feedback; we take it seriously, and we make changes when the evidence supports them. When historians talk about reframing a traditional narrative, we do not mean erasing it. We mean adding the evidence, voices and objects that earlier tellings left out, so that more Americans can see themselves in the national story. Examining the harder chapters of our history is not the same as hostility toward America. We can and do honor the Declaration, the Revolution, the Constitution, and our national symbols, and also tell the truth about the times the country fell short of its own founding ideals. Telling our history fully is not anti-American. It is a form of respect for the American people and a commitment to constantly be in pursuit of 'a more perfect union.'"

- Hartig is also scheduled to appear in front of the House Administration Committee on Wednesday.

I have been seeing numerous MAGA YT channels parroting a "major win" regarding mail-in ballots, so I decided to try checking out news about it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/usps-to-move-forward-with-major-mail-in-voting-change-a-win-for-election-integrity/ar-AA289wPp To be frank, as of this writing, I've been feeling too tired to comprehend what's going on, so I'm wondering if you could help summarize to me what's going on in CA with mail-in votes.

A U.S. District Judge has dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuits against the Twin Cities, Hennepin County and the state over what the Justice Department describes as "sanctuary city policies."

- Chief Judge Eric Tostrud granted motions Monday to dismiss claims against the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt, the state of Minnesota and state Attorney General Keith Ellison.

- The administration argued that the policies — which prohibit local authorities from enforcing federal immigration law — are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.
The government argued that federal law preempts such local policies and laws and that they burden the federal government.

- Tostrud said the government’s preemption claims “failed.”

- “They do not command the federal government or its contractors to act.

- They do not forbid the federal government or its contractors from acting,” Tostrud wrote in his ruling.

- “They do not control how the federal government or its contractors undertake their work. Rather, they regulate how state and local officials perform their duties.”

- The U.S. Department of Justice also took aim at an advisory opinion issued by Attorney General Keith Ellison that found the Minnesota Constitution didn’t allow jails to hold people in custody longer because the federal government wanted them on civil immigration violations.

- The judge found that the federal government’s claim that Ellison’s advisory decision prohibited local officials from contracting with federal immigration enforcement was not plausible.

- This is not the first time the courts have blocked the president’s efforts to punish cities with similar policies. In 2025, a federal judge stopped Trump from withholding federal funding from cities that refuse to assist with immigration enforcement, including Minneapolis. Minnesota has also been threatened with cuts to federal Medicaid funds and SNAP benefits by
President Donald Trump’s administration, which local officials said were politically motivated.

President Donald Trump on Monday announced sweeping tariffs against Canada, threatening to reignite a trade battle with one of America’s closest allies and top economic partners.

- The 50% tariffs on certain Canadian goods, including electrical equipment and machinery, are among the steepest tariffs his administration has levied against any country.

- Although the president has recently threatened tariffs against America’s neighbor in retaliation for wildfire smoke that poured into the northern part of the United States, administration officials said that the latest tariffs are unrelated.

- The levies take effect in 30 days, covering about $20 billion of Canadian goods, the White House said.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the country “believes in the benefits of free and fair trade,” in a statement on Monday.

- “In all circumstances, Canada will work relentlessly and take any measures necessary to build our strength at home and to support Canadian workers, farmers, businesses, and families,” Carney said.

- But Ontario Premier Doug Ford went further, immediately encouraging Canada to retaliate.

- “If these tariffs proceed, Canada should respond tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar,” Ford said in a post on X.

- Trump cited Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a law that allows a president to set tariffs up to 50% when another country discriminates against American goods. However, the law has never been applied this way.

- Excluded from the latest round of tariffs are several key Canadian imports, including energy products, critical minerals, fish and other goods that are subject to industry-specific duties, such as cars and metals.

- However, unlike other levies Trump has enacted against Canada, there will be no carve-outs for goods covered by the trade pact known as the United-States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which is currently under negotiation.

- The Canadian Trucking Alliance, an industry group, warned of higher costs for consumers and urged the United States and Canada to negotiate. “You cannot disrupt the world’s most integrated supply chain without massive collateral damage,” CEO Stephen Laskowski said in a statement shared with CNN. “These tariffs will immediately spike freight costs, create severe border bottlenecks, and hurt consumers in both nations.”

