(The Center Square) – California Attorney General Rob Bonta is co-leading another lawsuit against the Trump administration over tariffs.

Filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, the lawsuit from Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general and governors challenges the Trump administration’s recent decision to increase tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on the European Union and 60 other countries.

According to Bonta, these countries account for 99.4% of all U.S. imports. He said costs of tariffs will be passed along to American consumers and businesses.

“President Trump is so intent on raising the cost of living for Americans that he is willing to break law after law after law to do so,” said Bonta, who has bragged many times on how much he’s sued the Trump administration since the president re-entered office in January 2025.

This lawsuit marks Bonta’s third legal challenge against tariff policies. The first challenge involved the IEEPA tariffs that were struck by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2026. Bonta’s second lawsuit involved the Section 122 tariffs that struck by the U.S. Court of International Trade in May 2026.

In this latest challenge, Bonta et al are fighting the tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the President’s failed and illegal economic policy — no matter how much the president wants them to,” said Bonta.

The attorneys general of Arizona and Oregon are the other co-leaders of the lawsuit.

In a press release, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, D-Arizona, said Arizonans have paid the price of Trump’s tariffs, and it is time to stop.

“Tariffs have resulted in higher grocery prices, bigger bills for small businesses trying to stay afloat, and chaos in nearly every sector of our economy,” said Mayes in a press release. “I will never stop fighting to protect Arizonans from unlawful taxes the President is trying to impose on them.”

Also joining are the Democratic attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Democratic governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

“We have a coalition of states working to oppose this, because here’s the thing, all of those costs of those tariffs, even by Trump’s administration’s own admission, they’re paid by us as consumers,” said Attorney General Dan Rayfield, D-Oregon, in a video posted on X. “That’s why we’re fighting, and we’re going to continue to fight to make sure that these tariffs aren’t passed down as costs to all of us.”

The Trump administration imposed the new tariffs over allegations that the countries were not doing enough to stop the export of goods produced with forced labor.

The White House Press Office was dismissive of the lawsuit in a comment.

“Democrats are once again admitting that their top priority is ensuring illegal immigrants can receive taxpayer-funded benefits meant for American citizens,” Kush Desai, special assistant to the president and senior deputy press secretary, told The Center Square via email. “The Trump administration will continue to protect and preserve these key federal programs for American citizens.”

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Senate has released its version of the five-year farm bill and plans to mark it up in committee Thursday, finally making progress on the critical agricultural policy package.

Like the House’s version, the Senate’s 983-page Agricultural Act of 2026 renews and enhances crop insurance and price support, disaster assistance, risk management programs, operation and marketing loans, and federal agricultural research.

It also outlines investments in rural broadband connectivity, forest management, water infrastructure, and hospital assistance, as well as the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).

Unlike the House edition, the Senate’s authorizes year-round sales of E15 gasoline nationwide and delays the “One Big Beautiful Bill’s” state cost-sharing requirements for SNAP by one year, among other minor changes.

The chambers will ultimately reconcile the differences to produce a single compromise bill.

“Farm families are facing extremely challenging circumstances, with some deciding it’s not worth continuing their operations,” Senate Agriculture Committee John Boozman, R-Ark., stated.

“This bill strengthens the future of agriculture, supports rural communities and provides farmers, ranchers and producers with indispensable resources and tools, all of which serve to ensure America’s food security for generations to come.”

Congress is under immense pressure to pass a farm bill, which it is supposed to do every five years but has not since 2018.

Due to the U.S.-Iran conflict and the Trump administration’s tariffs, American farmers are getting slapped with higher operational costs, which not only raise the cost of consumer goods but also threaten small farmers’ already fragile financial solvency.

The U.S. lost more than 156,000 farms between 2017 and 2025, according to 2026 U.S. Census data. From 2024 to 2025 alone, farm bankruptcy filings jumped by 46%, the American Farm Bureau Federation reported.

The Farm Bureau praised the Agricultural Act of 2026 and urged the Senate to move forward quickly.

“We’ve lost 200,000 farms in a decade, and a modernized farm bill will help stabilize the struggling farm economy,” AFBF President Zippy Duvall said in a statement. “We’re calling on the Senate Agriculture Committee to advance the bill out of markup and send it forward for full Senate passage and ultimately the president’s signature.”

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The Department of War signed agreements Monday with Northrop Grumman to help triple production of PAC-3 interceptors and quadruple output of THAAD components, the latest move in the administration’s push to expand the nation’s missile-defense arsenal.

The department cast the deals as part of its Acquisition Transformation Strategy, a push to hand suppliers longer-term demand so they will fund the tooling, facilities and workforce needed to scale up interceptor production.

Northrop Grumman valued its two agreements at a combined $3 billion, covering solid rocket motors, ignition safety devices and structural components. The work supports two much larger Lockheed Martin prime contracts awarded in recent weeks: a PAC-3 interceptor contract that reached $58.62 billion in total value after a $53.86 billion modification on July 29 and a $35.3 billion THAAD contract on June 24.

The agreements come as the administration seeks the largest military budget in U.S. history, a $1.5 trillion request for fiscal 2027 that would be a 42% increase, including $756.8 billion for defense industrial base investments to expand production capacity and supply chains.

Northrop Grumman said the deals support an increase in PAC-3 production from about 600 interceptors a year toward the thousands. The company said it expects a fourfold rise in THAAD component output. The PAC-3 agreement adds a second supplier of solid rocket motors, which the department said would reduce reliance on a single source.

The headline figures, however, are ceilings rather than committed spending. Both Lockheed Martin contracts are undefinitized, meaning the government has authorized work before agreeing on a final price. The department obligated about $843 million on the THAAD contract when it was awarded in June, but obligated no money on the $53.86 billion PAC-3 modification when it was signed July 29, according to the contract announcements.

The Army Contracting Command, which awarded the PAC-3 modification, and the Missile Defense Agency, which awarded the THAAD contract, did not respond to questions about when the contracts would be finalized.

The Department of War did not answer questions about whether Northrop Grumman’s $3 billion is separate from or included within the Lockheed Martin contract values. A Pentagon official said the approach was designed for speed.

“By leveraging Undefinitized Contract Actions, we’re getting private industry to invest upfront – cutting through red tape to deliver to our Warfighters at the speed of relevance,” the official said, adding that the department had spent the past year “laying the groundwork and establishing key partnerships to expand munitions production.”

When the final prices will be set is not yet clear. Under federal contracting rules, undefinitized deals of this size must be settled within months of the contractor submitting a qualifying proposal, a step neither the department nor Lockheed Martin has said has occurred.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – President Trump on Monday did not call on an Ohio Republican Congressman to resign his seat even though the congressman’s former father-in-law – a Republican U.S. senator from Ohio – had done so just over the weekend.

The congressman, U.S Rep. Max Miller, is divorced from the daughter of U.S Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio. Moreno, over the weekend, called for Miller to step down from Congress, saying he is a danger to the senator’s daughter and granddaughter.

“As a father and husband, I can tell you the last two years have been pure hell for my wife Bridget, our daughter Emily, me, and our entire family in the aftermath of Emily’s divorce,” Moreno wrote on X. “It has been horrific to watch this play out in full public view, all while knowing an innocent 2-year-old girl is caught in the middle. Our priority has always been protecting our daughter and our granddaughter. Out of concern for the safety of my family, I hoped to keep this matter private but Max Miller’s increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior has made that impossible. As he has admitted privately, Max Miller needs serious psychological help. He is a danger to my daughter, and I hold my breath every minute he has custody of my granddaughter.”

Miller denied the charges.

“If my daughter said the same thing to me, I personally wouldn’t wait two years before holding him accountable,” Miller wrote on X. “You know this isn’t true and the only reason you are speaking out now is to hide from your own media circus. This is all political.”

Republicans currently hold a narrow majority in the U.S House. With the November midterm elections approaching, it is uncertain whether the GOP would risk losing Miller’s seat.

Trump on Monday called Miller a “good person” and said the families are working on the allegations.

“It’s a very sad thing,” the president told reporters. “I know Max. He’s a good person. I mean, I always thought he was a very good person, and I’m going to let the families figure that out.”

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The latest executive order signed by President Donald Trump establishes a military spouse commission to address quality of life issues for military families.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth and wife Jennifer Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and 18 military wives joined the president for the signing in the Oval Office on Monday.

The commission is expected to develop recommendations on various issues impacting military families’ well-being, including housing, employment, health care, education and child care.

“We say often, and we mean it: No soldier, no marine, no member of the joint forces serves alone,” the secretary said. “If [the] warfighter knows that their family is good to go, they will go the extra mile, which is what our nation asks.”

“This is not a window dressing effort,” he added. “This is going to be full speed ahead to address the quality of life issues we can.”

Jennifer Hegseth will chair the commission, and membership will include the spouses of senior military leaders, including the Army, Navy and Air Force secretaries, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Coast Guard commandant and others.

Trump said the order was long overdue “by decades” and highlighted that service members received a “warrior dividend” of $1,776 and a pay raise in 2025. The secretary said that the $1.5 trillion in military funding the administration has requested from Congress would include a “generational investment” in things like barracks, military housing, healthcare and pay.

Since 1983, federal law has required an annual adjustment to military basic pay. By default, the adjustment is tied to the Employment Cost Index, though the president or Congress can enact a lower or higher raise. Basic pay increased by an unusually large 4.6%, 5.2% and 4.5% over the past three years. Before 2023, the last time the annual adjustment approached 4% was in 2009, at 3.9%.

The administration’s fiscal year 2027 request is the largest defense budget request ever submitted to Congress.

The White House appointed Desiree Sayle, who has worked as a deputy assistant to former President George W. Bush and to Trump, among other roles, as the commission’s executive director.

Sayle said the military wives gathered in the Oval Office had “over 400 years of experience” as active duty military spouses and had “probably moved over 300 times.”

“If you can imagine that level of experience coming to this commission and solving real problems for the future of our military spouses and families – it’s just an incredible thing,” Sayle said.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – U.S. senators are forging ahead on a bipartisan plan to avert a government shutdown in October rather than following House Republicans’ lead.

Unlike the House-passed continuing resolution, which simply freezes government funding across agencies at current levels, the Senate’s continuing resolution additionally adjusts funding for certain programs until Dec. 11, when the CR would expire.

Senators will vote Monday to advance the CR, with hopes of voting on final passage before lawmakers leave town for their month-long August recess.

“It’s good that we were able to produce a much-improved CR to keep the government funded and avert a shutdown that no one wants,” Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., stated. “This bill includes important extensions and language that House Republicans’ CR did not.”

The Senate’s CR slightly boosts funding for SNAP, FEMA disaster relief, wildfire management, U.S. Navy shipbuilding, small business loans, and multiple federal housing programs to meet expected demand through Dec. 11.

It also extends some programs and grants set to run out of funding on Oct. 1, the end of fiscal 2026. Those include the Food for Peace program and other foreign aid; highway infrastructure and surface transportation programs; the National Flood Insurance Program; and certain veterans’ health care and economic support programs; among other things.

As additional Democratic sweeteners to ease Senate passage, the bill temporarily prohibits the Office of Management and Budget from tasking political appointees with decisions about grant awards and prevents any new funding — including cross-agency funding transfers — to immigration enforcement agencies.

“As Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft this stopgap funding measure,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, stated.

“This measure gives Congress the time we need to continue our work on bipartisan appropriations bills, which are always my strong preference for handling annual government funding,” Collins added. “[T]his CR is a major step toward averting a damaging shutdown that only harms vital programs and federal workers.”

Though Congress is supposed to renew and update funding levels for all federal agencies via 12 annual appropriations bills, it rarely does so on time. Currently, not a single fiscal year 2027 appropriations bill has passed both chambers.

Lawmakers usually pass at least a short-term funding stopgap to buy more time, sometimes passing multiple to cover an entire year, as they did for fiscal year 2025.

The 119th Congress has weathered two record-long government shutdowns during the current fiscal year due to Senate Democrats twice tanking CRs over health care and immigration policy demands, respectively.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted Thursday to advance bipartisan legislation that would prevent the U.S. Department of Education from transferring several major education offices to other federal agencies.

In a 13-9 vote, a bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., with two moderate Republican cosponsors – Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – would prohibit the department from moving programs administered by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Office of Postsecondary Education and the Office of Indian Education through interagency agreements.

This response from the HELP Committee follows a letter signed by 86 Democrats in the House of Representatives to also block the transfer.

In that letter to the department, the lawmakers said the Trump administration’s proposal to move programs to a different agency violates congressional authority.

Collins said in a statement that these transfers are misaligned with their program purposes and that the change “fundamentally misunderstands” the intent and history of the programs within the department.

“The quality of our schools directly corresponds to students’ success and the strength of our economy,” Kaine said in a statement sent to The Center Square. “I am glad that the HELP Committee passed my bipartisan legislation to stop the administration from spinning off specialized agencies within the Education Department, including those supporting special education, to other departments that are not equipped to administer them.”

The Department of Education pushed back on responses stating that the system has failed students.

“The era of coddling a failed status quo must end,” Education Department Press Secretary Savannah Newhouse told The Center Square. “It is an insult to American families – and downright malpractice – that Washington politicians are rushing to protect a system where roughly 30% of our nation’s students are proficient in math and reading. The needs of the system cannot be more important than the needs of the kids.”

Newhouse said Education Secretary Linda McMahon has provided Congress with “a proof of concept” demonstrating how partner agencies can administer the programs more effectively and said it is premature to halt the effort before it has the opportunity to reduce bureaucracy and improve services for students, families and educators.

The bill now moves to the full Senate for consideration.

The Center Square was unsuccessful prior to publication getting comment from Collins and Murkowski.

Esther is an education reporter for The Center Square. Please email her at ewickham@thecentersquare.com for tips or questions.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Michigan has joined Minnesota and other states across the country reporting cyberattacks targeting municipal water systems.

The state’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy reported the incident Saturday amid an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Michigan received a “a small number of reports from Michigan communities indicating activity consistent with what federal agencies described,” EGLE spokesperson Dale George said in a statement.

“All systems continued to operate safely, issues were addressed by local operators, and there are no known impacts that posed a public health concern,” George added.

This comes as more than 30 water systems in Minnesota faced similar attacks last week, with the FBI and the Environmental Protection Agency reporting Thursday that cyberattacks had affected at least seven states.

According to federal officials, some of the attacks have “degraded water operations.”

President Donald Trump last week dismissed reports that the attacks could be coming from Iranian operatives, instead calling out Minnesota’s “corrupt governor” Tim Walz.

“I just want to mention that we heard in Minnesota there was a cyberattack, and they blame it on Iran,” Trump said at the start of a cabinet meeting on Friday. “I don’t think so. I think I blame it on Minnesota because they’re grossly incompetent . . . They like to say, oh, it was Iran. Iran should be so lucky. Iran’s got bigger problems than worrying about Minnesota.”

Water systems in Georgia and South Dakota were also named as victims of similar cyberattacks. The other three states have not been named.

Walz responded to those claims.

“Trump knows exactly who is responsible for this attack, and knows that other states were hit too,” he posted to social media. “This is what modern warfare looks like, and it further illustrates there’s no plan to win a war with Iran.”

The FBI did not specify Iran in its statement, instead calling the hackers “malicious cyber actors.”

“The FBI is aware of recent public reporting around Water and Wastewater (WWS) sectors,” the department said in a statement on Saturday. “The FBI is actively engaged with victims . . . This guidance emphasizes our joint commitment to support critical infrastructure entities against malicious cyber actors attempting to harm the United States.”

The hackers allegedly targeted industrial devices used in water treatment facilities.

Minnesota IT Services said in a statement last week that this was an attack on the state’s critical infrastructure, but it was prepared.

“This incident demonstrates why Minnesota has invested in strong cybersecurity capabilities and partnerships,” said John Israel, MNIT Assistant Commissioner and Minnesota Chief Information Security Officer. “Our response worked as intended, enabling agencies at every level of government to rapidly coordinate, contain the incident, and help prevent more serious impacts to critical services.”

Tatyana Bolton, the executive director of the Operational Technology Cybersecurity Coalition, called these attacks a “wake up call” for the need for more security.

“We believe the U.S. government must take tangible and immediate action to enhance the security and resilience of our critical infrastructure,” Bolton said. “To date, we have been lucky that a more catastrophic incident hasn’t occurred. We can no longer rely on luck. We must act.”

Elyse Apel, a graduate of Hillsdale College, is a reporter for The Center Square covering Minnesota and Michigan. Her work has appeared in a range of national outlets, including the Washington Examiner, The American Spectator, and The Daily Wire.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The Michigan Supreme Court overturned a key permit for the construction of Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac.

The court ordered state energy regulators to reconsider their environmental review for the project, which environmental groups and Native American tribal nations have been fighting against since it was first proposed in 2018.

The plaintiffs applauded the decision.

“For years, Tribal Nations, communities, and thousands of people across the country have raised their voices to protect the Great Lakes,” said Bay Mills Indian Community President Whitney Gravelle. “This decision gives us another opportunity to honor our treaty rights, protect our waters, and consider the generations who will inherit this place.”

The proposed changes would move a section of the pipeline into a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac, which is the four-mile wide waterway connecting Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, dividing Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas. The pipeline currently lies on the bottom of the Straits.

The transmission line is owned by Canadian company Enbridge and goes 645 miles from Superior, Wis., through the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan to Sarnia, Ontario. The 72-year-old pipeline currently moves more than 500,000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids daily.

On Monday, Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy shared the company’s statement on the decision with The Center Square.

“We disagree with the court’s decision and are disappointed at the additional delay that remand will cause to a project that has already been under review for close to a decade,” it said. “Enbridge is reviewing the opinion and assessing our legal options.”

This is the latest setback for the controversial project, which has faced years of legal challenges and regulatory delays. It also comes just weeks after a significant win for the project, when Michigan regulators approved key permits for the tunnel.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision was nearly unanimous, with a vote of 6-1.

“The PSC erred,” the court said, referring to the Michigan Public Service Commission’s approval of the tunnel project. It cited potential “additional environmental harm” with the “the extension of Line 5’s operational life.”

The plaintiffs said they are ready to continue fighting the project’s permit approval as it heads back to the commission for further review.

“The court’s decision upholds the bedrock principles of Michigan environmental law,” said Earthjustice Senior Attorney Adam Ratchenski. “Enbridge’s application to build the tunnel now heads back to the Michigan Public Service Commission, where we will be prepared with robust arguments in defense of Tribal rights and the Great Lakes.”

Supporters of the project argue the tunnel would make the pipeline safer and Michigan’s economy stronger, while opponents are pushing for Line 5’s closure.

“Whether Line 5 is suspended in the water or encased in a tunnel, it is simply a terrible idea to pump more than half a million barrels of oil every day through the middle of the Great Lakes,” said Managing Attorney David Gover with the Native American Rights Fund. “There is a brighter future on the horizon. We can get oil out of the Great Lakes, protect Tribal sovereignty, and preserve our freshwater for generations to come.”

Enbridge said it will continue to push for the tunnel.

“Despite the Michigan Public Service Commission’s rigorous, fact-based process in approving the replacement of the Line 5 pipeline segment into a deep underground tunnel, an approach specifically designed to enhance environmental protection of the Great Lakes while maintaining critical energy reliability for the region, there will be yet another lengthy delay,” their statement said. “What remains unchanged is our commitment to operating Line 5 safely and responsibly, incorporating enhanced safety measures in the Straits, and protecting Michigan’s natural resources for generations to come.”

The project is currently being expedited under President Donald Trump’s day-one executive order declaring a national energy emergency.

Under that order, Trump said that to solve high prices and remedy the “numerous problems” with America’s energy infrastructure, the delivery of energy infrastructure must be “expedited” and the nation’s energy supply facilitated “to the fullest extent possible.”

Elyse Apel, a graduate of Hillsdale College, is a reporter for The Center Square covering Minnesota and Michigan. Her work has appeared in a range of national outlets, including the Washington Examiner, The American Spectator, and The Daily Wire.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Student loan forgiveness may be on the way for young farmers and ranchers across the country.

U.S. Rep. Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson, chairman of the federal House Agriculture Committee, has introduced legislation to address financial concerns that are holding younger generations back from entering the industry.

Last week, Thompson, alongside three other lawmakers, introduced the “Young Farmer Success Act.” The bill, which is a bipartisan proposal, would make young farmers and ranchers eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness, or PSLF program, and help them manage their student loan debt.

Thompson and other supporters argue it will help preserve America’s agricultural economy.

“In recent years, the average age of the American farmer has steadily increased, making it imperative to support the next generation in order to secure our food supply,” Thompson said. “The Young Farmers Success Act will offer incentives to young people entering the agricultural workforce, and invests in our future and national security.”

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, a Democrat from Connecticut, is also backing the effort. He noted that the number of small farms nationwide has declined, while the agriculture industry is being impacted by high costs.

“For young farmers entering the profession, student loan debt can hold them back from being able to make needed investments in farming equipment,” Courtney said.

Only 9% of U.S. farmers are under the age of 35, U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, a Texas Republican who is co-sponsoring the bill, said.

“By giving young farmers access to Public Service Loan Forgiveness through the Young Farmer Success Act, we can provide more young men and women with the opportunity to pursue farming,” De La Cruz said.

“Too many young people who want to farm or work in agriculture are held back by the cost of student loans,” said U.S. Rep. Nikki Budzinski, D-Ilinois, another co-sponsor. “That’s why this legislation is a commonsense way to help more young people build careers in agriculture, strengthen family farms, and keep our rural communities strong.”

This bill is supported by several organizations, including the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau.

Tommy Nagle, president of the bureau, said he can relate to the struggles of prospective young farmers and ranchers since he, too, is a first-generation farmer.

“The USDA’s Agriculture Census showed a nationwide average age of 58-years-old for producers, with the average age in Pennsylvania being a little bit higher than the national average,” Nagle said. “Agriculture is the backbone of Pennsylvania’s economy, so it is crucial that we support legislation that promotes reducing barriers for younger generations in the industry.”

“We recognize one of the most prominent financial burdens for young farmers and ranchers is their outstanding student loans because the agriculture industry’s salaries are not the highest paying, yet their jobs are critical for food and national security,” Nagle continued. “Having a robust agricultural workforce for years to come is imperative because American families depend on our producers to supply their food, fiber, and fuel.”

The National Milk Producers, National Young Farmers Coalition, National Farmers Union, and the National Corn Growers Association also offered support for the proposal.

This isn’t the first time that Thompson has attempted to address this matter.

