Rob Reiner was known to millions as a TV actor and film director.
But the Brentwood resident, known for the classic films “Stand by Me” and “When Harry Met Sally,” was also a political force, an outspoken supporter of progressive causes and a Democratic Party activist who went beyond the typical role of celebrities who host glitzy fundraisers.
Reiner was deeply involved in issues that he cared about, such as early childhood education and the legalization of gay marriage.
Reiner, 78, and his wife, Michelle Singer Reiner, were found dead inside his home Sunday, sparking an outpouring of grief from those who worked with him on a variety of causes.
Ace Smith — a veteran Democratic strategist to former Vice President Kamala Harris, Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Gov. Jerry Brown and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — had known Reiner for decades. Reiner, he said, approached politics differently than most celebrities.
“Here’s this unique human being who really did make the leap between entertainment and politics,” Smith said. “And he really spent the time to understand policy, really, in its true depth, and to make a huge impact in California.”
Reiner was a co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization that successfully led the fight to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage. He was active in children’s issues through the years, having led the campaign to pass Proposition 10, the California Children and Families Initiative, which created an ambitious program of early childhood development services.
Proposition 10 was considered landmark policy. Reiner enlisted help in that effort from Steven Spielberg, Robin Williams, and his own father, comedy legend Carl Reiner.
“He wanted to make a difference. And he did, and he did profoundly,” Smith said.
After Proposition 10 passed, Reiner was named the chair of the California Children and Families Commission, also known as First 5 California. He resigned from the post in early 2006 after the commission ran $23 million in ads touting the importance of preschool as Reiner was gathering support for Proposition 82.
The measure, which was unsuccessful, would have taxed the wealthy to create universal preschool in California.
The filmmaker and his wife spent more than $6 million on the failed proposition. They also donated significant sums to support national Democratic Party groups and candidates including Jerry Brown, Gray Davis, Ed Rendell and Andrew Cuomo.
Bruce Fuller, a UC Berkeley professor of education and public policy, called Reiner “a caring and vigilant advocate for children. He added cachet and cash to California’s movement to open preschools for tens of thousands of young families over the past quarter-century.”
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who had known Reiner since he was a state lawmaker in the 1990s, worked with him on Proposition 10 and was impressed with how Reiner embraced the cause.
“He was a man with a good answer. It wasn’t politics as much as he was always focused on the humanity among us,” Villaraigosa said. ‘When he got behind an issue, he knew everything about it.”
“Just a really special man. A terrible day,” the former mayor said.
Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement that she was “heartbroken” by the day’s events, saying Reiner “always used his gifts in service of others.”
“Rob Reiner’s contributions reverberate throughout American culture and society, and he has improved countless lives through his creative work and advocacy fighting for social and economic justice,” the mayor said.
“I’m holding all who loved Rob and Michele in my heart,” Bass said.
Newsom added, “Rob was a passionate advocate for children and for civil rights — from taking on Big Tobacco, fighting for marriage equality, to serving as a powerful voice in early education. He made California a better place through his good works.”
“Rob will be remembered for his remarkable filmography and for his extraordinary contribution to humanity,” the governor said.
Eight years ago this month, Trump’s White House published its first national-security strategy, a document that extolled NATO’s enduring value as “one of our great advantages over our competitors,” and praised America’s allies as, in the words of one of the strategy’s principal authors, the then national-security adviser H. R. McMaster, “the best defense against today’s threats.” Its most famous passage declared a new era of “great power competition” and warned that China and Russia posed grave long-term dangers to the United States. I cannot count the number of times I had this document quoted to me by Republican establishment types eager to prove that Trump really was a Reagan-esque tough-on-Russia guy, after all.
His new national-security doctrine, released late last week, has abandoned the language about great-power threats from China and Russia in favor of a reduced role for America as the unchallenged hegemon of the Western hemisphere. To the extent that a global theory of the case is expressed, it is a Darwinian vision of geopolitical might makes right: “The outsized influence of larger, richer, and stronger nations,” the document stresses, “is a timeless truth of international relations.” The thirty-three-page paean to the leadership of “The President of Peace” also calls for an end to NATO expansion, treats Russia as an equal to Europe (without mentioning its responsibility for launching a war of aggression against Ukraine), and essentially promotes regime change—for America’s European allies. (In the language of the strategy: “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.”) The plan, not surprisingly, was well received by the Kremlin, where Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, praised the adjustments to U.S. strategy as “largely consistent with our vision.”
However much Trump was personally involved in shaping these national-security documents, there’s little doubt that the 2025 version sounds a lot more like the man himself than the 2017 iteration. Back then, Trump’s real views about the world—a profoundly disruptive departure from decades of Republican foreign policy—were, like his “shithole countries” comment, still meant only for private consumption. Now he’s loud and proud about them.
The most important point here is that Trump’s second term—the “Do-Over Presidency,” I called it a few months ago—is an exercise in Presidential wish fulfillment. This time, he is not about to let persnickety lawyers, or his own past record, stand in the way. Think of the long list of extreme policies that Trump talked about in his first term but has only followed through on in this one: ending the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, imposing sweeping tariffs on U.S. trade partners by declaring a national “emergency,”sending troops into Democratic-run cities to quell domestic political protests.
All three of these policies, it should be noted, are currently subject to lawsuits in the federal courts—a major reason that Trump’s first-term advisers warned him against pursuing them. But he did not get rid of the policies; he ditched the advisers. Unconstrained and emboldened, today’s Trump has learned from years of experience how to make the machinery of Washington give him what he wants, whether it is legal or not. He is, at last, the “Jurassic Park” velociraptor that figures out how to open the door, in the memorable image once evoked for me by a national-security official from Trump’s first term.
Some of the difference between Trump 1.0 and 2.0, as in the rally the other night, is in the presentation. While he’s always been lewd and rude, a liar and an extemporizer whose public shows are designed to shock and entertain, his tongue has clearly been loosened by advancing age and the adoring bubble of sycophants in which he now exists. Having dispensed entirely with the dreary rituals of acting Presidential, Trump now talks in public the way he does in private—swearing, rambling, sexist, racist. It wasn’t just the rant about Somali immigrants, or the extreme length of his speech. ( Ninety-seven minutes, compared with an average of forty-five minutes at rallies in 2016.) Or the cringe-y digression about“that beautiful face and the lips that don’t stop, pop, pop, pop, like a machine gun” of his young female press secretary. And the cursing—where to begin? There’s just so much of it. Is that because he’s eight years older and no longer bound by his old inhibitions? Or maybe he’s just really angry that his poll numbers have sunk so low?
If that’s the case, we can expect a whole lot more expletives, because Trump, untethered, is now by many measures more unpopular than ever before. In his first term, the President was already a polarizing and historically unpopular figure, but he had a strong economy going for him—even if it was never “the greatest economy in the history of the world” that he so often proclaimed it to be. This time, with persistent inflation, fears of impending recession, and global jitters about his preference for market-crushing tariffs, support for Trump’s economic policies has fallen even lower than backing for the man himself. On Thursday, the Associated Press and NORC released a new survey showing him with his worst numbers of the year—with just thirty-six per cent approving of his job performance and thirty-one per cent supporting what he’s done for the economy, his lowest showing in either of his two terms. Gallup, in a similar recent survey, found that sixty per cent of Americans now disapprove of his second-term job performance. The electorate, it turns out, has a few choice words for Trump, too. ♦
HPD’s misguided pause on Section 610 affordable housing applications threatens low-income New Yorkers and the city’s existing affordable housing stock. Unsplash+
New York City faces an affordable housing crisis of staggering proportions. Vacancy rateshoveraround 1.4 percent. Families earning moderate incomes are priced out of entire neighborhoods. Yet in May 2025, when the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) announced it would stop processing most new applications for Section 610 of the Private Housing Finance Law, the city turned its back on a policy that was working.
Section 610, signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul in December 2022, represented a rare moment of policy innovation that benefited everyone involved. The law allows owners of rent-stabilized affordable housing to collect the full amount of federal and local housing vouchers, even when that amount exceeds the building’s registered legal rent, without increasing what tenants pay. Tenants continue paying only30 percentof their income toward rent. Building owners receive additional income to cover rising operating costs and building repairs. The government maximizes the value of its existing subsidy programs. It was an elegant policy design: preserving affordability while preventing the deterioration of the affordable housing stock we already have.
Then HPDpulled the plug, citing federal funding uncertainty. While maintaining that buildings with already-approved amendments can continue operating under Section 610, the agency announced it would no longer process new authorizations for most subsidy types, including crucial programs that serve the city’s most vulnerable residents: the City Fighting Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement (CityFHEPS) and HIV/AIDS Service Administration (HASA).
This decision reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 610 accomplishes. The program doesn’t create new government obligations; it simply allows existing subsidy dollars to flow more efficiently to where they’re already committed. When a voucher holder moves into a Section 610 building, the city is already obligatedto pay that subsidy. The difference lies in whether those dollars are allocated toward maintaining quality, affordable housing or are constrained by artificially low registered rents that leave buildings financially struggling.
