What happened

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Sunday publicly rejected President Donald Trump’s latest road map to a lasting peace in Gaza. When Trump announced the “historic agreement” two weeks ago, he said Israel was very happy with the plan. “Israel rejects the 15-point document,” Netanyahu said in televised remarks to his Cabinet, starting with the part where its military would incrementally withdraw from Gaza as Hamas disarms.

Who said what

Israeli forces “will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is disarmed,” Netanyahu said, and “I mean heavy weapons, less heavy weapons, light weapons, all the weapons.” Under pressure from Trump and his Board of Peace envoy Nickolay Mladenov, Israel has “effectively halted attacks in the territory” since last Monday, Reuters said. But Netanyahu is “caught between far-right ministers angered by concessions in Gaza and his key military backer, Trump.” Senior Hamas official Bassem Naim said he and his group “remain committed to the road map” and “expect” the U.S. and other mediators to “press Netanyahu and his government to adhere” too.

What next?

Netanyahu’s decision “risks angering Trump” by robbing him of a “major foreign-policy achievement” as he remains “embroiled in the Iran war,” The Wall Street Journal said. But the Israeli leader “also faces uphill elections in the fall,” and the “hard-right coalition partners” whose support he needs “have vociferously objected to the terms of the agreement.”

What happened

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi Sunday said a deal with Oman on control of the Strait of Hormuz was in the “final stages,” but that “does not mean reopening the strait” until “conditions” are fulfilled. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council on Saturday said the strait won’t be reopened until the U.S. “corrects its behavior,” permanently ending the war, lifting the naval blockade and sanctions, “unconditionally” unfreezing Tehran’s assets and “completely” compensating it for war damages.

Who said what

Between its leverage over global oil prices, the “diminishing stockpiles” of key U.S. weapons and the war’s deep unpopularity with U.S. voters, “Iran believes it holds the cards,” The Associated Press said. Trump Sunday told Axios that the U.S. was “low-keying it” with Iran, waiting for economic pain to bring it to heel. Iran’s demands are largely what Trump “already agreed to” in June, The New York Times said. And denying Trump the “ability to claim victory over the strait” is Iran’s “most efficient lever to persuade him to recommit to those agreements.”

What next?

Tehran’s emerging deal with Oman would give each country control of one direction of transit through the strait. There would be no “fees or tolls during the interim period,” the AP said, but “formal control over even part of the strait would be a clear win for Iran and a loss for the U.S.”

What happened

The Senate early Saturday narrowly confirmed Todd Blanche as attorney general, a position he held in an acting capacity since April, when President Donald Trump sacked Pam Bondi. The 50-49 vote was mostly along party lines, with Republicans Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) joining Democrats in voting no. Trump announced Sunday that his staff secretary, Will Scharf — like Blanche, a former member of his personal legal team — will take over as White House counsel next month.

Who said what

Blanche’s “path to confirmation” was “unusually rocky,” with his “loyalty to Trump at the center of the stalemate,” The Associated Press said. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday that Blanche’s continued support for shielding Trump’s family from IRS audits “almost weighed” his decisive yes vote to a no, but he was swayed by the deal Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) forced that “effectively” killed Trump’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund.”

The “three lame-duck Republican senators” who “narrowly saved” Blanche’s job “believed he was the only person who had earned enough trust” to “rein in” Trump, Glenn Thrush said in a New York Times analysis. But Blanche is a “champion of unbridled presidential power,” and his confirmation “represented a powerful endorsement” of the new attorney general’s guiding philosophy that “he has a constitutional obligation to execute every lawful White House order” from his “meddling, demanding boss,” even if it “shatters longstanding policy and rule-of-law norms, or contradicts what he thinks is right.”

What next?

It’s “unclear whether Blanche will fare any better in delivering on Trump’s desire for retribution than Bondi,” the AP said.

Well, is it on or is it off? No one’s quite sure, said Al Jazeera (Doha). Two weeks ago, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a multibillion-dollar deal allowing US companies to build and operate nuclear power plants on Saudi soil over the next 30 years.

But a day later, President Trump added a new condition, via social media: Saudi Arabia must fall in line with the UAE and other Arab nations that have signed the Abraham Accords, and recognise the state of Israel.

‘Reckless’ agreement

And that may prove a deal breaker, said David Frum in The Atlantic. Riyadh had been working towards this landmark pact for almost two decades. Thanks to the savvy of its de facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), who ensured the private equity firm of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, would get its share of the billion-dollar nuclear licensing deals at stake, he almost got it over the line.

But now it must surely be in doubt, said Mohamad Elmasry on Middle East Eye. Riyadh has vowed it won’t normalise relations until Israel guarantees Palestinian statehood. And MbS has reportedly told US officials that hostility towards Israel is so great among Saudis in the wake of Israel’s devastating war in Gaza, that to sign a normalisation treaty would probably get him assassinated.

It’s obvious why the Saudis still badly want this nuclear deal, said Joseph Cirincione on MS Now (New York). It’s not, as they claim, to diversify their energy profile: that makes no sense for a nation sitting on an ocean of oil and blessed with the ideal wind and solar conditions for generating renewable energy – a far cheaper option.

No, the real reason is to gain atomic weapons to protect itself against its main foe: Iran. MbS has made no secret of his desire to build a bomb, and the deal would be a concrete step in that direction. Despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, it appears to permit nuclear enrichment on Saudi soil, thus enabling Riyadh to follow the likes of India, Israel and Pakistan in covertly enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.

‘Guiding hand’

Who knows what’ll happen if this “reckless” deal goes ahead, said Mitchell Plitnick on Mondoweiss (New York). The “gold standard” nuclear-power pact that the US signed with the United Arab Emirates in 2009 required the UAE to forego the ability to enrich uranium, and obliged it to submit to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections: this Saudi deal has no such restrictions.

Which is why it would inevitably trigger a Middle East arms race, said Azriel Bermant in Foreign Policy. If the deal proceeds, Iran would openly seek its own nuclear deterrent, something it has so far officially forsworn. “It beggars belief that the US went to war against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon yet now acts in a way that is an open invitation for Tehran to weaponise.” And in a way that would also pour “proliferation kerosene” on Turkey and Egypt’s “smouldering nuclear ambitions”, said Matthew Kroenig and Henry Sokolski in The Wall Street Journal. Trump’s deal invites disaster.

Actually, the US is doing the right thing, said the Washington Examiner. The hard truth is that the “era of non-proliferation is coming to an end”: Pakistan and North Korea are both testing nuclear weapons. Given that sobering reality, better the US offer “a guiding hand” to the Saudis and oversee their nuclear agenda than let China or Russia fill the void.

Good or bad, the deal matters a lot to the US president, said Sharon Squassoni in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Chicago), so rumours of its death “are premature”. After all, it’s not some “spur-of-the-moment fantasy” cooked up by Trump. The same deal was also being considered under Joe Biden, and then too enrichment was a quid pro quo for recognising Israel.

The Saudis won’t do so, of course, given recent history, but they won’t have to. Although Congress can disapprove the deal once it’s submitted, the present Congress – due to adjourn on 18 December – is much less likely to do so than any freshly elected one. So the Saudis can “call Trump’s bluff by simply sitting back” and waiting for him to succumb to the pressure of the December deadline.

The House Ethics Committee this week announced it had opened an investigation into Ohio Republican Rep. Max Miller, after ex-wife Emily Moreno accused the lawmaker of violently assaulting her and the pair’s child. While Miller has denied the allegations against him, a growing chorus of Republicans, including Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), Emily’s father, has demanded he resign from Congress. Still, not everyone in the GOP is on board with calls for Miller to step down — particularly during an election cycle in which Republicans’ narrow control of Congress appears up for grabs.

What did the commentators say?

With “public scrutiny” of Miller and the allegations against him “quickly mounting,” many of his Republican colleagues have been “slow to respond,” said Politico. The “surge of attention” surrounding Miller “presents a dilemma for Republicans.” They can either “speak out against their colleague” amid a competitive race or “face accusations of hypocrisy” after “hammering multiple similarly scandal-plagued Democrats.” The situation risks being like “Graham Platner on steroids,” said one GOP operative to the outlet. Republicans may be “struggling up and down the ballot in the Rust Belt state” in general, but Miller’s situation in particular has “muddied their prospects,” said Axios.

Intra-party debate over Miller’s behavior has “led to one question,” said Ohio Capital Journal: “Where is the line in believing accusations when an election is at risk?” Although Miller himself is “confident he will win in the fall,” other Republican officials are “not as confident of a Miller victory.” This “general reluctance to publicly engage” with Miller’s case until this week has “raised questions” for Republicans about the “standards they maintain within their own party,” said The Free Press.

“There’s all sorts of domestic events going on with 435 members of Congress all the time,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to Politico. “It’s not my business to get engaged in it.” The public should wait for the “process to play out.” Johnson’s response to Miller “raises the question of what Johnson does think the speaker’s business is,” said The Atlantic. His “reluctance to become involved” in Miller’s “messy, lurid story” is “understandable, but it’s also one of the burdens that falls on leaders.”

Despite publicly defending Miller as a “good person” whose family should “figure that out,” President Donald Trump offered a more candid take on a private call with the congressman Monday evening, said Axios. During the conversation, the president reportedly told Miller that “things aren’t looking good” and “repeatedly said his reelection would be tough.” But the president “stopped short of asking Miller to step aside,” said The New York Times, and Miller “made it clear he had no intention of doing so.” Because Trump has yet to “publicly withdraw his support” for Miller, other Republicans remain “reluctant to do so themselves.”

Miller himself has responded to the increased scrutiny by comparing the domestic violence allegations that “threaten his reelection” to the “political attacks Trump weathered in 2016,” said Cleveland.com. He mentioned the president’s “sexual assault and harassment claims” and the release of the now-infamous Access Hollywood tape.

What next?

With Miller’s “relatively safe House seat in jeopardy,” the congressman would need to “resign or drop out by Aug. 10 for Republicans to be able to replace him on the ballot,” said The Hill. “With him on the ballot,” said one Ohio GOP official to the outlet, it’s “incredibly difficult to hold a seat that they should.” Republican party chairs for the counties Miller represents have a “window” to “name a successor as the Republican candidate on the ballot,” said Cleveland.com.

Nationally, Johnson is for now “declining to bear” the burden of leadership regarding Miller, said The Atlantic. But by doing so, he may ultimately “ensure that he doesn’t have to worry about the duties of the speaker when the new Congress opens next January.”

What happened

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) lost his bid for reelection on Thursday, ousted in a Republican primary by former state Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher. The primaries were held under a new map Tennessee Republicans passed to eliminate the state’s last Democratic-held congressional district following the Supreme Court’s weakening of Voting Rights Act protections for minorities.

State Rep. Justin Pearson (D) won his primary for that previously Democratic Memphis-based seat, which was cracked into three GOP-leaning districts, and will face state Sen. Brent Taylor (R). Rep. Steve Cohen (D) “chose not to seek reelection to the seat, which independent political analysts now rate as safe Republican,” Reuters said.

Who said what

Ogles has “faced backlash over anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric” and previous campaign finance controversies, The New York Times said, but his loss was “seen as an upset.” It was a “rare rejection of a candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump,” The Associated Press said. Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) “tried to boost his campaign in the final days,” Politico said, but a “flood of outside money” for Hatcher from a renewable energy super PAC, “coupled with a newly redrawn district that forced Ogles to reach new voters,” helped seal his loss.

What next?

Sen. Marsha Blackburn won the GOP primary for governor, and she’s expected to prevail over Democratic nominee Jerri Green, a Memphis city council member. It’s the first time in Tennessee that “either major political party has nominated a woman” for governor, the Times said.

While the Trump administration has become known for its policy of anti-globalization, recent reports that the White House plans to shutter five overseas embassies and consulates have some worried about the implications. Several of the planned closures will occur in nations with close diplomatic ties to the United States, including Canada and Japan. The rare moves, which often happen only during times of conflict, could create new foreign affairs headaches, even as Republicans laud the plans.

What did the commentators say?

The U.S. State Department has reportedly informed Congress that it is planning to close the embassy on the Caribbean island of Grenada; the consulates in Nagoya, Japan, and Medan, Indonesia; the diplomatic post in Winnipeg, Canada; and the embassy in Douala, Cameroon. The closures are “expected to save the government roughly $4.4 million per year,” but the affected buildings also “employ very few people compared with others,” said The Associated Press.

The buildings in Grenada and Nagoya “have only one American staffer and five local employees each,” said the AP, and the Medan consulate has only 47 local employees; the Douala embassy has only 14 and the Winnipeg post has just two. The closure effort is “part of a broader push by the Republican president to transform the U.S. bureaucracy so that it is fully aligned with his ‘America First’ agenda,” said Reuters. People seem split on the closures. Supporters have “portrayed cost-cutting measures as necessary to right-size ​an organization many conservatives see as bloated and overly bureaucratic.”

