Meetings between Chinese and American leaders are not exactly routine, but few are historically groundbreaking.

The exceptions include the very first visit by a sitting U.S. president to China, when Richard Nixon met with Chairman Mao Zedong in Beijing in February 1972 – at a time when America did not even formally recognize the People’s Republic of China. Deng Xiaoping’s visit to the U.S. in 1979 generated a similarly iconic moment when the reformist Chinese leader donned a Stetson at a Texas rodeo, a sign that he would be willing to engage with America in a way that Mao contemplated only near the end of his life.

Donald Trump may harbor hopes that his upcoming visit, slated for May 14-15, 2026, could have similar historical significance to those moments half a century ago. It will, after all, be the first face-to-face meeting of U.S. and Chinese leaders in Beijing since Trump’s own visit nearly a decade ago in 2017.

Yet the outcomes of this Trump summit with Xi Jinping are likely to be vague because the goals for both leaders are also only partially evident. The visit is being driven by trade imperatives, but there are other issues that threaten U.S.-China relations in the longer term.

It will be extremely hard for the two sides to address these more deep-rooted divides. Indeed, as an analyst of U.S.-China relations, I believe the world’s two largest economies will have an essentially competitive relationship for years to come, and areas of plausible cooperation – whether on climate change or AI regulation – are increasingly hard to find.

Taiwan: A change in US position?

One area that has been a source of contention for quite some time is Taiwan. Xi has made it clear that the unification of the island with the mainland cannot be left to “another generation” but has left it vague – up to now – as to how that goal will be achieved.

The summit has been preceded by lots of chatter about U.S. preparedness to honor its somewhat ambiguous promise to defend Taiwan in the event of an invasion – with Chinese analysts concluding that the war in Iran has severely weakened Washington’s capabilities on this front.

However, there are plenty of signs that Xi would rather find peaceful means to unite with Taiwan that avoid all-out war, particularly as the examples of Russia in Ukraine and the U.S. in Iran show that the outcomes of wars are not predictable.

Instead, China has seemingly concentrated its efforts on influencing the upcoming January 2028 Taiwan presidential election. The leader of the island’s major opposition Kuomintang party, Cheng Li-wun, recently visited the mainland and had a photo op with Xi – a sign that she thinks dealmaking with China might just be acceptable to the Taiwan electorate despite its deep distrust of Beijing.

To further fuel the narrative of a seemingly inevitable path toward unification, it would be helpful for Xi to have signals that the U.S. is no longer committed to defending Taiwan.

China will push for a change from the official position that the U.S. “does not support Taiwan independence” to “the U.S. opposes Taiwan independence.” The latter change sounds minor but would have great significance, as it would essentially be an acknowledgment that the U.S. recognizes unification, by some means, as a legitimate goal in its own right.

Trump has kept his own position ambiguous: He has noted more than once that Taiwan is very close to China and very far from the U.S., but he has also authorized major arms sales to the island that have infuriated Beijing.

Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party does not specifically endorse independence, as it knows that’s a red line for Beijing, but it would regard this change in American language as a serious blow to its position. It’s unlikely that the U.S. would make such a major concession during Trump’s visit – but that won’t stop Beijing from asking for it.

AI: The battle for global leadership

A more tentative but increasingly important area for discussion during the Xi-Trump summit is technology in general and AI in particular.

Just three years ago, the attitude of the U.S. government was summed up in the phrase of then national security adviser Jake Sullivan: “small yard, high fence.”

In other words, there would be only a few restricted areas of technology, but they would be fiercely guarded.

In 2026, things have changed. In some areas, tech restrictions have just become looser; the U.S. government now permits the sale to China of some high-specification, American-manufactured chips that were previously restricted. That policy was probably driven by the sense that China was developing its own domestic alternatives anyway and that the U.S. was losing market share.

Yet there is growing concern both in the U.S. and China that AI developments are moving too fast for governments – or companies – to know fully what the technology is capable of doing, let alone being able to regulate it.

China and the U.S. both desire to dominate AI and set the global norms and standards surrounding it. But they are also aware that AI has the potential to cause immense damage.

There has been loose discussion of whether any joint form of supervision or regulation of AI between the U.S. and China might be possible. And that could well form part of the discussions during the leaders’ summit.

But realistically, both sides see themselves in fierce competition, and the likelihood that either American or Chinese companies would restrain themselves may be fanciful.

The trade elephant in the room

The most substantial achievements of the summit, however, are likely to be in the least glamorous area: remedying the trade deficit.

Trump’s tariffs aim to make the United States’ global trade partners pay a higher price for entry to the American market, and China’s persistent and massive trade surplus has been a prime target for the U.S. president.

While there are many American products that China would like to buy, most of them are not products that the U.S. government is willing to let them have, including high-tech equipment that could be used for military purposes.

Instead, the key products are likely to be agricultural, including U.S. soybeans and beef. Look out for concessions from China that would benefit farmers in key Republican states, such as Iowa.

The current tariff dispute between the U.S. and China has frozen into a standoff: The U.S. has agreed to allow China’s goods into its immense market at manageable tariff rates, and China has – mostly – agreed to allow critical minerals and rare earths to flow to U.S. manufacturers.

That truce lasts until October, but the summit may see it extended.

Neither side is keen to restart the trade war that marked the summer of 2025, when Trump announced tariffs of over 100% on China and the U.S. was in danger of having key mineral supplies cut off as a result.

Summit to talk about? Perhaps not

So how consequential will the Trump-Xi summit be? Well, don’t expect another “Nixon meets Mao” moment.

The circumstances more than a half-century on are also remarkably different. Today’s China, unlike in 1972, has an economy and military second only to the U.S. and a central position in global organizations, from the United Nations to the World Trade Organization, particularly as the U.S. retreats from such institutions.

Both the U.S. and Chinese sides know that they can expect limited cooperation at best from their opponent.

But after a period, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when communication between the countries atrophied, it’s still important that they are talking at all.

The Trump administration celebrated Mother’s Day by launching a new government website that directs pregnant people to anti-abortion pregnancy centers.

The Department of Health and Human Services rolled out Moms.gov, which offers “resources, information and help for new and expecting mothers,” first flagged by Autonomy News reporter Garnet Henderson.

Politics: Trump Has ‘FAKE (********!)’ Freakout Over Female Fox News Host, Dem Lawmaker

The first resource listed is the 2,750 anti-abortion pregnancy centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers, around the country. In order for a pregnant woman to find one near her, the site links out to Option Line, a call center that refers callers to anti-abortion centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers. Option Line is operated by Heartbeat International, one of the biggest anti-abortion pregnancy center groups in the country.

Heartbeat International described Option Line in a Monday statement as the organization’s “24/7 contact center connecting women to life-affirming pregnancy help and local support services.”

“I encourage every mom to visit this new page where they will find helpful information about addressing clinical care, pregnancy resources, nutrition tips, TrumpRx and Trump accounts,” President Donald Trump said during a Monday morning press conference.

Like this article? Keep independent journalism alive. Support HuffPost.

“This Mother’s Day, the Trump Administration is strengthening its commitment to America’s families by equipping mothers and fathers with the resources and information they need to build healthy, prosperous lives,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a Sunday statement.

“Moms.gov delivers critical tools and support to help parents foster healthy pregnancies, strengthen young families, and create brighter futures for their children,” he continued. “This is how you Make America Healthy Again.”

Politics: Donald Trump Addresses Possibility Of Barron Entering Politics In The Most Trumpian Way

Crisis pregnancy centers are unregulated and often nonmedical, faith-based organizations with the main goal of coercing patients into continuing a pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states these types of clinics are “run by people who operate unethically and with the intention to dissuade, deter, or prevent them from seeking certain reproductive health care options” including abortion.

More than 70% of these crisis pregnancy centers use deceptive tactics such as providing scientifically inaccurate information, share misinformation about abortion care including false risks, and hire nonmedical stuff to discuss medical issues. Nearly 40% of anti-abortion pregnancy centers do not disclose that they don’t provide abortion services.

They usually offer helpful resources to people looking to continue a pregnancy, including diapers and formula, but the assistance can be conditional on the woman going to church or Bible study.

Political Updates

Read the original on HuffPost

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.

Fresh satellite images have captured one of Russia's most active volcanoes melting snow from the inside out as volcanic heat continues to seep through the frozen landscape of the Kamchatka Peninsula.

Images captured by the Landsat 9 satellite on April 23 show dark channels of ash and volcanic debris cutting through the snowy slopes of Shivelyuch volcano in far eastern Russia.

Shivelyuch (also spelled Shiveluch) is the northernmost active volcano on Kamchatka and one of the most active volcanoes on Earth, according to NASA Earth Observatory. The volcano is known for near-constant activity, with satellites frequently detecting ash deposits, heat signatures and avalanches of hot rock flowing down its slopes.

At the center of the volcano sits a growing lava dome — a mound of thick, slow-moving lava that has been expanding in recent months inside Shivelyuch's horseshoe-shape crater, according to reports from the Kamchatka Volcanic Eruption Response Team (KVERT) cited by NASA Earth Observatory.

As parts of the unstable dome collapse, they can trigger fast-moving pyroclastic flows made of hot ash, gas and volcanic rock. These flows leave behind thick deposits that can hold heat for months or even years after an eruption.

That lingering heat is visible from space.

In the new satellite images, snow has melted away along several flow channels where fresh volcanic deposits have spread across the volcano's slopes in recent months. Some of the dark scars highlighted in the imagery may still contain heat from Shivelyuch's massive 2023 eruption, which sent huge pyroclastic flows surging across the volcano.

"Shivelyuch is an incredible volcano that has collapsed over and over again," said volcanologist Janine Krippner in a statement released alongside the images by NASA Earth Observatory. "It goes through cycles of collapse but then builds itself up again and again through constant volcanic activity."

"It should really be on a motivational poster," Krippner added.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

The Utah Republican’s inner circle is actively canvassing donors and allies in Utah to gauge support for a gubernatorial bid in 2028, according to six people involved with or briefed on the discussions. They were granted anonymity to detail private conversations. His allies have asked donors in recent months to hold off on supporting other gubernatorial candidates until Curtis makes up his mind. And his chief of staff has said his boss is keeping the door open.

“John Curtis is going to serve where the people of Utah want him to serve,” Corey Norman, Curtis’ chief of staff, told POLITICO.

Curtis, who replaced former Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) last year, has a reputation as a pragmatic dealmaker and moderate voice from his three terms in the U.S. House. But after seeing Washington grow increasingly polarized during his decade there, the former mayor and business executive may see the benefits of returning home.

“He doesn’t love being in the Senate,” said a Utah Republican operative who has discussed Curtis’ political future with him. “Trump’s MAGA base sees him as one of the four squishiest Republicans. He’s basically Mitt without the stature.”

The timing of Curtis’ exploration is tethered to former GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is quietly attempting to clear the 2028 gubernatorial field for himself since Utah Gov. Spencer Cox announced he wouldn’t seek a third term.

A potential Chaffetz-Curtis primary in 2028 would likely mirror the Republican Party’s own ideological battles as it enters its first presidential election without Trump on the ballot in over a decade. Chaffetz is one of the Trump administration's staunchest defenders on Fox News; Curtis is a self-described “Reagan Republican” and occasional Trump critic more in the mold of his predecessor, Romney.

Earlier this year, as Chaffetz began asking Utah donors and elected officials to back him, Curtis received an influx of inquiries about a run of his own, according to two people close to the senator, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Curtis first rebuffed the proddings; now, he is actively exploring it.

“The first time I asked John about this, and the third and fourth and fifth time, his answer was, ‘Have I said hell no lately?’” said one longtime friend. “And now his response has changed dramatically.”

Just in the last few weeks, the friend said, “there has been a very meaningful change in his thinking.”

The ad-hoc team of advisers, friends and longtime allies that are now canvassing donors have a goal of securing $10 million in pledges. Curtis’ current outlook, a second longtime friend said, is, “If there’s a pathway forward and I felt like it was clear to me that citizens wanted me to do it, then I would do it.”

Curtis, an avid outdoorsman and practicing Latter-day Saint, went on a retreat in the mountains recently to pray and meditate about running, according to the first longtime friend. Now Curtis is planning a 250-mile solo walk across the state to honor the U.S.’ 250th anniversary, concluding on July 4 in Provo, Utah, a second person close to the senator said. The walk will give Curtis additional time to meditate on his political future.

Meanwhile, Chaffetz, who Curtis replaced in the U.S. House when the former left Congress for a gig on Fox News, is holding regular meetings with local lawmakers and donors across the state to ask for their support, and he’s begun transferring funds from a federal PAC to a state PAC.

“His pitch is that he is the likely nominee and he invites them to get in early while they still can,” said a second longtime Utah GOP operative who hasn’t chosen sides in the potential primary, granted anonymity to discuss the topic openly. “You can tell from his finance disclosures that he has had limited success on that front.” Chaffetz did not respond to a request for comment.

Keeping the door open now may be an attempt to avoid repeating past mistakes: Curtis initially vowed he wouldn’t run for Romney’s seat, but he changed his mind and made a late entry into the 2024 GOP primary field after being urged to run by Utah donors, politicos and Romney allies. It was a tough fight, as former Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson and others had already locked up supporters across the state. But Curtis rallied and garnered over 50 percent of the vote in a crowded primary.

“He’s not going to cede early ground to Chaffetz like he did to Wilson in the Senate race,” the second Utah GOP political operative said. “It’s now to the point where I would be surprised if Curtis doesn’t run.”

Curtis entered the Senate in 2025 amid much fanfare among Trump-skeptical Republicans who hoped he would fill the role of his predecessor, Romney, as a frequent critic of and check on the president. Curtis had earned a reputation during his time in the House as a China hawk and a rare Republican voice supporting conservation, as founder of the House’s Conservative Climate Caucus. He was one of the most effective House members, passing 27 bills during his three terms.

But the Senate has proved to be a difficult place for a consensus-minded pragmatist like Curtis. He failed to get a seat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee which his fellow Utahn, Sen. Mike Lee, chairs. Though he bucked the Trump administration on several occasions — he was credited with torpedoing several Trump nominees, and he fought to protect clean energy tax credits in the One Beautiful Bill Act — he voted in line with Trump 100% of the time in 2025, per VoteHub’s tally. (He eventually relented and voted for the reconciliation package — with a gradual rollback of some credits included.)

Curtis often tells allies his favorite job was as mayor of Provo, Utah, where he could enact change as the city’s nonpartisan chief executive, according to two other people close to the senator.

Norman, the senator’s longtime chief of staff, has made the rounds on local media hinting that his boss is open to a run for governor. During an appearance on KSL NewsRadio on April 9, he said his boss “hasn’t said yes, he hasn’t said no.” During an interview with ABC4 that aired Sunday, Norman was more blunt: “He is an executive problem solver at heart, and in my opinion, he would make an exceptional governor.”

Curtis could retain his seat in the U.S. Senate while running for governor. If he wins, he would select his successor from three options provided by the state legislature.

There is a growing contingent of Utah politicos who want him in the governor’s mansion.

“Chaffetz is the only one out there right now and folks are looking for an alternative that has the ability to beat him,” said a third Utah GOP operative, granted anonymity to speak openly. “It just sucks that he’s forcing the field to start so early. A two-plus year run for governor is absurd.”

Curtis’ openness about the possibility of a gubernatorial run — a full two-and-a-half years before November 2028 — is rankling some allies. The topic arose at a wedding for Romney’s grandson last week, where Romney’s allies and former staffers mingled. They acknowledged Curtis would make a good governor but wanted to see him finish out his term in the Senate, according to one individual present, granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation. 



But all were frustrated by Curtis’ team signaling at his intentions this early in the cycle. “It’s pretty early to leak it all out,” the person said. “Way too early.”

By Jan Wolfe

May 11 (Reuters) - A historic preservation group on Monday filed a lawsuit seeking to halt President Donald Trump's ongoing renovation to ‌the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool, the latest in a string of court ‌challenges to the former real estate developer's efforts to remake Washington landmarks.

The lawsuit, filed by the ​Cultural Landscape Foundation, alleged the renovation violates the National Historic Preservation Act, a law passed by Congress in 1996 that outlines procedures for changes to historic properties.

