(The Center Square) – Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire on Friday, a U.S. official confirmed to The Center Square.

Overnight, 18 people were killed in Lebanon amid strikes between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanon Health Ministry said. Four Israeli soldiers were also killed, according to the Israeli military.

A U.S. official confirmed on background that Israel and Hezbollah agreed to the ceasefire. The overnight attacks, first by Hezbollah and countered by Israel, appeared to stall peace talks between the United States and Iran.

Vice President JD Vance delayed a planned trip to Switzerland that was set to include discussions of Iran’s nuclear program. The first article in a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the U.S. calls for an end to the fighting in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah.

The memorandum sets out a 60-day ceasefire for negotiations to continue on the future of Iran’s nuclear program, and set up a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu previously vowed to retaliate after the four Israeli soliders were killed.

“Israel will remain in the security zone in southern Lebanon for as long as required to protect the settlements in the north,” Netanyahu said before the ceasefire was announced.

The terms of the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire are unclear. The ceasefire’s effect in ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran is also unclear.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – American voters believe building more data centers in the United States are not worth the potential strain on local electricity, water and infrastructure and that the negatives outweigh the importance for national security and competing with China, according to a new poll.

The Center Square Voters’ Voice Poll found that 54% believe that data centers are not worth the strain while 29% said they believed that building more data centers in the United States is important for national security and competing with China.

The poll showed 17% were not sure.

The results come from a survey conducted by Noble Predictive Insights from June 1-4 and polled registered voters nationally via opt-in online panel and text-to-web cell phone messages. The sample included 2,585 respondents comprised of 915 Republicans, 1,013 Democrats, and 297 True Independents (Independents who, when asked if they leaned toward one of the major parties, chose neither). The margin of error is +/- 1.93%.

The poll was closest amongst those who voted for President Donald Trump, with 41% of Trump voters saying it is most important to compete with China and 44% believing that the costs are not worth the strain.

Among those who voted for Kamala Harris in the last presidential election, 63% said it was not worth the strain while 19% believed it was most important to compete with China.

Mike Noble, founder of Noble Predictive Insights, said that the idea that competing with China in artificial intelligence and data centers fell flat.

“I think that really goes back to that they haven’t done a good job with their messaging,” Noble said. “Even then, only 29% thought it was important for national security in that race with China.”

Foreign billionaires have provided funding upwards of $39 million to the anti-AI data center movement in the United States, according to an American Energy Institute report in April.

“The world we leave behind for our children and grandchildren will be a very dark one if a communist regime has technological dominance over the United States of America,” Founder, CEO and Chairman of State Armor Michael Lucci told The Center Square after the report.

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, said that report showed that data center opposition is not “organic or purely local” and that transparency matters with what the report showed.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) - Vice President JD Vance and negotiators in Iran have delayed peace talks and a planned formal signing of a peace agreement between the U.S. and Iran due to fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

Overnight, at least 18 people were killed in strikes in Lebanon, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Four Israeli soldiers were also killed by Hezbollah militants, the Israeli military said.

The fighting has brought an agreement to end hostilites between the United States and Iran to an abrupt halt. Vance and negotiators in Iran were supposed to travel to Switzerland on Friday to sign a formal memorandum of understanding.

“The plans for the upcoming technical talks have not been finalized, and the U.S. delegation has been prepared to depart at the first available opportunity,” a spokesperson for the vice president said. “But the logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable.”

The memorandum of understanding gives negotiators 60 days to agree on a status for Iran’s nuclear program and set up a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran.

The memorandum does not include mentions of Iran’s support for terrorist proxies, including Hezbollah. The first article in the MOU calls for a ceasefire in Lebanon, specifically between Israel and Hezbollah.

Vance confirmed that the agreement between the two nations began on Thursday. Israel was not formally included in negotiations between the two nations.

“My directive is clear: Israel will not tolerate attacks on our soldiers or our territory, and it will exact a very heavy price from Hezbollah for these attacks,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote.

It is unclear when negotiators from the U.S. and Iran will pick back up with negotiations.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – One of the targets in the alleged terror plot to disrupt the Ultimate Fighting Championship event at the White House says he is not intimidated by extremist threats.

Federal intelligence agents discovered the plot and arrested five suspects they believe to be involved before the Sunday event took place. The group’s plan involved using drones bearing explosives to hit buildings near the event, prompting a mass evacuation that would steer crowds toward a group of snipers, authorities allege.

The alleged “team leader” in the group, 19-year-old Tycene Proper, had singled out specific politicians as targets due to their support of Israel, authorities allege.

One of those seven targets, all of whom are Republican lawmakers, was whistleblower advocate and West Virginia House Delegate Tristan Leavitt.

Leavitt, who did not attend the UFC fight, told The Center Square in an interview on The States that it was “very odd” to see his name included in the federal investigators’ affidavits. Though unsure why he was allegedly targeted, he assumes that his support of Israel is one factor.

“That’s become a very divisive topic, but something that I think is important for everybody to try and understand better,” said Leavitt, who also is president of the nonprofit government watchdog Empower Oversight. “When I had the chance to actually read the complaint it was interesting to see the other conspiracies these plotters were dialed into, about things like Jeffrey Epstein or data centers taking all of the available water.”

Federal agents who questioned the suspects noted in court documents that the murder plot “appears to have been motivated by their anti-government ideology,” with the conspirators mentioning hating “billionaires” and “capitalist elites.”

“I think the biggest takeaway that I had was that we have both an information problem in our country as well as a real problem with people who have policy disagreements wanting to solve those through potential violence,” Leavitt added.

The foiled terror plot follows two other major instances of politically motivated attacks or attempted attacks in 2026 alone.

A security incident at Mar-a-Lago where Secret Service agents shot and killed a suspected assassin occurred in late February, while the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in late April was interrupted by a shooter, now in custody, who also is accused of targeting President Donald Trump.

Leavitt believes that local-level conversations among people who disagree are critical to lowering the political temperature in America’s politically segmented society.

“So many people tend to get their news just from groups that agree with them. And so it makes it hard when misinformation is passed along, but especially when people aren’t associating with others who have different views,” Leavitt told The Center Square. “Having those conversations with people is really critical, because we don’t do enough of that today in our society.”

In the meantime, Leavitt said he will not back down from his political stances on Israel or any other issues. He argued that doing so “lets terrorists win, frankly.”

“I’m not unaccustomed to controversy,” the lawmaker added. “I think it’s important not to change the policy stances or the speaking up or anything else. If you think something is right, I think it’s important to stand firm for those things and not be intimidated or cowed.”

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Gun rights advocates celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to allow occasional marijuana users to possess firearms.

