Tulsi Gabbard's Nuclear Warning Is Scary and Strange
Tulsi Gabbard's new video about the horrors of nuclear war is, indeed, scary — just probably not in the way she intended, says Bloomberg Opinion columnist Marc Champion. (Source: Bloomberg)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
23 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '
'Shoot a couple, the rest will go home,' said a meme circulating on Telegram channels of groups affiliated with the far-right Proud Boys. 'You just have to impale a few of them…' another local chapter posted. One disseminated an online gun tutorial, illustrating optimal shooting techniques with the caption: 'Riot season again!' Organizers in more than 2,000 cities are mobilizing for 'No Kings' rallies Saturday in opposition to President Trump and his military parade in Washington. Among those watching closely: extremist organizations on social media.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense
During his first term in office, President Trump pulled no punches in his personal attacks on federal judges with whom he disagreed. For instance, in February 2017, Trump called U.S. District Judge James L. Robart a 'so-called judge' after he temporarily stopped Trump's travel ban. In his second term, Trump has upped the ante. In his all-caps 2025 Memorial Day message, Trump denounced what he claimed were 'USA-HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY.' Presidents have long expressed their unhappiness with court decisions they disagree with, often in public. But President Trump takes a different approach from other presidents by personally attacking judges. This violates decades of norms of presidential respect for the judicial branch and has important consequences. Most notably, physical threats against federal judges reached an all-time high during Trump's first term. And things have only gotten worse. This year alone, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement agency charged with protecting federal judges, has investigated almost 400 threats to federal judges, with 162 judges facing threats between March 1 and April 14. Much of the recent intimidation comes in the form of 'pizza doxing,' in which federal judges receive unsolicited pizza deliveries to their homes. The recipient of these deliveries is listed as Daniel Anderl, the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed by a gunman who was targeting Salas. Recognizing this problem, Democratic members of Congress have introduced the Marshals Act, which would move the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch, overseen by a board that includes the chief justice of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts. Congress should pass this important legislation. By bringing the Marshals Service under the authority of the judicial branch, the nation can better protect the safety of federal judges. In addition, the act anticipates two very real possibilities, helping the nation avoid a potential constitutional crisis. First, the Trump administration has violated federal judicial orders relating to federal funding, the freedom of the press and the deportation of immigrants without due process of law. If the administration continues to ignore court decisions, the primary tool at the disposal of judges is to hold Trump administration lawyers in contempt of court. This usually begins with a fine, but can escalate to jail time if the administration continues to refuse to comply with court orders. Here's the problem: The entity charged with enforcing a criminal contempt of court order by making the arrest is the U.S. Marshals Service. Since the Marshals are under the control of the executive branch, President Trump could simply order the Marshals not to enforce the court order. This would render the judicial branch powerless over the Trump administration, setting off a constitutional crisis. By moving oversight of the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch, we can avoid this crisis since federal judges would surely enforce their own orders. Second, there are concerns that Trump may order the Marshals to stop protecting federal judges. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has removed protective details for federal officials. For example, in his second term, Trump pulled security details for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security advisor John Bolton and President Biden's adult children, Ashley and Hunter Biden. It is hardly a stretch to imagine Trump removing the Marshal's protection of federal judges. We can avoid this by putting the Marshals Service under the control of the judicial branch, which will no doubt ensure its judges get the protection they need. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in May, 'Judicial independence is crucial' to the American separation of powers system, which 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' In the current era, our system of checks and balances is deteriorating, and the judicial branch is arguably its weakest link. Passing the Marshals Act will strengthen judicial independence by allowing judges to render decisions free from concerns about intimidation or retribution from those who would do them harm. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the coauthor of 'The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer Says No Obstacles Left in Finalizing US-UK Trade Deal
(Bloomberg) -- UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said there were no 'hiccups or obstacles' remaining in the way of finalizing a trade deal with the US and indicated that an agreement would likely come soon. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire 'I'm hoping that we will complete it pretty soon,' Starmer said in an interview with Bloomberg News on Friday, referring to the deal. 'There's nothing unexpected in the implementation, and so we haven't got any hiccups or obstacles.' Starmer's government is trying to hammer out the final details of its trade deal with the US, whose broad outlines were first agreed to in May in a move to head off President Donald Trump's more punitive tariffs. While the UK was the first country to have reached such a deal with the Trump administration, but left the finer points to future negotiations. Under the initial terms announced last month, the US said it intended to cut its tariff on cars imported from the UK from 27.5% to 10% for the first 100,000 vehicles each year and to slash levies on UK steel from the current 25% to zero. In return, the UK vowed to increase the quota of beef and ethanol that the US can export to the country tariff-free. Pushing the deal over the line would be seen as a win for Starmer, who was elected last July on a promise to boost economic growth in the UK. That has so far proved elusive and his popularity has slumped during his 11 months in office. But agreeing a deal before any other country would help to give UK manufacturers a competitive edge. Car manufacturers would especially welcome the reduction of US tariffs after warning that Trump's levy could wreak havoc on the sector and risk thousands of jobs. Starmer said the initial terms of the trade deal laid out in May were 'a huge relief to car manufacturing, those working in the sector,' adding that there were 'jobs protected, jobs created by this deal.' Securing agreement on the entire deal would also bring relief to the UK's beleaguered steel sector. The UK is currently the only country to avoid the 50% tariff on steel that Trump announced last month, but that higher rate could still be imposed if a deal is not reached. British companies have already reported US orders drying up under the 25% rate. A deal could depend on Downing Street easing US concerns over the Chinese ownership of British Steel. Jingye Group still holds the plant even though the UK government took over operational control earlier this year. UK Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, however, said Thursday that hurdles to agreeing a deal on steel were now 'not about who owns it — it's the melt and pour rules.' The melt-and-pour provisions are designed to prevent steel that was made outside of the UK from being reprocessed in the country and shipped to the US in circumvention of tariffs. They require that steel imports from the UK must have been made entirely in the country, either from primary ores or from remelted scrap metal. That has becoming increasingly difficult since British Steel is the last producer in the UK running blast furnaces that can make it from scratch with primary ores. Tata Steel UK, British Steel's largest competitor, shut down its blast furnace last year and won't have replacement furnaces to melt steel from scrap in place until late 2027. Starmer confirmed that Trump would still be coming to the UK for a state visit after he gave the US president an invitation from King Charles when the trade deal was agreed in May. Starmer said he hoped it would be this year, though it would be for Buckingham Palace to decide the dates. 'I'm really pleased that we will be able to showcase the close relationship we have between the UK and the US, that's historically a close relationship,' Starmer said. 'This will be a historic second visit for President Trump.' --With assistance from Mark Burton. American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