The nonprofit seeks an emergency order halting the Trump administration's overhaul, which focuses on replacing the ‌pool’s “gray stone” appearance with an ⁠industrial-strength coating in the color of a blue swimming pool.

“The dark grey, achromatic basin was not incidental to the design," the ⁠lawsuit stated. "It was the design."

The case was brought against the Department of the Interior, the executive agency overseeing the renovation, which said in a statement that Trump "has done more ​to ​make our nation's capital a shining beacon ​than any other president in the ‌history of this country."

Trump announced the project last month, saying "it’s going to be fantastic" and "really beautiful." As the project got underway, Trump’s motorcade took an unannounced trip to see the project up close.

Trump has said he was motivated to oversee the renovation after a friend visiting from Germany criticized the condition of the reflecting pool.

“He ‌said, ‘It’s filthy, dirty. The water is disgusting-looking. ​It’s not representative of the country,’” Trump told ​reporters at a White House event ​last month.

Some of the president’s other projects in Washington, including ‌renovations to the city’s golf courses and ​construction of a ​White House ballroom, have also drawn legal challenges.

A federal judge on March 31 blocked above-ground construction of Trump's ballroom, writing that "unless and until Congress blesses ​this project through statutory ‌authorization, construction has to stop!"

An appeals court later lifted the injunction, allowing ​construction of the ballroom to proceed while litigation continues.

(Reporting by Jan ​Wolfe in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Venezuela ’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez told journalists Monday that her country had no plans to become the 51st U.S. state after President Donald Trump said he was “seriously considering” the move.

Rodríguez was speaking at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the final day of hearings in a dispute between her country and neighboring Guyana over the massive mineral- and oil-rich Essequibo region.

“We will continue to defend our integrity, our sovereignty, our independence, our history,” said Rodríguez, who assumed power in January following a U.S. military operation that ousted then-President Nicolás Maduro. Venezuela is “not a colony, but a free country,” she added.

Speaking to Fox News earlier on Monday, Trump said he was “seriously considering making Venezuela the 51st US state,” according to a post by Fox News' co-anchor John Roberts on social media. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the matter.

Trump has made similar comments about Canada.

Rodríguez went on to say that Venezuelan and U.S. officials have been in touch and are working on “cooperation and understanding.”

Before addressing Trump's comments, Rodríguez defended her country’s claim to Essequibo at the United Nations' highest court, telling judges that political negotiations — not a judicial ruling — will resolve the century-old territorial dispute.

The 62,000-square-mile territory, which makes up two-thirds of Guyana, is rich in gold, diamonds, timber and other natural resources. It also sits near massive offshore oil deposits currently producing an average 900,000 barrels a day.

That output is close to Venezuela’s daily production of about 1 million barrels a day and has transformed one of the smallest countries in South America into a significant energy producer.

Venezuela has considered Essequibo its own since the Spanish colonial period, when the jungle region fell within its boundaries. But an 1899 decision by arbitrators from Britain, Russia and the United States drew the border along the Essequibo River largely in favor of Guyana.

Venezuela has argued that a 1966 agreement sealed in Geneva to resolve the dispute effectively nullified the 19th-century arbitration. In 2018, however, three years after ExxonMobil announced a significant oil discovery off the Essequibo coast, Guyana’s government went to the International Court of Justice and asked judges to uphold the 1899 ruling.

Tensions between the countries further flared in 2023, when Rodríguez’s predecessor, Maduro, threatened to annex the region by force after holding a referendum asking voters if Essequibo should be turned into a Venezuelan state. Maduro was captured Jan. 3 during a U.S. military operation in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, and taken to New York to face drug trafficking charges. He has pleaded not guilty.

Rodríguez did not address the referendum in her remarks, but she told the court that the 1966 agreement is designed to allow negotiations between Venezuela and Guyana to resolve the territorial dispute. And she accused Guyana’s government of undermining the agreement with the “opportunistic” decision to ask the court to address the dispute.

“At a time when the mechanisms established in the Geneva agreement were still fully in force, Guyana unilaterally chose to shift the dispute from the negotiating arena to a judicial resolution,” she said. “This change was not accidental; it coincided with the discovery in 2015 of the oil field that would become world-renowned.”

When hearings opened last week, Guyana’s foreign minister, Hugh Hilton Todd, told the panel of international judges that the dispute “has been a blight on our existence as a sovereign state from the very beginning.” He said that 70% of Guyana’s territory is at stake.

The court is likely to take months to issue a final and legally binding ruling in the case.

Venezuela has warned that its participation in the hearings does not mean either consent to, or recognition of, the court’s jurisdiction.

___

Garcia Cano reported from Mexico City.

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.

A freighter carrying nearly seven tons of supplies has made its way to China's Tiangong space station.

The robotic Tianzhou 10 cargo ship lifted off atop a Long March 7 rocket from the Wenchang Space Launch Site, on China's Hainan Island, on Sunday (May 10) at 8:14 p.m. EDT (0014 GMT and 8:14 a.m. local time on May 11).

Five hours later, Tianzhou 10 docked with Tiangong ("Heavenly Palace"), the T-shaped, three-module space station that China finished assembling in low Earth orbit in late 2022.

The freighter delivered more than 220 items that have a total weight of about 6.9 tons (6.3 metric tons), according to the state-run Chinese broadcaster CCTV.

The cargo haul includes about 620 pounds (280 kilograms) of scientific experiments in fluid physics and other fields, 1,540 pounds (700 kg) of propellant and the last of three new spacewalking spacesuits.

The first two of those suits were delivered on the Tianzhou 9 cargo flight, which lifted off last July and departed Tiangong on Wednesday (May 6) to make room for Tianzhou 10.

As its name suggests, Tianzhou 10 is the 10th Tianzhou spacecraft to take flight. These freighters, whose name translates to "Celestial Vessel," are disposable, burning up in Earth's atmosphere when their time in orbit is up.

Tianzhou missions actually predate the Tiangong space station. The first such cargo ship launched in April 2017, linking up in orbit with a prototype space lab called Tiangong 2.

China began building the current Tiangong outpost in April 2021, when it lofted the core module, which is known as Tianhe ("Harmony of the Heavens"). The two other Tiangong modules, Wentian ("Quest for the Heavens") and Mengtian ("Dreaming of the Heavens"), launched in July 2022 and October 2022, respectively.

Tiangong generally supports three astronauts at a time. The trio currently living aboard the orbiting lab are Zhang Lu, Wu Fei and Zhang Hongzhang, who arrived on Oct. 31 on the Shenzhou 21 mission.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

The outrage was swift and severe when the U.S. Supreme Court, by an ideologically divided 6-3 vote, recently struck down Louisiana’s majority Black congressional district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Critics lambasted the court for gutting the Voting Rights Act, the federal law that had until recently garnered strong bipartisan support and had ensured Black political representation in the South for more than half a century.

Many analysts see Jim Crow-era disenfranchisement of Black voters on the horizon.

Whether Louisiana v. Callais will wreak this kind of havoc remains to be seen, although some Southern states have already begun to redraw their legislative districts, aiming to ensure Republican control. Several Black legislators – all Democrats – are expected to lose their seats in the upcoming midterm elections. Democrats are threatening to retaliate with their own redistricting plans.

Because of a 2019 decision by the court, such political gerrymanders, where a legislative district is crafted to ensure partisan control, cannot be challenged under federal law. Both parties had taken full advantage of that ruling.

Prior to the Callais ruling, however, legislators had to be sure that when they sought partisan control of a district, they did not excessively dilute the voting power of minority residents. Multiple lawsuits had challenged political gerrymanders on exactly these grounds.

After Callais, that guardrail is gone. Indeed, lest they provoke the same type of litigation faced by Louisiana, state legislators must now ignore the race of voters altogether. From here on out, gerrymandering is fine, but only if it’s race-neutral.

This does not mean, however, that the race-blind mapmaking process envisioned by the Supreme Court majority will manifest. Based on our recently published research, it may, in fact, be just the opposite.

Race, we found, is – at least in the South – a more reliable predictor of how someone will vote than their party identification. And that makes race, we believe, a potentially irresistible lure for those designing congressional districts.

Race a more reliable predictor

We are both political scientists – one of us an expert on Congress and national elections and the other a constitutional law and Supreme Court scholar. In Southern states, race and political party overlap significantly, with the vast majority of Black voters favoring Democrats and most white voters favoring Republicans. And in our study, we document that in this region, mapmakers actually have an incentive to take race into account when conducting a political gerrymander.

Political gerrymandering is the process of drawing electoral districts to favor one party over another. In most states, the responsibility for drawing districts rests with the state legislature. Thus, the party that controls state legislatures very often controls elections – at both the state and congressional level.

The goal of partisan redistricting is to maximize the chance that candidates from that political party will win elections. Our study shows that using both the race and party of voters to redraw districts, rather than just party alone, better ensures partisan advantage.

The research we conducted was motivated by a claim made by Justice Samuel Alito in another recent racial gerrymandering case decided by the Supreme Court, Alexander vs. South Carolina NAACP. He argued in the court’s majority opinion that when drawing districts to favor one party, mapmakers would need to look only at voters’ party affiliation – their race would be irrelevant to ensuring partisan control.

It is a straightforward, seemingly sensible claim. It is also wrong.

Our study uses an original dataset of precinct-level election results in South Carolina from 2010 to 2020 to explore how well a precinct’s racial and partisan composition before redistricting predicts how it votes over the following decade.

What we found reveals a more complicated picture than Alito – and the subsequent Callais decision – presumes.

A precinct’s Democratic and Republican vote share prior to redistricting was the strongest predictor of future election results. But there are two problems with relying on only such partisan data when gerrymandering a district.

First, our analysis showed that roughly a quarter of a precinct’s voters in the next election did not follow what the partisan data predicted – a sizable amount, given the supposed ease of gerrymandering by party.

Second, precinct election results are surprisingly volatile. Our analysis shows that the effect of preredistricting partisanship varies with election cycles, national conditions, gradual changes in party coalitions and other factors. A precinct that leaned Republican in the election before redistricting may vote very differently in a midterm wave year when the president is unpopular, precisely the type of election coming in November.

By comparison, the analysis shows that voters’ race is a more reliable predictor than their party of how they will vote in the next election. Consequently, it seems that, at least in Southern states, legislators have a genuine, data-driven incentive to use racial data when drawing partisan districts.

Will race still affect political gerrymanders?

Consider this redistricting scenario: South Carolina’s Republican-led legislature wants to flip the state’s lone Democratic congressional seat – long held by prominent African American U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn – for the 2026 midterms. A simple approach is to identify those who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 and then just redraw the district to add enough of those voters to ensure Republican control.

The plan backfires, however. Not only does Clyburn hold his seat, but a neighboring district also elects a Democrat. What went wrong?

Simply put, the legislature failed to realize that past partisan returns are an imperfect predictor of future voting behavior.

A heavily Democratic area that is predominantly Black will vote Democratic far more consistently than a heavily Democratic area that is predominantly white. Two precincts that look identical on a partisan map can behave very differently at the ballot box. And a legislature that fails to take this into account has taken an unreliable route to partisan advantage.

If Republican legislators want to oust Democratic officials, the most reliable route is to oust from a district the minority Democratic voters who would have elected them.

This is not to suggest that legislators should use race in this way. It certainly smacks of racism and echoes the type of electoral machinations used during Jim Crow. But that analogy is not exactly on point. The approach we identified targets the power of Black voters not because they are Black, but because they are such reliable Democrats.

To many, that may be a difference that makes no difference. More litigation over gerrymanders is inevitable. If litigants can demonstrate that race was a “predominant” factor that “drove” redistricting, or that mapmakers purposefully attempted to diminish the power of Black voters because of their race, legal liability can still follow.

Voting rights advocates should be aware of the temptation legislators may have to let race affect their political gerrymanders.

Perhaps minority voters are as free from invidious discrimination as Alito’s majority opinion in the Callais case suggests. This does not mean, however, that those charged with ensuring all voters are fairly represented in American democracy will be colorblind. Our findings show that race could easily remain embedded in the political gerrymandering landscape, despite vehement claims to the contrary.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Treasury Department wants U.S. banks and other financial institutions to monitor for suspected Iranian money laundering networks that use their funds to smuggle sanctioned oil through shell companies and crypto networks.

The move, which effectively deputizes the global financial system to help disrupt Iran’s sanctions-evasion infrastructure, comes as the U.S. and Iran reached another impasse over how to end their war while their ceasefire has grown increasingly shaky.

President Donald Trump on Monday said the Iran ceasefire is on “life support” after he rejected Tehran’s latest proposal to end the war.

The Trump administration is calling on banks to flag certain customers who may launder funds for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard — including newly formed companies moving unusually large amounts of money, firms that route payments through multiple intermediaries or transactions connected to Iranian crypto firms, among other indicators.

As part of the U.S. initiative to monitor Iranian oil sales, banks are being asked to watch out for oil labeled as “Malaysian blend” to disguise its Iranian origin, missing or falsified shipping documents or ship-to-ship oil transfers that obscure where cargo came from.

A Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network report released Monday says oil firms linked to Iran conducted roughly $4 billion in transactions in 2024.

And dozens of shipping companies based in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong — all connected to transporting sanctioned Iranian oil — processed about $707 million through U.S. accounts in 2024.

Along with a bombing campaign in Iran, the Trump administration has turned toward an economic-focused effort aimed at choking Tehran into submission, through sanctions and the threat of secondary sanctions on Iran's allies.

In April, Treasury sent a letter to financial institutions in China, Hong Kong, the UAE, and Oman threatening to levy secondary sanctions for doing business with Iran and accusing those countries of allowing Iranian illicit activities to flow through their financial institutions.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.

SpaceX will launch a batch of spy satellites for the U.S. government this evening (May 11), and you can watch the action live.

A Falcon 9 rocket is scheduled to lift off from California's Vandenberg Space Force Base today, on a mission for the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) called NROL-172.

Launch will occur during a four-hour window that opens at 6:28 p.m. EDT (2228 GMT; 3:28 p.m. local California time). SpaceX will stream the event live via its website and X account, beginning about 10 minutes before liftoff.

NROL-172 will be the 13th launch devoted to building out a new reconnaissance network that the NRO, which operates the United States' fleet of spy satellites, calls its "proliferated architecture."

"To stay ahead of the competition and ensure it can continue to operate in a heightened threat environment, the NRO is modernizing its architecture in space and on the ground — delivering more capability faster with increased resilience," agency officials wrote in the NROL-172 press kit.

"A greater number of satellites — large and small, government and commercial, in multiple orbits — will deliver an order of magnitude more signals and images than is available today," they added.

The satellites for the new network are built by SpaceX and Northrop Grumman. We don't know exactly what they do, where they orbit or how many of them go up on each launch; the NRO has not released such information.

All of the proliferated architecture satellites have reached orbit atop Falcon 9 rockets flying out of Vandenberg, which sits on California's scenic but often foggy central coast. The first such launch, NROL-146, lifted off in May 2024. The most recent, NROL-105, took place this past January.

If all goes according to plan this evening, the Falcon 9's first stage will return to Earth 8.5 minutes after liftoff, touching down in the Pacific Ocean on the SpaceX drone ship "Of Course I Still Love You." It will be the second launch and landing for this particular booster, according to a SpaceX mission description. SpaceX's livestream will end shortly thereafter, at the request of the NRO.

NROL-172 will be the 55th Falcon 9 launch of the year. The vast majority of the rocket's liftoffs so far in 2026 — 44 of 54 — have been dedicated to building out Starlink, SpaceX's broadband megaconstellation in low Earth orbit.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

The man charged with attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner last month pleaded not guilty at a Monday arraignment in federal court.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, wearing an orange shirt and trousers, was handcuffed and shackled as he was brought into the courtroom in Washington, D.C., federal court. His handcuffs were attached to a chain around his waist, which clanked as he was led to the defense table.

Speaking on behalf of Allen, federal public defender Tezira Abe said her client “pleads not guilty to all four counts as charged,” including attempting to assassinate the president of the United States, in connection with the April 25 incident at the Washington Hilton hotel.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Jones advised the court that they plan to start producing their first tranche of discovery to the defense by the end of the week.

Officials said Allen, a California teacher and engineer, was armed with multiple guns, as well as knives, when he sprinted through a security checkpoint near the event where Trump and other White House officials had gathered with journalists.

