Preservationists are moving to block President Donald Trump's plan to test a controversial paint on the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, warning the project could cause irreparable damage to the historic landmark, according to a new report.In an emergency injunction request set to be filed Thursday, the law firm Cultural Heritage Partners argues that the administration's plan to paint four small test panels on the building's Gilded Age façade is being carried out without proper expert oversight, reported CNN."The testing concerns us because no one outside the White House knows who is conducting the testing or what protocols they're following, and qualified preservation experts have had no chance to weigh in," said Greg Werkheiser, the firm's founding partner.Trump has long criticized the EEOB's gray granite exterior, calling it "ugly" and a "really bad color," and has pushed to coat the building — either fully or partially — in white to better match the White House.His preferred solution is a mineral silicate paint he has privately refers to as "magic paint," which the administration claims will strengthen the stone and prevent water intrusion – but those claims are disputed by experts.In March, the plaintiffs presented findings from 25 unnamed specialists in historic restoration and silicate paint, who concluded the material doesn't chemically bond with granite, would cause permanent damage during the priming process, and would not actually strengthen or protect the stone as claimed. Preservationists also warn the paint could trap moisture inside the granite, accelerating deterioration rather than preventing it.Adding to the controversy, the administration has shifted oversight of the project away from the General Services Administration — which normally holds statutory authority over the 1888 building — to the White House's own Office of the Administration. Critics say this move could allow the project to sidestep the review process Congress mandated to protect historic federal properties.The administration maintains the panel testing doesn't commit it to full-scale painting and says it's still working through required environmental and historical reviews with two other federal bodies, the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission — both of which have been staffed with Trump allies and would need to approve any final plan.Beyond the paint test, the administration also plans a broader facade assessment, including extracting up to ten two-inch stone samples from deteriorating sections of the building for lab analysis. It remains unclear how quickly U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee overseeing the case, will rule on the injunction request once filed.
After President Donald Trump singled him out for possible impeachment, a Republican lawmaker is officially going to war against Judge James Boasberg with a new bill inspired by GOP grievances against him, per a report from Bloomberg.Boasberg is a Washington D.C., federal district judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, who first drew the ire of MAGA Republicans in 2025 when he ruled against Trump's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act as a means to carry out his mass deportation agenda. Those same Republicans later accused him, with no evidence, that he had forced his way onto a case against the Trump administration for its use of the Signal messaging app for military communications, despite the court's repeated insistence that he had been randomly assigned to the case per its standard policy.In light of his frequent rulings against the administration, Trump has called for Boasberg to be impeached, which prompted pushback from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Numerous other Republicans began to echo those calls, including Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican, who also this week unveiled a new proposed bill, the BOASBERG Act, that would target the unfounded allegations against the judge."A Republican senator has introduced legislation that would require random case assignment in federal district courts," Bloomberg's report explained, adding later, "If passed, Schmitt’s legislation would also require district courts to publicly share their practices when it comes to the assignment of civil cases, or to say why cases can’t be randomly assigned. Anyone who attempted to 'manipulate or evade the randomized case assignment system' would face penalties, according to the bill. District judges would also be removed from a case if the Supreme Court vacates, reverses, or stays their rulings. Appeals court judges would also lose their case assignments if the Supreme Court vacated or reversed a judgment that affirmed a lower court ruling."The report continued: "Under the bill, federal appeals courts would also be subject to random assignment procedures when it comes to creating the three-judge panels that hear cases, and cases could only be reassigned in limited circumstances. Judges would also be randomly assigned when it comes to the rare three-judge courts stood up to weigh challenges to district maps. And both district and appeals courts would have to share statistics annually on judicial assignments and reassignments."“The BOASBERG Act prevents Judges from forcing their way onto cases and is an important piece of court transparency legislation that will help restore the American people’s confidence in our judiciary,” Schmitt said in a statement about the new proposal.Bloomberg also noted a segment of Schmitt's proposal, which said that it was not meant "to prevent district courts from assigning cases filed within a division to 1 or more judges." The outlet interpreted this as an effort not to target the practice of "judge shopping," wherein litigants find a way to file their suits in smaller districts where they are "all but guaranteed" to land a judge friendly to their cause, which conservatives have been accused of doing frequently in recent years.
President Donald Trump praised Senator Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, despite previous bad blood between the pair. Trump took to Truth Social on Tuesday to claim that Paul has […]
President Donald Trump's officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency cracked mean jokes Wednesday about a deadly blizzard to which they were refused to commit resources.The comment appeared in a new Politico report on White House officials who overrode FEMA experts and refused to approve disaster relief for states that voted against Trump in the presidential election.The blizzard in question took place earlier this year, causing deaths and affecting New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Email chains reviewed by Politico confirm that agency officials had already determined New York met the criteria for disaster relief.According to the report, "snow assistance was targeted for elimination last year in a memo by FEMA leadership as a way to reduce spending. Congress pushed back on that idea — a signal the administration may have disregarded." Since 1999, 82 percent of snow assistance from FEMA has gone to states controlled by the Democratic Party — a disparity caused by the fact that Democrats tend to be stronger in northern states with colder climates.When an agency spokesperson was confronted about the denials by Politico, they responded with a disparaging joke.“If the federal government is paying for regular operations like snow removal, what next? Garbage removal?” said the spokesperson. “The federal government’s role is not to fund routine functions.”Under the Trump administration, FEMA has been involved in other controversies as well, including reports that their resources are being diverted to "pre-crime" enforcement against terrorism, and a senior official who was ousted after claiming God teleported him to a Waffle House.
Trump administration officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, made derisive jokes Wednesday about the deadly blizzard that struck New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.The record-breaking snowstorm hit the East Coast Feb. 22. According to Politico, White House officials overrode FEMA experts and denied aid to states that voted against President Donald Trump in the presidential election, despite agency email chains confirming that New York met established criteria for relief. When confronted by Politico about the denials, a FEMA spokesperson responded sarcastically, "If the federal government is paying for regular operations like snow removal, what next? Garbage removal?" The spokesperson argued disaster aid was inappropriate for "routine functions." Historical data illustrates 82 percent of FEMA snow assistance since 1999 was assigned to Democratic-controlled states, a disparity reflecting Democratic strength in colder northern regions. The incident adds to FEMA controversies under Trump, including resource diversions to "pre-crime" enforcement.Watch the video below. Your browser does not support the video tag.
On Wednesday, a new CNN poll revealed that President Donald Trump’s approval rating has cratered to a record low among his most essential support group: white people. As Newsweek notes, this demographic “has long formed the backbone of his electoral coalition,” and the fact that he’s losing white voters reflects the massive scale of the public’s “growing dissatisfaction” with his performance. The poll found that Trump’s net approval among white voters has plunged to a historic low of -20, a major drop from the flat 0 net approval he held with white voters one year ago. What’s more, it showed that Trump’s overall approval rating has sunk to just 34 percent, matching the lowest point in his political career, which came just after the January 6th insurrection during the last days of his first term. But the new survey reveals that his standing is even worse than his previous low. While his approval rating is the same, his net approval is actually lower, falling to -32 points today versus the -28 he held just after J6. According to Newsweek, “The difference is driven by higher disapproval. In the latest July 2026 survey, 66 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump's performance, compared with 62 percent in January 2021, meaning more voters now hold a negative view of the president than they did in the immediate fallout from the 2021 riot." Growing dissatisfaction with Trump has been caused by a range of issues, most notably his poor handling of the economy and the disastrous war with Iran, as well as a variety of highly visible domestic follies, from his mishandling of the Epstein files release to anger over brutal immigration crackdowns to his obsession with vanity projects.The poll found that “a record-high 73 percent of Americans believe Trump has not paid enough attention to the country's most important problems, while just 27 percent said he has focused on the right priorities,” explains Newsweek. “Public frustration extended beyond policy disagreements. Around three-quarters of respondents said Trump is not in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives, while roughly two-thirds said he does not put the country's interests ahead of his personal gain. Only 27 percent described Trump as someone who understands the challenges facing ordinary Americans.”What’s more, “just 25 percent approved of his handling of inflation, while only 21 percent approved of his management of gas prices. Approval of his handling of the situation in Iran stood at 28 percent…Roughly two-thirds of Americans believe Trump's policies have worsened economic conditions and that his military decisions relating to Iran have hurt the United States.”
FIFA is facing backlash after announcing it will seek outside investors to fund a newly formed commercial arm that would control operations for future World Cup tournaments.The international organization is looking to raise $4.2 billion at a $20 billion valuation to fund a newly formed commercial arm called FIFA Forward Enterprise, and among the potential investors is Thrive Eternal, an investment vehicle launched by Joshua Kushner – brother of President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, reported CNN."So is the World Cup up for sale?" said CNN's Kate Bolduan. "FIFA is apparently looking for new investors, which is sparking these big new questions, and people are not happy about it."The plan has enraged UEFA, European soccer's governing body, which is holding an emergency meeting to discuss the proposal, including a possible World Cup boycott, according to multiple reports."This crosses a line that football's governing institutions should never cross," UEFA said in a statement, adding that "the soul and governance of football are not assets to trade" and warning there is "zero transparency as to who gains financially.""None of us are the owners of football," the statement added. "It is not FIFA's to sell."FIFA President Gianni Infantino defended the plan as necessary for FIFA's "next stage of growth," saying it would create a dedicated commercial structure with value "shared more and better all around the world." Each of FIFA's 211 member federations could receive a roughly $20 million stake if they opt into the new subsidiary.The controversy adds to mounting political risk for Infantino, whose re-election bid could be complicated by his close relationship with Trump. House Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has requested records from FIFA, including gifts given to Trump and visitor logs from FIFA's Miami headquarters and Trump Tower office.If Democrats win a House majority in November, they could gain subpoena power and potentially compel Infantino's testimony — with the election falling just two weeks before candidates must declare for FIFA's presidential vote next March.Raskin was pointed in his criticism of the investment plan, accusing FIFA of pursuing "a multibillion-dollar deal with Jared Kushner's brother to sell ownership stakes in the World Cup to private investors."Jared Kushner's own investment firm, Affinity Partners, has separately drawn congressional scrutiny for raising billions from foreign sovereign wealth funds while he leads U.S. diplomatic negotiations with those same governments.FIFA and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump holds the FIFA World Cup Trophy, as he makes an announcement on the 2026 FIFA World Cup, as FIFA president Gianni Infantino stands next to him, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 22, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has canceled his meeting with President Donald Trump's candidate for attorney general, Todd Blanche, after the Justice Department made it clear it doesn't have any further information on confirmation that the so-called "slush fund" was officially eliminated as a possibility, reported MS NOW producer Kyle Griffin. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Blanche was questioned about the nearly $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that could be used to give a kind of restitution to anyone who felt they'd been wronged by the DOJ in the past. This includes Jan. 6 attackers who both confessed and were convicted of crimes related to a violent riot at the U.S. Capitol Building.“Hopefully they now recognize the seriousness of this,” said Cornyn, according to a Politico report. “I haven’t seen a single piece of writing that is responsive to what I’ve requested.”“Maybe they think I’m just going to give up or, you know, go along, but they’re mistaken," he added. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Cornyn must indicate whether he's a "yay or nay" on Blanche by 4 p.m. on Wednesday. According to Politico, Grassley needs to know "if the vote could go forward, putting the Trump administration on a tight timeline if it wants Blanche confirmed before the Senate starts its summer recess next week."Blanche has maintained for the past several months that the fund is "dead" and that it would not be created. The problem, Cornyn said, is that the legal agreement that Blanche and Trump came to about the IRS would still establish the fund. Trump sued the IRS after his personal information was leaked in a data breach along with over 405,000 other people and businesses. When Blanche asserted the fund was "moot," Cornyn asked, "Well, I would refer you to the settlement agreement. Do you happen to have a copy of that in front of you?"Cornyn read the language verbatim from page four of the agreement: "This settlement agreement can be modified, may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties. Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement fund?"Blanche claimed that the fund was not going forward, so there is no modification to the agreement between Trump and the government. "Well, so the settlement agreement remains as it was originally. But I hear what you're saying is it — is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?" he asked.Blanche said that it was and would be considered an "enforceable document."Kathleen Williams, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, published a 56-page ruling not only denouncing the case as "an exercise in self-dealing," but also bashing Trump's so-called "settlement" over his IRS lawsuit, a case "that had no viable basis in law or fact." Blanche has continued to refuse to sign a legal document asserting that the slush fund is dead.