Justices on the high court ruled unanimously to allow Ali Hemani, a man found with marijuana, cocaine and a pistol in his home to keep his Second Amendment rights. John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, told The Center Square it was “encouraging” to see a unanimous decision from the high court in favor of the Second Amendment.

“Any time you see the U.S. Supreme Court issue a 9-0 decision, it gets your attention,” he told The Center Square. “The U.S. government cannot deprive you of your core constitutional rights simply because you chose to be an occasional marijuana user.”

Commerford said he was particularly encouraged to see justices on the high court reference the pre-deprivation process, where an individual can get a gun confiscated before it is proven whether they broke the law. In Hemani’s case, the government argued his firearm could be confiscated as soon as he became an unlawful drug user and until he stopped using the drug unlawfully.

Justices on the high court disagreed on the ability of a pre-deprivation process to move forward. Commerford said this could indicate a willingness on the court to review cases on red flag laws, regulations that prevent individuals from obtaining a firearm if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others.

“This opinion opens up the door to multiple technical challenges in the future on a host of different issues where Second Amendment rights are taken away without adequate due process, so it’s going to be very fascinating to see the legal landscape around gun policy develop,” Commerford said.

Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, said the decision has reinforced the Supreme Court’s need to review red flag laws and the pre-deprivation process as a whole.

The case reinforced a test developed after the 2022 decision, New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the court determined further laws restricting Second Amendment rights needed to be supported by a historical precedent.

The government argued that founding-era laws prohibiting drunkards from certain activities in public spaces were not sufficient to support the ban on occasional marijuana users.

“The opinion reinforces that historical tradition that you need to rely on the context of the history of this country when you’re enforcing constitutional rights,” Commerford said.

Swearer told The Center Square the process for analyzing historical laws has revealed that most people have been afforded a pre-deprivation process.

“It is important that in analyzing these historical laws, that is an aspect that routinely comes up, is that they were afforded some sort of pre-deprivation process, to at least some degree, even before a temporary deprivation of their rights,” Swearer told The Center Square.

While justices on the court remained unanimous in their decision, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the federal law barring Hemani from obtaining a firearm could be seen as a violation of the Commerce Clause. He said the law allows Congress to improperly regulate items that never crossed state lines and called on the judiciary to take a deeper look into the issue.

“The Government can secure a conviction for unlawful firearm possession ‘if the firearm possessed’ by the drug user ‘had previously traveled in interstate commerce,’” Thomas wrote. “The Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to ‘regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or crossed state lines.’”

Swearer said she agreed with Thomas but did not think his arguments would be raised.

“I just don’t see the court looking at this under the Commerce Clause, or at least, having anything remotely resembling a majority that would choose to look at it that way,” Swearer said.

Justices on the high court have one more Second Amendment case on the docket before the term ends. Wolford v. Lopez challenges a Hawaii law banning concealed carry owners from entering private property open to the public without express permission from the owner.

“I’m extremely confident that the Second Amendment community will be successful in Wolford,” Commerford said.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – With President Donald Trump signing the memorandum of understanding with Iran, the latest agreement ushers in a new round of talks with the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program while omitting its support for terror proxies, ballistic missiles and human rights abuses.

As Vice President JD Vance confirmed, the 60 days of negotiations with Iran began Thursday. Agreements in the MOU have started to take effect, as the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports has been lifted, as confirmed by U.S. Central Command.

While the 14-point MOU does address nuclear concerns, with Iran promising to “not procure or develop nuclear weapons,” Trump’s chief concern with the Islamic Republic.

However, the MOU omits Iran’s financial and material support for terror proxies, including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis.

Earlier during the negotiation period, The Center Square asked the president what concessions were being considered in a deal with Iran. Trump wouldn’t confirm that Iran’s support for the proxies would be omitted from talks, simply reiterating that Iran would not develop a nuclear weapon.

Despite there being no inclusion of terror proxies in the text of the MOU, the first article calls for a ceasefire in Lebanon, centered on Israel’s response to attacks from Hezbollah. The terror group, based in Lebanon, has become a source of contention in the region, with Trump expressing a desire to see the group disarmed.

In addition to the lack of language addressing Iran’s terror proxies, questions surrounding the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile production have been raised. The Trump administration maintains that Iran’s ballistic missile stockpile and launchers have been drastically diminished.

While in France for the G7, the president was asked about the Islamic Republic’s missile program. Trump appeared to defend Iran’s right to maintain the missiles, citing other countries in the region possessing them.

“If other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for them to not have some…If Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and they all have some, I would say in relative proportion, I think it’s OK,” the president told reporters.

Trump argues that a majority of Iran’s missile arsenal has been destroyed; however, the New York Times cited intelligence agencies that believe the Islamic Republic has maintained up to 70% of the missile launchers and stockpiles.

During Trump’s address following the initial attacks on the Islamic Republic on Feb. 28, the president vowed to “destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground.”

Another point omitted from the MOU involves Iranian human rights, which the president has often cited throughout the conflict and leading up to the strikes. The MOU goes as far as prohibiting each other from “interfering in each other’s internal affairs.”

During Trump’s address on Feb. 28, the president accused the country of killing “tens of thousands of its own citizens. He called on the Iranian people to rise and take back their country.

“To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand … When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,” said Trump.

While the MOU isn’t the final deal, it is unclear from the messaging from the Trump administration if the U.S. will press to include the ceasing of support for Iranian terror proxies, the production of ballistic missiles, and if the administration still encourages the Iranian people to rise against the current regime.

Vance told reporters Thursday during a White House press briefing that he believes talks with Iran will begin in Switzerland over the weekend.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The alleged ringleader of a planned terrorist attack targeting the White House was in the country illegally, had overstayed his tourist visa for more than 10 years, and is a DACA recipient, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed Thursday.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice charged five men for their alleged roles in a plan to kill government officials and others attending an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) Freedom 250 event held at the White House on Sunday. The FBI arrested five men in Ohio, Missouri, Nebraska and California for their alleged roles in the thwarted attack.

The alleged ringleader, Abraham Hermosillo Alvarez, 31, of Omaha, Nebraska, “was responsible for planning, organizing, and directing the planned attack, based on conversation excerpts in June when [he] posted, ‘This is the best action I see. Position your teams in the purple dots (counter sniper and drones) Long range (circled area) (great shot) Easy out into the river.’” He also posted other messages “including replying to another member on making drones with explosives, ‘As many and as deadly as we can get’; that he was working on drones; and had one drone and was working on more,” according to charges filed in Nebraska.

On Thursday, DHS confirmed that Alvarez was a Mexican national who was in the country illegally after he overstayed a B-2 temporary tourism visa for more than 10 years.

A B-2 visa requires applicants “to demonstrate that they have ties to their home country that they do not intend to abandon, have enough funds to support themselves during their stay in the US, and that they intend to leave the US at the end of their visit. The maximum stay for a B-2 visa is typically six months,” the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services explains.

