A federal appeals court has refused to let the Trump administration enforce key portions of President Donald Trump‘s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules, handing the White House another legal setback as states challenge the president’s authority to reshape election procedures ahead of November’s midterm elections.
In a 2-1 decision issued Saturday, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Justice Department’s request to pause a lower court injunction blocking major parts of the March executive order while the administration appeals the case. The lawsuit was brought by 23 Democratic-led states, which argue Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by attempting to impose nationwide election rules through executive action.
The executive order seeks to require federal agencies to verify voter eligibility before mail ballots are delivered, directs the Justice Department to pursue jurisdictions that officials believe violate federal election law and conditions certain federal election funding on states complying with the administration’s directives.
The Trump administration argued the lawsuit was premature because federal agencies had not yet finalized many of the policies outlined in the order. But the appeals court found the states had shown they were already facing immediate consequences from the directive, including deadlines requiring them to alter election procedures and coordinate with federal agencies before the November elections.
The ruling leaves in place U.S. District Judge Denise Casper’s preliminary injunction while the broader legal challenge moves forward. The appeals court did not rule on the ultimate merits of the case but concluded the administration had not shown it was likely to succeed in overturning the injunction at this stage.
The lawsuit centers less on the legality of mail voting itself than on who has the authority to regulate federal elections. The states argue the Constitution gives them primary responsibility for administering elections as they deem fit unless Congress says otherwise, while the administration maintains the president has authority to direct federal agencies in enforcing election laws.
The Justice Department could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene while the appeal continues.
New Zealand’s Māori people often say that food is a feeling, a memory. It talks to your stomach.
Everything in Māori culture is tied to Papatūānuku, Mother Earth, especially its food. Located at the bottom of the world, it’s hard to imagine a place more closely connected to nature, where New Zealand’s Māori communities have long lived in symbiosis with the land.
“Māori food (kai) concepts acknowledge an interconnectedness with living cycles, which renew and sustain us,” says Michael Venner, director of Kora Tours NZ.
The pristine farms, forests, ocean and rivers serve as the country’s pantry, where Māori food is regional, and ingredients are harvested based on seasonality and availability.
“By understanding nature’s cycles and natural rhythms. Māori understood the connection between moon, sun, tides and seasons, the way all animals behave,” says Venner. “For example, if you know the correct moon cycle to go fishing on, lay your nets on the right tide, at the right place, you will have a higher success rate.”
A common everyday dish is a hearty stew or a “boil up,” made of pork bones, puha (an indigenous herb) and seafood like mussels, oysters and crayfish, alongside rēwena bread, a sourdough made with a fermented potato starter or a fried bread.
But Hāngī is arguably the most famous Māori cooking technique. Veneer describes it as, “A hot stone oven which cooks food layered inside baskets, covered by a wet cloth. Once partially buried for a few hours, it has roasted and steamed the food, infused notes of forest herbs, earth scents, smoked tea tree, Manuka honey and banana leaf.”
Veneer says if you get the chance to go to a traditional hāngī, do it. These special gatherings are often linked to special community events, like funerals, weddings and ritual occasions.
At Rosewood’s three hotels located throughout New Zealand, the chefs honor this ethically sourced ethos, working with local purveyors and farmers to source indigenous ingredients like beach spinach, fern fronds and abalone.
During dinner, each guest is given a traditional koha, meaning gift or offering, between the starter and main course. “It’s an opportunity for our chefs to share a thoughtful expression of place, often drawing inspiration from Northland’s rich coastal environment and Māori culinary traditions,” says JT Mulry, Culinary Director at Rosewood Kauri Cliffs.
At Rosewood Kauri Cliffs, they periodically serve a Māori-inspired, multi-course meal. “This dining experience celebrates the traditions, ingredients, and stories of Aotearoa. Traditional techniques, such as hāngī, are paired with native ingredients and locally harvested produce, creating food that is both simple and deeply expressive of place. At its heart, it’s about sharing stories, culture and hospitality through food,” says Mulry.
When European colonizers came to New Zealand in the 1800s, it changed the indigenous food. “Settlers arrived with national foods, preparation and cooking methods,” says Venner. “As more people came, food influence evolved and mixed; rural and urban food traditions, tastes and trends merged into the modern era.”
