Featured Stories:
White House sued for abruptly halting services for deaf when Trump took office
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) sued the White House for allegedly violating federal law and the U.S. Constitution by declining to provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters at prominent events like briefings and press conferences.
According to the 25-page suit, the White House abruptly stopped providing services for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals when President Donald Trump took office in January.
"In January 2025, the White House inexplicably stopped using ASL interpreters for any of its public press briefings or similar events," the suit said. "The White House's failure to provide qualified ASL interpreters during public briefings, press conferences, and related events is against the law. Federal law unequivocally prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and requires them to have meaningful access to the federal government's programs and services. Failing to provide ASL interpreters deprives deaf people of meaningful access to the White House's press briefings."
EXCLUSIVE: Trump accused of new grift that puts Qatari plane in shade
In a statement, interim NAD CEO Dr. Bobbie Beth Scoggins insisted that "[d]eaf and hard of hearing Americans have the right to the same access to White House information as everyone else. Denying them ASL interpreters is a direct violation of that right, and the NAD will continue to fight for their full inclusion in the democratic process."
"Such information must be provided not only through captioning but also in American Sign Language," she added.
NAD successfully sued the White House in 2020, resulting in the inclusion of Certified Deaf Interpreters (CDIs) in COVID-19 briefings.
Trump has a ‘verbal tic’ that is causing ‘a worldview problem’ in US: analysis
President Donald Trump's "verbal tic" is creating "cognitive dissonance in America," according to a Washington Post column.
“The verbal tic of President Donald Trump that has always most fascinated me is his predilection for the word ‘beautiful,’" Monica Hesse wrote.
Giving several examples of the usage, she said, “On Trump’s first day back in office, he signed an executive order titled ‘Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture.’ Golf courses are beautiful, but so are White House telephones, farming, fighter jets, notes from the Chinese president, chocolate cake, the Supreme Court, Harambe the gorilla, and Christians.”
Hesse questioned, “Is this a vocabulary deficit?”
“Trump uses ‘beautiful’ to describe sleeping gas (‘They have a gas that’s a beautiful sleeping gas’). He uses it to describe fossil fuels (‘clean, beautiful coal’).” She even noted a list from Politico, which aggregated “weird times” he’s used the word beautiful.
“To be told that something is beautiful when it seems ugly to you is not a linguistic problem — it’s a worldview problem,” Hesse said. “It’s not gaslighting, exactly, but it leads to cognitive dissonance, to looking out the window and wondering how other people can see what you’re seeing and think it looks so radically different, or if they’re even seeing the same thing at all.”
EXCLUSIVE: Trump accused of new grift that puts Qatari plane in shade
“‘Beautiful’ is an adjective that describes a thing,” the columnist wrote, “but it’s also a reflection on the person using it: what they care about, what they think is worth saving.”
Taking aim at the ‘big, beautiful bill,' Hesse asked, “Do we think it’s beautiful to make it harder for families to see doctors when they’re sick? To make it harder to feed their children? Is it beautiful to make it easier to buy gun silencers? Is it beautiful to charge asylum seekers $1,000 to apply for safety?”
“The Big Beautiful Bill works for Donald Trump because it uses a common, euphonious word to sell a tantalizing concept: that the federal government is simple instead of being a giant, complicated mess,” she said.
Hesse believes Trump is using the phrase because “The Big Beautiful Bill is the One Ring of legislation, the only bill you’ll ever need. ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ is a phrase that could lull you into believing it contained only good things. And it does not.”
‘Forefront of resistance’: How a small business took on Trump’s tariffs and won
A small father-daughter run wine company in Upstate New York stood up to President Donald Trump's tariffs in a "David and Goliath" showdown — and came out on top, according to reporting by CNN.
The company, called VOS Selections, agreed to be the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Trump administration, "which prompted a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade to strike down Trump’s sweeping global tariffs on Wednesday," the report said.
According to the decision, Trump "overstepped his authority by invoking emergency economic powers to impose sweeping tariffs on China, Canada, Mexico and other US trading partners."
But VOS founder Victor Schwartz said he "never intended to be at the forefront of the resistance to US government policy" — he just wanted to protect the business he started decades ago.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump accused of new grift that puts Qatari plane in shade
“Put it this way: when I started VOS 40 years ago I had no idea that I was signing up for something like this, getting involved in a lawsuit against the executive branch of the United States,” Schwartz told CNN. “I just wanted to bring in these delicious wines from interesting appellations across the world and sell those wines to a like-minded community.”
Schwartz told CNN that his business suffered under Trump’s tariffs during the first administration, prompting him to "fight back" this time around.
He worked with lawyers from the libertarian advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, and led the charge against the administration. Four other small businesses joined the battle, including a Pennsylvania company that sells fishing tackle, the maker of small electronic kits for children, a women-focused cycling company, and an ABS pipe manufacturer.
If the case goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Schwartz told CNN he will see it through to the end.
“We knocked back the tariffs. It’s going to change the whole game plan,” he said.
Trump has yet to respond to the ruling that affects the crux of his entire economic plan.
Trump uses pardon power to build army of devoted MAGA vigilantes: analyst
President Donald Trump is sending a clear message to law enforcement officers who break the law, conservative analyst Bill Kristol wrote for The Bulwark in an urgent analysis published on Tuesday — you can do whatever you like as long as you're loyal to me.
Trump has become infamous for handing out pardons to his political allies hit with federal charges, including most notoriously around 1,500 January 6 rioters. But he followed this up over the weekend by pardoning a far-right Virginia sheriff convicted in a bribes-for-badges scheme.
Culpepper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins "had accepted more than $75,000 in bribes in exchange for appointing various untrained and unvetted individuals to no-show jobs as auxiliary deputy sheriffs," wrote Kristol. "The evidence was overwhelming, including video of Jenkins accepting bags of cash, the testimony of some of those involved in the scheme, and reports from two undercover FBI agents. In March 2025, Jenkins was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison."
However, Ed Martin, the recently-disgraced GOP activist who served as Trump's former D.C. prosecutor, recently became the DOJ pardon attorney and got involved in the case.
"Jenkins was a rabidly anti-immigrant, pro-Trump sheriff who’d become a minor celebrity in MAGA world. Trump himself may not have known of him, but Ed Martin did," wrote Kristol. After Martin's intervention, Trump issued the pardon and baselessly claimed Jenkins was “persecuted by the Radical Left ‘monsters’” at DOJ and railroaded thanks to a “Biden Judge.”
"Trump’s pardon is an affront to the oaths both he and Jenkins swore. Though the pardon is legal in the sense that it’s within Trump’s power, it is an affront to the rule of law," wrote Kristol.
The message Trump sent by doing this, he continued, is that "under Trump’s pardon regime, law enforcement officers can become Trump enforcement officers. Others who decide to engage in vigilante action — perhaps in cooperation with Trump-supporting law enforcement officers — can also expect pardons. Trump sheriffs and wannabe sheriffs will increasingly believe, thanks to Trump and Ed Martin, that they can act with immunity. MAGA vigilantism over the next four years will be super-charged."
Ultimately, Kristol concluded, the only safeguard against Trump's unchecked pardon abuses "is political and civic leaders ... who call attention to its abuses, and who seek to guard against some of the implications of those abuses. The fundamental check has to be a citizenry that upholds standards of legality and decency even when the president and his administration don’t."
‘It would be a $3,000 iPhone’: CNBC challenges Trump aide on Apple tariffs
Conservative CNBC host Joe Kernen pressed White House adviser Kevin Hassett after President Donald Trump threatened to place a 25% tariff on Apple iPhones.
During a Tuesday interview, Kernen told Hassett that costs would skyrocket if Apple were forced to manufacture iPhones in the U.S.
"We're trying to figure out an off-ramp for Apple," the CNBC host said. "It'd be a $3,000 iPhone if they tried to make everything here."
Co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin pointed out that some iPhone models could cost consumers $3,500.
"What is [Apple CEO] Tim Cook supposed to do?" Kernen asked.
"Right. Well, you know, we'll see how it works out," Hassett replied. "But the bottom line is that what we're trying to do is onshore as much as we can in the U.S. and make it so that the U.S. is not hyper-dependent on imports from China."
EXCLUSIVE: Trump accused of new grift that puts Qatari plane in shade
"And so I think that one of the things we're seeing is that people are moving way faster than you might expect," he continued. "You know, with supply chains moving fast and just-in-time inventory management and AI, I think you're going to be astonished in how quickly stuff moves onshore."
"And in the interim, you know, then we'll see how it works out. But they need to move their stuff onshore as much as possible to make it so that the U.S. economy is secure and not prone to, you know, Chinese extortion."
The New York Times reported that Trump may have threatened the new tariffs on Apple after Cook skipped the president's recent trip to the Middle East.
Trump’s ‘ultimate foe’ obsession plunges US state into ‘cloud of chaos’: mayor
President Donald Trump is leaving Massachusetts in a “cloud of chaos” as his moves against so-called “woke universities” have wide-reaching effects across the Bay State, according to a Boston Globe Correspondent, Kara Miller.
“In epic tales, heroes and villains often have a lot in common — even if they can’t initially see it,” Miller wrote. “For the Trump administration, the ultimate foe just might be liberal elites.”
She believes, “Massachusetts may be uniquely positioned to suffer in President Trump’s second term.”
This is because the state’s “economy is deeply reliant on elite colleges, elite hospitals, and the elite minds who come here from around the world. In Massachusetts — like it or not — we have built an economy on expertise, excellence, and education.”
We’re living under “a cloud of chaos,” Boston’s Mayor Michelle Wu told the Globe.
With Trump targeting the very industries that make Massachusetts successful, Miller is now calling the industries “liabilities,” and Mayor Wu agreed.
EXCLUSIVE: Breastfeeding mom of US citizen sues Kristi Noem after being grabbed by ICE
“Boston is at the center of many of the most targeted industries and communities, and so we’re feeling it very much — very urgently,” Wu said. Boston is “trying to plan for unpredictability. And so our city budget this year includes preparations for worst-case scenarios.”
Wu is expecting “immediate, significant impacts to federal funding or larger macroeconomic impacts.”
She’s not the only one with concerns. Boston University economist Adam Guren told the Globe, “I think the local economy is going to hurt. I think it’s going to hurt a lot. This is a particularly scary time for Massachusetts.”
“Up until a couple of months ago,” says Cait Brumme, the CEO of MassChallenge, “Massachusetts was a really attractive place to be.”
Now Brumme says, “I feel like there’s a risk people will feel like: You may not be welcomed here.”
“It will be hard for the state — and some of its most significant institutions — to win the battles of the next three-and-a-half years,” Miller wrote. “The question is whether they can hold on long enough to win the war.”