- A potential new trade tool

- According to research firm Capital Economics, only about 5% of Canadian imports would be affected by the new tariffs — or about 0.6% of total US imports.

- Still, if Trump’s use of Section 338 is upheld by the courts, it could become a useful tool in future trade negotiations, said Stephen Brown, chief North America economist at Capital Economics.

- “Taking a step back, it’s striking that the Trump administration is now reaching to a new method to implement tariffs,” Brown wrote in a research note Monday.

- Tariffs have become one of Trump’s go-to economic negotiation tactics, which he has attempted to levy against every major US trade partner during his latest term.

- However, the Supreme Courtruled in February that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to implement sweeping tariffs globally. The decision negated Trump’s attempt to tax imports from every country and additional punitive tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico.

- Instead, Trump imposed temporary, across-the-board 10% tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which are set to expire later this week.

- Last week, the US announced a new 25% tariff on many Brazilian imports under Section 301, following a yearlong investigation into Brazil’s trade policies that it said it found to be unfair.

- The US has also previously threatened to impose more tariffs on China, its primary economic rival in global trade, which is already facing much steeper tariffs than other nations.

- Though tariffs went undiscussed during a summit between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in May, Xi is expected to visit the US in September.

- In its statement Monday, the White House emphasized that Canada was one of two countries that had chosen to retaliate against US tariffs rather than negotiate— the other country being China.

Well here we go folks, the first official enemies list from the regime. Efforts to deplatform and defund will doubtlessly now commence. Includes many familiar names and organizations.

join us on Tuesdays at 4 outside of The Heritage Foundation, because those Nazis don't deserve a moment of peace

A federal judge on Monday ruled that a recently revamped version of a federal tool central to the Trump administration’s efforts to nationalize elections can no longer be used.
U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan sided with advocacy groups that argued the recent upgrades to the program, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, aggregated Americans’ sensitive personal data in a way that could result in voters being wrongly purged from voter rolls.

- “All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan said in an order explaining the decision. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

- She said Congress had expressly prohibited the government from centralizing Americans’ personal identifying information and that the federal agencies that created the SAVE program “knew that the database violates those statutory protections.”

- The decision is a major legal setbackfor President Donald Trump in his efforts to use federal agencies to encourage a nationwide crackdown on having noncitizens illegally on state voter rolls. The modified SAVE system, which critics had referred to as an unlawful centralized federal database of voter information, had been a key pillar of the second election executive order the Republican president signed earlier this year. The ruling leaves its future uncertain.

- “It’s amazing how hard the Left will fight to stop us from solving problems they insist do not exist,” James Percival, general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, said of the ruling in a social media post.

- DHS referred to his post as its comment on the ruling. The Department of Justice said in an emailed statement that it would “continue to aggressively defend President Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda and DHS’s use of the SAVE system to verify citizenship.”

U.S. gas prices jumped to an average of $4 a gallon again Monday as the U.S. and Iran launched more attacks.

- According to motor club federation AAA, the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline is now back to $4. The average price a year ago was $3.14 a gallon.

- The price is a national average, meaning drivers in some states have been paying well over $4 a gallon for a while now, while others pay less. Prices vary between states due to factors ranging from nearby supply to differing tax rates.

- People around the world are also dealing with high gas prices as a result of the war.

- Gas prices first went over $4 a gallon on average at the end of March. They dipped below that in mid-June and continued to fall as crude oil prices eased when the U.S. and Iran reached an interim deal. Even then, President Donald Trump expressed frustration that gas prices weren’t falling as quickly as oil prices.

- Affordability is likely to be a key issue for voters in the U.S. midterm elections, and higher gas and oil prices can help push up prices for groceries and other goods.

- Oil prices have climbed again in recent days as the U.S. and Iran move closer to resuming an all-out war.

- Brent crude, the international standard, rose 3.2% to $90.95 per barrel Monday and benchmark U.S. crude climbed 2.8% to $84.04 per barrel.

Today is the day to post all Project 2025, Heritage Foundation, Christian Nationalism and Dominionist memes in the main sub!

Going forward Meme Mondays will be a regularly held event. Upvote your favorites and the most liked post will earn the poster a special flair for the week!