In Auckland, the Hāngī Master, Rewi Spraggon, honors his ancestors with his traditional hāngī catered cooking. The stones he uses have been passed down through the generations to create staples like a Hāngī Tuturu, a plate of pork, chicken, potato, kumara (New Zealand sweet potatoes), pumpkin, cabbage, stuffing and watercress salad. At his Queenstown food truck, more modern, European-influenced offerings include a chicken Hāngī burger, served with a potato spread, grated apple and watercress salad on a sweet potato bun.
Today, New Zealanders are proud of their food culture. “As New Zealand’s demographics changed, new traditions emerged. Since the 1980s, when people returned from overseas, they added to the menus and our palates changed with them,” says Venner. Now, it’s known for incredible lamb, cheese, wine and fruit inspired by the natural, high-quality, hard-working traditions of generations of Māori.
Bernie Sanders doesn’t want to hear from Rahm Emanuel, and he’s pretty sure the average voter doesn’t want Emanuel’s opinion either.
The former Obama administration insider and Chicago mayor published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, chiding progressive candidates for poisoning the well with supposedly unpopular policy positions ahead of the 2026 midterms. Speaking to CBS‘ “Face The Nation” on Sunday, the independent senator from Vermont pushed aside Emanuel’s concerns, saying that he’s just “nervous” because anti-establishment Democrats keep winning.
“[Emanuel] no doubt has the support of millions of working class people,” Sanders joked. “There’s no debate. There is a strong division within the Democratic Party.”
Sanders went on to paint that schism as the divide between people like Emanuel, who are “dependent on billionaire campaign contributors” and upstarts like New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani.
“What is getting these guys nervous is we are winning all over this country,” he said. “People are sick and tired of the Rahm Emanuels and the Democratic establishment.”
Sanders pegged voter disaffection on the increasing difficulty and cost of living in the United States.
“People are asking simple questions,” he said. “Why in God’s name are we the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people? …Why do the economists tell us that in the richest country in the history of the world, our kids will likely have a lower standard of living than their parents?”
“People are tired and they want real change,” he said.
Bernie Sanders: "People are sick and tired of the Democratic establishment and the Republican establishment … the American people are tired of a rigged economy, a corrupt campaign finance system. They want real change. They don't want Rahm Emanuel and the establishment… pic.twitter.com/7fHrXxuYX4
Elsewhere in the interview, host Margaret Brennan asked Sanders about one candidate that he endorsed. Graham Platner dropped out of the Senate race in Maine following accusations of sexual assault. She wondered if Sanders felt he should have pushed Platner to leave the race sooner, given earlier scandals that dogged the Platner campaign.
“I don’t think so,” Sanders said. “When we heard the serious allegations … I asked, along with virtually all of his other supporters that he should get out of the race, and he did.”
UPDATE: German authorities said Sunday they shot and killed the suspect in the deadly attack near Berlin’s Christopher Street Day Pride celebration after locating him nearly 24 hours after the assault. Officials said the suspect confronted officers before they opened fire. Authorities now say the attack killed one person and injured 29 others, and Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt described it as an Islamist terrorist attack.
German authorities on Sunday went on a manhunt for the suspect in a deadly vehicle attack near Berlin’s annual Christopher Street Day Pride celebration after a van plowed into a crowd, killing one person and injuring at least 29 others before the driver fled.
Police had issued a wanted notice for the 21-year-old suspect, identified under German privacy rules as Abdul B., warning the public not to approach him because he may be armed and dangerous. Authorities said the suspect is known to police and has ties to Islamist circles in Berlin but also stressed investigators have not yet determined a motive or whether he acted alone.
The attack unfolded around 10 p.m. Saturday in Berlin’s Tiergarten park near the iconic Brandenburg Gate, where hundreds of thousands of people had gathered throughout the day for Christopher Street Day, one of Europe’s largest LGBTQ+ Pride celebrations. Police said a white van drove into the crowd before crashing into a tree. Investigators later said one or more people may have fled the vehicle after it came to a stop, and some victims also suffered stab wounds, raising questions about whether additional suspects were involved.
