caucus room restaurant

Inside the record-breaking grocery nightmare Trump tried to hide from you

President Donald Trump’s management of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been full of controversy, from his massive layoffs to his promise to right-wing podcaster Joe Rogan to legalize certain psychedelics. Yet according to a recent report, one particular scandal — a cyclospora in lettuce outbreak that has led to at least 11,000 cases of explosive diarrhea — speaks to much deeper problems with how the agency is run.

“The FDA believes that the biggest outbreak this season, the one affecting nine states so far, came to us aboard contaminated iceberg lettuce from Mexico,” reported CBS News' David Pogue on Sunday. “That lettuce was shipped nationwide by Taylor Farms, a huge distributor that supplies thousands of groceries and restaurants.”

Susan Mayne, an adjunct professor at the Yale School of Public Health who ran the FDA’s food-safety department from 2015 to 2023, said, "We've never seen anything like this. This is just an astonishingly large outbreak, record-setting outbreak."

She added, "It could be inadequate bathroom facilities, inadequate hand-washing facilities. Somehow that water is getting contaminated from some other source – sewage, some other source."

CBS News went on to report that Trump has cut roughly 20 percent of the staff from the FDA and roughly 25 percent of the staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Specifically, the CDC now has only three scientists tracking food parasites, whereas they used to have 11 scientists doing that.

"We had a national advisory committee, a committee that advised FDA and USDA on how to prevent microbial contamination in food," Mayne said. "That advisory committee was disbanded. We used to convene meetings with our Mexican counterparts on how we can work together to improve food safety. That entire team was let go."

CBS News further reported, “And then there's FoodNet, a joint venture of the FDA, the CDC, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture that provided an early-warning surveillance program that used to track eight particularly nasty microbes. But now, it tracks only two – and cyclospora is not one of them.”

As a result, if cyclospora strikes America in 2027, the FDA will still be unable to trace it without intervention from either the executive branch or Congress.

"We've had no cuts in our surveillance program," Health and Human Services Director Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement responding to people. "We did cuts in the FoodNet program, but they were for redundant surveillance."

Mayne countered that by telling CBS News that, "No, it's not accurate. I mean, clearly there have been cuts."

Arizona Republicans just can't quit the tin foil — but it could cost them

Republican voters in Arizona sent a litany of election deniers to the November ballot, chief among them the nominees for the top three statewide offices. But they’re far from the only ones who advanced to the general election.

The Grand Canyon State has long been at the center of the election conspiracy theories that have become a tenet of the modern Republican Party under President Donald Trump, who has been doggedly focused on false claims of election fraud over the past decade.

As the belief that elections are rife with fraud — at least when Democrats win — has transformed from fringe online discourse into a GOP article of faith, adherents and promoters of election conspiracy theories have been gaining more elected power.

But those views are growing more unpopular among voters, as issues such as affordability and the war in Iran take center stage.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

“It is not sustainable, and people do not have an appetite for it. People want to have our elections be a process that helps us pick our leaders and then they want our leaders to lead for us,” Alex Gulotta, All Voting is Local Action’s Arizona state director, told the Arizona Mirror. “It is not winning people’s hearts and minds.”

Despite that, a growing number of election deniers are running for office in Arizona and across the country, according to Kelly Rader, research director at States United Action, a nonpartisan nonprofit that supports state officials protecting elections and has been tracking election deniers since 2022.

Arizona is one of four states — along with Colorado, Wisconsin and Tennessee — that have three or more election deniers running for statewide office, according to their analysis.

Nationally, nearly 75% of the states have an election denier running for a statewide or congressional office, Rader’s research found. That is 139 candidates across the country, among them 21 candidates for governor, nine running for secretary of state and eight running for attorney general, according to the data.

“Election denial is a comprehensive strategy to undermine trust in our elections so that Trump and his allies can challenge election results they don’t like,” Rader said. “As we move through the primaries and sprint toward the fall, we expect that Trump will continue pushing the same old election conspiracy theories. And we are closely watching which election denier candidates echo those claims in the months to come.”

Gulotta echoed those sentiments, adding that Trump’s continued denialism of the results of the 2020 election has helped fuel the fire for candidates to use the same rhetoric.

“I think as long as the president of the United States and his cronies are acting in a way that seeks to prevent voting and is really focused on denying the results of elections, we will continue to see this,” he said. “I am hoping we will grow out of it soon, hopefully another cycle or two.”

Rader said the corrosive effect of lies about election results has far-reaching effects, but was optimistic about the work being done by the nation’s election administrators to educate people and counter the conspiracies.

“Efforts to undermine confidence in legitimate election outcomes don’t just threaten individual races; they erode voter confidence and threaten one of the most important limits on presidential power,” she said. “The good news is that election officials across the country are educating voters, rebuilding trust, and working to ensure another free and fair election this year.”

It isn’t just election denialism that is on the ballot, either.

This year’s batch of conspiracy-minded candidates ranges from QAnon adherents to former “audit” workers. Some of them may be well known to most Arizonans, while others are newcomers to electoral politics.

The old guard

The top of the ticket in Arizona will be a who’s who of people who have been involved in election related conspiracy activities since 2020.

U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs won the Republican party primary for Governor where he will square off against Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs in November.

After Trump lost his 2020 re-election bid to Joe Biden, Biggs was front and center in Arizona and Congress trying to “Stop the Steal.” He joined fellow Arizona GOP Congressman Paul Gosar in spreading doubt about the results of the 2020 election and made claims of voter disenfranchisement that were not backed up by evidence.

Former Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers said Biggs called him the morning of January 6 asking him to sign onto a letter calling for the decertification of Arizona electors. Biggs, who voted to reject electoral votes for Biden from Arizona and other battleground states, would later allegedly seek a pardon from Trump for his involvement.