He was arrested after an exchange of gunfire with a U.S. Secret Service officer who fired at him multiple times, a criminal complaint said. Allen was not shot during the exchange. The officer, who was wearing a ballistic vest, was shot once in the chest, treated at a hospital and released.

Trump and top members of his Cabinet and Congress were quickly evacuated from the room as others ducked under tables.

Allen was initially charged with attempting to assassinate the president, transportation of a firearm and ammunition through interstate commerce with intent to commit a felony, and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. On Tuesday, a federal grand jury indicted him on a new charge in the shooting of a Secret Service agent.

Moments before the attack, Allen had sent his family members a note apologizing and criticizing Trump without mentioning the president by name, according to a transcript of some of his writings provided to NBC News by a senior administration official. Allen also wrote that “administration officials (not including Mr. Patel)” were “targets.”

He also appeared to have taken a selfie in his hotel room. Prosecutors said Allen, who was dressed in a black button-down shirt and black pants, was “wearing a small leather bag consistent in appearance with the ammunition-filled bag later recovered from his person,” as well as a shoulder holster, a sheathed knife, pliers and wire cutters.

Officials have said they believe Allen had traveled by train from California to Washington, D.C., before checking into the hotel.

Allen’s sister, Avriana Allen, told law enforcement that her brother would make radical comments and constantly referenced a plan to fix the world, but said their parents were unaware that he had firearms in the home and that he would regularly train at shooting ranges.

Records show that he had purchased a Maverick 12-gauge shotgun in August 2025 and an Armscor Precision .38 semiautomatic pistol in October 2023.

After his arrest, Allen told the FBI that he did not expect to survive the incident, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jocelyn Ballantine. He was briefly placed on suicide watch at the Washington, D.C., jail, where he’s being held.

Allen is expected to appear in court for a June 29 hearing.

At Monday’s arraignment, his legal team said they plan on asking for the “entire office” of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to be recused because of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s apparent involvement in the case in a “supervisory role.” Federal public defender Eugene Ohm said some of the evidence they receive from the government will further inform that decision.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Monday he wants the ‌18 cent federal gas tax paused ‌for a period of time but dismissed any possible ​relief for airlines facing higher jet fuel prices, CBS News reported as U.S. gas prices remained high amid the Iran war.

"We’re going to ‌take off ⁠the gas tax for a period of time, and when gas goes ⁠down, we’ll let it phase back in," Trump told CBS.

A bailout plan for airlines had ​not "really been ​presented" and "the airlines ​are doing not ‌badly,” he told CBS.

On Sunday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” program that the Trump administration was open to suspending the federal gas tax.

U.S. states also ‌tax gasoline, with Indiana, Kentucky ​and Georgia moving to ​make cuts to ​give consumers some relief at ‌the pump.

Gas prices have risen ​since the ​war in Iran began in Feb. 28, with one gallon in the U.S. ​averaging $4.52 as ‌of Monday, according to AAA.

(Reporting by Katharine ​Jackson; writing by Susan Heavey; Editing ​by Ryan Patrick Jones)

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — The South African Parliament said Monday it will establish an impeachment committee to reinvestigate four-year-old allegations that President Cyril Ramaphosa committed serious misconduct by hiding the theft of more than half a million dollars in cash, which had been stashed in a sofa at his game ranch.

The new decision follows a ruling by the top Constitutional Court on Friday saying a 2022 Parliament vote that blocked impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa over the scandal was unconstitutional.

At the time of the vote, Ramaphosa's African National Congress party had a majority in Parliament. The vote was held despite an independent report finding evidence of wrongdoing by the president in allegedly not properly reporting the theft to police and trying to keep an investigation to recover the money secret.

The Constitutional Court last week said that, according to procedure, the 2022 independent report should have been referred to an impeachment committee for further investigation.

Impeaching the leader of Africa's top economy would require the support of at least two-thirds of lawmakers in the 400-member Parliament, according to the Constitution.

The multi-party impeachment committee still needs to conduct an investigation before any move to hold an impeachment vote. No time frame was given for that in Monday's Parliament statement.

Ramaphosa's ANC party lost its Parliament majority in a landmark 2024 election and is now the largest in a coalition government of 10 parties. He still could survive an impeachment vote if his party's lawmakers back him.

The scandal badly damaged the reputation of a president who took office in 2018 on an anti-corruption ticket after a decade of government graft scandals under former leader Jacob Zuma.

The allegations against Ramaphosa were first made by a former head of South Africa's state security agency, who walked into a police station in 2022 and accused the president of money laundering and other offenses over the money. It emerged the theft happened in 2020 and had been kept secret.

Ramaphosa denied wrongdoing and said the money — in U.S. dollars — came from the legitimate sale of buffaloes on his ranch. However, questions arose over the source of the money and why it was hidden in a sofa.

The 2022 independent report said there was “legitimate doubt” over the source of the money, and some evidence that the amount was more than the $580,000 Ramaphosa claimed. It also said Ramaphosa had used the head of his presidential protection unit and others to “surreptitiously” try and track down the suspects.

“President Ramaphosa maintains that no person is above the law and that any allegations should be subjected to due process without fear, favor or prejudice,” Ramaphosa's office said Friday following the court ruling that revived the scandal.

___

AP Africa news: https://apnews.com/hub/africa

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.

This tiny capsule was just shot out of a gun at over 2,600 mph (4,200 kph).

While miniature, this space capsule is no toy. It's part of a rigorous testing process for the European Space Agency's (ESA) ExoMars mission.

What is it?

ESA is developing a landing module, formally called the Entry Descent and Landing Module (EDLM), for its ExoMars mission that will carry the agency's Rosalind Franklin rover to the Martian surface. This mission aims to launch in 2028.

To make sure that the EDLM is ready to launch into space and land on Mars, the mission team launched 20 of these tiny models of the capsule on Earth. The little, 3-inch wide capsules were shot out of a bore gun at over 2,600 mph, or nearly four times the speed of sound.

These "micro launches," as I'm calling them unofficially, mimicked the aerodynamics that a Mars capsule would experience careening through the Martian atmosphere at supersonic speeds.

Each of these 20 mini capsules launched while outfitted with electronic circuits, monitoring their flight. During their nearly 755-foot (230-meter) flights, the capsules captured important data about their acceleration, movement, trajectory and stability, according to ESA.

Why is it incredible?

These miniature space capsules look like toys, but in these tests, they withstood almost 17,000 g-forces of acceleration.

The tiny robot figurine in this image and the Martian-esque reddish dirt underneath give the capsule the appearance of a fancy toy display. But as cute as the mini capsule is, it's doing an important job.

It is no small feat to launch something to another planet and have it survive the harrowing downward trip through that world's atmosphere, all the while keeping the delicate instrumentation inside intact.

ESA's Rosalind Franklin rover aims to search for signs of ancient life on Mars, and to do that it has to stay protected from the extreme elements of spaceflight by the EDLM. And these cute, strange little capsules are helping, with the data they generate during their superfast micro launches.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.

A new timelapse shows the stunning views of Earth that four astronauts got during their historic moon journey last month.

A small selection of the 12,000 photos released from the Artemis 2 archive earlier this month showcases satellites, auroras, and our Earth in day and night views, as captured by the crew.

The timelapse video at first shows our lit-up planet sweeping slowly into view in front of the camera, before it disappears into darkness from the astronauts' perspective.

Next up is a closer-up view of the planet with little dots — satellites — shining and moving just above the rim of Earth. Then a few auroras, more popularly known as the northern lights and southern lights, become visible at the edge of our planet. Finally, Earth recedes again from the camera.

Artemis 2 launched on April 1 and returned to Earth on April 10. It sent four astronauts — NASA's Reid Wiseman (commander), Victor Glover (pilot) and Christina Koch (mission specialist) and Jeremy Hansen of the Canadian Space Agency — around the moon. It marked the first time astronauts had left low Earth orbit sine 1972, when Apollo 17 landed two people on the moon's surface.

While their mission was to the moon, a great deal of the astronauts' focus was on our home planet. One of their most famous shots was on Flight Day 6, when the crew captured an "Earthset" during their flyby of the moon's far side. (The photo's name was a nod to the iconic "Earthrise" shot that Apollo 8's Bill Anders captured during his own crew's Christmas 1968 lunar visit.)

Artemis 2's Earthset, which was captured at 6:41 p.m. EDT (2241 GMT) on April 6, showed only a thin crescent of our home planet as the rest of the visible Earth was in shadow. White clouds shine over Australia and the nearby ocean in the show. Meanwhile, the lunar surface looms below, including the 40-mile-wide (64-kilometer-wide) Ohm Crater near the moon's horizon.

Artemis 2 is part of the Artemis program of missions, which aim to send astronauts back to the moon's surface as soon as two years from now. Next up under NASA's recently revised schedule is Artemis 3, which will visit low Earth orbit in 2027 to test docking operations with Orion and one or both of Artemis' privately developed Human Landing System craft.

The next mission, Artemis 4, could touch down on the moon in 2028 if the lander, the still-in-development spacesuits and other moon-mission essentials are ready in time.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

If someone you know is detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, it can be incredibly challenging to find and communicate with them.

For example, it can take several days just to confirm where they are. Even after locating a loved one, it is possible to lose track of them again, as ICE regularly moves people between facilities without notice.

I’m a law professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, where I work with immigrant rights organizations on issues of ICE arrest and detention.

Here’s what we know about how and where ICE is holding people as of May 2026.

A confusing web of detention facilities

When a person is arrested by ICE, the lack of a centralized immigration detention system makes it hard to figure out where they are.

For ICE detention, the federal government can contract with counties for county jail space or to execute service agreements with private prison companies. ICE also contracts with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to hold immigrants in their facilities.

Pennsylvania is no exception to this patchwork system. Four county jails – in Pike, Clinton, Cambria and Franklin counties – have contracts with the federal government to detain immigrants for ICE. Pike County, for example, received US$16 million from ICE in 2024 and 2025 for use of its jail.

Further, ICE contracts with Centre County so the county can serve as a pass-through for payment to the private prison company, the Geo Group, which runs the Moshannon Valley Processing Center. Moshannon is the largest detention center in the Northeast with 1,876 beds. This pass-through system allows the federal government to avoid the burdensome Federal Acquisition System for contractors. That purchasing system is governed by uniform policies that apply to all federal agencies that enter into contracts for services to ensure that business is conducted with integrity, fairness and transparency.

ICE pays millions of dollars each month to operate the Moshannon Valley facility.

Most recently, ICE set up contracts with two Bureau of Prison facilities in Pennsylvania to hold immigrants: the federal detention center in Philadelphia and the federal prison FCI Lewisburg.

Over 2,000 immigrants in detention in PA

After a person has been arrested by ICE, major federal policy changes that are intended to keep people locked up or have them deported make it difficult to get that person released.

For example, ICE has issued new guidance that expands who is subject to mandatory detention without access to a bond hearing to include anyone who entered the U.S. without a visa. This policy is currently being legally challenged by the ACLU along with other groups.

Additionally, ICE releases many fewer people. Under federal law, ICE has the discretion to release most people, unless they fall into a specialized category of “criminal aliens.” Previously, people were released on parole or on their own recognizance, sometimes with an order of supervision or bond.

As a result, immigration detention has reached unprecedented levels. Over 70,000 people were held in immigration detention in January 2026. As of April 2, 2026, over 2,000 people were held in immigration detention in Pennsylvania.

Isolated from family and legal advice

Once arrested, ICE detainees have a hard time contacting the outside world.

Upon arrival at a facility, they are stripped of their belongings, including their cellphone. They must pay for telephone calls to their family or get others to pay by putting money in their commissary account.

Further, ICE detention facilities are often outside of major urban areas and far from legal services and community support. Moshannon, for example, is over 100 miles from any nonprofit immigration attorneys who provide representation to people in immigration removal proceedings.

Previously, the federal government funded a Legal Orientation Program where nongovernmental legal services offered information, referrals and representation to those in detention. In 2025, the Department of Justice ended the program, justifying its termination based on the executive order entitled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” Section 19 of that executive order relates to reviewing, pausing or terminating contracts, grants or other agreements with nongovernmental organizations that support or provide services “to removable or illegal aliens.”

Out-of-state transfers are common

ICE’s movement of people without notice across different facilities is a long-standing practice. However, a recent UCLA study found that out-of-state transfers of noncriminal Latino detainees jumped from 18% to 55% after President Donald Trump’s reelection in 2024.

Transfers are mostly about ICE’s own efficiency in maximizing the filling of bed space. Some advocacy organizations have alleged that transfers are conducted for retaliatory reasons against people who make requests or complain. Transfers are not only disorienting for the person involved but also impede communication with family and access to counsel.

How to find someone in ICE detention

Several online guides provide information about how to locate someone after an ICE arrest and how to prepare their family in case of future arrest.

Here are some key tips.

1. Use the ICE online detainee locator.

The locator requires either a person’s country of birth and alien registration number – called an “A number” – or their full name and date of birth. A person might have an A number if they have a past or present case with the government, including having applied for a green card or asylum. It can take 48 hours for ICE to enter information about the person into its database so it can be picked up by the online locator. The name must be an exact match with what was entered into the system.

2. Contact the ICE field office.

The Philadelphia field office covers Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. If you are a noncitizen, you might want a U.S. citizen to do this for you out of an abundance of caution, because ICE records information about the person calling. Call 215-656-7164 or email Philadelphia.Outreach@ice.dhs.gov.

3. Contact the consulate.

In many instances, ICE is supposed to notify the consulate of the arrested person’s home country within 72 hours.

4. Reach out to community groups, attorneys and elected officials.

In Philadelphia, community groups such as Asian Americans United, Juntos and New Sanctuary Movement, or the statewide Pennsylvania Immigration Coalition, might be able to help you. An attorney might also be able to help you. Here is a list of nonprofit legal service providers in Pennsylvania.

Further, you can ask for help from your federal elected officials, such as your congressional representative or Sens. John Fetterman or Dave McCormick. If you have a more direct relationship with a local elected official, such as your city council member, it cannot hurt to see whether they can also help you.

How to prepare in advance

If you know someone who is at risk of arrest by ICE, you can help them prepare in advance. Tell them to:

1. Keep copies of their documents in a secure space.

This includes their A number as well as immigration documents, passport, birth certificate, marriage certificate, tax returns and any employment and medical records. If they have children, make sure to include their passports, birth certificates and medical records.

2. Memorize important phone numbers.

They should know the numbers of family members and their attorney in case their cellphone is taken from them.

3. Have an emergency plan.

A family preparedness plan includes designating a caregiver for children in case a parent or guardian is arrested. They should also consider filling out documents that may help a family member or friend to care for their children if they are unavailable because of detention or deportation. These include forms that provide temporary guardianship or custody of minor children, consent for medical care of minor children and information for the Philadelphia School District.

Philadelphia Legal Assistance provides free downloadable packets in English and in Spanish to build a family preparedness plan.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

As the Trump administration moves to weaken America’s air pollution rules, it is deploying new legal interpretations that are intended to tie the hands of future administrations for years to come.

In practice, the changes limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act. The result allows EPA officials to ignore science, data and the adverse effects their decisions will have on public health and the environment.

But the new interpretations are also designed to apply not just to the rule in which they are first set forth but into the future.

If affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in inevitable legal challenges, these interpretations could make it harder for future administrations to restore the public health protections that the Trump administration eliminates. They could also make it difficult to update rules to respond to new information about health risks.

Typically, moves to weaken pollution regulations through novel legal interpretations would have a good chance of being overturned in court. But the EPA’s new interpretations are strategically designed to appeal to the current U.S. Supreme Court’s view of federal agencies’ authority, especially in light of the court’s 2024 ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo. In that case, the court overturned what’s known as the Chevron doctrine. A 1984 Supreme Court ruling had established that courts should defer to executive agencies’ legal interpretations of their governing statutes when the text of the law was ambiguous or left gaps. That deference no longer applies.

As a former EPA appointee who helped write and review dozens of regulations under the Clean Air Act during the Obama and Biden administrations, I find these efforts to prevent the EPA from doing its job of protecting public health and the environment to be alarming. Here are two examples of how the new interpretations are playing out.

Blocking future climate regulations

In February 2026, the EPA rescinded its 2009 endangerment finding, a determination under the Clean Air Act that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” because they contribute to climate change.