A woman was killed in the attack. Berlin’s fire service said three people suffered life-threatening injuries, eight others were seriously hurt and five sustained minor injuries. Organizers canceled the remainder of the Pride festivities and evening concert as emergency responders flooded the area and authorities secured the scene.
“What an abhorrent act in Berlin,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wrote on social media, calling the violence “an attack on our society.”
Was für eine abscheuliche Tat in Berlin. Hunderttausende Menschen aus aller Welt feierten friedlich beim Christopher Street Day. Sie wollten, dass wir gut und tolerant miteinander umgehen.
Das ist ein Angriff auf unsere Gesellschaft.
— Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz (@bundeskanzler) July 26, 2026
He continued on: “We are open and freedom-loving—and we will preserve and defend that. The act will be investigated and pursued with the utmost severity. My thoughts are with the victims and their families. I wish the injured a swift recovery and thank all emergency responders.”
Berlin Mayor Kai Wegner similarly described the attack as an assault on the city’s values of freedom and tolerance, while other European leaders and LGBTQ+ organizations expressed solidarity with victims and the Berlin community.
The attack comes as Germany has heightened security around large public gatherings following a series of deadly vehicle-ramming incidents in recent years. More than 2,200 police officers had been deployed for this year’s Pride celebrations before Saturday night’s attack.
German authorities said investigators are continuing to examine the attack, including the suspect’s motives and whether he received any assistance, though officials said they have found no indication that others were directly involved.
Locals have already set up makeshift memorials at the scene. “Liebe Siegt,” (“Love Wins”) declares a prominent sign, echoing similar sentiments at LGBTQ+ memorials everywhere, now from the Stonewall Inn to Brandenburg Gate.
Updated to reflect the status of the investigation: July 26, 2026, 1:48 p.m.
The starkest contrast between two summertime TV hits about women navigating midlife’s challenges shows up in the way its leading ladies handle themselves in the kitchen. For Jennifer Garner’s Hollis Shaw, the influencer around whom “The Five-Star Weekend” revolves, the kitchen is her happy place and moneymaker. Within moments of the series’ opening, she’s sliding a pie in the oven and futzing over tiny tarts and meringue kisses to photograph for her Hungry with Hollis followers.
Hannah Waddingham’s “Ride or Die” assassin, Judith Burton, earns her pay quite differently: She kills the world’s worst people. To her, the kitchen is an arsenal; in the premiere, she beats two men silly with a stock pot, a skillet and several dinner plates. Later, her best friend, Debbie Claybourne (Octavia Spencer), is shocked to discover that Judith stores a submachine gun in her oven.
Both series meet a cultural moment many middle-aged women would call miraculous, and pharmaceutical and cosmetic corporations would describe as profitable. No generation of 40- and 50-somethings has been as extensively catered to as Gen Xers and geriatric Millennial ladies, for whom hormone replacement therapy, along with the secret ways of retinol, hyaluronic acid serum and collagen therapies, have been normalized.
Every TV show is selling us something: “Five-Star Weekend” markets the expectation of how women should age well and politely.
There comes a point at which a woman realizes she’s a lot closer in age to Diane Keaton in “Something’s Gotta Give” than Amanda Peet, and she’s OK with that. Remember which one got to smash Keanu Reeves’ doctor?
In this economy, though, not many people can afford a house in the Hamptons or Nantucket. But we can vacation vicariously with Hollis and her friends Dru-Ann (Regina Hall), Brooke (D’Arcy Carden), Tatum (Chloë Sevigny) and Gigi (Gemma Chan) to the place Dru-Ann virally nicknames “white person clam island.”
(Greg Gayne/Peacock) Regina Hall as Dru-Ann, Jennifer Garner as Hollis, D’Arcy Carden as Brooke, Chloë Sevigny as Tatum in “The Five-Star Weekend”
“The Five-Star Weekend,” based on Elin Hilderbrand’s novel, is currently topping Peacock’s list of most popular series because of its breezy familiarity; we’ve spent time with these women in past summers, dating all the way back to “Big Little Lies.” You should know the formula by now. They have enviable wealth and careers, except for one who’s relatively less well-off than the rest. A tragedy or a mystery that brings everyone to a seaside locale; here, the sudden death of Hollis’ husband sends her sailing off to her family home on Nantucket, where all the interiors are as creamy and dreamy as a Nancy Meyers film. And there must be romance, represented in Hollis’ conveniently single high school sweetheart, played by the perennially foxy Timothy Olyphant.
