Trump talks Gaza, Epstein island invite
In today's issue:
Trump says he refused Epstein invite
Trade deadline week is here
Timeline for Putin shortened
US to set up food centers in Gaza
Booker coaches Dems on social media
Trump loves an AMA*:
* AMA = Ask Me Anything
President Trump met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer this morning in Scotland. Trump took questions from reporters, making news on a wide range of topics. Here are the highlights:
What was top of mind for Trump?:
♦️ The humanitarian crisis in Gaza
🔷 The Jeffrey Epstein scandal
🔶 The war between Russia and Ukraine
♦ ️ First, I'll start with the Gaza situation: Trump announced the U.S. will work to set up 'food centers' in Gaza to help alleviate the starvation, describing the humanitarian crisis amid the Israel-Hamas war as 'real starvation.'
Starmer chimed in, arguing Israel needs to be pressured to end the 'humanitarian catastrophe.' The U.K. prime minister called the starvation 'intolerable' and the images of malnourished Gazan children 'revolting.'
🔷 OK, now the Jeffrey Epstein scandal: Trump told reporters he turned down an offer to visit convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein 's private island.
In Trump's words: 'I never went to the island and [former president] Bill Clinton went there supposedly 28 times. I never went to the island but [former Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers, I hear, went there, he was the head of Harvard. And many other people that are very big people, nobody ever talks about them. I never had the privilege of going to his island and I did turn him down. But a lot of people in Palm Beach were invited to his island. In one of my very good moments, I turned it down. I didn't want to go to his island.'
Trump also launched into a fiery tirade about reports detailing his alleged past relationship with Epstein.
He pushed back on The Wall Street Journal's reporting detailing a message and drawing he allegedly contributed for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. 'I don't do drawings. I'm not a drawing person,' Trump said. 'I don't do drawings of women, that I can tell you.' 📹 Watch the clip
And when asked whether he would consider a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, Trump said it would be 'inappropriate' to discuss a pardon for Epstein's accomplice 'right now.'
🔶 Trump shortened Putin's ceasefire deadline: Trump said he's no longer interested in simply talking with Russian President Vladimir Putin — he wants Moscow to quickly agree to a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. 'He talks — we have such nice conversations, such respectful and nice conversations, and then people die the following night,' Trump said.
For reference, Trump announced earlier today he would shorten Russia's deadline to end its war with Ukraine to 'about 10 or 12 days from today.'
📹 Watch the Starmers welcome Trump
Forget Infrastructure Week, it's a trade deadline week:
After months of delays, President Trump 's long-awaited tariffs are scheduled to take effect at the end of this week.
Quick primer: Trump announced tariffs on dozens of other countries on April 2. A week later, he lowered the tariff rates for 90 days. But as the 90-day deadline neared, he pushed the deadline to Aug. 1.
In that time: Trump has cut several trade deals, including with the European Union, Japan, the Philippines and the United Kingdom.
What about China?: 'The U.S. and China announced in late May the contours of a deal to stave off a trade war between the two countries temporarily. The U.S. reduced its tariff rate from 145 percent to 30 percent, and China reduced its rate from 125 percent to 10 percent.'
The Hill's Sarah Fortinsky pulled together a list of the trade deals Trump has made ahead of Friday's deadline and their specifics.
⏱️ ON CAPITOL HILL
The boss doesn't want a shutdown, folks:
'Senate Republicans say President Trump has made it clear he doesn't want a government shutdown, and they're urging House GOP lawmakers to tone down their approach to the Sept. 30 funding deadline,' The Hill's Alexander Bolton reports.
Remember how House Republicans jammed a partisan funding bill through Congress in March? Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) reluctantly voted for it to avoid a shutdown. He faced a lot of blowback after.
But as Bolton points out, the political dynamics are *much* different now: 'Schumer is under heavy pressure to fight harder against Trump and his MAGA allies, heightening the chance of a shutdown if Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) tries to use the same playbook.'
➤ INTERESTING READ — CORY BOOKER, THE SOCIAL MEDIA
Semafor's Burgess Everett writes today, 'How Cory Booker convinced his party to get extremely online.'
Excerpt: 'He used to 'live on Twitter,' now X, but has soured on it. Lately Instagram is his 'happy place.' He believes children should not be on social media. On a political level, however, Booker looks at it as a professional obligation. He's invited platform executives to talk to Senate Democrats about how their algorithms work.'
Lol: 'I wouldn't say he works me over; it's not like I'm under duress,' Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said. 'He'll call me up or text me and say, 'Hey, you did this on social. But if you do that, you know you'll get more engagement.''
➤ NEW BILL ON THE HILL:
A House GOP bill would rename the Kennedy Center for Trump, stripping former President John F. Kennedy 's name from the D.C. landmark.
What would the new name be?: 'Trump Center for the Performing Arts.'
Keep in mind: House Republicans on the Appropriations Committee approved an amendment earlier this month to rename the Kennedy Center's famed opera house the 'First Lady Melania Trump Opera House.'
Vance is on a PR trip:
Vice President Vance is on the road in his home state of Ohio today to promote President Trump 's 'big, beautiful' law.
He's in Canton today to talk about the benefits of the bill.
Keep in mind: Some of the controversial provisions in the bill, such as the cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, are a harder sell for some constituents. So, Vance is making the rounds to sell its benefits to the American people.
FWIW: Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he thinks Vance would make a 'great nominee' for the Republican Party in 2028 if he decides to run. But keep in mind, Rubio was asked whether *he* would run. He sidestepped the question and pivoted to Vance.
*Mentions 2028 and braces for hate mail*:
I know we're only halfway through 2025, but there's already speculation building about the 2028 presidential race.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) is traveling to New Hampshire next month, speaking at a 'Politics & Eggs' event hosted by the New England Council and the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, which is known as a rite of passage for any presidential hopeful.
12:25 p.m.: Trump arrives in Aberdeen, Scotland.
🐝 INTERNET BUZZ
🍫 Celebrate: Today is National Milk Chocolate Day.
👋 AND FINALLY…
To leave you with an incredible realization, did you know bugs can actually help your golf game?
…Well, depending on how you define 'help.' 😉
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class
President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with China may look like a diplomatic win, but for the American middle class, it comes with hidden costs. Trending Now: Find Out: While tariffs are being reduced in exchange for promises from Beijing, households could still face higher prices, disrupted supply chains and reduced job growth. Here are four reasons Trump's trade deal with China is bad news for the middle class and what families can do to protect their finances. Higher Consumer Prices Despite Tariff Relief Even as the U.S. and China approach an August trade deal deadline, prices on many consumer goods remain elevated, and middle-class households continue to feel the strain. Some experts argue that the new tariffs may not drastically shift average import prices. However, middle-class families are more likely to feel the impact in specific categories, such as electronics, tools and household goods. 'U.S. companies scrambled to import as many goods as possible to stockpile before new tariffs were fully implemented, mitigating the immediate impact of tariffs on prices,' said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. Riley said that since imports from China account for just 13.2% of total U.S. imports, increases in the price of specific Chinese goods may not push up the overall import average. However, they can still significantly affect middle-class budgets for everyday items. Read More: Erosion of Real Incomes and Job Losses An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned that Trump's trade measures could cut national real income by around 0.4%, while losses in services and agriculture might offset job gains in manufacturing. 'What's pitched as economic growth is actually a slow bleed: Manufacturing jobs won't magically return, and small businesses relying on predictable import costs are about to face more whiplash,' said Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO of Career Nomad. 'Wages stay stagnant while everyday costs climb. And here's the kicker — there's no workforce investment baked into this deal. That means your job security, benefits and opportunities to grow could evaporate, especially if your industry leans heavily on exports or global sourcing.' Volatile Markets and Supply Chain Instability Although the China deal eased recession fears, experts said that uncertainty around ongoing tariffs still disrupts manufacturing and logistics. Businesses may hold back investment or retool supply chains, raising costs for middle-class consumers and slowing hiring. For example, uncertainty remains one of the most significant threats to economic momentum, particularly for businesses making long-term decisions. 'The real issue is that this deal doesn't create clarity. It reinforces an environment of 'wait and see,' Robert Khachatryan, CEO and founder of Freight Right. 'That's not how you build confidence in the economy.' Khachatryan added, 'You can't expect small and midsize businesses, who employ a huge portion of America's middle class, to plan for the future when they're stuck playing defense against the next round of tariffs.' Missed Middle-Class Priorities in the Deal While the latest Trump-China deal touts manufacturing wins, some economists warn it overlooks the broader economic trade-offs that directly affect the middle class. 'We have an experiment,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent interview on Conversations with Jim Zirin. 'In 2018, President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel. Seven years later, we have 1,000 more steelworkers, but 75,000 fewer workers in manufacturing sectors that relied on steel, and a 30% drop in steel sector productivity.' This kind of trade-off may deliver political wins, but it overlooks how tariff-driven policies ripple into everyday life for the middle class. 'Over time, reduced job stability in trade-sensitive sectors and a slowdown in wage growth may exacerbate economic insecurity for families already stretched thin by inflation and debt servicing costs,' said Jean-Baptiste Wautier, a private equity CIO and World Economic Forum speaker. How To Protect Your Budget Middle-class families can shield themselves by using rewards or rebate programs and strategically stockpiling essentials before potential tariff increases. Julian Merrick, founder and CEO of Supertrader, a fintech firm focused on global markets, recommends starting with a small emergency fund, even setting aside $200 to $300, which can help families avoid debt when unexpected expenses arise. 'It also helps to cut back on spending in categories where prices are rising — things like tech, clothes or imported goods,' Merrick said. 'Families should avoid taking on new high-interest debt right now, especially for non-essentials. And for those with investments, make sure the money is spread out across different industries.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bereaved family intend to apply to access Scappaticci will
A solicitor has indicated applications will be made at the High Court in Belfast to access the will of a man believed to be the IRA agent known as Stakeknife. Earlier this week, the High Court in London ruled that the will of Freddie Scappaticci, believed to be Britain's top agent inside the IRA, will not be made public. In 2003, media reports claimed that Scappaticci had spied on the IRA for the British government, and that while working for both organisations, 'was responsible for the torture and murder of dozens of alleged IRA informers'. Scappaticci, from west Belfast, had always denied the claims before his death aged 77 in 2023. In a ruling on Monday, Sir Julian Flaux ordered that Scappaticci's will should be sealed for 70 years, meaning that its contents will not be made public. The judge said that this is the first time, except for members of the royal family, where a court has ordered that a will not be made open to public inspection in the way the document would usually be. He said: 'There is nothing in the will, which is in fairly standard form, which could conceivably be of interest to the public or the media.' On Tuesday, solicitor Kevin Winters said his firm acts on behalf of more than 30 plaintiffs in ongoing High Court proceedings against the State and Scappaticci. He said the existence of a will 'points to this man having assets and funds, the origin of which will greatly interest the next of kin of so many murder victims'. 'We are now instructed to look at making applications to the High Court in Belfast to access the will,' he said. 'All our clients will have a vested interest in the out workings of its contents as they will likely touch upon liability in the cases, as well as determining which defendant may be liable to pay out damages. 'We shouldn't forget that, as well as the State agencies, families are suing Freddie Scappaticci on the basis that he's a mark for damages. 'That entitlement to continue the actions didn't end with Stakeknife's death. 'The cases against his estate continue, so we're interested in the out workings of this testamentary document.' Mr Winters added that the families 'won't settle in being told that the details of his will are to be shelved for 70 years'. 'They've battled for too long now and won't be easily fobbed off in trying to get more information,' he said. 'Their interest will be piqued all the more on the revelation that a number of years ago we queried Scappaticci's legal aid status, only to be told that he was in receipt of state benefits. 'We now intend to revisit the circumstances in which this State-funded killer was able to claim State benefits to support his legal aid status in defending the ongoing tranche of cases against him. 'From the sale of his house in Guildford, he presents as a person of means. 'That has to be the subject of an investigation and to that end, we look forward to a renewed judicial scrutiny in Belfast into Stakeknife's finances.'
Fast Company
16 minutes ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.