But Democrats “argue that cuts to the U.S. diplomatic footprint — coupled with the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, ‌which ⁠provided billions of dollars worth of aid globally — risks undermining American leadership,” said Reuters. While “on paper, the move is about efficiency,” in practice it “goes far beyond the fate of five buildings,” said Newsweek. The consular slashing “suggests the Trump administration sees America’s overseas presence as a dollar figure to be managed on a balance sheet, not as a strategic asset to be maintained.”

Some of the buildings planning for closure are far less consequential than full embassies; the diplomatic post in Winnipeg does “not provide full consular services, only emergency assistance to Americans in distress,” said the National Post. But the closures also mark a “rare reduction of America’s diplomatic footprint outside a specific geopolitical crisis,” said Newsweek, even though the shutterings themselves are “modest in isolation.”

What next?

The State Department hasn’t specifically confirmed or denied the closures but said its officials were “​focused on ensuring that the ⁠nation’s diplomatic footprint was efficient and effective,” the agency told Reuters in a statement. The department also said it was “committed to following congressional notification procedures.” No exact timeline for the shutterings has been announced.

The decision follows a recent pattern of closures. Earlier this year the Trump administration announced it would “permanently close the U.S. consulate in Peshawar, Pakistan, which was the closest diplomatic mission to Afghanistan,” said the AP. At the same time, the U.S. is also “investing millions of dollars into reopening the U.S. embassies in Caracas, Venezuela; Damascus, Syria; and Tripoli, Libya,” to “restore America’s formal diplomatic presence following the ouster of long-ruling autocrats in those countries.”

What happened

The Trump administration has refunded about $100 billion of the roughly $166 billion collected through President Donald Trump’s 2025 “liberation day” tariffs, according to a court-ordered progress report filed Tuesday with the U.S. Court of International Trade. The Supreme Court ruled in February that those import taxes had been collected illegally using an authority the president did not have, and a judge subsequently ordered their return to the importers.

Who said what

Trump has “placed heavy-handed tariffs at the center of his economic and foreign policy agendas,” CNBC said, and he has “vented his rage over the court rulings.” The “speed at which the money has been refunded has surprised trade lawyers and analysts” alike, the Financial Times said. White House officials had “warned that the refunds would depend on further litigation.”

What next?

Trump’s administration has “recently taken a series of steps to effectively re-create” his initial sweeping tariffs “using other legal authorities,” said CNBC. On Monday, 25 states sued the administration over the new tariffs, “calling them a pretext for replacing” the axed “liberation day” levies, The Associated Press said.

It is hot out there. Summertime heat can take a deadly toll on workers, especially in the era of climate change and frequent heat domes. The Biden administration initiated rules to ensure that U.S. companies provide their employees with breaks to hydrate and recover while laboring in warm temperatures. Now the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are looking to roll back those protections.

‘A matter of life and death’

Heat causes “hundreds of workplace deaths” every year, but the Trump administration is rewriting rules that “mandate breaks and access to water and shade for workers,” said The New York Times. The details of those changes are still unknown, but already the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is “curtailing workplace inspections” that had been designed to “raise awareness of heat-related illnesses.”

A House committee last month also gave approval to a bill that would block the Labor Department “finalizing any worker protections for extreme heat,” said E&E News. The Biden-era rule solves a “problem that doesn’t need solving,” Rep. Mark Messmer (R-Ind.) told the outlet. At least a few workers disagree. “We didn’t sign up for the heat to become as severe as it is,” Trina David, a baggage handler at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, said to the Times.

“Trump will cause some of you to die from the heat,” Robert Reich said on Substack. There are countless workers who toil “under the hot sun, or in stifling warehouses or in delivery trucks with no AC,” which can “trigger heat stroke, organ failure and chronic kidney disease.” Those illnesses and deaths “can often be prevented with strong safety standards,” but the Trump administration is “retreating from worker safety.” Workplace heat protections are “literally a matter of life and death.”

The Biden-era rules had a “deep benevolent paternalism” to them, Matthew Kahn said at Environmental and Urban Economics. But workers possess a “degree of choice over where they live and work, what job they take and what shifts they agree to work,” Kahn and Joseph Tracy said in a 2025 paper for the American Enterprise Institute. They can “move or switch firms” if conditions are too onerous. There is “no ‘crisis’” in on-the-job heat injuries that requires a heavy regulatory touch.

‘Can’t afford to stay cool’

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in June signed an executive order “ensuring the safety of municipal workers in the heat,” said E&E News. Workers should not have to “choose between their paycheck and their health,” Mamdani said at the signing ceremony.

For many workers, though, the twin trends of “high temperatures and high inflation” are creating a “crisis that rarely makes headlines,” Sharon Block and Dr. Satchit Balsari said at USA Today. Cash-strapped workers increasingly “can’t afford to stay cool.” Rising prices force them to choose between paying for “food, rent and healthcare” or the electricity needed to “cool off during their off-hours.” The combination of low wages, increased costs and poor protections are forcing workers into “deadly trade-offs.”

What happened

President Donald Trump’s National Guard deployment to Washington, D.C., will cost the federal government another $1.4 billion through the end of his term in 2029, according to a Defense Department estimate for Congress obtained by news organizations Tuesday. The estimate “offers a glimpse of how much taxpayer money will be spent” on a deployment local officials call an “infringement of their city’s autonomy,” said The Associated Press.

Who said what

The White House “has not disclosed the full cost of the mission so far,” The Washington Post said, so the Pentagon’s new figure represents the “most comprehensive accounting yet” of Trump’s “unprecedented use of the military.” In January, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the deployment was costing about $55 million per month, or more than $700 million to date. “The National Guard are not pawns and taxpayer dollars are not a piggy bank for Trump’s political stunts,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement.

What next?

About 4,600 military personnel were stationed in D.C. as of last week, and the new estimate assumes that an average of 2,500 National Guard members will be there for the remainder of Trump’s term. But it’s unclear if governors will “extend their state units for more than two years,” said the AP.

‘One problem with attacking the Smithsonian? Americans like it.’

Kelsey Ables at The Atlantic

Even as the “museum complex continues to face a pressure campaign from the White House, public fondness for the Smithsonian — for its free entry and eclectic collections — is hard to break,” says Kelsey Ables. Museums have “been largely immune to the most deleterious effects of the culture wars.” Most “Americans, unlike the president, seem to trust these entities to do their thing” so “coming after a history museum may not be the base-galvanizing issue the White House hopes it is.”

Read more

‘The US government’s mislabeled map of Africa at a global AIDS conference shows again a failure to understand the continent’

Kenneth Ngure at The Guardian

At the 26th International AIDS Conference, a “slide presented by a senior U.S. State Department official displayed a map of Africa with country names glaringly scrambled and mislabeled,” says Kenneth Ngure. While the “mistake apparently occurred due to an overreliance on AI tools, it carried a painful symbolic weight.” The map “reinforced a longstanding frustration: that too many political leaders treat Africa as a monolithic abstraction rather than a continent of 54 distinct sovereign nations.”

Read more

‘Why patients wait months for care they don’t get’

Tessa Adzemović at The Boston Globe

Hospitals “were never designed to become long-term accommodations, but that’s become a reality for a select population,” says Tessa Adzemović. These “patients are medically cleared to leave but cannot be discharged because of capacity bottlenecks, insurance delays or legal complexities.” Many “prolonged hospitalizations have significant implications for patient outcomes, hospital resource utilization and healthcare costs.” The “reasons for these delayed discharges range from financial to administrative to legal, so any solution to the problem must be multifaceted.”

Read more

‘“Ted Lasso” is back, but is his moment over?’

A.A. Dowd at The American Prospect

As “comebacks go,” a new season of “Ted Lasso” is “not exactly improbable,” says A.A. Dowd. The show “remains one of the most widely watched series of the last decade, a true juggernaut of popularity.” But at “what point does a show go from having its finger planted firmly on the pulse of now to suddenly looking more out of touch than anything else?” We “may have reached the moment when Ted Lasso’s brand of turn-the-other-cheek humanism is no longer enough.”

Read more

What happened

President Donald Trump on Monday accused U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro of having “choked” over the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool case. Trump told reporters that Pirro “folded like an umbrella” in moving to drop vandalism charges against four people, including former Olympic canoeist David Hearn. Announcing the decision last week, the Justice Department said Trump’s $14 million renovations of the Washington landmark were “hasty and botched.” It also criticized the Interior Department for withholding key information about the project.

Who said what

The president has reportedly considered firing former Fox News host Pirro, a longtime Trump loyalist, for contradicting his assertion that bad actors are to blame for the pool’s peeling paint. “To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM,” Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said on social media that “the evidence is clear, vandals have repeatedly caused damage” to the pool.

Waterproofing experts concluded the peeling paint was “probably caused by application errors,” The Washington Post said. The president is miffed because “Pirro did not give the White House a heads-up about dropping the charges,” a White House official told the outlet. Pirro met with Trump in the Oval Office, but she was not fired and did not offer her resignation, two sources told The New York Times.

What next?

Hearn’s lawyers are expected to respond this week to Pirro’s request to dismiss the case against him. He has “legal options that could unearth more embarrassing details on how his case was handled,” CNN said.

America’s own Louis XIV has embarked on his next home improvement project, said Tiago Ventura in Time. President Trump recently announced the construction of a $5 million granite helipad engraved with the U.S. presidential seal on the White House’s South Lawn. It’s the latest flourish from a president who seeks to “refashion both the White House and Washington through a series of high-profile renovation projects.” The most well-known are the botched repainting of the Reflecting Pool and the demolition of the White House’s East Wing to make way for a still-unbuilt ballroom. But in total, Trump has launched 18 known projects to remake the U.S. capital in his own image and taste. The Oval Office has been adorned with so much gold leaf that it resembles the glittering excess of Versailles, while White House walls now bear gaudy gold script proclaiming “The Oval Office,” “The West Wing,” and “The Presidential Walk of Fame.”

Trump claims his renovations are being funded by private donors and won’t cost taxpayers a dime, said Andrew Feinberg in The Independent. But a close examination of public records reveals “a pattern of ballooning budgets, noncompetitive bidding, and the weaponization of federal funds” to bankroll Trump’s vanity projects. These “improvements” have drained at least $1 billion in taxpayer dollars. Trump’s projects are also illegal, said Edith Olmsted in The New Republic. By law, Congress is required to approve any construction on federal land. But because congressional Republicans fear crossing the president, he has been allowed to treat the White House “like one of his gaudy resort properties,” rather than the once-dignified, 226-year-old People’s House.

While Congress turns a blind eye, “a majority of Americans don’t approve,” said Sarah Davis in The Hill. A recent Washington Post poll found that 2 out of 3 Americans take a dim view of Trump’s extravagant renovations. When asked about Trump’s motivations, 64% said he was transforming Washington, D.C., to “glorify himself” or “leave his mark,” not to benefit the public. Renovation is easier than the economy or foreign policy, said Jackie Delamatre in The Guardian. With mounting troubles both domestically and internationally, it’s no surprise that Trump has retreated to the safety of these relatively small matters. He’s even been caught supergluing gold accents to the Oval Office’s mantle himself. In his desperation to self-soothe, Trump can’t stop himself from adding “just one more gilded vase.”

What happened

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Sunday formally rescinded the controversial plan for a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” that would have compensated President Donald Trump’s allies. Blanche also agreed to limit the scope of Trump’s tax audit immunity, which, along with the fund, was agreed as part of a settlement with the Justice Department after Trump sued the IRS for leaking his tax returns. Blanche’s announcement follows negotiations with two key Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who were threatening to block his bid to become permanent head of the DOJ.

Who said what

Blanche had repeatedly sworn during Senate hearings that the fund was dead. But Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) “wanted to see the promise in writing,” NPR said, “especially as Trump continued to express support for the idea.”

“My team and I have met with committee members and Senators over the past several weeks and addressed any concerns or outstanding questions," Blanche said on X. In a statement, he also clarified that tax immunity for Trump and his family “applies only retroactively,” so it “does not protect the president from examination of future tax filings,” The Associated Press said.

What next?

A Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Blanche’s nomination is scheduled for Tuesday. His announcement “appears to clear the way” for his confirmation, Politico said, and GOP leaders hope to confirm his appointment “before the end of the week.”

It isn’t often we can trace a widely used turn of phrase to a single, inspired genesis. Not so with the mocking ‘TACO’ appellation. Coined in May 2025 by Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong, the acronym highlights President Donald Trump’s inclination to “Always Chicken Out” on his threats and proclamations.

While there have been numerous iterations and adaptations of Armstrong’s broader point (“perhaps the best Mexican food acronym for Trump is TAMALES,” said Reuters: “Trump Always Messes Around, Leaves Everybody Shafted”), none have quite captured the public’s imagination like Armstrong’s four-letter initialism. One year since its coinage, here are some of the president’s biggest TACO moments to date.

‘Liberation Day’ tariffs

The effects of Trump’s 2025 attempt to “remake the global trading system” by “erecting the largest tariff wall around the U.S. economy” in a century are “well-documented,” said Bloomberg. “Markets crumbled and then recovered when Trump delayed and scaled back his original duties” multiple times in the ensuing weeks, meaning that for a “certain audience,” a TACO “isn’t just a meal anymore.”

