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.

Authored by Steve Cortes via RealClearPolitics,

January 6 has become a date of hallowed pagan sacredness to the ruling class – a supposed talisman marking chaos, a shorthand for “threats to democracy.” But the media, predictably, has focused on the wrong January. And the wrong threat.

Because the real January 6 – the one that changed everything – wasn’t in 2021. It happened four years earlier, in 2017. Not at the Capitol, but rather in a glass-walled conference room on the 26th floor of Trump Tower.

That morning, President-elect Donald J. Trump received a classified briefing from top intelligence officials – a routine, transitional step for any incoming commander in chief.

But what he got wasn’t intelligence. It was a malicious setup, a trap.

FBI Director James Comey entered the room alone and handed Trump the political equivalent of a political grenade: the now-debunked Steele dossier. A document so flimsy, partisan, and salacious, it wouldn’t pass editorial review at Mother Jones, let alone FBI verification. And yet, veracity wasn’t the point.

The objective wasn’t to actually inform the incoming president, but instead, Comey arrived at the behest of President Obama and CIA Director Brennan with two missions. First, he sought to bait Trump into some sort of dubious false confession. Second, once the briefing was made, the even bigger trap was set.

How?

Because once the FBI told Trump about the dossier – even informally, even off the record – that fact became the news hook, it became the poisoned seed to grow the entire Russian collusion hoax. The contents of the briefing were leaked to legacy, Trump-hating media, likely by Brennan himself.

Within hours, BuzzFeed and CNN were live. The chyron wrote itself: “President-elect Trump briefed on Russian kompromat.” Boom. Mission accomplished. The fuse was lit.

These actions weren’t national security protections of legitimate law enforcement operations. Instead, Obama and his top security officials engaged in secret information warfare – waged not by foreign actors but by our very own intelligence community. 

Comey’s maneuver gave the press permission to launder partisan opposition research into a years-long national scandal that had the veneer of respectability because of the alleged imprimatur of the U.S. intelligence community. Even though they all knew that the story was false, from Hillary Clinton to James Clapper, in these propaganda ops, truth is not the coin of the realm. What matters is what can be effectively sold to the compliant media and a divided electorate, regardless of the absurdity of the allegations.

The story did not need to be verified, only mentioned to Trump. Then media charlatans like Jake Tapper and Joe Scarborough took their effective marching orders.

Let’s call this plot what it was: a soft coup in slow motion. A preemptive strike against a duly elected president.

For all the talk about “resistance,” this scheme wasn’t legitimate political opposition. It was preemption … and a crime.

Permanent Washington was not about to try to wait for Trump to fail. Instead, they conspired to ensure he would never get the chance to succeed. Before he signed a single order. Before he picked his cabinet. Before he took the oath of office.

January 6, 2021, made for dramatic images of chaos in Washington. While the violence vs. the police that day will always be inexcusable, the affront to our republic did not unfold on that cold January day on the Mall, but rather four years earlier, as the White House concocted a hoax, using the full powers of a weaponized federal government.

The January 6, 2017, plot does not lend itself to compelling images, but it was nonetheless a wicked, coordinated institutional betrayal carried out by insiders who simply refused to accept the will of the American people in the 2016 election.

They feared Trump not because he was reckless, but because he was serious. Serious about pulling back the curtain. Serious about cutting off the Beltway lifelines. Serious about cleaning house.

And for the permanent class – that’s the real threat. Not tweets. Not tone. But independence. So they acted. Quietly. Strategically. And with the full knowledge that the supplicant media would play its part.

What followed was years of sabotage dressed as journalism. Leaks. Investigations. Impeachments. Perjury traps. All seeded from that original sin – the January 6 meeting that gave the Steele dossier a phony legitimacy.

If the goal was to erode trust in American institutions, it worked. The public watched as once-respected agencies turned into tools of narrative warfare. They saw a sitting president hunted for crimes that didn’t exist – while his accusers were lionized for their lies.

So yes – let’s talk about January 6.

But let’s talk about the one that set the whole thing in motion. The day unelected elites turned a routine briefing into a headline ambush. The day narrative replaced truth as the driving principle of the federal bureaucracy. The day the media, intelligence community, and political class all quietly agreed: Elections only matter when the “correct” side wins.

That’s the real January 6 … and we’re still living in its aftermath.

Steve Cortes is president of the League of American Workers, a populist right pro-laborer advocacy group, and senior political advisor to Catholic Vote. He is a former senior advisor to President Trump and JD Vance, and a former commentator for Fox News and CNN.

When he’s not bankrolling lawsuits against President Donald Trump, defending his connections to Jeffrey Epstein, or funding hoaxes against Republican candidates, Reid Hoffman is coming to grips with the fact that the millions he’s dumped into the Democratic Party might not have been his smartest investment.