Consider the reality facing affordable housing providers. Insurance costs have skyrocketed. Property taxes continue climbing. Labor and material costs for maintenance have surged. Meanwhile, developers who built affordable housing under regulatory agreements years ago are locked into rent caps that no longer reflect the economics of building operations. Some are collecting only 93 percent of rents compared to the 95 percent they underwrote, and those projections were considered conservative before 2020.
Without Section 610, these buildings face a slow death spiral. Insufficient cash flow means deferred maintenance. Deferred maintenance leads to building deterioration. Deterioration results in tenant displacement and the loss of affordable units from the city’s housing stock. We’ve seen this story play out countless times across the five boroughs.
Section 610 offered a lifeline. By allowing buildings to capture the full voucher amount, it provided the financial breathing room needed to maintain properties, make necessary repairs, and remain viable participants in affordable housing programs. This wasn’t a windfall for owners, but a survival mechanism for the affordable housing ecosystem.
HPD’s justification, federal funding uncertainty, rings hollow. The federal voucher programs that Section 610 leverages are not new appropriations. These are existing commitments. If HPD is concerned about budget constraints, the solution is to prioritize which buildings receive Section 610 authorization based on demonstrated need, not to shut down the program entirely for new applicants.
Moreover, the timing couldn’t be worse. New York is in the midst of implementing its most ambitious housing agenda in decades. The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity aims to create new homes across all neighborhoods. The 485-x tax incentive is designed to stimulate affordable housing construction. Yet what good are new affordable units if we’re simultaneously allowing our existing affordable stock to deteriorate through bureaucratic paralysis?
The policy’s design already includes safeguards. Regulatory agencies assess project financials to prioritize buildings with the greatest need. The program requires that rent stabilization protections remain in place. If a tenant loses their voucher, rents must drop back to the legal regulated amount. These provisions ensure that Section 610 serves its intended purpose: preservation of affordability, not profit maximization.
HPD claims it will continue processing authorizations for NYCHA tenant- and project-based vouchers and Emergency Housing Vouchers. But this carve-out is insufficient. CityFHEPS and FHEPS serve thousands of New Yorkers, including families with children and individuals experiencing homelessness. HASA vouchers support people living with HIV/AIDS. Excluding these programs from Section 610 means the buildings that serve our most vulnerable residents are precisely the ones left without financial support.
What HPD calls uncertainty, housing providers call existential threat. Affordable housing developers who planned projects around the availability of Section 610 now face financing gaps. Buildings that were in the application pipeline when the pause was announced are stuck in limbo—unable to move forward, unable to plan, slowly hemorrhaging money while waiting for bureaucratic clarity that may never come.
The city should reverse course. HPD should immediately reopen Section 610 applications with appropriate prioritization criteria based on demonstrated financial need. If federal budget constraints genuinely require limiting the program’s scope, then create a transparent waitlist and approval process rather than an arbitrary shutdown. Work with the state legislature to expand and formalize Section 610’s provisions.
Most importantly, recognize that preserving existing affordable housing is just as critical as building new units, and often more cost-effective. Every dollar spent propping up struggling affordable buildings through Section 610 saves the much larger investment that would be required to replace those units once they’re lost.
New York cannot afford to let bureaucratic caution and budgetary pessimism undermine smart housing policy. Section 610 works. It should be expanded, not abandoned. The affordable housing crisis demands bold action, not timid retreat. HPD should open the doors to both Section 610 applications and the affordable housing future New York desperately needs.
Right to repair provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, which would secure funding for the US military in 2026, are likely to be struck from the final language of the bill despite enjoying broad bipartisan support, sources familiar with ongoing negotiations tell WIRED.
They say that provisions in the act enabling servicemembers to repair their own equipment are likely to be removed entirely, and replaced with a data-as-a-service subscription plan that benefits defense contractors.
The right to repair has become a thorny issue in the military. If a drone, fighter jet, or even a stove on a Navy vessel fails, US servicemembers in the field can’t always fix it themselves. In many cases, they need to call a qualified repair person, approved by the manufacturer, and bring them out to the site to fix the problem.
The military would love to sidestep that hassle by giving personnel the tools and materials to make their own repairs in the field, and has repeatedly called for Congress to enable it to do so. However, some in Washington have been trying to neuter proposed right-to-repair provisions—a move that has been advocated for by defense contractor groups who sell the military the stuff they want to fix as well as the means to fix it, and stand to lose if the military is empowered to perform its own repairs.
Differing versions of the NDAA have passed the Senate and the House and the process is now in a conferencing phase, where lawmakers meet to combine the versions into one bill. The final language is expected to come through by next week; after votes in both houses of Congress, it will then go to president Donald Trump’s desk to be signed into law.
Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, long a supporter of repairability legislation, added Sec. 836 to the Senate version of the NDAA, a provision drawing inspiration from the Warrior Right to Repair Act she introduced in July. It called for contractors to be required to provide the US Department of Defense with “the rights to diagnose, maintain, and repair the covered defense equipment.”
A similar provision was also added to the House version of the NDAA, which was introduced by representative Mike Rogers, a Republican of Alabama and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. (Ranking member Adam Smith of Washington, also led on the bill.) Sec. 863 is a “requirement for contractors to provide reasonable access to repair materials.” In essence, it would empower servicemembers to fix their own stuff without having to rely on the manufacturer, saving time and taxpayer money.
“Military leaders, service members, the White House, and hundreds of small businesses all agree these bipartisan right to repair reforms are desperately needed,” Warren told Roll Call last week. “The giant defense contractors fighting these reforms are more interested in innovating new ways to squeeze our military and taxpayers than strengthening our national security.”
Startup Valar Atomics said on Monday that it achieved criticality—an essential nuclear milestone—with the help of one of the country’s top nuclear laboratories. The El Segundo, California-based startup, which last week announced it had secured a $130 million funding round with backing from Palmer Luckey and Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar, claims that it is the first nuclear startup to create a critical fission reaction.
It’s also, more specifically, the first company in a special Department of Energy pilot program aiming to get at least three startups to criticality by July 4 of next year to announce it had achieved this reaction. The pilot program, which was formed following an executive order President Donald Trump signed in May, has upended US regulation of nuclear startups, allowing companies to reach new milestones like criticality at a rapid pace.
“Zero power criticality is a reactor’s first heartbeat, proof the physics holds,” Valar founder Isaiah Taylor said in a statement. “This moment marks the dawn of a new era in American nuclear engineering, one defined by speed, scale, and private-sector execution with closer federal partnership.”
Criticality is the term used for when a nuclear reactor is sustaining a chain reaction—the first step in providing power. Enriched nuclear fuel releases neutrons, which hit other atoms, which then split apart; neutrons from that process then hit other atoms, and start the reaction over. This process is known as fission. A properly functioning reactor has just enough reactions to keep that fission chain going, reaching a state of criticality.
“Think of a long chain of dominoes,” says Adam Stein, director of the Nuclear Energy Innovation program at the Breakthrough Institute, an eco-modernist policy center. “If you have those dominoes spaced out too far, a domino won’t hit the next one. If they’re spaced just right, then one hits the next, hits the next, and you have the reaction you’re hoping for.”
There’s a difference between the type of criticality Valar reached this week—what’s known as cold criticality or zero-power criticality—and what’s needed to actually create nuclear power. Nuclear reactors use heat to create power, but in cold criticality, which is used to test a reactor’s design and physics, the reaction isn’t strong enough to create enough heat to make power.
The reactor that reached criticality this week is not actually Valar’s own model, but rather a blend of the startup’s fuel and technology with key structural components provided by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the DOE’s research and development laboratories. The combination reactor builds off a separate fuel test performed last year at the laboratory, using fuel similar to what Valar’s reactor will use.