Everybody’s hiding something from themselves and their host, who has planned all their fun with a pathological degree of anal retentiveness. There is a spa trip and fancy dinner at a restaurant and behind it all, lurking silently, a cancer scare.
If the “Five-Star” crew were to meet “Ride or Die” duo Debbie and Judith at a pub, they’d have war stories to swap. Debbie is a politician’s wife who sidelined her career aspirations to support his ambition to be Prime Minister. She gets him within spitting distance of Downing Street just in time for her husband to dump her.
You think that’s bad? How about this: Hours before that happens, Judith’s younger handler Sam (Calam Lynch) invites her to retire over lunch, suggesting that her recent 50th birthday might have made her a little psychologically unstable. “My mum turned 50 last year,” he shares, “and she went absolutely insane!”
The funniest part of that conversation is when Sam labels Judith a WOACA, a Woman of a Certain Age, pronouncing it as if he were Fozzie Bear punctuating a joke in an old-timey stand-up set. Only the real joke, it seems, is that Judith assumed her mission-completion rate and dedication were enough to maintain the respect of Sam and their boss, played by Bill Nighy. Not so.
(Courtesy of Prime Video)
There’s an additional slathering of irony in Garner, the woman behind “Alias” superspy Sydney Bristow, playing the happy homemaker. Meanwhile “Ride or Die,” created by Tessa Coates, introduces Waddingham, the elegant and proper boss lady from “Ted Lasso,” by showing Judith trading an easy assassination by distant sniping for an up-close-and-personal stabbing. Just for the fun of it.
I’d say that’s a pretty good representation of the gap between the long-shot fantasy of midlife and an intimate understanding of how it actually turns out.
As every perimenopausal woman knows, it’s really hard to relax when so many people in the world deserve to be punched.
Every TV show is selling us something: “Five-Star Weekend” markets the expectation of how women should age well and politely, which is to propose we seek respite from all the heartbreak, ageism and our creeping fear of obsolescence and decrepitude by leaning on our nearest friends. That, and sitting in salt rooms and mud baths or gazing at the bottom of our stand mixer’s bowl. Expressing our rage at all that, however, is still frowned upon.
That makes Debbie and Judith relatable and extraordinary figures, in that they are 50-something women, played by 50-something women headlining a high-velocity espionage thriller, linked to developments each is entitled to be angry about. Instead of proposing Waddingham as a Bond co-star, she’s the expertly skilled agent flanked by a best friend with an equally formidable intellect – the Moneypenny to her 007.
With the scrape Debbie and Judith find themselves in, a beach holiday is out of the question. Besides, as every perimenopausal woman knows, it’s really hard to relax when so many people in the world deserve to be punched.
“Ride or Die” reminds us that our local multiplexes used to be dominated by buddy action blockbusters in past summers, most of which starred men.
An exception was “Thelma & Louise,” which became the talk of the season and then year when it landed in theaters 35 years ago in May. Susan Sarandon’s Louise and Geena Davis’ Thelma spurred debates about what it meant that this film, written by a woman, created two female folk heroes out of the cold-blooded killing of a would-be rapist. Feminists loved it, but plenty of other women viewed it as improper.
It only occurred to me recently that Sarandon was 44 years old when she played Louise, the pal who pulled the trigger. I wasn’t thinking about that when I first saw “Thelma & Louise” because my 40s were far away enough to not even consider that detail. Now I know how much it matters.
Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last. Sign up here
Ultimately, what sisterhood there is between “Five-Star Weekend” and “Ride or Die” can be seen in the way they consider the resources a woman has as she enters middle age. If we are “Five-Star”-fortunate, we can hire assistance to handle the inevitable difficulties associated with this time of life, whether that means groundskeepers or divorce lawyers. Would that were possible for all of us.