Ultimately, the administration “threatened far more tariffs” than Trump has “carried through on,” said NBC. Trump’s trade strategy since his Liberation Day rollout of global tariffs has been “rushed and improvisational,” said the Council on Foreign Relations. Absent congressional input and lacking overall cohesion, the White House’s tariffs and subsequent policy are “not U.S. trade agreements but rather Trump’s trade deals” for better or worse.

Wall Street’s TACO trades

Trump’s Liberation Day rollout of worldwide tariffs “didn’t just reshape global trade,” said CNBC, it also “spawned a new play in the stock market: the ‘TACO trade.’” Here, the president’s “extreme position on policy” is inevitably replaced with a “more palatable place for equities, leading investors to then ‘buy the dip.’” Those who buy stocks “at lower costs after Trump announces new tariffs or increases them” later “reap the benefits when the markets rebound as he delays or backs off of them,” said ABC. “Oh, I chicken out? Isn’t that nice? I've never heard that,” said Trump when asked a “nasty question” in the Oval Office about his eponymous trading trend.

Immigration raids at farms and hotels

“Changes are coming!” Trump said in a June 2025 post on Truth Social that acknowledged “our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, longtime workers away” from the agricultural, hospitality and leisure industries. The waffling commitment to his mass deportation raids was an “echo of Trump’s back-and-forth rhetoric on tariffs,” said the Detroit Free Press.

It was a “rare concession” from Trump that his policies were “hurting American farmers and hospitality businesses,” said The New York Times — “industries and constituencies that he does not want to lose.” The message from Trump’s shifting deportation tactics is “clear,” said The Daily Beast. The president’s “commitment to his own anti-immigration agenda cannot withstand pressure from his supporters” to protect “their bottom line.”

Threatening to end Iranian ‘civilization’

In “one of the more bizarre days in U.S. diplomatic history,” said The Washington Post, Trump’s threat to Iran back in April that a “whole civilization will die tonight” ended with the president “proclaiming a two-week ceasefire” to the U.S.-led war. Trump also announced the start of negotiations based on Tehran’s “10-point proposal,” which was full of “conditions that should be utterly unacceptable to any U.S. administration.”

Similar to the Paris Peace Accords that ended the Vietnam War, Trump can now “pretend that his bloodcurdling threats coerced Iran into giving up,” when he has “so far given up more than the mullahs did,” said the Post. Critics “lampooned” the episode as “another TACO moment,” said CNN, in which Trump backed off his “maximalist” demands “in a way that erased his red lines and raised doubts about his credibility.”

‘Guardian’ fees for the Strait of Hormuz

Just one day after threatening on “Fox and Friends” to position the United States as the “guardian angel of the strait” of Hormuz — and then “get paid for guarding it, a lot of money” — Trump “abandoned his threat,” telling reporters the plan would be “replaced by trade deals with Gulf states,” with whom he had spent the past 24 hours talking, said the BBC. “It was TACO Tuesday in Washington” when Trump walked back his threat, said CNBC. “And Wall Street was all too happy to take a bite.”

In Minneapolis, a ‘soft TACO’ pivot?

The more Trump has pushed the limits of his power, the less locked into a binary TACO dynamic he seems, despite Armstrong’s initial framing. It “might be more helpful,” then, to “craft a more limited soft TACO theory instead,” said Vox. While Armstrong asserts Trump possesses a “low tolerance for political or economic pain,” the soft TACO idea posits that his tolerance “can sometimes be quite high — even if it isn’t unlimited.” Trump’s decision to scale back deportation operations in Minnesota after the shooting deaths of two protestors, for example, “shows he was not entirely captured by hardline advisers or ideology,” nor was he “so insulated” that he could “ignore such intense backlash.” However, said Vox, “it took months — and two deaths — to get him to back down.”

What happened

President Donald Trump claimed Thursday on Truth Social that Hamas had agreed to “COMPLETE DISARMAMENT” in Gaza and that “Israeli forces will withdraw” from the war-torn region. Details on the deal remain limited, but Trump said it was brokered by the international Board of Peace, which he established earlier this year to oversee the Gaza peace plan.

Who said what

The breakthrough is a “critical step” toward Gaza being “governed by a new Palestinian government” and Israel having “the security it deserves,” Trump said. He added that the International Stabilization Force would collaborate with “a new Palestinian police force to take responsibility for Gaza being safe.”

But “we didn’t say disarmament,” Hamas negotiator Ghazi Hamad told The Wall Street Journal. Instead the group simply “agreed to place its weapons in a storage facility.” Israel has yet to make a public statement on the reports. Trump would be “very, very” disappointed if Israel rebuffed the plan, a senior Trump adviser told reporters.

Hamas has “long regarded giving up all its weapons as tantamount to surrender,” The New York Times said, so “disarmament would be a monumental undertaking.”

What next?

Board of Peace officials expected details of the deal would have to be “refined” over the coming weeks and months, Bloomberg said, and the timeline for Israeli withdrawal has yet to be finalized.

‘The Paramount deal is in trouble. It’s not about the movies.’

Sharon Waxman at The New York Times

Hollywood has been “thrown sideways by the news that 12 state attorneys general might have found a way to trip up the merger that almost nobody in the entertainment industry wanted,” says Sharon Waxman. For “months, the acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance has been an all-but-done deal,” but concerns “over the future of CNN” are “what is driving the forces against this deal.” Paramount “seems well aware of this narrative,” and there “will be legal arguments.”

Read more

‘How bots took over our lives’

T.M. Brown at The New Yorker

During the “past decade, so-called bots, a slippery concept from the start, have gone from a conspiratorial curiosity to a familiar force in our daily lives,” says T.M. Brown. In the “popular imagination, they are suddenly everywhere and seem designed to annoy the hell out of people.” But the “impulse to treat bots like digital mosquitoes that need to be swatted away minimizes their role in making the internet work.” Bots are “most often used for mundane tasks.”

Read more

‘Israel runs the Iran playbook on Turkey’

Mason Letteau Stallings at The American Conservative

One of the “stranger geopolitical developments in the Middle East of late (leaving aside the present war) has been the rupture between Israel and Turkey,” says Mason Letteau Stallings. Most “worrying, considering the conflict in which the United States currently finds itself embroiled, are Israeli comparisons of Turkey to Iran.” From a “historical perspective, this is surprising,” but it’s “important to ensure that Israeli (or Turkish) interests, to the extent these diverge from our own, do not shape American policymaking.”

Read more

‘Donald Trump has turned the United States into an economic banana republic’

Richard Poplak at The Globe and Mail

The United States has become “perhaps the world’s first functioning Third World economy,” says Richard Poplak. While he “wouldn’t be caught dead articulating it this way, Trump’s vision is to turn the United States into a Third World economy.” While the “analogy is not perfect, it’s far from outlandish: however much the actual adults in the Oval Office may disapprove, the U.S. has reshaped revenue collection around the simple, regressive models preferred by Third World dictators.”

Read more

Three British superhero actors have spoken out against the proposed merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery and urged the culture secretary to block the deal.

Benedict Cumberbatch and Benedict Wong, both of whom appear in Marvel’s “Doctor Strange” films, and Alan Cumming, who played Nightcrawler in the “X-Men series”, have written in The Guardian warning the Paramount-Warner Bros. tie-up “threatens to inflict immense harm on the British public”.

The $110 billion (£83 billion) deal is being led by Paramount CEO David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison, the Oracle founder and close ally of Donald Trump. It would create one of the world’s most powerful media empires, bringing together HBO, CNN, TNT Sports, Channel 5, Paramount+, as well as the DC Universe, Harry Potter, “Game of Thrones” and “The Lord of the Rings” franchises.

‘Minded to intervene’

Among a host of issues, Cumberbatch, Cumming and Wong cite concerns over the livelihoods of British film and TV crews, independent film financing, and the consolidation of news publications. “The UK is being threatened by a media merger that would harm our workers, our culture and the public – but we can stop it,” they say.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has said she is “minded to intervene” in the deal on public interest grounds. “I am conscious that the proposed acquisition is global in nature. In reaching this decision, my focus has been, and will remain, on the UK public interest and the range of services available to UK audiences,” she said in a letter to the current and proposed owners of Warner Bros. Discovery.

While Paramount has said it remains “confident that our proposed transaction does not pose any media plurality issues”, were the UK government to issue a public interest intervention notice it would trigger further scrutiny from media regulator Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority.

Depending on her decision, Nandy “could end up upsetting or possibly ingratiating virtually all the major US studios, streamers and tech giants”, not to mention the Trump administration, which is strongly backing the deal, said Deadline. This makes her “one of the most consequential culture secretaries in recent memory… in America that is.”

‘Bad for everyone’ except billionaires

The call for the British government to intervene comes after 12 American states, led by California, sued to try to block the merger, warning it would raise prices, shrink the number of films made and fall foul of strict anti-trust laws.

Last week a US district judge temporarily paused the merger to consider the lawsuit. This prompted Paramount to agree not to close the deal until June 2027 or five days after the court issues a ruling on the case, whichever is earlier.

For Paramount, the delay “may prove costly”, said The Hollywood Reporter. The merger agreement says Warner’s shareholders are owed roughly $650 million per quarter, or $6.9 million per day, if the deal is not completed by 30 September.

More than 1,000 leading industry professionals from US film and TV signed an open letter in April warning of the impact of “media consolidation” that prioritises “the interests of a small group of powerful stakeholders over the broader public good”.

Mark Ruffalo, one of the actors leading the campaign against the merger, said it “will mean less films, less TV, less creativity, less of everything from the people who make the decisions. This merger is bad for everyone except the billionaire class.”

Foreign students at American colleges and universities were thrust into uncharted waters this month after the Department of Homeland Security released new guidelines to severely restrict how and how long international students can study in the United States. While the White House says the change is necessary for national security, higher education advocates claim the new rules are a body blow to America’s role as an international academic powerhouse.

What did the commentators say?

Under the new rules, students on F-1 visas that for decades had allowed them to stay in the U.S. “as long as they maintain a full course of study” will now be limited to just four-year terms, said Bloomberg Law. The new rule also restricts shifting academic plans and “reduces the grace period” that visa holders have before they face deportation.

The new guidelines are the “latest” White House policy change “buffeting the roughly 1.2 million international students pursuing degrees in the U.S.,” said Bloomberg. The new rules also affect J-visas that “allow visitors on cultural exchange programs to work in the U.S.,” and I-visas for “members of the media,” said USA Today. For international graduate students, the policy also prohibits changing focus mid-program and bars transfers to other schools without authorization.

The policy changes also “reach beyond the classroom” to the government’s “Optional Practical Training” program, through which F-1 visa holders could “work in the U.S. for a year after finishing a degree” — or longer, depending on the area of study, said the Los Angeles Times. Now, that time “counts against the four-year cap.” Foreign students already in the U.S. will be subject to the new rules “automatically,” and their time will be “capped at four years from the rule’s effective date during the fall semester.”

These changes come as international student enrollment in American schools has “already plummeted” in President Donald Trump’s second term thanks to “new visa restrictions” targeting specific countries, “harsh immigration enforcement,” and the “prosecution of foreign students who engage in political activity that the administration disagrees with,” said The New Republic. This, in turn, has resulted in a “big drop in revenue” for American schools “which have had to cut programs” and “negatively impacted a major economic engine for the U.S.” Not only do international students “bring diversity and alternative worldviews,” said NPR, but they also “contribute heavily to colleges’ financial health” because, being ineligible for federal aid, “many pay full tuition.”

Placing “clear, finite limits on these visas” allows the U.S. to “properly screen, vet and monitor individuals within our borders,” said Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin in a statement. International students will now focus on their “primary purpose: completing their studies and returning home.” But international education experts have “warned that these actions could lead to a decline in international enrollment,” said Inside Higher Ed. The outcome, they say, will be institutions that “struggle to meet enrollment and revenue goals,” as well as disruptions to the nation’s “ability to recruit top students and scholars to contribute to American research and innovation.”

“I can’t graduate early by cramming my coursework” and “there’s no guarantee I’ll pass” the requisite American licensing exams, said nursing student Kim Se-hee, currently studying in Chicago, to The Korea Herald. After years spent “working toward building a life in the U.S.,” being sent back to Korea “right after getting my U.S. nursing license, it would all be for nothing.”

The new guidelines are “far more” than changing a visa rule, said immigration attorney Tahmina Watson to Business Insider. “It’s an economic policy” under which the U.S. “risks becoming a less attractive destination for the world’s brightest minds.” The result will hurt “universities, businesses, innovation, local economies” and, ultimately, “America’s long-term global competitiveness for generations.”

What next?

With the rule change set to go into effect in mid-September, schools are “scrambling to figure out” what this means for their “international student offices, their Ph.D. programs and admissions,” said NPR. The “fallout” from the changes “could be considerable,” said Forbes. The message globally is that America has become “less welcoming, less predictable and less committed,” said NAFSA: Association of International Educators Executive Director and CEO Fanta Aw in a statement.

‘India’s Gen Z just made Modi blink’

Rana Ayyub at The Washington Post

What “began as outrage over dysfunction in India’s college exam system built into something much larger — the first sustained, youth-led movement in years to force India’s powerful central government actually to concede ground,” says Rana Ayyub. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “government has seemed to elevate itself beyond the reach of dissent,” but the “critical mass that formed last week was something new.” It managed to “turn Modi himself into a subject of derision and satire.”

Read more

‘America’s housing boom risks creating tomorrow’s housing crisis’

Elizabeth Carmichael at Newsweek

America is “racing to build millions of new homes,” but in the “rush to solve today’s housing shortage, we’re creating neighborhoods that could become tomorrow’s financial and environmental liabilities,” says Elizabeth Carmichael. The “country needs new homes,” but “building faster won’t solve America’s housing crisis if we’re filling neighborhoods with developments that cost more to maintain, consume more energy, undermine residents’ health and require expensive retrofits.” Americans “should be treating every new development as infrastructure for the next century.”

Read more

‘The hidden cost of stress at work’

Lilly Springer, David Slusky and Anupam Jena at Time

Americans “work more hours per year than those in similar countries. Working is, in a sense, an American pastime,” say Lilly Springer, David Slusky and Anupam Jena. Many “jobs are stressful or physically demanding, imposing a toll on both mental and physical health.” The “question of how work affects our health is incredibly important.” Workplace conditions “can impact the health of not only workers themselves, but also their children,” as the “effects of work may reach beyond an individual employee.”

Read more

‘Trump’s Iran war casualty numbers don’t add up’

Renée Graham at The Boston Globe

After “four U.S. service members killed this month in the U.S./Israel war against Iran received a dignified transfer at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, their names disappeared from the Pentagon’s public tracker for military casualties,” says Renée Graham. President Donald Trump is “cooking the books again, this time with the numbers of Iran war dead.” Even in an “administration where mendacity is policy, reclassifying war deaths to manipulate public opinion for this deeply unpopular war is unconscionable.”

Read more

What happened

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Tuesday it will end a Medicare subsidy program aimed at lowering prescription costs for some seniors at the end of 2026, one year ahead of schedule. The Medicare prescription drug benefit, which is expected to cost the government some $3.6 billion in subsidies this year, was introduced by former President Joe Biden in 2024. It shields some 25 million people with “Part D” Medicare plans from steep insurance premium hikes.

Who said what

Characterizing the government subsidies as a “bailout” that “gave BILLIONS of taxpayer money DIRECTLY to Big Insurance Companies,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said on social media that the administration is “stabilizing the market.” All but a quarter of Part D enrollees are likely to see their premiums rise next year as a result of the change, some by $20 a month, an anonymous Trump administration official told The Wall Street Journal.

The change could “inflame the debate” about healthcare costs at a time when “voters’ concerns about the cost of living are a top campaign issue,” Bloomberg said. Republicans could find this “politically damaging” ahead of the November midterm elections, The New York Times said.

What next?

CMS will release the new monthly Part D premiums in September, which means Medicare users could be in for some “sticker shock while shopping for next year’s drug plan,” the Times said.

After a World Cup dominated by hydration “ad” breaks, political interference and match-rigging conspiracies, football’s biggest prize really is, “it seems, for sale”, said Alyson Rudd in The Times.

Under plans drawn up by Fifa President Gianni Infantino, football’s world governing body would retain majority control of the tournaments it runs, including the men’s and women’s World Cup and Club World Cup, under a new company, the Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE).

But a minority stake would be offered to each of Fifa’s 211 member associations and, controversially, to private investors. Infantino would be installed as “commissioner” when his term as Fifa president ends in 2031, a role that “could potentially earn him tens of millions of pounds”, sources have told The Times, which broke the story.

“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” European football’s governing body Uefa said in a statement. “The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade – especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially.”

What did the commentators say?

For once, public outrage at the proposals is entirely justified and understandable “because it ties together so many of the extremes that have been pushing, pulling and twisting football, let alone the world, for so long”, said Miguel Delaney in The Independent.

To muddy the waters further, the Financial Times has reported that Joshua Kushner, the brother of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, is being lined up to lead the $20 billion commercial part of the deal through his Thrive Eternal investment fund.

Infantino “understands political and commercial power”, said the FT. And “in the latest battle for football’s soul and spoils”, the 56-year-old Swiss “has a key ally in Trump and, many suspect, the support of Fifa members around the world”.

Purists may decry the commercialisation of the beautiful game, but this has been happening for decades. Football’s “owners and exploiters have long seen the matches themselves as mere 90-minute sections of legacy content”, said Marina Hyde in The Guardian. These “would be far better relegated to the second, third or even fourth tier behind such always-on output as branded content, shareable clips, behind-the-scenes footage, lifestyle and commerce”.

Others will say that what Fifa is proposing is “no different to the commercial entities that the likes of the French and Spanish leagues have created and sold stakes in to private-equity funds”, said Matt Slater on The Athletic. The German and Italian leagues have debated “the same move for several years” too, and the strategy has been tried in other sports such as Formula 1 and golf’s PGA Tour.

What next?

Fifa insists the plans are still in the consultation phase, but “if this escapade succeeds, the trickle-down effect would be unpalatable”, said Rudd in The Times. It would, for example, “reinvigorate those who wanted a breakaway European Super League so feared by the fans and then so valiantly protested against”.

Selling off a slice of the World Cup “should be the cue for outright rebellion”, said Oliver Brown in The Telegraph. Given European teams made up six of the eight men’s World Cup quarter-finalists this year and three of the four semi-finalists, Uefa “should have the courage of its convictions and issue a warning to secede”.

That “will almost certainly never happen”, though. “These scandals follow a time-honoured pattern: politicians fulminate, a few federations speak out, and then Infantino ploughs ahead regardless.”

President Donald Trump has long flirted with dispatching federal forces to polling sites as part of a broader and oftentimes martial emphasis on election security. Now, with the 2026 midterms just months away and Democrats looking increasingly likely to make major (perhaps even chamber-flipping) gains in November, party figures are starting to take Trump’s threats seriously. As blue state attorneys general coordinate with one another and Senate Democrats convene high-level strategy sessions, is the party ready to face the White House’s increasingly brazen electoral saber-rattling?

‘War room’ preparations

In July, a “group of powerful” Democratic lawmakers “rehearsed for some of their darkest fears” about the midterm elections,” said MS NOW. Among those concerns: “disinformation triggering voter-roll purges,” soldiers “deployed to polling places” during open voting hours, and the “machinery of a free election seizing up in real time.” The session was “part of a broader effort” by the party to “prepare for anything ahead of November.”

Democrats are “ramping up” their efforts, said The New York Times. At a meeting in May attended by “staff members from the offices of every Democratic attorney general” and “about a dozen Democratic secretaries of state,” party officials “held tabletop exercises” to prepare for “hypothetical scenarios in the November midterm elections.”

The “sad reality” necessitating these “war rooms” is that the federal government, once a trusted election partner, is now “our biggest concern,” said Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown to the Times. It “doesn’t matter” what the White House “tries to throw at us,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in a recent Senate speech. Planning sessions like these “ensure we’ll be ready to respond.” Democratic senators have also introduced legislation to “limit the potential for armed military personnel or federal law enforcement at election polling places,” said CBS News.

After Trump “declined to rule out” sending National Guard troops or DHS agents to polling sites on election day, a coalition of Democratic district attorneys calling itself the Project for the Fight Against Federal Overreach also warned the White House that “any federal agents sent to polling places within their jurisdictions will be prosecuted,” said Politico. But it’s “unclear” whether that would include “working with local law enforcement to block federal agents from visiting polling places,” and what, if any, “potential consequences would be for the election” should prosecutors find evidence of “mass voter intimidation” by federal agents.

‘Unprecedented’ electoral environment

Although attorneys general and secretaries of state often work closely together in a particular state, they “rarely work” with corresponding figures from another, said the Times. Given Trump’s threats, Democratic figures say “creating a national network of these two offices is necessary.”

The “most realistic threats” from the Trump administration “create confusion, trigger litigation, delay certification or further undermine public confidence," said Ari Mittleman, the executive director of the nonpartisan Keep Our Republic election group, to Newsweek. Though such officials remain “confident in the professionalism” of the local officials tasked with overseeing the electoral mechanics of the midterm race, the “current environment is unprecedented,” said the outlet. “The guardrails are real,” said Mittleman. But they “depend on courts acting promptly, officials following the law and political leaders refusing to promote” election lies.

What happened

The Justice Department filed an emergency application Monday asking the Supreme Court to approve President Donald Trump’s executive order imposing new restrictions on voting by mail.

The request followed a ruling by a federal appeals court on Saturday that left in place a block on key parts of the March directive, which ordered federal agencies to create voter eligibility lists and restrict U.S. Postal Service delivery of ballots not tied to those lists. More than 20 Democratic attorneys general challenged Trump’s order as an unconstitutional move that could disenfranchise voters.

Who said what

In the emergency application, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the lower court’s “indefensible” ruling prevents the federal government from “promoting election integrity in the upcoming federal elections in November.” The judges on the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in Saturday’s 2-1 ruling that Trump’s order would “sow confusion” and “threaten disenfranchisement” for many.

Legal experts question Trump’s order because the “Constitution gives power over elections to states and Congress, not the president,” The Wall Street Journal said. And despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, “independent research has found no evidence of rampant fraud in mail ballots.” SCOTUS “has shown skepticism” of his attempts to restrict mail-in voting before, said The New York Times. Last month, the justices rejected an effort to bar states from counting mailed ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive later.

What next?

The Democratic states that sued to block Trump’s executive order have until August 3 to respond to the government’s appeal. SCOTUS’s decision is “expected soon after,” the Journal said.

US Senator Lindsey Graham “relished his role as an informal envoy” between Donald Trump and foreign leaders, said The Economist. So it’s fitting that the Republican’s funeral today “will provide one final round of diplomacy”.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Benjamin Netanyahu will both attend the service for Graham, a “defence hawk” who “forcibly lobbied Washington” to back Ukraine against Russia, and Israel against Iran, said Reuters. Tonight, the Senate prepares to vote on a bipartisan package imposing sanctions on both countries that Graham “spent his final days trying to push across the line”.

Both leaders are also scheduled to meet the US president “with the goal of winning the ear of Donald Trump” at a time when US policy towards both wars is “in a state of flux”, said Robert Tait in The Guardian.

What did the commentators say?

Netanyahu will probably pressure Trump to further “escalate” the war in Iran, while Zelenksyy will “look to shore up American support” after the loss of Graham, “one of Ukraine’s staunchest backers”, said The Economist.

The two wars, taking place 1,550 miles apart, have “converged in recent days”, said Chris Hamill-Stewart on Al Jazeera. On Saturday, Ukraine attacked an Iranian tanker said to be carrying military technology and drones from Iran to Russia. Kyiv’s actions “will please” America, former US ambassador to Kazakhstan and Georgia, William Courtney, told the news site. But Zelenskyy is “unlikely to want to be too closely associated with the ‘unpopular’ US war on Iran”.

There are signs of “a dramatic change” in the US posture on Ukraine, said The Guardian’s Tait. Washington seems “more supportive” of Kyiv than at any other time in Trump’s second presidency. Last week, right-wing influencer Laura Loomer gave the latest “signal of a sea change” when she met Zelenskyy in Kyiv, before “recanting her previous support for Russia”. Trump and Zelenskyy’s “cordial” meeting at the Nato summit in Ankara was also “starkly” different to “last year’s bitter confrontation in the White House”.

By contrast, Trump’s relationship with the Israeli prime minister has grown “visibly strained” since they last met in February, said Tal Shalev on CNN. “Close cooperation and effusive praise” at the start of the Iran war has “given way to Trump’s expletive-laden outbursts”. Trump has said he lashed out at Netanyahu, calling him “crazy”, for continuing to bombard Hezbollah in Lebanon and endangering peace talks with Iran. He has been “resistant” to this meeting, having “little interest in resuming a full fight” against Iran before the US midterms in November, according to one Israeli source.

What next?

Ukraine and the US are moving closer towards a deal on joint drone production, which “could help the US catch up with Ukraine in this crucial military technology”, said Al Jazeera. And Trump and Zelenskyy agreed this month to allow Ukraine to jointly produce Patriot air defence interceptors, “a crucial component for the country’s defence against Russian aerial attacks”.

For Netanyahu, there’s the sticking point of Lebanon: he told his security cabinet on Sunday that the Trump administration “wants to pull Israeli forces back from positions in Lebanon, as well as in Gaza and Syria”. But, as Israel has already refused to withdraw its forces completely before Hezbollah disarms, Netanyahu “intends to oppose the idea”, said CNN’s Shalev. The Israeli PM is under political pressure ahead of elections in October: in recent polls, “he falls far short of the majority he needs to secure another term”. He knows Trump’s support “could be critical”. The stakes “are as high as ever”.

As Social Security is on track to be depleted by 2032, the White House is seeking alternatives for aging Americans, and President Donald Trump seems enamored with one particular country: Australia. Trump is reportedly looking to Australia’s retirement system as a substitute. While some economists feel this could be an easy solution, others say it is not so simple.