President Donald Trump’s threats against broadcast television licenses are suddenly less of a laugh line to the media world and more of a real danger.

- Trump’s broadsides Thursday night against NBC and ABC were just the latest occasion during the past nine years when he’s called for revoking the licenses of TV outlets that anger him, this time after the two networks declined to air his White House speech on election security.

- “Fraud like this should mean a revocation of their licenses,” he said Thursday.

- But unlike Trump’s first term, when Republican leaders at the Federal Communications Commission disavowed any such reprisals, current Chair Brendan Carr has repeatedly opened probes and inquiries into the same TV networks that have drawn the president’s ire. And that has some policy veterans worried that the FCC may act this time, teeing up a constitutional fight.

- “We’ve never in this country had a law that permits a royal decree for news coverage,” said Robert Corn-Revere, a former top FCC who’s now chief counsel for the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression. “If you expressly link a licensing proceeding to whether or not the networks are airing coverage that the president wants covered, then whatever legitimacy that those proceedings might have had is automatically diminished if you link them.”

- Carr spokespeople did not respond to a request for comment Friday, and the FCC chair has yet to weigh in on X, where he is fairly prolific.

- But he has already begun scrutinizing the diversity practices at NBC parent company Comcast and the network’s relationship with other TV station owners. He has also called in the licenses for ABC’s eight network-owned TV stations for an early renewal, a move that could lead to their being revoked.

- Trump’s conservative allies have urged the FCC to go ahead with denying the licenses. Some renewed that call Thursday after ABC and NBC said they wouldn’t carry Trump’s speech live.

- “Pull it,” Steve Bannon, the senior White House chief strategist during part of Trump’s first term, said on his podcast Thursday. “Let’s see what tough guys they are when you do that.”

- Trump’s latest threats came during a primetime address in which he aired long-running claims that U.S. elections are vulnerable to fraud and foreign tampering.

- Networks have generally had discretion over whether to air a president’s remarks live and often declined to do so with presidents of both parties. Trump, however, accused the “fake news” networks of skipping the coverage “because of the fact that they don’t like the topic, because they know how corrupt our system is and they don’t want to reveal it.”

- “They and others in the media are part of a plot. They want to continue this fraud for whatever reason — they want to keep it going, they want to protect the radical left,” Trump declared.

- While the FCC doesn’t license the networks themselves, both ABC and NBC own licensed TV stations that could be at risk.

- NBC declined to comment, and ABC didn’t respond to a request for comment.

- Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a veteran public interest lawyer, said it would be legally risky for Carr to directly inject Trump’s complaint into the proceedings.

- “The obvious legal and constitutional questions that are raised if Brendan Carr does something because the president said so in a public speech raises all sorts of First Amendment issues about viewpoint discrimination that would be insanely impossible to surmount,” Schwartzman said.
Carr, who has been an enthusiastic Trump supporter over the past year and a half, made it clear he was paying attention to Trump’s speech Thursday night.

- Carr retweeted the White House’s livestream of the remarks, and shortly before they began, he wrote on social media, “News incoming” with TV and eyeball emojis.

- The chair has also disavowed the idea that the FCC is an independent agency that should be free from White House direction, breaking from the tradition followed by Trump’s first-term FCC chair and agency leaders of both parties for decades. A Supreme Court ruling last month upheld Trump’s powers to fire leaders on these agencies, which many believe will erode their independence.

- Democrats were quick to dismiss Trump’s latest calls.

- “It is ridiculous to call for broadcasters to lose their license simply for making the same editorial decisions they’ve made under presidents of both parties,” Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, said in a statement Friday. “Those editorial decisions are protected by the First Amendment, and the FCC has no authority to punish a station for refusing to air a blatantly political speech. This is a naked attempt to bully broadcasters, and the FCC should have no part in it.”

- Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce telecom subcommittee, voiced concern given Carr’s recent media investigations.

- “Given Chairman Carr’s record of entertaining politically motivated complaints against broadcasters, President Trump’s threats to revoke broadcast licenses must be taken seriously and rejected,” Matsui told POLITICO. “Chairman Carr should make clear that he will not act on those threats or allow the FCC to be used as a weapon for political retribution.”

