Blog

WASHINGTON — Defense Department officials say troops who cheered and jeered Tuesday at President Donald Trump’s political statements at a rally at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, did not violate military regulations, but a former military legal officer said they did just that.

During the speech, uniformed soldiers yelled in support of Trump’s political statements and booed former President Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don’t think so,” Trump said to boos about Biden.

Trump made other comments about Newsom and about Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where protests against the administration’s crackdown on immigrants have been taking place and where Trump has ordered thousands of National Guard members and active-duty Marines deployed in response. Other Trump comments about the “fake news media,” transgender people, protesters in California and flag-burning also drew boos from the uniformed military members in attendance.

Trump is known for his rallies at which he goes after and pokes fun at political enemies and other issues, but typically he makes those remarks at political events, not on U.S. military bases.

Such overt political activity on a base is the prerogative of the commander in chief. But military leaders would typically frown upon troops’ reacting the way they did as inconsistent with military good order and discipline, and, according to one expert, it is a violation of military regulations found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ.

Presidents of both parties often use troops as political props and put them and their commanders in difficult positions by doing so, but Trump’s speech took that to a new level, said Geoffrey DeWeese, a retired judge advocate general who is now an attorney with Mark S. Zaid PC. (Zaid has represented whistleblowers on both sides of the aisle, including one who filed a complaint about Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2019 that led to Trump’s impeachment, and he was one of the people whose security clearances Trump revoked this year.)

“It’s a sad tradition to use the military as a backdrop for political purposes,” DeWeese said. “To actively attack another president or a sitting governor and incite the crowd to boo, that’s a step in a dangerous direction, that really says we want to politicize the military, that sends a bad message.”

DeWeese said there were likely to have been violations of the UCMJ.

“I would be cringing if I was a senior officer and it happened under my watch,” he said.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said repeatedly that he wants to take politics out of the military by removing diversity, equity and inclusion programs and banning service by transgender service members.

Kori Schake, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who worked at the State Department and the National Security Council under former President George W. Bush and at the Pentagon under former President George H.W. Bush, said in an email that commanders at Fort Bragg should have done a better job preparing troops there.

“It’s terrible,” she wrote. “It’s predictably bad behavior by the President to try and score political points in a military setting, and it’s a command failure by leaders at Ft Bragg not to prepare soldiers for that bad behavior and counsel them not to participate.”

The Pentagon said in a statement that there had been no violation of the UCMJ and suggested the media was against policies that Trump has championed.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also alleged in a statement that the media “cheered on the Biden administration” and its policies regarding the Defense Department “when they forced drag queen performances on military bases, promoted service members on the basis of race and sex in violation of federal law, and fired troops who refused an experimental vaccine.”

“Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media,” Parnell said. “Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers.”

On Wednesday, Army officials at Fort Bragg addressed the sale of some MAGA merchandise at the event, which was planned in cooperation with a nonpartisan organization, American 250.

“The Army remains committed to its core values and apolitical service to the nation,” Col. Mary Ricks, a spokeswoman for the Army’s 18th Airborne Corps at Bragg, said in a statement. “The Army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents. The vendor’s presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar circumstances in the future.”

The Army’s own new field manual, published recently, says the apolitical nature of being a U.S. soldier is what contributes to the public trust.

The Army “as an institution must be nonpartisan and appear so, too,” says the new field manual, “The Army: A Primer to Our Profession of Arms.”

“Being nonpartisan means not favoring any specific political party or group. Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.”

U.S. troops can participate in political functions, just not while on duty or in uniform, the book says.

“As a private citizen you are encouraged to participate in our democratic process, but as a soldier you must be mindful of how your actions may affect the reputation and perceived trustworthiness of our Army as an institution,” it says.

Ananda Lewis, a former MTV VJ, has died at the age of 52.

Lakshmi Emory, whom Lewis once described as a “phenomenal sister” in a birthday message, shared news of her death in a June 11 Facebook post.

“She’s free, and in His heavenly arms,” she wrote next to a black-and-white photo of Lewis. “Lord, rest her soul.”

Emory did not share additional details, including Lewis’ cause of death.

Lewis was an MTV staple in the late ‘90s, hosting “Total Request Live” and video countdown show“Hot Zone.” She also hosted her own talk show “The Ananda Lewis Show” in 2001.