Two other prominent election deniers will also be at the top of the Arizona ticket.

State Rep. Alexander Kolodin, who won the GOP primary for secretary of state, has long pushed unfounded claims around the state’s elections.

Kolodin was one of the key attorneys for Trump’s campaign who challenged the 2020 election results in the state and has represented a number of prominent election deniers. Kolodin was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2023 for his part in lawsuits challenging the 2020 election that made implausible and evidence-free claims of massive election fraud. He represented Trump’s campaign in the so-called “kraken” lawsuit in Arizona that was based on claims made by people with no actual knowledge of the elections.

In his time in the legislature, Kolodin has pushed for sweeping changes to Arizona election laws largely based on election conspiracy theories.

Then there’s GOP attorney general nominee Warren Petersen, who currently serves as president of the Arizona Senate. He, along with former Senate President Karen Fann, oversaw the partisan “audit” that the Senate conducted in 2021 to scour for fraud in Maricopa County’s election the year before. It found no evidence of fraud, and actually concluded that Biden won the election in the state’s largest county.

Earlier this year, he handed over material from that election review to the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice.

Other prominent election deniers also won their primaries, including Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff. On top of believing the 2020 election was fraudulent, Rogers has also engaged with white nationalists and other extremists.

She’ll also likely be joined in the Senate again by Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, who has openly embraced QAnon and spread conspiracy theories about the Department of Child Safety.

In its simplest form, QAnon is a conspiracy theory that alleges that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles are running a global sex-trafficking ring, control world governments and are trying to bring down President Donald Trump — who is himself single-handedly dismantling the cabal.

Farnsworth and Rogers also will be joined by the QAnon-posting and January-6-insurrection-attending Sen. Janae Shamp, who ran uncontested in her primary.

Another prominent election denier who won their primary is former Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb.

Lamb worked with other far-right sheriffs and a group that was involved with the widely debunked film “2000 Mules” to police polling locations in 2022. Lamb won his primary despite lurid allegations about his sex life and the release of a racist chat he had with a border vigilante.

If he wins his election — which is likely, as his district is deep red — he’ll join fellow election denier U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh, who unsuccessfully tried to claim election fraud led to his 280-vote loss to Kris Mayes in the 2022 contest for attorney general.

The new class

Among the well-known pushers of conspiracy theories in the state are some new faces that are seeking political power.

For instance, Michelle Altherr is seeking to unseat Democratic Sen. Brian Fernandez in the Democrat-leaning Legislative District 23.

Altherr worked at the partisan election “audit,” citing it as one of the main reasons she has gotten into politics. She has long been a presence at Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meetings, where she has spread unfounded claims of election fraud.

Another new face is James Rogers, who won his primary for the state House of Representatives in Legislative District 10. Rogers has represented Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap, a known election denier, as part of the America First Legal law firm, which was started by top Trump advisor Stephen Miller.

The law firm was also behind a failed lawsuit that attempted to change how Arizona counties use drop boxes and maintain voter rolls.

Then there’s Mylie Biggs, Andy Biggs’ daughter, who won an uncontested race to represent Legislative District 14 in the state Senate.

Last year, during an appearance on The Matt MacCurdy program, she said that she doesn’t believe women should hold public office. On that same podcast, the younger Biggs said she has a fondness for conspiracy theories, telling the host to not get her “started on 9/11.”

Early voting for the general election starts on Sept. 19 for military and overseas voters and early voting for everyone else begins on Oct. 7. The last day voters can register to vote and apply for an early ballot is Oct. 5. Voters can find more information and register to vote at this link.

Expert fears Trump will try to abolish paper checks

Germany is getting rid of paper checks at the end of 2027. Australia is bidding them farewell by 2030. U.S. President Donald Trump followed up his order killing off the penny with an executive order stopping check writing by the federal government.

Should the U.S. follow these other countries and broadly eliminate the ability to write checks?

Years ago, experts predicted that checks would have disappeared by now. However, they are still around, and billions are written each year in the United States.

Why? The quick answer is that businesses love them. And plenty of Americans still use checks for good reasons. But there is more to the story.

I am a business school professor and one of the few academics who advocates for the use of cash. While I have long told everyone about the benefits of paper money, I didn’t give paper checks much thought or use them until my mother’s recent death. Then I found myself writing checks to the cemetery, funeral home, gravestone engraver and a host of other places. Plus, I started getting refund checks back from her landlord and insurance companies.

These experiences made me look more deeply into this form of payment to understand what was happening.

Fewer checks for bigger bucks

Every three years the U.S. government runs the Federal Reserve Payments Study by asking banks and credit unions for internal information. This survey tracks everything from how often credit cards are used to the number of checks written.

While check usage has sharply declined in the U.S., a significant number – about 9.2 billion in 2024 – are still written, the data shows. The face value of those checks is probably bigger than you’d expect: more than US$24 trillion, not adjusted for inflation. That is almost as large as U.S. gross domestic product of $29 trillion that year.

Not everyone can imagine numbers in billions or trillions, so let’s put those figures in more manageable terms.

A little over 150 checks were written per person in 2000. By 2024, the average had plummeted to 27 checks – slightly more than two per month. However, over that time, the amounts typically scribbled or printed on the face of those checks rose.

In 2000, the typical check was worth less than $1,000. By 2024, the average amount had more than doubled to $2,600.

Trends elsewhere are similar. The Bank for International Settlements, which serves as a bank for central banks like the Federal Reserve, has tracked check usage in 25 countries since 2012. Its data shows that in only two other countries is payment by check still commonplace.

And in both of those countries, check usage has fallen more sharply than in the United States.

