Articles & Videos

At least 53 people have died in ICE custody since President Donald Trump’s return to office.

President Trump is banning students majoring in degrees that don’t make enough money from taking out college loans. The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that the Education Department has finalized a rule that will force schools to prove that the loans students are taking out are paying off. Degrees for social work, art, religious studies, teaching aides, and music, and cosmetic certification programs will be hit the hardest. For-profit programs will also be hit particularly hard.While the Trump administration is framing the policy as “accountability” for higher education, and some are welcoming the move, others see it as an attack on those whose work is important regardless of salary. The Education Department intends to use IRS data to determine students’ salaries four years after they graduate and compare them to those of people similar in age who just have high school diplomas. If they’re below that baseline, that degree will be ineligible for loans.  “We need social workers,” Mitchell said. “Whether it’s the fentanyl epidemic or homelessness in L.A., we need people who can work on the street with people who need it the most,” American Council on Education Ted Mitchell told the Times. Even some on the right are concerned. “The government shouldn’t punish people who pursue socially valuable callings just because in its judgment they don’t earn enough money,” said Gregory Baylor, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a designated hate group.“In certain fields of study, especially in the humanities, whether or not that program has been successful and has done a really good job in its educational mission might not be all that directly tied to immediate earnings potential,” added Stanford professor Jonathan Gienapp.The policy will be implemented in 2027. 

President Trump thinks that Americans against data centers are being duped by foreign propaganda and that in reality, there are a lot of people who want to live near them.“Other nations are trying to get us to slow down” regarding data center construction, Trump said at the Environmental Protection Agency Thursday afternoon. “They’re spending a lot of money on propaganda, on press, P.R., trying to convince everybody that this isn’t a positive thing, and if we don’t do this, we’re going to be left behind.”“You have some communities that really want this, this isn’t all negative stuff, you have communities that really want the data centers, and frankly those are the smart communities because it means a tremendous numbers of jobs, very little actual disruption,” Trump said.Trump on Data Centers in Communities: Other nations are spending a lot of money on propaganda trying to convince everybody that this isn't a positive thing. You have some communities that really want the data centers. Those are the smart communities. Very little disruption.… pic.twitter.com/i0wrwYj25s— Acyn (@Acyn) July 23, 2026Trump made the remarks at an event promoting the White House’s “Ratepayer Protection Pledge,” in which states and companies pledge to keep consumers from paying higher electricity bills due to data centers. The plan has supposedly gotten the support of companies such as Google, Microsoft, Meta, Oracle, xAI, OpenAI, and Amazon, who vowed to pay for increased power costs in areas where data centers are built. The pledge is completely voluntary—and unenforceable.People who live near data centers complain about the overhaul to their lives, from the drain on water supplies to increased noise and higher utility costs. In most areas where data centers are proposed, local opposition quickly becomes protests that unite the left and the right. The economic benefit that comes with data centers is actually minimal, with most providing only a few dozen on-site jobs. Trump is very much out of touch with how Americans, including many of his supporters, view data centers.

Senators said the administration hasn’t consulted them about the potential operation.

It’s only been four months, but it looks like Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is already on the White House’s bad side.The rift is a result of some early missteps and concerns about Mullin’s personnel choices, according to a senior Trump administration official and a senior Department of Homeland Security official who spoke with NBC News Thursday.  The White House wasn’t happy with Mullin’s decision to temporarily restrict Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicle stops after two deadly shootings by immigration officers in Texas and Maine. Just one day after Mullin announced the change, and yet another person was killed during a chaotic ICE incident, Trump ordered the agency to resume traffic stops.An administration official told NBC News that Mullin’s decision was “100 percent” a bad move.Mullin reportedly never received the White House’s blessing before announcing the sudden policy change—leaving President Donald Trump and border czar Tom Homan in the dark. Trump was reportedly furious, believing that it signaled the administration was softening on immigration enforcement. Another source of tension between Mullin and the White House is the secretary’s decision to nominate Lance Schroyer, one of his allies, to run ICE. The decision had “a lot of people talking,” as Schroyer has no direct experience with federal law or immigration enforcement, a DHS official told NBC News. In addition to Schroyer’s lackluster résumé, he’s also been accused of failing to pay for child support.In any case, several officials “aren’t thrilled with him,” one Trump administration official told NBC News. Rising tensions with the freshly appointed DHS secretary come as a new report suggests that Trump’s second administration has even higher turnover among Senate-confirmed officials than his first. 

President Trump announced massive new conditions to his nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia on Thursday morning, just hours after it was signed.In a Truth Social post, Trump demanded that Saudi Arabia normalize relations with Israel via the Abraham Accords before getting any U.S. nuclear technology. He also claimed “there will be no enrichment of material,” though the deal certainly opens the door to uranium enrichment in the country.“The Civil Nuclear Deal (There will be no enrichment of material!) being made between the United States Department of Energy and Saudi Arabia, which pertains only to non-military use such as the ones that Iran and UAE (and others) already have, will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords,” Trump wrote. “The United States is not opposed to Civil (Non-Enriched) Nuclear Facilities.” Negotiating terms would make sense if the deal wasn’t already signed, or if the Saudi kingdom had at least hinted at accepting the demands Trump outlined (it hasn’t).Trump’s post created a stark messaging contradiction for the White House, which is still struggling to explain the terms of the deal.  White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked to explain the president’s about-face during her Thursday press conference. “What steps is the U.S. taking to get Saudi Arabia to sign the Abraham Accords?” a reporter asked.Leavitt did not answer the question. “This is a condition that the president has spoken about many times.… He wants to see these countries sign the Abraham Accord, it was one of the most historic accomplishments of his first term, and it continues to be a long-term goal of his to expand those accords to ultimately come to a place where the Middle East can be a peaceful and stable region,” Leavitt replied, providing no examples of mechanisms being used to make that happen. “Yes, this deal with Saudi Arabia … is contingent on this condition as far as the president is concerned. So we’ll continue to talk with our Saudi counterparts to get the deal finalized.” “Why was that condition not mentioned yesterday when the energy secretary announced it?” another reporter followed up.“Well, look, the president is always the final dealmaker, as you know, and this is something that he has mentioned on numerous occasions,” Leavitt replied.“So the deal is dead if Saudi Arabia doesn’t join? And have you any indication that Saudi Arabia is even considering this?” Leavitt once again failed to engage with the actual questions being raised. “The president has spoken directly with the Saudis about this in numerous conversations in the past, and the administration will continue to engage in these conversations.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Trump wants Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords before a proposed U.S.-Saudi civil nuclear energy deal moves forward, confirming the agreement is contingent on that condition.Saudi Arabia has not yet responded… pic.twitter.com/QRWk0H2b5C— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 23, 2026It’s clear that no one in the Trump administration can explain just how they plan to get the Saudis to agree to a different deal than the one they signed just a few hours ago. “On Trump seemingly adding new conditions to the US Saudi nuclear deal, including Saudi Israel normalization, a Saudi source says: ‘It was signed. So nothing to renegotiate,’” journalist Laura Rozen wrote. “‘Tweets don’t overturn signed agreements.’” 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune tore into Karoline Leavitt Thursday, rebuking the press secretary hours after she announced that the White House was losing patience with his inability to pass Donald Trump’s wildly unpopular SAVE America Act.“Well maybe she or somebody else ought to get on the phone and get the votes, right?” Thune told reporters. “It’s 50 around here. And, so, instead of pointing the finger at Republicans, they might think about going after the people who are stopping it on the floor, which is the Democrats.” “And if there are Republicans that they think are gettable, get on the phone. Let’s get them to ‘yes,’” he added.At a press conference earlier in the day, Leavitt revealed that the president’s “patience is running out.” “He wants to see as much of the SAVE America Act passed by the August recess,” Leavitt said. “He knows that’s what the American people want to see passed.”The Senate goes into recess on August 7. The House, which began its month-long recess Thursday, voted 216–214 to adopt a budget blueprint Wednesday night that included portions of Trump’s voter restriction bill.The president has predicated his support for any legislative effort on the SAVE Act’s passage. Since the beginning of the year, Trump has insisted it should be Congress’s top priority. He has refused to sign any bill and even derailed Cabinet confirmations until Capitol Hill bends to his will. So far, that stalemate has gummed up efforts to fund the Department of Homeland Security, stalled attempts to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, and upended a planned photo op of Trump signing a landmark bipartisan housing bill.The original iteration of the SAVE America Act sparked nationwide backlash for proposing numerous amendments to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, perhaps chief among them a requirement that voters bring either a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Critics argued that the mandate would unduly restrict millions of Americans from voting, pointing out that half of the country’s population lacks a passport, and furthermore that the legislation as written would make it difficult for anyone who changed their name—including married women—to register.The bill would also require voters to present photo identification when casting a ballot, and impose a total ban on mail-in voting. Trump has described the latter procedure as “crooked” and “corrupt,” despite the fact that he himself has cast several mail-in ballots.

Newly minted Senator Darline Graham, stepping in for her recently deceased brother Lindsey, only has one political donation on record—and it was to a South Carolina state senator who helped kill an abortion ban. The Daily Beast reported on Tuesday that Graham in 2020 donated $100 to state Senator Katrina Shealy, who is perhaps best known for filibustering the state’s near-total abortion ban in 2023. Shealy was part of South Carolina’s “sister senators,” a group of five female state lawmakers—two Republicans, a Democrat, and an independent— who were in staunch opposition to the ban. Shealy lost her primary the next year, largely due to this vote. Graham tried to bury the news of her ties to Shealy, writing in a statement on X on Wednesday that she believed in “protecting the sanctity of human life at every stage.”“For years, I’ve committed my life to fighting for vulnerable populations, and no one is more vulnerable than an unborn child who cannot speak for themselves,” she wrote. “As a mother, I know that welcoming children into this world is God’s greatest gift. I’m proud to be pro-life and to stand up for the unborn and expecting moms. I will not waver in my support for life, pregnant women, and families.”The MAGA-verse doesn’t seem to buy it. “Darline Graham Nordone is good friends with Katrina Shealy, the disgraced former South Carolina state senator who is PRO-ABORTION and OPPOSED the Heartbeat bill,” one conservative X account commented. “Darline even donated money to her campaign.”“I’m going to ask @LIFEforSC to not consider her for the coveted ‘incumbent endorsement.’ She is fully unproven. She backed pro-abortion Senator Katrina Shealy. Vote @RalphNorman,” said another, referring to the representative who announced last week that he’d be running for Lindsey Graham’s seat in the August 11 special election. “You donated to Healy who is pro abortion and was against the heartbeat bill.  So either you are NOT pro life or you dont know who you are supporting,” wrote yet another. “Both are disqualifying.”Graham has not fully explained her donation to Shealy. PBS reported that the two women are in fact good friends and often share wine on each other’s porches. And while Graham cast herself as a hard-line conservative in the same mold as her brother, this recent revelation may lead to more problems for her in the future as she runs for her own six-year term after finishing his current one. 

Four Republicans joined every Democrat in the House of Representatives Thursday to pass a war powers resolution to rein in President Trump on the Iran war. The resolution passed 214-208, with Republican Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Tom Barrett of Michigan voting yes. It joins a concurrent resolution in the Senate proposed by Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen on Thursday which would block Trump from military action in Iran without congressional approval. Van Hollen’s resolution only needs a simple majority to pass in the Senate, which could be likely with Republican absences, such as Mitch McConnell, who has been hospitalized for over a month. The resolutions have heightened importance due to the reignition of hostilities with Iran in recent weeks, with the U.S. resuming airstrikes against the country while Iran launches missiles at oil refineries and U.S. military targets around the Middle East. On Thursday, Trump threatened to expand the war to Yemen after the country’s Houthi militia began carrying out attacks in the Red Sea. This is the second time the House has passed a war powers resolution, following a June 3 vote where the same four Republican representatives joined Democrats to curtail the Iran war. The Senate joined them three weeks later, but then reversed its vote following pressure from Donald Trump.   Will the Senate join the House in trying to rein in Trump, or will they allow more civilian deaths and economic damage from the renewed war? This story has been updated.