Hoffman, who founded the corporate cringe machine Linkedin, recently appeared on Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale’s podcast, American Optimist, where he waxed poetic from everything to the future of artificial intelligence from his unhappiness with politics.

“I regret this and wish it didn’t happen, but I think the Democratic Party really did alienate a section of Silicon Valley and the tech people,” Hoffman told Lonsdale. “Whether it was attacks on crypto or attacks on Big Tech.”

Reid Hoffman to @JTLonsdale: Democrats Alienated Part of Silicon Valley With Attacks on Crypto, Diversity Push

“I regret this and wish it didn’t happen, but I think the Democratic Party really did alienate a section of Silicon Valley and the tech people. Whether it was attacks… pic.twitter.com/xQRw6p6yin

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) July 28, 2025

“One of these things Silicon Valley shares is this deep view that the way you make massive progress for humanity is creating scale technologies, and the principal way of creating scale technologies is companies,” the leftwing billionaire added. “If you’re attacking that and limiting it, then you have all kinds of problems.”

Hoffman then tried to play the both-sides card, decrying supposed extremists on both the left and right spectrum, but, in a surprising moment of self-reflection, called out the Democrats on prioritizing racist diversity, equality, and inclusion efforts over technological progress.

“You’ve got crazy people on both sides.  [ZH: oh?] You have crazy people saying, ‘No, no, no, no, we shouldn’t allow any technological progress until you have exact proportionate of races and genders and everything else.’ And it’s like, no, no, no, no, progress and technology—it’s fundamental,” Hoffman said.

Hoffman reportedly visited Epstein’s private island, Little St. James, in 2014 for MIT fundraising with Joi Ito, the then-MIT Media Lab director, despite Epstein’s 2008 conviction as a sex offender, and was scheduled to stay at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse that year. The billionaire later expressed regret for these associations.

Hoffman also funded E. Jean Carroll’s defamation and battery lawsuit against President Donald Trump through his nonprofit, American Future Republic, raising concerns about political motivations in the judicial process.

In the 2017 Alabama Senate election, Hoffman funded American Engagement Technologies (AET) which provided funds that were used for “Project Birmingham” a disinformation campaign that created fake Facebook pages to discourage Republican voters from supporting Judge Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate, for which he later apologized, claiming ignorance of the tactics.

Authored by Yeny Sora Robles via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. State Department issued a statement on July 27 reaffirming that the United States remains steadfast in its support for the restoration of democracy and justice in Venezuela, one year after the election that saw leader Nicolás Maduro remain at the helm.

“One year since dictator Nicolás Maduro defied the will of the Venezuelan people by baselessly declaring himself the winner, the United States remains firm in its unwavering support to Venezuela’s restoration of democratic order and justice,” the statement reads.

The foreign policy agency, headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, declared that Maduro is the leader of the narco-terrorist organization Cartel de Los Soles (Cartel of the Suns), responsible for drug trafficking to the United States and Europe.

“Maduro, currently indicted by our nation, has corrupted Venezuelan institutions to facilitate the cartel’s criminal drug trafficking scheme to the United States,” added the statement.

It also accused Maduro and his group of manipulating the Venezuelan electoral system “for years” to stay in power.

The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated the Cartel of the Suns as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” organization on July 25 and noted that the criminal group is led by Maduro and other senior Venezuelan officials in his government.

According to the OFAC, Maduro and high-ranking officials in his government have “corrupted the institutions of government in Venezuela, including parts of the military, intelligence apparatus, legislature, and the judiciary, to assist the cartel’s endeavors of trafficking narcotics into the United States.”

It noted that the cartel’s name is derived from the sun figures that often appear on the uniforms of Venezuelan military officers.

The Treasury office also noted that the Cartel of the Suns has been providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, such as the Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa Cartel that provide “material support to foreign terrorist organizations threatening the peace and security of the United States.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in the statement that this action “further exposes the illegitimate Maduro regime’s facilitation of narco-terrorism through terrorist groups like Cartel de los Soles.”

“The Treasury Department will continue to execute on President Trump’s pledge to put America First by cracking down on violent organizations including Tren de Aragua, the Sinaloa Cartel, and their facilitators, like Cartel de los Soles,” he added.

The Tren de Aragua (TdA) emerged in 2013 within the prison system of the Venezuelan state of Aragua and grew stronger through alliances with small local gangs in key areas of the country during long periods of impunity under Maduro’s watch.

Since 2018, the TdA has spread across the continent and expanded its activities to include crimes of extortion, drug trafficking, human trafficking, sexual exploitation of women and children, and money laundering. In recent years, it has taken advantage of the massive emigration of Venezuelans fleeing the difficult situation in their country.

According to the OFAC, the Sinaloa Cartel is one of Mexico’s oldest and most powerful cartels. For years, it has been responsible for trafficking lethal drugs such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine, and other illicit drugs to the United States and has been involved in widespread violence.

“The Cartel de los Soles supports Tren de Aragua in carrying out its objective of using the flood of illegal narcotics as a weapon against the United States. Additionally, the Cartel de los Soles has provided support to the Sinaloa Cartel,” OFAC stated.

By FreightWaves

Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern today announced an $85 billion deal to tie their networks together and create the first U.S. transcontinental railroad.

The merged company — which will be called Union Pacific — will transform the U.S. supply chain and economy, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and preserve all union jobs, the railroads said.

UP will acquire NS in a stock and cash transaction that values NS at $320 per share, a 25% premium. The combined company would have an enterprise value of more than $250 billion. The railroads said the merger would create $2.75 billion in annual synergies within three years, through a combination of $1.75 billion in revenue growth and $1 billion in cost savings.

“Railroads have been an integral part of building America since the Industrial Revolution, and this transaction is the next step in advancing the industry,” UP Chief Executive Jim Vena said. “Imagine seamlessly hauling steel from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Colton, Calif., and moving tomato paste from Heron, Calif., to Fremont, Ohio. Lumber from the Pacific Northwest, plastics from the Gulf Coast, copper from Arizona and Utah, and soda ash from Wyoming. Right now, tens of thousands of railroaders are moving almost everything we use. You name it, and at some point, the railroad hauled it.”

The combined company will deliver faster, more comprehensive freight service to U.S. shippers by eliminating interchange delays, opening new routes, expanding intermodal services, and reducing distance and transit time on key rail corridors, the railroads said.  The merged Union will shift freight to rail, reducing congestion and wear and tear on taxpayer funded highways, they added.

“Norfolk Southern, like Union Pacific, is a railroad integral to the U.S. economy, with a storied 200-year legacy of serving customers across 22 states in the eastern half of the nation,” NS CEO Mark George said in a statement. “Our safety, network, and financial performance is among the best we’ve had as a company, as is our customer satisfaction. And it is from this position of strength that we embark on this transformational combination. We are confident that the power of Norfolk Southern’s franchise, diversified solutions, high-quality customers and partners, as well as skilled employees, will contribute meaningfully to America’s first transcontinental railroad, and to igniting rail’s ability to deliver for the whole American economy today and into the future. Union Pacific is a true partner that shares our belief in rail’s ability to deliver for all stakeholders simultaneously, and we are excited for our future together.”

Vena, who will be CEO of the combined railroad, invoked President Abraham Lincoln, who created the Union Pacific in 1862 with the signing of The Pacific Railroad Act.

“This combination is transformational, enhancing the best freight transportation system in the world – it’s a win for the American economy, it’s a win for our customers, and it’s a win for our people,” Vena said. “It builds on President Abraham Lincoln’s vision of a transcontinental railroad from nearly 165 years ago and advances our Safety, Service and Operational Excellence Strategy. I am confident this historic transaction will enhance competition to benefit customers, communities, and employees while delivering shareholder value.”

Creating the transcontinental version of Union Pacific is overwhelmingly in the public interest, the railroads said, and will enhance competition, consistent with the test that will be applied in the review of the transaction by the Surface Transportation Board.

The companies expect to file their application with the STB within six months, in which the companies will describe how the combined rail network will provide safer, faster, and more reliable service and increased competition. A pre-filing notification of intent to file an application could come as soon as Wednesday, and is the first official step in the merger evaluation timeline.

Eastern carrier CSX, which has been reported as a possible merger partner with Fort Worth-based BNSF, had no comment. BNSF did not immediately respond to requests for comment from FreightWaves.

“The intermodal freight supply chain thrives when it offers a competitive alternative to long-haul trucking,” said Anne Reinke, president and chief executive of the Intermodal Association of North America, in an email statement to FreightWaves. “It succeeds where there are strong efficiencies, a focus on growth, and a commitment to customer service. As this merger moves forward, we will be looking for these core values to be reinforced.”
The board of directors of both Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern unanimously approved the transaction, which is subject to STB review and approval within its statutory timeline, customary closing conditions, and shareholder approval.

The companies are targeting closing the transaction by early 2027. The deal includes a $2.5 billion reverse termination fee.

They do not plan to use a voting trust, a common maneuver in prior rail mergers that allows the shareholders of the target railroad to cash out while the deal is under regulatory review. The STB rejected a voting trust in Canadian National’s ill-fated attempt to acquire Kansas City Southern under the board’s tougher 2001 merger review rules.

The combined company will be headquartered in Omaha, Neb., which has long been UP’s home base. The NS headquarters in Atlanta will remain a core location over the long-term, with a focus on technology, operations, and innovation, among other priorities, the railroads said.