Who uses checks today?

While check payments have declined, there are still two big groups of check writers in the United States.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta runs the Survey and Diary of Consumer Payment Choice. This survey asks people, rather than banks, for information on their payment habits. Roughly one-third of all respondents stated they used a paper check in the past 30 days.

Not surprisingly, the answers vary by age. About 60% of people 65 and over say they wrote a check. Among those 18 to 24, under 6% said they did.

It also turns out that a lot of people who think they never write checks actually unknowingly do it all the time. If you pay your bills online, your bank tries to pay them electronically. If it cannot electronically make the payment, the bank cuts a paper check on your behalf. Any online bill payment taking more than a couple of business days to post is being sent by check.

Another important factor is that small businesses love checks. Over 80% of businesses with sales between $1 and $10 million make payments using checks. Why? Small businesses often require two signatures on a check. The need for signatures means owners have to sign their name before any money goes out the door. This gives them control over money and a clear idea who is getting paid and how much.

Small businesses also like receiving checks. I wrote a lot of checks after my mother’s death because many of those small businesses I dealt with wanted an extra 3% and sometimes more to cover the cost to them of a credit card payment. Writing paper checks saved me and the businesses a lot of money.

The future

While many Americans still write checks, their declining usage clearly underscores that they are not ideal for making payments in all situations.

One of the biggest problems with checks is that you never know if the check writer has sufficient funds to cover the amount. When an account doesn’t have enough money, the check bounces. The Federal Reserve, which clears about one-third of all U.S. checks, returned about 22 million checks, with a total face value of around $80 billion. While these numbers are large, over 99% of all checks written don’t bounce.

Another problem with checks is forgery. Thieves steal checks from mailboxes, alter information and then cash them. The most recent figures show about 500,000 annual cases of check fraud in the U.S. Again, while a half-million is large, it is a tiny fraction of the 9.2 billion checks written annually.

Because of these problems, the Federal Reserve is contemplating leaving the check processing business. In early 2026, it accepted public comments on whether it should wind down, improve or leave alone its check processing unit.

The unit, which costs about $100 million a year to run, turned a $6.6 million profit in 2024. But its machines need replacing, and the Federal Reserve is wavering on spending the money.

Should checks be killed off like the penny, which the federal government stopped minting in 2025, and the haypenny, which was worth half a cent and hasn’t been produced since 1857?

For me, the answer is a clear no. While checks are clearly less important today than in the past, the numbers show that the American people and businesses still use and need checks.The Conversation

Jay L. Zagorsky, Associate Professor of Business, Boston University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Democrats are sabotaging the midterms —and this man is to blame

President Donald Trump and his Republican Party are in an increasingly weak position as they approach the 2026 midterm elections — and yet Democrats are sabotaging themselves due to the reported incompetence of the Democratic National Committee chairman.

“At the center is Ken Martin, the 53-year-old party chairman, who has found himself increasingly isolated, gripped by the fear that he will lose his job and relying on a vanishingly small circle of people he trusts, according to interviews with more than two dozen Democrats, including current and former D.N.C. officials and members,” reported The New York Times’ Shane Goldmacher and Reid J. Epstein on Sunday. “Most of them spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the party’s troubled state of affairs.”

Goldmacher and Epstein added, “Mr. Martin’s fraying nerves are showing. In a pique of frustration in early July, he threw his phone at the desk of a junior aide while upbraiding the person. The phone-tossing incident resulted in a formal complaint to the D.N.C.’s human resources department.”

The Times added that the alleged phone-throwing episode had tangible fallout, with D.N.C. human resources officials meeting with Martin about the incident. Yet that was far from Martin’s only problem during his brief tenure in charge of the organization. He has been slammed for delaying the release of an autopsy on the 2024 presidential election, and then releasing an incomplete and annotated version. He has made very few media appearances. Staffers are widely reported as being demoralized, and the organization is full of leaks. Martin reportedly is in constant fear of being fired.

Perhaps worst of all, though, the D.N.C. is struggling to raise money.

“None of the party’s problems are more acute than money,” the Times reported. “For more than a decade, the D.N.C. has transferred millions of dollars every election to sister committees responsible for winning the House and Senate. But the national party is now so short on cash — even after taking out a $15 million loan last year — that officials have privately conveyed to congressional leadership that there will be no such transfers in 2026.”

By contrast, Republicans — even though they are struggling in polls — are far exceeding Democrats in fundraising.

“New financial reports released this week revealed the depth of the D.N.C.’s financial hole,” the Times reported. “The party is $2 million in debt, while the Republican National Committee has $128.5 million in cash on hand. The party that holds the White House almost always raises more money into its party coffers, but this year’s chasm is extraordinarily large.”

Speaking to AlterNet in June, various sources also expressed alarm at Martin’s leadership of the Democratic Party. One anonymous source, a longtime member of the DNC Women’s Caucus, told AlterNet that Martin has done nothing to protect mail-in voting from Trump’s reported attempts to quash it. He has also refused to move away from electronic voting and toward paper receipts, which would be harder for Trump and other Republicans to tamper with.

Despite this shortcoming, the party’s “autopsy” in May acknowledged that "any assessment of the state of technology in the Democratic party would be incomplete without an acknowledgement that comprehensive data warehouses like Phoenix represent an irresistible target for hackers and other bad actors seeking to undermine the integrity of the modern political process."

Most Utahns wanted to protect their history — but Trump had other plans

A majority of Utah’s residents opposed shrinking Bears Ears National Monument before President Donald Trump drastically slashed its size last week, according to multiple polls conducted over the past few years. Those findings contrast with statements from Utah’s political leaders who argued that the cuts reflected what Utahns want.

