During a rally for Van Epps, while on House Leader Mike Johnson’s speakerphone, Trump emphasized the importance of winning the seat, citing the historic tax cuts and the upcoming “Great Big Beautiful Bill.” He falsely accused Behn of hating Christianity and country music. Trump framed the vote as a demonstration of Republican strength, while also announcing a Monday night telerally in support of Van Epps. The claims against Behn, including the accusation of hating Christianity, are part of a larger effort involving over $3.3 million in spending against her, despite Behn’s actual statements, which expressed concerns about religion’s role in legislation, never matching Trump’s characterization.
Read More
The Trump administration has issued letters to nine universities, requesting that they commit to a “compact” that aligns with the administration’s political objectives to retain federal funding. The compact demands tuition freezes, restrictions on international student enrollment, and adherence to the administration’s gender definitions. Schools must also avoid policies that could be perceived as hostile to conservative viewpoints. In exchange for compliance, the administration promises “multiple positive benefits,” offering a competitive advantage in securing grants, while threatening consequences for non-compliance.
Read More
Major U.S. corporations are shifting legal work away from firms that compromised with the Trump administration’s attempts to punish firms representing political opponents. Conversely, firms that legally challenged these actions are experiencing a surge in new business. This shift reflects corporate concerns about potential conflicts of interest and a preference for firms demonstrating independence. Court rulings have largely sided with firms resisting the administration’s orders, deeming them unconstitutional. The situation underscores the interplay between political pressure and corporate legal strategies.
Read More
PBS recently removed a drag queen-themed children’s episode and a trans-inclusive gaming documentary. This action followed complaints from the GOP, who alleged the content was “turning kids queer.” This decision raises significant concerns about censorship, the representation of marginalized communities, and the potential chilling effect on diverse programming.
The removal of these programs suggests a concerning willingness to appease political pressure, rather than standing firm against attempts to suppress diverse voices. It’s a troubling sign that an institution meant to educate and inform is readily yielding to what many see as a politically motivated campaign of censorship.
Many believe that this decision is not about protecting children, but about controlling the narrative and limiting exposure to diverse identities and perspectives.… Continue reading
Amazon briefly considered adding import charges to its ultra-low-cost Haul platform, but ultimately decided against it. This decision followed a news report suggesting Amazon would display tariffs, prompting a negative White House reaction and a personal call from President Trump to Jeff Bezos. The White House’s criticism stemmed from the timing of the reported plan, and ultimately the decision was deemed a “good move” by the Commerce Secretary. The consideration was unrelated to the recent tariff increases, and Amazon is currently assessing the impact of those tariffs on its third-party sellers and overall business.
Read More
In response to the U.S. imposing 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the European Union announced €26 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. These tariffs target various American products, including agricultural goods, textiles, and industrial products, strategically focusing on Republican-held states. The EU emphasizes its willingness to negotiate, but stresses that these tariffs, impacting jobs and consumer prices, are undesirable. This action marks a renewed trade conflict, mirroring similar disputes during Trump’s first term.
Read More
President Trump’s attacks on DEI initiatives, falsely framed as discriminatory, have pressured corporations like McDonald’s, Walmart, and Target into dismantling their diversity programs. However, Costco shareholders overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to review DEI risks, and CEOs from JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and other prominent companies publicly reaffirmed their commitment to diversity, despite the political pressure. This resistance suggests a division among corporations, with some prioritizing diversity and inclusion despite potential legal challenges. The decision to maintain or abandon DEI programs appears to have significant implications for a company’s ability to compete in an increasingly diverse marketplace.
Read More
Facing pressure from conservative activists and the White House, Target announced modifications to its “Belonging at the Bullseye” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategy. The changes include ending a program supporting Black employees and businesses, and discontinuing its three-year DEI goals focused on hiring and promoting underrepresented groups. This decision follows a Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action and mirrors similar actions by other major corporations. While Target’s commitment to inclusion predates recent controversies, the company will also cease participation in certain diversity surveys and review corporate partnerships.
Read More
FBI Director Christopher Wray resigned three years before the end of his term, succumbing to pressure from President Trump. This decision, despite Wray’s prior commitment to impartiality, allows Trump to avoid a public confrontation over his potential firing of Wray and the subsequent appointment of a loyalist. Wray’s resignation is viewed as a normalization of Trump’s governing style and a setback for the FBI’s nonpartisan reputation. This action joins a pattern of conservatives prioritizing loyalty to Trump over adherence to constitutional principles. The departure further erodes the rule of law, setting a concerning precedent for future administrations.
Read More
Growing up, politics was never a topic that was discussed openly in my household. My parents kept their voting choices close to the chest, and it was always a mystery to us kids who they supported during election season. However, a recent conversation with my elderly mother shed light on a whole new perspective regarding the secrecy of the voting booth. She revealed how she used to vote against my father’s wishes secretly, in an act of defiance to cancel out his vote. This confession got me thinking about the current political climate and the question that seems to be causing quite a stir this election cycle: “Can my husband find out who I am voting for?”… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood