• Reid Hoffman says Democrats have themselves to blame for Silicon Valley's shift toward Donald Trump.
• He told Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale that attacks on crypto and Big Tech drove some in tech away.
• Hoffman also expressed frustration that Texas is more amenable to autonomous vehicles than California.

Reid Hoffman said it's not surprising that some of his Silicon Valley pals have left the Democratic Party.

"I regret this and wish it didn't happen, but I think the Democratic Party really did alienate a section of Silicon Valley and the tech people, whether it was attacks on crypto, whether it was kind of just attacks on Big Tech, all these things," Hoffman told Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale on a recent episode of Lonsdale's "American Optimist" podcast.

A Democratic megadonor, Hoffman, spent billions trying to help Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024, only to see some of his former collaborators, including Elon Musk, go all out for Donald Trump. Hoffman said some in tech began to see Democrats as wanting to snuff out innovation.

"One of the things that I think Silicon Valley shares is this like deep view that the way you make massive progress for humanity is creating scale technologies," Hoffman said. "And the principal way of creating scale technologies is companies, and so if you're attacking that and limiting it, then you have all kinds of problems."

Hoffman expressed frustration that, despite being the cradle of tech, California's regulatory environment makes it difficult for companies to pursue some innovations. He pointed to Aurora Innovation, a now publicly traded autonomous trucking company that Hoffman's Greylock invested in, as an example. In May, Aurora said it had successfully tested a driverless commercial truck on I-45 in Texas.

"I mean, look, so Aurora, a company headquartered in California, but, of course, in the modern regulatory environment, where are we driving our first heavy-duty trucks? Texas, of course," Hoffman said.

Hoffman said he sends everyone he talks to a copy of Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's bestseller "Abundance" because it shows that Republican-led states have better policies for things like autonomous vehicles and construction.

"Abundance, while you could argue that it's written from a progressive standpoint, is very clearly there are a bunch of things that red states are doing better than blue states, and we should learn from them," Hoffman said. "We should do them."

• A bill to ban politicians from trading stocks just passed a key Senate committee.
• Lawmakers would have to sell off stocks starting next term, and the VP and president in 2029.
• Trump condemned the bill, saying it could be used against him.

A bill to ban politicians from trading stocks in office moved one step closer to a vote — but only after an hour of intense argument and insults between Republicans.

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed the bill on an 8-7 vote.

All Democrats voted for it, while every Republican voted against it except one: Josh Hawley of Missouri, who sponsored the bill.

It is unclear when or if the bill would become law — the next step would be a Senate vote. But hours after the bill passed, Trump condemned Hawley in a Truth Social post and said that the bill could be used to target him.

"I don't think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED, because of the 'whims' of a second-tier Senator named Josh Hawley!" Trump wrote.

Trump had previously said he would sign a congressional stock trading ban into law, and earlier on Wednesday, he had told reporters that he liked Hawley's bill "conceptually."

The legislation is broadly similar to a bill that passed the same committee last summer, but never received a Senate floor vote.

This version would ban members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying stocks immediately upon enactment, and would block them from selling stocks beginning 90 days after that.

It would then require lawmakers to divest entirely from their stock holdings at the beginning of their next term, and it would require the president and vice President to do so beginning in 2029 — after President Donald Trump's current term.

It also would not allow for blind trusts, which sets it apart from other similar bills.

"I think we have to accept that the American people think that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, are using our positions and our access to enrich ourselves," Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said during the hearing. "People don't believe that we are here for the right reasons. We have a problem."

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said that he believes current disclosure laws are sufficient, while House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed cautious support for a ban.

'I'm not a billionaire, unlike others on this committee'

The bill ultimately passed despite the furious objections of several GOP senators on the committee — and tense intraparty debate.

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who was the CEO of a plastics manufacturing company before he was elected to the Senate, argued that the stock divestiture requirements would discourage businesspeople from seeking federal office.

"We make it very unattractive for people to step up to the plate," Johnson said. "This piece of legislation, really, it's legislative demagoguery."

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the committee, said that existing laws banning insider trading and requiring stock trade disclosures were sufficient, calling Hawley's bill a "solution looking for publicity."

Another key issue was how the bill would apply to the president and vice president — it would block them from buying and selling stocks, but wouldn't force them to divest any holdings during their current terms.

Trump owns individual stocks, while Vance divested from his individual stock holdings during his Senate tenure.

Paul argued that the bill would "protect Donald Trump" by not requiring divestiture before 2029, arguing that provision demonstrated that the bill was "crummy."

Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said the bill was an attack on Vance and Trump.

"Trump has gone through unbelievable hell," Scott told reporters after the hearing, referring to his indictments and impeachments. He said the bill would "allow the Democrats to go after the President of the United States."

Much of the hearing was taken up by Hawley sparring with fellow Republicans on the committee. After Scott raised a question about a provision of the bill applying to illiquid assets, Hawley snapped back at him, pointing out that he supported last year's bill.

"It's the same one you voted for last year," Hawley said.

At one point, during a tense exchange with Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma over the bill's elimination of blind trusts, Hawley made a passing reference to Scott's wealth.

"I practice what I preach. I don't have individual stocks, I don't trade in stocks," Hawley said as Scott sat beside him. "I'm not a billionaire, unlike others on this committee."

Scott, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. Minutes later, he said it was "disgusting" to criticize lawmakers for their wealth.

"I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money," Scott said as he described his modest upbringing. "This idea that we're going to attack people because they make money is wrong. It's absolutely wrong."

President Donald Trump and other Republicans have railed for years against foreign regulation of US tech companies, including online safety laws. As the US fights a global tariff war, it may bring those rules under fire - just as some of them are growing teeth.

Over the past weeks, Trump has touted a blitz of trade deals, seeking concessions from countries in exchange for lower tariffs. This has coincided with the rollout of new child safety measures in the European Union and United Kingdom, most recently a new phase of the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA), which effectively age-gates porn, bullying, and self-harm promotion, as well as other ca …

Read the full story at The Verge.

• The Ferdinand Magellan, also known as US Car No. 1, was used by US presidents between 1943 and 1954.
• It was the president's official transportation in the days before Air Force One.
• The car was used by US presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower.

Long before there was an Air Force One, US presidents traveled the country aboard a 10-foot-wide train car.

Rebuilt in 1942 for presidential use, the Ferdinand Magellan, also known as US Car No. 1, was the president's official mode of transportation between 1943 and 1954.

Made with detailed security features and enlarged spaces for President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the height of World War II, the armored car became the heaviest railcar ever built in the US, and today, it is the only passenger train car to ever be declared a National Historic Landmark.

The Ferdinand Magellan allowed the president to continue his duties in comfort while on the move. It often traveled with other cars dedicated to radio communications, White House staffers, and members of the press.

Take a look inside the "White House on wheels" that predates Air Force One.

US Car No. 1 was presented to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in December 1942.

On December 18, 1942, the Pullman Company presented a luxury train car that had been rebuilt at the request of the US Secret Service, which had determined that the president needed a secure way to travel during wartime.

Roosevelt most often used the car to travel from Washington, DC, to his home in Hyde Park, New York. The president insisted on not surpassing a speed of 35 miles per hour when traveling aboard the Ferdinand Magellan, making his journeys less efficient and heightening security measures, per the White House Historical Association website.

He last rode the car on March 30, 1945, when he visited his Little White House in Warm Springs, Georgia, where he died a few weeks later.

During his time, the president rode over 50,000 miles aboard the presidential train car.

It was most famously used in 1948 during Harry Truman's "whistle-stop" campaign tour.

While the car was built with Roosevelt in mind, including certain designs that would allow him to use a wheelchair on the train, it was his successor, President Harry S. Truman, who used it the most.

The president, who, unlike Roosevelt, opted for a speed of 80 miles per hour, employed the car in his iconic 35-day whistle-stop tour during his reelection campaign in 1948, where he delivered 356 speeches from the back of the Magellan, per Architectural Digest.

By the time Truman's successor, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, took office, more efficient air travel was starting to replace rail travel, and the US Car No. 1 was used for the last time in 1954.

The car was last used by Ronald Reagan during a commemorative whistle-stop tour in Ohio in 1984.

In 1984, Reagan brought the Magellan out of retirement for a one-day whistle-stop tour through Ohio during his reelection campaign.

The president traveled from Dayton to Perrysburg and stopped at five locations to give speeches from the rear platform of the presidential car.

Today, the US Car No. 1 sits in a small museum near Zoo Miami.

In 1959, the Gold Coast Railroad Museum in Miami, Florida, acquired the car, which had been declared surplus and donated to the Smithsonian — which had no way to store it — in 1958.

Since then, the car has stayed in South Florida, where it is now open to the public.

The Gold Coast Railroad Museum is open Wednesday through Sunday from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays and from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekends. A regular adult ticket for the museum costs $12, and tickets for the presidential train car cost an additional $10.

To carry the president, the unique armored car had enhanced security features.