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.

President Donald Trump signed two executive orders shrinking Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments by roughly 90 percent each. He announced the change flanked by members of Utah’s congressional delegation and Governor Spencer Cox, all of them Republicans. Trump’s proclamation said the move “will better align the use of these public lands with the public interest,” citing the region’s deposits of critical minerals such as copper, nickel, and uranium, among others.

On Monday, hundreds gathered outside the Governor’s Mansion in Salt Lake City to protest the cuts, part of efforts organized by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance across the state to pressure lawmakers.

The two monuments, which totaled about 3.3 million acres in southern Utah before Trump’s executive orders, were created by Democratic presidents despite protests from Utah’s elected Republican leaders.

During the signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Utah Representative Celeste Maloy, a Republican, said that supporters of shrinking the monuments included “the locals who are worried about losing multiple uses on these federal lands,” and said that Trump was “listening to the people of Utah” in reducing the size of both monuments.

“It was very unfair to the people of Utah,” Trump said, “and now fairness has been brought back.”

But separate polls conducted before Trump shrank the monuments show that most Utahns and residents of other Mountain West states favored keeping their existing designations.

“It is very contradictive of our findings,” said Michaelann Nelson, a professor of environmental rhetoric at the Utah State University campus in Price. “They’re kind of picking and choosing which Utahns they’re paying attention to and listening to.”

In surveys conducted in 2024 and 2025, researchers with Utah State University found that 61 percent of Utahns either supported or strongly supported preserving Bears Ears as a national monument, with just 19 percent opposed or strongly opposed. Some 53 percent of respondents opposed or strongly opposed reducing Bears Ears, while 26 percent supported the idea. The remaining 21 percent neither supported nor opposed shrinking the monument.

Nearly half — 46 percent — opposed Utah pursuing legal action to overturn the Bears Ears National Monument designation, which was initially created by President Barack Obama in 2016 under the Antiquities Act. It included 1.35 million acres, but has now been reduced to about 121,000 acres.

Grand Staircase-Escalante wasn’t included in the Utah State University study. President Bill Clinton designated that monument in 1996, and it eventually reached nearly 1.9 million acres after some adjustments by Congress. After Trump’s order to cut the monument last week, it now includes just over 181,500 acres.

Nelson, the lead author of the poll, said she focused her surveys on Bears Ears because it was newer and a bigger focus of Utah politicians’ ire at the time. But she expects Utahns’ sentiments toward Grand Staircase-Escalante are similar.

“In some ways, perhaps [Utahns would be] even more in favor of Grand Staircase,” Nelson said, “just because we’ve existed with it for more than 20 years.”

Jessica Schad, a professor of sociology and the director of the Utah State’s Community and Natural Resources Institute, oversaw the survey efforts. She suspects Utahns’ attitudes toward monuments haven’t shifted much in the months since researchers polled them.

“It seems like this issue has become really politicized,” Schad said, “and our politicians aren’t taking into account what residents are preferring.”

The poll included 468 respondents in Utah, and the university tapped sociologists based in rural parts of the state so the results didn’t overrepresent residents in the more urban Wasatch Front, home to Salt Lake City. “We use high-quality, really rigorous survey methods,” Schad said.

Other surveys conducted across eight Mountain West states showed similar sentiments about national monuments to the Utah State University poll. A total of 91 percent of voters in these states wanted existing national monuments kept in place as of January, compared to 88 percent last year and 80 percent in 2017, according to the annual Conservation in the West Poll conducted by Colorado College.

This year’s study included interviews with voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. About 24 percent of respondents lived in rural areas or small towns, 24 percent lived in cities, and the rest lived in suburbs. Politically, 36 percent identified as Republicans, including 35 percent who said they supported MAGA; another 36 percent were independent, and 28 percent were Democrats.

The survey found support for existing national monuments nationwide was strong across party affiliations, backed by 87 percent of Republicans, 92 percent of independents, and 96 percent of Democrats. The share of MAGA supporters who wanted to keep existing national monument designations in place grew from 81 percent in 2025 to 87 percent this year.

“We’ve asked about this many times over the years,” said Lori Weigel, a principal with New Bridge Strategies, a Republican public opinion research group that assists Colorado College with its annual poll. “What we have seen very consistently in the data is that people want additional protections for these public lands.”

The poll also found that voters from both parties wanted to prioritize “conservation, recreation, and renewables over fossil fuel development,” according to a statement accompanying the results. A separate December 2024 survey by New Bridge Strategies found 71 percent of Utah voters supported keeping Bears Ears protected as a national monument, and 74 percent felt the same about Grand Staircase-Escalante. Another 75 percent of Utahns surveyed backed a president’s ability to create more national monuments.

Utah’s politicians, including Cox and Senator Mike Lee, have asserted Democratic presidents went too far in designating the two monuments. The 1906 Antiquities Act allows presidents to protect sites of historic and scientific interest as national monuments, but directs presidents to preserve “the smallest area compatible with the proper care” of those lands.

“These multimillion-acre monuments that are bigger than the state of Delaware certainly do not fit that designation,” Cox said at Monday’s event with Trump.

The designations have brought more visitors to the Bears Ears and Escalante areas, a statement issued by the Utah Senate notes. That puts a strain on land management agencies and law enforcement, causing “degradation” at the sites.

When Trump downsized the two monuments during his first term in 2017, records showed mining companies had lobbied administration officials to reduce the boundaries of Bears Ears. The president’s latest orders both cite a need to mine domestic supplies of critical minerals on public lands as part of the justification for reducing Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.

During the signing ceremony last week, Trump complained that the previous monument boundaries closed off access to recreation, too. “You can’t do anything. You can’t go hunting. You can’t go fishing. You can’t do anything. You can virtually not even walk on it,” he said.