Instead, Alvarez and his family overstayed the visa for more than a decade.

Alvarez entered the U.S. on a B-2 visitor visa and failed to depart before it expired in December 2001, DHS said. He and his family remained in the country illegally and in 2014, former President Barack Obama granted him and hundreds of thousands of other children in the country illegally Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status.

After Alvarez’s arrest this weekend, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged a detainer request with the jail where he is being detained.

“This illegal alien from Mexico should never have been allowed in our country. He was the ringleader of a failed terror attack targeting UFC Freedom 250 at the White House,” DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said. “He and his co-conspirators now face charges of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit violence on White House grounds. He will face justice and swiftly be removed from our country.”

The arrests were made as the Trump administration is cracking down on visa fraud, including the B-1/B-2 visa program, The Center Square reported.

They were also made after other DACA recipients have been arrested for a range of crimes. This is after nearly 80,000 DACA recipients were released into the U.S. with arrest records raising concerns about a lack of vetting, The Center Square reported.

Obama created DACA via executive order to shield children from deportation who were brought into the country illegally by their parents. The program has been in litigation for more than a decade.

Texas and a coalition of states were the first to sue, arguing DACA is illegal and must be terminated. Other lawsuits were also filed over the program. In each one, federal judges ruled the executive action creating DACA, extending it, amending it or ending it, is illegal because only Congress can create or amend laws related to immigration.

In several ongoing cases, federal judges continue to rule that DACA is illegal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has twice ruled it is illegal.

The Biden administration sought to expand it, attempting to require that DACA recipients be provided with taxpayer-funded healthcare. Multiple states sued and a federal judge ruled the scheme was illegal, The Center Square reported.

President Donald Trump has waffled on the issue. In his first administration he sought to end DACA. In his second administration, he’s vowed to deport illegal foreign nationals while also saying Republicans support so-called “dreamers,” DACA recipients.

Republican attorneys general disagree, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who sued to end DACA years ago. Texas and other Republican-led states have won their cases in multiple federal courts, with judges only curtailing, not ending, the program, The Center Square reported.

According to a 2019 report by the Center for American Progress, within five years of Obama creating the program, more than 825,000 children, at an average age of 6, were brought to the U.S. illegally, enrolled in DACA and received temporary relief from being deported. Since then, DACA recipients have had more than 250,000 children born in the U.S., the center estimates.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump signed the temporary peace deal with Iran ahead of schedule Wednesday at the Palace of Versailles in France, kicking off negotiations over a final nuclear deal.

But while the White House is framing the 60-day “Memorandum of Understanding” as a win, multiple Republican defense hawks in Congress worry that Iran is receiving the better end of the bargain.

Under the agreement, the U.S. and Iran will immediately halt military hostilities and the Strait of Hormuz will completely reopen without tolls, effectively returning the critical trade route to pre-conflict conditions.

The U.S. will also immediately unfreeze all of Iran’s restricted assets and issue waivers for Iranian exports of crude oil, petroleum “and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.”

In exchange for Iran reaffirming that “it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons” and committing to negotiating over the disposal of its enriched uranium, the U.S. will lift all sanctions on the country as part of the final deal within 60 days.

The final deal will also feature a plan, developed by the U.S. and regional partners, to provide Iran with at least $300 billion for “reconstruction and economic development.”

Joining the voices of Democrats calling the generous peace agreement “a humiliation,” U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., dubbed it “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”

“Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” Cassidy fumed on social media.

“Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive. Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped.”

Though Cassidy’s criticism was expected due to his and Trump’s antagonistic relationship, other Republicans have chimed in as well.

Notably, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., issued a statement Thursday citing his concerns that the agreement “negotiates away the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are completely out of step with the President’s goals.”

“Specifically, the $300 billion fund for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran – though not funded by U.S. taxpayers – would make Iran’s payoff under President [Barack] Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison,” Wicker wrote.

“I also oppose the U.S. lifting any sanctions on Iran, or unfreezing Iranian funds, in exchange for Iran’s mere agreement to negotiate for another 60 days. The Iranian regime has not renounced its ultimate goal — ‘Death to America, Death to Israel.’ The regime will invest every penny it receives to further that aim.”

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, also expressed doubts Thursday about the deal, particularly the economic benefits it gives Iran.

“The Commander-in-Chief gets deference to defend America, in Iran or otherwise - & we’ve given it. But you cannot trust Iran, and deal or no deal, America must not financially prop up an evil terroristic state who wants to kill us - with either public OR private money,” Roy posted on social media platform X.

Other Republicans, however, are projecting cautious optimism, including defense hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., following a discussion he had with administrative officials.

“Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying,” Graham stated. “The economic stability that comes from opening up the Strait and the cessation of hostilities could create a pathway to peace well beyond the Iranian conflict.”

Given that expanding the Abraham Accords and normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel is Trump’s “ultimate goal,” Graham added, “I think that is best achieved by creating economic stability for the United States, the region and the world, as well as the cessation of hostilities. The signing of the MOU is an essential step to make that happen and thus it is worthwhile.”

Since the initial joint U.S.-Israeli strikes launched against Iran on Feb. 28, global trade has seen disruptions and increased costs.

At least 13 U.S. servicemembers have died in the conflict, which currently carries a more than $30 billion price tag, according to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala.

That number is likely an undercount since the Pentagon doesn’t include spending on military construction costs of repairing or replacing U.S. installations in Iran.

The agreement comes as half of American voters support the U.S. pursuing diplomacy with Iran rather than further military action, per The Center Square’s most recent Voters’ Voice Poll, which surveyed 2,585 registered voters nationally June 1-4.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The Georgia Senate Ethics Commission advanced a bill on Thursday that would delay the ban on QR codes used to count ballots until 2028 and establish a commission to identify a new voting system.

The legislation presented to the committee by Sen. Max Burns, R-Sylvania, also expands the number of risk-limiting audits, which are recounts of certain elections to verify results.

Georgia lawmakers passed a bill in 2024 that would ban QR codes, effective July 1. But the bill provided no funding, and no guidance was given to election officials as to how the ballots would be counted without the codes. The legislation proposed Thursday allows election officials to use QR codes until Jan. 1, 2028.

The Election Equipment Specifications and Standards Committee, as included in the legislation, is tasked with considering a replacement to the current Dominion Voting system. The committee will consist of nine members. Three will be appointed by the governor, three by House Speaker Jon Burns, and three by the Senate Committee on Assignments, a five-member panel currently chaired by Lt. Gov. Burt Jones. All three are Republicans.

Democrats said they were concerned that minorities would be excluded from the committee.