What did the commentators say?

Australia’s retirement system has “three main pieces: a compulsory employer-funded retirement account, a public means-tested Age Pension, and voluntary private saving, including housing,” said Forbes. The part Trump seems to be honing in on is the first piece, called superannuation. The process works by requiring employers to contribute at least 12% of an employee’s earnings into an investment account similar to a 401(k).

In other words, Australia “does not merely tell workers to save. It makes retirement saving part of the employment system,” said Forbes. Under Australian law, an employee’s retirement account “stays open even when switching jobs, their balance remains invested, and the new employer can continue contributing to the same account” without having to cash out, said Newsweek. The superannuation plan differs significantly from the U.S., where there is no requirement for employers to “offer or contribute to any retirement plan.”

Trump has previously supported a change to this type of model if Social Security benefits run dry. “We’re going to be doing also something we’re working on later on, and it’ll be also, I think, very popular, and I guess the best definition is they have a plan in Australia, which people really like,” the president said during an Oval Office event launching his Trump Accounts for children. “We’re going to be talking about that with Congress and see if we can implement it.” Australia’s “system is on pace to be the world’s second-largest retirement plan within the next decade,” while the United States is “facing its own retirement crisis,” said Bloomberg.

It is “easy to see the political appeal of a model that mandates high contributions, expands coverage even to part-time workers, and shifts the responsibility for funding and managing the plans into the private sector, said Bloomberg. Whether the idea would actually work in the U.S. has experts divided. Since the money for the savings would still be taken out of employee earnings, it “would hurt low-income workers, who might need all of their paycheck to cover the expenses of daily life,” Romina Boccia, the director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, told USA Today.

What next?

While Trump has gotten behind Australia’s superannuation system, there isn’t a significant plan in place. As Trump’s handling of the economy gets low marks among voters, some economists say copying Australia would be a good idea. “If you were inventing a retirement system from scratch today, you would almost certainly do something like the Australian retirement system,” Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told USA Today.

But the U.S. could still be a ways away from such a system. While “access to tax-favored retirement plans is widening as more states introduce ‘automated savings’ programs,” that is still a “far cry from requiring workers to save for retirement, as Australia mandates,” said USA Today.

If there’s anything Donald Trump enjoys more than “relitigating the 2020 election,” said Peter Baker in The New York Times, it’s “finding ways to cast doubt on the 2026 election.” The president did both this month, giving a primetime address to the nation in which he called the U.S. electoral system “so broken and vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it.” Debuting a new conspiracy theory of how his 2020 loss was “rigged,” Trump accused China of having “bought, stolen, or hacked” millions of voter registration files in the run-up to that election. As for the validity of this November’s midterms—a likely “drubbing” for Republicans—Trump offered a grab bag of predicates for disputing the results, including the claim that at least 278,000 noncitizens are registered to vote in federal elections. In a curious move, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial, the White House released a trove of intelligence documents that actually undermine Trump’s claims. The reports showed that the data China acquired was publicly available, and that Beijing largely stayed on the sidelines in 2020. As for the foreigners registered to vote, that claim relies on a dataset that’s plagued with errors. So why give this speech at all? It’s too late to enact Trump’s SAVE America Act package of voting restrictions in time for the midterms, and his supporters may now be wondering whether they should bother going to the polls in November, if our elections are as “catastrophically” broken as Trump claims.

In fairness, said Tom Nichols in The Atlantic, Trump’s documents do prove that one hostile foreign power “engaged in operations against” the 2020 election. That nation is Russia, which the declassified reports state used a “range of measures” to boost Trump’s chances in 2020, from spreading rumors about Joe Biden’s supposed “criminal activity” in Ukraine to flooding social media with Trump-loving bots. Of course, our Putin-fan president didn’t mention the Russian autocrat in his speech. But he did emulate him, said Nick Catoggio in The Dispatch, issuing “fascist threats” to revoke the broadcast licenses of “fake news” networks ABC and NBC for the crime of declining to carry his lie-filled speech live.

We know why Trump gave this speech, said Brian Tyler Cohen in The Bulwark. In February, The Washington Post reported that Trump allies had drafted a 17-page executive order that would let him use the “pretext” of foreign interference to declare a “national emergency.” Trump could then dispatch troops or ICE agents to polling places, and even seize voting machines. If Democrats rush to block the order in court, Trump could point to his recent speech—its “nonsensical” content notwithstanding—as proof that he was warning of foreign meddling as far back as July.

Trump’s attempted theft of the midterms is already underway, said Zolan Kanno-Youngs in The New York Times, and he’s using “the full arsenal of the federal government.” Led by “election deniers and loyalists,” the FBI and CIA are hunting for pretexts to discredit state election officials, while Justice Department lawyers craft legal arguments to prosecute them. Even the Postal Service is floating a Trump-approved plan to roll back mail-in voting. These are perilous times, said David A. Graham in The Atlantic, but “a close election is easier to steal than a decisive one.” Trump’s speech removed any doubt that he intends to sow “chaos” in November. Instead of discouraging Americans, that should inspire us to turn out in overwhelming numbers, and vote like our democracy depends on it.

What happened

Lawmakers in Washington recently demanded that the Trump administration outline its strategy in Iran, as a war that President Trump had vowed would end quickly approached its sixth month and spread further beyond the Persian Gulf. In the first U.S. casualties since March, three American soldiers were killed in a missile attack on a military base in Jordan earlier this month. The next day, a fourth soldier died in Iraq during the controlled detonation of a downed Iranian drone, bringing total U.S. deaths to 18. In response, the U.S. intensified its assault on Iran, hitting bridges and rail lines as well as missile and drone launch sites and air defense facilities. Iran stepped up its attacks on U.S. regional allies, striking a water desalination plant in Kuwait and a U.S. air base and an Amazon data center in Bahrain; the Revolutionary Guard also fired on a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, forcing the crew to evacuate. President Trump vowed the U.S. would “destroy one bridge or power plant” each time Iran targets a ship in the waterway, through which 20% of the world’s oil once flowed.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was pressed on U.S. strategy during a contentious appearance before the Senate appropriations committee. Hegseth, who put the war’s current price tag at $37.5 billion, urged Congress to approve $67 billion in emergency defense funding and warned that the Pentagon would face “critical shortfalls” without the money. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said Democrats would not bankroll “this war and whatever other misadventures Trump wants to get us into”; Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) called for “hard answers” about plans to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Hegseth insisted the U.S. had the upper hand, but Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said Hegseth and the administration had “failed” U.S. troops, adding, “You don’t have a long-term plan to actually win this war.

Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militia vowed to block Saudi Arabian ships from exiting the Red Sea and deployed drones and missiles near the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, leading energy analysts to warn that oil prices— which spiked $20 this month to $95 a barrel—could go even higher. Attempts by mediators to secure a 10-day ceasefire and reopen the Strait of Hormuz made no apparent progress. Until Iran is “ready to meet in a meaningful way,” said Trump, “we have no interest."

What the columnists said

The Iran war “has entered a bleak new phase,” said Megan Messerly and Alex Gangitano in Politico. Trump allies fear the president is running out of ways to extricate America from an unpopular conflict ahead of the midterms. With average gas prices hitting $4 a gallon for the first time since June, Republicans say the war could sink them “in an election that is expected to hinge on costof-living issues.” Even among Trump’s MAGA base, 37% said in a new Politico poll that the U.S. should hold course in Iran only if it doesn’t raise costs.

Trump’s war will only “get harder and harder to defend,” said Zeeshan Aleem in MS.now. Nearly 100 troops have been injured over the past few weeks as Iran ramped up attacks on U.S. bases, and the war’s “human toll is likely to increase.” The Pentagon has been slow to release information on casualties, likely because it knows “the war will become even more widely despised as more people die.” The public will swallow casualties in a campaign they support, but won’t tolerate troops dying “for no obvious reason at all.”

Iran, it turns out, “may be stronger than we thought,” said Joshua Keating in Vox. Contrary to previous assurances by the Trump administration, Iran retains “significant missile and drone capabilities,” with 70% of its prewar missile stockpile intact, according to a recent intelligence report. Meanwhile, there are “growing questions about whether U.S. air defense capabilities are depleting.”

A Houthi blockade of the Bab al-Mandeb Strait could widen the war and “further disrupt global oil supplies and international trade,” said Fatma Khaled and Ahmed Al-Haj in The Associated Press. Sitting at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, the strait serves as a conduit for about 12% of global trade and has become even more vital for Saudi oil exports following the shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz. The Houthis say they’ll stop only ships connected to Saudi Arabia, but even the threat of attack could drive up insurance premiums and deter other ships from using the route.

The conflict now “stands on a knife’s edge,” said Erika Solomon in The New York Times. We’re at a critical moment where both sides must find a way to dial back the hostilities or “risk provoking a war that cascades beyond what they may be able to contain.” With Iran’s economy in tatters and Trump under mounting domestic pressure, “the costs of accelerating the conflict are high for both sides.” But the same factors that make escalation dangerous are “pushing them to riskier attacks,” as they seek to gain leverage.

“Trump has only terrible choices,” said Brynn Tannehill in The Atlantic. With hard-line leaders and “a captive population” accustomed to “economic pain,” Iran is unlikely to bend. Facing that reality, Trump can “stay the course,” with scant odds of success. He can declare victory and walk away. He can ratchet up the pain by targeting civilian infrastructure, which would draw Iranian retaliation against Arab states and make the U.S. a pariah. Or he can launch a ground invasion, and pay a steep price in blood. It boils down to “an unpalatable choice between accepting Iranian hegemony over the strait—or initiating cycles of escalation that cannot end well.”

What happened

The United States has “pressed pause” on airstrikes against Iran after President Donald Trump’s advisers told him their military was “running out of targets” and “expressed worries” about dwindling munitions, Reuters reported Sunday. Sources also told Axios that Adm. Brad Cooper, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, and other advisers “recommended stopping the bombing campaign” because it had “reached the limit of its effectiveness.” There have been no U.S. strikes in the region since last week, and Iran has halted its retaliatory attacks. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed.

Who said what

The president is giving “some space” for diplomatic talks to take place while still keeping “all options on the table,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The U.S. has “far more munitions than anyone in the world,” Trump insisted in a statement to The Wall Street Journal.

Recent polling shows the MAGA base is “losing patience” with the conflict, Politico said. Trump seems “trapped” by a “war he cannot find his way out of,” said The New York Times. “There is more skepticism than optimism” that the pause in fighting will continue, a senior Iranian source told Reuters.

What next?

Oil prices tumbled Monday morning as the pause held, but “analysts cautioned against pricing in further falls,” the Financial Times said. Fed officials will meet this week to discuss a possible interest rate hike as prices remain high.

Since the US and Israel first attacked Iran on 28 February, President Trump “has claimed more than 30 times that Operation Epic Fury has been successful, is over, or almost is”, said Robin Wright in The New Yorker. None of these predictions have been borne out; “some have bordered on delusional”.

Tehran on the attack

The latest ceasefire, agreed in June, has “functionally collapsed”. In the past fortnight, the US has launched nightly air strikes, renewed the blockade of Iranian ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz, and reimposed sanctions. Iran has attacked US and other targets in Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. Three US service personnel were killed last week by a strike on an airbase in Jordan; nearly 100 more have been injured in the latest attacks.

Trump has tried three strategies so far: regime change, a longer campaign of relentless bombardment, and diplomacy. None have worked. In Washington, “there is a growing sense of despair” about the direction of the war.

Iran’s leaders feared that the Memorandum of Understanding agreed in June was just a temporary retreat, said Vali Nasr in the FT – to relieve pressure on the world economy and allow US forces to rearm. There was, in fact, “plenty of evidence to support their suspicions”. More US military assets began to arrive in the area, and the deal’s provisions – on coordinating the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, on the need for a ceasefire in Lebanon – were ignored. Tehran’s aim now, in going on the attack, is to show that the US cannot dictate events, and that Iran can withstand whatever military and economic pain is inflicted on it.

Deep trouble

Some strategists think the new US plan could work, said Mark Urban in The Sunday Times. Its forces are battering Iran’s coast – military installations, bridges, airports, port facilities – to neutralise the Iranian military’s hold on the strait. At the same time, choking off oil exports will plunge the country into deep economic crisis – albeit in months, not weeks.

In the meantime, the collateral damage to the region is escalating, said Ahmed Al Omran in the FT. Kuwait, which is bearing the brunt of Iran’s current attacks, has endured 1,400 missile and drone strikes. Its airport and its oil infrastructure have been attacked, along with the energy grid and the desalination plants that supply 90% of Kuwait’s water. Oil exports have dropped to 20% of pre-war levels.

The US is in deep trouble, and there’s no easy way out, said Will Walldorf in Foreign Policy – short of accepting Iran’s authority over the Strait of Hormuz and its right to enrich uranium. “But that’s the unfortunate consequence of losing a war that should never have [been] started in the first place.”

When President Donald Trump announced he was gifted a new luxury Boeing 747-8 from Qatar to use as an interim Air Force One, many national security analysts were worried about risks potentially inherent to the plane. Now that Trump has started using the vehicle, it seems some of those concerns have been borne out, with even Trump himself insinuating that the plane may have security lapses.