But the fact is that hunting, fishing, driving off-road vehicles on designated trails, and other recreation are allowed in both Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante — activities that are sometimes prohibited at other national monuments. Bears Ears also had an intertribal commission that federal agencies consulted for management of the monument and protection of its resources. Trump’s order disbanded that body.

Nearly 90 percent of Utahns supported Native American tribes having a strong role in managing ancestral lands, according to the 2024 New Bridge Strategies survey, and 81 percent said that the incoming Trump administration should keep agreements with tribes in place for managing Bears Ears.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/politics/utah-national-monuments-trump-bears-ears-minerals/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to reporting on climate change.

The disturbing truth behind Trump’s 7-country bombing campaign

A US$1.5 trillion defense budget isn’t an accident; neither is the hunt for critical minerals, which the United States is fighting over with the same hunger it once reserved for oil. Under President Donald Trump, war has become more of a business plan than a matter of security. Strategic military moves are lining the pockets of Trump’s friends and family with money. This includes the critical minerals rush to fatten Trump’s profitable war machine.

Feeding the War Machine

On February 28, the US and Israel began a ruthless bombing campaign in Iran, killing over 3,000 people in just 39 days, the majority of whom were civilians. Trump campaigned on “ending wars,” but instead has expanded military interventions and escalated new conflicts. In the first 11 months of his second term, Trump has bombed seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. He also threatened to take over Greenland by force to create missile defense bases and mine for minerals.

War-hungry Trump needs a powerful and constantly replenished arsenal, as his wars deplete weapon stockpiles. Military aggression in West Asia, particularly the war with Iran, has burned through the munitions faster than defense factories can replace them. The US used over 45% of its Precision Strike Missiles, about half of its THAAD and Patriot PAC-3 interceptors, nearly one-third of its Tomahawks, and over a fifth of its JASSMs in its war with Iran. These weapons rely heavily on critical minerals, leaving the US desperate for more to rebuild.

As exposed by the Oakland Institute in its recently released report, a key driver of the current race for critical minerals is the military-industrial complex. Military spending in the United States is growing rapidly, and with it, the need for critical minerals. Trump’s proposed 2027 defense budget is a shocking US$1.5 trillion, almost twice the 2023 budget. The only thing a budget this large signifies is plans for future military expansion and campaigns. To support this growth, up to US$100 billion was allocated to the Department of War by Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” to produce critical minerals and related industries and projects.

AI, Critical Minerals, and Modern Warfare

This record-high military budget isn’t just for building more of the same defense machines. The military is expanding its tech capabilities, with a plan for an “AI-first warfighting force.” The Trump administration has declared that its priority is to secure critical minerals for “vital national security and economic activities, including rising military threats and growing high-tech industries, such as artificial intelligence, data centers, nuclear energy, and new energy technologies.”

This web between the government, tech and AI corporations, mining companies, venture capital firms, and military institutions has emerged around a common goal: securing critical minerals and advancing the use of AI in the military.

In 2022, the Pentagon awarded US$9 billion of contracts to Google, Oracle, Microsoft, and Amazon to develop and manage the US military’s cloud computing infrastructure. In addition, the Department of War has administered US$75 billion to AI-driven programs and another US$9 billion to data centers since 2016. Since 2020, the Pentagon’s contracts with AI firms have grown exponentially, with Palantir Technologies and Anduril Industries seeing the fastest growth. Palantir was the lead contractor on the Maven Smart System, which enabled the US military to sift through large volumes of data and rapidly select targets on the battlefield. The US used Maven in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen, despite grave concerns about its accuracy. The Pentagon has still not answered whether AI systems like Maven played a role in the massacre at Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls School in Iran, where the US bombed and murdered 156 people, the majority being young schoolgirls.

Cronyism at Large

Expanding the military-industrial complex has created unprecedented opportunities for Trump’s inner circle to profit. Business partners, family members, and close friends and associates have secured lucrative government contracts and preferential access to exclusive military and mineral ventures.

Donald Trump Jr. was heavily involved in selecting candidates for Pentagon jobs in 2025. Soon after, companies that his firm, 1789 Capital, had invested in—such as Vulcan Elements, Firehawk Aerospace, SpaceX, and Anduril—secured contracts with the Pentagon. Likewise, Trump’s sons are proprietors of a shell corporation that has invested in a New York-based mining investment group, Cove Capital, which is working on a US$1.6 billion tungsten project in Kazakhstan, granted by the Trump administration. US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) correctly called it “corruption in plain sight.”

By gaining access to more critical minerals, Trump can expand the war machine and, in turn, make a profit. His administration has shown it will stop at nothing to achieve that. A March 2026 leaked memo from the US State Department included a proposal to withhold lifesaving HIV assistance to Zambia if its government denied access to the country’s critical minerals.

The Human and Environmental Price

Beyond the abuse of power, the US takeover of critical minerals comes with devastating impacts on the land and Indigenous communities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that mining has “severe environmental impacts” with “often […] few if any redistributive benefits for communities in regions where extraction takes place.” Instead of local development, the extraction of strategic minerals is linked to violence, human rights abuses, and conflict. None of these repercussions are a matter of concern for the Trump administration. Conflict and destabilization, in fact, help secure access and control over critical minerals, as evident in Congo.

This web between the government, tech and AI corporations, mining companies, venture capital firms, and military institutions has emerged around a common goal: securing critical minerals and advancing the use of AI in the military. This should be an urgent concern for people around the world, as the hunt for critical minerals will deepen extractivism, militarization, and geopolitical competition at a time when our focus should be on ending conflicts, securing peace, and international cooperation to fight climate change. The administration has also turned its back on Americans in the hunt for critical minerals and the strengthening of the war machine; Trump has drained funding from sectors like education, climate change, healthcare, and science. If this disregard for everyone and everything remains unchecked, irreversible damage will occur to the planet and the people of the world.