“Ride or Die,” for all its fanciful twists, ultimately has more realistic counsel for all the WOACAs watching: Bank on yourself and your extensively earned skills. You don’t need to be rich to burn the road behind you to the point of no return, just confident enough to keep barreling forward. And if you’re really lucky, you’ll have a trustworthy person riding shotgun in your getaway car.
It’s tough to find any semblance of a silver lining in the humiliating implosion of Donald Trump’s foreign policy over the last year, especially after a week that has brought us another escalation of the war no one supports, a recycled trade war with Canada, an out-of-nowhere nuclear deal with a country that should never have access to nuclear weapons, and yet more threats against a small nation that poses no threat to the United States.
But here’s the upside, just maybe: The tiny and perverse cadre of “anti-anti-Trump leftists” has been decisively silenced. If you find that phrase baffling, consider yourself fortunate. You evidently haven’t wasted any of your one wild and precious life arguing with renegade Marxists about whether the Trump-Putin alliance, in world-historical terms, was “objectively” superior to neoliberal internationalism on the Clinton-Obama model.
If this is a safe space, I will admit here that at one time I was around one-third vulnerable to such arguments. I don’t mean the part about Trump being a force for progressive change in any sense, even if entirely by accident, since that was obviously and hilariously wrong, not to mention based on the same “enemy of my enemy” pretzel logic that produced the disastrous Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. But on the level of a sophomore-seminar intellectual exercise, I could understand why self-appointed contrarians like Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald saw Trump as a disruptive force who might upend the softcore imperialism of the previous three or four decades, which had led to the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global hegemony of corporate capital.
You didn’t have to be an unregenerate Leninist or an online troll or a Pat Buchanan-style paleoconservative (or all three at once!) to be momentarily seduced by Trump’s “America First” nonsense. Disgruntled Americans of all varieties voted for Trump by the millions, based in large part on his populist, isolationist rhetoric. Maureen Dowd’s notorious “Donald the Dove, Hillary the Hawk” column from 2016 should be inscribed above the gates of one of the lower circles of hell as a permanent warning to know-it-all media commentators.
It was, of course, immensely helpful to Trump’s agenda of fabrications, exaggerations and outright lies that we experienced the failings of mainstream U.S. foreign policy all over again during the strange interregnum of Joe Biden’s presidency, with its pious invocation of a “rules-based order” — where the rules are set by America, of course — and its theological commitment to a now-entirely-imaginary “two-state solution” in the Middle East. Several things can be said in retrospect about Biden’s fateful embrace of Benjamin Netanyahu on the Tel Aviv tarmac after the Oct. 7 attacks: It was an authentic and heartfelt gesture, it was a grievous political error and it paved the way for a humanitarian catastrophe now widely perceived as genocidal.
(GPO/ Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images) Joe Biden is welcomed by Benjamin Netanyahu at Ben Gurion Airport, Oct. 18, 2023.
Trump’s return to power has, at the very least, finally confounded all the doofuses who ever took anything he said at face value, and has also dispensed with the contradictory or two-faced rhetoric of the Biden years. There’s no more talk of universal human rights or the spread of democracy. The fundamental logic of Trumpian policy is cynicism all the way down: We don’t care about any of those things and we never did. To paraphrase Stephen Miller, surely the most instrumental figure in the Trump White House, the only thing that matters is power.
Maybe we should be grateful for the epic and reckless corruption of this administration, since Miller’s ambitious schemes to reshape America and the world as a white-supremacist wonderland are consistently undercut by the enormous levels of graft surrounding him. (Miller strikes me as a true believer whose corruption is moral rather than financial, one of many traits he appears to share with Joseph Goebbels.)
As the Trump administration veers unsteadily into its lame-duck phase and a likely midterm wipeout, its quest for a legacy achievement becomes increasingly pathetic, not to mention increasingly dangerous. Trump’s dance of death with the Iranian regime might have a comical aspect if the lives of many thousands of people and the future of the global order were not at stake. By goading the president into restarting the war for the third time (by my count), the new roster of hardline leaders in Tehran, at least for now, have strengthened both their domestic control and their international reputation. It’s difficult to imagine, in fact, how Trump and his ludicrous cast of advisers could possibly have screwed this up worse than they did. (D.C. rumors suggest that high-testosterone “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth will ultimately be compelled to walk the plank over this fiasco.)