“Voting is a multipartisan experience,” said Senate Minority Leader Kim Jackson of Stone Mountain. “Our election machines matter to Democrats and independents and Republicans alike. This is all about trust. In order to build trust, Democrats need to know that they were represented in the deep dive process and they weren’t just railroaded through in a committee that’s essentially a sham because you’re not going to accept any amendments.

Jackson pitched an amendment to allow the three members from the minority caucus in each chamber to be appointed to the committee. The amendment failed 12-4.

The Ethics Committee agreed to refer the bill to the Rules Committee, which placed it on Saturday’s calendar. Lawmakers plan to hold a rare Saturday session and wrap up the special session on Monday, if needed.

Also on the agenda are local referendums in 77 cities and counties seeking to hold votes on a special sales tax. Senate Bill 33 allows cities and counties to use a tax, called LHOST, to offset homestead property taxes. But the voters must approve the tax first.

Lawmakers are also expected to approve Gov. Brian Kemp’s two-week motor fuel tax moratorium, which extended the two-month tax break passed by the General Assembly in April.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Tropical Storm Arthur battered south Louisiana with heavy rain, flooding, tornadoes and widespread power outages as the first named storm of the 2026 Atlantic hurricane season moved inland after making landfall along the Texas coast.

Arthur briefly strengthened into a tropical storm with maximum sustained winds of 40 mph before making landfall near the upper Texas coast and weakening into a post tropical system.

State and local officials warned that the storm’s greatest threat to Louisiana came from excessive rainfall and severe weather rather than wind.

Flood watches remained in effect across much of southern Louisiana through Friday morning, with forecasters warning that some areas could receive more than 10 inches of rain as bands of tropical moisture continued moving across the state. Flooding concerns stretched from the New Orleans area through the river parishes and into the bayou region.

Emergency officials in several parishes distributed sandbags, monitored drainage systems and urged residents to avoid travel through flooded roadways. In New Orleans, crews deployed flood-control measures and prepared for possible water rescues as rainfall intensified Wednesday night and Thursday morning.

The storm also spawned tornado warnings across portions of southeast Louisiana. In Terrebonne Parish, severe weather damaged property in the Houma area, with reports of roof damage, downed trees and debris scattered across neighborhoods.

In a Facebook post, the United Cajun Navy, an organization formed after Hurricane Katrina that responds to severe weather crises, said its Chief Meteorologist Amy Metz was documenting tornado damage across portions of Metairie.

“Damage assessments have identified downed power lines, trees and limbs as well as structural damage to some buildings,” the post said.

The remnants of Arthur are forecast to move across Georgia and the Carolinas before emerging over the western Atlantic late Friday or early Saturday. While the National Hurricane Center said there is a low chance the system could regain subtropical or tropical characteristics over the Atlantic, officials emphasized that the immediate threat remains heavy rainfall and flooding.

“Regardless of development, heavy rainfall with the potential for widespread and life-threatening flooding is likely across portions of the Southeast United States during the next day or two,” the Hurricane Center said Thursday.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) — Louisiana Medicaid providers considered more vulnerable to fraud or improper billing will face more frequent state reviews under a new oversight plan from the Louisiana Department of Health.

The changes apply to provider categories LDH considers “high risk,” including durable medical equipment suppliers, home health agencies, hospice providers and personal care services providers. Some high-risk providers will now have to renew, or revalidate, their Medicaid enrollment every three years instead of every five.

The department said it will also expand provider verification, use data analysis to spot unusual billing patterns and work more closely with state and federal program integrity agencies.

“Every taxpayer dollar entrusted to Medicaid should be spent on delivering care to Louisianans who need it,” LDH Secretary Bruce Greenstein said in a statement. “The best way to protect taxpayer dollars is to put strong safeguards in place before problems occur. These help ensure Medicaid resources are being used as intended.”

A May 22 letter from LDH Medicaid Executive Director Seth Gold to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz gives more detail about the state’s plan than LDH’s public announcement.

In the letter, LDH said it will revalidate all high-risk providers over the next two years and prioritize providers that have not been screened or revalidated within the last 12 months.

The priority list includes personal care assistants, personal care services, mental health rehabilitation providers, durable medical equipment suppliers, non-emergency medical transportation providers, providers without National Provider Identifier numbers, and providers flagged through complaints, investigations, data analysis or unusual billing patterns.

LDH also said it intends to seek federal approval to temporarily stop new durable medical equipment and home health agencies from enrolling in Louisiana Medicaid.

That would not remove existing providers from the program. But it could temporarily block new providers in those categories from joining Medicaid while the state reviews the risk of fraud or improper billing.

The department said hospice providers are already affected by a similar federal process because Louisiana requires hospice providers to be enrolled in Medicare before they can enroll in Louisiana Medicaid.

The state’s plan comes as federal officials continue to focus on health care fraud. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General reported that Medicaid Fraud Control Units nationwide recovered nearly $2 billion in fiscal year 2025 and reported 1,185 convictions, including 856 fraud convictions.

The office said fraud convictions involving personal care attendants outnumbered any other provider type. Personal care services are among the categories Louisiana is now placing under closer review.

Louisiana has had its own Medicaid fraud cases. In February 2025, a Shreveport counseling service and the estate of its deceased owner agreed to pay $4.6 million to resolve allegations that the company billed Medicaid for crisis intervention services that were not provided.

Federal prosecutors said the company used Medicaid recipient information to bill for services that did not happen. Prosecutors also said some counselors were told to write generic notes that could be copied into patient files. The settlement resolved allegations only and did not include a determination of liability.

Under federal Medicaid rules, providers are placed into risk categories: limited, moderate or high. High-risk providers can face license checks, database reviews, site visits, criminal background checks and fingerprinting.

Providers that fail to complete revalidation on time can be removed from Louisiana Medicaid until they meet enrollment requirements.

LDH said the goal is to focus oversight on areas with the highest risk while allowing legitimate providers to continue delivering care.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Vice President JD Vance on Thursday responded to claims that America’s newly released preliminary peace deal, called a memorandum of understanding, was too generous toward the Islamic Republic.

“The part of this MOU that I think has been most misrepresented by certain parts of the media is the idea that the Iranians get all these benefits,” Vance said in his opening remarks during a news conference. “The simple fact is that the only way the Iranians get any of those resources… is if they comply fully and change their behavior.”

Vance maintained what President Donald Trump and other administration officials have said: The American military campaign accomplished its goals and has left Iran weak and fully at the mercy of the U.S. if it should decide to violate any of its agreements.

“If the Iranians don’t change their behavior, their military and their nuclear program are still destroyed. If they do change their behavior, then they are going to have a transformative relationship with the Middle East, and the Middle East will have a transformative relationship with the people of Iran,” Vance said. “That’s a win for the American people, and for the president of the United States, regardless of which option the Iranians ultimately choose.”

The 14-point memorandum lays out a loose timeline for reaching a longer-term, United Nations-backed peace deal as well as terms for the interim. While it declares an end to the hostilities and requires the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, it also requires the removal of the U.S. naval blockade, the temporary waiving of American sanctions on Iranian oil, and allows Iran to maintain the “current status quo” of its nuclear program until the final deal is reached. It also calls for $300 billion of investment to rebuild Iranian infrastructure and help the country recover, seems to leave open the possibility of future tolls in the strait and calls on the U.S. to work on ending “all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic… in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal.”

Vance said that the waiving of sanctions isn’t as significant an action as some think. The U.S. has imposed economic sanctions of some kind on Iran for decades. The sanctions had become “fundamentally ineffective,” and the removal of the blockade was more consequential, according to Vance.

“What the sanctions did do is move the Iranian financial system to sort of the shadow banking system, so by lifting the blockade – that’s the significant thing that has changed – and by lifting the sanctions, we’re actually going to be able to see a little bit where their financial system actually sends money and receives money,” Vance said. “That’s a real benefit to the American people, and that’s really the only thing that has changed by the change in sanctions.”

The memorandum says that sanctions termination is of “critical importance” and both parties pledge to “immediately address these issues in negotiations.”

The memorandum does not stipulate where the $300 billion of investment will come from, but Vance reaffirmed what some others said Thursday that “not a single penny… from the United States under any circumstances.”

The vice president also said that the memorandum doesn’t really leave the possibility of tolls on the table, even though it appears to leave that decision up to the Iranians, the Omanis and the Gulf Coast Coalition there. But none of those groups want tolls, according to Vance, and the U.S. will “ensure that that is reflected in the final deal.”

“If that’s not reflected in the final deal, there’s not going to be a final deal,” Vance said. “We have all the cards.”

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Policymakers must return Social Security to its original intent in order to avoid massive tax hikes and insolvency, especially in light of a nation burdened by debt, a memo released by a nonprofit on the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report states.

Senior Research Fellow at Advancing American Freedom Foundation – the organization that released the memo – Rachel Greszler told The Center Square: “Social Security is running out of time and money, with automatic benefit cuts averaging $5,300 per year on track to begin in 2032.”

“Unless policymakers act, America’s favorite entitlement program will become its most disgraced,” Greszler said.

Advancing American Freedom Foundation (AAFF) is a nonprofit and collection of “leaders from Capitol Hill, think tanks, and grassroots movements” who work together to “defend liberty and advance policies that build a stronger America,” according to its website.

According to AAFF’s memo, the 2026 Social Security Trustees report showed that “Social Security’s trust fund will be insolvent in 2032, before anyone from Generation X or younger receives a single full benefit.”

Additionally, benefit cuts will soon be a factor, with “the law currently [requiring] a 22 percent benefit cut in 2032, rising to 38 percent in 2100,” the memo said.

“Maintaining current benefits would require an immediate 34 percent Social Security tax hike,” the memo said.

“Social Security’s $29.3 trillion shortfall amounts to $215,000 per household,” the memo explained, adding that “the present value of Social Security’s 75-year unfunded obligations … equals $29.3 trillion or $215,000 per household.”

“That is up by $4.2 trillion, or an extra $29,000 per household since just last year,” the memo said.

Unfunded obligations are “essentially the difference between scheduled and payable benefits over the next 75 years.”

The memo noted that “Social Security has expanded far beyond its original intent” of protecting “older Americans from outliving their savings and to protect younger generations from having to pay for welfare for impoverished elderly people.”

The Great Depression-era program “started out as a 2% tax” and originally promised “to never take more than 6% of workers’ paychecks.”

“Today it takes 12.4% and in 2034, it would require 17.3% of workers’ paychecks to maintain current benefits,” the memo explained.

“The combination of benefit increases, program expansion, and increasing life expectancies have caused Social Security’s costs to explode,” the memo said.

Two other problems the Social Security program runs into are “unsustainable debt and declining fertility,” which “will make it increasingly difficult to maintain scheduled benefits,” the memo said.

“Social Security’s insolvency in 2032 could coincide with the federal government running out of fiscal space, entering a debt spiral, and losing the ability to borrow at reasonable interest rates,” the memo said. “If that happens, it will be too late for policymakers to enact measured Social Security reforms that minimize benefit cuts.”

The memo stated that “the longer that policymakers wait to address Social Security’s long-standing shortfalls, the greater the consequences.”

The solution AAFF offers in its memo to the Social Security issues facing the nation is “gradually shifting Social Security back to its original [intent] of poverty prevention in old age.”

AAFF says that this action “would strengthen economic growth by increasing saving, investment, and labor-force participation.”

“Social Security’s $29.3 trillion shortfall ($215,000 per household) won’t fix itself,” the memo said.

“Lawmakers can either allow automatic 22 percent benefit cuts in 2032 or enact gradual, targeted reforms now to protect lower- and middle-income retirees, strengthen the economy, and demonstrate fiscal fortitude before markets force abrupt action,” the memo said.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – State financial aid continues to expand within higher education, allowing money to go to eligible illegal immigrant students.

The increased spending is heating up debate over who should receive state taxpayers-funded higher education benefits.

Currently, around 21 states and the District of Columbia offer in-state tuition eligibility to certain illegal immigrant students, and 18 states and D.C. provide access to state financial aid programs, according to Higher Ed immigration.

For example, at a University of California school, the base in-state tuition is roughly $15,000 annually. For nonresidents, the base tuition is over $31,000, which means eligible illegal immigrants are essentially receiving $16,000 a year in aid.

The policies are part of a broader effort that has expanded over the past two decades to increase college access for immigrant students, including recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. DACA provides temporary protection from deportation and renewable work permits to certain immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

More than 900,000 of these individuals are estimated to be eligible for DACA. In addition, over 500,000 illegal immigrant students are enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities.

Critics argue that the programs impose costs on taxpayers and divert limited higher education resources away from U.S. citizens.

A 2025 report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that education-related expenses associated with illegal immigration total $5.7 billion nationally.

Ira Mehlman, media director for FAIR, pointed to the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which specifically created a provision requiring any state offering in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants to make the same benefit available to U.S. citizen students, regardless of which state they happen to live in.

States keep “finding new ways to provide benefits to illegal aliens,” Mehlman told The Center Square. “A lot of American students are being shut out of those state universities because those seats are now occupied by illegal aliens, and then taxpayers are being forced to pay for it.”

Texas pioneered this loophole that conditioned in-state tuition on having completed three years of high school in the state rather than looking at immigration status, Mehlman added.

Texas became the first state to adopt such a policy in 2001 through what became known as the Texas Dream Act.

In June 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas, arguing the program violated federal law. A federal court subsequently blocked enforcement of the Texas Dream Act. The lawsuit is currently on appeal at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Advocacy groups have sought to intervene, arguing the case was resolved without sufficient judicial review.

In Texas, state records show that colleges and universities distributed $635.2 million in state-funded gift aid to 133,989 students in 2023. According to a report by Every Texan, 3,566 Texas Dream Act students received $17.5 million in state-supported grants, accounting for less than 3% of total state gift aid distributed that year.

The taxpayer cost associated with the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors or DREAM Act program and others varies by state.

Lance Izumi, senior director of education studies at Pasadena-based Pacific Research Institute, argued that taxpayer-funded aid for illegal immigrant students raises concerns about fairness and state spending priorities.

“Government financial aid to illegal immigrant students is wrong on three counts: fairness, fiscal policy and planning for higher education’s future,” Izumi told The Center Square.

Izumi noted that American students collectively hold roughly $1.8 trillion in student loan debt and argued that taxpayer-funded scholarships for illegal immigrant students may reduce resources available for citizens.

“It is also not fair to give lower in-state tuition to an illegal immigrant who broke the law to enter this country, while denying that lower tuition to a law-abiding American citizen in another state,” he said.

Izumi also questioned whether colleges facing enrollment declines have expanded outreach to Illegal immigrant students, partly to offset falling student populations.

“In reality, pushing illegal-immigrant enrollment is a way for adults in higher education to save their jobs by finding a new pool of potential students rather than addressing the core reasons for falling college enrollment: politicization of courses, economic irrelevance of many courses and majors, and deteriorating academic rigor,” Izumi said.

Kassandra Gonzalez, senior attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project’s Beyond Borders Program, working on the Texas lawsuit, told The Center Square that the issue is complicated because there is a distinction between immigrants who are “lawfully present” and those who have “lawful status.”

“The misinformation and the frankly wrong narrative of this idea that dreamers or students who are able to take higher education with the Dream Act are taking opportunities from others is not the reality of economics,” Gonzalez said.

Immigrant students contribute to local economies and give back to their communities, Gonzalez added.

“I think the fiction that we hear in the immigration debate in general, like, ‘Oh, well, they’re taking something from someone else,’ I always go back to, well, this idea that they don’t pay taxes, or that these students aren’t contributing. It’s like there’s actual data that they are giving back to the economy of Texas,” Gonzalez added.

According to Every Texan, immigrants in Texas who hold bachelor’s degrees earn substantially higher incomes than those with only high school diplomas. The organization estimates that the higher earnings associated with a college degree generate additional state and local tax revenue.

The Every Texan report estimated that Texas Dream Act students enrolled in 2023 could ultimately generate more than $43 million in additional annual state and local tax revenue through higher educational attainment and earnings.

According to the California Budget and Policy Center, illegal immigrants paid an estimated $8.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2022.

That same year, California residents paid an average of $3,734.82 in state income taxes. With roughly 19.6 million taxpaying residents, that equates to about $73.2 billion in state income tax revenue, not including sales taxes or higher-income tax brackets.

Mehlman told The Center Square that tax payments do not place illegal immigrants with citizens when it comes to public benefits.

Just because illegal immigrants pay taxes, “that doesn’t put them on an equal footing with legal residents and citizens,” Mehlman said.

Along with Texas, several other states have expanded access to higher-education assistance in recent years.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington are among the jurisdictions that provide broad access to state financial aid and grant programs for illegal immigrant students who meet applicable eligibility requirements.

In New York, lawmakers enacted the José Peralta New York State DREAM Act, expanding access to state financial aid for eligible illegal immigrant students. The DREAM Act allows immigrant students to apply for state financial aid for undergraduate or graduate study at eligible colleges and universities.

The state’s 2019-20 budget, when it was first enacted, included $27 million to support implementation of the DREAM Act.

New York is home to an estimated 21,250 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, recipients.

Through the DREAM Act, eligible illegal immigrant students may receive awards through the state’s Tuition Assistance Program, which provides up to $5,665 annually.

For the 2025–26 budget, TAP alone provides more than $698 million annually to roughly 255,000 New York students. DREAM Act recipients are funded through these broader aid programs rather than through a standalone DREAM Act appropriation.

A New York City fact sheet reported that individuals eligible for the DREAM Act contributed an estimated $1.3 billion to the city’s gross domestic product in 2017 and earned more than $873 million collectively, with average annual earnings of about $18,600.

In Illinois, access to state financial aid through House Bill 460 was signed into law by the Gov. J.B. Pritzker in December 2025.

The bill added in the Retention of Illinois Students and Equity Act, allowing eligible illegal immigrant students to apply for state-administered financial aid programs regardless of immigration status.

The change made illegal immigrant students eligible for state programs such as the Monetary Award Program grant, which provides need-based financial assistance for higher education.

Illinois allocated over $700 million for MAP grants during the 2024 fiscal year.

The states of Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina prohibit enrollment of illegal immigrant students into state financial aid programs, according to Higher Ed Immigration.

The Center Square reached out to the American Immigration Council and the U.S. Department of Education for comment but did not receive a response.

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) - The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision on Thursday, upheld a man’s right to appeal a prison sentence that also prescribed him mental health medications.

The case, Hunter v. U.S., focused on Munson Hunter III, who was charged with 10 counts of bank and wire fraud. Hunter pleaded guiilty to one of the charges in exchange for dismissal of the nine other charges.

His plea deal included an appeal waiver where he dismissed the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. However, during his sentencing, a probation officer recommended Hunter take mental health medications and undergo certain mental health treatments.

Hunter objected to taking mental health treatment or medication and appealed the sentence. A lower court held that Hunter would not be able to appeal the sentence because he agreed not to appeal as part of his plea deal.

However, justices on the high court did not agree. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the agreement not to appeal is “unenforceable” because it would result in a “miscarriage of justice.”

Kagan said preventing an individual to appeal could place a significant amount of power into the hands of a judge, without proper checks and balances on said power.

“Suppose a judge sentences a misdemeanant to life in prison, when the applicable law caps a prison term at one year; if an appellate court had to dismiss the resulting appeal, it would call into doubt the judicial system’s very attachment to law,” Kagan wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

Justice Clarence Thomas provided the lone dissenting opinion in the case. He expressed skepticism about Hunter’s ability to take issue with his appeal waiver. Thomas argued the history of the judicial system in the United States has not allowed individuals to challenge appeal waivers.

“The Court appears to rest on its policy concern that holding defendants to their waivers may sometimes lead to unfair results or make federal courts look bad,” Thomas wrote. “But, policy concerns are not rules of decision in courts of law.”

Thomas said Hunter’s appeal was an attempt to reduce his sentence, when it was already significantly reduced due to his plea deal. He said the appeal waiver could not stand.

“Hunter’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his statutory appeal rights in his valid plea agreement required dismissal of his appeal,” Thomas wrote.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision on Thursday, agreed that a regular drug user cannot be stripped of the right to possess a firearm.

The case, Hemani v. U.S., focuses on Texas man Ali Hemani, who was prosecuted by federal authorities after the FBI found marijuana, cocaine and a pistol in his home. Under federal law, an “unlawful drug user” can be stripped of their right to possess a firearm.

Justices on the high court said the government cannot prosecute people who are unlawful drug users. Lawyers for the federal government said laws against habitual drug users are similar to founding-era laws against habitual drunkards.

Justices on the court did not agree. Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed to marijuana’s varying legal status in states across the country.

“The Department of Justice has directed federal prosecutors to curtail enforcement efforts against marijuana users, most States have legalized marijuana use to some degree, and the government recently moved some marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III,” Gorsuch wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

While the court sided with Hemani, Gorsuch explained the decision is still narrow. He said the court’s opinion does not address people who are currently intoxicated on illegal substances and possessing a firearm as long as prosecutors can prove that person is dangerous.

“The government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others, or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous,” Gorsuch wrote.

Amy Swearer, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom and a Second Amendment legal expert, said the decision aligns with the U.S. Constitution.

“The Court’s decision today affirms one of the most basic tenets of the Second Amendment - the government may only disarm people whom it can prove are violent and unusually dangerous, based on individualized proof presented in legal proceedings,” Swearer said in a statement provided to The Center Square. “It cannot just broadly designate entire groups of people as dangerous and disqualify them from their right to keep and bear arms. Gun control activists will inevitably claim that the sky is falling. It isn’t. This federal statute is almost never the sole avenue the federal government has to disarm a truly dangerous person. Even in this case, it could have prosecuted Hemani for illegal possession of controlled substances. And the opinion today still leaves ample room for the government to disarm addicts or prosecute those who possess arms while actively intoxicated.”

Justice Samuel Alito agreed in the court’s judgement, but maintained that federal law should still restrict mentally ill people and felons from possessing a firearm. Justice Elena Kagan joined Alito’s opinion.

“Nothing in the opinion of the Court should be read to cast doubt on the constitutionality of other provisions of §922(g), such as §§922(g)(1) and (4), the ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,’” Alito wrote.

The high court agreed with a lower court, finding Hemani can keep possession of firearms despite being found with drugs. The ruling case could extend to many other people with unlawful drug use convictions across the country.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – American voters say local governments should be cautious about new data centers because they can place strain on electricity, water, land and local infrastructure, according to a new poll.

The Center Square Voters’ Voice Poll found that 62% of voters say local governments should be cautious while 24% think they should encourage new data centers because they create jobs, tax revenue and support America’s digital economy.

Another 14% said that they are not sure.

The results come from a poll conducted by Noble Predictive Insights from June 1-4, which surveyed registered voters nationally via an opt-in online panel and text-to-web cell phone messages. The sample included 2,585 respondents comprised of 915 Republicans, 1,013 Democrats, and 297 True Independents (Independents who, when asked if they leaned toward one of the major parties, chose neither). The margin of error is +/- 1.93%.

The results remained similar across age groups, political party affiliation and region in which those polled live.

Mike Noble, founder of Noble Predictive Insights, said that even though artificial intelligence and data centers are essential parts of the digital economy, it is clear that voters think that the negatives of having data centers nearby outweigh the benefits. Local governments are struggling with the issue, Noble said.

“I think AI/data centers did a really crappy job telling their story,” Noble said.

The poll did not ask about the tax incentives involved in data centers, from sales tax breaks on construction supplies and servers to electricity and property taxes. Such incentives have been significant across the country.

A recent Marquette Law School poll showed that 69% of voters believe the costs of data centers are greater and 30% believe that the benefits are higher.

A Good Jobs First report showed that 14 states and scores of local governments fail to properly disclose how much revenue they are losing to data center tax breaks while a deeper look at just three states showed that they are losing more than $1 billion per year to data center tax breaks.

“I’m sure there’s some jobs that are created when you have to put the shovel in the ground to build it, but once it’s built, how many people do you have to have to actually maintain it?” Noble said. “Unlike other jobs that are created where you have a 1,000-person head count at like a factory. Voters aren’t dumb.”

The poll showed that 58% of Republicans think local governments should be cautious while 27% believed data centers should be encouraged. Of Democrats, 65% said use caution while 64% of independents responded the same.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The American Parents Coalition is calling on Congress to examine federal funding of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, stating in its letter that the organization pushes “radical” political ideology onto schoolchildren nationwide with tax dollars.

Executive director of American Parents Coalition Alleigh Marré told The Center Square that “taxpayer dollars should never support institutions that promote political activism.”

“Instead of acting upon its intended mission to promote STEM programs for future generations, NASEM is focused on ‘equity in STEM,’ transgender ideology, and climate activism in classrooms,” Marré said.

“Parents deserve accountability and transparency when it comes to what their dollars are being used for and what is being taught to their children,” Marré said.

“Congress must investigate NASEM’s funding and practices,” Marré said.

American Parents Coalition’s letter was sent to Congressman Brian Babin, chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Neither NASEM nor Babin responded to The Center Square’s requests for comment.

The letter stated that while “NASEM receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding every year,” it has “transformed itself into a platform for pushing radical political agendas into K–12 classrooms across America.”

“These are taxpayer dollars entrusted to an institution whose stated mandate is to provide independent, nonpartisan scientific guidance,” the letter said.

“Instead, NASEM has funneled resources toward left-wing advocacy organizations that push explicitly political agendas onto students and publicly share resources filled with extreme political ideology,” the letter said.

NASEM has promoted “a specific climate agenda and so-called ‘environmental justice’ curricula in K–12 schools,” according to the letter.

One organization that NASEM funds is EcoRise, which “distributes lesson plans for elementary, middle, and high school students in which students ‘discover how they can help dismantle and counteract damage caused by systemic racism,’” the letter said.

The letter also touched on NASEM’s promotion of gender ideology to schools.

“NASEM’s 2023 workshop ‘Supporting the Health and Well-Being of Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth’ encouraged schools to use ‘affirming pronouns’ and to validate students’ self-declared gender identities, even when parents object or refuse to do so,” the letter said.

As Marré also noted, NASEM last year published a report “laced with racially and ideologically charged rhetoric” entitled “Equity in K–12 STEM Education: Framing Decisions for the Future,” the letter said.

The letter stated that “NASEM’s workshops, curricula partnerships, and DEI-framed publications appear to be in direct conflict with” federal directives.

NASEM has come under fire lately from Consumers’ Research for promoting woke ideology with tax dollars, as well as faced scrutiny from state attorneys general for refusing to remove climate agenda from a judicial manual.

NASEM was founded to advise the government on issues related to science, engineering and medicine, according to its website.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) - The Louisiana Public Service Commission has bypassed its own competitive bidding rules to greenlight a 100 Megawatt battery storage facility in Amite, according to a recent regulatory filing.

The Commission voted 3-1 at its May 13 meeting to certify an energy storage agreement between Dixie Electric Membership Corporation, Amite Solar, and Amite Energy Storage. The decision was contrary to the recommendations of the Commission’s own staff, who urged a denial in a formal March 5 filing because the companies had skipped the required competitive bidding process.

The decision grants the applicants a rare exemption from the state’s market-based mechanism rules, which the Commission itself developed and adopted in October 2024 to protect consumers. Under these guidelines, electric utilities must use an open competitive bidding process—similar to a public auction—to find the lowest market price before building or contracting for new power resources.

The Commission voted to waive its own regulations, however, due to the projected benefit: the rapid addition of what it termed “low-cost” power to backstop the grid in a coastal area of Louisiana vulnerable to blackouts and supply outages.

The parent company backing Amite Solar and Amite Energy Storage, Florida-based NextEra Energy, stands as the world’s largest producer of wind and solar power.

Commission Chairman Eric Skrmetta said he opposed the exemption because it left ratepayers vulnerable to unverified costs, arguing that he refused to let local citizens shoulder the financial burden of an un-reviewed project.

“If somebody wants to play, engage in experimentation, that’s great, I just don’t want them to do it on ratepayer money… and so I see this value as a significant value to NextEra,” Skrmetta said at the May 13 meeting. “I do because it makes sense to me that if somebody’s going to have a turbine facility for wind turbines, or if they’re going to have solar facilities that they should engage in this on their own nickel. I just don’t want to see that burden put on my citizens.”

Standalone battery systems routinely face a five-year transmission study period before they can even be considered for grid access. But by utilizing a pre-existing ‘surplus interconnection’ at the Amite Solar site, the developers of the DEMCO project bypassed that wait to fast-track a system scheduled to be fully operational in 18 months.

While connecting a battery to an existing solar farm to save money is becoming the norm, using it to bypass a consumer protection law is not commonplace. Because federal rules give a solar developer exclusive access to the grid at a specific location like Amite, outside competitors were legally blocked from bidding. This left state regulators with a choice: either approve NextEra’s un-bid deal or leave the local community exposed to immediate power shortages.

Commissioner Mike Francis challenged the requirement that the deal be confidential, noting that the public cannot verify the actual costs of the contract.

“In this market, you’re looking at seven to 10 years,” testified Travis Stewart, a project consultant for the utility cooperative. Stewart explained that building a traditional power plant would require starting from scratch to purchase the necessary land, obtain environmental permits, and build out new natural gas delivery pipelines.

DEMCO representatives noted that the Amite storage project is scheduled for completion in just 18 months because it can piggyback onto the solar farm’s grid footprint.

Democratic Commissioner Davante Lewis questioned the economic benefits of the project. Generally a supporter of clean energy, Lewis pressed utility representatives on the potential financial impact on local families. DEMCO staff spoke of the technical benefits of battery storage but admitted they could not formally confirm that the project met the state’s “lowest reasonable cost standard” after the company skipped the competitive bidding process.

In the final order issued June 12, the Commission required that DEMCO provide strict pre- and post-construction reporting along with dynamic monitoring of the project’s financial performance and ratepayer impact. The Commission also warned other utilities that the fast-tracked waiver issued to DEMCO is an anomaly.

“The record reflects that the proposed project would provide tangible benefits, including reliability support within a constrained load pocket, increased resource diversity, and a meaningful speed-to-market advantage,” Vice Chairman Jean-Paul Coussan said before voting to approve the project. “The proposed resource still provides value.”

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – In a rare instance of congressional unity, the House and Senate reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement over legislation to boost housing supply and home ownership across the country.

The Senate overwhelmingly voted to advance the updated 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act Tuesday night. Congressional leaders hope to vote on final passage by the week’s end

“I’m pleased that after months of back and forth that we have reached an agreement on a comprehensive housing package that will finally get America back to building affordable housing,” House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who helped iron out differences between the House and Senate versions, stated.

The revamped legislation includes key sweeteners to appease both chambers.

It keeps a swath of banking provisions from the House’s version, including multiple deregulation bills meant to expand community banks’ access to funding sources for mortgages and home construction loans.

Sourced from the Senate version, the final bill includes a four-year ban on the Federal Reserve issuing a Central Bank Digital Currency, though it exempts “any dollar-denominated currency that is open, permissionless, and private, and fully preserves the privacy protections of United States coins and physical currency.”

Lawmakers were able to strike a bicameral compromise over proposed restrictions to corporate home ownership, the greatest contributor to the bill’s delay.

The bill contains the Senate’s 15-year ban on large institutional investors, defined as entities that own more than 350 housing units, from buying single-family homes for the next 15 years. Manufactured housing, multifamily homes, and build-to-rent properties are exempted from the ban.

At the same time, the final product excludes a Senate provision requiring large institutional investors to sell rental homes they build to individuals within seven years of construction, which multiple industry stakeholders, including the National Association of Homebuilders, had objected to.

“NAHB congratulates congressional leaders for reaching a bicameral and bipartisan agreement to move forward a final version of the 21st Century Road to Housing Act,” NAHB Chairman Bill Owens said in a statement Tuesday.

“This landmark legislation would expand housing opportunities for buyers and renters, strengthen homeownership, and help tackle the affordability challenges facing communities nationwide.”

The vast majority of provisions within the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, however, receive widespread bipartisan support.

Among other measures, the bill streamlines environmental reviews for new housing construction, lifts the 15% cap on banks’ private investments in affordable housing to 20%, and establishes a pilot program to convert vacant and abandoned buildings into livable housing.

It revises the federal definition of “manufactured housing” to include units not built on permanent chassis and authorizes a specialized grant program for areas with manufactured housing communities. It also updates mortgage lending standards through the Federal Housing Administration for manufactured homes.

Dozens of outside organizations support the new version of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, including the National Association of Realtors and the National Housing Conference.

“Housing affordability remains one of the most pressing challenges facing American families, and it deserves the kind of bipartisan cooperation that has characterized this effort from the beginning,” NHC President David Dworkin said. “[T]his bill is a significant down payment on a long-term effort to make housing more affordable for all Americans.”

Home ownership has proven increasingly out of reach for younger and middle-class Americans, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, research shows.

The median age of first-time buyers jumped to 40 in 2025, seven years older than the median age just five prior, according to a National Association of Realtors analysis.

Meanwhile, the median home price in the U.S. sits above $405,000 while the median annual household income is below $84,000, according to the most recent federal statistics.

Subscribe now