Capitulation to Trump turns out to be a losing strategy — again

commondreams.org

Capitulation to Trump Is a Losing Strategy, Again | Common Dreams

6–7 minutes

In an early victory for President Donald Trump’s protection racket, the leaders of nine prestigious Big Law firms collectively paid almost $1 billion and sacrificed their professional integrity to secure peace with his administration—or so they thought.

They were wrong.

The ABA Defends the Profession

RECOMMENDED...

Senators Sanders And Lee Discuss Bill To Abolish Super PAC's

Iranian bridge destroyed by US attack

In June 2025, the American Bar Association (ABA) sued the Trump administration for targeting those firms and five others. The ABA claims that Trump has sought to intimidate attorneys from representing clients and causes that he didn’t like.

After a federal judge denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the ABA’s complaint in April, the ABA subpoenaed the files of Trump adviser Boris Ephsteyn, a key liaison in negotiating settlements between the nine capitulating firms and the White House. The Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the confidentiality of presidential communications is a constitutional safeguard.

Among the problems with the government’s position are that:

  1. Ephsteyn is a personal senior counsel to Trump;
  2. He has no official position in the White House or the administration; and
  3. Trump has not asserted executive privilege.

The dispute may well land in the US Supreme Court, which has become Trump’s preferred forum.

The Justice Department Opens a New Front in Trump’s Continuing War

On July 2, the DOJ took a step that seemed odd: It served subpoenas on the nine capitulating firms, as well as four firms that fought Trump’s executive order and won. (It also subpoenaed a firm that took no public action.) Those subpoenas sought some of the same information that the ABA wanted from Ephsteyn:

All communications on or after January 20, 2025 that [each firm] sent to Boris Epshteyn, received from Boris Epshteyn, or participated in with Boris Epshteyn.

They also sought all communications relating to the negotiations, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring of the agreements.

Presumably the Justice Department already has access to the law firms’ communications with Ephsteyn. If so, why did it subpoena the firms for some of the same material, including documents that it didn’t want the White House to provide in response to the ABA’s subpoena?

Possible answers:

  1. The DOJ wants the 14 subpoenaed firms to pressure the ABA into withdrawing its subpoena seeking Ephsteyn’s files. If so, it has misread the room badly. In April, the ABA filed an amicus brief with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of its 400,000 members supporting the four law firms that successfully challenged the constitutionality of Trump’s executive orders. The ABA isn’t going to save the capitulating Big Law firms from themselves.
  2. The department doesn’t trust Ephsteyn or the White House to provide it with all relevant materials that Ephsteyn has.
  3. The subpoenas were a predicate for the DOJ’s next move: trying to disqualify the ABA’s outside counsel—Susman Godfrey, one of the four big firms that won court challenges to Trump’s executive orders.

The Justice Department Tries to Avoid the Plain Language of the Applicable Rule

On July 17, the DOJ moved to disqualify Susman Godfrey from representing the ABA. It relies on the governing District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically, Rule 3.7, which states: “A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness….” [Emphasis supplied]

The Justice Department argues that the rule “contains a bright line rule prohibiting a lawyer from serving as both advocate and fact witness in the same matter….”

Not quite.

First, Rule 3.7 does not apply to all “fact witnesses.” It applies only to necessary witnesses. Susman Godfrey lawyers have become potential witnesses only because the DOJ subpoenaed documents from the firm as a whole.

Second, the rule applies only to individual lawyers within a law firm and, except in special circumstances inapplicable to the ABA case, not to all members of an entire firm. The DOJ has sought to depose as potential witnesses only the chairpersons of the 14 firms.

Third, the rule focuses on the interests of the client (here, the ABA), not its opponent (the White House). As the official commentary to Rule 3.7 explains: “If the only reason for not permitting a lawyer to combine the roles of advocate and witness is possible prejudice to the opposing party [the White House], there is no reason to disqualify other lawyers in the testifying lawyer’s firm from acting as advocates in that trial.”

Finally, the rule bars only an advocate who is likely to be a necessary witness at trial. The case may never reach the trial stage, and Susman Godfrey is free to represent the ABA until it does. Since 1992, DC Bar Ethics Opinion 228 has made that clear.

Meanwhile, the nine capitulating firms now face a quandary: What does Trump want from them? If they comply with the DOJ’s subpoenas, they will disclose some of the very information that the Justice Department is trying block by objecting to the ABA’s subpoena.

Regardless of the DOJ’s motivations, federal judges do not take kindly to an advocate’s misreading of the governing law or ignoring precedent that cuts against its position.

Here’s the real kicker: The subpoenas to Susman Godfrey and its fellow resisting law firms have already backfired. They are more evidence supporting the ABA’s claims of presidential intimidation and harassment.

As for the nine firms that settled—and the many other institutions that have that capitulated to Trump—the entire episode demonstrates that appeasing a bully will never produce finality.

Another federal judge blocks a Trump attack on American democracy

A federal appellate panel on Saturday rejected the Trump administration’s request to lift a lower court’s injunction blocking the US Postal Service from enforcing President Donald Trump’s March executive order targeting mail-in ballots as part of Republicans’ broader attack on voting rights.

A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against a motion by the administration seeking a pause on US District Judge Indira Talwani’s June order blocking major portions of Trump’s directive, which is aimed at restricting postal voting, including by directing the USPS to ensure that mailed ballots have unique barcodes and envelope logos.