What makes Trump’s new plane different?

The plane was designed to be used only during Trump’s presidency. It is built on the body of a Boeing jumbo jet, but there are some significant differences from prior Air Force Ones. The biggest change is that it appears to almost uniquely suit Trump’s taste, complete with a new color scheme after the plane was “repainted in dark navy blue, deep red and gold,” said CBS News.

In keeping with Trump’s affinity for gold and luxury, the plane’s interior features “cognac leather seats” with lie-flat capabilities alongside tray tables made of “mahogany with silver trim,” CNN reported. To communicate with the outside world, the plane serves as an “airborne command post equipped with a new communications system that enables resilient, secure connectivity to respond to global events without disruption,” said L3 Harris Technologies, the contractor used by the U.S. Air Force to upgrade the plane.

What are the security issues?

For all the talk of the gilded plane, there is no shortage of worries about how secure it is. The new model “lacks the same defensive countermeasures that were security features of the old model, including its advanced antimissile capabilities,” sources told The New York Times. At least two Air Force officials were “surprised to see Trump fly on the new jet overseas, where there are greater security risks.”

The plane was gifted by Qatar, a nation that Trump “used to accuse of supporting terrorism,” said MS NOW. But since receiving the jet, the White House has “cozied up to Qatar to a remarkable degree, even unilaterally extending a NATO-like security guarantee to the nation.” That has not changed the fact that the plane “may ​not be as ⁠secure as the baby blue Air Force One that preceded it,” said Reuters.

The White House originally shot back at these insinuations, sending subpoenas to the reporters at The New York Times who wrote about the plane; these were later withdrawn. Trump has since “acknowledged that the Boeing jet given to him by Qatar cannot match the defensive armor of a true presidential aircraft,” said The Guardian, telling reporters he will go back to using the original plane while the new one is “grounded and ‘maxed out’ with the protections it was never built with.” Republicans in Congress have blocked efforts to halt further work on the vehicle.

During a recent overseas trip to Turkey, Trump initially flew aboard the plane but “switched to an older, more heavily defended aircraft for the return leg amid rising tensions with Iran, reportedly on the advice of the Secret Service,” said The Guardian. Despite the security concerns, as well as ethics controversies over accepting the $400 million jet, it is “perfectly safe for the president’s travels but will receive additional upgrades and enhancements in the fall, which will take approximately one month to complete,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

What happened

The US-Saudi nuclear cooperation agreement signed this week was thrown into uncertainty on Thursday after President Donald Trump said the deal would depend on Saudi Arabia establishing diplomatic ties with Israel. In a post on Truth Social, Trump warned that the agreement allowing Riyadh to pursue civilian nuclear power using U.S. technology was “totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords,” the initiative that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states during his first term. The condition was not specified when the deal was announced.

Who said what

Trump’s White House “had faced down considerable political opposition to push forward with the Saudi deal,” said The Washington Post. By highlighting caveats to the agreement, Trump is “responding to two of the bigger criticisms: that it could open the door to nuclear enrichment and that Washington gave up leverage to push a peace deal with Israel,” said Axios.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the new condition as a “historic leap for peace.” Saudi officials have previously resisted linking nuclear cooperation to recognition of Israel.

What next?

“It is unclear,” said CNN, what “impact Trump’s social media missive will have on the signed agreement,” which is expected to be submitted to Congress for review.

What happened

Undeterred by Supreme Court rulings rejecting his tariff regime, President Donald Trump on Thursday launched a new workaround to continue taxing foreign imports. Under the new scheme, which replaces an expiring near-blanket 10% duty, the United States will introduce new tariffs of 12.5% on goods from trading partners, including China and Japan, that have allegedly failed to impose or enforce bans on goods produced with forced labor. Those deemed to have taken steps against forced labor, such as the United Kingdom and the European Union, qualify for a lower 10% rate. Goods from the 60 affected trading partners make up 99.4% of U.S. imports.

Who said what

“The real message here that everyone needs to take away is the president is going to always use the tools at his disposal to achieve his trade policy objectives,” a White House official told CNN. But “Trump’s new tariffs are angering voters,” said Politico. This latest move will only serve to “aggravate Americans who were already blaming the tariffs for stubborn inflation ahead of a midterm election dominated by economic issues.”

Trump has also “once again inspired anger and confusion in U.S. allies and trading partners,” said The Guardian. Many officials argued that the “rationale was hard to swallow.”

What next?

The tariffs are expected to face fresh legal challenges and risk in-kind retaliation. “Everything is on the table,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts on Thursday to discuss a response.

In politics, first impressions can mean a great deal and Donald Trump has heaped praise on Andy Burnham for his plans to fast-track oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.

Writing on his Truth Social platform, the president said “the People of Aberdeen” are “dancing in the streets” because Burnham said “he will be opening up, all the way, the invaluable North Sea Oil!” As ever with Trump, this was playing fast and loose with the truth, as Burnham is yet to commit to any new drilling in the North Sea.

But after Trump gave Burnham an initial thumbs-up, “talk in DC turned to Ed Miliband’s role as the most contentious figure”, said The Times’ Katy Balls. Miliband has been an outspoken critic of Trump in the past, which is “likely to put him on the back foot with an increasingly hostile US administration”, said Bloomberg.

What did the commentators say?

There’s an “opening” for a new prime minister who is “liberal, centre-left, internationalist” and who “recognises the world has changed”, said Steve Bloomfield on The New Statesman.

Burnham must “find a way to deal” with the “fracturing” of the special relationship, and having “seen how others have fared”, with Trump, he “should find it easier”.

New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani calls Trump a “fascist” but still works with him on “areas where they agree”, while Mark Carney and Anthony Albanese “took the risk of standing up to Trump” and “subsequently won elections they were predicted to lose”. So “standing up to Trump is not only morally right”, it’s “electorally effective”.

Economic, intelligence and defence ties “run deep”, so many believe it’s “better to stay on the right side of Trump – however tempting it might sometimes be to give him a (metaphorical) kick”, but you don’t want to be a “total toady”, said Anushka Asthana on Channel 4 News.

On energy, Burnham “seems prepared to move the rhetoric” with the suggestion he will green-light two oil and gas drilling projects in the North Sea. He’s promised “help on the Strait of Hormuz” but what if Trump breaches international humanitarian law? Diplomats and advisers know “full well” that the unpredictable president could “change his mind, at any moment”.

Keir Starmer’s relationship with Trump “turned from warm to cold”, said Andrew Buncombe on The i Paper. Burnham will “run into the same problems” on “issues that have created friction”, including Britain’s decision to cede control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, its refusal to get involved in the war against Iran, and “how far to proceed with drilling for oil in the North Sea”.

The PM “only has a limited way to try and influence how Washington acts” and he should remember that his first call with Trump was “just that – the first talk”. If the “rest are positive”, then Burnham “will turn out to be a very lucky man”.

What next?

Starmer was a former prosecutor seen as a “cool-headed technocrat, unruffled by the insults as long as he was making his case”, said Steve Hendrix in The Washington Post. But Burnham has “honed a warmer, plain-spoken touch” which “could be an asset” with a president who “responds to personal chemistry in ways he doesn’t respond to formal diplomacy”.

The new PM has “made clear that his instincts, and his mandate, are relentlessly domestic”, so the new No. 10 will “have its eyes fixed inward”, not “across the Atlantic”. Trump and the rest of the “foreign policy inbox” is “expected to be substantially subcontracted” to the foreign secretary.

‘Structural shifts demand a new central banking mindset’

Vivekanand Jayakumar at The Hill

While the “primary objective of most central banks” is “unchanged, the post-pandemic economic landscape has evolved in ways that require policymakers to rethink how monetary policy is designed,” says Vivekanand Jayakumar. The “pandemic shock and its aftermath substantially altered underlying economic trends and gave rise to a new geopolitical reality.” Forces are “reshaping inflation dynamics, impacting economy’s growth potential, and altering monetary policy transmission mechanisms.” So “central bankers will need to exhibit greater flexibility, adaptability and forward-looking decision-making.”

Read more

‘Where did all the computer science professors go?’

Lila Shroff and Rose Horowitch at The Atlantic

AI companies are “turning into something like mini-universities,” say Lila Shroff and Rose Horowitch. As AI has “taken center stage, Silicon Valley has intensified its efforts to recruit star researchers and looked beyond computer science departments.” While “plenty of research is still happening within universities,” the “result is a flywheel.” As “more academics get sucked up by industry, the center of AI research moves further from academia, thus increasing the incentive for remaining researchers to leave.”

Read more

‘We are taking hobbies too far’

Meehika Barua at Time

Having hobbies shows that you “have the time, money and energy to spend on them,” says Meehika Barua. But we have “turned hobbies from optional leisure activities into a marker of identity.” Hobbies are “increasingly sold as a route to becoming a more interesting or successful person rather than simply a way to spend free time.” This can “leave people feeling guilty if they prefer quieter pursuits or if they discover they don’t enjoy the hobby that everyone else seems to love.”

Read more

‘He may be Trump’s only real friend. He’s quietly transforming the world.’

Andrea Bernstein at Slate

Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff “seems like Trump, a New York real estate developer turned world dealmaker,” says Andrea Bernstein. But in an administration that “privileges snarling visages, Witkoff is nearly universally described as kind or nice, a quality he has used to good diplomatic effect.” As Witkoff “presided over a tenuous ceasefire deal with Hamas and Israel, he surrounded those talks with meetings with big-name Gulf leaders.” He is “unabashed about performing diplomacy through a business lens.”

Read more

What happened

President Donald Trump has approved a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia that could open the door to uranium enrichment inside the kingdom, The Wall Street Journal first reported Tuesday night. The 30-year agreement is “designed to give American companies a central role” in developing Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear infrastructure, the Journal said. But it’s “certain to prove controversial” among U.S. allies and lawmakers opposed to the “spread of nuclear technology in the volatile Middle East.”

Who said what

The nuclear cooperation agreement “has been under discussion for years,” The New York Times said. Trump dropped a Biden administration stipulation that the Saudis first normalize relations with Israel, and to “get the deal done with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman,” he “had to agree to terms that may limit international inspectors” from visiting sites “they think could be a pathway to diverting fuel to weapons projects.” Bin Salman has vowed to build nuclear weapons if Iran does.

The White House argues that the U.S. role “would ensure enrichment remains peaceful,” the Journal said. But if the Saudis can enrich uranium, so “goes the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Egypt,” Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center told the Journal. “The idea that this will have a happy ending is delusional.”

What next?

U.S. and Saudi officials are expected to sign the accord on Wednesday.

Nicaragua will stop holding elections in a bid to prevent foreign-backed interference, the country’s long-standing president Daniel Ortega has announced.

In a speech to commemorate the Sandinista revolution, which overthrew the US-backed Anastasio ⁠Somoza dictatorship in 1979, the 80-year-old strongman leader declared “the days when parties backed by the Yankees and the Somocistas would return to power are over – never again”.

Who is Daniel Ortega?

A key figure in the revolution, Ortega has held office continuously since 2007, having also served as president in the 1980s.

During his nearly two decades in power, his government has transformed Nicaragua into an “authoritarian state”, according to the UN Human Rights Council.

He has cemented control over virtually all branches of government, including the army and judiciary, and crushed political opposition, with hundreds killed and even more imprisoned following mass anti-government protests in 2018. Last year, further constitutional reforms extended presidential terms to six years, made his wife, Rosario Murillo, co-president, and effectively established a one-party system.

Why has he cancelled elections?

The last elections in 2021 were “widely disputed” after Ortega “detained opponents and business leaders and criminalised dissent”, said Reuters. Hundreds of opposition figures were imprisoned in the run-up to the vote, including a number of presidential hopefuls, before being stripped of their citizenship and expelled to the US and Guatemala.

Nicaraguans had been due to go to the polls again next year before Ortega’s recent announcement that “there won’t be any more elections here for them to try to seize the government and seize power”.

But analysts and opposition figures say the move has highlighted the Ortegas’ fear of a growing opposition movement taking root.

“Ortega and Murillo are evidently afraid at the idea that the slightest political opening could create the conditions for dissent to manifest and threaten their grip on power,” said Tiziano Breda, a senior analyst at Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, a non-profit organisation that tracks political violence. “Instead of staging a rigged election, they have opted to eliminate electoral competition altogether.”

What will the international reaction be?

In the wake of the US military raid in January to capture Venezuela’s then-President Nicolás Maduro, the Nicaraguan government announced it would release more political prisoners, “apparently an effort to stave off pressure on itself”, said AP News. “But there has been no follow-up and little transparency on the issue.”

Despite proscribing the Ortega government as a dictatorship, and imposing sanctions on more than 2,350 Nicaraguan officials and their relatives, the Trump administration has remained remarkably quiet on Ortega and the potential for regime change.

There are a “range of explanations” for this, said Politico’s Nahal Toosi, “including that the regime is making smart moves on battling drug trafficking, that it’s benefiting from a lack of natural resources for Trump to covet and that it doesn’t have a slew of migrants in the US”.