The endangerment finding was the scientific and legal basis for EPA rules requiring automakers, power plants and oil and gas operations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Erasing it would make it easier for the Trump administration to eliminate greenhouse gas regulations.

Rather than try to challenge the science of climate change, which would be difficult given the growing mountain of evidence, the Trump EPA relied on legal arguments that were intended to dispense forever with the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Among the administration’s numerous arguments, two stand out:

First, the Trump EPA says the Clean Air Act should be read to limit the EPA’s authority to regulate air pollution only if its harm to the public is “through local or regional exposure.”

That would mean contributions from U.S. sources to global air pollution, no matter how demonstrable or how much they endanger Americans, are not covered by the Clean Air Act.

Second, the Trump EPA says that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and engines would be “futile.” It points to global climate modeling that suggest these reductions would not meaningfully reduce the harm to public health and welfare.

What that argument fails to mention is that actions by people around the world to reduce emissions across different sectors add up. Motor vehicle emissions are the No. 1 contributor of U.S. emissions. If this sector is too small to regulate, then nothing is big enough.

Each of these interpretations is contrary to positions that the EPA took in the original endangerment finding, which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in 2012.

Allowing more toxic air pollutants

A second example involves the EPA’s proposal on March 17, 2026, to weaken pollution restrictions on businesses that sterilize medical equipment using ethylene oxide, a known carcinogen.

In that proposal, the EPA is also changing a legal interpretation in a way that would constrain the agency’s ability to protect human health into the future, this time from emissions of toxic air pollutants.

The Clean Air Act, under Section 112, establishes a methodical program for the EPA to regulate industries that emit significant quantities of air pollutants that can cause cancer, birth defects, genetic mutations or neurological harm, or harm reproductive health.

The EPA reviews how facilities control their emissions and sets standards that require all facilities to meet what the best-controlled sources are doing. But Section 112 has an important provision called “residual risk” review: Eight years after the EPA sets the first technology-based standards, it must determine whether the public health risk posed by emissions from the facilities after controls are added is acceptable.

In 2024, the EPA updated its hazardous air pollution rule for facilities that use ethylene oxide to sterilize medical equipment sensitive to steam heat, such as devices containing plastic, rubber or electronic components. Because recent research showed that ethylene oxide posed a much higher risk of cancer than previously thought, the EPA also updated its 2006 residual risk finding and required additional safeguards.

The Trump EPA is now arguing that the agency can assess residual risk only once, even if more recent information shows that the health risk is unacceptably high.

By constraining its own authority, the EPA is withholding standards that would protect thousands of people from a higher risk of cancer. It is also creating a legal precedent that will justify weakening other standards. Those include standards for chemical manufacturing facilities that the Biden EPA updated in 2024 through residual risk review.

That precedent would also prohibit the EPA in the future from taking into account new information about the health effects of any regulated hazardous air pollutant from any type of industry the EPA regulates under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, including petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing and paper mills.

Arguing the law

These rules are just two examples of the administration’s “if you don’t have the facts, argue the law” approach.

If the administration’s strategy works, the American public may be living, and dying, with the consequences of these industry-friendly regulations for years to come.

The United States is spending billions of dollars to secure access to critical minerals – minerals and metals that are essential to modern technology, from electric vehicles to smartphones and military systems.

But amid the push to dig more, one question gets far too little attention: Who will actually process what comes out of the ground?

Between mining and the finished product lies a complex chain of separation, refining and advanced manufacturing. Since the 1990s, however, the United States has lost much of its critical mineral processing capacity.

Rebuilding domestic mineral supply chains will depend not only on resource availability and funding, but also on whether the U.S. can rebuild the technical expertise and industrial systems required to process those materials on a large scale.

How America lost its lead

The United States was a global leader in rare earth minerals from 1965 through the mid-1980s. It produced about 15,000 metric tons a year, about three times the amount produced by the rest of the world.

The Mountain Pass mine in California supplied the majority of the world’s rare earth elements used in electronics and the defense industry. American metallurgists, chemical engineers and processing facilities had significant expertise in its production and processing.

However, environmental damage, including wastewater pipeline leaks that released radioactive wastewater into the Mojave Desert during the 1980s and 1990s, and tightening regulations increased operating costs in the United States. During that period, much of the world’s manufacturing base for rare earth elements shifted to China, where labor costs were lower and environmental regulations were less stringent.

As production grew abroad, U.S. production of rare earth elements fell sharply – to near zero by the early 2000s, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

In recent years, as much as 90% of the rare earth minerals extracted in the United States and allied countries have been shipped to China for processing. In 2024, the U.S. relied on imports for about 80% of its rare earth compounds and metals.

Why bringing processing back is not simple

The U.S. government is now pushing to increase domestic critical minerals production, citing national security. But building a processing facility is not like opening a warehouse.

These facilities require years of permitting, highly specialized equipment and a workforce trained in metallurgy, chemical engineering and industrial systems operation. The time from investment decision to production can stretch across a decade.

The U.S. currently has two domestic rare earth mining locations. One is in southeast Georgia, which extracts rare earth elements as a byproduct of heavy mineral sand mining. The other is Mountain Pass, which produces bastnaesite, a rare earth carbonate mineral. The mines produced about 51,000 metric tons of rare earth mineral concentrates in 2025, while the U.S. imported about 21,000 metric tons of rare earth compounds, most of them from China, according to 2025 U.S. Geological Survey data.

The U.S. has also lost expertise. Mining and mineral engineering education programs now produce only a few hundred graduates per year, well below the levels of past decades. The number of accredited programs has declined since the 1980s. Many faculty members are nearing retirement.

Industry projections estimate that the mining workforce will need to grow significantly in the coming years to meet rising demand. Specialized skills in areas such as rare earth separation, metallurgical testing and environmental systems design require years of training and practical experience. And while mining can produce high-paying jobs, the industry also has a reputation for environmental damage and hazardous conditions.

Environmental compliance is part of the skill set

Processing critical minerals is a dirty industry. That fact has made it more difficult for processing and refining companies to operate in the U.S.

For example, separating rare earth elements typically involves chemical processing with acids and solvents. When waste streams are poorly managed, these processes can produce toxic wastewater and air pollution and contribute to soil erosion. In parts of China where rare earth production expanded rapidly in the 1990s and 2000s, contamination from mining and processing has polluted rivers and damaged nearby farmland, and the wastewater can seep into soil and groundwater.

In the U.S., modern facilities must meet strict federal and state standards for air quality, water discharge and waste management that raise the cost of processing. These regulations were developed in response to environmental disasters, like the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969, when industrial oil and waste on the river burned, and hazardous waste crises like the Love Canal disaster that led to landmark environmental laws.

Operating a refinery or separation facility in compliance with regulatory standards today requires expertise in pollution control, waste treatment and sustainable process design. That requires a workforce skilled in materials science and engineering and with knowledge of environmental systems. Without environmental expertise, operational risks, regulatory challenges and project delays can increase, affecting long-term viability.

How to build a US supply chain

Rebuilding U.S. supply chains will require more than expanding extraction.

Canada’s critical minerals strategy offers an example. It connects mining projects to battery and electric vehicle manufacturing by funding processing facilities, developing regional supply chain hubs and investing in workforce training programs tied to those industries.

Australia has combined critical minerals policies with incentives and public financing to encourage domestic mineral processing, while also expanding university and vocational training in mining, metallurgy and mineral processing.

The United States has many of the key ingredients needed to rebuild its processing capacity, including research universities and workers with transferable industrial skills. Land-grant and technical universities could expand programs that integrate mining, materials science, environmental restoration and recycling. In regions such as Appalachia, where coal’s decline has left workers with skills but few job opportunities, retraining programs for new mineral recovery jobs could help people transition to a new industry.

A few federal programs support parts of this transition, including research hubs that develop new extraction and processing technologies, apprenticeship initiatives and university-industry partnerships. However, these efforts are spread across multiple agencies, with limited coordination to align priorities and investment.

The real bottleneck

America’s critical minerals strategy is often discussed in terms of geology and geopolitics – where resources are located and who has access to them.

But supply chains depend on people and systems. That’s America’s real bottleneck in creating a domestic supply chain.

A successful domestic supply chain will require workers who know how to separate neodymium from praseodymium, operate solvent extraction circuits and maintain hydrometallurgical plants within regulatory standards. These are highly specialized skills that take years to develop.

The United States has significant mineral resources and growing policy support. Now, it needs to pay attention to the workforce and industrial capacity needed to transform those resources into usable materials.

This gap developed over decades. Addressing it will likely require sustained investment alongside broader mineral policy changes such as permitting reforms and investment in domestic processing facilities.

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com.

What did the T. rex use its little arms for? – Aurora, age 11, Pemberton Township, New Jersey

One of the most famous dinosaurs to ever roam across Earth, Tyrannosaurus rex, has filled people’s minds with wonder since the first skeleton was discovered in the early 1900s.

Scientists believe T. rex, or King of the Tyrant Lizards, as its name translates, was a fearsome predator. An adult T. rex was massive in size – approximately 40 feet (12 meters) long and 20 feet (6 meters) tall, weighing as much as an African elephant. Each of its enormous sharp teeth could be near a foot (0.3 meters) in length from the root to the tip.

I’m a paleontologist, and I use fossils to study how animals lived and evolved over long periods of time. One of the coolest things about being a paleontologist is that there are always new questions to ask and new things to learn – even about a super-well-known dino like T.rex, which went extinct just over 65 million years ago.

One T. rex mystery has to do with this giant predator’s relatively tiny arms. Why would it have arms so short that it couldn’t even reach its own mouth? How did it use them?

How ‘short’ is short?

First, let’s define what we mean by “short.”

The biggest T. rex could measure 45 feet (14 meters) from the snout to the tip of the tail, but their arms were only about 3 feet (1 meter) long. On average, a T. rex’s arms were just about 30% of the length of its legs.

In comparison, humans have, on average, arms around 66% of the length of their legs. If people had the same arm proportions as a T.rex, a 6-foot (1.8 meters) tall person would have arms only 10 or 12 inches (25 to 30 centimeters) long!

T. rex isn’t the only dinosaur with such short arms. The evolutionary trend toward shorter arms in theropods – the larger group of meat-eating, two-legged dinosaurs that T. rex belongs to – happened multiple times. Similar to how wings separately evolved in different animals – like birds and bats – traits can emerge many times in evolutionary history.

You can see the shortening of T. rex arms as a pattern in its family tree, as earlier relatives had proportionally longer arms.

How did they use their mini-arms?

Short arms don’t seem to have been a problem for these mighty dinosaurs. T. rex was a successful carnivorous species that existed for over a million years. They only went extinct when an asteroid hit the Earth, causing a global mass extinction.

Scientists have suggested a few ideas to possibly explain how T. rex used their arms. Maybe they were used as some kind of social display that could impress other T. rex – kind of like the bright feathers of a peacock that can attract potential mates.

But male and female T. rex skeletons don’t show the major differences that paleontologists would take as clues that they relied on social displays to attract mates. And while animal behavior can sometimes be preserved, such as in bite marks or fossilized footprints, it’s rare to have enough fossil data to draw clear conclusions.

Maybe T. rex used their arms as weapons to attack or hold down prey. But these options seem unlikely since T. rex’s huge jaws would have made contact with an enemy or prey before the short arms would have been able to reach it.

Some scientists have recently hypothesized that T. rex‘s short arms were an adaptation to competition with other carnivores. If multiple predators were feeding on a carcass, one could get hurt by accidental bites or even intentional warning bites for getting too close. Shorter arms would be less likely to get chomped. Similar things occur today with territorial carnivores, like Komodo dragons.

Maybe the arms didn’t have a purpose

Another possibility is that the arms served little or no purpose at all, so over time, they became vestigial. That’s the scientific term for body parts that don’t have clear purposes anymore, but are still passed down through evolution.

One example is a whale’s hindlimbs. Whales evolved from mammals that lived on land that had large legs to move around. The bones are still present in today’s whales, but have gotten much smaller over millions of years and have no function.

Some scientists have suggested a different idea: T. rex’s arms may have evolved to be smaller as another body part grew larger. The fossil record reveals that arms got shorter as theropod skulls got larger across many different dinosaur groups, including T. rex. Larger skulls likely would have made it easier to hunt and eat larger prey.

Researchers can use mathematical equations to accurately predict theropod arm length if they know the animal’s skull size and length of its upper leg bone, the femur. It turns out that larger skulls are strongly linked to shorter arms in theropods.

The reason for the change in arms, however, isn’t as clear. Some scientists have argued that the smaller arms could have helped with balance as the head got larger, but others aren’t so sure. In evolution, there isn’t always a reason why a change occurs – sometimes, changes just happen. In this case, we don’t yet know if there was a benefit for the arms to get smaller as heads got larger.

So for now, we don’t really know how T. rex used its arms or why they evolved to be so small, proportionally. As scientists find new data, we will continue to test hypotheses to better understand why this tiny-arm trend occurred so many times in theropod evolution. That’s what makes science so exciting – a future fossil discovery could be the missing puzzle piece that helps us answer these questions.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sarah Sheffield, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Read more:

Sarah Sheffield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

In Baltimore on Oct. 20, 2025, a 17-year-old student named Taki Allen was sitting outside his high school after football practice when an artificial intelligence-enhanced surveillance camera falsely identified the Doritos bag in his pocket as a gun. Within moments police cars arrived, officers drew their weapons and Allen was forced to his knees and handcuffed while they searched him. All they found was a crumpled bag of chips. The AI’s misidentification and the human decisions that followed turned a normal evening into a traumatic confrontation.

On Dec. 24, 2025, Angela Lipps, a Tennessee grandmother, was released after spending five months in jail because facial recognition software had incorrectly connected her to fraud crimes in North Dakota, a state she had never visited. Police had arrested her at gunpoint while she was babysitting her four grandchildren.

These are unfortunate examples of how AI can lead to mistreatment of people because of technical flaws as well as misplaced human faith in the technology’s supposed objectivity. These cases involve different tools, but the underlying issue is the same. AI systems produce probabilities, and people treat them as certainties.

We are researchers who study the intersection of technology, law and public administration. In researching how police departments use AI and how digital technologies operate in a democratic society, we have seen how quickly the shift from probabilistic prediction to operational certainty happens in practice.

AI policing tools are used in dozens of U.S. cities, although no public registry tracks the full footprint. The tools ingest historical crime data and score neighborhoods on predicted risk so officers can be routed toward the resulting hot spots. The mechanism is straightforward, but its consequence is not. Once a system signals a possible threat, the question is no longer how certain the prediction is but what to do about it. A statistical output turns into a deployment decision, and the uncertainty that produced it gets lost on the way.

A matter of probabilities

When generative AI models such as ChatGPT or Claude respond to human requests, they are not searching a database and pulling out facts. They are predicting the most likely answer based on patterns in data they have been trained on. When asked, “Who invented the light bulb?” the models do not go to a source or fact-check a finding. They generate a statistically probable answer which is “Thomas Edison.” The reply might be right, but it might not capture the full story – such as Joseph Swan’s parallel invention at the same time as Edison’s. The danger arises when people believe that the model is retrieving truth rather than generating likelihoods.

This distinction matters. The most probable response is not the same as a factually verified answer, complete with context.

This reality can be highly problematic for policing and law. For example, when law enforcement agencies use AI systems trained on geographical data to estimate where criminal activity is likely to occur, the algorithms analyze historical crime data and geographic patterns. These systems generate statistical risk scores or heat maps for locations based on prior incidents. But such predictions may have little bearing on who was involved in a new crime in the area, even if an algorithm generates information that sounds authoritative.

Some researchers have argued that predictive policing systems do not increase the likelihood that racial minorities will be arrested more often relative to traditional policing practices. The broader concern, however, is not limited to measurable disparities in arrest outcomes alone. It is about how probabilistic predictions can become standardized operational decisions absent further verification.

Artificial intelligence researchers caution against using these models in isolation for crime and legal proceedings or decision-making. Research at the University of Virginia’s Digital Technology for Democracy Lab with police chiefs shows that some law enforcement groups follow strict policies that dictate when technology is used in tandem with, or in place of, human discretion, while others have no such policy.