“Under the Constitution, state and local officials are responsible for administering federal elections,” Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman—both appointed by former President Joe Biden—wrote in a joint opinion. “In the spring of 2026, President Trump issued an executive order with nationwide effects on how state and local officials can administer federal elections, including the upcoming primary and general elections in September and November. In particular, the executive order directed substantial involvement by the United States Postal Service in deciding which ballots sent to and from voters would be delivered.”

Judge Joshua Dunlap, a Trump appointee, partially dissented from the majority. The decision applies to the 23 states and District of Columbia that filed a lawsuit challenging the executive order.

As Democracy Docket reported:

The ruling also focuses on the executive order’s threats to criminally punish any state or local officials who refuse to comply. Under the order, the USPS would only send mail ballots to states that send their unredacted voter files to [the US Department of Homeland Security], which would approve voter eligibility via a national voter registration database. This is an unprecedented federal incursion into states’ exclusive power to determine voter eligibility as deemed by the US Constitution.

Saturday’s ruling comes just over three weeks after Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia halted the USPS’ implementation of Trump’s executive order. Sullivan granted a request by the NAACP to enforce a 2021 settlement agreement requiring the USPS to protect mail-in voting and prioritize delivery of mail related to elections through 2028.

That decision followed a June ruling by Chief US District Judge Denise Casper in Massachusetts that blocked portions of the president’s order requiring people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

Trump’s March order is part of a broader attack on voting rights that includes pushing an updated version of Republicans’ so-called SAVE America Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship and strict photo ID requirements to register to vote in federal elections. The legislation, which was passed by the House of Representatives in February, is stalled in the narrowly split Senate, where it lacks the support of 60 lawmakers needed to avoid a Democrat filibuster.

Trump has finally awakened America's sleeping giant — and he's dancing

We have been subject to the sociopath for a year and a half — 18 months of the most loathsome, least competent, and most corrupt person ever to be president of the United States.

We’ve watched him take a meat-axe to every major institution of our democracy, draw the nation into a never-ending war, establish a murderous domestic police state, reject renewable energy in favor of the dirtiest possible fossil fuels, make billions off his presidency, and cause most Americans to become poorer and less economically secure.

But here’s the good news. The sleeping giant of America is finally awakening.

Trump’s poll numbers are plummeting. They’re now at record lows. Even many Republicans have had enough. Progressives are winning election after election around the country.

The sleeping giant has always remained asleep until some venality becomes so noxious, some acts so disrespectful of the common good, some brutalities so noisy, that the giant has no choice but to awaken — blinking both eyes and then roaring, “What the hell is going on here?”

The first time I saw him awaken was during the witch hunts of Senator Joe McCarthy. He awoke again when the Ku Klux Klan tried to stop the Civil Rights Movement. Again when the Vietnam War was taking the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese. And again when Richard Nixon threatened our system of government.

Each time the sleeping giant of America has awakened, the good sense of the American people has stopped whatever it is that awakened him. Again and again, we put the nation back on track toward democracy and social justice.

Trump isn’t gone yet, of course. He has another two and a half years. But he’s on his way out. He’ll soon be a cringeworthy irrelevance, a fat lame duck, excrement on the sidewalk of history.

In a few years, Trump’s gilded monuments will be razed, his name removed from every building and pediment, his pathetic attempts to glorify himself turned into bad jokes, his legacy object lessons in why big money must be banned from politics and dastardly dickheads like Elon Musk kept away from the levers of government power.

Trump will still cause a great deal of damage over the remainder of his term, the way a wild pig who’s been gored wreaks mayhem before it expires.

So this is no time to let down our guard or become overly confident about the coming midterm elections.

Quite the contrary. One hundred days from today must be a historic repudiation of Trump and his entire disgusting regime.

The blue wave must be a tsunami — inundating everything Trump may attempt to do to hold on to the House and Senate, overwhelming whatever lies he may tell about the election, and enveloping him in a rejection that’s so unmistakeable, a rebuke so unequivocal, a reproach so unambiguous as to cause the great giant of America to get up and dance.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

The military's new mandatory test could backfire — big time

On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee, hats in hand. The Pentagon is burning through appropriations, with both Navy and Air Force 2026 operations budgets set to run out by the end of July. The war in Iran has depleted key weapons stockpiles, reducing U.S. inventories of interceptor missiles and stealth cruise missiles to less than half and costing over $37 billion to date. To the naked eye, these costs reflect disastrous mismanagement of an unauthorized and escalating war.

On Wednesday, the GOP-led House approved a whopping defense funding bill anyway, authorizing an unprecedented $1 trillion for military spending. Not only did the MAGA wing reward Trump’s incompetent war in Iran with a massive spending boost, it codified Hegseth’s rebrand of the “Department of War,” snuck in Trump’s voter suppression bill, and blocked hormone therapy coverage for gender care just as Hegseth is braying about testosterone levels.

Hegseth expected lawmakers to correct his urgent shortfall, but wouldn’t correct, clarify or explain his own false claims about Iran. Hegseth’s early-in-the-war announcement that Iran’s military had been “destroyed and made combat ineffective” was obviously untrue, but republicans still put an unprecedented $1trillion budget in his hands. Arming a blowhard who delivers braggadocio instead of sober analysis is not confidence inspiring, it’s irresponsible. It’s also scary as hell.

Hegseth’s bloodlust

As a Fox News commentator, Hegseth lobbied hard for presidential pardons for war criminals, leading Trump to fully pardon a Lieutenant convicted of murdering two Afghan civilians, and a Major who admitted to the CIA that he killed someone off base in 2010 and buried his remains. For his own activities in Iraq, Hegseth kept a ‘kill board’ totaling up his kills, including dead civilians, providing context for his bloodlust today (“maximum lethality not tepid legality”) and his disdain for restraint (“stupid rules of engagement.”)