Maybe we should be grateful for the epic corruption of this administration, since Stephen Miller’s ambitious schemes to reshape America and the world as a white-supremacist wonderland are consistently undercut by the enormous levels of graft around him.
Meanwhile, the search for something that can be pitched to last-ditch MAGA loyalists as a victory, no matter how petty and insignificant, continues. Trump has never given up on his dream of seizing or annexing Greenland, but it was always more like an extortion scheme or a real estate scam than a military threat. Roughly the same applies to his improvised plan to rebuild Gaza as a Trumpified new Riviera, which took even Netanyahu by surprise and was never likely to escape the uncanny valley of AI fantasy.
I’m inclined to feel similar about this week’s reports that Seb Gorka, an unhinged far-right free radical with some sort of roving-ninja role in the Trump White House, is urging a military assault against Islamist militia groups in Mali, a West African nation with complicated internal dynamics and no relationship whatever to U.S. national security. Again, this might be amusing if real human lives weren’t at stake, and if billions in taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress for aid to impoverished countries like Mali weren’t being diverted to right-wing nationalists, white supremacists and anti-LGBTQ groups instead of humanitarian and healthcare NGOs. (Read this ProPublica report for more on that.)
Things have truly gotten dark if we’re looking to JD Vance and Marco Rubio as the proverbial adults in the room, managing the worst impulses of their increasingly disinhibited and incapacitated boss. I don’t know which of those two geniuses signed off on the reported nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, which may fall apart, goddess willing, under the weight of its impromptu idiocy and the fact that literally no one thinks it’s a good idea. Mohammed bin Salman, that kingdom’s journalist-murdering leader, is roughly the last person in the world who should have access to nuclear materials. If this deal goes through, it could rank among the very worst of Trump’s foreign policy blunders. Of course there’s still time for more.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is a busy man. When he isn’t working out with fellow Cabinet members and denying promotions to Black and female officers, he’s making videos ordering the troops to take testosterone tests to prove they are manly enough to serve their country. He’s fighting the culture war morning, noon and night. When he can find the extra time, he’s also running the Pentagon as it wages war in Iran, commits murder on the high seas in the Caribbean and prepares to invade Cuba — and possibly Mali and Greenland. Hegseth has a lot on his plate.
That includes demanding a $454 billion increase in the 2027 Pentagon budget, which brings the total request to nearly $1.5 trillion — a 44% increase from the previous year. Hegseth has called this a “generational investment” that comes out roughly to all of U.S. military spending in World War II. You might think that it’s because of Donald Trump’s war in Iran and all the munitions the military is going through, but you would be wrong because, like most wars, it is paid for separately from the Pentagon budget through emergency supplemental requests.
During a combative appearance on Tuesday before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Hegseth asked for another $67 billion in supplemental funding for the rest of the budget year. But the shock of that request paled in comparison to another number. Hegseth estimated that the Iran war has cost $37.5 billion so far, far higher than the $30 billion figure the Pentagon only recently gave to lawmakers.
That number is astounding on its own, but according to most sources and experts, it significantly lowballs the war’s true cost, which continues to mount. NBC News reported that, according to internal estimates by the Defense Department peg the amount at $80 billion to $100 billion.
It’s not unusual for administrations of both parties to bulk up the Pentagon budget, although the Republicans have always been the most passionate about it. But this is beyond the wildest dreams of Pentagons past. With all the cuts the Trump administration has made to everything else in the government, you’d think they would be a little less greedy. But that’s not how they roll. In Trump’s first term, military spending was profligate, and this time it’s a free-for-all.
Hegseth is basically asking for an unlimited supply of money to finance an extremely unpopular war and such “generational investments” like the “Trump-class battleships,” otherwise known as the Golden Fleet. We needn’t worry that they are being irresponsible, though. They are committed to rooting out “woke” wherever they find it, and that will surely save a few bucks somewhere down the road.
When the senators asked him why the Pentagon needed all this extra money, Hegseth fell back on the Trump administration’s catch-all explanation: “Joe Biden did it.”