Lewis was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer in 2019, but later revealed that she opted against the double mastectomy doctors recommended at the time.

In a January 2025 op-ed for Essence, Lewis shared that she tried alternative methods to monitor her breast cancer, including cuting out alcohol, sugar, monthly ultrasounds, high-dose vitamin C IVs, hyperbaric chamber sessions and qigong exercise, among others.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, she discovered that her tumor had grown and underwent genetically targeted fractionated chemotherapy, which is a treatment that destroys cancer cells without harming healthy ones, according to Cleveland Clinic.

However, a PET scan done in October 2023 confirmed that her cancer had progressed to Stage 4 cancer. This time, she shared that she underwent treatment at an integrative facility.

While Lewis had previously said she regretted refusing to undergo mammograms out of fear of radiation exposure, she urged the importance of women getting informed and learning about prevention.

In her 2025 Essence piece, she wrote, “Going into 2025, I would say to women: Do everything in your power to avoid my story becoming yours. If I had known what I know now 10 years ago, perhaps I wouldn’t have ended up here.”

Adding, “I encourage people to look at the information and studies that exist. Seek them out, learn from them and apply the changes to your life, so that you can continue to thrive and live as long as you can.”

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he was “uninvited” to an annual White House picnic typically attended by members of Congress and their families, framing the move to reporters on Wednesday as retribution for his opposition to key components of President Donald Trump’s agenda.

“They’re afraid of what I’m saying, so they think they’re going to punish me, I can’t go to the picnic, as if somehow that’s going to make me more conciliatory,” Paul said. “So it’s silly, in a way, but it’s also just really sad that this is what it’s come to. But petty vindictiveness like this, it makes you — it makes you wonder about the quality of people you’re dealing with.”

Paul, who said he attended picnics hosted by Presidents Biden and Obama, told reporters he called the White House earlier today to secure tickets to the annual picnic but was told he was not invited to the event. He said he had family members flying to Washington D.C. to attend the event, including son, daughter-in-law and six-month old grandson, whom he noted owns a “Make America Great Again” hat.

“I just find this incredibly petty,” Paul told reporters.”I have been, I think, nothing but polite to the President. I have been an intellectual opponent, a public policy opponent, and he’s chosen now to uninvite me from the picnic and to say my grandson can’t come to the picnic.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a series of questions, including whether Paul was ever invited to the event and if Trump was directly involved in the decision to “uninvite” him.

As Trump pushes Republicans to pass a package of measures to fund much of his domestic agenda by Independence Day, Paul is among the Senate Republicans poised to make that milestone unreachable, joining fiscal hawks in the party to balk at legislation the Congressional Budget Office estimates said would add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit.

In addition to his belief that the funding package would “explode the debt,” the three-term senator has criticized spending cuts in the bill as “wimpy and anemic,” called planned Medicaid changes in the legislation “bad strategy” and proposed cutting billions in funding from the bill for Trump’s border wall.

“In private, there’s quite a few people in there who actually do think we could save some money and are open minded to it, and believe the administration should justify the numbers,” Paul told reporters after a two-hour meeting on the bill Wednesday. “Even if you’re supportive, and I am supportive of border security, but I’m just not supportive of a blank check.”

Paul said this week he plans to vote “No” on the legislation and speculated today it may be among the reasons for the rescinded invitation.

“I’m arguing from a true belief and worry that our country is mired in debt and getting worse, and they choose to react by uninviting my grandson to the picnic,” Paul said. “I don’t know, I just think it really makes me lose a lot of respect I once had for Donald Trump.”

Trump has frequently lashed out at Paul in response to the sustained opposition, deriding the senator on Truth Social for his criticisms.

“Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming. He loves voting ‘NO’ on everything, he thinks it’s good politics, but it’s not,” Trump wrote last week.

Paul has emerged as a chief critic to Trump’s fiscal policy, and has intensely criticized his decision to place tariffs on major U.S. trading partners, arguing they will push the country into a recession.

The libertarian conservative was one of four Republican senators to back a Democratic resolution to block the implementation of Trump’s Canadian tariffs, predicting at the time that the import penalties would “threaten us with a recession” and calling Trump’s decision to place tariffs on major U.S. trading partners “a terrible, terrible idea.” The effort has so far stalled in the House.

Paul also joined Democrats in introducing a bipartisan resolution to undo the reciprocal tariffs Trump placed on dozens of countries, this time by terminating the national emergency he declared to implement the global penalties, arguing that Trump had exceeded his presidential authority.

“Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax belongs to Congress—not the president. Our Founders were clear: tax policy should never rest in the hands of one person,” Paul said in a statement on the bipartisan effort. “Abusing emergency powers to impose blanket tariffs not only drives up costs for American families but also tramples on the Constitution. It’s time Congress reasserts its authority and restores the balance of power.”

That effort failed to pass the Senate.

Paul’s differences with Trump even extend to the military parade taking place on Saturday, which the lawmaker likened to parades in countries led by dictators.

“I wouldn’t have done it,” Paul said on Tuesday. “The images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that.”

But still, in the face of his criticisms of Trump, Paul appeared to view the rescinded invitation as a shock, noting that even Democratic lawmakers remain invited to the White House picnic.

“I think I’m the first senator in the history of United States to be uninvited to the White House picnic,” Rand told reporters. “Literally, every Democrat is invited, every Republican is invited, and to say that my family is no longer welcome, kind of sad actually.”

This is a free article for Diddy on Trial newsletter subscribers. Sign up to get exclusive reporting and analysis throughout Sean Combs’ federal trial.

U.S. government prosecutors have presented the drug-dazed, marathon sexual encounters known as “freak offs” as part of Diddy’s sweeping criminal conspiracy. But in a forceful cross-examination of Diddy’s ex-girlfriend “Jane” today, his legal team attempted to recast the “freak offs” as consensual trysts.

Here’s what you need to know about Jane’s fifth day on the stand:

• Jane, answering questions from defense attorney Teny Geragos, said she initiated some “freak offs” with Diddy. Diddy’s lawyers entered as evidence photos of a room, decorated by Jane, filled with rose petals and balloons. When asked if she suggested a “hotel night” with two other men on that occasion, Jane said yes. “Yes, that was my suggestion,” she replied. Diddy was “excited about that.”
• In late August 2022, after Jane had a tryst with Diddy and a sex worker named Paul, she told the rapper how much she enjoyed such sexual encounters. Jane texted Diddy that she was “having so much fun,” adding that she would “never take this for granted and will always make sure you are taken care of.”
• Jane wept on the stand after recounting telling Diddy in a text message that he was a “blessing” in her life. “I have never had a man take care of me like you do,” Jane wrote to Diddy a day after one of their “hotel nights.” She added: “You’re the reason for my child’s joy, it means the world to us, I love you baby.”
• Jane testified she urged Diddy to stay off drugs and eat healthy food for 30 days. Diddy suggested a “sobriety party” — a “hotel night” without drugs, she said. The October 2023 party lasted between 12 and 18 hours; Jane had sex with three men, she testified. “I resent him for how much I loved him and couldn’t say no to him,” she said. “I resent him for all of it.”

---

🔎 The view from inside

By Adam Reiss, Chloe Melas and Katherine Koretski

The prosecutors are seeking to remove one of the jurors — Juror #6 — who Diddy’s defense lawyers claim is among the panel’s Black members. It’s not exactly clear what’s behind the prosecution’s request, though it has cited a “lack of candor.”

“We were very reluctant to put in this letter. It appeared to be a lack of candor with the court that raises serious issues with us,” Maurene Comey, one of the prosecutors, told the court today. “We did not want to do this. We were compelled to do that.”

In other news: Diddy, wearing what appeared to be a light orange sweater and khaki pants, stood up and faced the audience in the courtroom before proceedings got started today. He seemed to be mouthing words to someone.

---

🗓 What’s next

Tomorrow: “Jane” is expected to return to the stand for more cross-examination. We’ll be live-blogging the key moments.

BTW: Every night during Diddy’s trial, NBC’s “Dateline” will drop special episodes of the “True Crime Weekly” podcast to get you up to speed. “Dateline” correspondent Andrea Canning chats with NBC News’ Chloe Melas and special guests — right in front of the courthouse. Listen here. 🎧

Under normal circumstances, moderating inflation and a weakening labor market would make an easy case for interest rate cuts.

But these aren’t normal times, and a scattering of headwinds on the horizon have made Federal Reserve officials leery of easing monetary policy for fear that the inflation fight isn’t over.

That sentiment is setting up an intensifying conflict between the White House and the central bank that could result in President Donald Trump taking the unusual step of naming a “shadow” chair whose responsibility it would be to watch over the Fed and Chair Jerome Powell until a permanent chief can be installed next year.

There is “fresh buzz” around the idea that Trump could announce his choice to succeed Powell soon, “as a shadow Fed chair in the interim,” until the central bank chief’s term ends, Krishna Guha, head of global policy and central bank strategy at Evercore, said in a note Wednesday.

“The idea would be to accelerate the timeframe over which the administration can put its stamp on the Fed and influence rates markets while avoiding the nuclear option of trying to fire Powell,” Guha wrote.

The practicality of such a move is sketchy. There are no imminent vacancies on the Fed’s board of governors — save for Powell, a frequent Trump target whose term as head of the central bank expires in May 2026, though his governorship runs until 2028.

Moreover, the impact of such a “shadow chair” likely would be minimal. It takes seven votes on the Federal Open Market Committee to move policy, and it would be hard to find more than one or two right now who would be in favor of the aggressive interest rate cuts Trump is seeking.

Still, at least telegraphing now who he wants as chair could sent an important message to markets about the path Trump wants to see the Fed to take. The stakes were raised Wednesday following a comparatively benign inflation report showing prices up just 0.1% in May, and after Vice President JD Vance joined Trump in urging the Fed to cut rates.

The stakes for a new chair

The candidate list for chair seems to have been narrowed, and Trump noted Friday that he expects to make his preference public soon. White House officials did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

The list of apparent finalists includes former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, current Governor Christopher Waller, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett. Each has assets and liabilities, but the most important quality could be a tilt towards sharply lower rates, with an aggressive timetable.

“I think Trump’s going to pick someone who’s going to be uber-dovish,” billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones said during a Bloomberg News interview Wednesday. “We are fiscally constrained. We’re going to have budget deficits of 6% plus [compared to gross domestic product] as far as the eye can see. One of the major offsets if I was the president would be to lower my interest rate costs by appointing a Fed chair who is as dovish as could possibly be.”

Powell has been reluctant to push for cuts until the longer-term effects of Trump’s tariffs can be better gauged.

As Jones sees it, Trump has no other choice than to swing away from the moderate-to-hawkish Powell with the U.S. in a “debt trap” that eventually will cause a market revolt.

The budget deficit is heading toward $2 trillion for 2025 and actually is above 6% of GDP. Costs to finance the $36 trillion debt are estimated at $1.2 trillion this year and likely could be headed north of that as Treasury yields remain lofty. The easiest way for the U.S. to ease some of that burden would be Fed rate cuts that at least would ease some of those financing costs, which are running higher than any other budget category except Social Security and Medicare.

So which way does Trump turn?

Evaluating the candidates

Guha, the Evercore analyst, sees positives and negatives in each prospective candidate.

Warsh, he said, “has direct Fed policy experience, is well-known to markets and Fed officials, and has the benefit of being perceived as being independent while maintaining cordial and constructive relations with the Trump administration.”

His downside: A leaning toward hawkishness on inflation and away from expansionary balance sheet policies that have been the Fed’s hallmark since the financial crisis of 2008.

On Bessent, who emerged this week as a favorite, according to a Bloomberg report, his upside is market bona fides and stature as the “adult in the room” in the organized chaos of the Trump administration. However, a lack of monetary policy experience and perception of being “too close to the Trump administration, and not sufficiently independent,” could work against him perception-wise, Guha said.

More of a longshot, Hassett has solid economic credentials but limited monetary policy experience and might, Guha said, also be perceived as being too close to the administration.

Finally, Waller has the benefit of a folksy demeanor while his recent statements advocating “good news” rate cuts later this year could put him in good standing with Trump. However, he could pay a price for supporting the 50 basis point rate cut last September, ahead of the November presidential election.

For Trump, the challenge will be to pick someone credible who shares his vision on lower rates and easier policy and who can get through a Senate confirmation where Republicans hold the advantage, albeit a fragile one, and leadership that still wants an independent central bank.

“Hopefully, whoever is selected is an individual that feels strongly that monetary policy should be set consistent with the dual mandate and not be politically influenced,” former Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren said during a CNBC interview Wednesday. “But that remains to be seen.”

From the spacecraft’s observations, scientists discovered that magnetic fields with both north and south polarity are currently present at the sun’s south pole. This mishmash of magnetism is expected to last only a short time during the solar maximum before the magnetic field flips.

Once that happens, a single polarity should slowly build up over time at the poles as the sun heads toward its quiet solar minimum phase, according to ESA.

“How exactly this build-up occurs is still not fully understood, so Solar Orbiter has reached high latitudes at just the right time to follow the whole process from its unique and advantageous perspective,” said Sami Solanki, director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany and lead scientist for Solar Orbiter’s PHI instrument, which is mapping the sun’s surface magnetic field.

Scientists have enjoyed close-up images of the sun before, but before now, they have all been captured from around the sun’s equator by spacecraft and observatories orbiting along a plane similar to Earth’s path around the sun.

But Solar Orbiter’s journey through the cosmos included close flybys of Venus that helped tilt the spacecraft’s orbit, allowing it to see higher-than-normal latitudes on the sun.

The newly released images were taken in late March, when Solar Orbiter was 15 degrees below the sun’s equator, and then a few days later when it was 17 degrees below the equator — a high-enough angle for the probe to directly see the sun’s south pole.

“We didn’t know what exactly to expect from these first observations — the sun’s poles are literally terra incognita,” Solanki said in a statement.

Solar Orbiter was launched in February 2020. The European-led mission is being operated jointly with NASA.

In the coming years, Solar Orbiter’s path is expected to tilt even further, bringing even more of the sun’s south pole into direct view. As such, the best views may be yet to come, according to ESA.

“These data will transform our understanding of the sun’s magnetic field, the solar wind, and solar activity,” said Daniel Müller, ESA’s Solar Orbiter project scientist.

WASHINGTON — As Republicans barrel toward a critical deadline this summer to lift the debt ceiling, they say there’s no “Plan B” to avert an economically disastrous default if they fail to pass the massive bill for President Donald Trump’s agenda in time.

Congressional Republicans are eyeing increasing the debt limit by $4 trillion to $5 trillion so the government can keep borrowing to meet the country’s obligations. It’s part of their broader domestic policy package, which the Senate needs to pass before it can go back through the House and ultimately to Trump’s desk for his signature. And the GOP only has three votes to spare in both chambers.

“There is no Plan B,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Tuesday when asked by NBC News if he has a backup plan for the debt limit. “It’s Plan A. We have to get it done. Failure is not an option.”

It’s a risky gamble by GOP leaders, who are putting all their chips on passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by the debt ceiling deadline.

“We’re going to get reconciliation done,” Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said when asked what the party’s fallback plan is on the debt ceiling. (Reconciliation refers to the budget process Republicans are using to pass their bill, which allows them to bypass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and cut Democrats out of the process.)

The Treasury Department has urged Congress to raise the debt ceiling “by mid-July” to safely avoid default. The Congressional Budget Office projected this week that the deadline may be later, “between mid-August and the end of September,” although that won’t be official unless the Treasury Department agrees.

If Republicans fail to pass their sprawling bill in time, they would need to negotiate with Democrats to pass a standalone debt limit extension through the 60-vote process in the Senate.

But there have been no negotiations between party leaders on that front, according to Republican and Democratic aides with knowledge of the dynamics. One GOP aide said the party is “full steam ahead on Plan A” and suggested there may still be time to consider a fallback if they absolutely need to.

Some Republicans say it’s a deliberate tactic to drive up the urgency of passing their filibuster-proof bill.

“We should be set an expectation that we’re getting this done in July, and it includes the debt ceiling,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. “I think the minute you start talking about a backup plan, you’re going to have a backup plan.”

If Republican leaders eventually decide they want to cut a bipartisan deal on the debt ceiling, it’s unclear what — if anything — Democrats would demand.

Some, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, and Rep. Brendan Boyle, of Pennsylvania., have insisted on abolishing the debt limit entirely in order to prevent the full faith and credit of the United States from being used as leverage in policy negotiations. That’s an idea Trump recently endorsed.

“I am very pleased to announce that, after all of these years, I agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on SOMETHING,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. “The Debt Limit should be entirely scrapped to prevent an Economic catastrophe.”

But there’s scant support within the GOP for it, as Republicans have found success using it to extract concessions from Democratic presidents in the past.

There’s no indication that Democrats would respond in kind this year if Republicans came to them and asked for their votes on the debt ceiling.

“I’m not debating hypotheticals,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said when asked what he’d want in exchange.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday that it will aim to eliminate existing limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, a move that would curb the agency’s ability to combat climate change under the Clean Air Act.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a news conference that Biden-era carbon pollution standards for power plants “suffocate” the economy in order to protect the environment. Zeldin, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in January, stated that the agency’s announcement was a huge step forward in energy dominance for the U.S., while promising that no power plants would emit more than they already do. Currently, the power sector accounts for a quarter of all U.S. emissions, according to the latest EPA emissions data.

Zeldin also said the EPA plans to weaken Biden-era regulations on mercury emissions from power plants.

Environmental advocates say the EPA’s proposal is an escalation in the Trump administration’s ongoing push against climate action across federal agencies, including at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Weather Service. In 2024, the Biden administration finalized the most stringent carbon pollution standards for power plants to date in an effort to tackle the climate crisis — but now, those rules face an uncertain future.

Gina McCarthy, a former EPA Administrator under President Joe Biden, called Zeldin’s announcement a “political play” that defies “decades of science and policy review” in a statement on Wednesday.

“By giving a green light to more pollution, his legacy will forever be someone who does the bidding of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our health,” McCarthy said.

Jill Tauber, the vice president of litigation for climate and energy at Earthjustice, a nonprofit currently suing the Trump administration over several environmental rollbacks said: “Eliminating pollution standards from the largest industrial source of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States flies in the face of what the law requires, what the science tells us, and what we’re seeing every day.”

Power plants in the U.S. are a huge contributor to global carbon emissions. A report published by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that if the U.S. power sector were its own country, it would be the sixth-largest emitter in the world.

Under the first Trump administration, the EPA rolled back several Obama-era greenhouse gas standards on power plants, but this recent announcement marks the first time the agency has suggested outright repeals. Zeldin’s move on power plants follows his promise in March to tackle the “climate change religion” by reconsidering or repealing 31 regulations surrounding tailpipe emissions, coal ash regulations and oil and gas wastewater management.

The proposed rule, which will now move into its comment period, will face scrutiny from legal advocates and environmental nonprofits like Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which say the EPA is obligated to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by law — citing seminal cases like the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA lawsuit, which determined that greenhouse gases must be regulated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act.

“We’ll be watching closely to see if the EPA proceeds with repealing these life-saving standards based on a legal theory that doesn’t pass the laugh test,” said Meredith Hawkins, the federal climate legal director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The NRDC stands ready to defend the public’s right to breathe in court if needed.”

Cutting historic limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants would impact global climate change, but it could also cause ripple effects on human health and the economy.

Harvey Reiter, an energy and utilities lawyer and a law professor at George Washington University, says that if the EPA moves forward with its planned repeals, he expects some energy companies and utilities that have retooled operations and made long-term investments in renewable energy to sue the Trump administration.

“The biggest impacts of the proposed rules are uncertainty and instability,” he said. “Nobody knows what to do next. It makes investment decisions harder. It makes decisions about hiring, staff and employees harder. It creates a lot of uncertainty in the market.”

Greenhouse gas emissions from power plants are not just a climate issue. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide as well as other air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury and fine particulate matter, which are linked to increased risk of respiratory issues and cardiovascular disease. Regulating carbon emissions from power plants broadly reduces other air pollution for communities living near power plants, said Laura Kate Bender, the vice president of nationwide advocacy and public policy at the American Lung Association.

“It works both ways. On the one hand, power plants burning fossil fuels contribute to climate change and cause health problems at the same time,” said Bender. “And then climate change, in many cases, contributes to extreme heat, or more wildfire smoke, or more ozone smogs. Climate change is a health emergency, and cutting carbon in the power sector is a critical tool in the toolbox for fighting climate change.”

Jurors in the trial against disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein said Wednesday they unanimously found him guilty of sexually assaulting one woman and not guilty of assaulting another more than a decade ago.

But jurors at Weinstein’s retrial told the judge they were unable to reach a verdict on allegations he assaulted a third woman and Judge Curtis Farber asked the jurors to continue deliberating Thursday before sending them home for the day.

Weinstein, 73, had denied all the charges and his lawyers insisted the sexual encounters with his three accusers were “transactional” and “consensual.”

The jury weighing the evidence against disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein in his New York retrial reached a partial verdict after five days of deliberation.

Weinstein, 73, who has denied all the allegations, was charged with sexually assaulting three women more than a decade ago.

Weinstein found himself on trial again after the New York state Court of Appeals last year overturned his landmark 2020 conviction for sexually abusing young women, a trial that defined the #MeToo movement and helped turn the Oscar-winning producer into a pariah. The appeals court found that the judge in that trial had improperly allowed testimony against the former Miramax chief based on allegations that were not part of the case.

During the six-week retrial, jurors heard testimony from a former “Project Runway” production assistant, Miriam Haley, and actress Jessica Mann, both of whom testified in the 2020 trial. New to the retrial was testimony from a third accuser, Kaja Sokola, a former runway model from Poland.

Weinstein’s lawyers have argued that the sexual encounters with his three accusers were all “transactional” and “consensual.”

“If this person wasn’t Harvey Weinstein, would we even be here?” Weinstein defense attorney Arthur Aidala asked during his closing argument in accusing the women of being grifters.

Prosecutors, however, said Weinstein preyed on young women trying to make it in Hollywood, sometimes repeatedly, and threatened to wreck their careers if they talked.

“He never had any interest in their careers,” Assistant District Attorney Nicole Blumberg told the jury. “He had an interest in their bodies. And he was going to have their bodies and touch their bodies whether they had wanted him to or not.”

Just as in 2020, Weinstein did not testify at his retrial. But before the jurors announced they had reached a verdict, he told a FOX5 New York reporter that he acted “immorally” and regretted hurting his wife and family, but never did anything “illegal.”

“I put so many friends through this and hurt people … that were close to me, by the way, by actions that were stupid,” he said. “But never illegal, never criminal, never anything.”

Much of the evidence that resulted in Weinstein being convicted five years ago of the third-degree rape of one woman and a first-degree criminal sex act against another woman was reintroduced at his retrial.

Just as before, Weinstein pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape based on complaints by Haley and Mann. But this time, Weinstein also pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of first-degree criminal sexual act in the alleged sexual assault of Sokola.

Sokola told the court that Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in 2006 at a Manhattan hotel when she was 19 years old. But the alleged abuse began in 2002, when she was 16 and Weinstein forced her to masturbate him, she said.

“Her first sexual experience was the defendant forcing himself on her,” Blumberg said.

During his three-hour closing, Aidala tried to poke holes in the testimony of the three accusers. He suggested they were coached by prosecutors to describe the sexual encounters, which he likened at one point to “naked twister,” in a sinister light.

“They did it all to get the original sinner, the poster boy of the MeToo movement,” Aidala said.

The #MeToo hashtag took off in 2017 following reports in The New York Times and The New Yorker that detailed allegations of sexual misconduct against Weinstein that went back decades. It helped inspire a reckoning in Hollywood and beyond around sexual harassment.

Weinstein, Aidala added, made for an easy target. “He’s a fat dude — sorry, Harvey,” he said while the former producer looked on.

Aidala insisted the encounters were all “transactional” and that all three women believed Weinstein could help their careers.

“It’s not really a casting couch I thought it was,” Aidala said. “It’s different now. I know it sounds crazy, but he’s the one being used.”

Blumberg painted a far different picture during the prosecution’s closing remarks.

“I want to remind you why we are here,” she said. “Because he raped three people.”

Sokola and Haley both claimed that Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on them in separate incidents in 2006. Mann told the court the producer raped her in 2013.

Weinstein, Blumberg said, “had tremendous control over Hollywood. He spoke, people listened. He decided who was in and who was out.”

While Blumberg spoke, Weinstein, seated in a wheelchair, appeared to be listening intently.

“Remember, it’s not the person sitting here today in a wheelchair but this man, in Hollywood, who had the power and was in control,” Blumberg said.

Regardless of the verdict, Weinstein will most likely be returned to California where he has to serve a 16-year sentence for a 2022 rape conviction. His lawyers filed an appeal for that conviction in 2024 that is still in process.

During his latest trial, Weinstein was allowed to stay at Bellevue Hospital where he was being treated for a host of serious health issues.

Back in October, two sources told NBC News that Weinstein had been diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia, an uncommon form of bone marrow cancer.

Weinstein was a Hollywood titan in the 1990s and 2000s when he and his brother Bob ran Miramax, the distributor of critically acclaimed independent movies like “Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” “The Crying Game,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Clerks,” and box office successes like “Chicago” and “Bridget Jones’s Diary.”

In 1999, Weinstein won a best picture Oscar as one of the producers of “Shakespeare in Love.” And in the early 2010s, his second distribution label, The Weinstein Company, won back-to-back best picture Oscars for “The King’s Speech” and “The Artist.”

But as Weinstein collected accolades, he was dogged by rumors that he preyed on his leading ladies and other women in the industry. By the time he was arrested, more than 80 women had accused him of sexual assault or harassment going back decades.

Just as he did at his trials, Weinstein doggedly denied the claims and insisted the encounters were consensual.

The matchup for New Jersey’s gubernatorial election is set, but looming over the contest will be a name that won’t be on any ballot: Donald Trump.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who secured the Democratic nomination in Tuesday’s primary, is already running ads that attack Republican Jack Ciattarelli for his ties to the president. Ciattarelli, who was also the GOP’s nominee in 2021, romped to victory in his party’s primary after successfully cultivating Trump’s support.

In focusing on Trump, Democrats have history on their side. New Jersey voters have a strong tendency to elect governors from the party that doesn’t control the White House. This has been the case in all but two races over the past four decades.

Plus, Democrats have run this playbook successfully in New Jersey before. Eight years ago, during Trump’s first term, Gov. Phil Murphy scored a 14-point win over Republican Kim Guadagno. Murphy had sought to tie Guadagno to Trump, whose approval rating in New Jersey that fall stood at just 33%. (Murphy was also aided by the cratering popularity of outgoing Republican Gov. Chris Christie.)

Republicans are counting on the Trump factor playing differently this time around. And, at least for now, there are some key variables they can point to with optimism.

One is the result of last year’s presidential race, when Trump lost New Jersey by 6 points to Kamala Harris. That was a far cry from his 16-point loss in 2020 and his 14-point defeat in 2016. From the outset of the 2017 gubernatorial race, it was obvious that Trump would be a major electoral liability for the GOP. That’s not as clear this time around.

In fact, a PIX11/Emerson College poll conducted a few weeks ago showed Trump with a 47% job approval rating in New Jersey. That’s far higher than he fared during the 2017 campaign, or for that matter, at any point during his first term. It’s also higher than the 40% approval rating for Murphy, who is term-limited and provides Ciattarelli with his own opportunity to tie his opponent to an unpopular leader.

That said, there hasn’t been any polling in the state since mid-May. It’s possible Trump’s standing has shifted in response to the unrest in Los Angeles. It’s also possible it will shift for other reasons between now and November. For now, though, it appears to be in a different place than in 2017.

A key question is whether Trump’s improved performance in New Jersey last year signals a broader shift in the electorate away from the Democrats and toward the GOP. His gains came heavily from nonwhite voters, particularly Hispanics and Asian Americans, mirroring what happened nationally. But many of these voters had either not voted before or had done so infrequently. Did they come out only because of Trump himself or are they converts to the GOP as a whole?

The early indicators from elections this year have not been very encouraging for Republicans, who have suffered a series of defeats amid high participation from Democratic-friendly demographics that Republicans haven’t been able to match. But those off-year elections have been relatively low-wattage affairs. New Jersey’s gubernatorial race will attract much more interest and overall turnout, giving the GOP a better shot at leveling the playing field.

Republicans can take some heart from voter registration statistics. Since last November, the number of registered Republicans in the state has remained flat, while Democrats have shed just over 60,000 enrollees. This is a reversal from 2017, when Democrats were outpacing Republicans in new registrations.

There’s also some history Republicans can point to. Democrats have controlled the New Jersey governorship for two consecutive terms now, with Sherrill seeking to make it three in a row. This is the sixth time since 1981 that a party has tried for a third straight term. In the previous cases, they all failed to win it.