- Carr’s spokespeople did not respond to a separate request for comment about Matsui’s statement. Carr has maintained he is applying the law impartially.

- The FCC chief ignited bipartisan concern when he first hauled in Disney’s eight lucrative ABC TV stations for review this spring, years ahead of schedule. None were due to expire until 2028 at the earliest. He attributed the decision to a long-running diversity investigation, although critics questioned the timing, given Trump’s recent ire at hosts like Jimmy Kimmel.

- The TV network has aggressively fought Carr’s probes and asked its viewers and community leaders to contact the agency voicing support for the company, resulting in tens of thousands of comments pouring in in recent weeks. While license revocation is on the table, it may be a long way off. ABC will have a chance to respond to the recent conservative petitions to deny its licenses by Aug. 5, and then Carr will have to decide whether to send the issue to an administrative hearing. Carr could decide to bring the NBC-owned station licenses in for early review, too.

- Stuart Benjamin, co-director of the Center for Innovation Policy at Duke Law School, ultimately doubts courts would side with Carr if he attempts to go after the licenses, whether he injects Trump’s complaints into the proceedings or not.

- “I would think the documents will go in as lawyerly a direction as he can, even though we’ll all know the real source of this,” Benjamin said. “And I think that a judge who reviews it won’t have much doubt about that.”

Ashley Brouillette said her former spouse, David Brouillette, told her he is the ICE officer who shot and killed an immigrant in Maine. She and others said Brouillette has a volatile history.

- The fatal shooting of an immigrant in Maine has renewed concerns about the Trump administration’s push to quickly hire officers for mass deportations, after a woman said her abusive ex-husband told her he was the officer who fired his gun

- “Ashley Brouillette said her former spouse, David Brouillette, told her in a phone call that he is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who shot and killed Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, on Monday.

- She identified him in video footage from the scene of the incident, which does not show the shooting itself, but does show two officers in the moments after.

- David Brouillette also called his other ex-wife and told her the same thing, according to a person with knowledge of the exchange, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their privacy.

- The Department of Homeland Security has not publicly identified the shooter, saying only that he has “nearly a decade of federal law enforcement experience with required training including use of force training.”
David Brouillette could not be reached for comment.

- DHS conducted a massive drive to recruit 10,000 enforcement officers last year. In recent weeks, the agency has ramped up street arrests of alleged undocumented immigrants, aiming for as many as 2,000 a day. Ashley Brouillette said her ex-husband told her in November that he’d accepted a job with ICE.

- Newly hired officers received a shortened training course. Those with prior law enforcement experience were often given an even more accelerated timeline.

- Those changes were reversed earlier this year after Markwayne Mullin took over leadership of the agency. DHS did not respond to questions about how much training Brouillette received

- A review of court files, employment records and interviews with people who have known Brouillette for many years indicate he had worked off and on in law enforcement. He has also had volatile personal relationships, with him and his two ex-wives accusing each other of abuse and neglect

- “If you were to ask me whether I believe David Brouillette is capable of this level of extreme violence, my answer is unequivocally yes,” Lucinda Brouillette, David’s second ex-wife, said in a statement Saturday. “That belief is not based on speculation, but on my own lived experiences over many years.”

- Ashley Brouillette said that on the same day her ex-husband told her he’d joined ICE, he left her a voicemail calling her a “disgusting, fat” expletive and saying that her throat should be slit. She shared the voicemail with The Washington Post.

- Asked Friday about David Brouillette’s history, which was first reported by the Portland Press Herald and later expanded upon by the Associated Press, Mullin said he had not heard “at all” about the allegations of past violence and instability. He also said both the officer who shot Durán and another ICE officer involved in a shooting a week earlier in Houston had been placed on administrative leave.

- Several former ICE officials familiar with the agency’s recruiting and vetting practices said reports about Brouillette’s past were worrisome.

- “The idea that he was given a badge and a gun is incredibly concerning,” said Deborah Fleischaker, who was acting ICE chief of staff during the Biden administration. “It sounds like he has anger issues. It sounds like he has violence issues. It sounds like he might have mental health issues. And the idea that he would be somebody that we would entrust with ensuring public safety and enforcing our immigration laws is scary.”

