Voters across battleground states are expressing mounting frustration with the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran that has produced no clear resolution — only rising costs and disrupted lives.In Wisconsin, Robert Edelstein, who runs a window-tinting business, didn't hold back, calling the decision to strike Iran the "stupidest thing that could ever possibly have happened" and comparing it unfavorably to the Iraq War, reported The Guardian.“It’s screwed everything up, as we all know," Edelstein said. "It’s absolutely stupid.” Fellow Wisconsinite Terrence Dahmen, a retiree who typically votes Democratic, called American involvement "a huge mistake," arguing the U.S. wasn't provoked and suggesting the real motive was oil. He said the money would have been better spent on renewable energy.In Georgia, retired teacher Jimmy Carter watched Trump's motorcade pass near his old school with disbelief, dismissing the war as a "dumba-- idea" — a sentiment he said even his Trump-voting brother shared.The frustration isn't purely ideological. Clay Harvison, a Marietta mixed martial artist who voted for Trump, said the war should have ended months ago and warned that younger voters are increasingly questioning why a president who campaigned against foreign wars is now overseeing one.“He should have left it when he had already bombed them,” Harvison said. "Being remembered as being great ... he’s messing with that really bad right now.”Beyond the political anger, the war's costs are showing up in everyday life. Gasoline prices have climbed above $4 a gallon for the first time in years, according to AAA, with lower- and middle-income households absorbing a disproportionate share of the pain.In Maine, logging worker Lydia Stone described being squeezed by rising fuel costs while prices for her product stay flat.“It’s been a huge jump in prices, and makes life a lot harder,” she said.She also connected her frustration over funding the war to cuts in programs like SNAP, noting longer lines at her local food pantry and a friend's husband being deployed with little warning.Not every voter interviewed opposes the war outright — some with military ties expressed conditional or full support, wanting either a clearer exit strategy or full-throated confrontation with Iran. But across party lines and regions, voters are increasingly concluding the war isn't worth the cost.
A crucial meeting in the Oval Office on Tuesday has allies of President Donald Trump on edge that it could lead to an expansion of the unpopular war in Iran.Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to the White House with a singular objective: convince Trump to escalate military operations against Iran, reports Politico. The Israeli Prime Minister, who reportedly helped incite the initial February attack along with the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), is once again maneuvering to push the president toward a more aggressive and durable conflict.Trump's anti-interventionist America First base is bracing for impact after the "pivotal" meeting. Steve Bannon expressed their collective alarm: "Netanyahu has had twice as many visits to the White House in 18 months as Churchill had in all of World War II — with every one of them a disaster for America First."The Iran war has already dragged on for five months with no resolution in sight, the report notes. The U.S. and Iran briefly suspended tit-for-tat strikes over the weekend amid cautious hopes for a ceasefire. But Trump continues threatening "massive attacks," keeping the door wide open for renewed escalation.Netanyahu's seventh visit to the White House since Trump took office signals his desperation to lock in permanent war. America First allies fear this meeting could transform a temporary conflict into a years-long Middle East quagmire.According to the report, "The meeting comes as new polling shows that a growing share of the president’s base no longer believes the war is worth its economic costs. And Republicans are increasingly resigned to the fact that the war will likely still be hanging over voters in some form when they head to the polls in November."That led Curt Mills, executive director of American Conservative magazine, to describe the meeting as "DEFCON 1.""Netanyahu is going to argue for the essential logic of escalation," Mills explained. "If Trump is not willing to give the memorandum of understanding a chance and if Trump is not willing to walk away from the conflict entirely without a resolution—then I think we probably will escalate, and that's what we've been seeing these last couple of weeks."Trump's own allies acknowledge Netanyahu wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't push for military expansion. But that's precisely what terrifies them: Netanyahu will succeed, dragging Trump deeper into a conflict that's already hemorrhaging support within his base.
Controversial move to classify Iran war as two separate campaigns criticised as attempt to minimise casualty figures. Plus, the man who started an animal shelter after a dog saved his lifeDon’t already get First Thing in your inbox? Sign up hereGood morning. A controversial move by the Pentagon to reclassify casualties in the Iran war as being killed in “overseas 0perations” is being taken by US military veterans as a sign of disrespect for the dead.Michael E Smith, a retired US rear admiral who completed combat tours in Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo, said: “It’s such a huge disrespect for the families. To claim that they weren’t killed as a result of the war – oh, it was just overseas operations – is just ludicrous.”What changes did the Department of Defense make? The Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS), a military database for displaying casualties, introduced a new casualty category labeled “Overseas Operations” for personnel killed and wounded “starting July 7”. That splits the count from the beginning of the US-Israel war on Iran into effectively two different campaigns.How is the administration justifying the change? The War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to end military operations within 60 days unless Congress authorizes an extension, which it has not. The Trump administration has argued that the April ceasefire with Iran paused the clock on 1 May for the conflict’s initial period. The separate casualty count beginning on 7 July follows that interpretation. Continue reading...
Defense department updated database of casualties to list four service members deceased in ‘Overseas Operations’ A controversial move by the Pentagon to reclassify casualties in the Iran war is being taken by US military veterans as a sign of disrespect for the dead.“It’s such a huge disrespect for the families,” said Michael E Smith, a retired US rear admiral and the founder of National Security Leaders for America. “To claim that they weren’t killed as a result of the war – oh, it was just overseas operations – is just ludicrous.” Continue reading...
Jewish legal organizations blasted New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for failing to appoint a single Jewish person to the 18-person committee tasked with advising the mayor on his judicial nominations.
Increased armed guards at U.S. Postal Service facilities may signal an effort by President Donald Trump to control the mail before the midterms, scholars and union leaders warn.USPS plans to deploy more contracted armed security officers at 18 mail facilities across the country this month, according to internal agency communications reviewed by Raw Story.The federal agency approved more than 12,000 hours per week of work for the security officers at those facilities combined, adding tens of millions of dollars in labor costs annually while USPS continues to bleed money — clocking $2 billion in net losses in the last financial quarter alone.The Supreme Court dealt Trump a loss last month when it ruled states may count late mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day. Trump countered by pressuring a federal judge to lift a halt on his executive order that would give USPS greater authority to determine who can vote by mail.“Screening mail ballots for eligibility would amount to an unprecedented, potentially unconstitutional, involvement of the federal government in the administration of elections,” said James O’Rourke, emeritus professor of management at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, who studies the postal service.“It's clear that the White House is pressing ahead.”Hiring contracted security guards is “similar” to the hiring of private security firms by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), O’Rourke said.Have a tip? I want to hear it.I'm an investigative reporter covering politics and government accountability. If you have information the public should know — inside government, a campaign or anywhere power operates with too little scrutiny — I want to hear from you."I protect sources and can communicate securely and confidentially.Alexandria Jacobson Investigative Reporter, Raw Storyalexandria@rawstory.com“If they put their own guys in, then they can do anything they want with the ballots,” he said.The increased hiring of security officers comes as the Postal Police Officers Association (PPOA) union remains embroiled in a six-year battle with USPS after the agency effectively benched its own uniformed police officers — limiting them to only working on postal properties, instead of patrolling the streets where letter carriers experienced violence and mail robberies occurred.“They couldn't replace us with armed security guards if we're out in the street protecting the mail and letter carriers,” said Frank Albergo, PPOA president and a retired postal police officer.“If they bring us back to the facilities, take away our authority, they figure, ‘OK, we can replace them with armed security guards,’ but look at the damage that has been caused because of it.”Letter carrier robberies skyrocketed 543 percent over a three-year period, including some robbed at gunpoint or killed on the job, a Raw Story investigation found in 2024.The USPS Office of Inspector General reported in May that the law enforcement arm of USPS, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), made some improvements in its response to a spike in mail theft but had many of the same deficiencies identified in reports since 2023.Albergo said the union has been notified of about 39,000 work hours per week approved for the hire of 972 full-time armed guards across 54 USPS facilities — including 18 that didn't have any before.Jonathan Smith, president of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) took issue with the hiring of private armed security guards who “do not have a postal patch,” saying that some postal managers are prone to using security guards as “personal Gestapo to intimidate the employees.”“We've already got an arm to secure the safety of the employees, and I don't see the need to bring any outside resources about, outside hiring more postal police officers,” Smith said.‘Ticking time bomb’The number of postal police officers exceeded 2,600 in the 1970s and dwindled to about 450 by 2020. Now, there are 314 postal police officers in the bargaining unit as of May 1, Albergo said.The officers undergo 1,440 hours of training over the course of nine months, including active shooter response, use of force and CPR/AED training, Albergo said.By contrast, an investigation by CNN and the Center for Investigative Reporting found that armed security guards lack consistent training and oversight. “They're basically just giving guns to armed security guards with minimum training,” Albergo said. “No training from the federal government, and they're letting them loose on the workroom floor. It's crazy.” Training standards for armed guards vary by state. In California, for instance, armed guards receive authorization after 54 hours of training, 14 hours of which are firearms training.
Across the country, federal judges are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth or uphold centuries-old legal norms.From Washington, D.C., to Rhode Island to Oregon, federal judges nominated by presidents from both parties, including Donald Trump, have zeroed in on what’s called “the presumption of regularity.” It essentially means that judges must presume that the government — whether it be federal prosecutors, an IRS auditor or an FBI agent — did their jobs according to the rules and in good faith.Until Trump’s second term, which has seen an exodus of veteran DOJ lawyers and a transformative shift in priorities from issues like enforcing civil rights to instead defending a mass deportation agenda, this foundational tenet had rarely been discussed in federal courtrooms, former judges, lawyers and scholars say. But as Trump’s DOJ exhibits behavior that judges have called “unlawful,” “unethical,” “unseemly” or otherwise dishonest, adherence to that bedrock standard is now being questioned.ProPublica reviewed hundreds of cases since Trump retook the White House in which judges criticized the actions of DOJ lawyers and found more than 40 in which they explicitly referenced the presumption of regularity. In many cases, judges have expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word.“Judges simply don’t believe the representations that are being made by United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys and the like,” said John E. Jones, a former federal judge for the District of Pennsylvania, appointed by President George W. Bush.“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.”In Rhode Island in May, Trump-appointed federal Judge Mary McElroy rebuked federal prosecutors’ conduct — saying they withheld information and misrepresented facts — as she quashed their requests for a subpoena in their investigation into a hospital’s care of transgender children. The judge alleged the DOJ had inappropriately claimed its investigation was operating out of Texas to secure subpoenas targeting sensitive medical records of patients in another state and that it falsely claimed the Rhode Island hospital hadn’t communicated with the department.“The discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling,” McElroy wrote. “The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that ‘[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word — with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes — no longer holds.’”Judges have emitted a chorus of condemnations against the legal basis for some of Trump’s political agenda, including the mass firings of federal workers, an immigration dragnet that has imprisoned hundreds of U.S. citizens and retribution campaigns against the president’s political enemies.In doing so, federal judges are imbuing forceful language into their orders in a way that scholars say signals to the Trump administration that the third branch of government is losing trust in the Justice Department.“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.” Former federal Judge John E. Jones, a George W. Bush appointeeFederal judges rarely grant interviews, and none of the judges who criticized the Justice Department in their orders granted interviews to ProPublica.In a statement, a spokesperson for the DOJ said its attorneys are “dedicated public servants who represent the United States with integrity, in accordance with their ethical obligations and the law.”“The Department stands firmly behind the professionalism and good faith of its attorneys,” said spokesperson Kiersten Pels. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.Federal judges have found that the government filed statements generated by artificial intelligence that referenced nonexistent case law, wrote briefs that ignored facts and filed declarations with inaccurate dates, the ProPublica review shows.In one case, the government included documentation claiming a detainee had been convicted of marijuana possession in 2009. That detainee, the judge noted, citing what she called the government’s persistent “sloppiness,” would have been 4 years old.“This Court will no longer blindly accept statements of fact from [the U.S. government] unless they are made under oath by an individual with personal knowledge,” Judge Christine O’Hearn, a President Joe Biden appointee, wrote in New Jersey while reviewing a writ of habeas corpus petition filed by a man who claimed he was unlawfully imprisoned by immigration officers.