When the senators asked him why the Pentagon needed all this extra money, Hegseth fell back on the Trump administration’s catch-all explanation: “Joe Biden did it.” In this the secretary was correct. Biden requested military funding for Ukraine through emergency supplemental requests. But the Trump administration has created an unprecedented innovation. In partnership with MAGA allies on Capitol Hill, they are trying to get it passed through the reconciliation process, which cannot be filibustered but is subject to ruling by the Senate parliamentarian, who can strip the provision if it is determined to be non-budgetary.
The U.S. is running through its supplies of expensive precision-guided munitions and air-defense interceptors at record pace in the Iran war, and there are concerns that reduced inventories are going to affect readiness in case the country is drawn into a war it didn’t choose. Hegseth, though, would not cop to that, insisting instead that all was well — and that the Pentagon just needed more cash to fix up the depleted military Biden left them.
House Republicans have proven more pliant. On Wednesday, by a margin of 216 to 212, they passed a $1.15 trillion defense bill to cover some of what the White House is requesting, adding some juicy extras for artificial intelligence and other tech-bro projects led by the private-equity types who are running much of the Pentagon these days. According to Guardian, one of them, former Uber executive Emil Michael, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for research and engineering who is an aggressive promoter of AI, made a profit of up to $24 million by selling a private investment he held in xAI, Elon Musk’s AI company, earlier this year. (In March 2025, Michael declared the value of his stake at between $500,000 and $1 million.) Since the company isn’t public, no one is quite sure how he came to own the shares or who he sold them to, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the defense department entered into two separate contracts with xAI before Michael sold his shares.
He’s not the only one who appears to be milking the military-industrial complex. The Washington Post reported that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, the president’s eldest sons, have a portfolio of tech companies that are raking in billions from the Pentagon. These are not businesses with which the Trumps have any experience, and the partnerships and investments have all been initiated since their father became president the second time. Don Jr. has said publicly that he works with Hegseth to steer more contracts to drone manufacturers, of which he is a beneficiary. Both brothers are heavily involved with firms that have contracts all over the Pentagon. They insist, though, there’s no conflict of interest and no one in the department has even considered favoritism.
As usual, Hegseth behaved like a teenage bully during the Senate hearing. He argued with senators, blamed Biden and insisted that America has won the war in Iran while simultaneously requesting many more billions to win it. Since the GOP is attempting to push this supplemental package through using reconciliation, they won’t need Democrats to pass it, so one can probably expect that he’ll get what he wants. The firehose of money flowing to the Pentagon and all the insiders who are making massive bank from it isn’t going to dry up any time soon.
Hegseth ended the week with a gratuitous gesture to his commander in chief, who spent a good part of his time explaining that the 18 deaths in the Iran war are nothing compared to all the deaths in previous wars. To make Trump feel better, Hegseth removed from the tally four troops who were killed in renewed fighting, bringing the official death toll back down to 14. Military officials told the New York Times that “one reason behind the change was . . . because their deaths occurred after President Trump declared a cease-fire in the war in April.”
Nonetheless, Trump attended the dignified transfer of the four fallen soldiers’ remains and concocted a story to burnish his war lust. “All of them said very strongly, ‘We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.’”
Although those candidates have drawn much attention, this is hardly a new trend. Bernie Sanders, the nation’s most prominent identified democratic socialist, has represented Vermont in the House or the Senate since 1990. U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, the movement’s rising star in Congress, has served in the House since 2019. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani successfully campaigned as a DSA member in 2025.
There’s no one agreed-upon definition of socialism, even among avowed socialists themselves. But what if the word “socialism” can actually describe some of the most popular and important institutions in the United States?
I’m a social work professor who studies how people manage their money and their well-being. From both my research and informal conversations, I’ve learned that as much as Americans like to think we are, or should try to be, independent, we actually rely on one another and the government a great deal. I call this arrangement “interdependence.”
And even in a conservative state like North Dakota, where I live, socialist, or interdependent, arrangements are seen as pillars of the community. It’s where helping each other gets a little more formal structure.
To “slay,” for example, means to kill. For younger Americans, it has come to also mean to do something impressively. The way words are perceived can change too, with connotations morphing from negative to positive.
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that U.S. median wages are not rising fast enough to keep up with the increase in the cost of living; or that Americans are mainly seeing the promises of capitalism delivered to their nation’s richest people.