What most users do not realize is that AI systems rarely produce binary answers: yes or no, a positive identification or a negative one. They generate probabilities. Some systems assign scores that assess the system’s confidence in a prediction. In those cases, engineers set a confidence threshold, a level of certainty that determines when the system should trigger an alert about a possible threat. You can think of this threshold as settings on a control knob. A 95% confidence level, for example, indicates that the model considers its interpretation to be highly likely.

A low threshold catches more potential threats but increases false alarms. A high threshold reduces mistakes but risks missing real dangers. Either way, these algorithmic thresholds are often invisible to the public and are set quietly by vendors or agencies, even though they shape when police action begins.

Where to draw the line

In medicine, these kinds of trade-offs are explicit. Diagnostic tools are calibrated on the relative harm of different errors. In infectious disease settings, for instance, systems that detect infections are often designed to accept more false positives to avoid missing contagious individuals. Then medical professionals look into the human cases. And the algorithm-based decisions are subject to professional standards, ethics reviews and regulatory oversight.

In policing, an AI system must balance false positives, where the system flags a threat that does not exist, and false negatives, where it fails to detect a real danger. The trade-off carries significant consequences. A lower threshold may generate more alerts and allow officers to intervene earlier, but it also increases the risk of mistaken identifications, which happened to Angela Lipps, or escalated encounters like the one Taki Allen experienced. A higher threshold may reduce wrongful interventions but could allow legitimate threats to go undetected.

Some law enforcement agencies argue that acting on imperfect signals is preferable to missing serious risks. But lowering the bar for algorithmic alerts based on probabilistic estimates effectively expands the number of people subjected to police attention. It is important to realize that these thresholds are not neutral features of the technology; they are choices embedded by the creators in the model’s code. Decisions about where to draw the line determine when an algorithmic suspicion becomes a real-world police action, even though the public rarely sees or debates how those thresholds are set.

Limits of optimization

Developers often use several methods to determine where to set a confidence threshold. Techniques such as “receiver operating characteristic curve analysis” examine how changing the threshold for an alert alters the balance between correctly identifying real events and mistakenly flagging harmless ones. Precision–recall analysis examines a similar trade-off, asking how accurate the system’s alerts are relative to the number of incidents it successfully detects.

These approaches could help calibrate systems more responsibly by testing how often an algorithm wrongly flags people or locations. Fine-tuning can improve system performance. But the techniques cannot resolve the underlying question of how much algorithmic uncertainty society is willing to tolerate.

In law, legal standards of proof determine how convincing evidence must be before a judge or jury can rule in favor of a plaintiff or defendant. Courts use formal standards of proof depending on the stakes, such as probable cause, preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. These standards reflect a societal judgment about how much uncertainty is acceptable before exercising legal authority. A court does not accept a guess or a prediction; it follows a process to weigh evidence. Unlike humans, an AI model does not usually say, “I’m not sure.” A model typically has confidence in its reply, even when the answer is incorrect.

Stakes are rising as AI enters the courtroom, law enforcement, the classroom, the doctor’s office and the public sector. It is important for people to understand that AI does not know things the way many assume it does. It does not distinguish between “maybe” and “definitely.” That is up to us. We believe that technologists should design systems that admit uncertainty and need to educate users about how to interpret AI outputs responsibly.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Maria Lungu, University of Virginia and Steven L. Johnson, University of Virginia

Read more:

Maria Lungu is affiliated with the Digital Technology for Democracy Lab at the University of Virginia, Kennesaw State University, and the Center for DI and Digital Policy (CAIDP).

Steven L. Johnson is affiliated with the Digital Technology for Democracy Lab at the University of Virginia.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fresh off President Donald Trump's largely successful effort to oust several Republican Indiana state senators he viewed as disloyal, the governor of West Virginia is also trying his hand at retribution politics in a state primary on Tuesday.

Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey is not on the ballot, but he’s staking his political capital to reshape his party’s massive supermajorities in the state legislature more to his liking, including targeting several Republican incumbents for defeat.

The primaries will be a key test of the governor’s political sway two years into his term.

West Virginia voters also will nominate candidates for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. Meanwhile, Charleston’s Democratic mayor faces a primary opponent, and two state Supreme Court justices and a state Court of Appeals judge face opposition as they look to continue on the bench.

Some of Morrisey’s state legislative endorsements put him at odds with another prominent West Virginia Republican, U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who is seeking a third term.

In state Senate District 10, for example, Capito has endorsed incumbent Republican state Sen. Vince Deeds, while Morrisey is backing his challenger, Jonathan Comer, a pastor.

This isn’t the first election in which Capito and Morrisey find themselves rooting for opposing sides of a West Virginia primary campaign. In 2024, Morrisey narrowly defeated Capito’s son Moore Capito for the GOP gubernatorial nomination.

In the U.S. Senate primary, Capito faces five challengers, including state Sen. Tom Willis, whose candidacy has prompted some Senate Republicans to pick sides. Willis touts endorsements from six of his fellow GOP state senators, including Senate President Randy Smith. Capito has endorsements from 15 state senators. She also has a key endorsement from Trump, which may neutralize some of Willis' attacks on her record.

In Charleston, Democratic Mayor Amy Goodwin seeks a third term but first must clear another primary challenge from Martec Washington, a community advocate who placed a distant second behind Goodwin in the 2022 mayoral primary. Republican Brian Hunt is unopposed for the Republican nomination.

State Supreme Court Justices Tom Ewing and Gerald Titus face challengers in their special elections to continue serving on the high court. Both were appointed in 2025 to fill vacancies. Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Dan Greear faces a challenge from Jim Douglas in his bid for a 10-year term.

Here are some of the key facts about the election and data points the AP Decision Team will monitor as the votes are tallied:

When do polls close?

Polls close at 7:30 p.m. ET.

What’s on the ballot?

The AP will provide vote results and declare winners in contested primaries for the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, the state Senate and House and mayor of Charleston, as well as general elections for the state Supreme Court and the state Court of Appeals. There are also three state Senate special elections.

Who gets to vote?

West Virginia voters registered with a political party may vote only in their own party’s primary. In other words, Democrats can’t vote in the Republican primary or vice versa. Independent or unaffiliated voters may vote in the Democratic or Mountain Party primaries but not the Republican primary. Voter ID is required.

How many voters are there?

As of April 23, West Virginia had about 1.2 million registered voters, including about 520,000 Republicans, 327,000 Democrats and 302,000 voters unaffiliated with any party.

How many people actually vote?

In 2024, the GOP primaries for president, governor and U.S. Senate each had about 225,000 total voters, which was about 19% of registered voters at the time. Turnout for the Democratic primaries ranged from about 90,000 for governor to about 102,000 for U.S. Senate.

How much of the vote is cast early or by absentee ballot?

About 30% of the vote in the 2024 primaries was cast before Election Day.

As of May 5, about 36,000 ballots had already been cast in Tuesday’s election, more than 17,000 from Republicans, about 13,600 from Democrats and about 3,600 from voters unaffiliated with any party.

When are early and absentee votes released?

Roughly 60% of West Virginia’s 55 counties tend to report all or nearly all of their early and absentee vote results in the first vote report of the night.

How long does vote-counting usually take?

In the 2024 Republican U.S. Senate primary, The Associated Press first reported results at 7:41 p.m. ET, or 11 minutes after polls closed. The vote count surpassed the 90% mark at about 10:06 p.m. ET, with the final vote update of the night at 12:40 a.m. ET, with more than 99% of total votes counted.

When will the AP declare a winner?

The AP does not make projections and will declare a winner only when it’s determined there is no scenario that would allow a trailing candidate to close the gap. If a race has not been called, the AP will continue to cover any newsworthy developments, such as candidate concessions or declarations of victory. In doing so, the AP will make clear that it has not yet declared a winner and explain why.

How do recounts work?

There are no automatic recounts in West Virginia, but a candidate may request and pay for one regardless of the margin of victory. The cost is refunded if the recount changes the outcome. The AP may declare a winner in a race that is subject to a recount if it can determine the lead is too large for a recount or legal challenge to change the outcome.

Are we there yet?

As of Tuesday, there will be 175 days until the 2026 midterm elections.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the 2026 election at https://apnews.com/projects/elections-2026/.

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Ahead of travelling to China tomorrow, Donald Trump is in Washington today.

We’re expecting to hear from the president a couple of times. First at an event for maternal healthcare in the Oval Office at 10:30am ET. Later, at 4pm ET, he’ll welcome the 2026 College National Football Champions, Indiana University, to the White House.

Donald Trump will arrive in Beijing this week knowing that Xi holds all the cards

Like an out-of-control wrecking ball, swinging wildly back and forth, Donald Trump smashes up the international order without much thought for the consequences. Lacking coherent strategies, workable plans or consistent aims, he power-trips erratically from one fragile region, tense warzone and complex geopolitical situation to another, leaving misery, confusion and rubble in his wake. Typically, he claims a bogus victory, demands that others repair the damage and pick up the tab, then looks around for something new to break.

The president will bulldoze into another international minefield this week – the fraught standoff between China and Taiwan – when he travels to Beijing for a two-day summit with President Xi Jinping. After a string of humiliating policy implosions over Ukraine, Gaza, Nato, Greenland, and now Iran and Lebanon, needy Trump craves a diplomatic success to flaunt at home. But his hopes of vote-winning trade pacts are overshadowed by his latest war of choice. He needs Xi’s promise not to arm Iran if all-out fighting resumes – and Xi’s help keeping the strait of Hormuz open as part of a mooted framework peace deal.

The weakness of Trump’s position going into the summit is fuelling speculation that reduced support of Taiwan may be Xi’s price for playing nice.

A diplomatic minefield ahead of Trump's visit with Xi Jinping in China

Vivian Ho

Hello and welcome to our live coverage of US politics.

Donald Trump is scheduled to travel to China this week to meet with Xi Jinping, China’s leader. It will be the first time a US president has visited China in nearly a decade, with the last visit being Trump in 2017. But given all that has happened so far in Trump’s second term – a trade war and then an actual war with Iran that has led to oil and gas prices skyrocketing worldwide – the mood of this visit is likely to be quite different.

While the US and China had agreed to a temporary truce in October in the trade war Trump unleashed last year, China’s response to tariffs that reached as high as 145% at one point – restricting the export of rare earths, a move that brought some factories in the US to a screeching halt – was likely an unwelcomed reality check for Trump; one that revealed China’s true economic might.

Then there’s the issue of of China’s influence with Iran, as the biggest biggest buyer of Iranian oil. The US Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has called on China to “step up with some diplomacy” – essentially asking for Beijing’s help in a war that Washington started – while ast the same time trade representative Jamieson Greer said Trump planned to address China’s ongoing energy purchases from Iran.

Last week, the US imposed sanctions on several China-based companies, alleging that they provided “satellite imagery to enable Iran’s military strikes against US forces in the Middle East” and enabled “efforts by Iran’s military to secure weapons, as well as raw materials with applications in Iran’s ballistic missile and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programs”.

On Monday, China spoke out against these sanctions, describing them as illegal and unilateral, Reuters reported.

“We have always required Chinese enterprises to conduct business in accordance with laws and regulations, and will firmly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises,” spokesperson Guo Jiakun said at a regular press briefing.

“The pressing priority is to prevent by all means a relapse in fighting, rather than using the war to maliciously associate and smear other countries.”

More to come.

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.

Dante's famous 14th century epic poem, "Inferno," which is the first part of the Italian writer's "Divine Comedy," represents the first time a giant impact of a massive object falling from the heavens was envisaged, according to an expert in the specialized field of geomythology.

In the poem, the massive object in question is the Devil himself, Lucifer, who fell onto the Earth after being expelled from heaven. Yet, according to Timothy Burberry of Marshall University in West Virginia , this fall and subsequent impact is described by Dante in very similar terms to an asteroid impact. Burberry is a professor of English and an expert in geomythology, a field which involves searching old folk tales, myths and stories for evidence of real geological events. Written between 1308 and 1321, Dante's "Inferno" depicts the main character — Dante himself — being guided through Hell by the spirit of the ancient Roman poet Virgil. In what is considered one of the greatest works in the history of European literature, Dante and Virgil travel to the Underworld, where they are taken across the River Styx to Hell by the ferryman Charon — in fact, two of Pluto's moons, Charon and Styx, are named after these details.

The characters then cross the nine concentric circles of hell, beginning with Limbo and then various circles where the souls of those who commit different sins end up. Along the way, the poets encounter the likes of Cleopatra and the various antagonists of the Trojan War — Achilles, Helen of Troy and Paris — in the second circle where those who fell under the sin of lust end up. Further into Hell, in the seventh circle, those who committed great violence, such as Alexander the Great and Attila the Hun, are found. And at the very center of Hell is Satan himself, the traitorous Archangel Lucifer, depicted as a monstrous creature with wings and three heads. Each of those three heads is literally eternally chewing on the bodies of history's three greatest traitors up to that point, at least from Dante's point of view: Brutus and Cassius who had Julius Caesar murdered, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus.

The pertinent part, from the point of view of Burberry, comes towards the end of Inferno. Dante and Virgil escape Hell by clambering down Satan's monstrous hide and through Earth's center of gravity. Having descended from the northern hemisphere, they climb back up into the southern hemisphere.

Back in the 1300s, the Earth's southern hemisphere was largely unexplored and considered to be mostly ocean — indeed, even today we know it to be 81% ocean. However, Virgil explains to Dante that long ago the southern hemisphere had been completely covered in land. When God expelled Lucifer from heaven, Lucifer plummeted to Earth, smashing through the surface and continuing to burrow down until he reached the center of the planet, creating Hell. The displaced rock raced to the surface, forming the Mountain of Purgatory (which Dante and Virgil climb up in Dante's "Purgatorio," which is the second part of the "Divine Comedy"), becoming the central peak of a multi-ringed crater, the rings forming the nine concentric circles of Hell. The land of the southern hemisphere pulled away from this vile impactor, restructuring itself in the northern hemisphere.

Burberry therefore argues that what Dante is describing is an impact of an asteroid or a comet, violent enough to restructure large parts of the Earth. Perhaps it was similar to the impact thought to have contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago, or even the impact that formed the moon 4.5 billion years ago.

If Burberry is correct, then this would be remarkable foresight from Dante.

In the fourteenth century the heavens were considered to be (mostly) fixed and eternal and the concept of things falling to Earth from the stars was unheard of. In fact, it took until the first half of the nineteenth century for meteors to be recognized as being a celestial, not atmospheric, phenomenon, and that meteorites came from space.

"Although Dante was not a scientist, he was one of the first persons in history to think through the physical effects of a large mass slamming into the Earth at high speed," writes Burberry in the abstract of his paper about the subject. "In Dante's vision, the Devil's size and velocity are such that when he lands, he instantly creates Hell: a massive, circular, terraced crater that reaches to the center of the Earth."

Regardless of whether Dante meant to depict an impact from space or not, it does illustrate how geomythology can preview threats from natural disasters long before our scientific knowledge can catch up, argues Burberry. Given the era in which Dante's "Inferno" was written, before Copernicus and Galileo, by describing something falling to Earth Dante was highlighting an idea that indeed went against the established norm at that time.

Burberry presented his research in a poster at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly in Vienna, Austria, held between May 3–8.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Newcastle United Foundation has painted benches in the city's Leazes Park to highlight mental health and encourage fans to talk to each other.

Defender Dan Burn spoke to BBC Sport about the work being done and how important it is to "check in".

If you have been affected by any of the issues in this story, help and support is available at BBC Action Line.

In Congress, Katie Porter’s blunt, combative style helped rocket her to progressive stardom. It has also become her biggest vulnerability as she campaigns to be California’s next governor.

Her brusque approach, prosecutorial instincts and suburban mom appeal fueled Porter's rise during her three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, where she rattled CEOs and Trump administration leaders and batted away GOP challengers in a competitive Orange County district.

Her tack, however, made her a polarizing force within her own party, where fidelity remains an essential currency of success and power. In Congress, Porter clashed with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and L.A.'s Rep. Maxine Waters.

The same rough edges that endeared Porter to many voters have also alienated some Democratic insiders and interest groups whose support could prove critical in the race to replace outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom.

"She came in [to the governor's race] as an outsider, as a mom, as a fighter. She wasn’t pulled into the establishment," said Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. "I think that’s why she’s popular with voters, because they want somebody who’s going to fight, and sometimes that ruffles feathers."

