LIVE COVERAGE
A Petty, Vicious Wall Of Shame
The awful keeps spewing. The latest proof there is truly, repulsively no bottom: The most broken, powerful human being on the planet has added to his crappy, gaudy, reality-show "Presidential Walk of Fame" bronze plaques below the photos denoting a boorish, revisionist "history" of each president. Inevitably, he lobs the crudest insults at his direct predecessors - "divisive" Obama, "crooked" Biden - while praising his own supreme reign. America on the fucking, endless, childish ugly of it: "This is so exhausting."
As always, there are of course more substantive horrors underway. Pam Bondi has told the FBI to create a list of domestic terrorist groups - the non-existent Antifa and anyone else who espouses “radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism or anti-Christianity” - and establish a “cash reward system” to encourage them to snitch on each other. Because what climate change/it still snows doesn't it?, Trump is also dismantling Colorado's National Center for Atmospheric Research, home to the largest federal research lab on climate change and natural disasters.
In addition, because what science?, anti-vax crackpot RFK Jr's Health and Human Services (sic) Department has terminated seven multi-million-dollar grants to the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is now suing said crackpot for his COVID vaccine changes. The initiatives were aimed at reducing sudden infant death, improving adolescent health, preventing fetal alcohol syndrome, identifying autism early and other worthy goals; officials said they were cancelled because the group used "identity-based language," including "racial disparities" and "pregnant people." Really.
Finally, Pee Wee German Stephen Miller issued a fascist mission statement in support of our pointless, upcoming war against Venezulela, arguing the U.S. has long "operated as a 'reverse empire'" that enriched foreign nations and sacrificed our wealth and security while "all we got in return were migrants." "No more," he raves. "America's might will secure America's rights...For Americans, first and always." By which, many clarified, he means, "rich white people. Everyone else to the camps." Other comments: "Sounds like Chap. 15 in Mein Kampf," "Sounds better in the original German," and, "Miller is a grotesque, shrill, squirrel of a thing."
All of these efforts, lest we forget, have been undertaken to please a small, sick, empty shell of a man who Avatar director James Cameron calls "the most narcissistic asshole in history since fucking Nero." Now, in a particularly infuriating (for those of us who cherish facts) and petty move, he's now installed "a tantrum cast in bronze," a wall of grievance-oozing plaques added to the photos along his cheesy, race-to-the-bottom "Presidential Walk of Fame" outside the West Wing "as a tribute to past Presidents, good, bad and somewhere in the middle." And "as a student of history" (sic), Press Barbie hilariously brags, Trump himself authored "many of its eloquently written descriptions" - evidently what he's been doing when not golfing. One patriot: "Well done, dumbass."
They are, of course, crude, juvenile, self-serving garbage. Reagan's plaque boasts he was "a fan" of Trump. Bill Clinton's notes "his wife Hillary" lost to Trump. The plaque for "Barack Hussein Obama" acknowledges him as our first Black President before calling him "one of the most divisive political figures in American history." He allegedly "passed the highly ineffective Unaffordable Care Act," caused the spread of ISIS (no mention of W's contributions), weaponized federal bureaucracies against opponents, spied on Trump's 2016 campaign and created "the Russia Russia Russia hoax, the worst political scandal in American history." Sigh.
Biden, already trolled with the image of an autopen - the eloquent author is 12 - gets worse. "Sleepy Joe Biden was, by far, the worst President in American History." He "took office (in) the most corrupt Election ever seen" and "oversaw a series of unprecedented disasters that brought our nation to the brink of destruction" - pot/kettle - with high inflation, weaponized law enforcement, Green New Scam, "abolishing" the Southern Border, insane asylums, "Afghanistan Disaster." His "devastating weakness" made Russia invade Ukraine and Hamas attack Israel. He issued "blanket pardons to Radical Democrat thugs" and "the Biden crime family." Sigh redux.
But "despite it all" - trumpets please - the manchild king triumphed in a landslide to "SAVE AMERICA!" Now he's "delivered" on his promise to "usher in the Golden Age of America," and "THE BEST IS YET TO COME!" Some beg to differ. They suggest his plaque should read, "Pedophile, Narcissist, Rapist, and Convicted Felon." They marvel, "Damn, his dick really is that tiny." They exclaim, "This is insane," "What the actual fuck," "God I hate this man," "This is embarrassing," and, "I am at my wit's end." In all, notes Canadian pundit Dean Blundell, "The United States of America is going through some things right now."
More came In Wednesday night's "prime time unraveling." His racist, dementetd, drug-addled, "nothingburger" of a meltdown, in which "basically nothing he is saying is true," was brutally summarized as, "Old man yells at country," "WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?", his "Pettysburg Address," "a 19-minute nervous breakdown," his "Norma Desmond imitation," "what presidential panic looks like," "Stop talking about Epstein," "lie harder and louder," "the Worst Wing," "Nazis On Drugs,'" "authoritarian fantasy at its finest" - colossal invasion! drug prices down 600% in magic math! the first peace in the Middle East in 3,000 years!", "This wasn't confidence. This was agitation." From MAGA: "Why is he yelling at us?" "He's talking so fast he sounds panicked," "the most pointless presidential address (in) American history." From Newsom: 100 "Me Me Me Me Me's." From us: For God's and our sanity's sake, once and for all, fucking quiet Piggy.
'Good!' Declares AOC After Arizona City Council Rejects Data Center Pushed by Sinema
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among those celebrating after the Chandler, Arizona City Council on Thursday night unanimously rejected an artificial intelligence data center project promoted by former US Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.
"Good!" Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) simply said on social media Friday.
The defeat of the proposed $2.5 billion project comes as hundreds of advocacy groups and progressive leaders, including US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), are urging opponents of energy-sucking AI data centers across the United States to keep pressuring local, state, and federal leaders over climate, economic, environmental, and water concerns.
In Chandler, "the nearly 43,000-square-foot data center on the corner of Price and Dobson roads would have been the 11th data center in the Price Road Corridor, an area known for employers like Intel and Wells Fargo," the Arizona Republic reported.
The newspaper noted that around 300 people attended Thursday's meeting—many holding signs protesting the project—and city spokesperson Matthew Burdick said that the government received 256 comments opposing the data center.
Although Sinema skipped the debate on Thursday, the ex-senator—who frequently thwarted Democratic priorities on Capitol Hill and ultimately ditched the party before leaving office—previously attended a planning and zoning commission meeting in Chandler to push for the project. That stunt earned her the title of "cartoon villain."
Sinema critics again took aim at her after the 7-0 vote, saying that "she can't even be effective as a shill" and "Sinema went all in to lobby for a data center in Chandler, Arizona and the council told her to get rekt."
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball declared: "Kyrsten Sinema data center L. Love to see it."
Politico noted Friday that "several other Arizona cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have written zoning rules for data centers or placed new requirements on the facilities. Local officials in cities in Oregon, Missouri, Virginia, Arizona, and Indiana have also rejected planned data centers."
Janos Marton, chief advocacy officer at Dream.Org, said: "Another big win in Arizona, following Tucson's rejection of a data center. When communities are organized they can fight back and win. Don't accept data centers that hide their impacts behind NDAs, drive up energy prices, and bring pollution to local neighborhoods."
When Sinema lobbied for the Chandler data center in October, she cited President Donald Trump's push for such projects.
"The AI Action Plan, set out by the Trump administration, says very clearly that we must continue to proliferate AI and AI data centers throughout the country," she said at the time. "So federal preemption is coming. Chandler right now has the opportunity to determine how and when these new, innovative AI data centers will be built."
Trump on Thursday signed an executive order (EO) intended to block states from enforcing their own AI regulations.
"I understand the president has issued an EO. I think that is yet to play itself out," Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke reportedly said after the city vote. "Really, this is a land use question, not [about] policies related to data centers."
Surging Home Building Costs Caused by Trump Tariffs Could Result in 450,000 Fewer Homes by 2030
After campaigning last year on reducing the cost of living and as he attempts to claim progressive Democrats' push for affordability as his own, President Donald Trump's policies have been directly linked to making life more expensive for people across the US—and along with electricity, healthcare, and groceries, housing costs are set to rise, according to a new analysis out Tuesday, which examines the impact of Trump's tariffs.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) found that the impact on home construction materials by Trump's tariffs could force builders to scale back significantly over the next five years, reducing new home construction by 450,000 homes through 2030.
According to the analysis, the average cost of building a home in the coming years will increase by $17,500 if current home building rates continue.
"With the average home sales price having already risen by 31%—or over $120,000—since 2020, this tariff-induced change could put homeownership further out of reach for millions of Americans," said CAP.
Trump's tariffs are as high as 50% for some countries, and some of the highest levies have been imposed on key building materials, including lumber, copper, aluminum, and steel products. Imports of upholstered products and kitchen cabinets are set to face tariffs that could increase by up to 50%.
The tariffs were unveiled amid a growing housing affordability crisis, with the number of available homes falling short by 2 million units or more, according to some estimates.
Following the Great Recession, home construction has not returned to pre-2008 levels and the country requires "sustained, above-average construction rates to correct" the persistent underbuilding, according to CAP.
"Yet the Trump administration’s tariff policies are pushing home building in the opposite direction by raising construction costs, which will slow new construction activity, raise costs, and worsen housing affordability," reads the report by Cory Husak, Natalie Baker, and Mimla Wardak.
The analysis found that while Trump has insisted that the tariffs will target the countries that import goods to the US, but as with groceries—which have gone up in price by up to 40% at some stores—the levies on home building materials are projected to ultimately impact American families who are already struggling to afford healthcare and other essentials.
The tariffs are expected to add $27 billion to the annual cost of constructing new homes by 2027, effectively raising the cost of building a new home by about 3.3%.
🚨Hot off the presses 🚨 New tariffs are going to kill 450,000 homes over the next 5 yearsTariffs on lumber, steel, cabinets, vanities, copper add an average $17,500 to the cost of building a new home. Yearly home losses will soon total 100k per year-www.americanprogress.org/article/trum...
[image or embed]
— Corey Husak (@chusak.bsky.social) December 16, 2025 at 1:08 PM
From 2030 onward, the number of new homes being built is expected to be down by 100,000 yearly.
"This would be equivalent to eliminating 6 percent of the homes constructed in the five years from 2020 to 2024," said CAP.
If home building falls as CAP projects, the cost of construction will rise to $18,500 per home in 2028, CAP projected.
“Families are already struggling to afford a place to live, and the administration is adding fuel to the housing costs fire,” said Husak, director of tax policy at CAP. “These tariffs are a tax on builders and aspiring homeowners, raising construction costs, slowing the pace of new building, and pushing homeownership even further out of reach for millions of Americans.”
The group urged the federal government to act to stop the tariffs from continuously "driving up construction costs, slowing homebuilding, and worsening the nation’s already severe housing shortage."
"Building new housing supply is crucial to solving the housing shortage," said CAP, "and canceling tariffs on homebuilding materials is a necessary step to bring more housing online and improve housing affordability."
AOC Leads JD Vance For First Time in 2028 Election Matchup: Poll
As MAGA's popularity wanes, a new poll shows that progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is now slightly favored to win a hypothetical presidential election against Vice President JD Vance, a leading contender to be the heir apparent to President Donald Trump.
The survey of over 1,500 registered voters, published Tuesday by The Argument/Verasight, shows the Bronx congresswoman slightly edging out the vice president, 51% to 49%, within the margin of error.
While the 2028 presidential election is still nearly three years away, the poll suggests that Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist who some have dubbed too polarizing to represent the Democratic Party, may have more nationwide appeal than establishment politicians have claimed.
Neither Vance nor Ocasio-Cortez has formally declared their intent to run for the presidency. But as Trump's loyal vice president, Vance is considered by many to be his natural successor. However, the president has continued to vacillate on whether he’ll run for an unconstitutional third-term bid himself, and polls have consistently shown Vance to be even less popular than Trump.
Ocasio-Cortez, meanwhile, is one of the relatively few Democrats available to fill a wide-open progressive lane. While her credibility among some on the left was dinged substantially by her defenses of the unpopular former President Joe Biden last year, the core planks of her affordability-focused platform—especially Medicare for All—are more popular than ever in the age of Trumpian austerity. This is especially true among Democratic voters, who polls have shown increasingly view the party establishment as out of step with their priorities.
Following Trump's victory in 2024, which was propelled predominantly by fears about inflation under Biden, one of the most striking numbers was the 11% shift toward Trump in the Bronx from 2020.
But while Trump gained substantially, Ocasio-Cortez also cruised to her fourth term in Congress with about as much support as ever, leading many to marvel at the rise of the idiosyncratic “AOC-Trump” voter, who was evidently disillusioned with the economy under the Democratic incumbent but felt compelled by Ocasio-Cortez’s working-class background and “anti-establishment” status.
Tuesday’s poll shows that these sorts of voters are very capable of being won back by the right Democratic candidate: 8% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 said they’d vote for Ocasio-Cortez in a hypothetical showdown with Vance. And while Trump dominated in 2024 among those who did not vote in the previous election, the poll shows Ocasio-Cortez reversing the trend, with support from 52% of those who stayed home in 2024.
Adding to this, the congresswoman polled well with the voter demographics that Vice President Kamala Harris—another likely 2028 hopeful—struggled to mobilize.
Where Trump dominated with non-college-educated voters, 56% to 42%, Ocasio-Cortez is virtually tied with Vance. Among Hispanic voters, who went against the Democratic VP in historic numbers to give Trump nearly half of their support, Ocasio-Cortez is shown to lead by an overwhelming 64% to 36% margin.
And among voters aged 18-29, who favored Harris by just four points in 2024, Ocasio-Cortez comfortably leads Vance by 16.
Her support among young voters, one of the groups most disillusioned with the Democratic establishment, is especially striking. While Ocasio-Cortez lags somewhat behind Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom in early polls for the 2028 Democratic nomination across all age groups, a Yale youth poll released last week showed that she is by far the preferred candidate among voters ages 18-35.
Meanwhile, the issue that propelled Trump back to the White House—the economy—has become an albatross for the GOP, with a record-low 31% of all voters giving him positive marks, according to an Associated Press/NORC poll last week.
Axios reported in September that Ocasio-Cortez was still weighing her options for what path to pursue in 2028, seeking to heighten her national profile in advance of either a presidential run or a primary challenge to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who Democratic voters have increasingly scorned for what they perceive as routine capitulations to Trump.
Since Trump’s return to office, she has only continued to lean into her status as a progressive leader, joining Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on a nationwide campaign to “Fight Oligarchy,” which has drawn massive crowds in both red and blue states. Meanwhile, the unexpected rise of fellow democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to become New York’s next mayor has provided proof of concept that a working-class-focused, anti-corporate agenda can win elections.
"She has a very real shot in 2028," said CNN pollster Harry Enten back in September. "There's been a tectonic shift among Democratic voters since Bernie Sanders first ran. AOC's in a far better polling position than Sanders was before his first run, and the Democratic Party is also sick of its leadership."
EU Advances Deregulation Package Eroding 'Vital Climate and Human Rights Safeguards'
Climate and human rights advocates on Tuesday blasted European Union legislators for approving a deregulation package that Amnesty International's Eve Geddie said "undermines vital climate and human rights safeguards, betraying people and the planet at a time when protections are needed most."
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted 428-218 in favor of Omnibus I, which will weaken the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, with 17 abstentions. The package still needs final approval from the Council of the EU, after which governments will have until mid-2028 to transpose it into national law.
Under the new text, only EU companies that employ more than 1,000 people on average and have a net annual turnover above €450 million, or $529 million, will have to conduct social and environmental reporting, and only firms with over 5,000 employees and a net annual turnover exceeding €1.5 billion, or $1.76 billion, have to carry out due diligence.
The changes, finalized in negotiations between the European Parliament and member states last week, "are expected to exempt around 80% of companies originally expected to disclose against the rules," reported Responsible Investor.
Anticipating the vote, Sebastien Godinot, senior economist at WWF European Policy Office, said Monday that "under the guise of easing regulatory burdens, the EU engaged in a race to the bottom, rushing to undo necessary safeguards that were set in place to protect our nature and climate, as well as to secure future economic prosperity."
"Instead of focusing on the successful implementation of the laws, decision-makers shifted their focus to short-term political gains, ignoring the strong evidence showing that corporate climate targets are not only feasible, but make a lot of sense for companies," he continued. "After years of positioning itself as a sustainability leader, it is disappointing to see the EU stepping back and ignoring the science meant to guide decision-making."
Mariana Ferreira, who focuses on sustainable finance at the WWF office, noted that "this outcome reflects a troubling trend in the European Parliament, where the conservative bloc has increasingly aligned with far-right agendas, legitimizing polarizing demands and pushing aside science-based evidence and warnings."
After Tuesday's vote, Human Rights Watch senior corporate accountability advocate Hélène de Rengervé lamented: "All that is left of the EU's trailblazing corporate accountability law is a skeleton... The final text means corporate interests are being prioritized over the rights of workers, communities, and environmental protection."
Gaëlle Dusepulchre of the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights also argued that the vote "sets a serious precedent for EU policymaking by signaling a clear prioritization of corporate interests over the protection of people and the planet."
Geddie, director of Amnesty's European Institutions Office, pointed out that "this rollback is part of a bonfire of regulations and is the result of intense lobbying efforts by powerful industry actors and external pressure, including from the United States. Ignoring widespread criticism from civil society, economists, the [United Nations], and even the European Ombudsman, this rushed and opaque process also flies in the face of public opinion, which clearly shows the majority of Europeans favour human rights and environmental protection."
"Now, EU governments must strengthen key provisions when they incorporate these regulations in national law and use every available avenue to improve protections, ensure access to justice for victims, and urgently prevent further erosion of corporate accountability—especially since other deregulation packages are already in the pipeline," she stressed. "European states must not squander the opportunity to use these regulations to ensure businesses contribute to thriving communities—our future and the future of our planet rely on it."
European Coalition for Corporate Justice director Nele Meyer called the vote "a betrayal of people and communities suffering from corporate abuse around the world," and warned that it "puts member states at risk of breaching their obligation to protect human rights and prevent environmental and climate damage."
"It is deeply alarming to witness how foreign pressure shaped a file that should have been driven by evidence and by the needs of those facing the impacts on the ground," Meyer added. "While the protections have been weakened, the core due diligence duty remains. Now the law must be implemented in a way that delivers real protection for people and the planet."
'This is About Oil and Regime Change': GOP Lawmaker Speaks Out Against Push for War in Venezuela
A Republican congressman on Wednesday pushed back against President Donald Trump's push for war with Venezuela.
Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) demanded that Trump not take any military action against Venezuela without approval from the US Congress.
"The framers [of the US Constitution] understood a simple truth: To the extent that war-making powers devolves to one person, liberty dissolves," he said. "If the president believes that military action against Venezuela is justified and needed, he should make the case, and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America."
Massie then made clear that he wasn't simply making a procedural case against the president's actions, but a substantive case against going to war with Venezuela. In particular, the Kentucky congressman pointed to past US failures in regime-change wars such as Iraq and Libya to warn against making a similar case in South America.
"Previous presidents told us to go to war over WMDs that did not exist," he said, referring to weapons of mass destruction. "Now it's the same playbook. Except we're told that drugs are the WMDs. If it were about drugs, we'd bomb Mexico or China or Colombia."
Massie also argued that, if Trump were really concerned about the flow of illicit drugs into the US, he wouldn't have pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras who had been convicted in 2024 of conspiring to smuggle 400 tons of cocaine into the US.
"This is about oil and regime change," Massie said.
Massie: Previous presidents told us to go to war over WMDs that did not exist. Now it's the same playbook. Except we're told that drugs are the WMDs. If it were about drugs, we'd bomb Mexico or China or Colombia. And the president would not have pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez.… pic.twitter.com/5h296rYnPJ
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 17, 2025
Massie's points about the administration's rationale for war with Venezuela were echoed by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who also delivered a speech in the US House Wednesday denouncing the rush for military action.
"This is not about drugs, this is about regime change," she said. "And we also have the White House chief of staff [Susie Wiles] saying that this is about regime change. It has nothing to do with drugs."
Like Massie, Omar also emphasized the role for Congress set out by the US Constitution when it comes to declarations of war.
"Only Congress has the power to declare war," she said. "The Trump administration's military escalation in the Caribbean is not only reckless, it is blatantly illegal. We cannot allow this kind of dangerous overreach to go unchecked."
Trump's illegal military strikes in Venezuela aren't about drugs. They are about regime change.
But we must be clear - only Congress has the authority to declare war. Not the president.
We must pass our War Powers Resolution and re-establish Congress's power. pic.twitter.com/Z13i8Bu6KL
— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) December 17, 2025
Massie and Omar delivered their speeches during a debate over two resolutions aimed at limiting Trump's ability to wage war against Venezuela.
The first resolution demands Trump "remove United States armed forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere, unless authorized by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorization for use of military force."
The second resolution more explicitly "directs the president to remove the use of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force."
Trump and his administration in recent weeks have been acting with increasing aggression against Venezuela, starting with the bombing of purported drug trafficking boats off the country's coast, and escalating earlier this month to seizing an oil tanker that had docked at one of its ports.
On Tuesday night, Trump announced a “total and complete blockade” of all “sanctioned oil tankers” seeking to enter and leave the country.
“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before."
While talking with reporters on Wednesday, Trump upped the ante further and said that the US wanted to take Venezuela's oil supply.
"Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had—they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching," Trump said. "But they're not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
'Gross': Critics Recoil After Trump-Appointed Board Adds His Name to Kennedy Center
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," said journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late President John F. Kennedy.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday drew an outraged reaction after she announced that members of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts board, who were appointed by President Donald Trump, had voted to add his name to the building.
In a post on X, Leavitt announced that the building would henceforth be known as the "Trump-Kennedy Center," despite the fact that the building was originally named by the US Congress in the wake of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
"I have just been informed that the highly respected Board of the Kennedy Center... have just voted unanimously to rename the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center," Leavitt wrote on X, "because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building. Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation."
Despite Leavitt's claim, it does not appear that the vote in favor of renaming the building was unanimous. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex-officio Kennedy Center board member, said after the vote that she had been muted during a call where other board members had voted to add Trump's name to the building, and was thus "not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move."
Journalist Terry Moran noted that the Kennedy Center board does not have the power to rename the building without prior approval of US Congress.
"Congress establishes these institutions through law, and only a new law can rename them," Moran wrote, and then commented, "also—gross."
Members of the Kennedy family also expressed anger at the move to rename the center.
Former US Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) wrote on Bluesky that "the Kennedy Center is a living memorial to a fallen president and named for President Kennedy by federal law," and "can no sooner be renamed than can someone rename the Lincoln Memorial, no matter what anyone says."
Journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late president, could barely express her anger at the decision.
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," she wrote. "At times such as that, it’s better to be quiet. For how long, I can’t say."
Shortly afterward, Shriver wrote another post in which she attacked Trump for being "downright weird" with his obsession with having things named after himself.
"It is beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy," she said. "It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not. Next thing perhaps he will want to rename JFK Airport, rename the Lincoln Memorial, the Trump Lincoln Memorial. The Trump Jefferson Memorial. The Trump Smithsonian. The list goes on."
'Cruel and Unconstitutional': Trump, RFK Jr. Escalate War on Trans Youth With Threat Against US Hospitals
"These proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping healthcare decisions from the hands of families," said one critic.
President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday unveiled new policies aimed at cutting transgender minors off from gender-affirming care.
As reported by the New York Times, Kennedy announced new proposed rules that would bar Medicare and Medicaid from sending any funds to hospitals that carry out gender-affirming care on transgender minors, a move that would essentially force these facilities to shut down given that spending from those two programs account for nearly half of all spending on hospital care.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, warned during a news conference announcing the proposed rules that hospitals are "going to pay a very steep price" if they continue providing gender-affirming care to minors.
Many hospitals throughout the US are already under financial strain while bracing for the impact of the Medicaid cuts in this year's Republican-passed budget law, which are projected to total $1 trillion over the next decade.
Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), slammed Trump administration health officials for their "unprecedented actions and harmful rhetoric" while announcing the new proposed rules, which she described as a vast overreach by the federal government.
"These rules are a baseless intrusion into the patient-physician relationship," said Kressly. "Patients, their families, and their physician—not politicians or government officials—should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them. The government’s actions today make that task harder, if not impossible, for families of gender-diverse and transgender youth."
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, hammered the Trump administration for being "relentless in denying healthcare to this country, and especially the transgender community."
"Families deserve the freedom to go to the doctor and get the care that they need and to have agency over the health and well-being of their children," Robinson added. "But these proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping healthcare decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe."
The ACLU wasted no time in announcing that it would sue the administration if it goes forward with enacting the proposed rules, which it described as an unconstitutional attack on healthcare practices that have been endorsed by both the the American Medical Association and the AAP.
Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project, accused the administration of launching "cruel and unconstitutional attacks on the rights of transgender youth and their families."
"By attempting to strip away essential healthcare, the administration is not 'protecting' anyone," Strangio added. "It is weaponizing the federal government to target a vulnerable population for political gain. Healthcare decisions belong to families and their doctors, not politicians. The latest proposals from the administration would force doctors to choose between their ethical obligations to their patients and the threat of losing federal funding."
FTC Opens Investigation Into Instacart Pricing After 'Bombshell Report'
Groundwork Collaborative revealed this month that artificial intelligence-enabled pricing experiments used by the shopping app have charged users up to 23% more than others for the same products.
The executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, the advocacy group behind a "bombshell report" that exposed Instacart's artificial intelligence-powered pricing schemes, welcomed the news that the federal government US opening an investigation into the business practice, and urged the Federal Trade Commission to follow the probe with concrete consumer protection actions.
The FTC told Gizmodo that "like so many Americans, we are disturbed by what we have read in the press about Instacart’s alleged pricing practices.”
Groundwork joined Consumer Reports and More Perfect Union in examining Instacart's practice, using the AI pricing software Eversight, of quoting different prices to different shoppers using the company's app, which allows people to order groceries and send a shopper to pick them up.
Some customers at a Safeway in Seattle were charged a price that was 23% higher than other shoppers for Skippy peanut butter, Oscar Mayer turkey, and Wheat Thins crackers. In Washington, DC, customers using the Insacart app saw eggs priced at $3.99, while others who logged on at the exact same time were charged $4.79 for the same brand at the same store.
Instacart has the ability to change prices based on data such as ZIP code or income, though the groups did not find it is currently using that information in its pricing experiments.
Groundwork noted that the scheme is taking place as American families are already struggling to afford groceries, electricity, healthcare, and other essentials.
“At a time when families are being squeezed by the highest grocery costs in a generation, Instacart chose to run AI experiments that are quietly driving prices higher," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork. "While the FTC’s investigation is welcome news, it must be followed with meaningful action that ends these exploitative pricing schemes and protects consumers. Instacart must face consequences for their algorithmic price gouging, not just a slap on the wrist.”
In its report, the group called on the FTC to take action under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition," or to bring enforcement cases or initiate rulemaking to officially classify AI-enabled pricing strategies as "unfair and deceptive" strategies.
The progressive think tank Roosevelt Institute applauded Groundwork and its partners for the "major investigation" that pushed the FTC to act.
Instacart's shares dropped by about 7% following the news of the FTC probe.
On Thursday, the agency announced that Instacart would pay $60 million in refunds to settle separate allegations that it falsely advertised "free delivery" while charging a service fee, falsely advertised a "100% satisfaction guarantee" that suggested it would offer full refunds, and failed to disclose terms regarding Instacart+ membership.