Meanwhile, most workers find themselves on the hook to fund more of their own retirement than their parents did and to pay more for their healthcare and insurance coverage, hindering their efforts to save for retirement. Many service sector workers find that they only get shifts when an algorithm says their labor is required – leaving their schedules and earnings unpredictable.
For those who have joined the workforce since the Great Recession, an economic downturn that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, financial insecurity has largely defined their economic experiences. Millions of American families are left needing to pay more and more to cover their bills, and with less disposable income.
Policy platforms to increase housing access, improve working conditions and make utility bills more affordable are a few of the priorities that have propelled democratic socialist and other very progressive candidates to recent victories in their primaries.
I think it’s fair to say that North Dakota has a long history of maintaining policies and running companies and other institutions that could be considered socialist. And that can hold true no matter how you define socialism or whether you think it’s a good thing.
Consider the state-owned Bank of North Dakota, the only financial institution of its kind in the United States. Founded in 1919, it offers numerous education, business, agriculture and infrastructure loan programs to support the economic development of the state and its citizens.
This advertisement for North Dakota’s Farmers Co-op illustrates the long history of farmers working together to source oil and gas and sell their crops. Jeffrey Anvari-Clark/Icelandic State Park Historical Buildings, Cavalier, N.D.
Rather than send wheat to Minneapolis to be processed, incurring high transportation costs, farmers and the state banded together to form the North Dakota Mill, the only state-owned mill in the United States. Notably, no public funds support the mill. Instead, the mill supports the state, with 50% of its profits going to the public coffers.
All of these examples ultimately result in economic benefit and opportunity. For instance, co-ops can reduce the risks of trying to go it alone to launch a small business.
With food insecurity and school lunch debt a problem for many families, many North Dakotans are looking to the state to control the situation – a socialist notion. A ballot measure with significant public support will be put to state voters on Nov. 3, 2026. If approved, the state would have a constitutional mandate to provide free lunches and breakfasts for all K-12 public school students.
Just don’t call it Socialist Security
So while many Americans still don’t like the idea of socialism when they hear that word, it really is a matter of semantics: The word itself is loaded, but few would deny that these examples really do lead to a better quality of life by putting people first.
And in much of the country, the government is responsible for operating water and other utilities, running fire departments and operating public libraries. Those services keep many communities healthy, safe and informed.
Cooperating for the benefit of our families, our communities and our cities, states and nation is what’s kept us progressing as a society. If you can look past the label, I think that you might see arguably socialist programs operating at the national level and in states like mine as opportunities to live a good life by working together.
The Trump administration is asking Congress to rename New York City’s Penn Station, reviving a proposal that would put President Donald Trump‘s name on one of the nation’s busiest transportation hubs.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy urged lawmakers this week to direct Amtrak to rename the Manhattan rail station as part of legislation tied to the long-running overhaul of Penn Station, according to letters first reported by multiple news outlets. While the request does not specify a new name, Duffy has previously said “Trump Station has a nice ring to it,” and the proposal has drawn immediate backlash from New York officials and transit advocates.
The request comes as Penn Station undergoes its most significant transformation in decades. New concourses, expanded corridors and improved passenger facilities have reshaped the transit hub, which serves hundreds of thousands of commuters and travelers each day and remains the busiest rail station in the United States.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, whose district includes Penn Station, blasted the proposal, calling it another example of the administration prioritizing symbolism over the needs of New Yorkers.
Since the very beginning of the Penn Station renovation project, I and other New York elected officials, community advocates, and local residents have called on the Trump administration to provide transparency on the process and funding. As the only member of the Transportation…
Transit advocates likewise dismissed the idea, arguing lawmakers should remain focused on completing the station’s redevelopment and improving passenger service rather than debating a name change.
The latest push follows earlier reports that Trump privately floated renaming Penn Station during negotiations over federal funding for the Gateway rail project. By formally asking Congress to direct Amtrak to make the change, however, the administration has transformed what once appeared to be political chatter into an official transportation proposal.
It remains unclear whether Congress would include the renaming provision in any transportation package, but the request is already fueling fresh debate over the administration’s efforts to leave Trump’s mark on prominent public landmarks.
Login