In the campaign for governor, Porter, a single mother of three, has struggled to convert grassroots popularity into broader institutional support. Even after former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race amid allegations of sexual assault, she has yet to see a major surge in support or endorsements from Democratic power brokers.

Read more: Top takeaways from fiery, at times ugly, California governor debate on CNN

A pair of embarrassing videos continue to hang over her campaign. The videos, which surfaced in October, showed Porter yelling at a staff member and threatening to walk out of a television reporter’s interview.

As former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra has ascended and she remained stagnant in polls following Swalwell’s exit, Porter has increasingly sought to redeem her image. She poked fun at the incident with her staffer in an ad, smilingly asking a group of whiteboard-wielding supporters behind her to “please get out of my shot.”

In recent debates, Porter has sought to play up the qualities that made her a standout among resistance-era progressives, needling former hedge fund executive Tom Steyer over his past investments in private prisons and the pressing Becerra for a "yes" or "no" on statewide single-payer healthcare. Porter emphasizes her support for single-payer healthcare, providing free child care and college tuition and making wealthy corporations pay their "fair share" in taxes.

Porter said she wants to increase taxes on the state's wealthiest residents but doesn't support the proposed billionaire's tax ballot measure because it is a "one-time tax" that won't solve the state's underlying budget issues.

During a particularly chaotic debate last week, she scolded her opponents’ incessant interruptions and called out what she considered a double standard over her behavior.

“I can't believe, with [the] interrupting and name-calling and shouting and disrespect for everyone up here who’s stepping into public service that anyone wants to talk about my temperament,” she said during the May 5 debate on CNN.

Though she acknowledged she mishandled both caught-on-tape situations and said she apologized to the staffer, the videos hindered her early momentum and have undercut her efforts to make inroads with potential allies in the race.

Influential lawmakers, labor groups and party insiders have coalesced behind Becerra and Steyer, her top Democratic rivals.

Porter has scored some key endorsements. She is one of three candidates backed by the California Federation of Labor Unions, along with Steyer and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. She also has support from Teamsters California, the National Union of Healthcare Workers and progressive groups such as Emilys List and California Environmental Voters, which dual-endorsed her and Steyer.

Union support is pivotal for Democratic candidates in California, sending a clear signal that they support the priorities of working-class voters. For Porter, who has proudly refused to accept corporate donations throughout her political career, the labor endorsements also help her attract the small-dollar donations that are essential to her campaign.

Read more: Your guide to the race for California governor: Who will replace Newsom?

While in Congress, Porter proved to be a prodigious fundraiser. In her last reelection campaign for the House of Representatives in 2022, she raised more than $25.6 million in contributions — the second-most in Congress, behind only Bakersfield's Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who was then the House Republican leader.

Still, her backing from elected Democrats remains comparatively thin. Along with her mentor, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), just three members of Congress have endorsed her gubernatorial bid: Reps. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, Dave Min of Irvine and Derek Tran of Huntington Beach. She also picked up an endorsement from Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine) after Swalwell dropped out.

Though none would speak publicly, multiple sources who work in and around the state Capitol expressed concerns about Porter’s temperament and her willingness to work collaboratively with people she disagrees with.

“Katie Porter hurt herself big time because she needs anger management and she doesn’t have the temperament” to be governor, Democratic former Sen. Barbara Boxer said during a recent interview with NewsNation’s Leland Vittert.

Through her campaign spokesperson, Porter's declined to be interviewed for for this story.

Defenders argue the backlash reflects a double standard for women in politics — a salient point in a state that, despite its liberal reputation, has never elected a woman as governor.

“Sacramento sizes up every gubernatorial candidate the same way: Can they win, and is this someone I actually want to work with?” said Elizabeth Ashford, a Democratic consultant who is not working with any of the candidates running for governor. “The videos showed an angry woman, and for a lot of people that translated to ‘I don't want her as my boss.’

“It's a double standard that dogs women in politics. Jerry Brown was famous for his loud, unfiltered outbursts and nobody questioned whether he was up to the job,” said Ashford, who served as the former governor’s deputy press secretary.

Gonzalez agreed, arguing that women who stand up for themselves “are often labeled as ‘difficult.’ Probably a lot of people think I’m difficult," the labor leader added with a laugh.

Read more: Your guide to the California governor candidates' views on housing and homelessness

Born in Iowa, Porter often connects her politics to her family’s financial struggles after losing their farm during the 1980s farm crisis. She earned degrees from Yale and Harvard, where she studied bankruptcy law under Warren. In 2012, while working as a law professor at UC Irvine, Porter was appointed by then-Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris to oversee California’s $18-billion mortgage settlement.

After defeating Republican incumbent Rep. Mimi Walters in 2018, Porter quickly emerged as one of the Democratic Party’s most recognizable progressives. Armed with a whiteboard and other visual aids in congressional hearings, she confronted banking and pharmaceutical executives over drug prices, consumer debt and corporate profits.

The props, theatrical at times, seemed to aggravate Waters, then the Democratic chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee. On several occasions, Waters sided with Republicans who challenged Porter's use of visual and audio aids during hearings.

“Please do not raise your board. We’ve talked about this before,” the chairwoman scolded when Porter tried to hold up a “Financial Services Bingo” card during a 2019 hearing on debt collection. (She later got to show the board on “Late Night with Seth Meyers.”)

Eager to force change they campaigned on, Porter and other freshmen, including members of “The Squad,” at times clashed with Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.

Porter has slammed lawmakers, including Democrats, for stock trading and funneling earmark funding to their home districts, arguing that such practices breed corruption and mistrust in Congress. The critiques irked Pelosi, a powerful force in California politics.

In her second term, the Orange County Democrat lost her coveted spot on the Financial Services Committee after she listed it as her third choice and requested a waiver to stay on it. Typically, members prioritize such high-profile committees and request waivers to serve on lesser ones in addition. The move was seen as a risk, the result a check on Porter’s ambition.

“So many of us, regardless of ideology, run on ‘shaking up Washington.’ But then when you actually come here, there’s a lot of consequences for doing that,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told The Times after Porter lost the committee position.

Porter’s willingness to buck party norms also raised eyebrows during her Senate campaign, when she entered the race for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat before Feinstein had announced retirement plans in early 2023. Although then-Rep. Adam Schiff also launched an early campaign, he did so only after privately seeking Feinstein’s blessing. She ultimately finished third in the primary.

Read more: Democrats loved Katie Porter when she bashed Trump. Now she is making them squirm

Her decision to run for Senate did not ingratiate her with Washington's Democratic leadership. The party was forced to spend millions to ensure another Democrat was elected to her contested Orange County congressional seat, and Schiff, her top rival in the race, was a close ally of Pelosi — who endorsed him — and helped lead the first impeachment effort against President Trump.

Controversy surrounding Porter’s personal relationships have also surfaced during previous campaigns. In 2024, she obtained a five-year restraining order against a former boyfriend who she said bombarded her and her children with threatening messages.

When a whisper campaign about the end of her marriage threatened her first House run, Porter shared details of her 2013 divorce with the Huffington Post, including that her ex-husband, Matthew Hoffman, physically intimidated and verbally abused her. Hoffman also claimed to be the victim of abuse, including an incident in which Porter allegedly threw hot mashed potatoes at him. Both filed for restraining orders and sought anger management during the divorce.

Former employees have also rallied to her defense. In an open letter last month, 30 former staffers described Porter as a “workhorse” who “asked of us what she expected of herself.”

“She demanded a lot, but she also fought for us, mentored us, and stood by us when life got hard,” the former aides wrote. “We believe the public should understand the full person we know, not a caricature built from a few clips on a bad day.”

Porter has argued that voters are looking for someone willing to challenge powerful interests rather than accommodate them.

“It’s on me to keep campaigning and keep demonstrating that,” she told reporters after a recent gubernatorial debate in San Francisco. “It’s also not lost on me that the last time the Democratic Party had a woman nominee for governor was 1994, when I was in college.”

The affordability crisis is at the forefront of the race to replace term-limited Newsom. As a single parent, Porter argues she is acutely aware of gas and grocery prices — as well as higher-stakes consequences.

She described feeling shocked when, during a recent conversation with her 17-year-old son, he asked if she would visit him if he moved to another state.

“I said, ‘Paul, you love California, why would you leave California?’ And he said, ‘Well, I'm thinking I might want to have a family and I might want to have a house, and I know that means I’ll have to leave California,’” Porter recounted at a March forum hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors. “We need to be a state that doesn't just retain people like my son … but welcomes new families.”

The centerpiece of her proposed "affordability solutions" are free child care, free tuition at UC and CSU schools for students who complete two years of community college, and ending income taxes for those who earn less than $100,000 — an idea she acknowledges she “stole” from Republican candidate Steve Hilton. “I will take a good idea anywhere I can get it,” she said at a recent forum.

To pay for it, Porter would impose a progressive corporate tax, meaning more profitable businesses and corporations would pay a higher rate. A less than 1% tax hike on businesses that earn hundreds of millions in profit would bring in around $8 billion, according to her website.

“I think she deeply and personally understands the everyday struggles that so many Californians are grappling with right now,” said Petrie-Norris, who last month became the first state legislator to endorse Porter.

While Petrie-Norris describes herself as more politically moderate than Porter, the Irvine assemblywoman praised her as a "pragmatic problem-solver” and “proven fighter” who has taken on corporate interests and the Trump administration.

For a while, Porter was one of four women among the major candidates running for governor. One by one they have dropped out of the race, citing difficulties raising money and support.

After sharing the debate stage with five men recently, Porter was asked whether California is ready for a female governor.

“I sure as hell hope so,” she said.

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

By David Lawder and David Shepardson

WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) - As President Donald Trump prepares to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping this week, the U.S. auto industry and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are hammering him with a simple message: Please don't offer China any access to the U.S. car market.

Trump in January told the Detroit Economic Club that it ‌would be "great" if Chinese automakers wanted to build plants in the U.S. and employ Americans, adding: "I love that. Let China come in, let Japan come in."

His comments rang alarm bells in an industry ‌that had systematically lobbied successive administrations to bar Chinese cars from the U.S. market with tough data security rules and high tariffs on electric vehicles.

So automakers, suppliers, steelmakers, unions and politicians have redoubled their efforts, arguing that Chinese automakers, with limitless state support, massive scale, an ​EV technology edge and rock-bottom prices, would crush domestic and other foreign producers, hollowing out the core of the U.S. manufacturing base.

Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan went to the same forum in Detroit on Thursday specifically to urge Trump not to make a deal with Xi to allow Chinese investment in the U.S. auto sector that brings Chinese-brand cars into U.S. dealerships.

"Please don't make a bad deal," said Slotkin, who also promoted her bipartisan bill with Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio that would explicitly bar Chinese vehicles over data collection concerns.

Their Connected Vehicle Security Act, which has a bipartisan companion bill in the House of Representatives, would codify a data rule effectively banning Chinese vehicles implemented by former ‌President Joe Biden, making a reversal extremely difficult.

The House bill would go further, ⁠banning industry partnerships with Chinese companies. Congressional aides told Reuters that with broad support, the legislation could pass this year, possibly attached to a transportation spending bill.

"Every vehicle on American roads is a rolling data collection device, capturing information on location, movement, people, and infrastructure in real time, and we cannot allow Chinese vehicles or components to be ⁠a part of that system," sponsoring representatives Debbie Dingell, a Democrat, and John Moolenaar, a Republican, said in a joint statement.

They are both from auto-heavy districts in Michigan. Some 74 House Democrats and 52 House Republicans signed letters recently urging Trump not to allow Chinese automakers to enter the American market.

STOCKHOLM (AP) — The coffee might be poured by a human hand, but behind the counter something far less traditional is calling the shots at an experimental cafe in Stockholm.

San Francisco-based startup Andon Labs has put an artificial intelligence agent nicknamed “Mona” in charge at the eponymous Andon Café in the Swedish capital. While human baristas still brew the coffee and serve the orders, the AI agent — powered by Google’s Gemini — oversees almost every other aspect of the business, from hiring staff to managing inventory.

It is not clear how long the experiment will last, but the AI agent appears to be struggling to turn a profit in Stockholm’s competitive coffee trade. The cafe has made more than $5,700 in sales since it opened in mid-April, but less than $5,000 remains from its original budget of $21,000-plus. Much of the cash was spent on one-time setup costs, and the hope is that it eventually levels out and makes money.

Many cafe patrons have found it amusing to visit a business that's run by AI. Customers can pick up a telephone inside the cafe and ask the agent questions.

“It’s nice to see what happens if you push the boundary,” customer Kajsa Norin said. “The drink was good.”

Experts worry about AI's role going forward

Experts say ethical concerns abound, ranging from technology's role in humankind's future to conducting job interviews and judging employee performance.

Emrah Karakaya, an associate professor of industrial economics at Stockholm’s KTH Royal Institute of Technology, likened the experiment to “opening Pandora’s box" and said putting AI in charge can cause many problems. What might happen, he said, if a customer gets food poisoning? Who’s to blame?

“If you don’t have the required organizational infrastructure around it, and if you overlook these mistakes, it can cause harm to people, to society, to the environment, to business,” Karakaya said. “The question is, do we care about this negative impact?”

Founded in 2023, Andon Labs is an AI safety and research startup that says it focuses on “stress-testing” AI agents in the real world by giving them “real tools and real money.” It has worked with ChatGPT maker OpenAI, Claude’s Anthropic, Google DeepMind and Elon Musk’s xAI, and the startup says it is preparing for a future where “organizations are run autonomously by AI.”

The Swedish cafe is billed as a “controlled experiment” to explore how AI might be deployed going forward.

“AI will be a big part of society in the future, and therefore we want to make this experiment (to) see what ethical questions arise when we have AI that employs other people and runs a business,” said Hanna Petersson, a member of Andon Labs’ technical staff.

The lab previously held pilots that put Anthropic’s Claude AI in charge of a vending machine business and a San Francisco gift store. The vending machine simulation revealed some worrying traits: The AI agent told customers it would issue refunds but never did, and it also intentionally lied to suppliers about competitor pricing to gain leverage.

AI agent struggles with inventory orders

Mona got to work after it was prompted with some basic instructions, Petersson said. The team told it to try to run the cafe profitably, be friendly and easygoing, and figure out operational details by itself but ask for new tools if needed.

From there it set up contracts for electricity and internet, and secured permits for food handling and outdoor seating. The agent then advertised for staff on LinkedIn and Indeed, and set up commercial accounts with wholesalers for daily bread and bakery orders. It communicates with the baristas via Slack, often messaging them outside of working hours, which is a workplace no-no in Sweden.

Other problems have arisen, particularly related to inventory.

The AI agent has placed orders for 6,000 napkins, four first-aid kits and 3,000 rubber gloves for the tiny cafe — plus canned tomatoes that aren’t used in any dish the cafe serves.

And then there’s the bread. Sometimes the agent orders far too much, while other days it misses bakeries’ daily deadlines, forcing the baristas to strike sandwiches from the menu.

Petersson said the ordering issues are likely due to the AI assistant’s “limited context window.”

“When old memory of ordering stuff is out of the context window, she completely forgets what she has ordered in the past,” Petersson said.

Barista Kajetan Grzelczak said he isn’t worried about being replaced by AI just yet.

“All the workers are pretty much safe,” he said. “The ones who should be worried about their employment are the middle bosses, the people in management.”

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

May 10, 2026, 7:00 p.m. ET

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned Republicans their gerrymandering gambit might end up backfiring as he appeared on CNN to talk redistricting on Sunday.

Describing the “gerrymandering wars” currently raging across the nation, “State of the Union” anchor Jake Tapper explained how Democrats “decided to fight fire with fire” in response to Texas Republicans’ move to redraw its congressional map early and give themselves an edge in House races this November.

Politics: Marco Rubio’s Gift To Pope Leo Is Instantly Mocked As A Last-Minute Airport Buy

While California voters approved a plan to net Democrats an expected five seats, a new map in Virginia remains in limbo after being struck down by the state’s supreme court and now remains in legal limbo. Overall, Republicans have redrawn maps in six states, giving them a likely eight seat advantage in House elections.

Asked if the map melee means the GOP is likely to maintain a House majority come election day, Clyburn told Tapper his political rivals shouldn’t bank on anything.

Like this article? Keep independent journalism alive. Support HuffPost.