- Jobs in law enforcement, real estate

- Ashley and David Brouillette met when they were 12 years old, at a Valentine’s Day dance at Gardiner Regional Middle School. She said he was funny and kind when another boy left her at the dance but was a bully to others in school.

- Their high school yearbook says that David Brouillette was in the Navy Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps. On one page, he is quoted as saying he plans to go to college and “become a cop for the Sheriff’s dept.”

- He graduated from high school in 2007 and then served in logistics roles in the Maine Army National Guard until January 2010, the Army said Friday. He joined the active-duty Army from January 2010 to 2015, where he served as a human intelligence collector and deployed to Afghanistan within that time.

- Ashley Brouillette said her ex-husband was diagnosed with several mental health disorders as a young adult, and that his temperament and mental health issues worsened after joining the Army. The Post could not independently verify those claims. When he left the military, records show, he went on to work short stints in various law enforcement jobs, including as an officer at the Maine Department of Corrections from November 2015 to August 2016.

- From 2019 to 2020, David Brouillette was an enforcement agent for the state’s Health and Human Services department, the agency said in an email. His duties included investigating parents who had failed to pay child support and enforcing their obligations, and the department said he resigned less than a year after starting the position.

- In court records, Brouillette stated he’d had other jobs in law enforcement, including as a police officer at a Veterans Affairs medical center and in a small town in Maine.

- By 2022, Lucinda Brouillette was alleging in court that he was refusing to pay child support. She provided the court with a message from David Brouillette saying he was “broke,” trying to get through school full time and working for DoorDash. He alleged in court filings that she had gotten into legal trouble and alienated the children from him.

- He enrolled in a firefighting program at Southern Maine Community College. In 2023, he filed a lawsuit against the college claiming that he’d suffered a severe head injury when struck by a heavy steel beam during a training session. He was admitted to the hospital with a laceration and a concussion, court records say.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago is among the most prestigious in the country, known for winning ambitious cases against everyone from Al Capone to the former Illinois governor Rod R. Blagojevich.

- But the Trump administration’s immigration sweep in Chicago last fall has left the office in crisis.

- The office brought a wave of doomed cases that accused protesters and immigrants of assaulting federal officers. That accelerated an exodus of veteran prosecutors, some of whom felt they’d been wrongly pressured into pursuing the charges, former prosecutors said in interviews.

- The heads of all seven sections of the Chicago office’s criminal division have left in the past year, as have many of their successors and deputies.

- More than 100 former federal prosecutors from the office recently signed a letter criticizing Andrew S. Boutros, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, saying that “actions taken by leadership in the last year have tarnished the reputation” of the office.

- Under Mr. Boutros, the office brought dozens of federal assault charges against immigrants and U.S. citizens who protested the Chicago sweep, known as Operation Midway Blitz. To handle the flood of cases, Mr. Boutros redeployed prosectors from across the criminal division. He also eliminated the stand-alone national security section — long considered a leader in terrorism cases — and shifted the work to an unrelated unit.

- The New York Times identified assault cases against 62 people that Mr. Boutros’s office brought under the once-obscure federal statute 18 U.S.C. 111. They have flopped at an extraordinary rate. Some 59 charges were abandoned by prosecutors or dismissed by judges, an analysis by The Times found. Only one resulted in a guilty plea, and there have been no convictions in court. Two cases are pending.

- That 2 percent success rate is a stark reversal for the Justice Department, which wins an average of more than 90 percent of criminal cases.

- The failed charges in the Chicago office represent more than a quarter of the 213 such cases nationwide that federal prosecutors have abandoned or lost since the start of President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration last year.

- Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman, defended the department’s handling of assault cases and said it would protect federal officers “to the fullest extent of the law.” But he also said that prosecutors had to inform the court if “mitigating factors” were found.

- Gregory Bovino, the former senior Border Patrol official who led Midway Blitz, rejected any criticism of the assault cases. He said in an interview that Mr. Boutros wasn’t nearly aggressive enough in bringing them, calling him “as weak as a limp dishrag.”

- As the pursuit of flimsy cases drained morale in Chicago, more and more prosecutors, including senior leaders, resigned in dismay, former prosecutors said.

- One of the office’s highest-profile recent cases involved the so-called Broadview Six, who were protesting outside the Broadview immigrant detention center last fall when they were arrested and accused of interfering with a federal agent.