“The lesson from Nicaragua is: don’t matter too much, don’t embarrass Washington and don’t become a domestic political issue,” said Juan Gonzalez, a former Latin America aide to Joe Biden. “For an administration that doesn’t care about democracy or human rights, that’s an effective survival strategy for authoritarians.”

What happened

President Donald Trump on Monday signed proclamations imposing 50% tariffs on a wide range of Canadian imports, claiming that America’s second-largest trading partner has unfairly discriminated against U.S. cars, alcohol and dairy products. The tariffs, set to take effect in 30 days, rely on Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which has never been used to levy import duties and is untested in court. Some products, like energy, would be exempt, but the new tax will apply to goods that comply with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, the White House said in a fact sheet.

Who said what

The new tariffs “could unleash a new wave of economic chaos, with risks of higher inflation and further fraying of relations” with Canada, The Associated Press said. A senior administration official “said that Canada was one of the only nations other than China that retaliated against Trump’s previous tariffs and must be held accountable.” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said that “Canada, as is its right,” had “merely matched” Trump’s tariffs, but his country “stands ready to engage intensively” to address a “trade dispute” that “has raised costs for families, particularly in the U.S.”

What next?

The new tariffs would apply to nearly $20 billion of Canadian goods, the White House said, or roughly 5.2% of Canadian imports last year. But Trump’s “invocation of 338 is the nuclear option,” threatening all U.S. trading partners and injecting “massive uncertainty” into the global economy, Cato Institute economist Scott Lincicome said to the AP. “We crossed the Rubicon.”

‘Trump’s war on journalists’

Ruth Marcus at The New Yorker

President Donald Trump “seized on another opportunity to threaten journalists,” as New York Times reporters “received subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury,” says Ruth Marcus. The Justice Department has “depicted the subpoenas as a benign move,” but “journalists’ access to information will evaporate if they cannot assure their sources of confidentiality.” This “risk is omnipresent, but it is heightened in the current moment, when reporting about the inner workings of government is more crucial than ever.”

Read more

‘Vamos España? Why this World Cup victory for Spain feels so different from the others.’

María Ramírez at The Guardian

Spain’s FIFA World Cup victory “felt as though the success belonged to many more people around the world, from Gaza, where Spain has come to represent solidarity with the Palestinian cause, to Brazil,” says María Ramírez. The “country itself is in a better place despite the deep political polarization and widespread mood of dissatisfaction.” Spain’s “strength on the pitch lies not in individual brilliance but in a cohesiveness that becomes greater than the sum of its parts.”

Read more

‘AI will shift “prestige careers” to talent, not pedigree’

Marcus Collins at Newsweek

Amid the “broader discourse about AI’s impact on jobs, there’s been a lot of chatter about AI obliterating what many think of as the ‘prestige’ career track,” says Marcus Collins. With “execution available at the touch of a button, the white-collar prestige career bargain is collapsing.” For “people who were counting on it, this may feel like the end of the world,” but “for the people who were never on that path, the future is as bright as ever.”

Read more

‘Too many congressional races are over before they start. Here’s a remedy.’

Mark Z. Barabak at the Los Angeles Times

As “recently as the late 1990s, around four in 10 congressional districts were considered competitive,” but today “only 18 of 435 House districts are considered toss-ups,” says Mark Z. Barabak. This is “hardly an accident, as lawmakers have increasingly manipulated the election process to suit themselves, rejiggering congressional districts to sideline voters and boost their political parties.” Congress should “enact changes in time for the next scheduled round of redistricting, which is due to take place after the 2030 census.”

Read more

Lindsey Graham was “the quintessential politician of this era,” said Anne Applebaum in The Atlantic. The Republican senator from South Carolina, who died unexpectedly of a ruptured aorta last week, launched his career in 1994 as “a fervent American patriot” with a hawkish foreign policy, but ended it as a fawning acolyte of Donald Trump. A gifted speaker with a folksy, disarming wit, the early Graham “took seriously the practice of American democracy,” seeking to forge bipartisan alliances on legislation with such unlikely partners as senators Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. When Trump launched his presidential campaign in 2016, Graham “recognized him immediately for what he was,” calling him a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” who was “unfit for office.” But when Trump won, Graham abandoned his “idealistic patriotism,” wooed the new president with fawning flattery, and became “a loud, opportunistic collaborator.”

Graham’s career could be “divided into two parts, each defined by a personal allegiance to one of two different men: John McCain and Donald Trump,” said Gerard Baker in The Wall Street Journal. In the House of Representatives, Graham was a “loyal lieutenant” to fellow military veteran McCain, supporting his failed 2000 presidential campaign over the overwhelming favorite, George W. Bush. Elected to the Senate in 2002, Graham joined senators McCain and Joe Lieberman to form the “Three Amigos,” who believed that America should use its military and strategic power to be “a force for profound good in the world.” But Trump’s victory in 2016 sparked “a head-spinning transformation,” said Peter Baker in The New York Times. Graham became Trump’s “most important ally in the Senate,” and “made no apologies for his shift. This was politics.”

No politician I’ve covered “got more joy from serving in office” than Graham, said Jonathan Martin in Politico, “or more deeply craved the influence it conferred.” When Trump took over the GOP, “the choice was to adapt or leave, and that was no choice at all for Graham.” Cynically cozying up to Trump made him—as Graham himself put it—“relevant,” and enabled him to promote his own long-standing policy goals, including the bombing of Iran. Now that Graham is gone, “the question—was it worth it?—may never be answered, or perhaps will be up to Trump’s behavior in his final two and a half years in office.”

What happened

The U.S. military early Monday morning completed a ninth consecutive night of airstrikes on Iranian targets, and Iran again fired missiles and drones at Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan. The Pentagon said a U.S. service member was killed in Iraq on Saturday during the “controlled detonation” of a downed Iranian drone, and human remains were found at a military base in Jordan hit by Iranian strikes last week. That attack killed two U.S. troops, and if the remains are confirmed to be a soldier missing since the strikes, the U.S. death toll from the Iran war will be 18. Iran said U.S. strikes had killed at least 50 people since a ceasefire collapsed this month.

Who said what

The U.S. hit Iran “very hard again” throughout the night “in honor of” the “great patriots” killed, Trump told reporters. “We feel very badly,” but “those great people” were “fighting that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” Iran has been “stepping up” its strikes on Jordan “as it seeks to produce American casualties and deter Washington from escalating its test of wills with Tehran,” The Wall Street Journal said.

What next?

“Even larger American attacks may be coming” as “more U.S. warplanes head to the Middle East,” the Journal said. “The U.S. is planning for a wider war,” a U.S. official told The Washington Post, but with dwindling munitions stockpiles and growing battle damage, “we do not have enough to safely sustain operations, and I don’t think the White House is aware of that.”

Things are very difficult in Cuba. Since February, the country’s power grid has suffered three nationwide blackouts: there is currently electricity for two hours a day at most in Havana, and less in rural areas. Mains water works roughly every other day. The average monthly wage, in real terms, is under US$20. Food production has fallen drastically; shortages are common. Petrol is prohibitively expensive. Cuba’s once-impressive healthcare and education systems are in tatters.

Tourism – the island’s main economic lifeline – was down 58% in the first five months of 2026 compared with the year before. Long-haul flights there have stopped because they can’t refuel. Mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever and chikungunya have staged a comeback, and the UN reported last month that child mortality has risen sharply. An estimated fifth of the population has left since 2021.

Why is this happening?

Cubans have endured decades of mismanagement from their own communist government, along with economic warfare from the US – but the past few years have been particularly harsh. Cuba invested heavily in tourism and underinvested in healthcare during the 2010s, only to see both sectors heavily impacted by the Covid pandemic. Miguel Díaz-Canel, who in 2021 became the nation’s first leader not from the Castro family since 1959, ordered a crackdown that year on the largest wave of protests seen for decades.

But the main cause of the present trouble is a US oil blockade, which began in January – the biggest such action since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Trump at the same time issued an executive order designating Cuba a national security threat – and called on Cuba’s leaders to “make a deal before it is too late”.

Why does the US think Cuba is a national security threat?

It didn’t offer specific reasons beyond Cuba’s alliances with Russia and China, along with claims that it “destabilises the region through migration and violence”. Cuba’s communist regime has historically been a bugbear for the US, particularly for Republicans. And Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, a son of Cuban immigrants, favours regime change.

But the timing suggests that the decision to tighten the screws was inspired by the successful US action against Venezuela on 3 January – and, more broadly, by Trump’s desire to assert US primacy in the western hemisphere. In March, the president told reporters he believed he’d have “the honour of taking Cuba... I think I can do anything I want with it.”

What’s Venezuela’s role in this?

Venezuela became Cuba’s main regional ally in 1999, when Hugo Chávez’s left-wing government began supplying Fidel Castro with cheap oil. The alliance continued under Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, and until this year, 75% of its oil imports came from Venezuela and Mexico. But after seizing Maduro in January, killing 32 Cuban security personnel in the process, the US made Venezuela cut off Cuban oil supplies; Mexico did the same under the threat of tariffs. The island requires around 100,000 barrels of oil per day for its power stations and infrastructure to function; since January, episodic shipments have only given short-term relief.

It now seems that the Trump administration is looking for a similar outcome to Venezuela: sources told The Wall Street Journal they were aiming for regime change by the end of 2026.

What are the US demands?

They haven’t shared them in public, though the Cuban government confirmed in March that talks were taking place. Trump’s previous actions suggest that his definition of regime change is flexible. In Venezuela, the US left Maduro’s government in place under the control of his deputy, Delcy Rodríguez; the country was forced to open up its oil and mining to US investors, but not to democratise. In the case of Iran, similarly, Trump has shown himself willing to treat a change of personnel at the top as regime change. The Cuban leadership may feel they have some wiggle room; in June it announced a package of 176 free-market reforms in an effort to placate the US. But there are big obstacles to a political settlement on both sides.

Why might a deal be difficult?

A law from 1996 prohibits the US from recognising any Cuban government that includes Raúl Castro, Fidel’s brother, who is still, aged 95, a major figure in Cuban politics. Florida’s Cuban-American community, a key part of Trump’s voter coalition, would also object to any deal that did not mean the end of the regime. The US might settle for custody of Castro, who was indicted this May by a Florida grand jury for his part in shooting down two planes belonging to a Cuban exile group in 1996.

But the Cubans are unlikely to agree to that, and there is no plausible opposition party or Delcy Rodríguez-like figure to deal with – though Raúl Castro’s grandson, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, a reputed playboy who’s close to the Cuban military’s wealthy holding company, is said to have been auditioning for the role.

What if there’s no deal?

An American invasion looks unlikely: Trump is clearly wary of that level of commitment, and has his hands full trying to extricate himself from his “excursion” in Iran. Cuba’s military isn’t the fighting force it used to be, but the country has been resisting US pressure since 1962, and it’s difficult to see the Cuban elite colluding – as some of Venezuela’s did – with a theatrical special-forces raid on Raúl Castro or Díaz-Canel. Castro’s age may be the best hope for a solution, but Cuba has been a one-party state for generations, and with the Trump administration on the opposite side, any transition is likely to be messy.

From the point of view of ordinary Cubans, however, something has to give. “Living like this is agony,” Meyboll Font, a 51-year-old Havana resident, told Agence France-Presse last week.

What happened

President Donald Trump repeated his longstanding grievances about the security of the American voting system in a primetime speech Thursday. The president claimed, without evidence, that mail-in ballots are “inherently corrupt”; voting machines are “easily compromised”; China interfered with the 2020 elections; and 278,000 non-citizens registered to vote. He called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, a bill that would severely tighten ID rules for voters.

Who said what

These “unsubstantiated claims” are based on “incomplete” data with “no underlying evidence,” Bloomberg said. “All we got is more rehashed, debunked conspiracy theories,” David Becker of The Center for Election Innovation & Research told CBS News. The speech comes as Republicans are “facing the prospect of losing one or both chambers of Congress in ​November,” Reuters said.

What next?

The SAVE America Act “lacks the necessary support” to clear the Senate, NBC News said, but House Republicans want to “force the bill through” without Democratic support by weaving parts of it into a new reconciliation bill. It’s “far from clear” this legislation “will have enough support to pass,” The New York Times said.

Donald Trump used a prime-time address to the nation to allege Chinese interference in US elections in a move that looks to undermine voter confidence ahead of November’s midterms.

The White House released documents alleging that “over a period of years, starting during the 2020 election cycle” the Chinese government carried out “what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China’s illicit acquisition of 220 million US voter files”. Trump did not make clear, though, how the alleged Chinese activity could have helped Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election.

“Raw intelligence obtained by the FBI in 2020, yet buried by rogue bureaucrats, stated that China's activities even included an attempt to manufacture illegal ballots for Joe Biden,” Trump said.

While China has denied the allegations, “none of the declassified information supports the claim that any previous election results – including the 2020 presidential contest that Trump lost – were manipulated by foreign interference or fraud in a way that would’ve changed the outcome”, said Marshall Cohen and Kevin Liptak on CNN.