Hegseth seems to be grooming U.S. servicemembers for war crimes, taking them to a place where rules and laws do not apply. Added to over 200 extrajudicial killings in South America, they bombed a school in Iran, killing 175 grade-schoolers, and are now bombing Iran’s civilian energy infrastructure and water desalination facilities, more war crimes. Millions of Iranians are living under fire in nightmarish hellscapes, compounding anti-American hatred sure to outlast Trump for generations.

This is the same idiocy that blames other countries for climate-change induced wildfires, while pouring gas on the flames. But of all the mistakes, bloodlust, and incompetence displayed to date, none is more dangerous than Hegseth’s new obsession with testosterone.

Hegseth is mandating testosterone testing

On July 16, Hegseth announced mandatory annual testosterone screening for troops 30 years and older, a new initiative that Hegseth claims will ensure enlistees “have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute ⁠best.” What he didn’t announce is that testosterone supplements can cause infertility, shrink testicles, and drive up red blood cell counts, which thickens blood and raises the risk of blood clots and pulmonary embolism.

Even worse is what T supplements can do to overall IQ and cognitive functioning. Medical studies have tracked how increased testosterone levels can induce aggressive behavior because they also change brain wave patterns.

Although Hegseth and other chest beaters think increased testosterone will make men quicker and sharper, medical research suggests the opposite. The relationship between T and IQ is shaped like an inverted U: cognitive performance is strongest when testosterone sits in a moderate range, and dramatically declines at both low and high ends of the spectrum.

In short, when T levels are too high, men get stupid. While that may explain some of Hegseth’s frequent blunders, excessive testosterone among the troops would present obvious risks.

Too much T rots your brain: How excess testosterone impairs cognitive performance

In controlled studies that raised serum testosterone in healthy men to ‘supraphysiological’ levels — beyond what the body normally produces — researchers measured how verbal and spatial memory changed, confirming a downturn in cognition levels at high doses. Rather than testosterone being simply ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for the brain, research shows that it can help or hurt cognition depending on where a person's levels fall relative to their own physiological baseline.

This pattern shows up in the medical research repeatedly, across different populations and cognitive domains. But Hegseth’s directive aims to establish hormonal baselines across the force, which cannot measure or indicate how a person's levels compare to their own past historical baseline.

None of this makes testosterone a villain. Men with low testosterone face meaningfully higher risk of dementia, and testosterone loss with age also contributes to cognitive decline. The nuance assuredly lost on Hegseth is that pushing testosterone artificially high — whether through unsupervised supplementation, misuse of steroids, or aggressive hormone therapy — can backfire, and erode memory and executive function. Hegseth seems to think that hormones are simple dials where more is better, but they are biometric signals the brain has evolved to interpret within complex ranges, and stepping too far outside that range — in either direction — comes at a cost.

Will Hegseth have the cognitive bandwidth, or even the professional discipline, to consult medical research before pushing T supplements to millions of servicemembers? Color me skeptical. He’s chief mouth-breather to the most incompetent, anti-science, anti-intellectual administration the world has ever seen. But he knows that when Trump starts deploying the military against U.S. citizens, aggressive soldiers with low brain function will make the perfect Praetorian Guard.

Sabrina Haake is a political analyst and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. She writes the free Substack, The Haake Take.

WSJ tears into Trump over 'obsession' he can't quit despite major 'harm'

The typically conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board ripped into President Donald Trump in a new piece, lambasting him for an "obsession" he cannot quit despite the major "harm" it is causing mere months from the midterms.

Owned by conservative mogul Rupert Murdoch, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board is often viewed as a leading voice reflecting the stances and temperaments of the modern conservative movement. In a piece published Friday evening, the board published a new piece questioning the wisdom of Trump's decision to reinstitute several tariffs, despite the import tax policies being widely viewed as one of his least popular with voters.

"Tariffs are an obsession for President Trump, much as climate was for the Biden Administration," the board observed.
"How else to explain his imposition of yet another round of border taxes three months before the November election despite their political unpopularity and economic harm?"

Many of these new tariffs come under the supposed authority of "Section 301," a trade law that allows the president to impose tariffs in response to "unfair foreign acts, policies, or practices affecting U.S. commerce," including new rates leveled against Canada and Brazil, two nations on Trump's bad side for one reason or another. As the WSJ board argued, these rates are just another example of Trump attempting to use tariffs as a weapon, with the justifications given being flimsy.

"The Administration says America’s trading partners—including Canada and the European Union—are unfairly discriminating against the U.S. by not doing enough to stop imports made with forced labor. Yes, the slave traders of Toronto strike again," the board added. "Last week the President announced Section 301 tariffs of 25% on Brazil because he doesn’t like its leftwing leader Lula da Silva. Note how Mr. Trump weaponizes tariffs: He picks a target. Then his team finds a pretext for tariffs."

Some of the tariffs against Canada have come under the authority of Section 338, a provision of the infamous 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, which "no president has used... before." In doing so, the WSJ board noted, Trump has effectively trapped the U.S. in a "needless trade war with its second-largest trading partner."

"Mr. Trump’s tariff defenders point to the buoyant stock market as evidence that his border taxes aren’t harmful," the board added. "But last year’s tax bill—especially the business provisions like full investment expensing—has offset some of the damage from his tariffs. So has the AI investment boom."

It concluded: "Imagine how strong the economy would be without the tariffs and their uncertainty for business. Americans remain unhappy about the economy, and higher prices are a big reason. They know that tariffs are adding to their pain even if they don’t see the cost as a line-item on a bill. Republicans could pay the price in November."

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.