The car, which is 84 feet long, 10 feet wide, and 15 feet tall, was covered with over 1/2 an inch of nickel-steel armor on its sides and featured 3-inch-thick bulletproof glass windows.

It was also the heaviest train car built in the US. After it was refurbished for presidential use, the train car weighed 285,000 pounds, making it much heavier than modern-day war tanks, which often weigh around 100,000 pounds.

The car also had its name, Ferdinand Magellan, removed from its sides in an effort to conceal the president's presence, although its design often stood out.

Other security features included two escape hatches and a complex security protocol, which included diverting traffic on the rails to ensure that no train traveled ahead or behind the president for at least 30 minutes. Operating under the code name POTUS, the president's train always had the right of way.

Passengers boarded from the front of the train, which housed the staff quarters and kitchen.

The entrance through which presidents and their guests would've entered is at the front of the car.

In the kitchen, an onboard chef had access to ovens and refrigerators.

The train's dedicated chef prepared the president and guests' meals inside this kitchen.

On the other side of the kitchen, the staff had pantry space to plate the dishes.

The kitchen was also equipped with a pantry and a full-size metal sink.

The car housed two staff members: one chef and one porter.

Near the kitchen, a chef and a porter had sleeping quarters that featured an upper and lower berth.

The dining and conference room was in the main cabin of the car.

The presidential car's main cabin featured a 6-foot solid mahogany table where the president and his guests — often diplomats or foreign leaders — could gather for dinners or meetings.

The dining room had its own set of presidential china.

Presidents and guests didn't have to sacrifice the White House's luxuries while they were on the move — the dining room had its own set of china decorated with the presidential emblem.

Today, the room displays an example of the glass used in the car's windows.

The 3-inch-thick laminated bulletproof glass windows were installed when the car was refurbished for the president's use.

The windows were sealed, so to keep the car ventilated there was a simple form of air conditioning in which fans pushed air cooled by blocks of ice.

The car included two guest bedrooms along with a presidential suite.

The first of two guest bedrooms aboard the US Car No. 1, Stateroom D, included an upper and lower berth, where guests could sleep, and an in-room bathroom.

In these guest rooms, Truman welcomed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during his visit to the US in 1946, during which he delivered his iconic Iron Curtain speech.

The presidential suite included the president's sleeping area.

Designed to accommodate Franklin D. Roosevelt's wheelchair, the president's room included a full-size bed, a dresser, and an in-room toilet.

Like most rooms in the car, it was also connected to a telephone, which was extremely rare at the time.

The connecting bathroom inside the presidential suite had a bathtub, a toilet, and a sink.

The presidential suite bathroom, equipped with a bathtub, toilet, and sink, connected the president's and the first lady's rooms, staterooms B and C.

The bathroom also contained an escape hatch, which was added as a security measure during the car's refurbishing.

The first lady's room paralleled the president's.

Inside the first lady's quarters was a bed and a dresser, although she didn't have an in-room bathroom.

The secondary guest bedroom could also be used as a breakfast or gathering room.

Located towards the back of the car, Stateroom A, the second guest room aboard the Magellan, featured convertible berths, like the other guest room, that could also be used as a breakfast, gathering, or office space for the president or his guests.

The upper berth could be raised into the ceiling, and the lower one could be converted into a sitting booth with a pull-out table.

The presidential car was often attached to train cars housing Secret Service, White House staffers, and the press.

The Ferdinand Magellan functioned as a White House on wheels, and was often attached to train cars dedicated to Secret Service, White House staffers, and reporters traveling with the president.

The US Car No. 1 was also often accompanied by two communications cars equipped with control consoles for radio broadcasts and telegraph communications so the president could be reached while he was on the move, per Atlas Obscura.

A narrow hallway led from the staterooms to the observation deck.

A slim, wood-paneled hallway led from the four staterooms to the observation deck at the rear of the car.

The observation lounge featured some of the presidential car's original furniture.

The observation room was also enlarged during the refurbishing of the car, allowing it to function as a secondary gathering room for the president and his guests.

During the refurbishment, a submarine escape hatch was added to the car.

Part of the car's security modifications included the addition of escape hatches, like this submarine hatch on the observation lounge.

Today, the observation lounge shows signs of hurricane damage that the car has sustained.

In 1992, Hurricane Andrew hit South Florida, and among its many damages were some sustained by the Magellan.

Although minor, a small window crack shows how the presidential car has stood the test of time.

Traveling presidents could address crowds from a podium on the car's rear platform.

At the end of the presidential car was an exposed podium from where the president often addressed crowds.