Last session, the Centre County Republican also introduced legislation that would have allowed certain farmers or ranchers eligible for student loan forgiveness under the PLSF program.

That bill, which never advanced out of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, had the backing of Thompson and 19 additional co-sponsors, including fellow Pennsylvania Republican, U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-1st District.

The current bill was referred to the same committee last week.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci and leader of the White House House COVID-19 Response Team was back in the national spotlight last week when he repeatedly exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at a congressional hearing.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., subpoenaed Fauci after obtaining more than 1,000 pages of the former director’s pandemic-era personal musings. Paul said they showed a discrepancy between Fauci’s public health decisions and statements and his personal beliefs, as well as clear indications of what he said was unethical conduct. Republican leaders used Fauci’s writings to underscore their repeated accusations that he knowingly misled the American people and attempted to profit off of the health emergency. But whether any of those accusations or others will lead to legal consequences for Fauci remains unknown.

The pardon and the ‘autopen presidency’

Some take Fauci’s repeated pleadings of the Fifth Amendment as an implicit admission of insecurity in his federal pardon.

Fauci was pardoned by former President Joe Biden on the last day of his term in 2025. The full and unconditional pardon covers any offenses Fauci may have committed in connection with his service as NIAID director, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force or COVID-19 Response Team, or as chief medical adviser to the president from Jan. 1, 2014, through Jan. 19, 2025.

The pardon uses clear and plain language and just tops 200 words, including the former president’s signature. It’s the signature that some take issue with – less so the signature itself, but what some believe it represents.

The GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform conducted an investigation into Biden’s “diminishing mental and physical capabilities” toward the end of his presidency and concluded in a report that the findings indicated others close to the president were unconstitutionally making decisions for him.

“The investigation’s findings… make clear that, as President Biden was losing command of himself throughout his time in office, his executive actions – especially pardons, of which there are many – cannot all be deemed his own,” the report reads.

“The authority to grant pardons is not provided to the president’s inner circle. Nor can it be delegated to particular staff when a president’s competency is in question,” it continues.

The October report takes readers through an example of the behavior it describes when, according to congressional testimony, Biden had a meeting with select staff on his last day in office, Jan. 19, 2025. There was no “contemporaneous documentation” of the meeting, but one or more of those present in the meeting said they communicated to an aide that Biden had approved the final cluster of pardons. That aide, Rosa Po, called then White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, who was not on site, and he directed her to send an email on his behalf authorizing the use of the autopen for those signings.

“I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons. Thanks, JZ,” Po wrote.

“Zients did not even know who actually used the autopen to apply the signature after his aide,” nor did he “[confirm] with President Biden that he had, in fact, granted these pardons after repeatedly telling the American people he would not pardon his son, Hunter, let alone the five other members of the Biden family,” the report reads.

Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, which broke the news of the widespread use of the autopen in the Biden presidency, thought it was plausible that Fauci repeatedly pleaded the Fifth on Wednesday because of a real lack of confidence in the legitimacy of his pardon.

“I feel validation that Fauci was unable to offer a single word in his own defense,” Howell said in a statement. “That validation is vastly increased by the fact that our work on breaking the ‘scandal of the century’ in the autopen matter has put Fauci in a no-win scenario. Fauci shouldn’t be able to rely on a bogus pardon.”

Despite this, Howell said he didn’t “get the sense” that the committee’s investigation into the use of autopen signings in the Biden administration was “top of mind” at the moment, and the Department of Justice reportedly shelved its investigation in March.

State-level vulnerabilities

Other analysts say proving that Biden was incapable of giving his full consent for the pardons that day and that he did not verbally do so is virtually impossible.

“Maybe if we find another diary out there or something that says Biden had nothing to do with it… [Otherwise], you’re gonna have an evidence problem right off the bat,” said Joe Luppino-Esposito, federal policy director at the Pacific Legal Foundation, in an interview with The Center Square. “And then the other issue is that pardons generally are just not reviewable, right? You’d have to even get to a point where you’re questioning how the pardon was done, which is gonna be a hard threshold to even get in the door on, so there’s a lot of things that would have to happen to kind of knock it out on those terms.”

Esposito said that though Fauci is protected by the pardon at the federal level, he and his legal team could be concerned about cases forming at the state level using information shared in hearings.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced that he was launching an investigation into Fauci. Alabama and Louisiana subsequently joined the investigation.

Lying to Congress or contempt of Congress

Fauci said the reason he repeatedly pleaded the Fifth was because he believed Republicans were trying to entrap him into committing perjury, a crime that bears a sentence of up to five years in prison. Though Fauci’s historical actions back to 2014 are protected at the federal level, he could still be convicted on perjury if he were found lying at Wednesday’s hearing.

Abhishek Kambli, an attorney at Holzman Vogel who recently served as deputy associate attorney general at the Justice Department, said that even so, solely pleading the Fifth more than 100 times was an aggressive legal strategy.

“It’s a little bit of a tough defense to just have a blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment,” Kambli told The Center Square, because some questions wouldn’t render a perjury response, regardless of the answer.

Besides potential state-level action, Fauci’s greatest remaining legal exposure appears to be criminal contempt of Congress.

Though the Constitution protects the right of people testifying before Congress or in court to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination, Republican senators questioned whether Fauci could properly do so because, if his past conduct is covered by a federal pardon, they argued he should not reasonably fear incriminating himself. If they legally have the right to compel his testimony and Fauci refuses to answer questions, he could be found in contempt of Congress.

“Senator Rand Paul has a good argument that it’s still obstructed conduct if he refuses to answer any question based on pleading the Fifth for something he already has a pardon for,” Kambli said.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Miss., directly challenged Fauci on his use of the Fifth Amendment.

“You don’t have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you’ve been pardoned, as you very well know, as the Supreme Court has been clear for a century and more. Brown versus Walker, 1896. When he has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his privilege,” Hawley said.

To hold Fauci in criminal contempt of Congress, a majority of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee would first have to vote in favor of a contempt citation. It’s scheduled to vote in the upcoming week. The full Senate would then have to approve the referral by a simple majority. The matter would then be referred to the Justice Department, which would decide whether to pursue criminal charges. If prosecutors brought a case and Fauci were ultimately convicted, he could face up to one year in prison.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Senators plan to vote Tuesday on Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general after he issued an order rescinding the nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund.

Blanche issued an order late Sunday night, announcing a fund born out of the settlement between Trump and the IRS “is not operative.” The fund came from a lawsuit settlement over the leak of Trump’s tax returns.

“Although the Acting Attorney General has repeatedly advised Congress through testimony, including under oath, as well as in written responses, that the Fund is not moving forward, today’s order officially rescinds the May 18, 2026 Order,” Blanche wrote.

Blanche began serving as acting attorney general in April after Trump fired Pam Bondi.

Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly raised issues with the Department of Justice’s fund and threatened to withhold voting to advance Blanche’s nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The president left open the possibility that individuals charged with crimes relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol would receive financial assistance through the fund. During his confirmation hearing, Blanche said the fund was “dead” and would not be moving forward.

However, Cornyn and Tillis pressed Blanche for a written document confirming the fund would not be resurrected.

Blanche said he has discussed the issue with senators and members of the committee over the past several weeks.

“We have enjoyed good faith discussions, and as a result issue the following order and update,” Blanche said.

In the statement, Blanche explained that no progress was made to move forward on appropriations for the fund.

“No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” the order reads.

Trump floated taking Blanche’s nomination off the table as it was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Blanche could remain in the acting attorney general post for 210 days until progress to advance his nomination would be needed.

The president said he would remove Blanche’s nomination until next year, after Tillis and Cornyn were out of office. Tillis is not running for reelection and Cornyn lost the GOP primary to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in March.