Daytona Beach City Manager Deric C. Feacher is defending how city employees use taxpayer-funded credit cards, even as an audit is now underway to review city spending practices.On Monday, Feacher pushed back against growing criticism over how city-issued P-cards are being used for expenses that range from hotel bills and restaurant tabs to birthday cakes and flowers. City records show some purchases appear to extend beyond official business.”There is still no issues that I’ve been able to see currently through my basic review,” Feacher told WESH 2 News.Feacher emphasized that city spending is already subject to oversight. “There’s always periodic audits that take place with our purchasing department,” he said. “So, it’s always someone evaluating and looking at each P-card expenditure and who’s using it.”The city’s P-card program came under scrutiny after city commissioner Stacy Cantu raised concerns. A former employee who oversaw the program did so before leaving earlier this year. That employee said in an email the city was hemorrhaging funds and that her concerns were ignored. Feacher disputed that account.”Not only was there something done,” he said. “There were follow-up meetings that took place with the employee, who decided in one of the emails that she didn’t need to meet with the CFO because she was going to leave.”When asked whether the city completed a full review after her departure, Feacher confirmed the process continued. “We reviewed all of those things, and we’ll provide you all the documents after she left our organization,” he said.City commissioners have selected an auditor to review the credit card spending.Feacher said some policies are about 20 years old and need to be updated. “Staff has been working on them for the past year,” Feacher said. “One of the top three priorities for our CFO, when she was hired about a year ago, was to look at our procurement and purchasing policy, and that’s in the works now.”We asked about some of the transactions. Records reviewed by WESH 2 News show hundreds of thousands of dollars in city spending at a local auto repair shop, raising questions about whether the contract had been rebid in recent years.”It’s not like we just went to the oil change place next door,” Feacher said. “There’s a process for that.”However, one city commissioner told WESH 2 they do not recall voting on that contract within the last five years, suggesting it may have expired and was never voted on again. Feacher also confirmed that contractors working for the city had been issued P-cards, something that raised further concern since those individuals are not city employees. The city has now suspended those cards.”Does it specifically say in their contract that they are allowed to have a credit card? No, it doesn’t,” Feacher said. “But it does not say that we are not allowed to let them use our stuff to get tax exemptions because they’re doing work we required.”Feacher said the city expects to finalize an updated draft of its spending and procurement policies in the coming weeks.”I’m very concerned that the narrative that’s been created, without reviewing the facts, could affect the people that I work with every day,” he said.
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. —
Daytona Beach City Manager Deric C. Feacher is defending how city employees use taxpayer-funded credit cards, even as an audit is now underway to review city spending practices.
On Monday, Feacher pushed back against growing criticism over how city-issued P-cards are being used for expenses that range from hotel bills and restaurant tabs to birthday cakes and flowers. City records show some purchases appear to extend beyond official business.
“There is still no issues that I’ve been able to see currently through my basic review,” Feacher told WESH 2 News.
Feacher emphasized that city spending is already subject to oversight. “There’s always periodic audits that take place with our purchasing department,” he said. “So, it’s always someone evaluating and looking at each P-card expenditure and who’s using it.”
The city’s P-card program came under scrutiny after city commissioner Stacy Cantu raised concerns.
A former employee who oversaw the program did so before leaving earlier this year. That employee said in an email the city was hemorrhaging funds and that her concerns were ignored. Feacher disputed that account.
“Not only was there something done,” he said. “There were follow-up meetings that took place with the employee, who decided in one of the emails that she didn’t need to meet with the CFO because she was going to leave.”
When asked whether the city completed a full review after her departure, Feacher confirmed the process continued. “We reviewed all of those things, and we’ll provide you all the documents after she left our organization,” he said.
City commissioners have selected an auditor to review the credit card spending.
Feacher said some policies are about 20 years old and need to be updated.
“Staff has been working on them for the past year,” Feacher said. “One of the top three priorities for our CFO, when she was hired about a year ago, was to look at our procurement and purchasing policy, and that’s in the works now.”
We asked about some of the transactions. Records reviewed by WESH 2 News show hundreds of thousands of dollars in city spending at a local auto repair shop, raising questions about whether the contract had been rebid in recent years.
“It’s not like we just went to the oil change place next door,” Feacher said. “There’s a process for that.”
However, one city commissioner told WESH 2 they do not recall voting on that contract within the last five years, suggesting it may have expired and was never voted on again.
Feacher also confirmed that contractors working for the city had been issued P-cards, something that raised further concern since those individuals are not city employees. The city has now suspended those cards.
“Does it specifically say in their contract that they are allowed to have a credit card? No, it doesn’t,” Feacher said. “But it does not say that we are not allowed to let them use our stuff to get tax exemptions because they’re doing work we required.”
Feacher said the city expects to finalize an updated draft of its spending and procurement policies in the coming weeks.
“I’m very concerned that the narrative that’s been created, without reviewing the facts, could affect the people that I work with every day,” he said.
Republicans in California have diverging opinions on President Trump’s immigration enforcement policies, according to a study published by the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute on Monday.
The Trump administration has deployed a sweeping crackdown on immigration, launching ICE raids across the country and removing legal barriers in order to make deportations faster. The study found that while Democrats were largely consistent in their opposition to these immigration policies, Republican sentiment varied more, especially by age, gender and ethnicity.
“At least some subset of Republicans are seeing that these immigration strategies are a step too far,” said G. Cristina Mora, a sociology professor and co-director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, which administered the poll. The polling data were collected from nearly 5,000 registered voters in mid-August. Just over 1,000 of those surveyed were registered Republicans.
Latino Republicans, with whom Trump made historic gains during the 2024 elections, showed the highest levels of disagreement with the party’s aggressive stance on immigration. Young people from 18 to 29 and moderate women in the Republican Party also more significantly diverged from Trump’s policies.
The majority of Republican respondents expressed approval of Trump’s immigration strategy overall. However, the study found respondents diverged more from Trump’s policies that ignore established legal processes, including due process, birthright citizenship and identification of federal agents.
“On these legalistic issues, this is where you see some of the bigger breaks,” Mora said.
Of those surveyed, 28% disapproved of the end of birthright citizenship, which Trump is pushing for, and 45% agreed that ICE agents should show clear identification. Four in 10 Republican respondents also support due process for detained immigrants.
Young people, who make up about 15% of the party in California, were on average also more likely to break from Trump’s policies than older Republicans.
The analysis also found that education level and region had almost no impact on respondents’ beliefs on immigration.
Latinos and women were more likely to disagree with Trump on humanitarian issues than their demographic counterparts.
Nearly 60% of moderate Republican women disagree with deporting longtime undocumented immigrants, compared with 47% of moderate men. 45% of women believe ICE raids unfairly target Latino communities.
The political party was most split across racial lines when it came to immigration enforcement being expanded into hospitals and schools. Forty-four percent of Latinos disagreed with the practice, compared with 26% of white respondents, while 46% of Latino respondents disagreed with deporting immigrants who have resided in the country for a long time, compared with just 30% of their white counterparts.
Trump had gained a significant Latino vote that helped him win reelection last year. Democratic candidates, however, made gains with Latino voters in elections earlier this month, indicating a possible shift away from the GOP.
The data could indicate Latino Republicans “are somewhat disillusioned” by the Trump administration’s handling of immigration, Mora said. “Latinos aren’t just disagreeing on the issues that we think are about process and American legal fairness. They’re also disagreeing on just the idea that this is cruel.”
Mora said the deluge of tense and sometimes violent encounters posted online could have an impact on Republican opinion surrounding immigration. A plainclothes agent pointed his gun at a female driver in Santa Ana last week, and two shootings involving ICE agents took place in Southern California late last month.
“You now have several months of Latinos being able to log on to their social media and see every kind of video of Latinos being targeted with or without papers,” Mora said. “I have to believe that that is doing something to everybody, not just Latino Republicans or Latino Democrats.”
From Capitol Hill to here at the White House, lawmakers are zeroing in on affordability. You could see it from the administration here in the last week, from videos to messages and new policy rollouts all designed and aimed at lowering costs for Americans. From 50 year mortgages to $2000 tariff checks, the White House is proposing bold solutions to *** stubborn issue. We’re working overtime on reducing costs. Among the changes, the White House. new trade frameworks with Latin American countries to lower the cost of groceries among other items. September’s inflation data shows coffee, bananas, and beef are among the items up significantly over the past year. We understand that people understand as they look at their pocketbooks that go to the grocery store, that there’s still work to do. It comes as the economy absorbs the damage from the 43 day government shutdown, which the White House says wiped out about $90 billion in economic growth and about 60,000 non-fe. Workers their jobs. Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, many lawmakers tell us affordability is also their priority moving forward. Our constituents are absolutely suffering under the crushing costs of health care cost increases, housing increases, childcare, groceries, gas, you name it. I’m going to be focusing my attention on housing affordability, and for Democrats, the fight that drove the shutdown isn’t over. They’re now racing to restore health care subsidies set to expire at the end of the year. *** lapse that could leave families paying hundreds more each month. We’re working towards bringing another bill to the floor that would actually solve the crisis of affordability in healthcare and bring down healthcare premiums for those 24 million Americans. Senate Republicans have promised *** vote to extend those healthcare subsidies in December, not guaranteeing what that vote outcome would be. However, House Republicans have not promised such *** vote at the White House. I’m Christopher Salas.
The federal government has reopened after the longest shutdown in U.S. history, and the focus is now shifting to affordability, a pressing issue for millions of Americans. From Capitol Hill to the White House, lawmakers are concentrating on reducing costs.The White House is proposing bold solutions to address affordability, including 50-year mortgages and $2,000 tariff checks. Kevin Hassett, National Economic Council director, said, “We’re working overtime on reducing costs.”Among the changes, the White House announced new trade frameworks with Latin American countries to lower grocery costs. September’s inflation data shows significant price increases for coffee, bananas, and beef over the past year. President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday to eliminate tariffs on a broad swath of commodities, including beef, coffee and tropical fruits.Hassett acknowledged the ongoing challenges, saying, “We understand that people understand as they look at their pocketbooks and go to the grocery store that there’s still work to do.”The economy is absorbing the impact of the 43-day shutdown, which the White House said wiped out $90 billion in growth and cost about 60,000 non-federal workers their jobs. On Capitol Hill, many lawmakers emphasize affordability as their priority moving forward. Rep. Johnny Olszewski, a Democrat from Maryland, said, “Our constituents are absolutely suffering under the crushing costs of healthcare and cost increases, housing increases, childcare, groceries, gas, you name it.” Rep. Mike Flood, a Republican from Nebraska, added, “I’m going to be focusing my attention on housing affordability.”For Democrats, the fight that led to the shutdown continues as they race to restore healthcare subsidies set to expire at the end of the year, which could result in families paying hundreds more each month. Rep. Josh Harder, a Democrat from California, said, “We’re working towards bringing another bill to the floor that would actually solve the crisis of affordability in health care and bring down health care premiums for those 24 million Americans.”Senate Republicans have promised a vote to extend healthcare subsidies by December, but the House has not made such a promise. Meanwhile, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that the Trump administration will require SNAP participants to reapply for benefits. A USDA spokesperson stated that the Secretary aims to address “fraud, waste and incessant abuse” in the SNAP program, noting that earlier fraud rates were only assumptions. The USDA plans to use existing recertification processes, review state data, and potentially introduce new regulations as part of this effort. However, the USDA has not specified when a broad reapplication would start, how it would work, or whether families could lose benefits during the process. Further details have been requested.See the latest news from the Washington News Bureau:
WASHINGTON —
The federal government has reopened after the longest shutdown in U.S. history, and the focus is now shifting to affordability, a pressing issue for millions of Americans. From Capitol Hill to the White House, lawmakers are concentrating on reducing costs.
The White House is proposing bold solutions to address affordability, including 50-year mortgages and $2,000 tariff checks. Kevin Hassett, National Economic Council director, said, “We’re working overtime on reducing costs.”
Among the changes, the White House announced new trade frameworks with Latin American countries to lower grocery costs. September’s inflation data shows significant price increases for coffee, bananas, and beef over the past year.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday to eliminate tariffs on a broad swath of commodities, including beef, coffee and tropical fruits.
Hassett acknowledged the ongoing challenges, saying, “We understand that people understand as they look at their pocketbooks and go to the grocery store that there’s still work to do.”
The economy is absorbing the impact of the 43-day shutdown, which the White House said wiped out $90 billion in growth and cost about 60,000 non-federal workers their jobs.
On Capitol Hill, many lawmakers emphasize affordability as their priority moving forward. Rep. Johnny Olszewski, a Democrat from Maryland, said, “Our constituents are absolutely suffering under the crushing costs of healthcare and cost increases, housing increases, childcare, groceries, gas, you name it.”
Rep. Mike Flood, a Republican from Nebraska, added, “I’m going to be focusing my attention on housing affordability.”
For Democrats, the fight that led to the shutdown continues as they race to restore healthcare subsidies set to expire at the end of the year, which could result in families paying hundreds more each month.
Rep. Josh Harder, a Democrat from California, said, “We’re working towards bringing another bill to the floor that would actually solve the crisis of affordability in health care and bring down health care premiums for those 24 million Americans.”
Senate Republicans have promised a vote to extend healthcare subsidies by December, but the House has not made such a promise.
Meanwhile, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that the Trump administration will require SNAP participants to reapply for benefits. A USDA spokesperson stated that the Secretary aims to address “fraud, waste and incessant abuse” in the SNAP program, noting that earlier fraud rates were only assumptions. The USDA plans to use existing recertification processes, review state data, and potentially introduce new regulations as part of this effort. However, the USDA has not specified when a broad reapplication would start, how it would work, or whether families could lose benefits during the process. Further details have been requested.
See the latest news from the Washington News Bureau:
Peptides have become the latest must-have in the world of wellness and aesthetics. Marketed for everything from fat loss and muscle gain to anti-aging and libido, these powerful compounds are quickly finding their way into med spas, concierge clinics, and health optimization businesses.
For entrepreneurs, peptides represent a high-growth opportunity in a market hungry for innovation. They’re buzzy, in-demand, and often promise high margins. But beneath the surface, this industry is moving much faster than the infrastructure meant to regulate it. And for business owners jumping in, that gap creates more than just uncertainty; it creates real risk.
The rise of the peptide economy
Peptides are short chains of amino acids that act as signaling agents in the body, triggering processes like fat metabolism, tissue repair, or hormone release. While some are FDA-approved for specific medical uses, many are being offered in wellness clinics for broader, more experimental purposes, often “off-label” or without formal approval.
Semaglutide, for instance, was approved for type 2 diabetes but is now widely used for weight loss. Others, such as BPC-157 or CJC-1295, are marketed for recovery, inflammation, and longevity, even though they haven’t received the same level of regulatory approval.
An Inc.com Featured Presentation
For patients, peptides “promise” results that feel more advanced than vitamins and less invasive than surgery. For founders, the appeal is obvious: They tap into massive consumer trends, performance, longevity, and aesthetics, and allow clinics to differentiate their offerings in a saturated market.
A business opportunity moving faster than the rules
The demand is growing. But the rules are vague, and enforcement is inconsistent. The FDA has flagged concerns about certain peptides sold online. State regulatory boards differ on who can prescribe or administer them. And entrepreneurs sourcing these products often find themselves navigating a maze of inconsistent supplier quality, unclear liability, and shifting guidance.
It’s not that founders are intentionally cutting corners. In many cases, they don’t even realize the gray areas in which they’re operating.
What founders should know before offering peptides
Whether you’re a solo operator or scaling a national wellness brand, the same principle applies: Peptides can absolutely be part of a smart, strategic offering, but only if you’re clear-eyed about what you’re getting into.
Here are a few key points to consider:
1. Know what you’re offering. Not all peptides are approved, and most are being used off-label. Understand what that means for your business model, your staff, and your clients.
2. Source responsibly. Vet suppliers carefully. Look for licensed compounding pharmacies with this licensing documentation and transparency. Your product quality impacts your reputation and potentially your liability.
3. Get clinical guidance. Don’t make medical assumptions based on what’s trending online. Work with licensed professionals to create safe protocols, especially when using peptides as part of IV therapy, injections, or personalized treatment plans.
4. Educate your clients. Patients are drawn in by big promises. But the more transparent you are about what peptides can and can’t do, the more trust you’ll build. Clarity isn’t just ethical, it’s good business.
5. Build for sustainability. Peptides aren’t just a passing trend; they’re part of a larger shift in health optimization. But staying ahead means playing the long game. Short-term growth without infrastructure usually leads to burnout, blowback, or both.
The bottom line
Peptides represent one of the most exciting frontiers in wellness right now. They’re powerful, in-demand, and full of potential. But in many ways, this is still a Wild West moment, where innovation is outpacing oversight, and boldness needs to be matched with responsibility.
If you’re a founder in the wellness or aesthetic space, this isn’t a call to avoid peptides. It’s a call to approach them like any great opportunity—with ambition, but also with discipline.
Because the businesses that will lead this market forward won’t just be the ones chasing trends, they’ll be the ones building trust.
From ransomware to quantum disruption, Canada must take urgent steps to defend its institutions and build long-term cyber capacity. Observer Labs
This Q&A is part of Observer’s Expert Insights series, where industry leaders, innovators and strategists distill years of experience into direct, practical takeaways and deliver clarity on the issues shaping their industries. At a moment when cyber threats are escalating alongside geopolitical tensions, Canada finds itself at a crossroads: how to defend its digital infrastructure, protect its economy and maintain global competitiveness while preserving the values of an open, democratic society.
Judith Borts, senior director of the Rogers Cybersecure Catalyst at Toronto Metropolitan University,sits at the intersection of policy, security and economic strategy. With a career spanning provincial economic development, national innovation policy and cross-sector collaboration, Borts has become one of Canada’s most vocal advocates for treating cybersecurity not as a niche technical specialty but as a shared societal responsibility—one that will determine the country’s digital sovereignty in the years ahead.
Her work at the Catalyst focuses on building the talent, partnerships and operational capacity Canada needs to withstand increasingly sophisticated attacks. But it’s her policy background that gives her a panoramic view of what’s at stake. Canada, she argues, can no longer afford a reactive approach to cyber risk. Nation-state adversaries, criminal networks and A.I.-accelerated threats are moving faster than traditional governance models can respond, and the downstream costs to Canadians are already enormous.
Borts outlines where Canada is falling behind global peers, what a truly unified national cyber strategy would require and why talent development may ultimately matter more than any single technological breakthrough. She also offers a candid look at the sectors most vulnerable today, the policies needed to strengthen resilience and how emerging technologies like A.I. and quantum computing will reshape the country’s digital future. Canada’s prosperity increasingly depends on something once viewed as purely defensive: a secure and trusted digital ecosystem.
With global alliances shifting and the U.S. pulling back from international cooperation, how are these geopolitical tensions directly reshaping Canada’s cybersecurity priorities and its role in intelligence-sharing networks?
Even as global alliances shift, intelligence sharing through networks like the Five Eyes, G7 and NATO remains strong. That’s not really where Canada’s biggest challenge is. What we really need to zero in on is building our own sovereign defence and resilience—including in the cyber and digital domains—so we can protect ourselves, respond quickly when threats come up and recover safely and securely.
Cyberattacks today can come from anywhere (foreign governments, organized groups or even individuals), and they pose real risks to Canadian institutions, businesses and citizens. Our national security and defence strategies need to reflect that reality. We need to invest more in homegrown talent and innovation, from cybersecurity research to advances in A.I. and quantum technologies, so that Canada can stay ahead of the curve. It’s not about losing trust in our allies; it’s about maintaining our strong relationships while also making sure we have the strength and resilience to stand on our own when it matters most.
Which Canadian sectors are most exposed to cyber risk, and how prepared are they to defend against the sophisticated attacks we’re seeing today?
Every sector in Canada, as well as around the world, is exposed to cyber risk. Healthcare continues to face some of the most visible and alarming threats. Ransomware attacks have forced hospitals to cancel surgeries and even shut down emergency systems, putting patient safety directly at risk. The energy sector is another major target. And what used to be mainly about stealing data has now shifted to attempts to interfere with the systems that keep our power grid running. As our digital and physical infrastructure becomes more connected, those risks multiply and even a single successful attack can throw essential services across the country into chaos.
Canada’s economy is powered by small and medium-sized businesses, which make up about 99 percent of all companiesin the country and account for more than half of the country’s GDP. These companies are increasingly being targeted but often lack the specialized staff, training and resources to respond effectively. Plus, the impacts of a ransomware attack on an SMB’s bottom line can be massive.
We’re seeing progress in some areas, but these are still isolated efforts. Real national cybersecurity and resilience mean a coordinated approach, one that brings strong security standards together with real investment in education, innovation and long-term capacity building. That’s how we keep Canada’s economy secure and competitive in the years ahead.
What specific policy mechanisms are needed to create a unified national cyber strategy that also respects Canada’s diverse regional priorities?
A top-down approach alone won’t keep up with how fast threats evolve or be able to address the practical needs of all regions. Real resilience comes from bringing federal, provincial and local efforts together so we can build safe and secure communities, share information faster, respond in real time and build trust across sectors.
We also need to make it easier for Canadian businesses to operate securely, both at home and abroad. That means creating a more harmonized and less fragmented set of cyber standards and compliance requirements, so companies aren’t forced to navigate a maze of conflicting rules across jurisdictions. Taking a more unified approach that integrates leading global approaches and consistent standards would help Canada stay internationally competitive while keeping our digital ecosystem strong and secure.
In a nutshell, the federal government should set the national vision and provide the framework and tools while empowering local governments, organizations and innovators to adapt that framework to their realities. When everyone works from the same playbook, security can become part of how we do business—not a barrier to it.
As cyber threats evolve, is Canada keeping pace with peers like the U.S. and the E.U. in building defensive capabilities, or are governance gaps holding it back?
It’s an exciting time for cybersecurity in Canada, but the truth is we’re not yet keeping pace with our peers. The United States invests close to $800 billion or 3.5 percent of GDP annually in research and development, while Canada spends less than 2 percent of ours, and only a fraction of that goes toward cyber and defense innovation. That gap matters. The European Union, meanwhile, approaches cybersecurity not just as a security issue but as a pillar of economic resilience, seeing digital protection and competitiveness as two sides of the same coin.
Canada has world-leading talent in cybersecurity, A.I. and quantum. We are also building a strong foundation with proposed legislation like the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (Bill C-8) and a growing base of innovation, but we need to move faster—connecting our federal, provincial and municipal strategies, strengthening our talent pipeline and investing in homegrown technology. If we treat cybersecurity as both national defence and economic opportunity, we can close the gap and position Canada as a real leader in the digital future.
What are the most critical lessons from recent high-profile cyberattacks, and how should they guide efforts to build systemic resilience?
If there’s one thing recent cyberattacks have taught us, it’s that we need to wake up. No one is really paying attention to how serious this has become. We’re seeing massive fraud and data theft happening quietly, every day, and too often the response is weak at best. The impacts are not only felt at the victim’s level; the burden of the costs to Canadians is enormous, and we’re all paying for this.
And still, people aren’t changing their passwords, companies still skip basic protections like multi-factor authentication, and we’ve normalized the idea that our data will be stolen eventually. That has to change.
There’s a common mantra in the cyber community that when it comes to cyber threats: ‘it’s not if, but when.’ But the lesson isn’t that attacks are inevitable. It’s that we need to take preventative action and prepare for potential threats. Complacency is our biggest weakness.
We can’t treat cybersecurity as background noise while we rush to adopt new technologies like A.I. A.I. can make systems smarter, but it also makes cyber threats faster, more targeted and harder to detect. At the same time, many organizations are adopting A.I. without fully addressing the very real risks that come with it. Every organization embracing A.I. should be asking: Are we doing this in a way that keeps us secure and our clients/customers safe?
True resilience isn’t about specific actions by a cyber team; it’s about how fast and effectively we respond and how seriously we take the responsibility to protect ourselves in the first place.
What role should partnerships between universities, public institutions, government, private industry and Canadian tech companies play in building national cyber resilience?
No single group can solve Canada’s cybersecurity challenges on its own—the threats are too complex, the digital infrastructure is too vast and diverse and the stakes are too high. True resilience depends on everyone working together: universities driving research and developing talent, government providing intelligence, guidance and coordination, industry building secure systems and helping to generate specialized talent and Canadian tech companies pushing innovation forward.
But collaboration can’t just happen in boardrooms or policy papers: we also have to meet Canadians where they are. Digital resilience and cyber awareness are no longer specialized skills; they are now basic workplace essentials. Everyone, regardless of their role, needs to understand how to protect information, manage digital tools responsibly, and remain vigilant to evolving threats. If we’re going to reach everyone, it means finding more creative and practical ways to weave cyber awareness and digital resilience into everyday life, whether that’s through local community programs, small business training or more accessible education.
When universities, public institutions, government, and industry connect directly with Canadians, cybersecurity stops being an abstract concept and becomes something everyone can take part in.
That whole-of-society approach is no longer optional. It’s literally the foundation of our national resilience.
How does developing a skilled and diverse cybersecurity workforce contribute to Canada’s digital sovereignty and long-term competitiveness?
When we talk about securing Canada’s digital future, the real advantage isn’t just in technology; it’s in people. We need Canadians to protect what matters to Canada and build a robust digital infrastructure that we can rely on to keep our economy and country growing in the face of mounting threats. This requires a trustworthy and capable workforce. At the Catalyst, we have no delusions about the impacts of A.I. on cybersecurity work. The key question is: what does a skilled cybersecurity workforce look like in the age of A.I.?
We are hyper-focused on creating not only skilled cybersecurity professionals, but also helping those in other organizational roles across different sectors to better understand the cybersecurity challenges they are facing while maintaining a keen eye on emerging technologies such as A.I. and quantum computing. Through our programs, we’re building job-ready professionals who can address the human, organizational and technical issues of cybersecurity.
But in an era where A.I. can automate certain technical functions, the real challenge—and opportunity—is in ensuring that we have an agile workforce and that we educate and support individuals in exercising judgment, creativity, critical thinking, contextual understanding and ethical reasoning that machines can’t replicate.
It’s like asking how you maintain a community of great writers when A.I. can draft a paragraph for you: the value shifts to insight, empathy, strategy and human perspective.
How can Canada’s cyber strategy link security, innovation and economic growth?
For too long, we’ve talked about cybersecurity as a purely defensive measure. Many still view it as just the cost of doing business. The truth is, in the modern economy, cybersecurity is an investment, and resilience is one of our biggest competitive advantages. It’s the bedrock of national prosperity and our ticket to maintaining our position as a serious player on the global stage.
Think about it: when we create an environment built on digital trust, with infrastructure that is both robust and secure, everything else follows. It’s what gives international partners the confidence to invest here, and it’s what gives our own innovators in critical sectors like finance, healthcare and technology the secure launchpad they need to bring their best ideas to life.
So, the critical question is, how do you intentionally build that kind of environment? It doesn’t happen by accident, and it can’t rest solely on a policy or a plan. It only comes about through action.
By combining smart government policies and strong intellectual property and patent protections with real incentives for our businesses, we stop treating cybersecurity as a problem to be solved and start seeing it for what it is: a massive opportunity to build our next generation of tech leaders and secure Canada’s role as an innovator.
How will emerging technologies such as A.I. and quantum computing reshape Canada’s cybersecurity landscape, and what must be done now to ensure a secure, sovereign, and competitive digital ecosystem by 2030?
A.I. is rewriting the cybersecurity landscape, and quantum computing won’t be far behind. Each one presents both huge opportunities and serious threats. As these technologies start to converge, we will see incredible new possibilities and potential, but also significant power to cause real damage if we’re not prepared.
A.I. is now an arms race. For every advanced risk detection model we create, our adversaries are using A.I. to launch attacks. And quantum computing is the horizon. This will threaten most of the common encryption used today.
This new reality demands a strategic change, including what the industry calls the “shift-left approach.” Traditionally, security testing happened at the end of a project, just before the software was released. Shift-left flips that model by pushing security earlier in the development cycle—essentially “shifting” it to the left on the project timeline.
For example, instead of waiting until a new system is fully built to check for vulnerabilities, developers should build security into the design on day one, and then test for risks at each step. This approach comes from modern software engineering, but it’s now essential for cybersecurity: if emerging technologies like A.I. aren’t built with security-by-design, we’re already behind.
Ultimately, by investing in talent, targeting the best in R&D, and investing in an innovative ecosystem, Canada can make sure we’re not just reacting to technological change but we are leading the change.
A provision in the federal spending bill that could end the US government shutdown would effectively destroy the hemp extracts industry by banning intoxicating hemp-based THC products, including gummies and drinks.
The provision, part of the funding bill passed by the US Senate Monday night, would ban the “unregulated sale of intoxicating hemp-based or hemp-derived products, including delta-8, from being sold online, in gas stations, and corner stores,” according to a Senate Appropriations Committee summary of the legislation. The bill, accounting for $26.65 billion in funds, is being voted on in the House of Representatives Wednesday. If passed, President Donald Trump is expected to sign it into law.
The hemp provision ends a loophole provided by the 2018 Farm Bill that essentially decriminalized intoxicating hemp-based products. Those products include cannabinoids like delta-8 and THCA, which are found in a variety of edibles and drinks. However, the Farm Bill stipulates that hemp products can’t contain more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC by dry weight; delta-9 is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, which remains federally illegal. Both hemp and cannabis come from the cannabis sativa plant, but hemp contains very low levels of delta-9.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was the sole Republican to vote against the spending bill Monday after failing to amend the bill by striking the hemp ban from it. In September dozens of Kentucky hemp farmers sent a letter to fellow state Senator Mitch McConnell, who has been pushing for the ban, pleading with him to reconsider.
The letter said the hemp-derived cannabinoid market “gave us—for the first time in decades—a new crop with real economic opportunity” and that a ban would result in “immediate and catastrophic consequences.”
According to a report from the Cannabis Business Times, sales for hemp-derived cannabinoids exceeded $2.7 billion in 2023.
“This will ultimately devastate the industry and devastate hemp farmers as well,” says attorney and hemp advocate Jonathan Miller, adding that it would “wipe out” 95 percent of hemp ingestibles.
While the provision says it will preserve “non-intoxicating CBD and industrial hemp products,” Miller disputes that, noting that the most popular hemp-derived CBD products still contain more that the proposed limit of 0.4 milligrams of THC per container. CBD products do not get people high, but are popular and used for things like insomnia and anxiety, though research on their efficacy is still limited.
As President Donald Trump sees it, environmental regulations that attempt to improve efficiency and address climate change only make products more expensive and perform worse. He has long blamed efficiency regulations for his frustrations with things like toilets and showerheads. He began his second term in office to “unleash prosperity through deregulation.”
But there’s at least one big way that American companies and households may end up paying more, not less, for the president’s anti-environment policy moves.
And they aren’t just getting more expensive to buy; cars are getting more expensive to own. For most Americans, gasoline is their single-largest energy expenditure, around $2,930 per household each year on average.
While a more efficient dishwasher, light bulb, or faucet may have a higher sticker price up front—especially as manufacturers adjust to new rules—cars, appliances, solar panels, and electronics can more than pay for themselves with lower operating costs over their lifetimes. And Trump’s agenda of suddenly rolling back efficiency rules has simultaneously made it harder for many industries to do business while raising costs for ordinary Americans.
No one knows this better than the US auto industry, which has whiplashed between competing environmental regulations for over a decade.
In July, the Environmental Protection Agency began undoing a foundational legal basis that lets the agency limit climate pollution from cars. Without it, the EPA has far less power to require automakers to manufacture cleaner vehicles, which hampers efforts to reduce one of the single biggest sources of carbon emissions.
Trump’s transportation secretary, Sean P. Duffy, said in a statement over the summer that these moves “will lower vehicle costs and ensure the American people can purchase the cars they want.”
But in reality, the shift may have the opposite effect. That’s because when the rules change every few years, automakers struggle to meet existing benchmarks and can’t plan ahead. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing companies like Ford, Toyota, and Volkswagen, sent a letter to the EPA in September saying that the administration’s moves and the repeal of incentives for electric cars mean that the current car pollution rules established under Biden and stretching out to 2027 “are simply not achievable.” The Trump administration responded by zeroing out any penalties for violations—but the industry is already planning for a post-Trump world where rules could drastically change yet again.
Because it takes years and billions of dollars to develop new cars that comply with stricter rules, carmakers would prefer if regulations stayed put one way or the other. Every rule change adds time and expense to the development lifecycle, which ultimately gets baked into a car’s price tag.
Changing rules are also vexing for electric car makers, whose models are gaining traction both in the US and around the world, even as the Trump administration has ended tax incentives for EVs. Trump is making things even more difficult by pulling support for domestic battery production that would help US car companies build electric cars.
It all adds up to a huge headache for the industry. “Particularly in the last six months, I think ‘chaos’ is a good word because they’re getting hit from every angle,” said David Cooke, senior associate director at the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University.
And all that uncertainty is making cars more expensive to buy and run, with even more expensive long-term consequences for people’s health and the environment.
How Trump’s Policies Are Costing Drivers More
As the government relaxes efficiency targets, progress will stall and car buyers will get stuck with cars that cost more to operate.
Energy Innovation, a think tank, found that repealing tailpipe standards could cost households an extra $310 billion by 2050, mainly through more spending on gasoline. Undoing the standards would also increase air pollution and shrink the job market for US electric vehicle manufacturing due to lower demand.
The EPA’s fuel mileage rating of a large SUV.
Photograph: D. Lentz/Getty Images/iStockphoto
Even the Trump administration’s own analysis of the effects of undoing the EPA’s greenhouse-gas emission regulations found that his moves would drive up gasoline prices due to more fuel consumption from less efficient vehicles.
“Repealing these standards in particular would set America back decades,” said Sara Baldwin, senior director for electrification at Energy Innovation.
On the call, SSA managers spoke about how difficult it was to keep employees motivated, especially when they knew that their work would have to ramp up after the shutdown concludes. “It’s hard to keep morale going with the way the staff is going and they also know that as soon as this shutdown is over, we’re going to hit ’em hard with [more work],” said one employee. “It’s very frustrating when we have to keep those staff motivated and we need ’em for the long haul, not just for this fiscal year.”
Employees also described the specific toll the shutdown was taking on Social Security beneficiaries. In one instance, recounted on the call, an office lost half their team. “Now my public is waiting two hours in [the] reception area, hour and hour and a half on phones,” said the same employee, who noted there used to be around a half hour wait time.
The SSA has been embroiled in chaos throughout president Donald Trump’s second term. WIRED reported in March that almost a dozen operatives from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency had been deployed to SSA, including big-name early operatives, including Luke Farritor, Marko Elez, and Akash Bobba.
According to a court filing from the SSA in federal court and accompanying sworn statements, a number of the DOGE operatives had access to a number of sensitive data sets, including Numident, which contains detailed information about anyone with a social security number. DOGE claimed they required this kind of access in order to detect “fraud.” However, many of DOGE’s claims about the agency were untrue and inaccurate, including the claim that 150-year-olds were collecting social security benefits.
In August, SSA’s chief data officer, Chuck Borges, submitted a whistleblower complaint that claimed DOGE had mishandled sensitive data and uploaded the confidential information of millions of Americans to an insecure server. When Borges sent an email to agency staff stating that he was involuntarily resigning, following his whistleblower complaint, the email mysteriously disappeared from inboxes, employees told WIRED at the time.
“I’m invested in this organization. I love what we do, but I feel like it’s not going in the right direction and we’re not really serving the public like we should or even our employees,” said one employee during Thursday’s management call. “We’re not trying to beat people up, it’s just that we are so invested.”
Tesla’s fading momentum may have less to do with its cars and more with its CEO’s politics. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
How did Tesla go from the world’s fastest-growing automaker to a company beleaguered by slowing sales and shrinking market share? According to a team of Yale researchers, the answer lies in the polarizing and partisan behavior of CEO Elon Musk.
Sure, Tesla has faced headwinds from aging models, rising competition, and a saturated customer base. But an analysis of county-level data shows that its declining demand is also linked to Musk’s increasingly political actions. The study’s authors estimate that Tesla would have sold between 1 million to 1.26 million more cars in recent years without what they call the “Musk partisan effect.”
During the most recent quarter, Tesla’s profit plunged 37 percent year-over-year. Revenue fell for two consecutive quarters this year. (The most recent quarter saw a rebound thanks to tax credits-fueled buying rush.)
The Yale researchers argue that much of Tesla’s decline stems from the alienation of its traditional consumer base. Drawing on vehicle registration data from S&P Global and county-level voting records, they found that Tesla’s customer base has long leaned Democratic and environmentally conscious.
That began to change in 2022, when Musk acquired X and rolled back content moderation policies. The shift deepened amid his involvement in the 2024 U.S. presidential election and his subsequent appointment as head of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). “Musk’s actions antagonized his most loyal customer base,” the authors wrote.
The trend has only grown more pronounced. Between October 2022 and April 2025, Musk’s partisan behavior caused Tesla to lose between 67 percent and 83 percent of its potential car sales, according to the study. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, that figure jumped to 150 percent.
Musk himself has acknowledged the backlash. During an April earnings call, he said his DOGE role had led to “blowback” and announced plans to scale back his time with the agency to refocus on Tesla.
The fallout hasn’t even benefited Tesla’s competitors. The study found that, absent Musk’s partisan behavior, sales of other EV and hybrid models would have been 17 to 22 percent lower over the past three years and 25 percent lower in early 2025, suggesting his actions helped rival automakers.
Musk’s controversies have also had unintended policy consequences, the researchers noted. In California, which aims for zero-emission vehicles to make up 25 percent of new sales by 2026, 68 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2035, progress has stalled. The study estimates that without Musk’s partisan impact, California would have added 139,700 more EV sales in the first quarter of 2025. The reality is that California fell short by 28,000 vehicles in that quarter to stay on track.
This study highlights just how impactful a CEO’s partisan actions can be,” the authors concluded.
Walter Russell Mead is the Ravenel B. Curry III Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship at Hudson Institute, the Global View Columnist at The Wall Street Journal and the Alexander Hamilton Professor of Strategy and Statecraft with the Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida.
He is also a member of Aspen Institute Italy and board member of Aspenia. Before joining Hudson, Mr. Mead was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations as the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy. He has authored numerous books, including the widely-recognized Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004). Mr. Mead’s most recent book is entitled The Arc of A Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People.
Doug McMillon says Walmart is relying on quick decision-making and consumer insight to stay ahead of tariff and inflation challenges. Jason Davis/Getty Images for Bentonville Film Festival
Costume lovers flooding Walmart’s aisles last month in preparation for Halloween had little idea how much calculation went into stocking this year’s superhero, witch, and zombie outfits. Amid the Trump administration’s fluctuating tariffs, Walmart’s seasonal planning, which begins months in advance, now includes projecting how levies might change before orders arrive, estimating potential price shifts and guessing how many units will sell, according to CEO Doug McMillon. All that comes on top of analyzing how inflation may affect consumer behavior.
“Families prioritize their children and their pets before they prioritize the parents, and a mom usually puts herself last,” McMillon said while speaking at the Harvard Business Review’s Future of Business event today (Nov. 3). “These trade-offs happen throughout the family.”
Walmart factored those dynamics into its Halloween strategy this year. “We were confident there would be trick or treating and children’s costumes would sell, but we might not sell as many adult costumes,” he said, adding that the company has “done a really good job of generally getting things right” amid the uncertainty caused by tariffs.
As America’s largest retailer, Walmart manufactures more than two-thirds of its products domestically. But it still depends on imports from countries such as China, Mexico, Canada and Vietnam, leaving it exposed to tariffs. Earlier this year, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company warned that the duties could force it to raise prices.
Price hikes are just one of several difficult choices Walmart executives face under tariff pressure. Other decisions include shifting production, changing countries of origin and managing inventory. Inventory management can be an especially delicate task, according to McMillon. “If you get over-inventoried, you end up with all these additional costs,” he said. “If you have too little goods, you end up missing sales opportunities.”
It’s not the first time Walmart has had to make quick decisions in response to an unprecedented event. The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, for instance, accelerated the company’s decision-making as executives worked to protect employees and customers while maintaining supply chains. Those efforts paid off: Walmart’s profits surged in 2020 as consumers stocked up on essentials, spent stimulus checks, and embraced the retailer’s online shopping and curbside pickup options.
McMillion credits Walmart’s pandemic-era success to the agility of its associates across stores, supply chains and warehouses. “What I experienced is just how good their judgment was and how fast they could make decisions,” he said. The same adaptability, he added, is proving essential again as Walmart navigates tariff-fueled uncertainty.
“The way they’ve managed through this whole, ever-changing complex situation, too, has been impressive—just like it was during the pandemic,” he said.
Carmen’s abusive husband came home drunk one night last summer. He pounded and kicked the door. He threatened to kill her as her young son watched in horror. She called police, eventually obtaining a restraining order. Months later he returned and beat her again. Police came again and he was eventually deported.
Thinking she finally escaped his cruelty, Carmen applied for what is known as a U-Visa. The visa provides crime victims a way to stay in the United States legally, but the Trump administration has routinely ignored pending applications.
During a regular immigration check-in in June, Carmen was detained. Two months later, she was put on a plane with her 8-year-old son, who just completed second grade. She was headed to her home country, terrified her husband would find her.
Lawyers for Carmen along with several immigrant victims of human trafficking, domestic violence and other crimes last month sued the Trump administration in the Central District of California for detaining and deporting survivors with pending visa applications, some of whom have been granted status to stay and sometimes work.
They argue that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement implemented a policy in the early days of the administration that upended decades-long standards aimed at protecting victims with pending applications for a class of visas known as survivor-based protections.
Congress created those visas to ensure immigrant victims would report crimes to law enforcement and be safe, but lawyers for the victims argue the administration has reneged on those promises.
“These laws have existed because they keep us all safe, and there is a process and legal rights that attach when you seek out those protections,” said Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, who is one of the lead attorneys on the case.
Carmen’s real name and certain details about her case weren’t included in the lawsuit because her lawyers say her life is still at risk.
But others were.
Immigration agents arrested Kenia Jackeline Merlos, a native of Honduras, during a family outing near the Canadian border. The Portland, Ore., mother of four U.S. citizen children had been given deferred status allowing her to reside in the U.S. after a man pulled a gun and threatened to kill her. Merlos has been in detention for about four months in Washington state. She was released late last month, weeks after a judge threw out her case.
Yessenia Ruano self-deported after immigration agents told her she would be removed, despite her pending T-Visa application for trafficking survivors. Ruano, a teacher’s aide in Wisconsin, fled El Salvador and had been trafficked in the United States. A mother of twins girls, she had been living in the U.S. for 14 years, fighting a removal order. Rather than have her children see her arrested and removed, she decided to leave.
Yessenia Ruano on her last day at the Milwaukee public school where she was a teacher’s aide. Ruano, who was a victim of human trafficking, self-deported along with her twin daughters in June.
(Yessenia Ruano)
Under the Trump administration, immigration agents no longer routinely check or consider a detained immigrant’s status as a crime victim before deporting or detaining them. The policy only makes an exception if it will interfere with law enforcement investigations.
The administration’s actions affect nearly half a million immigrants who are awaiting a decision on a pending application for survivor-based protections, the most common of which is the U-Visa. Because Congress capped the number of visas that can be issued annually at 10,000, it can take a person 20 years to have their application processed.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, defended the practice of deporting those stuck in limbo, saying every unauthorized immigrant ICE removes “has had due process and has a final order of removal — meaning they have no legal right to be in the country.”
The lawsuit argues the administration violated procedural rules in referencing the executive order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” as the main justification for the policy.
The invasion, it states, is “fictional” but the rhetoric has allowed Department of Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem and the immigration agencies to wage an “arbitrary, xenophobic and militarized mass deportation campaign that has terrorized immigrant communities and further victimized survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking and other serious crimes who Congress sought to protect.”
The lawsuit is one of several challenging the agencies’ practice as the administration focuses its enforcement campaign in Democratic-led cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland and Washington, D.C.
“They just detain and deport them,” said Rebecca Brown, with Public Counsel, one of the groups litigating the case. “It’s is a policy of arrest first, ask questions later.”
Kenia Jackeline Merlos is seen during a family trip in 2023.
(Kenia Jackeline Merlos)
In Carmen’s case, according to a sworn declaration filed in the lawsuit, she arrived in 2022 to the United States and sought asylum. A judge denied her case. She scraped together money and found an attorney to file an appeal. She later learned he didn’t correctly fill out the forms and the case was denied. In the meantime, she did regular check-ins with immigration officials as the abuse worsened.
“I was terrified of these appointments, but I never missed a single appointment,” she said in the declaration.
The night her husband tried to knock down the door, her son was hysterical. The restraining order helped for a while, but a few months later, he showed up again.
Law enforcement eventually placed an ankle monitor on her husband, but he came to her son’s soccer games, stalking them and watching from afar.
Carmen submitted the U-Visa in March and learned he had been deported that same month. Finally, she thought she would be free.
Months later, she was summoned to an immigration check-in. She arrived alone. Officials told her to return the next day for an appointment with ICE. When she did, an officer told her she was being detained and would be deported.
Was there someone who could care for her son, the officer asked.
“I didn’t have anyone,” she said in the statement.
A family member brought her boy to the facility and the two were transferred to a recently reopened family detention center in Texas. There, her son, distraught, slept all hours of the day.
“My son suffered so much,” she stated. “He would try to sleep in the morning so the day would go faster and he wouldn’t have to endure the many hours imprisoned.”
After a month at the facility, Carmen’s new attorney informed authorities of the pending application and asked for her release because her son suffered from medical issues, as did she. The request was denied, as were others to pause the removal.
At the end of July, she and her son were deported.
“I had nowhere to go,” she stated.
She emerged from the plane to her nightmare.
“I saw a man standing across from us and my heart sank,” she said. “It was my husband.”
“My husband told me it was such a coincidence that he was there when we arrived,” she said. “I knew he was lying. He had found that we were being deported and he was there to take us.
“I had no choice, I had nowhere else to go and there was no one speaking up for me.”
Now she says she is even more trapped than before.
He took her passports, so she can’t travel. She must ask permission just to leave the house, and if she is allowed to, give him constant updates while she is away. At night, he takes her phone and checks it, interrogating her about every call she made.
“I never know what will make him angry,” she said. “We live in constant fear.”
A government stalemate over SNAP threatens to unravel not only food access but also the nation’s public health and workforce stability. Unsplash+
The federal government shutdown has upended the lives of millions of Americans who rely on essential benefits disbursed by federal agencies. Principally among them is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which assists one in eight Americans who otherwise wouldn’t be able to put food on the table for themselves or their dependents. Now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has confirmed that due to the shutdown, the well has “run dry,”and no benefits will be issued starting Nov. 1. As a result of Washington’s failure to reach an agreement on fiscal priorities, millions of SNAP recipients who typically receive food dollars on the first of the month at the reset of EBT payments will be left without assistance. And even more Americans will pay the price.
The lowest 20 percent of earners will feel the blow most acutely, as the loss of benefits devastates their ability to access nutritionally sound and affordable food options. When food access disappears, so does nutritional stability, triggering ripple effects across health, education and local communities. As families’ resources for healthy meals diminish, and as some go without food entirely, these changes have the potential to exacerbate food insecurity and deteriorate overall public health outcomes. Without swift intervention, the disruption could spiral into a national health crisis.
Few Americans grasp the magnitude of SNAP’s reach or the economic engine it fuels. Over 40 million people, who are integral to our national and local economies, workforces, and communities, rely on SNAP. Every dollar spent in SNAP generates roughly twice that amount in local economic activity. When those dollars vanish, corner stores, grocers, farmers’ markets and food distributors all feel the squeeze. Those losses flow upstream into job cuts, supply chain disruptions and reduced consumer spending, an economic domino that affects Americans across income brackets.
The health consequences are just as serious. When households can’t access food, preventable illnesses and chronic conditions often worsen. The result is a surge in emergency room visits, mental health crises and avoidable hospitalizations. Many Americans living below the poverty line already struggle to stay engaged with their physician, pharmacy and other healthcare providers, and without food, will have even less of a reason to prioritize things like medication adherence, chronic condition management or other self-care behaviors. This will not only lead to worsened health outcomes, but could also threaten to overrun hospitals and force ER staff to turn down patients in need. That strain will reverberate through an already overburdened healthcare system, exacerbating workforce shortages and driving up costs for everyone.
Public health experts estimate that inequities tied to food insecurity already contribute billions in avoidable medical spending and productivity losses each year. If the shutdown persists, those numbers will balloon. In a volatile economy where every sector is struggling to preserve stability, the loss of a cornerstone program like SNAP threatens to erode both pubic health and national productivity.
These Inequities also contribute to a broader economic drag: poor health outcomes significantly contribute to healthcare spending and lost Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which accounts for approximately 20 percent of the total cost of healthcare. Not only will this cost our healthcare system billions of dollars, but the crisis carries a human toll, costing individuals their dignity and many communities’ financial stability, as local grocers, farmers and other small businesses face collateral damage.
Groceries await pickup at a Miami food bank days before potential SNAP benefit cuts, an image of the broader economic strain that follows when food aid falters. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Whether you claim SNAP benefits or not, you will be impacted
The pressure on low-income Americans is compounded by additional changes to SNAP and Medicaid set in motion by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), passed in July, well before the government shutdown even began. The legislation stipulates that able-bodied, childless adults between 18 and 64 must work, attend school or perform at least 80 hours of community service per month to receive Medicaid and SNAP benefits. Although many people meet these requirements through their equivalent activity, the new processes that are both lengthy and tedious will disqualify millions from receiving benefits, as they lack the resources to understand, navigate and ensure compliance. While intended to encourage workforce participation, the policy’s complexity and documentation requirements are creating new administrative barriers that disproportionately affect those without stable access to transportation, childcare or digital tools.
When the shutdown finally comes to an end, the OBBBA will keep millions in bureaucratic limbo, perpetuating problems for those seeking not only food-related benefits but healthcare more broadly, again impacting the most vulnerable Americans. This type of legislation, which threatens to strip impoverished groups of their access to food resources, stands in direct opposition to the stated goals of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which calls for policies that make nutritious, unprocessed foods more accessible.
With the shutdown and the onset of OBBBA, SNAP will be in flux for many, forcing those with limited resources to stretch their dollars on cheaper, more processed and less nutritious foods, exactly the opposite of what MAHA aims to achieve. This disconnect, along with the administration’s failure to address the root causes, further underscores its inability to recognize the broader impact that neglecting this population has on all its constituents.
When the government shuts down, we must show up
Ultimately, it’s up to healthcare professionals, business leaders and the private sector to mobilize and step in where the public sector is falling short. Partnerships between food producers, health systems and nonprofits can sustain emergency distribution programs, while employers and insurers can invest in nutrition-support initiatives that reduce downstream costs. Millions of people are being left behind by SNAP cuts, and their well-being depends on our collective response. Communities that have long relied on federal support are now at a breaking point. If we allow communities to fall through the cracks, the damage won’t be confined to any one ZIP code. It will manifest in slower growth, sicker populations and a weakened economy. To preserve the health, dignity, and stability of our society, we need bold, sustainable and financially viable solutions that close these gaps once and for all.
The recent spike in searches at the border has mostly been driven by an increase in the past six months. Between April and June, CBP searched 14,899 devices—which at the time marked a record high for any quarter of the year. However, the most recent figures show this increase has continued: Between July and September, there were 16,173 phones searched, the newly published CBP figures show.
Over the past decade, there has been an uptick in the number of phone and electronics searches taking place at the border—with the increases taking place throughout multiple political administrations. Statistics published by the CBP show there were 8,503 searches in 2015. Since 2018, the number of yearly searches has risen from around 30,000 to more than 55,000 this year. The new figures are the first time searches have surpassed 50,000.
CBP spokesperson Rhonda Lawson says that its most recent search numbers are “consistent with increases since 2021, and less than 0.01 percent” of travelers have devices searched. Lawson says searches can be conducted to “detect digital contraband, terrorism-related content, and information relevant to visitor admissibility.”
“It may be helpful for travelers to know when they weigh the decision of what device to bring with them when traveling into the United States that searches of electronic personal devices are not new, the policy and procedures for searches have not changed, and that the likelihood of a search has not increased and remains exceedingly rare,” Lawson says.
Of the 55,000 device searches that took place over the past 12 months, the vast majority of these (51,061) were basic searches, with a total of 4,363 advanced device searches—a 3 percent increase over the 2024 fiscal year.
Federal courts remain split on whether advanced phone searches require warrants. The answer can change with the airport. The Eleventh and Eighth Circuits allow suspicionless searches of phones, while the Fourth and Ninth require reasonable suspicion for advanced, forensic searches. Recent district-court decisions in New York go further, requiring probable cause.
Several incidents involving tourists, including a French scientist whose phone was reportedly searched to discover whether he had criticized Trump, have shown how easily the intensified screening can slip into international controversy. In June, a 21-year-old Norwegian tourist was reportedly denied entry at Newark Liberty International Airport because his phone contained a now-famous meme mocking Vice President JD Vance—a small act of humor allegedly treated as grounds for expulsion.
CBP disputes many of those accounts, but the impression abroad is clear: The US is becoming an increasingly harder—if not more hostile—place to visit.