During Truman's whistle-stop tour, he spoke from the podium repeatedly, often addressing crowds in different cities within the same day.

The preserved train car stands as a remnant of US history and of how presidents spread their message.

Inactive as the president's main form of transportation for over 70 years, the Ferdinand Magellan stands as a memory of America's past.

However, our tour guide pointed out that the car is still on a track connected to current-day railroads and can be requested for use at any moment by the sitting US president.

Although I doubt Donald Trump would want to travel aboard the historic cabin, a modern-day president going on his own whistle-stop tour on US Car No. 1 remains a possibility.

• The TV business has been contracting for years, which is why media companies are trying to sell off their cable networks.
• But David and Larry Ellison think there's long-term value in Paramount and its TV business, says analyst Rich Greenfield.
• Greenfield also weighs in on new streaming launches from ESPN and Fox.

The TV business is not slowing down this summer: Any day now, David and Larry Ellison will finally buy Paramount, with its collection of once-storied TV networks like CBS and MTV. A few weeks later, ESPN and Fox — the last two big TV players that haven't launched their own streamers — will launch their own streamers.

But on the other hand, the TV business has been slowing down for a decade: Every quarter, more cable TV subscribers cut the cord, or never sign up for a cord in the first place. The people who own cable TV networks don't seem to have any plan to deal with the issue, other than trying to sell their cable TV networks.

Lightshed analyst Rich Greenfield has been chronicling the industry's massive, internet-driven change for years. I caught up with him on my Channels podcast to talk through the particular challenges — and perhaps some opportunities — facing TV right now. Here's an edited excerpt of our chat.

Peter Kafka: When the music business collapsed back in the Napster era, it happened basically overnight. But TV has hung on for much longer, even though consumer behavior changed pretty significantly over the last decade.

Is there something specific about the TV industry that's allowed these guys to move in slow motion?

Rich Greenfield: There's very few businesses where you can raise the price on a product that consumers are using less and less every day.

The brilliance of the cable TV business model was the big fat bundle. It's a pretty incredible business to put all of these channels together, even if people don't want most of them.

It had everything you wanted and no alternatives, which is very different than where we are today.

One of my soapboxes is when I hear people saying they wish we could go back to the cable days. And I keep saying, that was terrible. You guys forget. Everyone hated that.

I think consumers are pretty adept at managing their services, and I don't hear a lot of complaints. Sometimes it's like, "Where is this game?" Or "How do I find this thing?" It can be a little confusing.

But think about your cellphone. You've had one for quite a while now. Managing the apps and deleting something if you're not using it and adding something —these are all pretty easy functions.

We don't give consumers enough credit. They're pretty adept at figuring out cheaper solutions and ways to manage.

I want to ask you about a few specific companies. The Paramount deal is finally going to close. What do you think the new owners — David Ellison and his father, Larry Ellison — will do once they have control? Will it change overnight, or is this a slow-rolling thing?

It will certainly change.

The juxtaposition is sort of amazing. [Paramount, under current owner Shari Redstone, is a] financially strapped company, with challenged financial ownership.

And you're moving to an ownership team that is one of the wealthiest families on planet Earth.

David Ellison is probably going to be running this company for 30, 40 years. He obviously has a passion for entertainment. He's moving to a much bigger stage.

But this is still a financially struggling company. He can't fix the trends of what consumer behavior is changing. What he can do is invest and really build.

And you saw the "South Park" deal they just cut, where they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to move the show [exclusively] to Paramount+. I think it's a small sign of the post-merger strategy, which is that David Ellison is not just doing this to cut costs and squeeze more juice out of this existing company. His goal is to build something significant with a very long-term perspective, which is going to require a lot of investment.

What does that look like? Is the new Paramount just a film studio and a streaming service and CBS — and Ellison sells off everything that's not those things?

I think initially they'll say they need the cash flow from cable and will use that cash flow to reinvest.

I would be shocked if you didn't see more sports on CBS. I think they will be a contender for UFC rights. You've seen David Ellison multiple times in the past year sitting in the front row, cage side with Ari Emanuel [CEO of TKO Group, which owns UFC], and with [UFC CEO] Dana White.

And Donald Trump.

I don't disagree there on politics. But I also think he likes the content. I think he's going to spend a lot of money.

He understands the tech North Star — whether we're talking about TikTok, Meta, Netflix, or Spotify — it's all about time spent. I think David gets that Paramount+ needs a heck of a lot more time spent. The only way you're gonna get there is a better product and more content.

Let's move to Disney. Sometime in the next few weeks, before college football and the NFL starts, ESPN will finally be something you can buy as a stand-alone streaming service. If they rolled this out in 2015, we would have said it's a really big deal. Is it a big deal in 2025?

At $30 a month, I don't think this is a huge deal. My guess is it gives them flexibility to start packaging this with other services. They can probably get some subscribers. Not a lot. It's probably low to mid-single-digit millions. Not millions and millions.

Remember, they're giving the new service to everybody who already subscribed to [pay TV]. So 65 million-plus ESPN subscribers are going to get this new ESPN app at no additional cost.

So who is the audience for this? You're not subscribing to the big bundle. You're a pretty passionate sports fan. You're willing to spend $30 a month for sports. My guess is it's just a small number.

It actually makes sense to do it. But I don't think, at the end of the day, it is a huge needle-mover. What's going to matter to Disney stock is their theme park business and their cruise ship business. Those being better than expected — because of the state of the economy and what's happened with tariffs not being as problematic as feared a few months ago — is far more important to Disney than what happens with the ESPN streaming rollout.

We're also close to the launch of Fox's own streamer, Fox One. The main assets there are Fox Sports — which is really the NFL — and Fox News. Do you think Fox thinks this is primarily a product for people who want to watch football, or do you think it's primarily for Fox News fans?

I think this is a pretty limited offering for a sports fan.

So does that lead you to believe that Fox thinks this is really a Fox News product?

I think you'll see more uptake from Fox News viewers.

In the old days, you would have said that Fox News has a very old audience. And the idea that its audience is going to stream it doesn't make sense. But maybe that's not true in 2025?

Streaming's become pretty normalized. When you look at how many subscribers Netflix now has, I don't think streaming is some elitist thing. I think it's pretty normalized.

I think the part you may be missing is that the Fox News audience is also widening out.

And as you make it available to people on streaming, you may pick up some younger people. Maybe it's more interesting during election years. It creates flexibility. And I don't think there's a whole lot of downside.

All the basic cable networks are in freefall. Everyone who owns them is trying to sell them — either directly to another buyer or, in the case of Comcast's Versant, trying to bundle it up as a publicly traded stock. Who is a buyer for cable networks?

I don't think there are enough people talking about this topic. So many of the investors I deal with, or even industry executives I talk to, think you're going to see Paramount do a deal with Warner Bros. Or maybe you'll see Versant merge with some of the Paramount cable networks.

But let's just step back. I think David Ellison and Larry Ellison have a much bigger plan than aggregating more linear cable networks. I would be surprised if that was the strategy. I think there's a much bigger plan that the Ellison family is probably thinking about that goes well beyond just aggregating more legacy media assets.

WarnerMedia merged with Discovery, which hasn't created value. CBS and Viacom became Paramount, and that hasn't created value. Disney bought most of Fox's cable networks, and that hasn't created value. Putting legacy assets together that are in secular decline doesn't work. Maybe it might've been worse [without those deals].

But that's not compelling for a buyer.

It's a reason to be a seller. As a buyer, there's lots of things you could buy and lots of places you could go. The idea that buying more of these assets so that you have more costs to cut doesn't seem really compelling.

Another reason you are skeptical about big media consolidation is politics. You think that either antitrust politics, or Donald Trump's personal politics, make that unlikely. The only media mogul he wasn't complaining about was Rupert Murdoch, and now he's suing Murdoch.

Is there a world where anyone sells or buys a meaningful media asset while Donald Trump is president?

I think it's going to be challenging.

A federal judge on Monday ruled Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide must continue to be reimbursed for Medicaid funding as the nation’s largest abortion provider fights President Donald Trump’s administration over efforts to defund the organization in his signature tax legislation.

The new order replaces a previous edict handed down by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston last week. Talwani initially granted a preliminary injunction specifically blocking the government from cutting Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood members that didn’t provide abortion care or didn’t meet a threshold of at least $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in a given year.

“Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,” Talwani wrote in her Monday order. “In particular, restricting Members’ ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.”

A provision in Trump’s tax bill instructed the federal government to end Medicaid payments for one year to abortion providers that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023, even to those like Planned Parenthood that also offer medical services like contraception, pregnancy tests and STD testing.

Although Planned Parenthood is not specifically named in the statute, which went into effect July 4, the organization’s leaders say it was meant to affect their nearly 600 centers in 48 states. However, a major medical provider in Maine and likely others have also been hit.

In her Monday order, Talwani said that the court was “not enjoining the federal government from regulating abortion and is not directing the federal government to fund elective abortions or any healthcare service not otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage.” Instead, Talwani said that her decision would block the federal government from excluding groups like Planned Parenthood from Medicaid reimbursements when they have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success in their legal challenge.

In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood had argued that they would be at risk of closing nearly 200 clinics in 24 states if they are cut off from Medicaid funds. They estimated this would result in more than 1 million patients losing care.

“We’re suing the Trump administration over this targeted attack on Planned Parenthood health centers and the patients who rely on them for care,” said Planned Parenthood’s president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a statement on Monday. “This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court.”

The lawsuit was filed earlier this month against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member organizations in Massachusetts and Utah.

The federal department of health did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Previously, the department said it strongly disagreed with the judge’s initial order that allowed some Planned Parenthood members to receive Medicaid funding.

“States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,” said the department’s communication director, Andrew Nixon. Doing so, he said, “undermines state flexibility” and “concerns about accountability.”

Medicaid is a government health care program that serves millions of low-income and disabled Americans. Nearly half of Planned Parenthood’s patients rely on Medicaid.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

CANTON, Ohio (AP) — Vice President JD Vance is hitting his home state on Monday to continue promoting the GOP’s sweeping tax-and-border bill.

A crowd in neon green, orange, yellow and red hardhats and safety glasses gathered at the steel company Metallus Inc. in Canton, about 60 miles (96.56 kilometers) from Cleveland, to await his visit.

The visit marks Vance’s second trip this month to sell the package, filled with a hodgepodge of conservative priorities that Republicans have dubbed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” as the vice president becomes its chief promoter on the road.

In West Pittston, Pennsylvania, Vance told attendees at an industrial machine shop that they should be able to keep more of their pay in their pockets, highlighting the law’s new tax deductions on overtime.

Vance also discussed a new children’s savings program called Trump Accounts and how the new law promotes energy extraction, while decrying Democrats for opposing the bill that keeps the current tax rates, which would have otherwise expired later this year.

The legislation cleared the GOP-controlled Congress by the narrowest of margins, with Vance breaking a tie vote in the Senate for the package that also sets aside hundreds of billions of dollars for Trump’s immigration agenda while slashing Medicaid and food stamps.

The vice president is also stepping up his public relations blitz on the bill as the White House tries to deflect attention away from the growing controversy over Jeffrey Epstein.

The disgraced financier killed himself, authorities say, in a New York jail cell in 2019 as he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges. Trump and his top allies stoked conspiracy theories about Epstein’s death before Trump returned to the White House and are now reckoning with the consequences of a Justice Department announcement earlier this month that Epstein did indeed die by suicide and that no further documents about the case would be released.

A small group of protesters assembled outside the Metallus plant brandishing signs that spelled out “JD Protects Pedophiles” and indicating that “GOP” stands for “Guardians Of Pedophiles.” Signs also called the Big Beautiful Bill “ugly” and “bulls(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk)t.”

Questions about the case continued to dog Trump in Scotland, where he on Sunday announced a framework trade deal with the European Union.

Asked about the timing of the trade announcement and the Epstein case and whether it was correlated, Trump responded: “You got to be kidding with that.”

“No, had nothing to do with it,” Trump told the reporter. “Only you would think that.”

The White House sees the new law as a clear political boon, sending Vance to promote it in swing congressional districts that will determine whether Republicans retain their House majority next year.

The northeastern Pennsylvania stop is in the district represented by Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan, a first-term lawmaker who knocked off a six-time Democratic incumbent last fall.

On Monday, Vance will be in the district of Democratic Rep. Emilia Sykes, who is a top target for the National Republican Congressional Committee this cycle.

A spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called it “another desperate attempt to lie to Ohioans about the devastating impact the Big, Ugly Law will have on working families.” in a statement.

In the statement, Katie Smith said Sykes “fought tooth and nail against this disastrous law.”

Polls before the bill’s passage showed that it largely remained unpopular, although the public approves of some individual provisions such as increasing the child tax credit and allowing workers to deduct more of their tips on taxes.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Lawyers seeking a temporary restraining order against an immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades say that “Alligator Alcatraz” detainees have been barred from meeting attorneys, are being held without any charges and that a federal immigration court has canceled bond hearings.

A virtual hearing in federal court in Miami was being held Monday on a lawsuit that was filed July 16. A new motion on the case was filed Friday.

Lawyers who have shown up for bond hearings for “Alligator Alcatraz” detainees have been told that the immigration court doesn’t have jurisdiction over their clients, the attorneys wrote in court papers. The immigration attorneys demanded that federal and state officials identify an immigration court that has jurisdiction over the detainees and start accepting petitions for bond, claiming the detainees constitutional rights to due process are being violated.

“This is an unprecedented situation where hundreds of detainees are held incommunicado, with no ability to access the courts, under legal authority that has never been explained and may not exist,” the immigration attorneys wrote. “This is an unprecedented and disturbing situation.”

The lawsuit is the second one challenging “Alligator Alcatraz.” Environmental groups last month sued federal and state officials asking that the project built on an airstrip in the heart of the Florida Everglades be halted because the process didn’t follow state and federal environmental laws.

Critics have condemned the facility as a cruel and inhumane threat to the ecologically sensitive wetlands, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other Republican state officials have defended it as part of the state’s aggressive push to support President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has praised Florida for coming forward with the idea, as the department looks to significantly expand its immigration detention capacity.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — A chief architect of Project 2025, Paul Dans, is launching a Republican primary challenge to Sen. Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, joining a crowded field that will test the loyalties of President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement in next year’s midterm election.

Dans told The Associated Press the Trump administration’s federal workforce reductions and cuts to federal programs are what he had hoped for in drafting Project 2025. But he said there’s “more work to do,” particularly in the Senate.

“What we’ve done with Project 2025 is really change the game in terms of closing the door on the progressive era,” Dans said in an AP interview. ”If you look at where the chokepoint is, it’s the United States Senate. That’s the headwaters of the swamp.”

Dans, who is set to formally announce his campaign at an event Wednesday in Charleston, said Graham has spent most of his career in Washington and “it’s time to show him the door.”

Challenging the long-serving Graham, who has routinely batted back contenders over the years, is something of a political long shot in what is fast becoming a crowded field ahead of the November 2026 midterm election that will determine control of Congress.

Trump early on gave his endorsement of Graham, a political confidant and regular golfing partner of the president, despite their on-again-off-again relationship. Graham, in announcing he would seek a fifth term in the Senate, also secured the state’s leading Republicans, Sen. Tim Scott and Gov. Henry McMaster, to chair his 2026 run. He has amassed millions of dollars in his campaign account.

Other candidates, including Republican former South Carolina Lt. Gov. André Bauer, a wealthy developer, and Democratic challenger Dr. Annie Andrews, have announced their campaigns for the Senate seat in an early start to the election season, more than a year away.

Graham, in an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” did not discuss his reelection campaign but fielded questions on topics including his push to release “as much as you can” from the case files on Jeffrey Epstein, something many of Trump’s supporters want the government to do.

Dans, an attorney who worked in the first Trump administration as White House liaison to the office of personnel management, said he expects to have support from Project 2025 allies, as well as the ranks of Trump’s supporters in the state who have publicly tired of Graham.

After Trump left the White House, Dans, now a father of four, went to work at the Heritage Foundation, often commuting on weekdays to Washington as he organized Project 2025. The nearly 1,000-page policy blueprint, with chapters written by leading conservative thinkers, calls for dismantling the federal government and downsizing the federal workforce, among other right-wing proposals for the next White House.

“To be clear, I believe that there is a ‘deep state’ out there, and I’m the single one who stepped forward at the end of the first term of Trump and really started to drain the swamp,” Dans said, noting he compiled much of the book from his kitchen table in Charleston.

Among the goals, he said, was to “deconstruct the administrative state,” which he said is what the Trump administration has been doing, pointing in particular to former Trump adviser Elon Musk’s work at the Department of Government Efficiency shuttering federal offices.

Dans and Heritage parted ways in July 2024 amid blowback over Project 2025. It catapulted into political culture that summer during the presidential campaign season, as Democrats and their allies showcased the hard-right policy proposals — from mass firings to budget cuts — as a dire warning of what could come in a second Trump term.

Trump distanced himself from Project 2025, and his campaign insisted it had nothing to do with his own “Agenda 47.”

Dans is launching his campaign with a prayer breakfast followed by a kick-off event at a historic venue in Charleston.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• On Tuesday, Paramount settled a lawsuit Donald Trump filed as a private citizen with a $16 million payout.
• On Thursday, Trump's administration approved Paramount's sale to Skydance.
• You don't have to fill in the blanks on this one. And we're very likely to see transactions like this in the future.

Want to do business in the United States?

Pay up. More specifically: Pay Donald Trump.

That's a reasonable lesson to draw from the Paramount-Skydance deal, which received formal government approval Thursday and should finally close in the coming weeks — about 1.5 years after it first kicked off.

We don't know how Skydance's David Ellison, who is buying Paramount with the backing of his father, Larry Ellison, will run the company. Maybe he'll be able to turn the company around, and years from now we'll note how he made a savvy purchase of a distressed asset at a fire-sale price. Maybe it continues to decline. Maybe he ends up flipping it to someone bigger in short order.

But the most important thing is the thing that was clear back in January, when Donald Trump started his second term as president: If current owner Shari Redstone wanted to sell the company to Ellison, she would need to cut Trump a check.

That happened on Tuesday, when Paramount's current management formally settled a lawsuit Trump filed against the company last year. They paid $16 million, most of which is ostensibly earmarked for Trump's future presidential library.

And on Thursday, the deal got formal approval from the Federal Communications Commission, run by Brendan Carr, a Trump loyalist who sometimes wears a pin in the shape of Trump's head on his suit.

In theory, the Trump lawsuit and Carr's approval were separate events. In reality, it would be very hard to find anyone who believes that. (I've asked Carr for comment.)

This is a story that has kicked up a lot of attention in the home stretch. Some of the angles are most definitely real, and concerning. Like the fact that Carr's blessing comes with pledges from Ellison to do things like "root out bias" in CBS's news coverage, which sounds very much like a company promising to cover news in a way that pleases Carr and his boss.

Some of the angles are much muddier: While we've yet to see any actual evidence that Paramount canceled Stephen Colbert's late-night show to get the deal done, it's reasonable for people to jump to that conclusion. (Over at The Ankler, veteran TV reporter Lesley Goldberg makes a compelling argument that the cancellation had everything to do with business, and nothing to do with Trump.)

We also don't know whether the Ellisons have also agreed to give Trump $16 million or $20 million in other goodies as part of the deal, as Trump has claimed at various times. (Paramount has said it has no knowledge of extra payments; team Ellison hasn't commented.)

But the main point is the main point, which we've known for many months: Last fall, Trump filed a suit against Paramount over the editing of a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris. In any other world, that suit would go nowhere. But then Trump was elected, and started getting Very Big Companies like Disney and Meta to pay him to settle other suits he would normally have little chance of winning. (Like Paramount, those settlements were made directly to him, via his future library — as opposed to other settlements he is extracting from institutions like colleges and law firms, which are paying the federal government.)

So it was clear that Paramount would have to do the same thing, or it couldn't do the Skydance deal.

Again: In theory, the "60 Minutes" suit had nothing to do with Trump's role as president of the United States — he filed it as a private citizen, prior to his inauguration.

In reality, the only reason Paramount settled it was because he's president of the United States — and one that's willing to use that power to insert himself into day-to-day business deals.

Hard to believe this will be the last one where that happens.

• The House Ethics Committee closed its probe into Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
• The panel found that the congresswoman "impermissibly accepted gifts."
• They asked her to pay nearly $3,000 of her own money in order to close the matter.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's appearance at the 2021 Met Gala ended up being more expensive for her than she might've thought.

The House Ethics Committee on Friday closed its yearslong probe into the New York congresswoman and whether she accepted improper gifts in connection with her attendance at the high-profile event, where she wore a white dress emblazoned with the phrase "Tax the Rich."

In a 31-page report, the panel said that Ocasio-Cortez had "impermissibly accepted gifts" and said that in order for the matter to be closed, she would need to pay nearly $3,000 in personal funds.

That includes $250 to cover the attendance of her fiancé, Riley Roberts, and an additional $2,733.28 payment to Brother Vellies, the business that designed her dress.

Her chief of staff, Mike Casca, told BI in a statement that she would make those payments.

"The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House," Casca said. "She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she's done at each step in this process."

The committee said that Ocasio-Cortez had taken proactive steps to comply with House Ethics rules, which include strict guidelines around accepting gifts. She nonetheless fell short, though the committee said it had no evidence that she "intentionally underpaid for any goods or services received in connection with the Met Gala."

The report said that the congresswoman's attempts to comply with the gift rules included arranging to rent the dress and accessories that she was provided with and to pay for other services out of pocket, which are usually provided to Met Gala guests for free.

However, the committee said that her fiancé's attendance was an impermissible gift because he is not yet her spouse, and that she initially failed to pay the full fair market value for some of the items she wore.

According to the report, Ocasio-Cortez and Roberts have already paid a total of $6,853.75 for various services they received that night, including transportation, clothing rental, and rooms at the Carlyle Hotel.

Correction: July 25 — An earlier version of this story misstated the name of Ocasio-Cortez's fiancé. It is Riley Roberts, not Riley Rogers.