Netflix picked up the rights to three more NFL contests amid government scrutiny over the migration of games from free TV to streaming.
The NFL’s first-ever regular season game in Melbourne, featuring the Los Angeles Rams and the San Francisco 49ers, will stream Sept. 10 on Netflix, the company announced Wednesday at its upfront presentation in New York. Netflix will present another NFL game first on Nov. 25 with a Thanksgiving eve game between the Rams and the Green Bay Packers at SoFi Stadium.
The streamer is also picking up a Saturday game in the final week of the regular season. With the Christmas double header Netflix has carried since 2024, the additions bring the total to five games next season.
The five games were a part of ESPN’s NFL package. ESPN relinquished the rights after the league took a 10% stake in the Walt Disney Co.-owned entity.
It was widely believed throughout the sports media business that all five games would go to streamers, split between Netflix and YouTube. But the other two will go to Fox, an international game that will air in the morning in the U.S., and NBC.
The two additional games are going to its traditional TV partners after politicians in Washington, including President Trump, raised concerns about the number of NFL contests that are moving off broadcast and behind streaming paywalls.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Fox Corp. Chairman Emeritus Rupert Murdoch visited Trump at the White House in February to warn how traditional TV networks could be priced out of the NFL due to competition from deep-pocketed streamers.
The Department of Justice has also inquired about whether the NFL is violating the antitrust status given to leagues when their teams collectively negotiate TV rights deals.
An NFL executive familiar with the deal who was not authorized to comment publicly said the added broadcast games are not related to the issues raised in Washington. “We always are looking for ways to increase reach at the benefit of our fans,” the executive said.
In recent years, the NFL has carved out a number of games from the broadcast packages to sell to Netflix and YouTube. Those games primarily come out of the regional Sunday afternoon games carried on Fox and CBS.
But the NFL makes the case that it offers 87% of its games on free over-the-air television than any other major sport. Games sold to streamers are still made available on the local TV stations in the local markets of the teams that are featured.
Questioned about his father’s meeting at the White House, Fox Corp. Executive Chairman Lachlan Murdoch told Wall Street analysts on Monday there is no tension between the league and his company, which has carried the NFL since 1994.
Murdoch also said there have been no new negotiations with the NFL, which has expressed a desire to redo its current media rights package that runs through the 2032-33 season but has an opt-out in 2030. Murdoch has previously said the company is paying fair market value in its current deal.
In addition to the international game in Week 10, Fox is getting an extra Saturday game in Week 15.
The NFL believes its product is undervalued in light of the massive $76-billion, 11-year contract the NBA entered with NBC, Amazon and ESPN last year. The NFL is in the middle of an 11-year deal that pays the league $110 billion for games that provide much higher ratings.
The league has also said the move to streaming in recent years — which includes putting the Thursday Night Football package on Amazon Prime Video — is necessary to reach younger viewers who are not watching traditional TV. The Thursday games are made available on free TV in the local markets of the teams featured.
The NFL does have the right to renegotiate with CBS before that opt-out due to the network’s transfer of ownership. CBS parent Paramount was acquired by Skydance Media last year.
The NFL and CBS are not close on the new deal. The league is looking to increase the network’s fee from $2.1 billion a year to $3 billion, according to people familiar with the discussions who were not authorized to comment.
The NFL is currently a break-even proposition for CBS at the current price.
But the NFL is at a significant advantage as the broadcast networks and their affiliated stations are dependent on the league, which provides a vast majority of the highest-rated programming on TV. NFL games give major leverage to TV station groups when they are negotiating new carriage deals from cable and satellite providers.
BEIJING — President Trump arrived in Beijing on Wednesday for his hotly anticipated talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the Iran war, trade and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
The meat of the summit doesn’t start until Thursday, when the leaders hold bilateral talks, visit the Temple of Heaven, where Chinese emperors once prayed for bumper crops, and take part in a formal banquet. But the Chinese offered Trump a pomp-filled welcome, literally rolling out the red carpet for him after Air Force One landed in the Chinese capital.
The president was greeted by Chinese Vice President Han Zheng; Xie Feng, China’s ambassador to Washington; Ma Zhaoxu, executive vice minister of foreign affairs; and the U.S. envoy to Beijing, David Perdue.
The welcoming ceremony included a military honor guard, a military band and some 300 Chinese youths waving Chinese and American flags and chanting, “Welcome, welcome! Warm welcome!” as Trump made his way to his waiting limousine. The youth greeters were decked out in white and robin’s egg blue outfits that matched the paint job of the iconic presidential plane.
President Trump walks with China’s Vice President Han Zheng during an arrival ceremony Wednesday at Beijing Capital International Airport, as Eric and Lara Trump, Elon Musk, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer follow.
(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)
“We’re the two superpowers,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House on Tuesday for the long flight to Beijing. “We’re the strongest nation on Earth in terms of military. China’s considered second.”
While Trump likes to project a sense of strength, the visit occurs at a delicate moment for his presidency as his popularity at home has been weighed down by the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran and rising inflation as a consequence of that conflict. The Republican president is seeking a win by signing deals with China to buy more American soybeans, beef and aircraft, saying he’ll be talking with Xi about trade “more than anything else.”
The Trump administration hopes to begin establishing a Board of Trade with China to address differences between the countries. The board could help prevent the trade war ignited last year after Trump’s tariff hikes, an action China countered through its control of rare earth minerals. That led to a one-year truce last October.
But Trump is visiting Beijing when Iran continues to dominate his domestic agenda. The war has led to the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, stranding oil and natural gas tankers and causing energy prices to spike to levels that could sabotage global economic growth. The U.S. president declared that Xi didn’t need to assist in resolving the conflict, even though Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was in Beijing last week.
Fellow rescuers carry the coffins of two members of the civil defense who were reportedly killed in Israeli airstrikes in Nabatieh the previous day, during their funeral in the southern city of Sidon on May 13, 2026. Israel hammered south Lebanon with strikes on May 12 ahead of talks between the two countries in Washington, as Beirut reported 380 people killed in Israeli attacks since an April 17 ceasefire took effect.
(Mahmoud Zayyat/AFP via Getty Images)
“We have a lot of things to discuss. I wouldn’t say Iran is one of them, to be honest with you, because we have Iran very much under control,” Trump told reporters Tuesday.
Taiwan high on the agenda
The status of Taiwan also will be a major topic as China is displeased with U.S. plans to sell weapons to the self-governing island, which the Chinese government claims as part of its own territory.
Trump told reporters on Monday that he would be discussing with Xi an $11 billion weapons package for Taiwan that the U.S. administration authorized in December but has not yet begun fulfilling. The arms package is the largest ever approved for Taiwan.
But Trump has demonstrated greater ambivalence toward Taiwan, an approach that’s raising questions about whether the U.S. leader could be open to dialing back support for the island democracy.
The Taiwanese flag at Democracy Boulevard is lowered at the end of the day as the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is seen in the background in Taipei on May 13, 2026.
(I-Hwa Cheng/AFP via Getty Images)
At the same time, Taiwan — as the world’s leading chipmaker — has become essential for the development of artificial intelligence, with the U.S. importing more goods so far this year from Taiwan than China. Trump has sought to use Biden-era programs and his own deals to bring more chipmaking to America.
The Chinese Communist Party’s news outlet, People’s Daily, published a strongly worded editorial ahead of Trump’s arrival underscoring that Taiwan is “the first red line that cannot be crossed in China-U.S. relations” and is “the biggest point of risk” between the two nations.
Trump was already portraying the trip as a success before he even left White House grounds. He openly mused about Xi’s planned reciprocal visit to the U.S. later this year, lamenting that the White House ballroom under construction would not be completed in time to properly fete the Chinese leader.
“We’re going to have a great relationship for many, many decades to come,” Trump said of the U.S. and China.
Counter snipers and other security forces watch over Air Force One while refueling at Joint Base Elmendorf during a trip with US President Donald J. Trump in Anchorage, Alaska, on May 12, 2026. Donald Trump was due in Beijing on May 13, 2026 on the first visit to China by a US president in nearly a decade, as he seeks to ramp up trade despite potential friction over Taiwan and Iran.
(Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
Trump embarked on Air Force One for the big meeting with a coterie of aides, family members and business world titans, including Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Tesla and SpaceX’s Elon Musk. While en route to Beijing, he posted on social media that his “first request” to Xi during the visit will be to ask the Chinese leader to bolster the presence of U.S. firms in China.
“I will be asking President Xi, a Leader of extraordinary distinction, to ‘open up’ China so that these brilliant people can work their magic, and help bring the People’s Republic to an even higher level!” Trump wrote.
Tajikistan’s President Emomali Rahmon and China’s President Xi Jinping attend a welcoming ceremony at the Great Hall of the People on Tuesday, in Beijing.