“Well, they might and they might not, because I do believe that the voters in this country are watching very closely, and they are feeling, emotionally, what the threat is to our future,” said Clyburn, whose own office could be in jeopardy if South Carolina Republicans are able to slice up his district, the only Democratic House seat in his state. “And I do not believe that the majority of the voters in this country condone and will agree with what President Trump is doing.”

“South Carolina, our delegation, our House, talked with him, before yesterday, but the Supreme Court two years ago spoke to this district and said it was unconstitutional. But the president says he wants them to redraw the lines anyway!”

Politics: A Year After Trump’s Scolding, Zelenskyy Turns Out To Have A Lot Of Cards

Saying he believes the gerrymandering schemes could actually dilute Republican strongholds as well, Clyburn told Tapper, “All I’m going to say to that is be very careful what you pray for.”

“Because what I do believe is that when they finish with the redistricting, there will be the possibilities of at least three Democrats getting elected here in South Carolina to the United States Congress,” he went on.

Scrutiny of the national gerrymandering clash reached new levels this week after Republican lawmakers in Tennessee held a special session to carve up a majority-Black district in Memphis, the state’s lone Democratic stronghold.

The decision has been denounced as a way to disenfranchise Black voters, with activists and state Democrats describing it as a modern form of “Jim Crow” legislation.

Related...

Read the original on HuffPost

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

The secretary of state rose to national prominence by defying President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, but he is carefully trying to avoid the anti-Trump lane while he runs for governor.

Instead, he’s running an old-school campaign aimed at an old-school Republican Party: He’s holding low-key events compared with his GOP opponents’ flashier rallies, and he’s focusing on bread-and-butter issues, rather than harping on election security. At one Atlanta-area rotary club gathering in April, Raffensperger was all too happy to tout his business background and his pledge to cap property taxes. Everywhere he goes, he drops the word conservative.

“I have my own lane, and I feel good where we are,” Raffensperger told POLITICO after the event. “It’s the lane about being a Christian conservative businessman who’s built a business from scratch.”

At its core, Raffensperger’s candidacy is a test of whether the party’s non-MAGA guard can hold on in one of the nation’s premiere battleground states. He’s defied expectations before, fending off a Trump-backed candidate in 2022 to keep his current position. But 2026 poses a new challenge, as Georgia’s GOP has increasingly shunned its small government roots in favor of aligning with the populist right.

Raffensperger maintains he has a path to victory. Asked whether Trump’s grip on the party is complicating it, he deflected: “I'm doing just fine. I'm going to be in the run-off.”

But the reality is Raffensperger is still struggling to break through in the governor’s race, polling at a consistent third place behind Trump-backed Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and billionaire Rick Jackson ahead of the May 19 primary. Republican strategists and officials in the state were widely skeptical of Raffensperger’s chances of success.

“This is the party of Trump today — like it or not, it is — and I find it very difficult to see someone being able to be anti-Trump in a Republican primary and be successful,” said Casey Cagle, a Republican who served as lieutenant governor from 2007 to 2019. He’s experienced the rise of the MAGA base firsthand and has since tacked further to the right.

“The base has grown far, far greater to the right than what it was in my day,” said Cagle, who is supporting Jones in the governor’s race. “The core of the Republican Party has moved far away from the Chamber of Commerce mindset.”

Before February of this year, Raffensperger seemed poised to draw enough support in the primary to keep Jones under the 50 percent threshold he needed to trigger a run-off election. Then Jackson upended the race with his bombastic spending and MAGA pandering, pushing Raffensperger further down in the polls.

Even if the secretary of state were to make a run-off against either Jones or Jackson, his chances of actually winning the nomination are still slim, said GOP strategist Jeremy Brand, who has worked on Gov. Brian Kemp-aligned committees and is unaffiliated in the governor’s race.

“It'd be incredibly tough,” Brand said. “The edge in a run-off where voters are traditionally more conservative, that are willing to come back out again, I think the odds go to the more conservative candidate.”

2020 election woes

Raffensperger has been battling his own party on various fronts since he first stood up to Trump.

A faction of the Georgia GOP tried to bar him from seeking office again on the Republican ticket. And local party leaders recently broke with precedent to allow the RNC to eschew its neutrality and spend resources on backing Jones in the primary. The MAGA base that failed to oust Raffensperger in 2022 is trying again to end his political career — along with others deemed insufficiently loyal to the president.

Attorney General Chris Carr, like Raffensperger, is also mounting a bid for governor and previously defeated a Trump-backed challenger in 2022. But he’s polling even lower than the secretary of state. And Gabriel Sterling, a former top Raffensperger lieutenant, is locked in a noisy primary in his bid for secretary of state as he faces off against a former Democrat-turned-MAGA acolyte and a GOP state representative who once served as Kemp’s top aide.

The 2020 election has continued to be a key litmus test in Georgia, especially as Trump continues to air his grievances over his loss. Several recounts and extensive litigation have only proven Raffensperger’s case that former President Joe Biden fairly defeated Trump in 2020. But many voters and candidates continue to question the truth of the results in a show of loyalty to the president, further isolating the secretary from the increasingly conservative Republican base.

“I voted for Trump. I wish he’d have won. I think he did win, I'm one of those people,” said Bruce Brooker, 72, outside a Jones campaign event in rural Atkinson County earlier this month.

An April POLITICO Poll found that most respondents who plan to vote for Republicans this midterm are still skeptical: Nearly 40 percent say the 2020 election was stolen, while 25 percent don’t believe it was but have questions about the election’s legitimacy. Just 25 percent say the election wasn’t stolen.

Raffensperger continues to defend his work and the integrity of Georgia's elections at large — “I'm really proud because we made elections more secure” — and is quick to highlight the changes he and state Republicans made in their 2021 overhaul of how the state conducts elections, which drew ire from Democrats and the MLB alike.

Still, several Georgia Republicans say he’s struggling to play catch-up as the base shifts away from his technocratic approach to politics.

“Brad stands in stark conflict to a party that is at the activist level very much aligned with President Trump, when Raffensperger is anything but,” said one former longtime state GOP official, granted anonymity to speak openly about evolving party dynamics. “His candidacy will be and is a test to determine if that lane still exists in the Georgia Republican Party apparatus.”

Raffensperger’s path forward

On a recent afternoon, Raffensperger, clad in a navy suit and striped red tie, headlined the Vinings-Cumberland Rotary Club’s weekly meeting, shaking hands and chatting with voters before taking his place behind the lectern at the front of the room. The state’s legislative session had ended barely a week earlier.

“What I thought I’d do is tell you where we are right now. We just finished up my last session,” he told the audience, ticking through accomplishments: streamlining professional licensing processes, securing an agreement to have money returned to victims of a local Ponzi scheme, and improving systems to make Georgia elections “free, fair and fast.”

It wasn’t the kind of red meat fodder that Republican politics thrive on in the Trump era, but the type of accolades that resonate with the kind of voters at the meeting, held just over the border from Atlanta’s city limits in suburban Cobb County.

Cobb County is one of several former Republican bastions surrounding metro Atlanta that have flipped blue as the Trump-styled GOP turned off suburban voters. Once the homebase for conservative stalwart former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the county voted overwhelmingly for former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 despite her statewide loss to Trump.

It’s still home to plenty of business-focused Republican voters who are not keen on the president — then-Sen. Marco Rubio carried the county over Trump during the 2016 GOP primaries, and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley performed nearly twice as well in the county compared to her statewide returns against the president in 2024. These are the voters Raffensperger is focused on, content to let Jones and Jackson battle it out for the MAGA class.

Jason Shepherd, the former Cobb County Republican chair, said the low-key civic group events have “been the hallmark of Brad Raffensperger’s success” and an emblem of the party’s business-focused past. It’s in sharp contrast with the attention-grabbing rallies that have defined Trump’s dominance of Republican politics.

Raffensperger’s quieter approach has previously served him well, when he overcame a 2022 primary challenge from former Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) who ran with the president’s endorsement. This time is different: Then, he held the power of incumbency and benefited from Trump's influence waning temporarily in the aftermath of Jan. 6 and his 2020 election defeat.

Now, Trump, back in power, has reaffirmed his iron grip on the party and Raffensperger is up against two MAGA candidates pining for the base’s attention. Add to that the fact he’s being massively outspent: His $4 million has been dwarfed by Jackson’s whopping $61 million and Jones’ $26 million in expenditures, according to an AdImpact analysis.

The Jones and Carr campaigns were quick to dismiss claims that the secretary of state had a path to the run-off and an eventual win. A spokesperson for Jackson did not respond to a request for comment.

If Raffensperger were to lose the primary, his loss would become another nail in the coffin for an old-school GOP that continues to resist MAGA. But his insistence that his lane — and version of the Republican Party — still exists is, for his closest allies, a testament to his persistence.

“Brad Raffensperger never really stopped from 2022 on,” said Sterling, the Raffensperger ally who’s running for secretary of state and has also faced MAGA’s ire for refusing to overturn election results. “He could have set up a foundation, gone around the country and just talked about democracy and he would have been applauded. Instead he chose to go into the battle and fight.”

Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu calls Virginia Supreme Court decision on redistricting "disgraceful" 07:30

The following is the transcript of the interview with Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat of California, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on May 10, 2026.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to California Congressman Ted Lieu. He is the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus and a member of the foreign affairs committee. He joins us this morning from Los Angeles. Good morning to you.

REP. TED LIEU (D-CA): Good morning, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are in Democratic leadership. You just heard us lay out what's going on with redistricting. How concerned are you that Republicans now hold the advantage given the recent court decisions.

REP. LIEU: Thank you, Margaret, for that question. Let me just first say Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers across America.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you.

REP. LIEU: Regarding your question, I would disagree that Republicans may have a nice- nine seat advantage, because that's based on data from last term, and the Trump coalition has completely collapsed because of skyrocketing gas prices, surging inflation. And if you look at the polling data and the results we've had in special elections this year as well as last year, we think the Republicans may have an advantage of anywhere between three to five additional seats. That is not enough for them to stop a democratic blue wave coming this November. And the best thing to do when a court does something outlandish, like the Virginia Supreme Court is to get back up and fight and make sure we win in the midterms.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But that Virginia push by Democrats, you spent more than $60 million on that redistricting effort. Wouldn't those funds have been better spent on those front line candidates and arguing on the issues?

REP. LIEU: So what the Virginia Supreme Court did was not only wrong, it was disgraceful. They basically said, hey, Virginia, spend all this taxpayers' money holding an election, do all this stuff and, oh, by the way, just kidding, that election didn't count. The court could have stopped this by not having the election in the first place. They suckered the people of Virginia. It was a complete disgrace. Now, most of the money that Democrats spend in the race is called (c)(4) money, so that's not direct, hard money that we're going to need for races in the midterms. But it was taxpayers money that was wasted because of the disgraceful--

MARGARET BRENNAN: --You think it was worth--, you think it was worth the financial cost. I mean, are Democrats going to somehow continue to fight this in court?

REP. LIEU: We're going to look at all available options. We're definitely going to try to keep fighting this battle. And I just want to note the best way again, if someone shoves you down, is to get right back up and fight back. And that's what we're going to do. And of these four seats in Virginia, we believe we're going to win two of them in the midterms, and that's what we're doing. We're fighting back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so you still believe that Democrats can retake the House? What is your main message?

REP. LIEU: We will take the House--

MARGARET BRENNAN: --On what message?

REP. LIEU: The American people voted in Donald Trump because they wanted lower costs and he lied to them. We have surging inflation, skyroti- skyrocketing gas prices. The Trump tariffs have raised costs across many products across America. People are drowning in debt and in bills, and Democrats are going to reduce health care costs, lower costs across the board, reduce your energy costs. That's the message we're--

MARGARET BRENNAN: --How are you going to do that? Democrats shut down the government to have an argument over health care, and they didn't get any policy concessions, and premiums went up. You lost that fight.

REP. LIEU: Well, actually, we passed through the house an extension of ACA tax credits for three years. We urged the Senate to pass that legislation as well, Democrats, when we get control, we're going to reverse the massive Medicaid cuts, the Medicare cuts and the cuts to ACA that Trump and Republicans put in last year.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about your position on the foreign affairs committee. Secretary Rubio said Taiwan will likely be discussed during President Trump's visit to China this week to meet with Xi Jinping. This is a hugely consequential summit. On Friday, Taiwan's Parliament approved $25 billion in funds to buy more American weapons. Are you largely supportive at this point of the Trump administration's willingness to strengthen Taiwan's defense?

REP. LIEU: Both Democratic and Republican administrations have had the exact same policy, which is to preserve the current status quo, and we're trying to keep China from doing anything stupid in the Indo-Pacific, including a military conflict. And I just want to emphasize that the Iran war has shown that we need a brand new strategy in the Indo-Pacific, because in any prolonged conflict with China or Russia, the U.S. will run out of defensive munitions. We already started running out of defensive munitions in a war that lasted less than 60 days, and even against a second rate military like Iran, they struck multiple U.S. bases. So in any overseas conflict, our overseas bases will be obliterated by Russia and China. We need a new defense strategy, and I call on the Pentagon to deliver that to Congress.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, President Trump has made these record large promises of arms sales to Taiwan. Are you saying that America actually can't deliver on them because the stockpiles are so depleted and the industrial base can't deliver?

REP. LIEU: That's absolutely correct. We don't have enough defensive munitions in any prolonged conflict with Russia and China that will sustain what we need to do. We could even do this in Iran of a war of less than 60 days. We started to run low on defensive munitions, and part of the problem is some of these missiles, for example, take a long time to make. We basically make 96 of some of these defensive missiles a year. That's just not enough.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about AI The Times report-- The New York Times reported that President Trump is considering an executive order that would implement some government oversight over new AI models. I know you have legislation on [audio gap].

REP. LIEU: I just want to first say, as a recovering computer science major, I think it is horrible for the AI industry to run wild, we need to have reasonable guardrails.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yep, okay--

REP. LIEU: Can you hear me?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Sorry, I think we're having- yeah, I think we're both having audio issues there, Congressman. But I'm going to go to commercial break here. Thank you.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

The following is the transcript of the interview with Sen. Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on May 10, 2026.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Arizona. Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, who joins us this morning from Austin, Texas, Welcome back to Face The Nation.

SEN. MARK KELLY: Good to be on Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator, CBS has reported that the cost of the Iran war is at least $50 billion I know you have been pressing the Pentagon on defining just how many of our munitions have been used up in the course of this conflict to date. You said you've been worried about how the US would hold up in a conflict with China because of all of this. Have you gotten an answer on how depleted us munitions are?

SEN. KELLY: Yes, Margaret, we we have, we've been tracking it a number of times. We've been briefed by the Pentagon on specific munitions. Actually, it's been pretty detailed on Tomahawks, ATACMS, SM-3, THAAD rounds, Patriot rounds, so those interceptor rounds to defend ourselves. And the numbers are, I think it's fair to say it's shocking the how deep we have gone into these magazines, because this president got our country into this without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline, and because of that, we've expended a lot of munitions, and that means the American people are less safe, whether it's a conflict in the western Pacific with China or somewhere else in the world, the munitions are depleted. You may have seen me ask the Secretary of Defense this question about how long it's going to take to replenish. We're talking about years.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you know, Admiral Paparo, the head of US Pacific Command, was recently asked in front of Congress about American readiness and whether the diversion to the Middle East was hurting it. He said he did not see any real cost on our ability to deter China. From what you have heard when you say it's shocking, do you think that the U.S. would be able to defend, for example, Taiwan, if China tries to move against it? Or are you saying we are not in a position to do that right now?

SEN. KELLY: Well, it all depends on the length of a conflict. You know, conflict that lasts a matter of days or just weeks, I think we're well positioned to do that. If a conflict goes on for months or years, when it takes years to replenish some of these munitions. Of course, we're going to be in a worse posture than we otherwise would be in if this war in Iran didn't happen. And by the way, Margaret, what are the American people getting out of this? This president said he wasn't going to start any new wars. He was going to bring down costs. He's done exactly the opposite. War against Iran. Costs on everything are up.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that is true. Of course know their argument that this was an inevitable conflict in some ways. But when it comes to making America ready to defend our allies and ourselves, does what you describe basically make it impossible for a Democrat like yourself to say no to that request from the White House for one and a half trillion dollars in defense spending?