What did the commentators say?

The speech “marked a striking effort by Trump to marshal the resources of the intelligence community to support his claims about election meddling and legislative agenda to tighten voter registration rules”, said Lauren Fedor in the Financial Times.

It’s true that “foreign powers do, in fact, try to influence American elections”, said Tom Nichols in The Atlantic. But that “was about all that the president – who seems shocked that other nations have preferences about who wins elected office in the United States – got right”.

The classified revelations, despite what Trump tried to claim, in fact “show that the intelligence community didn’t even agree” that China was fully engaged even in a more limited campaign of influence.

In his address Trump was plainly looking “to soothe his wounded ego over the 2020 election”. But he also might have “a darker motive”. In “attacking the integrity of American elections”, Trump could be seeking to delegitimise the upcoming midterms “and perhaps even create the predicate for interfering in them”.

In his address, Trump has “destroyed any confidence in the integrity of US elections for Americans inclined to believe him”, said Ed Kilgore in New York Magazine. In doing so he has set up “a certain challenge to any midterm results adverse to his party”. When Republicans “desperately needed him to make concrete proposals for improvements in living costs”, Trump instead “dragged the GOP down the election denial rabbit hole farther than ever”.

What next?

Republican politicians who would like the president to focus on the cost of living “have been wary of Trump’s unrelenting claims about flaws in the electoral system”, said the FT.

Senate majority leader John Thune “has resisted pressure from the White House to scrap Senate rules” in an effort by Trump to push through the Save America Act. This would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, among other measures.

The accusations Trump made could also “complicate a fragile trade truce between the US and China”, said CNBC, while also “casting a shadow over Chinese President Xi Jinping upcoming visit to Washington” in late September.

‘The International Criminal Court, an imperfect but essential safeguard against impunity’

Le Monde editorial board

International justice is “not perfect, and at times those who uphold it may undermine it,” says the Le Monde editorial board. This does “not justify the all-out offensive launched by United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio against the International Criminal Court (ICC).” Washington has “consistently campaigned against an institution established to limit the principle of national sovereignty — a principle often invoked by perpetrators of the gravest crimes, whether heads of state or political leaders, to escape prosecution.”

Read more

‘Yemen is edging closer to renewed confrontation’

Ahmed al-Shalafi at Al Jazeera

Yemen is “slipping out of its fragile de-escalation and back into the heart of regional tensions,” says Ahmed al-Shalafi. An incident “involving the Iranian aircraft that entered Yemeni airspace was not merely a dispute over a flight.” It “exposed the extent to which the war in Yemen has become intertwined with the confrontation between the United States and Iran, and raised an old question in a new form: Can Yemen remain outside any broader regional escalation”?

Read more

‘Brace yourself for the AI public relations blitz’

J.B. Branch at the Chicago Tribune

While “some AI products have proved fun or useful, Americans are increasingly suspicious of the technology as a whole,” says J.B. Branch. But the “tech bros see it as nothing more than a serious public relations problem. So get ready for the rehabilitation campaign.” Americans “shouldn’t buy that narrative,” as companies “cannot spend two decades building social media platforms that fuel misinformation, destabilize institutions and harm children, and then expect approval for a new technology that will hyperscale these problems.”

Read more

‘Trump’s DOJ is now targeting The New York Times for basic reporting’

Shirin Ali at Slate

Donald Trump is “angry with The New York Times again and has deployed his usual tactics, weaponizing his position of power to take the newspaper to court,” says Shirin Ali. Journalists “often use anonymous sources in order to report on sensitive information, as well as to protect the identities of sources, who often risk their jobs and safety.” But the “Trump administration, though, has been one of the most aggressive and antagonistic in U.S. history against journalists.”

Read more

Polls matter, but the stock market might be President Donald Trump’s favorite barometer of success. “Everybody’s profiting” when the markets rise, he said to reporters recently. But that’s not quite true. Rising stock prices are nonetheless a consolation for the president, and shaky market responses to controversial policies have spurred him to shift course on tariffs and war with Iran.

‘Economic pressure’

The president “considers market reaction a key measure of success,” said The Washington Post. The metric helped launch the now scuppered attempts to end fighting with Iran. Markets have reacted badly to surges in fighting — the S&P plunged Monday after the U.S. reimposed a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz — but “every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship,” Trump said to reporters last month as he explained his attempts to reach a deal.

Most presidents “play down the idea that they are susceptible to economic pressure” when making foreign policy, the Post said. But Iranians decided that Trump’s devotion to Wall Street and its negative reaction to the Strait of Hormuz closure “gave them leverage” to take a harder line and extract concessions, Brookings Institution’s Suzanne Maloney said to the outlet.

Trump’s close attention to stock indexes “risks conflating the fortunes of ‌financial markets with the broader experience of U.S. households,” said Reuters. Roughly 40% of Americans “do not have money in the markets.” And the markets do not measure the health of private firms or small businesses that serve as the “backbone of the U.S. labor market.”

The stock market has grown by $15 trillion since the president began his second term, though that is mostly held by the richest 1% of the country. A poor response to Trump policies seems to matter mainly “when corporate or financial interests are at stake,” Groundwork Collaborative’s Alex Jacquez said to Reuters.

‘Not the litmus test’

The president’s new “Trump accounts” for newborns are expected to draw more young Americans into “long-term wealth-building” through stock markets, said Yahoo Finance. But the markets are “not the litmus test the American public wants” from the presidency, Ali Vitali said at MS NOW. Trump’s recent financial disclosures revealed “billions in wealth growth for the president and his sons,” but the voters “standing at gas stations” and paying higher prices at the pump probably find it “unfair.”

Stock investors have figured out to “pounce” when Trump shows signs of “buckling” on unpopular decisions, Katie Martin said at the Financial Times. Still, the bond markets that buy and sell federal debt are telling a different story about Trump’s policymaking. U.S. bonds have “never recovered from the drop in price” they experienced at the start of the Iran war. And there are signs that “large, conservative investors” are “reducing their exposure to risks around U.S. institutional credibility” and moving to Canadian and European bonds instead. That means American officials “will have to work a little harder” to keep attracting the bond investors they need to “balance the books.”

With President Donald Trump’s refusal to either sign or veto a landmark bipartisan housing bill, the legislation automatically became law last week, and political analysts are hopeful the bill will help ease the pain of America’s nationwide housing crisis. But while experts laud Congress’ joint efforts to address the problem, the average American may not feel relief for years.

What did the commentators say?

The bill has a number of provisions that seek to “remove barriers to building homes, lower housing costs and shift greater control over housing to the local level,” said Time. One of the main goals is to increase the overall availability of houses, largely by mandating that the government “offer guidance on how communities could best reform zoning and land-use policies to reduce barriers to housing development.” Environmental reviews of housing construction will also be streamlined.

It also widens the definition of manufactured houses, which are “built entirely in factories before being transported to their sites,” said Time. The expanded definition will “‘unlock’ a segment of the housing market by making it cheaper and easier to mass-produce such homes,” Francis Torres, the housing and infrastructure director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told Time. The current supply is “really not matching the growing and changing demand,” said Geoff Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University, to WTTW.

The bipartisan nature of the bill, which easily passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, “reflects both parties’ concerns with rising housing costs nationwide and shows that political compromise is still possible in Washington,” said The Dallas Morning News editorial board. If properly implemented, it has the potential to “modernize federal housing programs, streamline regulations and encourage innovation.”

But the effects of the bill may not be so profound for those in the worst financial situations. It will likely have a “fairly limited impact on affordability for the lowest-income folks in the country,” said Shamus Roller, CEO of the National Housing Law Project, to PBS News. The provisions “aren’t the kinds of sweeping policy changes many affordable housing advocates say will help dramatically reduce housing costs,” like major tax reforms and government-subsidized housing investments.

What next?

The legislation may take time to be effective because “many pieces of the legislation will require implementation from the now-diminished” Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), said PBS. About 32% of HUD’s workforce has left the agency since September 2024, according to the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, which could make it hard to bring some of the bill’s provisions to life. As of 2024, no states in the U.S. had an adequate supply of affordable housing for low-income renters, said the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

So even as many are hopeful about the new promises, some “immediate relief may not come just yet for homeowners and renters,” said Yonah Freemark, a housing research associate at the Urban Institute, to CNN. The bill creates a “situation where not only will the federal government have to make changes, but then state and local governments also will have to make changes and then businesses, developers and the like will have to make investments, which itself takes time.”

What happened

The Trump administration on Tuesday ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to suspend most vehicle stops after two fatal shootings by federal officers in the past week. The deaths of Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero in Maine and Lorenzo Salgado ⁠Araujo in Texas “brought to at least seven the number of people shot dead” during ICE enforcement operations since January 2025, Reuters said. An unnamed 28-year-old Mexican national also died Tuesday in Florida after being struck by a tractor-trailer while reportedly fleeing ICE agents.

Who said what

“In the United States, in 2026, whether someone runs or complies with ICE, death is a very real possible outcome,” Florida Immigrant Coalition spokesperson Adriana Rivera said. Pausing vehicle stops “could hamper the agency’s ability to increase arrests,” said The New York Times, at a time when ICE faces “increasing pressure to deliver on the president’s promise of mass deportations.” The pause applies solely to ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations and “not Homeland Security Investigations, which primarily handles criminal investigations,” CBS News said.

What next?

The stoppage is expected to be temporary while ERO officers “receive additional training on vehicle-stop tactics,” CBS News said. President Donald Trump also contradicted the stoppage, saying the stops should continue. “We CANNOT give up one of ICE’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!” he wrote on social media.

There have been few global figures in the modern era as consequential as Donald Trump. Powerful as he may be, though, Trump does not exist in isolation.

Instead, he is part of an elite echelon of elected officials with whom he is obliged to interact in the course of global business. After a decade of cutting deals, upending relations and generally maneuvering himself to the center of the world stage, here are some of the ways Trump has talked about — and to — his international peers.

Former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

“President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad.” — April 2018

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney

“The future governor of Canada.” — March 2026

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi

“My favorite dictator.” — September 2019

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

“Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!” — October 2019

“He’s a hell of a leader.” — October 2019

“Sometimes you get along with the toughest people, like him.” — July 2026

Chinese President Xi Jinping

“We’ve become friends.” — June 2019

“I don’t want to say friend — I don’t want to act foolish, ‘he was my friend’ — but I got along with him great.” — October 2024

“He’s a brilliant guy, whether you like it or not.” — October 2024

“A friend.” — May 2026

Former Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei

“One of the most evil people in history.” — February 2026

Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni

“A very successful, very successful politician.” — October 2025

“Do people like her? I can’t imagine. I’m shocked by her. I thought she was brave, but I was wrong.” — April 2026

“It’s her who’s unacceptable.” — April 2026

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel

“Stupid.” — Unknown 2020

“That bitch, Merkel.” — Unknown 2020

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Israel’s “Warrior Prime Minister.” — June 2026

“Crazy.” — June 2026

“He has no f**king judgement.” — June 2026

Former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador

“Juan Trump.” — July 2019

Russian President Vladimir Putin

A “competitor” who is “not an enemy.” — July 2018

“Great guy” and a “terrific person.” — June 2019

A “genius” who is “pretty savvy.” — February 2022

“Absolutely CRAZY!” — May 2025

“I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin.” — May 2025

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

A “great leader.” — July 2026

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer

“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with.” — March 2026

Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

“He’s two-faced.” — December 2019

“It was a pleasure to have dinner the other night with Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada.” — December 2024

North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un

“This maniac sitting here.” — September 2015

“Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.” — September 2017

“Obviously a madman.” — September 2017

“I think you will have a tremendous future with your country, a great leader.” — February 2019

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

“His reputation is absolutely sterling.” — September 2019

“Dictator without elections” who “better move fast or he is not going to have a country left.” — February 2025

“I’ve empowered you to be a tough guy, and I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States.” — February 2025

A “difficult character.” — July 2026

“President Putin.” — July 2026

What happened

A federal judge on Monday accused President Donald Trump of attempting to “manipulate the judicial process” when he sued the IRS for $10 billion in January over his leaked tax returns. Trump eventually struck a deal with the Justice Department that granted him immunity from tax audits and created the now-defunct $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund for his allies. But Monday’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams bars him, his family and his lawyers from citing the deal in future legal proceedings, potentially voiding Trump’s tax immunity. Williams also suggested that Trump’s legal team in the case, including Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, should be sanctioned.

Who said what

Trump’s lawsuit was clearly “an attempt to use the court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president,” Williams wrote in her ruling. A group of 35 former judges who pushed Williams to examine the case called her ruling a “resounding victory for the rule of law.”

But it’s “unclear” whether the ruling’s restrictions “could practically limit the tax protections it laid out for Trump and his family,” The Washington Post said. A Justice Department spokesperson accused Williams of being a “partisan judge,” and insisted Trump and his family were “victims of admitted violations of law.”

What next?

Although its “practical impacts” may be limited, the decision still “amounts to a scathing rebuke,” The Associated Press said. It also “tees up a politically uncomfortable line of questioning” for Blanche, who faces the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing this week.