(Maxim Shemetov—Pool / Getty Images)
Despite Trump’s outward confidence, China appears to be entering the meeting from “a much stronger place,” said Scott Kennedy, a senior adviser on Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
China would like to reduce tech restrictions on accessing computer chips and find ways to reduce tariffs, among other goals.
“But even if they don’t get much on any of those things, as long as there’s not a blow-up in the meeting and President Trump doesn’t go away and look to re-escalate, China basically comes out stronger,” Kennedy said.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng met on Wednesday to discuss economic and trade issues at Incheon International Airport, just west of the South Korean capital of Seoul, according to the Chinese state run Xinhua News Agency.
Bystanders are kept back by police tape as they film the motorcade of President Donald Trump as he arrives at the Four Seasons Hotel on Wednesday in Beijing.
(Kevin Frayer / Getty Images)
Trump wants 3-way nuclear arms deal
Trump also intends to raise the idea of the U.S., China and Russia signing a pact that would set limits on the nuclear weapons each nation keeps in its arsenal, according to a senior Trump administration official who briefed reporters ahead of the trip. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House.
China has previously been cool to entering such a pact. Beijing’s arsenal, according to Pentagon estimates, exceeds more than 600 operational nuclear warheads and is far from parity with the U.S. and Russia, which each are estimated to have more than 5,000 nuclear warheads.
The last nuclear arms pact, known as the New START treaty, between Russia and the United States expired in February, removing any caps on the two largest atomic arsenals for the first time in more than a half-century. As the treaty was set to expire, Trump rejected a call by Russia to extend the two-country deal for another year and called for “a new, improved, and modernized” deal that includes China.
The Pentagon estimates China will have more than 1,000 operational nuclear warheads by 2030.
Madhani, Weissert and Boak write for the Associated Press. Boak reported from Washington. AP writers Darlene Superville in Washington, Huizhong Wu in Bangkok, Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul, South Korea, and Kanis Leung in Hong Kong contributed to this report.
CHONGQING, China — Three years ago, in the idyllic town of Woodside south of San Francisco, the United States and China held their first high-level talks on the dangers posed by artificial intelligence. President Xi Jinping and his longtime foreign minister appeared serious in their conviction that a channel should be a established between Beijing and Washington — a red phone for AI in case of emergencies.
They authorized a diplomatic effort that would begin in 2024 in Switzerland, only months before the U.S. presidential election. A large U.S. delegation arrived with high hopes that were abruptly dashed, according to four sources who attended the talks. The Chinese contingent dismissed American concerns over runaway AI as academic, almost theoretical, quickly turning the conversation to export controls seen in Beijing as yet another U.S. effort to hold China back.
“They naturally view any American diplomatic initiative involving limitations or restrictions of one flavor or another on a capability as being a trap,” Jake Sullivan, U.S. national security advisor under President Biden, said in an interview.
Despite the distrust — and Democrats losing the White House to Donald Trump — an accord was struck in November of that year in Peru, where both sides agreed to keep AI out of the command and control of nuclear weapons.
“It was a breaking of the seal that we could actually do something on AI,” Sullivan said. “In the transition, I told the incoming Trump team that they should really pick up that dialogue. But the Trump administration’s view was just far more laissez-faire, and they didn’t seem particularly interested in it.”
“That’s all changed in the past few weeks,” he added.
A Trump administration once eager to gun for technological supremacy is now, for the first time, reckoning with the power AI could unleash if left unchecked.
In a surprise reversal, quiet discussions have taken place ahead of President Trump’s state visit to China this week to explore reviving talks on an emergency channel, officials told The Times, prompted by shared alarm in Beijing and Washington over the debut of Mythos, Anthropic’s powerful new model.
One senior administration official told reporters Sunday that the White House was looking to create a channel of communication for AI like others that they have “in many areas that have intense focus with the U.S. and China.”
“I think what that channel of communication looks like, its formality and what that looks like, is yet to be determined,” the official said, “but we want to take this opportunity with the leaders meeting to open up a conversation. We should establish a channel of communication on that matter.”
Mythos’ capabilities are seen across the industry and government as those of an unprecedented cyberweapon, able to infiltrate and exploit digital communication systems — including government databases, financial institutions and healthcare programs — with untold consequences.
Whether an announcement will come to fruition this week is not yet clear. Any talks between the United States and China over AI regulations — designing some kind of arms control agreement governing the use of a technology that neither side fully understands or controls — will be fraught with suspicion, misunderstandings and risk, experts say.
“Right now, there is almost no support from U.S. policymakers to engage in formal discussions on AI governance with China,” said Aalok Mehta, director of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“The logic is that this is a winner-takes-all race,” Mehta said, “and that it’s imperative to accelerate AI progress to ensure that the United States wins that race.”
America in the lead
China would enter those discussions with a powerful argument, that U.S. leadership in AI — and the prevailing strategy of American AI companies — is propelling the world to a fraught frontier.
Every major U.S. player in the arena — OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Microsoft and Meta Platforms — is racing to be the first to build a model capable of artificial general intelligence, or AGI, a threshold without a common definition, but that most agree will require a model to perform any intellectual human task.
The prevailing theory is that the first to achieve AGI will secure a prize that multiplies itself: a self-training, recursively improving intelligence, growing exponentially and leaving all competitors in its wake.
Chinese companies, by contrast, are following a state-sanctioned strategy focused on integrating AI into siloed industries and systems, training models to improve individual tasks and accelerate growth in a more tailored approach.
“The Chinese believe there is no single race, but multiple races,” said Scott Kennedy, senior advisor on Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. “The U.S. is focused on achieving AGI, while China is focused on diffusion and applications of AI into the rest of their economy — manufacturing, humanoid robotics, all aspects of the internet of things.”
China scholars, AI industry insiders and successive administrations have questioned Beijing’s strategic thinking and forthrightness.
“It’s so baked into the community here that AGI will have this transformative potential that people can’t believe China isn’t focused on this, as well,” said Matt Sheehan, a scholar of global technology issues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace with a focus on China. “It says it’s focused on applications, but is that a fake out for an AGI program hidden in the mountains somewhere?”
But most insiders believe that Beijing’s guidance to Chinese companies reveals its true intentions.
“They are not as AGI-pilled as the United States is, and I think that remains the case today,” Sullivan said, “so they regarded a lot of the conversation in the U.S. around extreme frontier risk — misalignment and loss of control — as a bit abstract, and not really as relevant to how they saw AI diffusing in China.”
President Biden greets Chinese President Xi Jinping in Woodside, Calif., in 2023.
(Doug Mills / Pool Photo)
Although China’s progress has exceeded U.S. expectations — especially since DeepSeek released its model over a year ago — the state has focused computer power on specific applications rather than the broad strategy needed to develop more powerful models capable of advancing toward AGI.
“It’s not just chips. It’s money,” Sheehan added. “China’s leading companies are much more financially constrained than U.S. companies. There’s concern over a bubble here, but OpenAI is valued at something near $800 billion. Leading Chinese companies that have gone public are valued at $20 billion. There’s just an orders-of-magnitude gap in available financing.”
Still, some in the U.S. government fear China won’t need comparable computing power if it simply steals the technology wholesale.
Doing so isn’t simple. But last month, in a memo, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy accused Chinese actors of “industrial-scale campaigns to distill U.S. frontier AI systems,” in effect replicating the performance of the most advanced existing models “at a fraction of the cost.” The memo did not accuse Beijing of endorsing the activity.
In the process, the memo added, carefully constructed security protocols are deliberately stripped away.
China’s negotiating advantage
Whatever its strategic calculus may be, China would enter talks with the Trump administration trailing in the race — while disagreeing on the nature of the finish line.
AGI, in theory, could reach a stage of recursive self-improvement that results in a loss of human understanding or control. But if it is only the Americans, and not the Chinese, seeking to reach that threshold, then who is responsible to stop it?
Daniel Remler, who led AI policy at the State Department during the Biden administration and took part in the Geneva talks, cast doubt on Chinese claims of disinterest in AGI and ignorance of its risks. China falling behind in the race is no strategic design, he said.
“Chinese technologists are close observers of the U.S. AI ecosystem, and sometimes they say what they think,” Remler said. “Many were impressed by the [Mythos] model to the point of despair. Leaders in China’s top AI labs have been vocal in recent months, even before Mythos, about how compute-constrained they are at the frontier. Some have said they may never catch their American competitors.”
Talks at this point in the race could follow a familiar pattern in the recent history of U.S.-China diplomacy, in which Beijing claims it is behind the United States in development, ultimately securing a handicap and greater concessions at the negotiating table.
In other competitive domains — such as with China’s entry into the World Trade Organization and in cybersecurity negotiations between Beijing and the Obama administration — agreements were ultimately reached that Washington believes in hindsight disadvantaged American companies.
The Trump administration, Remler added, “needs to approach AI diplomacy with China with clear-eyed expectations anchored to our own national interests.”
Silicon Valley itself is divided over regulating AI. Anthropic, which was founded on concerns that other AI companies were failing to take safety and alignment concerns seriously, raised alarms over Mythos, its own model, to the Trump administration, a moment that has prompted reflection at the White House on the best path forward.
Spooked after meeting with leaders from America’s top banks over their vulnerabilities, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent internally advised U.S. government reviews of future model releases — a practice already underway in China, where the training parameters for models, known as “weights,” have been publicly released.
Even the suggestion of government oversight sparked backlash from Silicon Valley. Last week, the White House sent out a memo to reassure industry allies that submitting new models for federal review would be strictly voluntary.
If talks ultimately resume between Washington and Beijing on AI, experts believe the negotiations would be far more complex than those that resulted in arms control agreements governing nuclear weapons in the Cold War.
The superpowers would not only be discussing threats of instability to the global financial system, but also fears of proliferation — advanced AI tools getting into the hands of bad actors interested in using bio- or cyberweapons that could target both countries.
And they ultimately would have to decide whether to discuss regulating the integration of AI into the Chinese and U.S. militaries, an almost unfathomable goal between the world’s biggest adversaries, where trust is lowest and verification would be hardest.
Those in the industry who most fear what artificial superintelligence could bring have told the Trump administration that talks with China are an existential necessity.
Dario Amodei, the chief executive and co-founder of Anthropic, speaks at an event in New York in 2025.
(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)
But even within Anthropic, which has championed diplomacy, there are concerns that Beijing could exploit its current disadvantage to entangle American industry at the cusp of its crowning achievement.
Rather than pushing for a single sweeping agreement, industry insiders are advising the administration to pursue targeted deals with Beijing to mitigate specific risks, like the pact on nuclear command and control, two industry sources said.
In private, both Xi and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi seemed to understand that the gravity of the emerging technology before them required some form of cooperation, Sullivan said.
“At a conceptual level, I believe they had a conviction on that and authorized it,” Sullivan said, “but I believe their level of urgency was considerably lower than ours, and saw this as a longer-term process that would play out over time.”
“Their level of urgency and their stake in it has gone up,” he added.
The White House’s newly released strategy for tackling the nation’s drug and addiction crisis calls for a number of ambitious public health approaches that some experts say are laudable but will be hampered by the administration’s own actions.
The sweeping 195-page National Drug Control Strategy, published May 4, advocates for making access to treatment easier than getting drugs, preventing young people from developing addictions in the first place, increasing support for people in recovery, and reducing overdose deaths.
Those broad goals are widely supported by public health researchers, addiction treatment clinicians, and recovery advocates.
Many components of the National Drug Control Strategy are “things that we would agree with and that we fully support,” said Libby Jones, who leads overdose prevention efforts at the Global Health Advocacy Incubator, a public health advocacy group.
But there are “disconnects in what the strategy says is important and then what they’re actually going to fund,” she said of the Trump administration. “Those inconsistencies feel particularly loud in this strategy.”
The White House’s National Drug Control Strategy, released every two years, is a touchstone document meant to lay out the federal government’s coordinated approach to what in recent decades has been one of the country’s defining problems.
Since 2000, more than 1.1 million people have died of drug overdoses. Although deaths have decreased recently, the numbers remain elevated compared with earlier decades, and research suggests overdose death rates among Black Americans and Native Americans are disproportionately high.
The strategy document published this week is the first of President Trump’s current term. In keeping with the administration’s approach to addiction issues, it places heavy emphasis on law enforcement efforts to reduce the supply of illicit drugs. The document repeatedly refers to the ongoing “war” against “foreign terrorist organizations” — the Trump administration’s term for drug cartels — and touts increased enforcement at U.S. borders.
It also outlines plans to implement artificial intelligence technologies to screen for illicit drugs brought into the country and wastewater testing to detect illegal drug use nationwide.
The second half of the strategy focuses on reducing the demand for drugs through public health prevention efforts, addiction treatment, and support for people in recovery. It promotes the role of religion in recovery and calls for the widespread use of overdose reversal medications, such as naloxone.
In a news release, the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy called the document a “roadmap” that will “continue dismantling the drug supply and defeating the scourge of illicit drugs in our country.”
The Trump administration did not respond to requests for comment about how the strategy aligns with its other actions.
In December, Trump signed a reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act, which continues several grants related to treatment and recovery and the requirement for Medicaid to cover all FDA-approved medications for opioid use disorder. In January, he announced the Great American Recovery Initiative, including a $100-million investment to address homelessness, opioid addiction, and public safety.
However, few details have been provided about the initiative, and in January, about a month after the SUPPORT Act passed, billions of dollars in addiction-related grants were abruptly terminated and reinstated within a frantic 24-hour period.
That “whiplash” left “a sense of instability and uncertainty in the field,” said Yngvild Olsen, a national adviser with the Manatt Health consultancy. She led substance use treatment policy at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, under the Biden administration and left about six months into Trump’s second term.
That insecurity was exacerbated by the president’s 2027 budget request, which proposes cuts to several addiction and mental health programs and the consolidation of key federal agencies working on those matters. Jones’ group and nearly 100 others in the field have signed a letter asking Congress to reject the proposals, as it did with similar requests last year.
The national drug strategy adds new, potentially contradictory information to this confusing landscape.
Increasing Access to Treatment
One of the most significant public health goals in the strategy, mentioned at least half a dozen times, is to make it easier to get treatment than it is to buy illegal drugs.
National data underscores the necessity: More than 80% of Americans who need substance use treatment don’t receive it.
The administration’s actions on health insurance may make it difficult to improve that statistic.
Medicaid is the main source of healthcare coverage for adults with opioid use disorder. When implemented, the Medicaid work requirements in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act are projected to strip that coverage from about 1.6 million people with substance use disorders.
The last time Medicaid rolls were purged — after COVID-era protections expired — many people who had been receiving medication treatment for opioid addiction stopped it and fewer people started treatment, according to a study published last year.
Olsen, who is also an addiction medicine doctor, said she loves the strategy’s emphasis on making treatment readily available to anyone who wants it. But she said that’s “hard to really imagine when now people may have to pay for it themselves because they may be losing their Medicaid insurance coverage.”
One analysis estimated the upcoming Medicaid changes could lead 156,000 people to lose access to medications for opioid use disorder and result in more than 1,000 additional fatal overdoses per year.
People with private insurance may be affected too.
The Trump administration has refused to enforce Biden-era regulations aimed at bolstering mental health parity, the idea that insurers must cover mental illness and addiction treatment comparably to physical treatments. And recently, the administration said it would redo those regulations altogether, raising fears that addiction treatment could become increasingly unaffordable.
The administration did not respond to specific questions about how it reconciles its actions on Medicaid and parity with the goal of increasing treatment.
Prioritizing Prevention
The strategy highlights preventing addictions before they begin as one of the keys to reducing demand for drugs. It calls for “promoting a drug-free America as the social norm” and implementing school and community-based programs that are backed by science.
“Investing in primary prevention, before drug use starts, saves lives and resources,” it says, citing several studies about the cost-effectiveness of such programs.
Yet, the president’s budget proposes cuts to these types of programs, and federal layoffs have decimated the agencies that would implement such work.
“It’s not clear to me that they’re really going to be able to have the funds or the people to be able to carry that out,” Olsen said of the strategy’s prevention goals.
Another wrinkle appears in the strategy’s discussion of marijuana. The document points to marijuana use as one of the drivers of increasing drug use disorders and reports that “convergent evidence from multiple sources” suggests cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis. It calls for developing new tools to treat marijuana withdrawal and addiction.
However, just two weeks ago, the White House moved to reclassify medical marijuana to a lower tier of scheduled substances and is moving to hold a hearing to do the same for marijuana broadly.
“The administration, on the one hand, is moving in a direction of liberalizing access to cannabis,” Jones said, “but at the same time, in the strategy, it talks about the dangers of doing so.”
“There’s a disconnect there that just makes you question: Which one do you believe?” she added.
The administration did not respond to specific questions about its marijuana policies.
Stopping Overdose Deaths
One of the more surprising elements of the National Drug Control Strategy comes in the last paragraph of the final chapter. It focuses on public drug-checking programs, which often involve using test strips to help people who use drugs determine whether there are more-dangerous substances, such as fentanyl or xylazine, in the batch they bought. That helps them determine whether or how to safely use those drugs.
“Rapid test strips and similar technologies that detect fentanyl and other drugs are an important tool that should be legal,” the strategy document says.
However, SAMHSA announced in a recent letter that it would no longer pay for test strips, as part of the Trump administration’s “clear shift away from harm reduction and practices that facilitate illicit drug use.”
The administration has similarly attacked harm reduction programs in an executive order and its budgetrequests. It did not respond to specific questions about how this position interacts with the drug control strategy.
Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, wrote about the contradiction in a blog post: “It is the height of rhetoric over reality to champion a tool while simultaneously cutting off the funding used to acquire it.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
WASHINGTON — Debris from the demolition of the White House East Wing that was dumped at a nearby public golf course has tested positive for lead, chromium and other toxic metals, the National Park Service said.
An interim report by a Virginia engineering firm says the toxic metals, along with PCBs, pesticides, petroleum byproducts and other chemicals were detected at levels above laboratory reporting limits in soil at the East Potomac Golf Links, a historic golf course that President Trump plans to renovate.
The park service began dumping debris from the East Wing onto the golf course in October, and more than 810,000 cubic feet of excavated soil had been transported to the site as of last month, the report by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. said. The report was requested by the park service.
The nonprofit DC Preservation League has sued the Trump administration, arguing that the dumping was unlawful and possibly hazardous. The group also is challenging the Republican administration’s takeover of the golf course, about two miles southeast of the White House, and others in the city.
The suit is one of several legal battles challenging Trump’s extraordinary efforts to put his mark on public spaces in the nation’s capital, including renaming and shuttering the Kennedy Center and building a 250-foot-tall triumphal arch near the Lincoln Memorial.
At the end of last year, a separate group of preservationists filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the administration from demolishing the East Wing so it could build a ballroom, a project slated to cost $400 million.
A spokesperson for the Interior Department, which oversees the park service, said in an email Tuesday that the soil removed from the White House “was tested multiple times by multiple parties, and this project passed all standards set by law.”
Although the agency does not comment on litigation, “this thorough process was followed to ensure the transfer was safe for the public,’’ the email said.
The Preservation League’s executive director, Rebecca Miller, said Tuesday that experts were still analyzing the engineering report. The group also is concerned about whether the Trump administration is complying with federal laws including the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, she said.
Debris from the East Wing demolition is so prevalent that it causes golfers to detour around piles of it, Miller said. “If you Google you’ll see lots of photos of golfers walking past it,” she said in an interview.
The Trump administration’s plans to renovate the 105-year-old course to make it a professional-level course would permanently alter its historic character and layout, Miller said.
A federal judge told the government on Monday not to cut down more than 10 trees without first providing notice amid the legal dispute.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said during a remote hearing that she wasn’t going to issue a temporary restraining order just yet, but she indicated she would take a harsh view of any major alterations made without prior notice.
Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that is co-representing the Preservation League, said in a press release that “further scrutiny will be required related to potential toxins that were dumped at East Potomac Park by the administration as part of the destruction of the East Wing of the White House.”
Test results released by the government “suggest the Defendants dumped a cocktail of contaminants — and despite indications of the refuse’s contents, they continued dumping it,” the group said.
Kevin Griess, the superintendent of the National Mall and Memorial Parks for the park service, said during Monday’s court hearing there was no immediate plan to begin tree removal but added that a safety assessment was underway.
Trump, an avid golfer, also plans on renovating a military golf course just outside Washington that has been used by past presidents going back decades.
In its statement, the Interior Department said it is “committed to continuing the relationships we have built with the local golf communities to ensure these courses are safe, beautiful, open, affordable, enjoyable, accessible, and world-class for people living in and visiting the greatest capital city in the world.”
WASHINGTON — White House economists estimate that President Trump’s deals with pharmaceutical companies to drop some of their U.S. prescription drug prices to what they charge in other countries could save $529 billion over the next 10 years.
The analysis obtained by the Associated Press includes the first economy-wide projections behind a policy at the core of Trump’s pitch to voters going into November’s midterm elections for control of the House and Senate. Democratic lawmakers have been doubtful about the savings claimed by Trump and these new numbers are likely to trigger additional questions about the data.
Cost-of-living issues are at the forefront of voters’ concerns and higher energy prices tied to the Iran war have deepened the public’s anxiety. Trump has tried in part to address affordability concerns by focusing on his efforts to cut deals with companies so that the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. would no longer be dramatically higher than in other affluent nations.
“Now you have the lowest drug prices anywhere in the world,” Trump said at a Friday rally before a crowd of seniors in Florida. “And that alone should win us the midterms.”
The analysis was done by administration officials for the White House Council of Economic Advisers. They also estimated that federal and state governments could save a combined $64.3 billion on Medicaid during the next decade because of what Trump calls his “most favored nation” policy on drug prices.
Few of the details of the deals struck by the Trump administration and 17 leading pharmaceutical companies have been made public, making it hard to independently verify the projected savings. The White House analysis sought to estimate the prospective savings as more medications come onto the market and fall under Trump’s framework — with one model in the report tallying the possible savings at $733 billion over a decade.
Trump and his Department of Health and Human Services have touted his drug-pricing deals as transformative and urged Congress to codify their principles into law. Democratic lawmakers have challenged the administration’s claims of savings. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and 17 Senate Democrats in April proposed a measure requiring the administration to disclose the terms of the agreements signed by pharmaceutical companies.
“If these deals are so great, why is the Trump administration afraid of showing them to the public?” Wyden said when announcing the measure. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his team would share details that didn’t include proprietary information or trade secrets.
The White House said it has not shared the text of the agreements because they include highly sensitive data that could move financial markets.
The potential savings estimated by the Trump administration would be substantial as Americans spent $467 billion on prescription drugs in 2024, according to the most recent government data available. The analysis is premised on the idea that foreign countries would also pay more for their prescription drugs, which would diversify drugmakers’ sources of revenue and preserve their ability to innovate with new treatments.
Outside economists have caveated that any savings might not flow directly to patients, many of whom already pay discounted prices for their drugs through their insurance coverage.
The Congressional Budget Office in October 2024 estimated that a plan similar to what Trump ended up adopting could reduce prescription drug prices by more than 5%, though the decrease “would probably diminish over time as manufacturers adjusted to the new policy by altering prices or distribution of drugs in other countries.”
The scope of the savings claimed by the Trump administration are likely to intensify the scrutiny by Democrats, who counter that any price reductions would be offset by higher costs for prescription drugs not covered by the “most favored nation” framework. One of their main critiques is that pharmaceutical companies have increased their profit margins while working with the administration.
In April, staff working for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., released an analysis that looked at 15 of the companies that have agreed to this drug-pricing plan and found that their combined profits jumped 66% over the past year to $177 billion. The report noted that the tax cuts Trump signed into law last year “exempted or delayed many of the most expensive drugs” from price negotiations with Medicare.
The Trump administration has countered that they consider Sanders’ critique to be flawed, saying that it’s based on the list prices for pharmaceutical drugs instead of the actual price that patients pay.
WASHINGTON — The Secret Service says a suspect who opened fire Monday on the National Mall did so after being confronted by officers.
Secret Service Deputy Director Matt Quinn said officers returned fire. A bystander was struck by the suspect, Quinn said.
Quinn said the motorcade of Vice President JD Vance transited through the area not long before the shooting, but there was no indication it was the target.
The incident happened Monday afternoon around 15th Street and Independence Avenue near the Washington Monument.
The Secret Service encouraged people to avoid the area as emergency crews responded to the shooting not far from the White House, where President Trump was holding a small-business event.
The White House was briefly locked down as authorities investigated the incident. The Secret Service ushered journalists who were outside into the briefing room, and Trump continued his event without interruption.
Vito Maggiolo, spokesman for the D.C. Fire and EMS Department, said emergency units took an adult male to a hospital and were treating what appeared to be a teenage male for minor injuries. He referred other questions to the police department.
The incident drew a large police presence, coming just over a week after a gunman tried to storm the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner with guns and knives. Cole Tomas Allen has been charged in that incident, in which a Secret Service officer was wounded.
WASHINGTON — The White House is warning Congress that funding to pay Department of Homeland Security personnel will “soon run out,” sparking new threats of airport disruptions and national security concerns as the House slow-walks legislation to end what has been the longest-ever lapse in agency funding.
In a memo late Tuesday to lawmakers, the Office of Management and Budget said money that President Trump tapped to pay Transportation Security Administration and other workers through executive actions will be exhausted by May. It called on the House to quickly approve the budget resolution senators approved in an all-night session last week that would pave the way for full funding for the department.
“DHS will soon run out of critical operating funds, placing essential personnel and operations at risk,” the memo said.
The pressure from the Trump administration could help House Speaker Mike Johnson, whose narrow Republican majority has been stalled out, tangled in internal party disputes on a range of pending issues, including the Homeland Security funding. They have left the chamber at a virtual standstill.
The House was expected to vote as soon as Wednesday on the Senate budget resolution that is designed to unlock a multistep process to eventually fund the department. But by midday, House action again screeched to a halt. The administration has warned GOP lawmakers off making changes that could prolong passage.
“Restoring funding for the Department of Homeland Security has never been more urgent, as demonstrated by recent events,” the memo said, a nod to the situation over the weekend when a man armed with guns and knives tried to storm the annual White House correspondents’ dinner that Trump, the vice president and top Cabinet officials were attending.
Homeland Security shutdown is longest ever
Homeland Security has been operating without regular funds for more than two months after Democrats refused to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol without changes to those operations after the deaths of Americans protesting Trump’s deportation agenda.
While immigration enforcement workers have largely been paid through the flush of new cash — some $170 billion — that Congress approved as part of Trump’s tax cuts bill last year, others, including TSA, have had to rely on Trump’s intervention through executive action to ensure their paychecks.
But with salaries topping $1.6 billion every two weeks, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said recently, those funds are drying up.
More than 1,000 TSA officers have quit since the shutdown began, according to Airlines for America, the U.S. airlines trade group that called Wednesday on Congress to fully fund the agency.
“The urgency to provide predictable and stable funding for TSA is growing stronger by the day,” the group said in a statement. “Time and time again, our nation’s aviation workers and customers have been the victim of Congress’ failure to do their jobs.”
Complicated budget strategy ahead
House and Senate Republicans have embarked on a go-it-alone strategy, attempting to approve funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol without Democrats. They want to provide $70 billion for those immigration operations for the remainder of Trump’s term to ensure no further interruptions.
It’s a cumbersome process, the same that was used last year to approve Trump’s tax cuts bill, that will play out over several weeks.
The Senate launched the process last week, and is now waiting on the House to act. Once that budget resolution is approved, both the House and Senate are expected to draft the actual funding bill, a process that can take weeks.
In the meantime, Johnson is next expected to quickly turn this week to legislation that would fund the other parts of Homeland Security, including TSA, the Coast Guard and other agencies.
That bipartisan bill has support from Democrats and already passed the Senate a month ago, when Republicans reluctantly agreed to carve out the immigration-related funds that Democrats had opposed. But it has been stalled out in the House, as Republicans in that chamber disagreed with the Senate’s approach.
Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Rio Yamat in Las Vegas contributed to this report.
BILLINGS, Mont. — President Trump is withdrawing his nomination of a hospitality company executive to lead the National Park Service, the White House announced Monday.
The withdrawal of nominee Scott Socha comes as the park service has been shaken by widespread firings as part of the Trump administration’s pledge to sharply reduce its size.
The park service is currently overseen by an acting director, agency comptroller Jessica Bowron. It did not have a Senate-confirmed director during Trump’s first term, when it was led by a series of acting directors.
Socha is president for parks and resorts at Buffalo, N.Y.-based Delaware North, which has service contracts with numerous parks and describes itself as one of the world’s largest privately owned entertainment and hospitality companies. A White House spokesperson had said when he was nominated in February that Socha was “totally qualified” to execute Trump’s plans for the park system.
But some conservation groups had questioned whether Socha’s private sector work provided the experience he would need to oversee hundreds of national parks and monuments that range from the Statue of Liberty and other cultural sites to remote sites in the Utah desert.
The Associated Press sent email messages to the White House and the Interior Department seeking comment on Socha’s withdrawal.
Thousands of employees have been fired or otherwise left the park service since Trump took office.
Emily Douce with the National Parks Conservation Assn., an advocacy group, said Monday that the next director for the service needs to “undo the damage.”
“It’s very unfortunate that our parks have gone more than a year without a permanent director at a time when they need strong, steady leadership the most,” Douce said.
The Republican administration’s proposed budget for next year would reduce staffing to 9,200 employees. That’s down almost 30% compared to 2025 levels.
The park service’s operating budget would be cut by more than $1 billion, to $2.2 billion, for the 2027 fiscal year that starts in October.
Similar cuts proposed for 2026 were blocked by lawmakers in Congress after park supporters and former employees warned the administration’s proposal would have effectively gutted the agency.
The administration also has faced blowback for the removal or planned removal of national park exhibits about slavery, climate change and the destruction of Native American culture. In February, a federal judge said an exhibit about nine people enslaved by George Washington must be restored at Washington’s former home in Philadelphia after the Trump administration had taken it down.
Administration officials have said they are removing “disparaging” messages under an order last year from Trump. Critics accuse it of trying to whitewash the nation’s history.
Under Trump’s interior secretary, Doug Burgum, the park service has started charging millions of international tourists who visit U.S. parks each year $100 each to visit sites including Yellowstone and Grand Canyon. The service also has put Trump’s image onto its annual passes for U.S. citizens, drawing a lawsuit from environmentalists who said the move was illegal.
WASHINGTON — King Charles III will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, becoming the second British monarch in history to do so as the United States commemorates the 250th anniversary of its independence from England.
The king’s address, the centerpiece of a four-day state visit, comes at a moment of unusual strain between Washington and London. President Trump has repeatedly clashed with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the United States’ war with Iran, derided the British government’s refusal to commit forces to the conflict and even mocked the Royal Navy’s battleships as “toys.”
At a welcome ceremony for the king and Queen Camilla at the White House, Trump struck a more appreciative tone, describing the relationship between the two nations as a centuries-old “cherished bond.”
“Long before Americans had a nation or a Constitution, we first had a culture, a character and a creed,” the president said. “Before we ever proclaimed our independence, Americans carried within us the rarest of gifts — moral courage — and it came from a small but mighty kingdom from across the sea.”
Trump said that some may think it is “ironic” to honor the British king during celebrations of America’s independence, but argued the tribute “could not be more appropriate.”
“Americans have had no closer friends than the British,” Trump said. “We share the same root. We speak the same language. We hold the same values. And together, our warriors have defended the same extraordinary civilization under twin banners of red, white and blue.”
Trump said he will not be attending the king’s remarks at the Capitol due to security protocols, but said he planned to watch from afar. He did not elaborate on any security concerns, but the decision comes in the aftermath of a shooting at the White House correspondents’ dinner in which authorities said Trump was a likely target.
Following the welcome ceremony, the king joined Trump in the Oval Office for a closed-door bilateral meeting.
The president appeared to be enjoying the visit. He told the crowd at the White House that his late mother “loved” the royal family and watched their events on television. The president even joked his mother had a “crush” on the king when he was younger.
“I wonder what’s she’s thinking right now,” he said.
Earlier in the day, Trump posted on Truth Social that he planned to raise with the king and queen a media report suggesting his family roots may be tied to the royal family, a prospect he appeared to find amusing.
“I’ve always wanted to live in Buckingham Palace!!!” the president said in the post.
The king is scheduled to address Congress at 3 p.m. EDT. He is expected to delivered prepared remarks about the two nations’ shared history and their enduring diplomatic ties, while offering measured acknowledgment to the tensions defining the current moment.
The only precedent for an address by a British monarch was 35 years ago, when Queen Elizabeth II addressed a joint session of Congress in 1991. The timing of her address came after the end of the Gulf War.
How the king will address the current geopolitical tensions, including the Iran war and Trump’s threats to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, remains to be seen.
But hanging over the king’s visit is the shadow of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), one of the most vocal lawmakers pushing for the release of the Epstein files, last month requested that the king privately meet with some of the women who were sexually abused by the late financier.
The request was made in a letter to Buckingham Palace. In it, Khanna noted that the Epstein scandal extended to Britain, where the king’s brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was tied to the alleged misconduct.
But the king declined to meet directly with the survivors, Khanna said in an MS NOW interview on Tuesday morning. The California Democrat said he expects the king to address the issue during his remarks to Congress.
The future of the National Science Foundation is in question after a slew of scientists who serve on the National Science Board, an independent body that promotes the progress of American science and provides advice to the U.S. president and Congress, were abruptly dismissed from their positions Friday by the White House.
All 22 current members of the board, which establishes policies for the National Science Foundation, were terminated, according to Yolanda Gil, a research professor of computer science and spatial sciences and principal scientist at USC Information Sciences Institute, who has served on the board since 2024.
Many of them received a curt email from President Trump’s presidential personnel office.
“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I’m writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately,” read an email reviewed by the L.A. Times. “Thank you for your service.”
After receiving an email Friday afternoon, Keivan Stassun, a professor of physics and astronomy at Vanderbilt University and director of the Vanderbilt Initiative in Data-intensive Astrophysics, said he reached out to fellow board members. Every member he heard back from — about a third of the board — reported receiving the same termination notice.
For Stassun, a board member since 2022, the termination represented “a wholesale evisceration of American leadership in science and technology globally.”
The White House has not given any reason for dismissing the board members or provided any information on when, or even whether, they will be replaced. A media representative for the NSF directed all questions to the White House. The White House did not respond to questions from The Times.
The National Science Foundation was created more than 75 years ago as an independent federal agency when President Truman signed the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to boost U.S. science for national security and international competition during the Cold War.
“The establishment of the National Science Foundation is a major landmark in the history of science in the United States,” Truman said back then. “We have come to know that our ability to survive and grow as a nation depends to a very large degree upon our scientific progress. Moreover, it is not enough simply to keep abreast of the rest of the world in scientific matters. We must maintain our leadership.”
The agency, which has a budget of over $9 billion, supports fundamental research and education across all non-medical fields of science and engineering.
“The genesis of it was to recognize that the world was increasingly being won or lost on the basis of scientific and technological capability,” Stassun said. “The National Science Foundation is the singular agency within our government that has as its focus making sure that we stay ahead in basic science, technological developments, training the next generation of scientists and engineers.“
After Trump’s dismissal of the board’s experts, Stassun said, the Trump administration could potentially run the agency directly through the Office of Management and Budget.
“What it means is that there won’t be any practical impediments to the administration essentially enacting their own budget and priorities and ignoring Congress’ directives or congressional law,” Stassun said.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San José, the ranking Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, dubbed the terminations just “the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science and American innovation.”
The board, Lofgren noted in a statement, is apolitical and advises the president on the future of NSF.
“It unfortunately is no surprise a president who has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board that helps guide the foundation,” Lofgren added. “Will the president fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won’t stand up to him as he hands over our leadership in science to our adversaries? A real bozo the clown move.”
The National Science Board is typically made up of 25 scientists and engineers from universities and industry across the nation. Appointed by the U.S. president, they traditionally serve six-year terms.
Some of the board positions were vacant. The key position of NSF director has been unfilled ever since Sethuraman Panchanathan, a computer scientist and academic administrator, resigned in April 2025.
“Given that the NSF director position has been vacant for a year, and that the NSB’s main role is governing NSF, the agency is left in a very precarious position,” Gil told The Times in an email. “I think this is one more indication of the sweeping changes that the administration is planning for the National Science Foundation.”
Over the last two years, Gil said, the White House has proposed drastic reductions in the NSF budget — a troubling sign, she argued, that basic research in science and engineering and training students are not high priorities for the current administration.
In the last few months, Gil added, the agency had significant reductions of personnel, which she said “jeopardizes the peer review process that the agency is best known for and gives more decision power to program directors.”
In March, Trump nominated James O’Neill, a venture capitalist and biotech investor who served as former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, to lead the foundation. O’Neill has yet to appear before Congress for a hearing, but Trump’s nomination received a storm of criticism from scientists.
“O’Neill would be the first head of NSF who wasn’t a scientist or engineer,” Dr. Julian Reyes, chief of staff of the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in a blog post. “If O’Neill is confirmed as NSF’s director, the Trump administration will further tighten its control over an agency created by Congress to be independent in its work to advance science.”
Traditionally, Gil said, NSF directors have had a solid research career and strong familiarity with NSF processes. O’Neill’s background in finance and investments, she suggested, “may be an indication that the administration has a different idea of how to run a science agency like NSF.”
Already, the Trump administration has purged a raft of scientific advisory boards that provided the federal government with expert guidance. Last year, dozens of experts who provided independent evaluations for biomedical research were dismissed from National Institute of Health science review boards. All 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which provides federal recommendation on vaccines, were also removed.
In that context, Stassun said he was not surprised when he got the termination letter Friday. “At some point,” he figured, “they would come for the National Science Board, too.”
Going forward, Stassun said he expected the Trump administration to pursue a narrower agenda, from investments in artificial intelligence to building a fleet of Antarctic vessels.
“What we’re likely to see is a collapse of what has historically been a broad investment in American science and technology capabilities,” he said. “The most transformative discoveries are transformative because you can’t predict them in advance, so we invest foundationally in scientists and engineers to do basic science and engineering research.”
One of the board’s chief priorities since he joined in 2022, Stassun said, had been the idea of “talent being the treasure” — developing the best and brightest future leaders and discoverers to ensure a future for American leadership in scientific and technological innovation.
For the board, that meant investing in early science education and strong training for scientists and engineers at all educational levels and in all sectors.
“Discoveries and inventions don’t make themselves, Stassun said. “People do those things. I think there’s a kind of attitude in the current administration that such a worldview is sort of too soft or meek.”
The Trump administration’s interests and priorities, Stassun said, seemed quite different.
“They see the future in, or at least their interest is in, big data centers … not in addition to, but in place of, training human minds to be leading the way,” Stassun said. “It’s a dead end or a bridge to nowhere.”
Even the pioneers of AI will tell you, Stassun said, in many cases, what AI does very well is rapidly synthesizing, consolidating or repackaging existing information. A large language model can only tell you, perhaps very quickly and effectively, what’s already been said.
“Discovery and invention remain the purview of the human mind and creative human genius,” Stassun said. “So, yeah, I think it really does say something pretty foundational to choose to invest only in the one and not the other.”
There’s a direct correlation between a president’s approval rating and the way his party performs at the midpoint of his term. Anything below 50% favorability portends political trouble; right now Trump’s positive standing in polls hovers around a dismal 40%.
Then there’s the history part. Since World War II, the party out of the White House has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats in midterm elections. Democrats need to pick up just three to take control beginning in January.
(While the Republican grip on the Senate seems weaker than just a few months ago, the GOP is still favored to hang onto the chamber in November.)
There is, however, a looming threat causing nervousness among Democrats and their allies as they contemplate a celebratory fall, a landmine of sorts buried deep in the congressional election process.
The pertinent language written by the Framers states, “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” In other words, it’s up to the House and Senate to acknowledge and abide by the will of voters as expressed in the election returns.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, if you let your paranoia run wild, quite a lot. If the election outcome is close — and probably it would have to be very close — Republican lawmakers could theoretically seize on phony claims of fraud and effectively nullify the results of enough contests to deny Democrats control of the House.
There’s plenty of skepticism that would or could ever take place. But if it were to happen, hello, national crisis!
Normally, we could count on the occupant of the White House to humbly submit to the election returns, even if it’s a “shellacking” as President Obama called his walloping in the 2010 midterm election, or a “thumpin’ ” as President George W. Bush described his electoral spanking in 2006.
Voters attend an Arlington Democrats redistricting vote watch party during a special election Tuesday in Virginia. A measure to redraw the state’s congressional map was narrowly approved.
(Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
That failure doesn’t take away Trump’s malign intent. And in the supine Speaker Mike Johnson, he has the perfect handmaiden to undermine the midterm vote.
In 2020, Johnson was the lead author of a Supreme Court brief seeking to overturn the results in four states that Joe Biden had indisputably won. That speaks to Johnson’s probity and integrity.
How would subversion of November’s election take place?
One theory goes like this: When the balloting is over, Johnson could appoint a House committee packed with Trump’s acolytes to investigate alleged voting irregularities. (And if you think Trump won’t be bellowing the words “rigged” and “fraud” in the face of defeat, you’ve either been in a coma or living on another planet for the last decade.)
Those hearings and the “evidence” they turn up could then be cited by election officials in key states — collaborators, if you will — as a reason to delay the certification of election results and block the seating of majority-making Democrats in the next Congress. In their place, the theory goes, Republicans could vote to fill those seats with GOP candidates who lost at the polls, keeping themselves in control.
Derek Muller, an election law expert, suggests that scenario is little more than a fever dream of doomsday devotees and overly nervous Nellies.
He said he’d be very surprised if all the election results weren’t certified by Jan. 3, when the new Congress convenes, given the legal remedies available to prevent stalling and undue delay. And, Muller said, there is no assurance Republicans would march in lockstep behind a plan to prevent the seating of Democrats.
Thwarting a duly elected Democratic majority “involves extraordinary coordination and precedents that have never occurred, with a unique convergence of factors,” said Muller, who teaches law at Notre Dame — though, he added, if control of the House came down to, say, a single seat “all bets are off.”
Far-fetched? Perhaps. Some of the spun-up theories surrounding November’s election do sound a bit like a product of political science fiction.
This week Tucker Carlson apologized for unintentionally “misleading” voters into supporting President Trump’s return to the White House. The apology came days after the president called Carlson dumb and overrated on social media. We’ve seen this plot before: It’s a different name but the same story.
Recall the president’s first term was closely shadowed by high-profile breakups from loyalists who disagreed with him on matters of substance. For example, the split with his first Defense secretary, James Mattis, began in 2017 when Mattis, a man who spent more than four decades in uniform, defended the importance of NATO. His successor, Mark Esper, found himself at odds with the president for refusing to use the military on citizens. On his way out the door, Esper told the country that if his replacement was “a real ‘yes man’ … then God help us.”
Some of the highlights from Trump’s second term include squabbles with his biggest donor, Elon Musk, who was upset the president wasn’t lowering the national debt enough; with former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene because millions of Americans faced losing health insurance; and with Rep. Thomas Massie for having the audacity to seek justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex-trafficking operation.
Now it appears it’s Carlson’s turn. He, like Pope Leo XIV and many of our allies and nearly 70% of Americans, disapproves of the president’s handling of the war in Iran. On a recent episode of the Carlson podcast, the former Fox News host invited his brother Buckley, himself a former Trump speechwriter, on the show to discuss their buyer’s remorse.
Everyone has that line they won’t cross for the president.
Omarosa Manigault Newman left reality TV to advise Trump. She followed him to the White House, found out there was a lot of racism over in MAGA land, and ended up back on reality TV. For Mattis, it was abandoning our allies. For Esper, it was shooting protesters.
For Carlson, it’s Iran. Candidate Trump campaigned on ending endless wars. This week, Trump said there’s no timeline for when the war he started with Iran will end.
“I do think it’s like a moment to wrestle with our own consciences,” Carlson told his brother. “We’ll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be. And I want to say I’m sorry for misleading people.”
Now before Tucker’s apology, Buckley defended his initial support of Trump’s candidacy in 2015 — despite “all of his obvious foibles and his disgusting elements of his personality” — in part because “he built things.” Buckley also said that after the election of President Obama, white Americans in Washington were subjugated by a version of Jim Crow in education and society, and that progressives “would look blank or angry” whenever he asked what Obama was doing to strengthen the nation.
In other words, being red in the face over Trump did not turn the Tucker boys blue. In fact, the episode ended with the two calling the left a bunch of “lunatics,” even after listing the ways the Trump administration was holding back release of the Epstein files and hurting the country.
“Demonic influences concentrate on those who have power. Beware of power,” Tucker warned listeners halfway through the show before his brother chimed in: “And those who seek power.”
Of course, Trump’s ascension to the White House wasn’t solely based on the contributions of media folks. The president entered 2015 having been a public figure for more than 30 years. He’s had the luxury of criticizing elected officials and legislation on camera without the burden of governing for much of that time. When he entered the political arena, he didn’t have a record to defend. He likes being quotable, not being held accountable. That’s why it’s doubtful he would have been elected a second time if not for the support from unscrupulous podcasters masquerading as political journalists such as Joe Rogan, Theo Von and Andrew Schulz, who less than a year ago said everything Trump “campaigned on, I believed he wanted to do. And now he’s doing the exact opposite thing.… I voted for none of this.”
As if “this” had not been clearly spelled out in the pages of Project 2025 for all to see before deciding whether to vote for Trump and that agenda.
Schulz, the comedian and podcaster, might not have read that outline, but Tucker Carlson probably did. That’s why his apology to listeners — like the mea culpas from the discarded loyalists of the past — ultimately won’t mean anything to mainstream Republicans or MAGA. Those who identify with the latter listen only to Trump. As for the former — they have always known that people like Carlson don’t regret supporting Trump. They regret falling out of favor.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it seized two ships and damaged a third after the vessels “ignored repeated warnings.” British maritime monitors confirmed the incidents, describing one cargo ship left disabled in the water and another that took heavy damage to its bridge.
“Disrupting order and safety in the Strait of Hormuz is considered a red line for Iran,” the Iranian Navy Command said in a statement.
Hours before, President Trump confirmed he would maintain the naval blockade in the gulf, but agreed to give Iranian leaders additional time to agree on a new peace proposal, he wrote in a Truth Social post.
“Based on the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so and, upon the request of Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, of Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal,” Trump wrote Tuesday.
More than a dozen American warships have prevented exports from leaving Iranian ports since peace talks in Islamabad failed earlier this month. The tactic has greatly constrained Iranian oil exports — about 90% of which flow through the Strait of Hormuz — contributing to rising inflationary pressure.
The restrictions could wipe out roughly $435 million in daily economic activity, according to Miad Maleki, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Oil exports, Tehran’s primary revenue source, have halted. At the same time, Iran has been unable to import food or industrial goods. As a result, the blockade is expected to empty Iran’s war coffers and sharply accelerate inflationary effects on its people.
Trump is betting that the strategy will force Iran’s fractured negotiating team — which appears to be split between parliamentary moderates and hard-liners within the Revolutionary Guard — to agree on a “unified” peace proposal.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday the president extended the ceasefire agreement to allow Iran to get their “act together,” and emphasized that Trump has not given Iran a “firm deadline” to respond yet.
“President Trump will ultimately dictate the timeline and he will do so when he feels it is in the best interest of the United States and the American people,” Leavitt told reporters.
Though she declined to specify who the administration is negotiating with in Iran, Leavitt said the president was “generously offering a bit of flexibility” to the regime so that they can come up with a unified response.
“This is a battle between the pragmatists and the hard-liners in Iran right now,” Leavitt told reporters at the White House.
That division was visible earlier this week when plans for a second round of talks in Islamabad collapsed after Iranian officials failed to confirm participation and instead introduced new preconditions under pressure from hard-line factions.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Bagher Ghalibaf initially signaled a willingness to attend talks, but was overshadowed by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Maj. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, who insisted that the United States lift its blockade before discussions could begin. A report by the Institute for the Study of War said Vahidi sought to derail negotiations rather than secure meaningful economic relief.
“One challenge with the ongoing negotiations is the divided nature of Iran’s negotiating team,” the report said, adding that “[Trump’s] reference to a ‘unified’ proposal appears to imply that previous proposals were not unified in some way.”
And while hard-liners continue attempts to derail diplomacy with continued demands and attacks in the strait, moderates in Iran continue to push for peace.
This week, prominent Sunni cleric Moulana Abdol Hamid called a “fair agreement” the only viable path forward and warned that those who seek to block negotiations would bear responsibility for the “homeland’s devastation.”
Benjamin Radd, a political scientist at UCLA who studies Iran, said the dispute is a sign of a larger power struggle for control of Tehran’s government.
“There are clear divisions within the leadership,” Radd said in an interview. “Right now, it’s the IRGC faction that has all the power. They have the guns, they have the weapons. What they don’t have is the diplomatic connections and experience dealing with the United States.”
Radd pointed to the economic toll of the U.S. blockade as a key driver of tension inside Iran.
“They’re facing a huge domestic crisis,” he said. “They’re not able to replenish their own needs. Nothing can get in or out of the country. They can’t make any money.”
The consequences of the U.S. strategy could push the more moderate Iranian leaders to strike a deal on nuclear enrichment or a reopening of the strait in exchange for the United States lifting the blockade, Radd said.
“That would start rebuilding some sort of trust,” Radd said. “And then we’re seeing the IRGC is basically steadfast, refusing to do any of this.”
With renewed Israeli attacks in Lebanon killing at least three people Wednesday, despite a 10-day ceasefire agreement, Iranian leaders are preparing for the possibility that talks with the United States will fail altogether.
“Iran has prepared for a new phase of fighting,” the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency reported this week, citing military redeployments and updated target lists.
Meanwhile, Iranian Judiciary Chief Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei warned that renewed U.S. or Israeli strikes were likely. Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made a similar statement in a news briefing Wednesday. He announced the country’s armed forces were “on high alert” and ready to defend against any threat, while being open to Pakistan’s mediation efforts.
He did not confirm if the government was participating in a second round of negotiations.
“Diplomacy is a tool for ensuring national interests and security,” he said, “and we will take the necessary steps whenever we conclude that the necessary and logical grounds exist to use this tool to achieve national interests.”
Until then, it appears both Washington and Tehran will continue brinkmanship in the strait.
On Wednesday morning, the IRGC released a statement confirming it seized the two cargo ships and identified them as the MSC Francesca and the Epaminondas. It claimed the MSC Francesca was linked to Israel and accused both of “jeopardizing maritime security by operating without necessary permits and tampering with navigation systems.”
A third ship, the Euphoria, which sails under the Panamanian flag and is owned by a company based in the United Arab Emirates, was fired upon early Wednesday while heading east out of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Vanguard, a maritime intelligence firm.
The Euphoria later resumed sailing toward the Gulf of Oman, according to Lloyd’s List.
In Lebanon, Amal Khalil became the fourth journalist killed by Israeli fire since hostilities with the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah intensified on March 2.
Khalil’s body was reported to have been found under the rubble of a house where she and freelance photographer Zeinab Faraj were sheltering, according to their colleagues.
Khalil and Faran were in the southern Lebanese town of Al-Tayri, covering developments there when an Israeli attack targeted the vehicle in front of them, killing its occupants.
The two journalists then sheltered in a house but were hit by Israeli fire once more, according to a statement from the Lebanese Health Ministry.
When Red Cross crews scrambled to the area to rescue the trapped journalists, they were targeted with a sound bomb and machine-gun fire.
The Israeli military said it was not preventing rescue teams from reaching the area and that the incident was under review. It acknowledged targeting a vehicle it said had come out of a structure used by Hezbollah and was heading toward Israeli troops.
The Red Cross reached the house by the early evening local time, and rescued Faraj, who is reported to be in stable condition after undergoing surgery for a head wound, according to her colleagues.
Times staff writers Ana Ceballos in Washington and Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer is out of President Trump’s Cabinet, the White House said Monday, after multiple allegations of abusing her position’s power, including having an affair with a subordinate and drinking alcohol on the job.
Chavez-DeRemer is the third Trump Cabinet member to leave her post after Trump fired his embattled Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in March and ousted Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi earlier this month.
Unlike other recent Cabinet departures, Chavez-DeRemer’s exit was announced by a White House aide, not by the president on his social media account.
“Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer will be leaving the Administration to take a position in the private sector,” White House communications director Steven Cheung said on the social media site X. “She has done a phenomenal job in her role by protecting American workers, enacting fair labor practices, and helping Americans gain additional skills to improve their lives.”
He said Keith Sonderling, the current deputy labor secretary, would become acting labor secretary in her place. The news outlet NOTUS was the first to report Chavez-DeRemer’s resignation.
Labor chief, family members faced multiple allegations
Chavez-DeRamer’s departure follows reports that began surfacing in January that she was under a series of investigations.
A New York Times report last Wednesday revealed that the Labor Department’s inspector general was reviewing material showing Chavez-DeRemer and her top aides and family members routinely sent personal messages and requests to young staff members.
Chavez-DeRemer’s husband and father exchanged text messages with young female staff members, according to the newspaper. Some of the staffers were instructed by the secretary and her former deputy chief of staff to “pay attention” to her family, people familiar with the investigation told the Times.
Those messages were uncovered as part of a broader investigation of Chavez-DeRamer’s leadership that began after the New York Post reported in January that a complaint filed with the Labor Department’s inspector general accused Chavez-DeRemer of a relationship with the subordinate.
She also faced allegations that she drank alcohol on the job, and that she tasked aides to plan official trips for primarily personal reasons.
Both the White House and the Labor Department initially said the reports of wrongdoing were baseless. But the official denials became less full-throated as more allegations emerged — and when Chavez-DeRemer might be out of a job became something of an open question in Washington.
At least four Labor Department officials have already been forced from their jobs as the investigation progressed, including Chavez-DeRemer’s former chief of staff and deputy chief of staff, as well as a member of her security detail, with whom she was accused of having the affair, the New York Times reported.
She enjoyed union support — rare for a Republican
Confirmed to Trump’s Cabinet in a 67-32 vote in March 2025, Chavez-DeRemer is a former House GOP lawmaker who had represented a swing district in Oregon. She enjoyed unusual support from unions as a Republican but lost reelection in November 2024.
In her single term in Congress, Chavez-DeRemer backed legislation that would make it easier to unionize on a federal level, as well as a separate bill aimed at protecting Social Security benefits for public-sector employees.
Some prominent labor unions, including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, backed Chavez-DeRemer, who is a daughter of a Teamster, for Labor secretary. Trump’s decision to pick her was viewed by some political observers as a way to appeal to voters who are members of or affiliated with labor organizations.
But other powerful labor leaders were skeptical when she was tapped for the job, unconvinced that Chavez-DeRemer would pursue a union-friendly agenda as a part of the incoming GOP administration. In her Senate confirmation hearing, some senators questioned whether she would be able to uphold that reputation in an administration that fired thousands of federal employees.
She was a key figure in Trump’s deregulatory push
Aside from reports of wrongdoing in recent months, Chavez-DeRemer had been one of Trump’s more lower-profile Cabinet picks but took key steps to advance the administration’s deregulatory agenda during her tenure.
For instance, the Labor Department last year moved to rewrite or repeal more than 60 workplace regulations it saw as obsolete. The rollbacks included minimum wage requirements for home healthcare workers and people with disabilities, and rules governing exposure to harmful substances and safety procedures at mines. The effort drew condemnation from union leaders and workplace safety experts.
The proposed changes also included eliminating a requirement that employers provide adequate lighting for construction sites and seat belts for agriculture workers in most employer-provided transportation.
During Chavez-DeRemer’s tenure, the Trump administration canceled millions of dollars in international grants that a Labor Department division administered to combat child labor and slave labor around the world, ending their work that had helped reduce the number of child laborers worldwide by 78 million over the last two decades.
The Labor Department has a broad mandate as it relates to the U.S. workforce, including reporting the U.S. unemployment rate, regulating workplace health and safety standards, investigating minimum wage, child labor and overtime pay disputes, and applying laws on union organizing and unlawful terminations.
Kim writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Cathy Bussewitz in New York and Will Weissert in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — It was hard to miss President Trump’s very public spat with Pope Leo XIV this week.
The split was the first time in modern memory that an American president has so openly badmouthed a sitting pontiff, or, for that matter, distributed an image depicting himself as Jesus Christ. Critics cried “blasphemy!” even as supporters continued to stand behind the man whose presidency, some argue, was God sent.
Students of American history will recall an earlier incident that pitted papal and presidential authority against each other. The concern: that a president would align himself too closely to the church, or even take orders from the pope.
That anxiety seeped into the 1960 presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy, whose eventual victory would make him the first Catholic president.
Back then, Kennedy was constantly fending off accusations from Protestant ecclesiastic types who were wary that his nomination meant the pontiff, John XXIII, was already packing his bags for a move into the White House.
President John F. Kennedy meets with Pope Paul VI at the Vatican in July 1963, one month after Paul succeeded John XXIII as pontiff.
(Bettmann Archive / Getty Images)
The issue was so pronounced that 150 clergymen and laypeople formed Citizens for Religious Freedom, which in a pamphlet warned, “It is inconceivable to us that a Roman Catholic President would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies and demands.”
One particularly loud voice among the ministers was the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, a popular and influential pastor and author. Peale was especially disturbed by Kennedy’s prospects.
“Our American culture is at stake,” he said at a meeting of the ministers. “I don’t say it won’t survive, but it won’t be what it was.”
The group asked Kennedy to “drop by Houston” to make clear his views on faith and government. He agreed, making a televised speech at the Rice Hotel, where he famously spelled out his firm opinions on the separation of church and state.
“I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy told the group. “I am the Democratic Party’s nominee for president who happens to be Catholic.”
Time magazine reflected on the address some years later, concluding that the speech had gone so well for Kennedy “that many felt the dramatic moment was an important part of his victory.”
Since then, modern presidents have occasionally found themselves at odds with the Vatican. Typically Republican presidents would hear from the pope about foreign wars, while Democratic presidents were derided over abortion policies.
But such disagreements tended to be handled with the decorous language of diplomacy.
President George W. Bush presents Pope John Paul II with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in Rome on June 4 , 2004. The pope reminded Bush of the Vatican’s opposition to the war in Iraq. Bush praised him as a “devoted servant of God.”
(Eric Vandeville/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)
Then came Trump, who is now being accused of openly mocking the Catholic faith and the 1st Amendment. He called Leo weak on crime and foreign policy, among other things. A self-described nondenominational Christian who says his favorite book is the Bible, Trump’s hasn’t shied from bashing the pontiff, nor has he hesitated to blur the line separating church and state.
Where Kennedy argued for an absolute separation, Trump has advanced a model of religious resurgence, promising “pews will be fuller, younger and more faithful than they have been in years.” Through initiatives including the “America Prays” program launched last year, the White House has sought to bring “bring back God” by inviting millions of Americans to prayer sessions. The webpage for the program focuses features only Christian Scripture.
“From the earliest days of the republic, faith in God has been the ultimate source of the nation’s strength,” Trump said at a National Prayer Breakfast in February.
President Trump, then-Vice President Mike Pence and faith leaders say a prayer during the signing of a proclamation in the Oval Office on Sept. 1, 2017. .
(Alex Wong / Getty Images)
In the United States, the Catholic Church historically has “loved the 1st Amendment” and its guarantee of religious liberty and, as a result, largely kept some distance from government, according to Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and religious commentator. After its failures attempting to influence monarchs and politicians in Europe, the Catholic Church “didn’t want the government interfering with them and knew that it wasn’t their right to interfere with the government,” Reese said.
Kennedy loved the 1st Amendment too. He put it above his own religious beliefs, and said as much on his way to the White House.
“I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the 1st Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty,” he said. “Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so.”
Pope Leo XIV meets with members of the community in Algiers at the Basilica of Our Lady of Africa on April 13, 2026.