Cornyn and Tillis have yet to issue public statements on whether the Justice Department’s order will push them to advance Blanche’s nomination.

The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote Tuesday at 9 a.m. If Blanche is approved in committee, the nomination will head to the Senate floor.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Fifty-six men risked their lives to sign the Declaration of Independence – not on July 4 but on August 2, 1776.

The only two men to sign the Declaration on July 4 were Continental Congress President John Hancock and Secretary Charles Thomson.

Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee proposed independence in the Lee Resolution on June 11. There was no consensus, the vote got pushed back several weeks and the first vote on July 1 failed. South Carolina and Pennsylvania voted no. New York abstained and Delaware was deadlocked. Only 9 colonies voted yes.

By July 2, 12 of the 13 colonies voted yes with New York abstaining. This was made possible after several twists of providence. One involved two Pennsylvania delegates who opposed independence skipping the vote. This enabled three who supported independence to outvote the remaining two naysayers. Another was the Paul Revere of Delaware, sickly Caesar Rodney. After learning that Delaware was deadlocked, he rode 80 miles overnight in a storm to cast the tiebreaking vote.

After two days of debate and more than 80 edits, the Declaration was adopted on July 4. Philadelphia printer John Dunlap printed 200 copies of “a Declaration,” distributed colony wide. It wasn’t unanimous because New York wouldn’t approve it until July 9.

Many signers were poor. Many others were wealthy, including those who funded the war effort and died penniless or suffered in debtor’s prison like Pennsylvania’s James Wilson and Robert Morris.

Many signers suffered great personal tragedy. New York’s Francis Lewis’ wife was imprisoned. New Jersey’s Abraham Clark’s sons were imprisoned, suffered and killed. Georgia’s George Walton and New Jersey’s Richard Stockton were also imprisoned.

New Jersey’s John Witherspoon, the only ordained minister who signed the Declaration after rallying for independence from the pulpit, lost his son in the Battle of Germantown.

Eight of the signers weren’t born in the colonies. Pennsylvania’s Morris and Georgia’s Button Gwinnett were born in England. New York’s Francis Lewis was born in Wales. Pennsylvania’s James Smith and George Taylor and New Hampshire’s Matthew Thorton were born in Ireland. Pennsylvania’s James Wilson and New Jersey’s John Witherspoon were born in Scotland.

None of North Carolina’s signers were born in North Carolina and they all died before age 50. Two of the youngest signers, 26, were from South Carolina. The oldest was Ben Franklin, 70. The only Roman Catholic signer was Charles Carroll of Maryland.

The Declaration was printed in every newspaper in the colonies, first by Franklin’s paper in Philadelphia on July 6. It was printed in German on July 9 in Philadelphia for a large German immigrant population. It was printed in Charlestown, South Carolina, in August 1776.

Mary Katherine Goddard of Baltimore was the first woman publisher to print it. She was also the first to print that the declaration was “unanimous” and include the signers’ names.

Of the 200 Dunlap broadsides printed, only 20 are preserved by U.S. institutions. Two are held by British institutions, including one confiscated from a Jewish merchant, Jonas Phillips. Phillips tried to get the word out, joyfully writing about independence in Yiddish.

The Declaration lists 27 grievances against the British king, including taxation without representation, dissolving state legislatures, controlling judges, eliminating jury trials and blocking trade. The most egregious include the king “waging war against us … [who] plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”

After their petitions went unanswered, the signers declared a united independence “with a firm reliance on Divine Providence” pledging their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

The signers, from north to south, were:

• New Hampshire: Josiah Barrlett, Matthew Thornton and William Whipple;

• Massachusetts: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine;

• Rhode Island: William Ellery and Stephen Hopkins;

• Connecticut: Samuel Huntington, Roger Sherman, William Williams, and Oliver Wolcott;

• New York: William Floyd, Francis Lewis, Philip Livingston and Lewis Morris;

• New Jersey: Abraham Clark, John Hart, Francis Hopkinson, Richard Stockton and John Witherspoon;

• Pennsylvania: George Clymer, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, John Morton, George Ross, Benjamin Rush, James Smith, George Taylor and James Wilson;

• Delaware: Thomas McKean, George Read and Caesar Rodney;

• Maryland: Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase, William Paca and Thomas Stone;

• Virginia: Carter Braxton, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Thomas Nelson Jr. and George Wythe;

• North Carolina: Joseph Hewes, William Hooper and John Penn;

• South Carolina: Thomas Heyward Jr., Thomas Lynch Jr., Arthur Middleton and Edward Rutledge;

• Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall and George Walton.

Sixteen signed the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.

Six signed the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution: George Clymer, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Read, Roger Sherman and James Wilson.

Two signed all three founding documents: Robert Morris and Roger Sherman.

Sherman is the only one to have signed all four founding documents: the Articles of Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and U.S. Constitution.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – For two years, there was only one question about the Federal Reserve: when do they cut? This week, that question quietly died.

On Wednesday, the Fed held its benchmark rate at 3.50%–3.75% for the fifth consecutive meeting. That part was expected. What wasn’t: three regional Fed presidents – Cleveland’s Beth Hammack, Minneapolis’s Neel Kashkari, and Dallas’s Lorie Logan – voted against the hold. Not because they wanted to cut. Because they wanted to hike, right now. It’s the first time since 2016 that three officials dissented in the same direction, and that direction was up.

It was also Kevin Warsh’s first meeting as chair, and he set a deliberately hawkish tone: a stripped-down statement, no promises about the future, and a clear message that inflation is the priority. Markets got it. Stocks fell more than 800 points on the day and the 30-year Treasury yield jumped to around 5.2%. Traders now put the odds of a rate increase by year-end at roughly one-in-three.

So the question flips. Not “when do they cut,” but “how did we get to a world where the Fed’s next move might be up?” The answer has two layers – one you can see in the headlines, and one buried underneath them that matters far more for what you’ll pay to borrow money for years to come.

The surface story: Four forces keeping inflation warm

Inflation used to be one story. Now it’s several stacked on top of each other.

Tariffs are the one with a delay built in. The price increases mostly aren’t behind us – they’re ahead of us, working their way toward the checkout counter over the coming months. Oil and conflict are the second: renewed tension in the Middle East has kept energy prices elevated, and energy is the one input that touches the price of nearly everything else. AI is the third and least obvious: the sheer scale of demand for power, chips, and data centers is now showing up in the cost of building things. And underneath it all, deficit-financed government spending keeps the Treasury borrowing at a scale that competes with everyone else for available money.

Add expectations to the pile. Households now expect inflation near 3.5% a year from now – and expectations have a way of becoming self-fulfilling. If you expect prices to rise, you ask for higher wages, businesses raise prices to protect margins, and the cycle feeds itself.

That’s why the Fed can’t cut.

The deeper story: The “resting rate” may have risen

Start with what an interest rate really is: a price. Not for a good or an hour of work, but for the use of money over time – and like any price, it’s set by supply and demand. The supply is saving: money that households, retirees and foreign investors set aside instead of spending. The demand is investment: money that businesses want to borrow to build factories and data centers, plus money that governments borrow to cover their deficits. The interest rate is whatever number makes the two sides meet – high enough to coax out the saving the economy wants to borrow, low enough that borrowers are still willing to take it on.

That balancing point is the whole game. When the desire to invest runs ahead of the desire to save, borrowers compete for scarce funds and the rate is bid up. When saving piles up faster than anyone wants to borrow it, the rate of return on savings falls until someone is tempted to spend. The rate that clears that market when the economy is running normally – full employment, stable inflation – is the neutral rate, or r-star. You can’t observe it directly; you can only estimate it. But it’s the gravity that pulls every other rate – mortgages, car loans, corporate debt – toward it over time.

For four decades, that gravity weakened, because both sides of the ledger pushed the same way. Saving swelled: populations aged and set aside more for longer retirements, and a global flood of savings – much of it from abroad – poured into safe American assets. At the same time, the appetite to invest sagged, as productivity growth slowed and businesses found fewer projects worth financing. More saving chasing less investment can produce only one thing: a lower clearing rate. The neutral rate fell by more than three percentage points from the 1970s on. Cheap money wasn’t a policy choice. It was the tide going out.

Here’s what’s new: the tide may be coming back in – and you can see it on both sides of the ledger. Recent research from the San Francisco Fed finds that the forces that swelled the savings pool before the pandemic have faded or reversed: the global capital flows that once dragged U.S. rates down have flipped to pushing them up since 2019, and the drag from an aging population has shrunk to a modest one. Meanwhile, new claims on that pool are growing. The supply of saving is thinning just as the demand to borrow it is rising – and both push the clearing rate the same way: up.

Put numbers on it. The Cleveland Fed’s latest model estimates the real neutral rate has climbed from about 0.8% in 2021 to roughly 1.5% today – and that its nominal counterpart, the actual dollar rate that’s “neither hot nor cold,” now sits near 3.7%. Look at where the Fed’s rate is: 3.50%–3.75%. In other words, by this estimate, the Fed’s rate is now sitting right around neutral. It isn’t the heavy brake it was a year ago. That’s the real reason a Fed rate cut is not warranted and three officials want to go the other way: if you’re barely pressing the brake and inflation is still above 3%, a rate cut means pressing the gas, which could cause the economy to overheat.

Different models put the exact level in different places, but they increasingly agree on the direction. Three forces are doing the lifting – two draining the supply of saving, one swelling the demand for investment:

Government borrowing drains the pool. When Washington runs large, persistent deficits, it pulls money out of the savings pool rather than adding to it, competing with private borrowers for what’s left. A common rule of thumb from the research: each additional point of deficit relative to the size of the economy adds roughly a quarter-point to long-term rates. Fiscal policy is no longer sitting in its own corner – it’s leaning directly on the cost of every mortgage and car loan.

The foreign savings glut is draining, too. The two-decade wave of savings from abroad that quietly financed cheap American mortgages is receding as populations age overseas and global capital patterns shift – thinning the supply from the other direction.

AI is swelling the demand side. This is the wild card, and it sits on the investment half of the ledger. Building out AI isn’t just a stock-market story – it’s an enormous, real-world demand for capital: power plants, chip factories, data centers. More borrowers bidding for a shrinking pool of savings pushes the clearing rate up. And if AI genuinely accelerates productivity growth rather than just consuming capital for a few years, the effect is more durable still – a one-time building boom lifts rates temporarily, but a faster underlying growth rate lifts them for good.

What it means for your wallet

If the neutral level of rates has moved up, then the relief so many borrowers are waiting for isn’t merely delayed. It may not be coming at all.

Mortgages. The 30-year fixed rate averaged about 6.66% this week – up from a low near 6.0% in February, and roughly 60 to 70 basis points higher since the Middle East conflict flared. Mortgage rates track long-term bond yields, not the Fed’s overnight rate directly, and those yields just jumped. On a $400,000 loan, the move from 6.0% to 6.7% adds roughly $180 to the monthly payment. The relief buyers keep waiting for may simply never come.

Credit cards. The average card charges about 20% today, and above 22% on balances actually carrying interest. A Fed that holds means no relief. If the Fed hikes, the floor on rates moves up and that means your credit card rate could climb with it.

Everything else. Auto loans, business lines of credit, and the cost of rolling over corporate and government debt all settle at a higher resting level when the neutral rate rises. This isn’t a storm that passes. It’s a change in the climate.

A harsh reality sets in

For two years, the story was “when does the Fed cut?” This week the Fed answered: maybe not –– and maybe the next move is up. The surface reason is that inflation hasn’t cooled. The deeper reason is that the gravity holding rates down for a generation appears to be weakening.

The era of cheap money wasn’t a permanent feature of the world. It was a tide. And the tide is turning.

Orphe Divounguy is an economist with Zillow and the co-host of The Center Square’s Everyday Economics podcast.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump’s administration says maritime strikes cut drug trafficking by up to 98%, but Southern Command won’t release the internal metrics it uses to evaluate the operation’s effectiveness, citing security reasons.

The Department of War has killed 221 people in 66 strikes since September, a Southern Command official said. The government has obligated at least $820.9 million to Operation Southern Spear through June 30, according to the most recent report by the Department of War’s lead inspector general. That figure reflects only what Southern Command has obligated, not the campaign’s full cost.

The Department of War does not publicly release estimates for the cost of individual strikes or the operation as a whole, a Southern Command spokesperson told The Center Square. The spokesperson also said the total won’t be known until the operation ends.

Outside estimates run higher. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated in January that the operation was costing about $31 million a day, plus $2.8 million a day in unbudgeted expenses.

Elaine McCusker, a former Pentagon comptroller now at the American Enterprise Institute, estimated about $3 billion through late July. Her figure covers more than the boat strikes; she said it also includes Operation Absolute Resolve, the January mission that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The Department of War’s lead inspector general reported that U.S. Southern Command “could not publicly release its measures of effectiveness for assessing the conduct of OSS.” The command’s mission statement is classified, and it told the inspector general it could not provide a public accounting of the strikes.

“U.S. Southern Command uses internal metrics to assess Operation Southern Spear, but specific details are not released for security reasons,” a Southern Command spokesperson told The Center Square.

In March, Gen. Francis Donovan, the head of U.S. Southern Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., pressed him on what evidence showed the campaign was degrading cartel operations rather than simply destroying low-level assets and boats, killing people and displacing trafficking routes.

Donovan said he could not provide measures of effectiveness of Operation Southern Spear but pointed to changes in traffickers’ patterns.

“The boat strikes aren’t the answer,” Donovan said. “What we’re looking for right now is really a counter cartel campaign process that puts total systemic friction across this network.”

He described trafficking as running along four or five land and sea routes, from production to delivery, and said the goal was to disrupt the network across its entire supply chain. Kinetic strikes, Donovan said, “will be one of the many tools, and probably not the most effective tool.”

Kelly’s office did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Trump has repeatedly said the strikes cut maritime trafficking by up to 98%. He’s also said the strikes “brought nearly all smuggling activity to a halt” and that each strike saves “25,000 lives.”

“Any suggestion that these efforts have not been effective are laughable,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.

She said the strikes have eliminated traffickers and deterred others from attempting the same routes.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, praised the operation at the March hearing. A Senate Armed Services Committee spokesman did not provide comment by deadline.

Andrés Martínez-Fernández, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation who researches transnational organized crime, said the strikes have been effective in ways critics overlook. They have shut down a key Caribbean smuggling corridor, he said, and signaled to regional governments that Washington is serious about confronting drug cartels.

Martínez-Fernández said traffickers have adapted, shifting to land routes and other methods, and that the maritime strikes were only one front in a larger fight.

The Department of War’s lead inspector general reported a similar pattern, citing experts who said cartels have moved cocaine into container ships and onto land routes through Central America while absorbing the loss of the occasional boat.

The U.S.-Mexico border is “the center of gravity” for drug trafficking, not the sea, Martínez-Fernández told The Center Square. The maritime strikes primarily target cocaine. Federal drug agencies say fentanyl enters the United States mainly across the southwest land border.

The administration also credits the strikes with saving lives, pointing to falling overdose deaths. But the White House’s own drug-control strategy says the downward trend in overdose deaths “began in late 2023,” nearly two years before the first strike. The White House strategy also sets performance targets for dozens of drug-control measures, from Coast Guard cocaine seizures to border arrests. None tracks the military strikes specifically.

The absence of a public yardstick extends across the government. The Government Accountability Office found in 2024 that the Department of War “has not assessed the agency-wide effectiveness of its counternarcotics” activities and had not identified measurable outcomes for its goals, recommendations the department still had not implemented as of this year.

“It is unclear how DOD can determine the effectiveness of its counternarcotics” work without those measures, Chelsa Kenney, a GAO director, told The Center Square.

If the strikes were significantly choking off supply, one potential effect would be higher cocaine prices and lower purity in the U.S. market. The Office of National Drug Control Policy did not respond to questions about whether it monitors the price, purity or availability of cocaine in the United States.

McCusker, the former Pentagon comptroller, said the operation’s cost “is not that high” and called it core to Southern Command’s mission. But she said such assessments often measure what is easy to track “rather than what is achieved,” and that this “seems to be part of the challenge with Southern Spear, at least publicly.”

Kenney said the Government Accountability Office has not been asked to review Operation Southern Spear.

Download PDF

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Thirty-one states have opted in to the federal Education Freedom Scholarship Program, while 19 states and Washington, D.C. have not done so, ahead of the January 2027 deadline.

The Trump administration launched the school choice initiative in 2025 through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This created a federal income tax credit of up to $1,700 annually for individuals who donate to certified Scholarship Granting Organizations.

SGOs would then distribute funds to families for education expenses, including tuition, tutoring, curriculum and instructional materials.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and other supporters of school choice have said these programs place parents back in the driver’s seat of their child’s education, providing more flexibility and options for the family.

While school choice has drawn bipartisan support in some areas, several Democratic-led states, including Pennsylvania and Illinois, have not joined the program.

Govs. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois have raised concerns about state oversight, accountability and the degree of control states would retain under the federal initiative.

Jorge Elorza, president and CEO of Democrats for Education Reform, said states that decline to opt in risk losing significant financial benefits.

“Pledging to put more money into more of the same and expecting the general public and parents just to trust that this time, it’s going to be different. How long do we expect families to believe that?” Elorza told The Center Square.

Though the initiative originated from President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, Elorza said it should be evaluated on its merits.

In Colorado, The Center Square reported that the tax credit program could generate between $164 million and $493 million annually, create thousands of jobs and expand access to schools of choice for tens of thousands of students.

States that have opted into the federal Education Freedom Scholarship Program are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Students living in states that do not opt into the program are not eligible to receive scholarships funded through the federal initiative. Yet taxpayers in those states may still claim the federal tax credit by donating to SGOs operating in participating states.

Four states have announced they will not participate in the federal Education Freedom Scholarship Program: Hawaii, Minnesota, New Mexico and Oregon.

Arizona and Wisconsin have not opted into the program either. Govs. Katie Hobbs of Arizona and Tony Evers of Wisconsin have vetoed legislation that would have required the state to participate, stating that it diverts funds from public education.

Esther is an education reporter for The Center Square. Please email her at ewickham@thecentersquare.com for tips or questions.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Business bankruptcy filings have increased nationwide by nearly 12% in one year. That’s after they increased by nearly 15% the previous year.

Business bankruptcy filings increased from 23,154 in the 12 months that ended March 31, 2025, to 25,796 in the 12 months ended March 31, 2026 — an increase of 2,642 filings, or 11.4%, according to a new LendingTree analysis.

Data tracked by LendingTree shows there were 20,185 bankruptcies filed from March 2023 to March 2024 and 23,134 from March 2024 to March 2025, representing a nearly 15% increase over the year.

Even though the percentage increase over the last year analyzed of 11.4% was lower than the previous year, the total number was higher of 25,796. In the last three years analyzed, nationwide bankruptcies per year increased by nearly 6,000, according to the data.

The growing increase in business bankruptcy filings “is absolutely worth paying attention to,” LendingTree’s chief consumer finance analyst Matt Schulz told The Center Square. “It doesn’t mean the sky is falling, but it does show that higher borrowing costs, lingering inflation and softer demand are still putting real pressure on businesses, especially those with thin margins or heavy debt loads. When filings rise by more than 2,500 in just a year, that’s a sign that more businesses are running out of options.”

Delaware has the highest business bankruptcy filing rate in the U.S. Texas has the greatest number of businesses that filed for bankruptcy, according to the analysis. Louisiana and New Jersey have the largest year-over-year increases in business bankruptcy filings.

Delaware has the highest rate of bankruptcy filings as more businesses leave the state and its legislature is scrambling to reverse a phenomenon known as DEXIT, The Center Square reported.

There were 538.9 bankruptcy filings per 100,000 small businesses in Delaware over the time-period analyzed – seven times greater than the national average, according to the LendingTree analysis.

“Delaware’s ranking reflects incorporation patterns as much as business activity within the state. Because so many businesses are legally based in Delaware, bankruptcy filings there often reflect a national corporate footprint rather than economic conditions within Delaware itself,” Schulz said.

Texas has the most businesses of any state, more than 3.5 million, and the most bankruptcies filed, more than 4,500, according to the data. Texas had 129.7 bankruptcy filings per 100,000 small businesses over the year analyzed, the third-highest rate in the U.S.

Business bankruptcy filings increased 41% in Texas over the past year, the 6th-largest increase in the country, LendingTree told The Center Square.

Louisiana bankruptcy fillings increased from 240 to 441, or by nearly 84% over the year. New Jersey bankruptcy filings increased from 546 to 979, or by nearly 80% in one year, according to the data.

Bankruptcy fillings increased the most in Louisiana, New Jersey, New Hampshire, the District of Columbia, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arkansas and Wisconsin, according to the data.

Bankruptcies are largely due to “higher interest rates, lingering inflation and softer consumer demand,” Schultz said, which “have created a difficult combination for many businesses. When borrowing costs rise at the same time customers become more cautious about spending, companies with thin margins or significant debt often find themselves running out of room to maneuver.”

Nationwide, 93% of bankruptcy filings fell into two U.S. Bankruptcy Code categories: Chapter 7 and Chapter 11. Chapter 7 filings generally involve a business liquidating assets. Chapter 11 allows a business to reorganize debts while continuing operations.

Chapter 7 filings accounted for 56.8%; Chapter 11 for 36.1% of bankruptcies filed over the time period analyzed, according to the data.

Business bankruptcy filings decreased in 14 states over the year, including in Delaware. In the previous year analyzed, 1,563 companies filed for bankruptcy in Delaware, dropping to 600 in the last year. Even though Delaware leads the U.S. with the highest rate of bankruptcy filings, it also leads the U.S. with the largest percentage change of decreased bankruptcy filings of nearly 62%, according to the data.

Following Delaware, North Dakota, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, West Virginia, Vermont, Alabama, Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Illinois and Pennsylvania reported business bankruptcy declines over the year, according to the data.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – As Congress plans to reauthorize a major government surveillance authority, privacy advocates say that failing to enact reforms would allow the federal government to spy on Americans at an unprecedented scale with artificial intelligence.

FISA Section 702, which lawmakers must reauthorize by March 2027, allows federal intelligence agencies to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on foreign nationals of suspicion, whether they are abroad or traveling in the U.S.

But the electronic data of ordinary American citizens – including emails, text messages, and phone calls – are routinely swept up as well. Intelligence agencies can store that data for up to five years, while agents will routinely search through that data without obtaining a warrant.

With the rapid advancement of AI technology, however, Americans’ privacy is even more vulnerable than when Section 702 was enacted in 2008. Federal agents can simply feed the data into an AI model and effectively create dossiers on innocent U.S. citizens.

“The concern is that artificial intelligence AI could be used in these databases to effectively target and collect information in ways that we hadn’t seen before,” Don Bell, policy counsel at The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), told The Center Square.

“What we’re seeing now is a truly unprecedented merger of increasing technological capabilities and a federal government that is willing to use these tools to target not just individuals but broad sections of American society.”

Though the U.S. Intelligence Community and the Department of Justice have previously claimed they aren’t using AI in FISA databases, they have failed to answer lawmakers’ requests for proof.

FISA Section 702 currently has no prohibition on the federal government effectively outsourcing its surveillance to private companies via the “data broker loophole.”

“Data brokers collect performance management information, and they basically package that up and sell thousands of data points that they claim to have on people. And the federal government, rather than getting a warrant for a lot of that information, just circumvents the constitution by buying it from these massive data sets,” Bell said.

“But you would need a lot of money and people and time to sort through that and build the profiles necessary for effective surveillance. But with artificial intelligence, that makes it more efficient, cheaper and more doable.”

Bell, along with a number of organizations, proved just how doable the process is. With a basic AI model that they built in two weeks and a couple of data broker subscriptions, they were able to create highly detailed profiles of ordinary citizens in seconds.

“So it looks basically like typing into a search engine bar, ‘find X person at Planned Parenthood’ — but it could have been X person at a gun range, pick your place — and within seconds, this AI agent was able to pull all kinds of information on this individual,” Bell said.

“Not just their name and date of birth, but where they lived, where they worked, who their children were, financial information, things that obviously could kill constitutionally protected speech and really create a dossier on someone,” he continued.

“They were also able to basically draw a circle around the Planned Parenthood clinic — but again, it could be anyplace — and they were able to create a map showing all of the people in the community who were traveling to this place, how long they were there, all of that information.”

The issue, Bell said, is obvious: AI’s ability to collect, organize, and streamline information almost immediately and at such a monumental scale could permanently kill privacy rights if Congress fails to intervene.

“If the government is purchasing our data and our location data and they can use artificial intelligence to create these kinds of profiles, then there is no privacy,” Bell said. “They can reach into our lives in the most invasive way possible, and they can do it at scale. Entire communities can be surveilled, entire groups of people.”

In short, Congress has failed to keep up with changes in technology that are imposing new threats to privacy rights, Bell argued, enabling a “dangerously escalating pattern of surveillance.”

“That’s why it’s so important for Congress to take a stand now to close the data loophole, and also really think about how the changes in surveillance technology really are an existential threat to the Constitution and our privacy,” Bell said.

So far, Congress is still locked in a debate over whether to reform FISA at all. Nearly all Democrats and 19 Republicans in the U.S. House tanked a clean extension of Section 702, over many privacy concerns.

The program can operate without Congressional authorization until March 2027. That’s because FISA Court approves year-long certifications for Section 702, which remain in effect even if the underlying authority has expired.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – During the 13th cabinet meeting of President Donald Trump’s second term, the president indicated he expects more back-and-forth strikes with Iran as he tells reporters he is “losing faith” in the Islamic Republic.

The president expressed frustration with the Iranian regime, adding that “they do lie” and “misrepresent,” noting Iran’s surprise missile attack on U.S. forces in Jordan. All five missiles were intercepted, prompting the U.S. to launch retaliatory strikes.

Despite the dust-up earlier in the week, the U.S. hasn’t launched strikes on the Islamic Republic since Wednesday evening.

The president added that he believes Iran will “get weaker,” but then “get a little stronger maybe now, but they’ll get weaker and then they peter out.”

He underscored a need for the U.S. to “keep” its “guard up” with the Islamic Republic even as talks are ongoing due to the regime going back on their word – making a possible nod to the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17, which fell apart within days of the agreement when Iran violated the agreement by refusing to open the Strait of Hormuz, including the targeting of commercial cargo ships.

The president and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent have stressed the financial strain the U.S. continues to put on the Islamic Republic through sanctions and the ongoing complete naval blockade on Iranian ports, which the administration estimates is costing the regime between $400 million and $500 million in lost revenue.

During Bessent’s remarks in the cabinet meeting, he indicated that Iran is experiencing record-high inflation and can’t afford to pay its troops.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a $1.15 trillion defense spending bill. The Pentagon claims the conflict with Iran has cost taxpayers $37.5 billion thus far.

However, multiple independent analyses suggest the true cost of the conflict has surpassed $100 billion. Moody’s Analytics estimated that the war has cost American consumers and taxpayers over $100 billion when factoring in surging energy prices and military outlays.

Separate assessments by independent groups, such as Brown University’s Costs of War project, also put total deployment, munitions and operational expenses in the $100 billion to $113 billion range.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Gas prices are climbing in Michigan, and analysts say they are likely to remain elevated as refinery issues continue to affect fuel supplies across the Great Lakes region.

On Friday, the current average for regular unleaded was $4.37 across Michigan. That is nearly 30 cents higher than the national average of $4.11.

This is according to the latest data from AAA.

Compared to Thursday, the average from regular unleaded across the state has risen nearly 10 cents from $4.28. That’s a similar increase from last week’s price of $4.26, but up more than a dollar from last year’s $3.16.

“Current GasBuddy scorecard – Americans today spent $356 million more on gasoline than they did one year ago,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy.

Mid-grade fuel in Michigan currently averages $4.96 per gallon, while premium stands at $5.56. Diesel averages $5.39 per gallon, up from $3.73 a year ago.

Diesel reached a historic average high in Michigan on May 14, according to AAA’s records.

Gas prices across the country could continue to rise as tensions involving Iran escalated again this week. But according to De Haan, drivers in the Great Lakes region may feel the impact more acutely as ongoing refinery issues continue to constrain regional fuel supplies.

“Beware in Michigan with prices down 12c in the last week and refinery snags, a hike could be looming soon,” De Haan said earlier this week.

He also warned that the fall months might bring little relief for drivers, bucking previous trends.

“In ~7 days, you’re going to see new all-time records set for highest August gas prices ever—even compared to 2022. At the current $4.08/gal, August 5th will be the date we’re able to say the national average is at its highest level ever for the date,” De Haan said. “The national average price of gasoline has *never* any year been above $4/gal after August 8. Looking like we could break that this year, and I don’t like that one bit.”

Neighboring Indiana stands in sharp contrast to Michigan, consistently posting some of the nation’s lowest average gas prices. On Friday, Indiana once again had the lowest average price for regular unleaded at $3.63 per gallon—$0.74 less than Michigan’s average.

One big reason for Indiana’s consistently low prices is the recent temporary suspension of its 7% Gasoline Use Tax and 36-cent Gasoline Excise Tax.

On the flip side, Michigan recently raised its gas taxes. Yet, De Haan is pushing back on media reports that this is contributing to the state’s higher fuel prices.

“The tax shift in Michigan actually lowered the gas prices Michiganders would pay when gas prices are above $3.50/gal, and it also gives Michigan certainty on revenue so it didn’t fluctuate wildly. So the tax shift is currently resulting in ‘lower’ gas prices,” De Haan said on Friday morning. “Over ~$3.50/gal prices are lower under the new tax system. Under $3.50/gal they’d be slightly higher. Under $2.50/gal they’d be moderately higher with the new system.”

Nationally, California continues to have the highest average gas prices at $5.65 per gallon.

Elyse Apel, a graduate of Hillsdale College, is a reporter for The Center Square covering Minnesota and Michigan. Her work has appeared in a range of national outlets, including the Washington Examiner, The American Spectator, and The Daily Wire.

Subscribe now