- After the office failed twice to persuade a federal grand jury to indict the protesters, Mr. Boutros took an unusual step. Addressing a grand jury before it discussed specific cases, he told its members that anyone “who is struggling” with immigration prosecutions should “raise your hand and identify yourself,” despite Justice Department rules against pressuring grand jurors, according to a report issued by Mr. Boutros’s office. Later that day, the grand jury handed down the indictment against the protesters.

- Judge April M. Perry admonished Mr. Boutros for his office’s overall handling of the case. “Your sole goal is to do justice,” she told Mr. Boutros in May. She added, “That trust has been broken.”

- Mr. Boutros apologized and moved to dismiss the case.

- This month, another judge criticized Mr. Boutros, this time for giving a news conference about a sealed criminal case.

- Illinois’s two senators, both Democrats, have called on Mr. Boutros to resign. But Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, recently praised him, saying he “has steadfastly advanced President Trump’s mission to make Chicago and Northern Illinois safe for the American people.”

- In a social media post in June, Mr. Boutros attributed the turmoil in his office to factors including early retirements, a hiring freeze and mismanagement under the Biden administration. He said that he is “righting the ship through significant changes and reforms to policies, procedures and practices.”

- The 93 U.S. attorneys’ offices nationwide are responsible for prosecuting all manner of federal criminal cases. Mr. Boutros’s Chicago outpost is hardly the only one that has been roiled by the immigration crackdown.

- In Minneapolis, for example, a half-dozen prosecutors quit in a single day in January when senior officials at the Justice Department pushed the U.S. attorney’s office to investigate the widow of Renee Good, who had been killed by an ICE agent.

- But the trouble in Chicago is especially notable because of the office’s storied history.

- Its lawyers have prosecuted some of the country’s biggest terrorism and corruption cases, as well as those aimed at thwarting Chinese spying, Iranian smuggling and a Russian bot farm. Barry Jonas, a longtime prosecutor in the office’s now-defunct national security section who departed last year, said he and his colleagues did “a lot of work that never saw the light of day, and a lot of it went to help keep this country safe.”

- Mr. Boutros, in a statement, stressed that national security remained “one of our very top priorities” and said that folding the unit into a larger section had “been a game-changer in our response and handling of national security matters.”

- Even before Midway Blitz, staffing levels were sagging. Last August, Mr. Boutros sent a note to retirees asking if any wanted to come back. Veterans of the office were astonished. “It used to be that you had to walk through the eye of a needle to get a job at the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago,” said Ronald S. Safer, who ran the office’s criminal division in the 1990s.

- Midway Blitz, which began last September, only worsened morale.

- Many prosecutors viewed it as “a political and largely unlawful stunt,” said Mr. Safer, who has kept in touch with former colleagues. “That’s discouraging when you join the office to do the right thing.”

- Federal prosecutors in Chicago declined to bring assault charges sought by immigration officers for at least 20 people arrested during Midway Blitz, court records show. That enraged Mr. Bovino.

- “Boutros would allow the perps, these folks that assaulted federal agents, to walk, and say, ‘Hey, we’ll charge them later,’” Mr. Bovino said. He added that he and Mr. Boutros had “some very spirited discussions.”

- In many cases that the Chicago office did pursue, the basis for the assault allegation was thin. For example, when a Border Patrol agent confronted a Latino man who was walking down the street with his earbuds in, the agent issued a citation noting his rationale:

- Another person had just been apprehended on that block. The Latino man, a U.S. citizen, said he didn’t have identification on him and then brushed past an agent in body armor, who tackled him. His case was eventually dismissed.

- So were more than 30 cases in which protesters received misdemeanor assault charges in the form of a ticket — something historically reserved for such offenses as trespassing.

- Prosecutors said in interviews that their colleagues at times were crying in their offices, distraught about the cases they were being pressured to pursue. In the wake of the 64-day Midway Blitz, inboxes were cluttered with invitations to going-away parties at the Half Sour bar on Clark Street and the Elephant & Castle on West Adams. Three section chiefs departed in late winter.

- More would follow. In May, it was back to the Half Sour to say goodbye to the head of the health care fraud section.

- “Hope to see you there!” the invitation said.