SEN. KELLY: Well, first of all, let me, let me just back up a second. Things like this, nothing is inevitable. There are always other options. During the Obama administration, the Iran deal, the JCPOA kept the enrichment at a lower level, Donald Trump tore that up. That's the reason we're- we're here. But this also was not inevitable. There were other things that we could do. The $1.5 trillion request from this administration. It's outrageous. When I got to the Senate five and a half years ago, the defense budget was just over $700 billion. Now, they're asking for twice as much money. It's nearly the amount that the rest of the world pays for its defense.

MARGARET BRENNAN: -- So you're a no? --

SEN. KELLY: -- And as I pointed out in that- and I pointed, as I pointed out in that hearing, there's stuff in there, like the Golden Dome, the physics on that stuff is really, really hard. I'm very confident we're going to spend a lot of money, and we're going to get a system- that going to get a system that doesn't work. There are other things in there we do not need. I mean, they need to submit a defense budget that makes sense for the moment we're in.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, it sounds like you're saying no on that. Let me ask you about something that the administration released late Friday, and that was sanctioning four entities for providing satellite imagery to enable Iran's military strikes against U.S. forces and allies. Three of those entities are based in China. How extensive is China's support for Iran and targeting of American assets?

SEN. KELLY: Well, of course, China's supporting Iran. You know, so is Russia. I mean, they- they are allies. They're all adversaries of ours. So I'm not surprised.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Not surprised. Should there be a cost for it beyond these sanctions?

SEN. KELLY: Well, I- well, I think, you know, sanctions on whether it's on the Chinese for supporting Iran or the Russians, you know, for their war against our ally in Ukraine. You know, sanctions are a tool we have to try to get an effect from our adversaries. And this administration is not using the sanctions power it has with regards to Russia. I mean, we're trying to get them to put more sanctions on Russia, and this administration has been lifting sanctions on the Russians.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There is- you mentioned Russia, there is this three day cease fire in the Ukraine war to allow prisoner exchanges and this parade that Vladimir Putin holds annually. He said yesterday, the Ukraine conflict may be, quote, coming to an end, but it is still a serious matter. We know the American diplomacy has failed to date. How do you interpret what Putin said there?

SEN. KELLY: Well, I think it's a positive, you know, statement, we want this to end. Nobody wants this to end more than the Ukrainian people, I'm going to be traveling back to Ukraine here in about three weeks or so to meet with government officials, to get firsthand what the status of the conflict is, to hear from the Ukrainian people. We want this to end. They want it to end. I think one of the barriers to peace is that Donald Trump has not provided the support to the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian people, that Ukraine needs instead. You know, he often. I mean, we've seen this over and over again, how he's got this odd relationship with Putin. He refuses to press Putin, in a way. He's backed off on sanctions. He's not put the pressure on the Russian government with the tools that we actually have to get an outcome and get this thing- this conflict, to end.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we'll see if that position changes since the diplomacy Secretary Rubio says has not progressed. I want to ask you about your own case here. You were in court this past week. You are suing Defense Secretary Hegseth on the grounds that he violated your free speech rights. The Justice Department is arguing the video you made was calling on active duty service members to reject legal orders. I know you say it was just to resist illegal orders. You said it's going to go to the Supreme Court. Why do you think that that's where this is headed?

SEN. KELLY: Well, Margaret, I actually don't know, you know, how this thing ends. I mean, the Supreme Court could take it up. Maybe they decide not to. I do know this, that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump tend to double down on bad ideas. You know, that's why, you know, I said that. But you know, the bottom line on this thing is, this isn't about me, you know, I said something. It was very clear what we said, you know, do not obey illegal orders. They're saying I said something else, that doesn't make any sense. What they said in court just the other day, on Thursday is that if retired service members like me and the other 2 million retired service members out there want to be able to exercise their First Amendment rights, they can give up their retirement, so give up their pension, give up their healthcare, give up that retired status. Think about that for a second. The people who have given the most to this country, this administration wants them to give up their constitutional rights.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well one of the judges said that you are different because you have a bully pulpit, because you're a senator, that you're not the same as every other veteran.

SEN. KELLY: Well, I mean, my job is to hold this administration accountable. I'm on the Armed Services Committee. That's like, specifically that part of the constitution is a separation of powers, Margaret. My role as a United States senator on that committee is to speak out about these issues, and I said something that they didn't like. But again, this isn't about me. They're trying to shut people up, but in this case, they picked the wrong guy. I'm not going to let them violate my constitutional rights or the constitutional rights of 2 million retired service members. I had- by the way, I had service members, retired service members, there with me in the courtroom, because they understand what is at stake here. I mean, if the government was to win this, if Pete hegseth and Donald Trump got their way. I mean, they said I should be hanged, executed, and then they tried to prosecute us and throw us in jail. And now what they're doing-

MARGARET BRENNAN: --you referencing tweets--

SEN. KELLY: --yeah exactly and now they're trying to take away these rights, not only from me, but they said in court, 2 million retired service members can give up their rights.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Kelly, we'll watch what happens next in that case. Thank you for your time this morning, 'Face the Nation' will be right back. Stay with us.

Claire Moberg CBS News, "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" 740-707-1277

...

[Message clipped] View entire message

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Nearly six years after President Donald Trump and his allies sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election, a recent POLITICO Poll suggests that a notable number of Americans are distrustful of the system heading into November. More than one-third say it is likely the 2026 midterms will be “stolen,” and one in four say they don’t expect the elections to be fair.

But both parties clash strongly over what they believe are the core problems with U.S. elections, complicating any path to restoring voter trust.

Democrats are concerned about voter intimidation and suppression, with 58 percent of those who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris worried that eligible Americans will be prevented from voting, the survey finds. Meanwhile, Republicans remain focused on the possibility of fraud, with 52 percent of Trump voters saying they are concerned that some ineligible people will be allowed to vote.

The POLITICO Poll asked respondents about 11 common election concerns, ranging from partisan gerrymandering to impounding ballots, and whether people saw them as legitimate parts of the process or a way to rig elections. Of those, Democrats and Republicans had meaningful disagreement or lacked consensus on six.

Take expanding mail-in voting, for example. Once considered a largely routine way to broaden access to voting, a majority of Trump voters now say this can be a way to rig elections. Harris voters feel the opposite: 59 percent say expanding mail-in voting is a normally fair or always fair part of the electoral system.

Then there’s deploying ICE at polling locations. A majority of Harris voters say the practice would more likely be a way to sway election results, even as some Republicans haven't ruled out such a measure to strengthen election security. A 47 percent plurality of Trump voters say deploying ICE across polling stations would be normally fair or always fair.

The poll results reveal a striking truth as lawmakers continue to battle over election security: Even as a sizable share of Americans believe elections can, or will, be “stolen,” there’s very little agreement on what that even means.

“I don't think that we have a great working definition of what constitutes … a free and fair election,” said Stephen Richer, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute and former Republican county recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona. “I think it is entirely possible that even within the world that doesn’t think that elections are being hacked by Italian spy satellites, that we have a disagreement as to whether or not we’ve had a free and fair election in 2026.”

Trump often claims the 2020 results were “stolen” and blames mail voting, the lack of strict voter ID and proof of citizenship laws for opening the door to voter fraud — though courts and election officials have repeatedly upheld the legitimacy of those results. Many Democrats, on the other hand, are already bracing for Trump to interfere with the election and strategizing about ways to respond.

“President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

Doubt about election proceedings has still not overtaken the electorate — nearly half of Americans say they still expect the 2026 midterms to be fair. But the survey — along with interviews with election experts — underscores how rhetoric from leaders is trickling down to voters.

David Becker, the executive director and founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the divergence results partly from the strict echo chambers within the Democratic and Republican parties.

“This goes back to the problem where many of us are retreating into our media bubbles, where we hear a reality that only serves to validate our existing opinions,” he said.

For Democrats, their doubts appear to be going up as Trump continues to repeat false claims about the 2020 election and raise alarms about the 2026 midterms.

Nearly 40 percent of Harris voters say it is likely the 2026 midterms will be “stolen,” compared to 16 percent who believed the 2020 election was stolen — though comparing perspectives on a past election to a future one is not an exact measure. That’s roughly the same level as Trump voters who doubt the integrity of the 2020 results or who fear the 2026 midterms will be stolen — both at around 40 percent — according to the poll results.

The survey finds that some of the most significant areas of disagreement or distance between the parties are the prospect of ICE showing up at polls, mail-in voting, and requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Roughly 60 percent of Harris voters say ICE showing up at polling places would normally or always be a way to steal elections, compared to 33 percent of Trump voters who say the same.

The Trump administration has insisted that immigration officers will not be at polling places in November, but many Democrats have still expressed concern over the possibility. In March, nine state secretaries of state wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin seeking confirmation that immigration agents would not be present at polling locations in November.

“If you have ICE outside of a handful of voting locations, I think that there are some on the left of the pro-democracy coalition, or the previously existing pro-democracy coalition, who would say that it invalidates the fairness of an election,” Richer said. “And then there are those of us who would say … it's not ideal, and there are legal remedies, but that doesn't mean that the election was stolen or should be thrown out.”

The 2020 election marked a major turning point in rhetoric surrounding mail-in voting, when Trump repeatedly criticized the practice during the COVID-19 pandemic — allegations he has continued to press in the years since.

Roughly 55 percent of Harris voters say banning mail-in voting could lead to a rigged election, while Trump voters are split on the issue: 41 percent say banning mail-in voting would largely be fair, while 42 percent say this would be a way to steal an election.

And then there’s the question of voter registration, and whether to require proof of citizenship when voters register — a core objective of Trump’s SAVE America Act. Just under two-thirds of Trump voters say this would always or normally be a fair part of the election process. A plurality of Harris voters agree, but by a much smaller margin: 44 percent say this would be a fair election practice.

Even the idea of voter roll maintenance — a common part of election administration that Trump’s Justice Department has intensified by aiming to strip non-citizens from every state’s rolls — shows a partisan gap. Roughly 60 percent of Harris voters say the practice of “purging voter rolls” is normally or always a way to steal an election, compared to just 46 percent of Trump voters.

There are areas where the parties agree. Pluralities or majorities of both groups agree that same-day voter registration and signing up new voters outside of churches are largely fair.

Majorities of both Trump and Harris voters say partisan gerrymandering can be a way to steal elections, which comes as officials in both parties engage in an intensifying redistricting arms race. There is also a near-majority consensus that seizing or impounding ballots can be a way to rig results. Earlier this year, the FBIseized 2020 election ballots from the Fulton County elections office in Georgia, and a federal judge recently ruled that the Justice Department can keep the election records as part of its search.

Still, election experts say the overall partisan divide is dampening voters’ confidence.

“We've now had multiple years in a row of state legislators passing and introducing and passing laws that are targeting voter access — making it harder to participate in the electoral process — where the actual mechanics of elections have been politicized, and that too takes its toll,” said Wendy Weiser, the Brennan Center for Justice's vice president for democracy.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

WASHINGTON (AP) — Weeks before his trip to China, President Donald Trump was already predicting on social media that his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, would “give me a big, fat hug when I get there.”

But Beijing’s deep economic ties to Iran, as well as trade tensions over tariff threats stretching back to Trump’s first term, could crimp the good feelings when Trump flies to Beijing this week — even though the Republican president has for years effusively praised Xi, making it clear he sees China’s leader as a competitor strong enough to warrant his respect and admiration.

Trump isn't fond of long plane rides or extended stretches away from the White House or his properties in Florida and New Jersey. He is expected to only spend parts of three days on the ground in China.

There will be plenty of pomp, but the grandeur is not expected to rival Trump's first visit to China in 2017, which Beijing dubbed a “state visit-plus.”

“Even before this whole conflagration with Iran, they weren’t going to go state visit-plus like last time, just because things are tense,” said Jonathan Czin, a former director for China at the National Security Council during the Biden administration.

Xi's ‘better understanding’ of Trump

On Trump's first-term trip, China rolled out the red carpet for his arrival, with a band playing military music and children waving flags and chanting “Welcome.”

Xi offered a tour of the Forbidden City. Trump and first lady Melania Trump even had a private dinner there. Trump was the first foreign leader since the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949 to experience what was once reserved for emperors.

The following morning brought another welcome ceremony at the Great Hall of the People and featured a military parade. There also was a state banquet in Trump’s honor with video highlights from the Chinese leader’s previous visit to Florida and a clip of Trump’s granddaughter Arabella singing in Chinese.

Beijing does not offer this level of spectacle to most visiting foreign leaders. When British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited the Forbidden City in January, Xi did not attend and the site remained open to the public. Starmer had to contend with tourists.

Ali Wyne, senior U.S.-China research and advocacy adviser for the Washington nonprofit the Crisis Group, said the “Chinese delegation will likely do its utmost to ensure that Trump leaves Beijing believing that he has just concluded the most extraordinary state visit of his two presidencies.”

But, he said, the “pomp and circumstance would serve a different role now than they did when he first visited Beijing” because “Xi has a much better understanding of Trump, and the administration’s own national security strategy and national defense strategy recognize China as a near-peer.”

Expectations for what gets accomplished could be lower this time, said Czin, now a fellow at the Brookings Institution. He predicted that the Chinese may not offer major breakthroughs on trade or anything else because they are “working backward from our midterm elections” with the theory that the closer they get to Election Day “the more leverage they are going to have.”

The GOP is focused on retaining control of Congress, even as polling shows most Americans are unhappy with Trump’s economic policies and believe that the United States went too far in Iran. Still, the White House argues that Trump's previous firm hand with Beijing on tariffs — which the Supreme Court subsequently struck down — means the U.S. will remain in a strong position.

“President Trump cares about results, not symbols," White House spokesman Anna Kelly said. “But even still, the president has a great relationship with President Xi, and the upcoming summit in Beijing will be both symbolically and substantively significant.”

Trump and Xi may see a lot of each other this year

Trump could meet with China's leader four times in eight months.

After his visit to Beijing, Trump plans to host Xi at the White House. Trump might also attend the November Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Shenzhen, China. And Xi could come to the Group of 20 summit the following month at Trump’s resort in Doral, Florida.

Czin noted that Xi also is not very fond of travel, meaning not all of the planned encounters may happen. He said China's leader also does not “do personal connections" like the kind Trump relishes, noting Xi led a Chinese military purge in January that included replacing officials with long-standing personal ties to his family.

Wyne, though, said Xi also “appreciates that he is unlikely to deal with another U.S. president who admires him as greatly and embraces as narrow a view of strategic competition.”

That means Xi may "attempt to pocket as many economic and security concessions from Trump as possible,” Wyne said.

Trump has long praised Xi

Trump told The Wall Street Journal's editorial board in 2024 that Xi “was actually a really good ... 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.”

Trump even suggested at the time that military force might not be required to ensure that Chinese troops do not encroach on Taiwan, simply because China’s leader "respects me,” despite Trump more recently discussing potentially selling arms to Taiwan.

Trump has continued to praise the bilateral relationship since returning to the White House, even after his Beijing visit, originally scheduled for March, was postponed due to the early stages of the Iran war.

He unsuccessfully prodded China to get involved in reopening the Strait of Hormuz after Iranian forces choked it off and disrupted global economies. But China did use its leverage as the largest purchaser of Iranian oil to encourage Iran to agree to what has been a fragile ceasefire.

Beijing has strong economic ties to Tehran, and the war could hurt its economy, which was already projected to grow more slowly. If China can help establish lasting peace, though, that might boost its standing in negotiations on trade issues with the Trump administration.

Trade issues a sticking point

During his 2017 visit, Trump announced $250 billion in nonbinding trade deals, some of which never materialized. A round of trade deals announced in 2020 and worth $200 billion mostly never came to fruition before Trump's first term ended.

More recently, Trump’s announcement last year of steep global tariffs prompted China to cut off purchases of U.S. soybeans and clamp down on exports of rare earth minerals needed by American factories.

Tensions have eased somewhat since the U.S. reached a trade truce last fall that has limited tariffs on both sides. The administration has continued to make reducing the U.S. trade deficit with China a priority, insisting it can do so while still working to encourage trade between the two countries.

“I expect great stability in the relationship," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said. "But that doesn’t mean our trade deficit can’t continue dropping.”

Kelly, the White House spokeswoman, said Trump “doesn’t travel anywhere without bringing deliverables home to our country."

"Americans can expect the president to deliver more good deals for the United States while in China,” she said.

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker