Authored by Christopher J. Ferguson via RealClearInvestigations,

Nowadays, it seems we can be addicted to anything – not just alcohol and drugs, but pornography, random Internet browsing, video games, and smartphones. Academic research papers have investigated a wide range of other behaviors including gambling, but also “dance addiction,” “fishing addiction,” “milk tea addiction,” and “cat addiction.” One cheeky paper used the standard medical criteria to show young people are “addicted” to their real-life friends.

While this trend involves many factors, perhaps the single most important claim that has transformed what might be devoted or enthusiastic behavior into a presumed medical case of addiction is the presence of the neurotransmitter dopamine.

Health experts and the popular press tell us that fun activities can give us “dopamine hits” and that overindulging can result in “dopamine blowout.” Indulging too much in naughty activities (somehow, it’s always naughty activities) may create a “dopamine deficit.”

To cite a few of many examples: A Washington Post podcast declared that “dopamine surges” explain why “you can’t stop scrolling, even though you know you should.” The Guardian reported that Silicon Valley is “keen to exploit the brain chemical” to keep us hooked on tech. Earlier this month, CNN told readers, “an addiction expert says it might be time for a ‘dopamine fast.’” 

There’s a problem with this scientific-sounding explanation for an alleged explosion in addictive behaviors: It is not supported by science. Solid research connecting dopamine spikes to drugs and alcohol – that is, the capacity of one chemical to ignite another – has not been shown to occur in similar ways with other behaviors. Drug use is fundamentally and physiologically different from behaviors that do not rely on pharmaceutical effects. This has been confirmed in humans: Technology, such as video games or social media, simply doesn’t influence dopamine receptors the way illicit substances do.

Experts say what we are seeing instead is pseudoscience that appears to legitimize a moral panic about behaviors that trouble certain segments of society. By falling for this pseudoscience, parents and others are at risk of missing more fundamental mental health issues that could be at the root of the obsessive behavior, potentially harming the very children they seek to help. 

 “Addiction is an important clinical term with a troubled and weighty history,” said Dean Burnett, a neuroscientist and coauthor of a brief explainer of what dopamine does and doesn’t do. “People enduring genuine addiction struggle to be taken seriously or viewed sympathetically at the best of times, so to apply their very serious condition to much more benign actions like scrolling TikTok makes this worse.” 

Burnett likens current narratives about dopamine and technology to “science garnish,” effectively adding a dash of scientific language to nonsense beliefs. “It’s the informational equivalent of sprinkling parsley on a lasagna that’s 90 percent horse offal,” he said. “It may look nicer, but it isn’t.” 

The pseudoscience, however, does play a useful role for parents and others who seek to restrict the behaviors they find disturbing. After all, “Don’t do X because it will dangerously rewire the reward circuits of your brain and cause addiction” is more compelling than “Don’t do X because I don’t like it and think you are wasting your time.” 

Growing Mistrust of Experts

At a time when science has been riven by a series of scandals involving unreliable and falsified research at universities, including Stanford and Harvard, the public is having a harder time distinguishing scientific truth from pseudoscience. As growing numbers of Americans question the veracity of many well-established findings, such as the safety of vaccines, the popularity of the dopamine myth amounts to another misreading of science to serve other purposes in a culture desperate for simplistic moral answers. 

Such answers can be found in bookshelves full of titles like “Dopamine Detox” and “Dopamine Reset.” These experts warn us that activities we think make us happy are actually making us unhappy in the long term because we’re doing dopamine wrong. Advice sites are quite explicit about this: “You can get dopamine either from rich sources like meditating, exercising, or doing something that is meaningful to you and that serves you in the long run. Or you can get dopamine from self-sabotaging activities like eating junk food, scrolling social media mindlessly, or anything that provides pleasure instantly or in the short term. The choice is yours.” At the extreme, people may go on “dopamine detoxes,” avoiding fun activities for some length of time in hopes of resetting their dopamine. 

It is not surprising that dopamine has been seized on as a ready explanation for human behavior. Dopamine is a naturally occurring neurotransmitter in the brain. It is involved in a number of behaviors and functions, ranging from movement to memory to executive functioning. It’s also involved in pleasure centers of the brain, particularly anticipatory pleasure. Think of it like the feeling of a child awaiting Christmas, the giddy excitement. That’s often different from Christmas Day itself, which feels less exciting, even if it’s pleasant. 

The role played by dopamine in the brain, however, is complicated. Brain functions rarely work out to one-to-one relationships between a single chemical and some horrible outcome. And certainly not in ways that happen to coincidentally flatter people’s preexisting moral conceits. 

Much of what we know about dopamine comes not from humans, but from experiments on rats – which cannot, of course, peruse the Internet or use smartphones. In a series of graphs produced by the National Institute on Drug Addiction back in the early 2000s, the difference in activation of dopamine for addictive drugs versus pleasant and normal activities is well documented. 

 They show that administering stimulant drugs such as cocaine and amphetamine causes massive elevations in dopamine after the drug is introduced. These levels spike to over 300% of baseline for cocaine and a whopping 1,000% for amphetamine. 

By contrast, the increase in dopamine levels from routine activities such as food or sex is much lower, with 150% of baseline for food and 200% for sex. And this increase occurs in anticipation of the activity, not afterwards. 

So, yes, there is a kernel of truth in the dopamine/addiction story. Some drugs, as well as routine pleasurable activities, definitely involve dopamine systems. But the key difference is the timing of when and how much of the dopamine is released – before versus after the activity – and this distinction is almost always ignored in scaremongering stories about rampant addiction.

“Addictive drugs are different from natural rewards (e.g. food, water, sex) in that [dopamine] will not stop firing after repeated consumption of the drug, the drive to consume is not satiated because they continue increasing dopamine levels, resulting in likelihood of compulsive behaviors from using drugs and not as likely when using natural rewards,” according to an article in the Journal of Biomedical Research.

Pete Etchells, a professor of psychology at Bath Spa University in England and author of “Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time,” says research doesn’t support the claim that dopamine drives addiction in other pleasurable behaviors that don’t rely on pharmaceutical effects.  

“The role that it plays is really complex, to the point that neuroscientists no longer really consider it the sole or universal factor to consider,” he said. “So, when we try to say dopamine ‘surge’ = pleasure surge = addiction, that doesn’t really hold up under scrutiny.”

Is Everything Addictive?

Part of the confusion over the science comes from the widespread way the term addiction is used. There are long-standing debates about whether the criteria used to identify substance dependencies still work when applied to everyday hobbies and behaviors such as work, exercise, shopping, sex, video games, or social media. 

The problem is apparent when looking at the basic criteria the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual uses for addictive disorders. A person needs to answer “yes” to five of the nine questions below to be diagnosed. In this example, X is the sport or hobby you happen to be passionate about and spend some money on:

1. 1. Do you think about X (i.e., your passionate hobby) when not doing X?
   2. Do you feel bad (sad, anxious) when unable to do X?
   3. Do you find yourself spending more time/money on X?
   4. Do you notice you’ve kept doing X even when you meant to stop or cut back?
   5. Have you given up other hobbies/activities to do X?
   6. Have you continued to do X despite it causing obvious problems (i.e., health, work, family commitments)? 
   7. Have you deceived others about the time you’ve spent doing X?
   8. Do you find yourself doing X to relieve negative moods or stress?
   9. Have you experienced the loss of a job/school/relationship because of X?

If X is heroin, a yes answer to all of these questions leads to bad results. But it’s not clear that this is true for all the questions when X is eating pizza, reading a book, working out, or playing a video game. If the answer is yes to the question about reading books to relieve negative moods or stress, that’s good. People should do something to relieve negative moods.

The question is whether things like video games or social media are more like heroin or more like books. At present, the best evidence suggests the latter. Older adults may not like these activities, but there’s little evidence they’re addictive in any analogy to substance abuse. There’s no tolerance and withdrawal from technology. They don’t interact with dopamine systems the same way. 

Making matters more complicated is the psychology of why some people overdo some pleasant behaviors. It’s widely believed that behavioral addictions are a feature of the thing that users are using. To be sure, smartphones, for example, are designed with elements like push notifications to hold the attention of users. However, users can easily adjust these settings, and they are hardly an innovation of modern technology (books often end chapters mid-scene for the same reason). 

But such addiction mainly appears to be a feature of the person exhibiting the problems, research shows. Cases of technology overuse can be a symptom of other underlying mental health problems like anxiety and depression, which tend to predate the technology addiction. Constant texting is not something done to teenagers by machines via dopamine. By contrast, time spent on technology is a poor predictor of mental health issues. 

History of Moral Panics

As it purports to provide a simple explanation for complex issues, dopamine pseudoscience can be linked to previous moral panics, particularly regarding the new habits of youth. Fear sells, as Frederic Wertham showed in the 1950s when his book “Seduction of the Innocent” gained wide traction for its spurious claim that connected comic books to delinquency and homosexuality.

Today, many schools are enthusiastically attempting to shift blame for their own failures onto technology. At present, evidence suggests that cellphone bans in schools don’t work as well as expected, for instance. Public records requests have revealed that, even as some teachers and administrators promote these policies, data from their own schools indicate that some student outcomes worsen after cellphone bans, rather than improve. 

The false narratives on addiction may end up hurting children in more profound ways, too. They can distract families from the real psychological issues youth face. Parents may believe that taking a smartphone or game console away will “fix” their kids’ problems, leaving the real underlying issues unaddressed. These efforts may even backfire, removing stress reduction and socialization outlets that youth rely on. 

It’s time to put the pseudoscience on dopamine in the dumpster and let kids be kids. Some may have mental health issues that need to be addressed, and others, well, mostly need some freedom to explore the world on their own terms.

Update (2048ET): It looks like Japan may have overreacted (better safe than sorry, given their last tsunami), as a reported 30CM tsunami has hit Hokkaido according to NHK. 

yes, yes… https://t.co/8XnzPnyJBU pic.twitter.com/Jv8dgD0vTJ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 30, 2025

Stay tuned for updates on other regions… 

*  *  *

Several tsunami warnings have been issued extending as far as Southern California after an 8.7 magnitude earthquake struck off Russia’s Kamchatka region Monday night, the US Geological Survey said.

The earthquake occurred at 7:24 p.m. ET, around 84 miles east-southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia, and was a shallow quake with a depth of around 12 miles. 

Several tsunami warnings have been issued for various regions, including the Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Sapian, and Rota – while Japan’s Weather Agency said it expected a tsunami of around 3.38 feet to reach coastal areas starting at around 9 p.m. ET.  A tsunami watch is also in force extending as far south as the California-Mexico border. 

🇯🇵🌊 All areas of the tsunami warning in Japan have been ordered by the Japan Meteorological Agency to evacuate immediately to high ground or an evacuation building https://t.co/UOjVm3kWE9 pic.twitter.com/EsvVKk1Cu0

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) July 30, 2025

#tsunami – There has been a massive 8.9 earthquake in eastern Russia on the Kamchatka Peninsula bordering the Baring Sea just north east of Japan.

There is a tsunami warning for Japan – FOLLOW YOUR EVACUATION ROUTES NOW –
and for Hawaii – follow your evac routes limited time. pic.twitter.com/PPxPHSvOlj

— Kimberly (@klr_reno) July 30, 2025

Multiple aftershocks have been reported, including a 6.9 near Petropavlovsk, where a major Russian submarine base is located.

“Based on all available data, a tsunami may have been generated by this earthquake that could be destructive on coastal areas even far from the epicenter,”  the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency said in a statement. “An investigation is underway to determine whether there is a threat to Hawaii.”

Waves are already hitting in Russia…

Tsunami waves are hitting the Russian coast of Kamchatka, seen here flooding the port of Severo-Kurilsk. pic.twitter.com/5HjHCI5eoz

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) July 30, 2025

Developing… 

*  *  *

On Sale! Grab a complete 2-day emergency survival backpack at ZH Store

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We have been discussing the recently declassified material related to the Russian investigation, including disclosures of the role of former CIA director John Brennan at the end of the Obama Administration to reinforce the unfounded allegations of Russian collusion and influence. After an earlier intelligence assessment rejecting the narrative was effectively quashed, Brennan reportedly hand-picked the team to do a second rushed 2016 U.S. intelligence community assessment in the final days.

We are now learning more about the person Brennan selected to head that team. Just the News and other outlets are revealing not just the extreme political bias of Susan Miller, but her remarkably poor handle on some key facts.

The one unassailable fact that comes out of her postings is her declaration  that “[I] am not a Trump fan.”

A review of Miller’s social media postings reveals intense hostility toward Donald Trump and his supporters, including calling the President a “dictator” and MAGA supporters “Nazis.”

What is particularly notable is that she still maintains that the widely ridiculed Steele Dossier, secretly funded by the Clinton campaign, “might be true.”

Despite the findings of the Special Counsel and various investigations, she has insisted that Trump may indeed be a “Russian asset” or a “Kremlin asset”

Miller recently retired but says that she continues to train CIA officers.

Brennan chose wisely if he wanted to ensure that a reliable political ally would draft the assessment. However, she has said that there were others in the CIA who wanted an actual finding that Trump’s election was illegitimate. That was the narrative pushed by Hillary Clinton and many Democrats after the 2016 loss. She suggested that that may still be true, a form of election denial that is still accepted on the left as they criticize Trump for his questioning of the 2020 defeat.

Miller appears to be one of the last diehards claiming that the Steele dossier could have also repeatedly still proved correct in its allegations.

Some interviews are striking in their conflicting elements, like insisting “all of us went in with a completely open mind” but that “they [the Russians] definitely wanted him [Trump].”

Miller also seemed to view the CIA’s role as part of a resistance, or at least counterforce to Trump: “I headed up the report team. … I wanted people who would speak truth to power.”

On social media, Miller comes across as unhinged at times in responding to stories with screeds like “This is awful! Further proof that Trump is a dictator.” She also wrote, “Good grief.  As if we needed proof that MAGA types are nazis…”

 So responded to a foreign poster by saying, “Yes….the Hitler analogy is not lost on a bunch of us…..sadly….”

In one of the most bizarre series of statements, Miller accuses Trump, Barr, and Durham of putting “me on trial” because she was interviewed in the various investigations.

She insisted in an interview with Times Radio in July that Trump got Barr and Durham “to open a trial on us…I spent 8 hours on trial; other team members also had trials. Not unexpectedly, nothing criminal was found.”

Just the News notes that Miller said again in June that “Trump put me on trial….criminal complaint after inauguration.” There is no indication of what that criminal complaint entailed, where it was filed, or what happened to it.

Miller appears to be struggling to make the case against Brennan and herself in carrying out this intelligence assessment. It is telling that, within the entire CIA establishment, Brennan would select Miller for this controversial report.

What is even more chilling is that top intelligence officials would continue to cling to debunked sources like Steele. It is the kind of intransigence common among those living in echo chambers created by news and social media sites. CIA analysts are supposedly trained to avoid such confirmation bias.

All of this makes for a great pitch to join figures like Clapper or McCabe with MSNBC or CNN contracts. It is less compelling in defending the work product of the CIA on this report.

A few weeks ago, reports began circulating that thanks to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) roundups in major cities, the notorious ‘parking lot’ traffic in Los Angeles was suddenly cleared out, allowing people to jet around the city like ‘the old days.’ 

Holy Mother of G-d, it’s REAL pic.twitter.com/5yrqoLTZ7Z

— AJAC (@AJA_Cortes) July 10, 2025

How many illegals are really in Los Angeles California?

This is the 101 Freeway, one of the busiest freeways in LA

This is just outside of Los Angeles, heading into LA at 8: 00am on a work day

If you’ve been to LA you know how insane this is…. Illegals are hiding from ICE pic.twitter.com/3hk7rNcVns

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) July 9, 2025

Of course, leftist rags like Newsweek attempted to debunk the reports, citing insurance claims adjuster and LA resident Jason Lemus, who said “The level of misinformation about this is nuts,” adding “There’s been no significant impact to traffic in LA.”

What’s interesting, however, is that the number of collisions are down roughly 10% y/y for the period between Jan. 20 – Mar. 14 in both Los Angeles and New York City. 

LOS ANGELES – LAPD TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORTS:

    From Jan. 20, 2024 through Mar. 14, 2024: 2,289 reported collisions.
    From Jan. 20, 2025 through Mar. 14, 2025: 2,076 reported collisions.
    Decrease of 9.3%

NEW YORK CITY – NYPD TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORTS:

    From Jan. 20, 2024 through Jul. 23, 2024: 46,267 reported collisions.
    From Jan. 20, 2025 through Jul. 23, 2025 (latest available data): 41,459 reported collisions.
    Decrease of 10.4%

So while this data doesn’t explicitly prove that ICE arrests of illegals has had an impact on both freeway congestion and collisions, hard data shows a dramatic drop in collisions year-over-year. 

Any thoughts as to why?

Authored by Matthew Vadum, Sam Dorman, Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,

The Supreme Court will hear cases in the fall and winter dealing with hot-button social and political issues, ranging from males competing in female sports to pregnancy centers to redistricting.

After a high-profile ruling in June that allowing Tennessee’s ban on gender procedures for minors, the court will deal with transgender issues again in two cases challenging state bans on males competing in women’s and girls’ sports.

Another case, from New Jersey, looks at whether the pro-abortion state may subpoena donor information from pro-life pregnancy help centers.

The court will also look at three election law cases regarding campaign spending limits, redistricting according to race, and whether ballots received after Election Day can be counted.

Here is a look at the nine biggest cases to watch in the court’s 2025–2026 term, which begins in October.

1. State Bans on Men in Women’s Sports

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases tackling the issue of males competing against women in sports.

States have passed laws forbidding this practice, and in the cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., transgender-identifying youth have sued to overturn those laws. In both cases, the plaintiffs said the laws violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, as well as Title IX, a law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools that receive federal funds.

In March 2020, Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed a law banning men from women’s sports; the law still allows women who identify as males to compete with men.

Lindsay Hecox, a male who identifies as female, filed a suit challenging the law. Hecox wanted to compete on the Boise State University women’s teams for track and cross-country.

The district court ruled in favor of Hecox. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision in June 2024, finding that the law violated the equal protection clause by targeting transgender-identifying people. The appeals court also blocked the ruling from applying to parties not directly involved in the case.

Idaho appealed, which was accepted by the Supreme Court.

In West Virginia, a transgender-identifying middle-schooler known as B.P.J. in court documents sued to challenge the state’s Save Women’s Sports Act. B.P.J. had been participating in girls’ cross-country and track-and-field teams, regularly defeating female athletes, a court petition reads.

The state law, enacted in 2021, stipulates that women’s teams based on “competitive skill” or involving “a contact sport” must not be open to men.

Initially, a district court temporarily blocked the state law while the case was pending. But in its final decision, the court reversed the block and ruled that the law was constitutional. It found that the law actually strengthened Title IX, rather than violating it.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit paused this decision. In April 2023, the Supreme Court declined to lift the block while the case was playing out in the lower court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

In April 2024, the appeals court, in a 2–1 decision, found that the law breached Title IX by discriminating against B.P.J. on the basis of sex.

The majority said the state had argued that “the Act does not discriminate based on gender identity because it treats all ‘biological males’—that is, cisgender boys and transgender girls—the same.”

“But that is just another way of saying the Act treats transgender girls differently from [biological] girls, which is—literally—the definition of gender identity discrimination,” it said.

President Donald Trump, joined by women athletes, signs the No Men in Women’s Sports executive order at the White House on Feb. 5, 2025. The Supreme Court is set to revisit transgender issues in two upcoming cases challenging state bans on males competing in women’s and girls’ sports. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Judge G. Steven Agee of the Fourth Circuit disagreed.

“It is not enough—and is actually irrelevant when it comes to competitive sports—that B.P.J. identifies as a girl,” he wrote in his dissent.

“Gender identity, simply put, has nothing to do with sports. It does not change a person’s biology or physical characteristics. It does not affect how fast someone can run or how far they can throw a ball. Biology does.”

This is the latest case dealing with transgender issues to hit the high court. The past term saw a 6–3 court upholding a Tennessee ban on the use of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers for minors experiencing gender dysphoria.

In 2020, the court in Bostock v. Clayton County ruled 6–3 that federal law bars employees from being fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

President Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders that have affected people identifying as transgender. One order banned such individuals from military service. Lower courts blocked that order, but in May, the Supreme Court temporarily reinstated it to allow litigation challenging it to proceed in the appeals court.

2. Colorado’s Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors

In 2019, Colorado passed a law banning therapists from providing so-called “conversion therapy” for minors experiencing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.

Any efforts to “change an individual’s sexual orientation, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” are prohibited, according to the law.

However, under the law, therapists are allowed to affirm same-sex attraction or a minor’s desire to change his or her gender.

Kaley Chiles, a licensed therapist in Colorado, sued in September 2022 to overturn the law on First Amendment grounds, both for herself and on behalf of her clients.

In her complaint, Chiles alleged that the law chills her free speech because she is forced to avoid some areas of conversation during her therapy sessions. It also prevents minors from seeking therapy for unwanted feelings and behaviors, “even when the client desires and freely consents to such counseling,” she alleged.

Colorado argued that the law does not directly regulate speech, only Chiles’s conduct as a licensed therapist. The state says these therapies are harmful and increase mental distress and thoughts of suicide in minors.

District Judge Charlotte Sweeney of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado agreed with the state, and ruled in December 2022 that states may regulate conduct, even if that conduct “incidentally” involves speech.

“As Defendants argue, speech made in a professional context—particularly in the context of licensed professional counseling—is distinguishable from, for example, political speech,” she wrote in her opinion.

People protest outside the Supreme Court as justices hear a case on banning gender procedures for minors, in Washington on Dec. 4, 2024. The court is set to hear two cases involving Idaho and West Virginia, where laws bar males from competing in female sports. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

“The Minor Therapy Conversion Law is viewpoint neutral and does not impose content-based speech restrictions.”

In September 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling in a 2–1 decision, agreeing that Chiles’s speech was only “incidental” to restrictions on her conduct as a therapist.

“In my view, and, more importantly, in the view of the United States Supreme Court, such wordplay poses a serious threat to free speech,” Judge Harris Hartz wrote in his dissent.

“I daresay any speech that a government finds offensive could be placed within a field of conduct and, under the analysis of the majority opinion, regulated as ‘incidental’ to regulation of that field of conduct.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case will affect dozens of other states that have similar restrictions.

3. Redistricting to Favor Minorities

The Supreme Court will again consider whether an election map for Louisiana that includes two black-majority congressional districts discriminates against non-black voters.

In Louisiana v. Callais, a federal district judge ruled that an earlier version of the map, which provided for one black-majority congressional district, discriminated against black voters, who constitute nearly one-third of the state’s population. The judge ordered district lines in the state moved to create a second black-majority district.

A group of non-black voters sued, arguing that the map discriminated against non-minorities. A three-judge federal panel agreed and reinstated the previous map. In May 2024, the Supreme Court ordered the state to use the map that contained the second black-majority district in that year’s elections.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in March, but declined to issue a ruling in June. Instead, the court ordered, without explanation, that the case be reargued in the upcoming term.

Thomas dissented, saying there was “no reason” to avoid deciding the case.

“Congress requires this Court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly,” Thomas said.

J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, said the court will likely strike down the map with two black-majority districts.

“You can’t draw district lines based on race, and this affects everything from Congress on down to county council,” he said.

“When you say you’re maximizing black seats that you’re going to draw on the basis of race, you violate the 15th Amendment.”

People arrive to vote at a polling station in New Orleans on Nov. 5, 2024. In its upcoming term, the Supreme Court will review whether Louisiana’s congressional map with two black-majority districts discriminates against non-black voters. Sandy Huffaker/AFP via Getty Images

That amendment says a citizen’s right to vote may not be denied based on race or color.

The outcome of the case may affect the balance of power in the legislative branch. Currently, Republicans maintain a thin majority over Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Republicans won four of Louisiana’s six U.S. House districts in the 2024 elections, and Democrats won two. After the 2022 elections, Republicans had five seats compared with the Democrats’ single seat.

4. Political Parties Coordinating Spending With Candidates

The Supreme Court will look at whether federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates violate the free speech protections of the Constitution’s First Amendment.

The case is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission.

Restrictions on spending by party committees that are coordinated with candidates for Congress and president were created on the theory that not having limits encourages corruption and allows wealthy donors to have outsized influence.

The rules in 2025 allow coordinated party spending for Senate races, ranging from $127,200 in a few states with small populations to almost $4 million in California. The limit for House races is $63,600, but rises to $127,200 in states that have only one House representative.

Two Republican party committees, Vice President JD Vance, and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) challenged the limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

“A political party exists to get its candidates elected,” they said in their petition filed with the Supreme Court in December 2024. “Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates.”

The petition noted that Congress had built a wall of separation between party and candidate, “forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.”

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) speaks to reporters after the CNN Presidential Debate at Georgia Tech in Atlanta on June 27, 2024. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) petitioned the Supreme Court in December 2024 to challenge the limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates in the Federal Election Campaign Act. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

That is the “equivalent of prohibiting communication between a coach and quarterback late in a tied game,” the petition reads.

In September 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against the Republican challengers.

It found “coordinated party expenditure limits” are inconsistent with recent Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment, but noted that the high court upheld them in the 2001 decision of Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee.

5. Challenge to Ballot-Counting After Election Day

The Supreme Court will take up a congressman’s challenge to an Illinois law that allows ballots to be counted if they are received up to 14 days after Election Day.

The case is Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections.

A victory for the challenger, Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.), could open the door to more lawsuits being filed in other states against the late counting of ballots.

Eighteen states, including Illinois, accept mailed ballots received after Election Day if they bear a postmark from Election Day or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands also follow the same rule.

Bost sued in 2022, saying the Illinois law extending counting beyond Election Day conflicts with federal law, which takes precedence over state law.

State laws allowing post-election vote counting are preempted, or superseded, by the Constitution’s elections and elector clauses, his petition filed with the Supreme Court reads.

“Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day,” Bost said.

However, a federal district judge did not reach the merits of the case, ruling that Bost lacked standing to proceed. Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. A party must show a strong enough connection to a claim to justify its participation in a lawsuit.

The fact that Bost is a political candidate was not enough to establish standing, even though his campaign incurs additional expenses while monitoring the receipt and counting of ballots after Election Day, the judge ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the ruling in August 2024, finding that Bost had merely “a generalized grievance affecting all Illinois voters.”

A resident drops off a vote-by-mail ballot in a drop box in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2020. The Supreme Court will take up Rep. Michael Bost’s (R-Ill.) challenge to an Illinois law that allows ballots to be counted if they are received up to 14 days after Election Day. Scott Olson/Getty Images

After the Supreme Court decided on June 2 to hear the appeal, Judicial Watch, which brought the appeal on Bost’s behalf, hailed that decision.

“It is an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision that could lead to illegal votes being cast and counted for two weeks after Election Day,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

The case is about whether a congressional candidate has standing to sue. If Bost wins at the Supreme Court, the case will return to the trial court, which may hear his Election Day arguments.

6. New Jersey Sues Pro-Life Pregnancy Center for Its Donor List

The petitioner, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, came under fire in late 2023 when New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin accused the pregnancy center of violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

First Choice provides free counseling for unplanned pregnancies, but does not perform abortions or abortion referrals.

Platkin issued a subpoena for First Choice’s donor records, saying the nonprofit organization was misleading its clients and donors because its donor web page openly touts its pro-life stance, while its client web page does not.

Donor information is closely guarded in the nonprofit community. Donors generally want their identities to be protected so that they will not be subject to harassment by political opponents and hostile governments.

Platkin also accused First Choice of misinformation, and said its claims that chemical abortions can be reversed may be “misleading or untrue.”

Platkin, along with 15 other state attorneys general, signed a letter in October 2023 denouncing “anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers” and accusing them of using “deceptive tactics to lure in patients seeking reproductive healthcare.”

He issued his subpoena to First Choice the next month, and the nonprofit sued in federal district court to block it. The district court declined to halt the subpoena, saying it was too early to act because no state court had yet issued an order to enforce it.

The nonprofit appealed the district court’s refusal to block the subpoena to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which declined to pause the subpoena. In May 2024, the Supreme Court also declined to halt the subpoena.

In January 2024, Platkin asked the New Jersey Superior Court to enforce the subpoena, triggering multiple rounds of litigation in state and federal courts.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin speaks at a town hall at SUNY Westchester Community College in Valhalla, N.Y., on May 8, 2025. The Supreme Court will consider whether New Jersey can subpoena donor records from First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life nonprofit. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Eventually, the Third Circuit ruled again that the case was still not ripe, or ready to be heard by that court, because First Choice could still make First and Fourth Amendment arguments—about free speech and search and seizure—in lower courts.

On June 16, the Supreme Court revisited the case and agreed to consider whether the state may subpoena the nonprofit’s donor records.

7. Controversial Street Preacher

Gabriel Olivier is a street preacher and evangelist. In 2021, he was arrested and charged with violating a city ordinance from Brandon, Mississippi, which designates a particular protest area for demonstrations at events. According to court documents, a group of people, including Olivier, showed up to a concert in 2021 and called people things such as “whores,” “Jezebels,” and other names.

When he got to court, Olivier pleaded no contest and was given a suspended sentence of 10 days in prison.

The Supreme Court is not dealing so much with that sentence as with the question of whether a later lawsuit by Olivier could proceed in court. After his initial conviction, Olivier tried to file a civil lawsuit under a law known as Section 1983, which allows individuals to sue governments if they violate constitutional or statutory rights. Olivier said the city’s ordinance violated his right to share his faith.

However, because Olivier already had a criminal conviction over the ordinance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said he could not sue again over that policy’s constitutionality. That is because, in 1994, the Supreme Court issued a decision known as Heck v. Humphrey, which said Section 1983 lawsuits cannot be brought if success in those lawsuits “would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prior conviction.” According to the appeals court, that was the case with Olivier.

Olivier told the Supreme Court that the Fifth Circuit’s decision was wrong because he was never detained. Because he was not detained, he could not challenge the ordinance’s constitutionality through something known as a habeas corpus, he told the court.

8. Afghanistan Veteran Challenges Defense Contractor

Should a wounded Afghanistan veteran be able to sue a government contractor if it was liable for the events that led to his injuries? According to courts, it is complicated, and contractors may enjoy some level of immunity under federal law.

Ahmad Nayeb, an Afghan national and employee of a government contractor, Fluor Corp., carried out a suicide bombing on a U.S. military base in 2016. His actions killed some and injured many, including former U.S. Army Spc. Winston Hencely, who was left with permanent injuries that will likely require lifelong care.

Hencely sued Fluor Corp. after an Army investigation found that the company failed to properly supervise Nayeb, who was likely able to construct his bomb vest within the perimeter of the base’s grounds.

Hencely lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and is asking the Supreme Court to revisit how the appeals judges interpreted a law known as the Federal Tort Claims Act. That law generally allows people to sue the federal government over things such as personal injury, but contains an exception for combatant activities of the armed forces.

Members of the military march in the annual Veterans Day Parade in New York City on Nov. 11, 2022. The Supreme Court is set to review whether the Fourth Circuit properly applied the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows lawsuits against the federal government but exempts combatant activities of the armed forces. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Hencely had attempted to sue under state law in South Carolina, where Fluor entities maintain a place of business. Although Hencely sued under state law, a legal concept known as “preemption” allows federal law to take precedence or control a particular issue if it overlaps with matters covered by state law.

The appeals court rejected Hencely’s claims on this basis, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act trumped South Carolina’s law on liability. A panel of judges acknowledged that the federal law’s exception, on its terms, did not apply to contractors. But they held that significant policy interests dictated that the exception should apply to military contractors.

The Supreme Court is set to review whether the Fourth Circuit applied the Federal Tort Claims Act correctly.

9. Weighing IQ and the Death Penalty

In 2002, the Supreme Court said intellectually disabled criminals could not be sentenced to death because this would violate the Eighth Amendment’s bar on excessive punishment.

Since then, courts have attempted to apply that ruling to cases in lower courts. One such case is Hamm v. Smith, which involves a man, Joseph Clifton Smith, who received multiple IQ scores of a little more than 70 points. An average IQ score is 90 to 115 points.

A jury in Alabama found Smith guilty of murder, for which he was later sentenced to death. However, before his sentence was completed, the Supreme Court issued its 2002 decision on intellectual disability. After a series of appeals, a federal court eventually removed his death sentence on the basis that he could have an IQ of less than 70, which is the state’s benchmark for intellectual disability.

According to court documents, Smith had five scores—75, 74, 72, 78, and 74. Although all five of Smith’s IQ scores were higher than 70, four were low enough that the margin of error made it possible that his actual score was lower than 70.

A panel of appellate judges said that in order to use IQ to maintain the death penalty, the state had to have evidence strong enough to foreclose the possibility of his actual IQ being lower than 70.

A view of the death chamber from the witness room at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility shows an electric chair and gurney in Lucasville, Ohio, on Aug. 29, 2001. Alabama and the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review claims that an appeals court was misapplying IQ scores in death penalty cases. Mike Simons/Getty Images

Because the state did not present this type of evidence, the appeals court said other factors could be considered in determining whether Smith was too intellectually disabled to receive the death penalty.

Alabama and the Trump administration sought Supreme Court review, arguing that the appeals court was mishandling IQ scores. Instead, they said, courts could consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores when deciding whether a death sentence can proceed.

In a recent op-ed, radio host Jason Rantz argues that Seattle Democrats outraged by President Donald Trump’s new homelessness executive order are ignoring their own responsibility for the crisis.

Trump’s order, “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” dismantles “Housing First” and “Harm Reduction” strategies, which Rantz calls failed progressive experiments that worsened addiction, street crime, and homelessness. He says local leaders in cities like Seattle and Spokane are “predictably outraged” because the policy is “a direct rebuke to the failed progressive experiments that have crippled Seattle, Spokane, and other left-wing cities.”

Rantz writes that Washington Governor Bob Ferguson called the order “misguided and harmful,” while Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said it was impractical. Rantz counters that their criticisms are hypocritical, as these leaders presided over a surge in encampments, crime, and drug use.

He is particularly critical of “Harm Reduction” programs that distribute drug paraphernalia at taxpayer expense, claiming they enable addiction. “In less than five minutes, I walked away with glass pipes and other fentanyl smoking equipment, no questions asked,” he said of a recent visit to a Seattle facility.

Rantz also dismisses “Housing First” as ineffective, arguing it ignores root causes like mental illness and substance abuse. He claims the program “merely relocates the dysfunction indoors.”

Trump’s order ties federal funding to enforcement of laws against public camping, open drug use, and street crime, which Rantz says restores accountability. “When we stop normalizing drug addiction and homelessness, we offer real compassion — access to treatment, mental health services, and genuine rehabilitation programs,” he writes.

Rantz accuses Democratic leaders of opposing the order to protect their political turf, not vulnerable populations. “They oppose Trump’s policy because admitting its effectiveness means acknowledging their own spectacular failures,” he argues.

Calling Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles “cautionary tales of progressive governance gone awry,” Rantz says the executive order is necessary to end harmful policies. “Ending ‘Housing First’ and ‘Harm Reduction’ isn’t just necessary; it’s imperative,” he concludes.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Washington has rejected an investment firm’s request to force the Federal Reserve to open its closed-door monetary policy meetings to the public.

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 28 denied Azoria Capital Inc.’s request for an emergency order requiring the Fed to hold its upcoming interest rate deliberations in public.

Azoria Capital sued last week, arguing that the central bank’s decades‑long practice of holding Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) sessions behind closed doors violates the “Government in the Sunshine Act.” That law generally requires multimember agencies to allow the public to attend their meetings, a standard Azoria claims the Fed failed to meet, subjecting the company to irreparable harm.

During Monday’s hearing, Howell said the Sunshine Act does not apply to the FOMC and concluded Azoria was unlikely to prevail on the merits. The ruling allows the Fed to continue its long‑standing practice of deliberating privately on interest‑rate decisions, which officials argue is necessary to prevent market disruption.

In its filings, Azoria alleged that the FOMC, led by Chair Jerome Powell, may be keeping rates elevated for political reasons.

“Azoria is deeply concerned that the FOMC, under Chair Jerome Powell, is maintaining high interest rates to undermine President Donald J. Trump and his economic agenda,” the complaint states, adding that secrecy “unlawfully deprive[s] Azoria and the American public of timely access to deliberations that may reveal improper political motives behind the FOMC’s decisions.”

The FOMC, a 12‑member panel made up of Federal Reserve governors and regional bank presidents, meets eight times a year to set monetary policy. After each meeting, it releases a policy statement followed by a press conference from the chair. Detailed minutes are published several weeks later, providing more context on the debate.

Federal Reserve lawyers argued in a response brief that the Sunshine Act does not cover the FOMC because its members serve on the committee by virtue of other positions, rather than being appointed directly. Even if the law applied, they said, its exemptions allow closed sessions when disclosure could trigger “significant financial speculation.”

“Plaintiff has put forth no evidence that it faces any great harm,” Fed attorneys wrote, adding that it “would not be in the public interest to grant Plaintiff’s request to further its pecuniary interests at the expense of the FOMC’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandate and protect the Nation’s economy.”

After the hearing, Azoria Capital CEO James Fishback issued a statement saying that the court denied his emergency request for a temporary restraining order, not the underlying lawsuit.

He said Azoria would continue pressing its case and pointed to two developments: the court declined to dismiss the suit outright, and Fed lawyers acknowledged that the FOMC meeting would be held jointly with the Fed’s board of governors, which is subject to the Sunshine Act.

“Azoria believes these joint meetings between the FOMC and Board of Governors may be an attempt to dodge the Sunshine Act and deny Americans their legal right to know what the Federal Reserve is actually doing,” Fishback said.

“Azoria looks forward to continuing our case and fighting for transparency and accountability for all Americans.”

The court’s decision came as the FOMC began a two‑day meeting expected to leave interest rates unchanged for a fifth straight time.

Powell has said policymakers want to gauge how the economy responds to Trump’s tariffs before adjusting interest rates, particularly whether the duties will feed inflation.

Trump has repeatedly accused Powell of “playing politics” with monetary policy and demanded rate cuts to spur growth and lower the government’s debt‑service costs.

Minutes from the Fed’s June meeting revealed divisions among officials: some favor cuts later this year if inflation eases, while others see little justification for easing given robust economic conditions.

On Monday, Trump again called on the Fed to cut interest rates, saying it would help propel the U.S. economy.

“I think he has to,” Trump said of Powell, speaking alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer following their meeting in Scotland.

After years of near-exclusive control over the Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC) rich mineral reserves, China now faces growing competition from the United States. Washington is moving aggressively to secure access to cobalt, copper, and lithium—vital for electric vehicles, green energy, and defense technologies, according to the South China Morning Post.

Last year, the US reportedly pressured Kinshasa to block a Chinese acquisition of Chemaf Resources. Now, a US consortium, including firms led by former military executives, has bid for Chemaf’s operations, including the major Mutoshi copper-cobalt project. Bill Gates- and Jeff Bezos-backed KoBold Metals has also signed a deal to explore the Manono lithium deposit, despite a legal dispute with Australia’s AVZ Minerals.

These moves follow a US-brokered “minerals-for-security” agreement between the DRC and Rwanda aimed at stabilizing eastern Congo. In return, American companies gain mineral access.

Joseph Cihunda, a law professor at the University of Kinshasa, said the Congolese government is trying to avoid becoming a battleground between global powers. “Even in Congolese public opinion, they do not want such a confrontation,” he noted. President Félix Tshisekedi recently met with Chinese officials to reassure them of continued cooperation.

“Minerals are abundant in the DR Congo and there is room for everyone, American, European and Chinese,” Cihunda added.

SCMP writes that China remains deeply embedded in the DRC mining sector. Its ambassador to Kinshasa, Zhao Bin, rejected claims Beijing had neglected Congo, saying: “We have neither treated the DR Congo as a bargaining chip nor imposed any discriminatory measures against it.” Zhao emphasized China’s “non-interference” policy and its practical support, from military aid to economic assistance.

Analysts say the US is now trying to catch up. Sun Yun of the Stimson Center said, “The US is catching up on its critical mineral vulnerability and it will have to vigorously push for more assets and security in its supply chain.”

Much of the competition centers on cobalt—of which the DRC supplies roughly 70% of the global total—as well as copper, lithium, and other key metals. Western companies ceded many assets to Chinese control in past years, including Freeport-McMoRan’s sale of Tenke Fungurume and Kisanfu to China Molybdenum in 2016 and 2020.

Chris Berry of House Mountain Partners said US policy on minerals has shifted from environmental goals to security priorities: “Rather than a focus on ESG or ‘green growth’ the focus is now on national defence and self-sufficiency in critical mineral access.” He expects US companies to be “much more aggressive in deal making” as they compete with China.

Authored by Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson via RealClearPolitics,

The rise of socialist New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has highlighted a fundamental truth that I learned as a former Democratic elected official: the Democratic Party never learns.

Sure, Democrats occasionally pay lip service to law and order and economic opportunity. But before I announced two years ago that I was officially renouncing my Democratic ties and becoming the only Republican mayor to lead a top 10 American city, I saw over and over again that when given the choice between effective, common-sense growth-focused governance or the fever dreams of radicals – high taxes, burdensome regulations, and hostility toward law enforcement – the Democratic Party will consistently run to the left and jump off the deep end.

In the end, Democrats are content to make cities unaffordable, unlivable, and untenable for businesses – driving out the very people who make cities vibrant. America’s cities deserve better leadership that is grounded in public safety, fiscal responsibility, and a respect for their taxpayers.

New York’s Democratic primary could have been about who represents these fundamental values, and about who could bring competence to city leadership. Instead, Mamdani’s nomination sends a clear message about where the modern Democratic Party intends to take our nation’s largest city. The entrepreneurial spirit, hardworking families, and vibrant communities that made New York great are now cast as the villains in a never-ending story of victimhood.

Just take a look at some of Mamdani’s radical comments and ridiculous policy proposals. Mamdani has publicly called on “defunding” and “dismantling” the police on numerous occasions. He wants to increase New York’s already high taxes to the point where it will drive more businesses and job creators out. He even wants to harken back to the days of the Soviet Union and establish government-owned grocery stores.

Should he be elected the next mayor, Mamdani would move New York toward failed socialist policies under which the government dictates outcomes rather than creating an environment that allows people and businesses to thrive. It’s a vision of a city government you would expect from undergraduate freshmen, not from supposedly serious adults. It’s insanity.

That’s why I recently invited New Yorkers who are concerned about this trajectory to consider Dallas. My invitation wasn’t a stunt. We’ve declared ourselves as America’s first “Sanctuary City from Socialism” for a reason, and we’re ready to welcome anyone who wants to be a part of it.

Since I’ve been in office, we’ve lowered property tax rates by record amounts and embraced a “Build Baby Build” approach when it comes to housing. We’re empowering the private sector by slashing regulations to meet the demand for housing, reducing the median time to issue a residential building permit from 68 days to just eight days.

We also prioritize public safety. We don’t demonize law enforcement. We fund them, we thank them, and we stand with them. As a result, Dallas has now experienced a remarkable four straight years of violent crime reduction.

We also understand that thriving businesses create jobs and generate tax revenue that allows us to invest in public safety, infrastructure, world-class parks, and essential services. In Dallas, we embrace innovation, entrepreneurship, and the free market as forces for good.

It’s no coincidence that Dallas has become the top destination for corporate headquarters relocations and is emerging as America’s new financial capital. We don’t just talk about opportunity, we build it. Whether it’s Goldman Sachs investing half a billion dollars for a landmark campus for 5,000 professionals or the Texas Stock Exchange getting ready to launch in 2026, Dallas is leading a new era of competition and innovation in American finance.

Business leaders across the country are watching, and they’re telling me the same thing: If New York chooses this unadulterated socialism, they’re ready to bring their jobs, their talent, and their investment to Dallas.

I get it: Leaving a place you love isn’t an easy decision. However, I also know that a city with leadership that refuses to embrace a focus on the basics – such as keeping people safe, keeping taxes reasonable, and keeping the government focused on results – makes it harder for families and companies to stay.

If you’re a New Yorker who feels like your city is slipping away from the values that once made it great, know that you’re not alone, and you have options – a concept you won’t find in your new government-owned grocery store.

Six months ago, Goldman Sachs analysts sounded the alarm with a “cautious view” on Government IT & Services, as Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) strike teams began slashing bloated federal contracts. Now, with billions of dollars in cancellations piling up, especially across consulting programs, those same analysts are continuing their bearish stance, warning that pain for government contractors is not over. 

A team of Goldman analyst led by Noah Poponak stated that the DOGE website now shows “41 new contract changes with $1.2bn in reported savings across our coverage,” adding, “Of the 41 changes, 26 of them are from the Department of Defense (DoD), accounting for ~$1.1bn (90%) of the new reported savings.” 

Those savings materialized between the June and July updates on DOGE’s website. Savings include:

• CACI International: $700mn in savings were reported for the revised portion of a large Enterprise IT as a Service contract. The contract’s FPDS page indicates there was $0 of action obligation remaining for the contract, but it is unclear if the remaining value was canceled or only a portion of a ceiling was changed, given this was a $5.7bn / 10 year program that started in 2022.

• Booz Allen Hamilton: 21 additional BAH contracts totaling $216mn in reported savings were logged over the last month

Across Goldman’s Government IT & Services and Defense coverage, these are the latest DOGE impacts on a company-by-company basis:

DOGE impact so far on a federal agency basis:

Canceled Contracts (with a value greater than $0) by federal agency:

In early July, Poponak pointed out that DOGE’s contract cancellations at DoD were beginning to ramp up.

Deep Staters On Edge As DOGE’s DoD Strike Team Hits Pentagon With Sweeping Contract Cuts https://t.co/7u6nYbHyLQ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 9, 2025

The good news for DOGE’s mission is that some of its spending cuts are now being codified into law. However, both Trump and GOP lawmakers have been surprisingly slow to accelerate and sign off on these measures. While Trump did sign a rescissions bill last week targeting funding for USAID, NPR, and PBS, the pace must go into high gear. Without a more aggressive push to dismantle the bloated federal bureaucracy, it risks consuming this administration from within.