Nancy Pelosi now says she privately urged Joe Biden to take and publicize a cognitive test during his troubled 2024 reelection bid, a revelation that raises fresh questions about how long top Democrats knew the president's fitness was a liability and how little they did about it publicly.
The former House speaker sat down with Politico's Jonathan Martin in San Francisco on Tuesday and offered her most detailed account yet of the private conversations she had with Biden as his campaign faltered. Pelosi told Martin she went to Biden with blunt concerns about his polling numbers and the way his operation was being run, and that she specifically raised the idea of a public cognitive evaluation.
Her account, reported by the Washington Examiner, paints a picture of a party elder who saw the warning signs early but chose to work the problem behind closed doors rather than sound the alarm where voters could hear it.
Pelosi framed her intervention as a matter of campaign strategy, not a direct challenge to Biden's mental acuity. She described raising the then-82-year-old president's weak polling and questioning the quality of his campaign operation.
In her words to Martin:
"I only said to President Biden, 'I've come to question the polling that you have, and how your campaign is being conducted. I think there has to be a better campaign to win the White House.'"
But she went further than campaign mechanics. Pelosi said she told Biden directly that the public wanted reassurance about his ability to serve a full second term.
"I did say this, 'I think the public would like to hear that you've had a testing that demonstrates you can serve the next term.' That's all I said."
Biden, Pelosi recounted, brushed the suggestion aside. He told her, in her paraphrase, that his job tested his cognitive ability every day. The Examiner did not report Biden's exact words, only Pelosi's summary of them.
The statistic Pelosi cited to Biden was stark: 72 percent of Americans, she said, did not believe he should run or could serve another term. Pelosi told Martin she did not think Biden was even aware of that number at the time.
"At that point... 72% of the American people didn't think he should run or could serve a term. I don't think he knew that."
That claim, that the sitting president of the United States was unaware nearly three-quarters of the country doubted his fitness, is itself a damning admission, whether Pelosi intended it that way or not. If Biden's own allies believed he was that disconnected from public sentiment, the question becomes why they let the situation drag on as long as it did.
Pelosi's account fits a pattern that Democratic post-mortems have since confirmed: the party's leadership class handled Biden's decline as an internal management problem rather than a matter of public accountability. Pelosi spoke to Biden privately. She raised polling privately. She recommended cognitive testing privately. None of it reached voters until the situation had already spiraled past the point of easy repair.
The Washington Examiner described Pelosi as an "outgoing lawmaker," though the article did not specify whether she has formally announced retirement from Congress. What is clear is that she is now willing to discuss these conversations in a way she was not during the campaign itself.
Pelosi was asked whether she regretted not speaking up sooner, but her direct answer on that point was not clearly recorded in the interview as reported. The omission is notable. A straightforward "no" would have been easy to deliver. A straightforward "yes" would have made headlines of its own.
With the 2024 chapter closed, Pelosi turned her attention forward. Martin pressed her on her top picks for the 2028 Democratic presidential field, and Pelosi offered praise for two names: California Gov. Gavin Newsom and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
On Newsom, whom Pelosi has long treated as political family, she stopped short of an outright endorsement but left little doubt about her opinion of his abilities.
"When he decides to run, we'll find out what that will be. I think he's extraordinarily talented. One thing I do know about him that many people may not: he's very hardworking."
Her comments on Ocasio-Cortez were more striking given the widely reported tensions between the two over the years. Pelosi praised the younger congresswoman in personal terms that would have been difficult to imagine a few cycles ago.
"I think that she has been so operational and just wonderful. No, it's a joy to work with her, and I think most members think that."
The interview did not detail what specific policy disagreements or generational friction had existed between the two, and Pelosi offered no caveats. Whether that warmth reflects a genuine shift or a calculated effort to position herself as a unifying elder is an open question.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris was also mentioned as a potential 2028 contender. Martin asked Pelosi how the party would handle the possibility of both Newsom and Harris launching campaigns, but Pelosi did not offer a clear public endorsement of Harris in the exchange as reported. The fact that Pelosi volunteered detailed praise for Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez while offering no comparable remarks about Harris speaks for itself.
Sen. Ted Cruz has argued that Democrats are ceding their party's future to figures like Ocasio-Cortez, and Pelosi's comments will do nothing to quiet that concern on the right. If the party's most seasoned operator is publicly blessing both Newsom and AOC, the 2028 primary is shaping up as a contest between California progressivism and New York progressivism, not exactly a pivot toward the center.
The most important element of Pelosi's interview is not what she said to Biden. It is what she did not say to the public. She told Martin she raised the 72-percent number with the president. She told him she recommended a cognitive test. She described Biden as apparently unaware of the scale of voter doubt about his fitness.
All of that happened behind closed doors while Democratic surrogates were still assuring the country that Biden was sharp, engaged, and ready for a second term. Pelosi's willingness to discuss it now, after the election is lost and Biden is out of office, is a confession dressed up as reflection.
The broader dynamic, party leaders managing a crisis of presidential competence through whisper campaigns and private interventions rather than honest public disclosure, is exactly the kind of institutional failure that erodes voter trust. The House Democratic caucus followed Pelosi's lead for years. If her lead was to handle the biggest question of the 2024 cycle in private, the results speak for themselves.
Voters deserved to know what Pelosi knew, when she knew it. They got a carefully timed interview in San Francisco instead, months after it mattered.
President Trump signed an executive order Monday directing the CDC to recommend childhood vaccines for just 11 diseases, down from 18 in 2024, a sweeping policy shift the White House calls a victory for parental choice and scientific rigor.
The order, signed in the Oval Office with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya at his side, establishes what the administration has branded "Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations." Under the new framework, vaccines for hepatitis, COVID-19, and influenza will no longer be recommended for all children but will remain available for parents who choose them. The combined measles-mumps-rubella shot, the MMR vaccine, will be broken into three separate vaccinations given at three separate doctor's visits.
Trump framed the move as overdue common sense, telling reporters the United States recommends more childhood vaccines than any peer nation. A scientific assessment cited by the White House found that U.S. children receive more than twice as many vaccine doses as children in some European countries, and that most of those nations maintain high vaccination rates through public trust and education rather than government mandates.
The president did not claim vaccines cause autism. But he drew a direct line between the size of the vaccine schedule and the need for better answers on rising autism diagnoses. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office:
"While we do not know what the cause is with respect to autism, it is essential to our research efforts that we have the very best vaccine recommendations in the entire world."
He added that the administration intends to drive autism diagnoses back down. "We're going to bring it back much closer to where it was," Trump said.
On the MMR vaccine specifically, Trump argued that separating the three shots could eliminate risk without sacrificing effectiveness:
"Together there could be a possibility that they are quite lethal, and separately, it looks like they are not at all lethal, just very effective."
Trump called Monday's signing a "major victory for parents' rights, religious and constitutional rights, and for the gold standard in science." He credited Kennedy, Bhattacharya, Dr. Heidi Overton, a deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy, and Jayme Franklin, a political commentator and founder of the Conservateur whom Trump described as a "MAHA mom."
The administration's broader push to restructure federal health agencies has already drawn sharp lines in Washington. Kennedy earlier removed top leaders from a key federal preventive health panel, signaling that Monday's vaccine order is part of a larger overhaul, not an isolated move.
The executive order directs the CDC to adopt the new 11-disease schedule. It also orders the HHS secretary to present plans to the president "to improve vaccine research and options for American parents, including continuous evaluation of the risk and benefit profiles of all childhood vaccines based on U.S. and international data."
States are not compelled to follow. A White House fact sheet says states that set school vaccine requirements "are advised to consider the Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations and consider updating their laws to reflect the recommendations." The language is advisory, not mandatory, a distinction that will matter as blue-state attorneys general and school boards decide whether to comply.
Federal agencies, by contrast, face a clearer directive. The fact sheet states that "all Federal agencies are advised to advance the Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations based on their relevant authorities to ensure Americans have the best scientific information."
The order does not ban any vaccine. Every shot currently on the CDC schedule remains available. What changes is the government's blanket recommendation, and with it, the political and institutional pressure that has long made the CDC schedule function as a de facto mandate in schools, daycares, and pediatric offices across the country.
Internal policy disagreements within the administration on health matters have surfaced before. RFK Jr.'s chief HHS spokesperson resigned over a separate dispute involving flavored vapes, a reminder that the "Make America Healthy Again" coalition is not monolithic.
When Breitbart News reporter Nick Gilbertson asked Trump why establishment media outlets seem resistant to even raising questions about vaccines, the president pointed to institutional interests without naming specific companies or outlets.
"It's amazing. It could be the medical groups, the pharmaceutical groups, I don't know. But it is amazing. There's nothing that we lose with this."
Trump pressed the point further, arguing the order carries no downside risk and enormous potential upside:
"The worst thing that would happen would be nothing happens. We're not going to lose anything. At the same time, we could gain tremendously."
He went further still, saying the policy shift "could save hundreds of thousands of lives, millions of lives." That claim, offered without a specific study or projection, reflects the president's conviction that the current vaccine schedule carries risks the medical establishment has refused to investigate honestly.
Trump also referenced a Massachusetts court that he said had delayed the process, though he did not name the case or explain what legal challenge was involved. "I wish we could have done that a long time ago," he said. "I believed in this for a long time, so now we're getting it done, and I think you're going to see tremendous, potentially tremendous results."
The administration's willingness to challenge longstanding health policy assumptions has drawn scrutiny from multiple directions. Anonymous social media critics recently tried to raise health questions about Trump himself after a G7 press conference, a reminder that opponents are eager to turn health debates back against the president.
Monday's order arrives in a political environment where vaccine mandates, and resistance to them, remain live issues across the federal government. The Pentagon recently reversed a flu vaccine policy for military recruits after an outbreak sickened hundreds at a Texas training base, illustrating how quickly vaccine decisions can produce real-world consequences in large institutions.
The White House fact sheet makes clear the administration sees this not as an anti-vaccine measure but as a pro-accountability one. The order calls for ongoing evaluation of every childhood vaccine's risk-benefit profile using both domestic and international data, a process that, if conducted transparently, would represent a genuine departure from the CDC's historical posture of defending its schedule as settled science beyond serious review.
Whether states follow the federal lead remains an open question. Red states with existing vaccine-choice laws may move quickly to align with the new recommendations. Blue states with strict school-entry mandates are unlikely to voluntarily scale back requirements, setting up a patchwork that could produce years of legal and political conflict.
For millions of parents who spent the COVID-19 era watching public health officials shift positions, suppress dissent, and dismiss legitimate concerns, Monday's order is the first time a president has told them their questions deserve answers instead of lectures. Whether the science ultimately validates every piece of this order matters less, politically, than the fact that the question is finally being asked at the highest level, by an administration willing to take the heat for asking it.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly ruled out a Trump administration proposal for gradually disarming Hamas and pulling Israeli troops from Gaza, a rejection that puts two close allies on a collision course over the territory's future.
Netanyahu delivered the rebuke at a Sunday cabinet meeting, telling his ministers in no uncertain terms that Israel would not accept the 15-point framework drafted by Trump's Board of Peace. A readout from the prime minister's office, first reported by UPI, carried his blunt declaration: "I want to be clear here, Israel is ruling out the 15-point plan."
The plan, created last month by the Board of Peace, a Trump administration body whose full membership and formal charter remain unclear, called for the gradual disarmament of Gaza and a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territory. Israel's military currently occupies more than half of Gaza, and Netanyahu made clear that presence is not going anywhere soon.
The prime minister's language left no room for diplomatic ambiguity. He stated that Israel "will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is genuinely disarmed and will continue to thwart threats against our forces and our citizens." Fox News reported that Netanyahu went further, insisting on "genuine disarmament, not fictitious disarmament", a phrase that signals deep skepticism about any framework relying on Hamas's voluntary compliance.
Netanyahu acknowledged that discussions with Washington are ongoing, but framed them on his terms:
"We are now discussing this with the Americans. They have ideas, some of which are acceptable to us and some are not, and we know how to stand up to those things."
That is not the language of a leader preparing to compromise. It is the language of a leader telling his domestic audience, and Washington, that Israeli security requirements come first.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a key figure in Netanyahu's coalition, reinforced the message. He lauded the prime minister's comments and declared that "the [Israeli military] cannot retreat one millimeter in the Gaza Strip." Smotrich and other far-right coalition allies have pushed to expand Israeli control in Gaza, and Netanyahu's rejection of the plan aligns squarely with their position.
The rejection did not come without warning. Israel's government had already communicated serious security concerns about the 15-point plan directly to the White House, Just The News reported. Among the chief objections: the plan would allow an interim Gaza government authority over personal weapons like rifles, a provision Israel views as a critical security gap.
Doron Spielman, a spokesman for Netanyahu, laid out the stakes in stark terms:
"Our assessment is that if we redeploy before Hamas is truly disarmed, it will quickly expand its presence throughout Gaza, rebuild its terrorist infrastructure, once again threaten Israeli communities, and seek to carry out another Oct. 7-style attack."
That argument carries weight because of what happened the last time the international community assumed Hamas could be contained. The October 7 massacre demonstrated that half-measures and diplomatic optimism are no substitute for verified, on-the-ground disarmament. Netanyahu is betting that the memory of that day gives him the stronger hand in any negotiation with Washington.
The broader Middle East picture adds context. The Trump administration has been navigating a series of high-stakes confrontations in the region, including halting planned strikes on Iran while demanding concessions on the Hormuz Strait and Iran's nuclear program. Gaza is one piece of a volatile chessboard, and Netanyahu's refusal to cooperate on this plan complicates Washington's ability to present a unified strategy.
Hamas, for its part, responded with its own conditions. The group stated that handing over heavy weapons was contingent on Israel ending "all forms of aggression" and withdrawing from Gaza first, a demand that mirrors every failed negotiation of the past two decades. Each side insists the other disarm or withdraw before it will move.
Bassem Naim, a member of Hamas's politburo, posted on X that the group expects "the mediators and the American guarantor to pressure Netanyahu and his government to adhere to the roadmap and not obstruct the process for internal political and electoral reasons."
That last phrase, "internal political and electoral reasons", is not accidental. Netanyahu and his coalition face a re-election vote in late October. His domestic political survival depends on maintaining the support of coalition partners like Smotrich, who would likely bolt if the prime minister agreed to a withdrawal plan they view as capitulation. Netanyahu's rejection of the 15-point plan serves both his stated security concerns and his political needs simultaneously.
Whether that dual motive undermines or strengthens his position depends on whom you ask. His critics will call it electioneering. His supporters will say a leader who keeps his country safe and wins elections is doing his job.
Israel has continued to strike targets in Gaza since the cease-fire last October, a fact that underscores how fragile any pause in hostilities has been. The 15-point plan was an attempt to move beyond that fragile status quo toward something more durable. Netanyahu's answer is that durability requires verified disarmament, and that Israel, not the Board of Peace, will decide when that standard has been met.
Perhaps the most telling line from the cabinet readout was Netanyahu's direct acknowledgment that Israel may have to push back against the United States. He told his ministers:
"Contrary to all those who preach to us, we do what must be done for Israel's security and we can and will stand our ground even against our best friends when necessary."
The phrase "even against our best friends" is diplomatic shorthand for the United States. Netanyahu is not breaking the alliance. He is asserting that the alliance does not require automatic agreement on every proposal, particularly one that Israel's security establishment believes could invite a repeat of the worst terrorist attack in the country's history.
Trump had previously announced what he described as a breakthrough, claiming Hamas agreed to lay down its weapons. Netanyahu's rejection now contradicts that framing, creating a gap between Washington's public optimism and Jerusalem's operational reality. The administration has faced similar friction on other fronts, including pressure from Republican hawks to escalate the Iran campaign and congressional battles over war powers.
Netanyahu also reiterated his longstanding opposition to Palestinian statehood, stating flatly: "As long as I am prime minister, no Palestinian state will be established, not in Gaza and not in the West Bank." That position puts him at odds not only with the 15-point plan's implied trajectory but with decades of international diplomatic consensus. He does not appear troubled by the disagreement.
The open questions remain significant. What specific elements of the 15-point plan does Netanyahu consider acceptable? What does "genuine disarmament" look like in practice, who verifies it, and by what standard? And can the Trump administration's Board of Peace produce a revised framework that satisfies Israeli security demands without collapsing the broader negotiation?
None of those questions have public answers yet. What does have a clear answer is Netanyahu's bottom line: Israel will not leave Gaza until it is satisfied that Hamas cannot strike again. Washington can propose. Jerusalem will decide.
When your closest ally tells you no, the smart move is to listen, especially when the last time the world assumed Hamas was contained, the result was a massacre.
President Trump announced he will immediately appeal to the Supreme Court after a divided federal appeals panel ruled that his White House ballroom project cannot proceed without congressional authorization, a decision he called a national security threat.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 on Friday that the construction of a proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the White House grounds requires approval from Congress before it can move forward. The two-judge majority, Judge Patricia A. Millett, appointed by President Obama, and Judge Bradley N. Garcia, appointed by President Biden, stayed their own ruling for 14 days to give the administration time to seek Supreme Court review. Trump posted on Truth Social Friday afternoon that the appeal would come without delay.
The case, filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States against the National Park Service, carries case number 1:25-cv-04316, meaning the lawsuit dates back to 2025. Trump argued the plaintiff has no standing to bring the challenge in the first place, and he questioned why the case was not raised before construction began.
The majority opinion did not hold back about the scope of executive authority. The D.C. Circuit's majority wrote that "the Constitution assigns Congress, not the Executive, the responsibility to decide whether proposed changes to the physical design of the White House may proceed."
Millett and Garcia went further, noting the historical stakes. Fox News reported the majority opinion stated:
"We are aware of no instance in American history in which a President unilaterally and using privately collected funds demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for. Until now."
That framing, casting the project as demolition of taxpayer-funded property rather than a security upgrade, sits at the center of the legal dispute. The court treated the ballroom as a matter of congressional prerogative, not executive discretion.
But the panel was not unanimous. Judge Neomi Rao dissented, calling the majority's approach a misuse of judicial authority. Newsmax reported Rao wrote that the ruling was "a blatant abuse of discretion." The identity of the appointing president for Rao was not stated in the available reporting, but her dissent signals that the legal question is far from settled, and that at least one member of the panel saw the majority as overstepping.
This is not the first time the Trump administration has taken a fight to the nation's highest court. The administration has brought battles over voting policy and other contested issues before the justices, and the current Court has shown a willingness to side with broad readings of executive power in several recent cases.
Trump's Truth Social response made clear he views the ruling as far more than a construction dispute. He described the ballroom as one piece of a much larger, integrated national security complex, and he listed the components in detail:
"The single, integrated project includes Bomb Shelters, State of the Art Hospital and Medical Facilities, Protective Partitioning, Top Secret Military Facilities, Structures and Equipment, Protective Missile Resistant Steel, Columns, Roofs, and Beams, Drone Proof Ceilings and Roofs, Military Grade Venting, and Bullet, Ballistic, and Blast Proof Glass. It is all tied together as one big, expensive, and very complex unit, which is vital for National Security and Military Operations of the United States of America!"
Trump also stated that the military and Secret Service view the ruling as a direct national security threat, given the security features woven into the project. That claim, attributed by Trump to those agencies, has not been independently confirmed by public statements from either the Pentagon or the Secret Service in the available reporting.
The president added that the court "refused to acknowledge that the desperately needed, and totally secure Ballroom, which is being built ahead of schedule and under budget, is a Gift from President Trump and Great Patriots of the United States of America." He said the entire complex is "largely built, fabricated, and paid for," with much of the material already on-site or in transit.
The Supreme Court has recently handed Trump significant wins on executive authority. Earlier this year, the justices overturned a century-old precedent to give the president broad power to fire agency heads, a ruling that reinforced the idea that the executive branch controls its own house.
One detail from the AP's reporting sharpens the political context considerably. Congress previously refused a $1 billion request for the ballroom project. Democrats warned that as much as $350 million in tax cut funds may have been redirected toward the construction. The AP also pegged the project's cost at $400 million.
That history matters. If Congress explicitly declined to fund the project, the administration's decision to proceed using private donations raises a constitutional question the courts are now forced to answer: Can a president build on federal property with private money after Congress said no?
Trump's position is that the project costs taxpayers nothing. He wrote on Truth Social: "There will be no expense to the American Taxpayer. This unjust decision must be overturned by the Supreme Court in its entirety." The majority opinion, however, treated the question as one of authorization, not funding, drawing a line between who pays and who decides.
The D.C. Circuit's decision now sets the stage for a confrontation at the Supreme Court that could define the boundaries of presidential authority over the White House grounds themselves.
The 14-day stay gives the Department of Justice a narrow window to file its appeal. Trump said the DOJ will move immediately. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the stay could be extended while the justices deliberate. If the Court declines, the construction halt takes effect, potentially stranding a project Trump says is already largely complete.
Trump pressed the timing question hard. "The entire Complex, Military and all, is largely built, fabricated, and paid for. Much is already on site, or being delivered," he wrote. "Why didn't they bring this case long prior to construction starting?" It is a fair point. The case number suggests the lawsuit was filed in 2025, but the available reporting does not specify how far along construction was at that point or why the legal challenge arrived when it did.
The Trump DOJ has not been shy about taking fights to the highest court. The administration recently brought the E. Jean Carroll defamation case before the justices, and it has pursued aggressive legal strategies across multiple fronts.
Several open questions remain. The third judge on the panel, beyond Millett and Garcia, has not been publicly identified in the reporting, nor has that judge's vote been clarified. The specific legal statute or constitutional provision the majority relied on to require congressional approval has not been quoted directly. And neither the military nor the Secret Service has publicly confirmed or denied Trump's claim that they view the ruling as a national security threat.
Two judges appointed by Democratic presidents told a sitting Republican president he cannot build on the grounds of his own residence without permission from a Congress that already refused to fund the project. One dissenting judge called the decision an abuse of discretion. Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the White House belongs to the president who lives in it, or to the Congress that holds the purse strings. That question deserves an answer. So does this one: why a preservation group, not Congress itself, gets to make the call.
President Donald Trump publicly broke with his own handpicked federal prosecutor over her decision to drop vandalism charges tied to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, but stopped short of firing her.
In a phone interview with NBC News on Thursday, Trump called U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's move to dismiss a felony case against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn a "terrible mistake," even as Pirro's own court filing blamed the damage on a contractor's botched installation rather than deliberate sabotage. The split is rare: Pirro spent years as one of Trump's most vocal defenders on Fox News before he appointed her as Washington's top federal prosecutor.
Trump left no ambiguity about his displeasure. But when NBC pressed him on whether Pirro would lose her job, he drew a line. "I think she made a terrible decision," Trump told NBC News. "That doesn't mean change." He added: "So, she made a terrible mistake. I don't understand why she did such a s***** thing."
The tension centers on what actually happened to the 2,030-foot Reflecting Pool after the administration poured money into refurbishing it. Trump had initially said the project could be done for $1.5 million in time for White House-backed Fourth of July celebrations. Federal spending records show the administration ultimately spent nearly $14.7 million, all directed to a single Virginia firm, Atlantic Industrial Coatings LLC.
The pool was repainted in a dark blue shade and outfitted with what officials described as "advanced nanobubbler technology" to fight algae blooms. But algae returned shortly after the work was finished, and the new sealant began peeling off in chunks that floated to the surface.
When Hearn, a former U.S. Olympian, was charged in connection with touching part of the liner that had already detached from the pool bottom, Pirro's office initially accused him of having "woefully destroyed property" in a "deliberate act," claiming he had "forcefully and violently" pulled the lining. He faced up to ten years in prison.
Then Pirro reversed course. In a motion filed in D.C. Superior Court, her office stated that the damage to the liner "was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism." The filing went further:
"Given all of this newly discovered information, it is difficult to attribute the widespread damage to the Reflecting Pool to vandalism, let alone to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt."
Pirro also accused the Department of the Interior of providing her office with "less than fulsome information" about the case, a pointed allegation that another arm of the federal government had left prosecutors working with incomplete facts. Trump has broad authority over agency leadership, which makes the Interior Department's role in withholding information from his own prosecutor all the more striking.
The scope of the information gap became clearer through additional reporting. The Department of the Interior initially told Pirro's office that "nearly all of the damage to the Reflecting Pool was due to vandalism," the New York Post reported. Only after the indictment was already filed did Interior reveal the details about the contractor's flawed work.
Atlantic Industrial Coatings received a no-bid contract worth more than $14 million to coat the pool's 68,000-square-foot bottom. Documents obtained by Pirro's office showed the lining began peeling just two days after installation on June 9, the result of overspraying and a rushed timeline to finish before Independence Day.
That timeline matters. If the liner was already failing within 48 hours of application, well before Hearn ever touched it, the prosecution's original theory that he deliberately destroyed the pool collapses on its own terms. Pirro's filing acknowledged as much.
Trump, however, has not accepted that conclusion. He posted on Truth Social that he "disagrees 100%" with Pirro's decision, Fox News reported. "I don't know what she was thinking?" he wrote. In the NBC interview, he insisted: "She said there was no vandalism. There was tremendous vandalism."
Hearn's legal team has asked the court to dismiss the charges with prejudice, a legal term meaning the government could never refile the case. Their argument rests on the president's own words. Even after Pirro's filing attributed the damage to contractor error, Trump continued to publicly call the incident vandalism and promote the pool renovation as "bigger than skyscrapers."
Hearn's attorneys, Norm Eisen, Mary Dohrmann, and Steve Levin, issued a statement calling the prosecution an abuse of government power. "The Trump administration's case against Davey Hearn should never have been brought," they said. "Its dismissal today does not erase the abuse of government power in arresting and charging a patriotic American who did nothing wrong."
A D.C. Superior Court judge, Todd Edelman, dismissed the felony charge but deferred on whether the case could be brought again with new evidence, Just the News reported. That deferral leaves Hearn in legal limbo, free for now, but without the finality his attorneys sought.
Hearn himself described the ordeal in stark terms. "This whole thing has been really surreal and absurd," he told CNN. "It's a relief, but there's a detachment to that relief of extreme concern for other people and for our country."
Rather than accepting the dismissal, Trump escalated. He called on Pirro via Truth Social to reopen the prosecutions, pointing to new photographic evidence from a freelance photographer named Andrew Leyden. Trump claimed the photos showed cuts in the pool material spanning more than 300 feet. The president's handling of federal appointments has drawn scrutiny before, from unconventional personnel picks to sharp disagreements with his own officials.
"The material was cut right where the video tape showed, for 300 feet or more. People were on their knees with their hands in the water at the exact location of the slashes."
Trump described Pirro's dismissal of charges as a "hastily made decision" and called on her to revisit the matter, the Washington Examiner reported. Pirro's office also dropped misdemeanor charges against three other individuals in the same case.
Whether Pirro will comply with the president's public demand remains unclear. The confrontation reportedly extended beyond social media: Pirro was involved in a confrontation in the Oval Office last week, though the full details and participants have not been publicly confirmed. In other instances where Trump has clashed with appointees, the results have been swift and decisive.
The broader picture is unflattering for the agencies involved. A project Trump said could be done for $1.5 million ballooned to nearly ten times that amount. The sole contractor received a no-bid deal. The new coating failed almost immediately. Algae came back. And an American Olympian faced a decade in prison over damage that the government's own prosecutor now says was caused by sloppy workmanship.
The Department of the Interior fed prosecutors information that turned out to be incomplete at best and misleading at worst. That failure put Pirro in an untenable position: she built a case on facts that weren't facts, then had to walk it back in open court. Trump's frustration with the outcome is understandable. His refusal to accept the documented explanation is harder to square with the record his own appointee put before the court.
The episode also raises questions about accountability elsewhere in the executive branch. If Interior officials gave Pirro's office bad information, who authorized that, and what consequences have followed? The administration has shown no hesitation in removing officials from other agencies. So far, the Interior Department's role in this debacle has drawn no visible consequence.
When a $14.7 million government project falls apart within days, and the only person who faced prison time was the citizen who noticed, the system has a problem that no amount of nanobubbler technology can fix.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn secured the Republican nomination for Tennessee governor on Thursday, defeating two challengers in a primary that now sets up a general election she is widely favored to win.
Both the Associated Press and Decision Desk called the race for Blackburn, who ran on a promise to make Tennessee "the most conservative state in the country." She defeated Rep. John Rose and state Rep. Monty Fritts to claim the nomination. Blackburn will face Memphis attorney Jerri Green, the Democratic nominee, in the general election.
The win caps a political career that has spanned more than two decades in Washington. Blackburn first won a seat in the U.S. House in 2002, then made history in 2018 as the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from Tennessee. Voters returned her to that Senate seat in 2024. Now she is trading Capitol Hill for a shot at the governor's mansion in Nashville.
Her campaign leaned hard into the idea that states, not Washington, should drive policy. In a December interview on Breitbart News Daily, Blackburn framed the governor's office as the right place to act on that vision.
"President Trump is sending power and authority back to the states every single day. Whether it is regulations or benefits or health care, education, energy, employment, I think this is going to be a great time to reshape how our states work."
That framing, that the current moment gives conservative governors a rare opening to restructure state government, became the centerpiece of her pitch to Republican voters. She campaigned on continuing Tennessee's economic growth, keeping taxes and prices low, cutting unnecessary spending, and rolling back regulations.
The numbers behind that pitch are real. Tennessee has added more than 400,000 residents since 2020 and consistently rates as one of the top states in the country for businesses. Blackburn positioned herself as the candidate best equipped to keep that trajectory going, and primary voters agreed.
Her record in Washington gave her cultural-issue credentials as well. She has been outspoken about protecting women's sports and fought against the Biden administration's Title IX rules. Earlier this year, she introduced a bill aimed at closing Title IX loopholes and banning federal grants from going to abortion organizations, a move that reinforced her standing with social conservatives heading into the primary.
Neither of Blackburn's Republican opponents mounted a serious threat. Rep. John Rose, a sitting member of Congress, and state Rep. Monty Fritts both failed to overcome Blackburn's name recognition, fundraising advantage, and polling lead. She maintained a steady lead throughout the race, and the result confirmed what surveys had suggested for months.
The primary outcome mirrors a broader pattern across Republican contests this cycle, where candidates with strong conservative records and clear alignment with the Trump administration's agenda have consolidated support. In Arizona, Mark Lamb won his GOP primary on a similar law-and-order, Trump-aligned platform.
Blackburn's dominance in the field also echoes the kind of decisive primary results that have defined competitive races this year. In Georgia, the administration has been active in shaping the field, with Trump backing Rep. Mike Collins in a Senate runoff to sharpen the Republican challenge there.
If Blackburn wins the general election, her move to the governor's mansion would leave a U.S. Senate seat vacant. Under Tennessee law, the governor would appoint a successor to serve until the 2028 general election, when voters would fill the remainder of the term.
That appointment power adds a second layer of stakes to the November contest. A Governor Blackburn would not only run one of the fastest-growing states in the South, she would also hand-pick the next person to represent Tennessee in the Senate, at least temporarily. For a party that values every seat in the upper chamber, the appointment is no small matter.
The general election matchup itself appears lopsided on paper. Jerri Green, the Democratic nominee and a Memphis attorney, faces a steep climb in a state that has trended decisively Republican. Tennessee has not elected a Democratic governor since Phil Bredesen won re-election in 2006, and the state's political landscape has only shifted further right since then.
Blackburn's historic candidacy also carries symbolic weight. She already broke ground as the first woman to represent Tennessee in the U.S. Senate. A gubernatorial victory would make her one of the most prominent female Republican executives in the country. In South Carolina, a GOP councilwoman recently clinched a Republican nomination for an open House seat, part of a cycle that has seen women winning competitive primaries across both parties.
Green's path to an upset would require a dramatic shift in a state where Republicans dominate every level of government. Tennessee's population boom, those 400,000-plus new residents since 2020, has been driven in large part by families and businesses relocating from higher-tax, higher-regulation blue states. That migration pattern tends to reinforce, not weaken, the state's conservative tilt.
Blackburn's campaign platform reads like a direct appeal to exactly those voters: low taxes, light regulation, fiscal discipline, and a governor's office that will use every tool the federal government sends back to the states. In Texas, the administration has similarly engaged in shaping the political landscape, with Trump endorsing a Republican challenger in a race designed to flip a Democratic-held seat.
The broader Republican primary season has produced its share of surprises and upsets. On the Democratic side, insurgent campaigns have rattled establishment figures, a DSA-backed challenger ousted a sitting congressman in Michigan, exposing fractures within the progressive coalition. But in Tennessee, the Republican primary delivered exactly the result the party's base wanted: a proven conservative with a two-decade record and a clear governing vision.
Blackburn spent 24 years in Washington building a conservative record. Now she wants to prove that the real work happens closer to home, and Tennessee voters just gave her the chance.
North Carolina Republican Chuck Edwards abandoned his bid for a third term days after the House Ethics Committee recommended he be censured for what it called persistent inappropriate behavior toward two young women on his staff, a move that hands Democrats an opening in a district they haven't won since 2010.
Edwards posted a brief statement on X early Wednesday, saying he made the decision "after much prayer and reflection." He offered no direct reference to the ethics findings that preceded his exit by roughly 48 hours. CBS News reported that the committee found "substantial reason to believe" the congressman violated House rules related to sexual harassment and hostile work environments.
The Ethics Committee's report described Edwards's conduct as "persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers." It stopped short of finding explicit sexual propositions or sexual activity, but the panel concluded his behavior "would lead a reasonable observer to interpret it as such," AP News reported.
Both women eventually left Edwards's office because of his conduct. And the committee said Edwards never acknowledged or took responsibility for the harm he caused.
The specifics paint a picture that goes well beyond an awkward boss. Breitbart reported that Edwards showered the two aides with jewelry totaling more than $1,000, designer purses, guns, shoes, flowers, a laptop, and a cell phone. He also paid for vacations and arranged one-on-one dinners with the staffers.
Other details in the committee's findings included Edwards writing poems to one staffer, hiring a singer to perform at a staffer's birthday party, and making comments about a staffer bringing a date to an event, according to Just The News. The committee also noted discussions involving strip clubs.
The Ethics Committee summarized the dynamic bluntly in its report:
"Both women were uncomfortable with his behavior (which they attempted to communicate) but were put in an untenable position by virtue of his status as their boss and a Member of Congress."
That finding, two junior staffers trapped between a congressman's unwanted attention and the power imbalance that made pushing back risky, is the core of the case. The committee determined that Edwards violated "the spirit of rules prohibiting sexual harassment of and unwanted advances to House staffers."
Edwards's campaign pushed back hard on the framing. Spokesman Paul Shumaker issued a statement insisting the findings "completely exonerate Representative Edwards under the House rules governing sexual misconduct or harassment."
The campaign emphasized three conclusions from the report: that Edwards "neither engaged in sexual activity with nor explicitly propositioned any individual staff member," that the allegations "do not implicate quid pro quo sexual harassment," and that he "did not violate federal sexual harassment law." Shumaker added that Edwards "looks forward to having his name cleared."
That framing requires a selective reading. The committee did not find quid pro quo harassment, but it did find a pattern of conduct serious enough to warrant censure, the most severe formal rebuke short of expulsion. Edwards's own campaign acknowledged the report's existence while characterizing its conclusions as favorable, a tension the congressman never publicly reconciled before dropping out.
Congressional misconduct scandals have become a recurring feature of this Congress. Former Reps. Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales both resigned months earlier after facing their own sexual misconduct accusations. Separately, Rep. Jimmy Gomez has faced scrutiny over personal conduct involving a former Swalwell aide.
Edwards's exit did not satisfy everyone in his own party. House GOP Women's Caucus Chairwoman Kat Cammack pushed for the full House to proceed with the censure vote regardless of his decision to leave the race.
Cammack was direct:
"A resignation announcement does not erase misconduct or absolve a Member of accountability. No one should be permitted to run out the clock and avoid the consequences of their actions."
She added: "The Ethics Committee recommended censure, and the House should follow through." If the full House votes to censure Edwards, he would be required to stand in the chamber while the resolution is read aloud, a public rebuke he would endure even as a lame duck.
North Carolina Republican Sen. Ted Budd offered a more conciliatory take, telling reporters simply, "He did the right thing by withdrawing from the race."
Edwards first won the seat in 2022 by ousting then-Rep. Madison Cawthorn, who had become a liability for the party. The western North Carolina district, which includes Asheville, has not sent a Democrat to Congress since 2010.
That streak may now be in jeopardy. Democrat Jamie Ager won his party's primary in March and is already on the ballot. The Washington Examiner reported that polling from both parties shows Edwards and Ager running neck and neck, and the Cook Political Report has shifted its rating of the district from "favorable to Republicans" to more competitive territory.
North Carolina law does allow the state GOP to replace Edwards as the nominee, but the process grows far more complicated once ballots begin printing. Mail-in ballots are scheduled to go out September 4, putting the party on a tight clock.
For a Republican House majority that can barely afford to lose a single seat, the timing could hardly be worse. Edwards's withdrawal adds another layer of uncertainty to an already razor-thin margin. The broader pattern of members departing under ethics clouds has tested leadership's ability to hold the caucus together.
Edwards is not the only Republican lawmaker facing an ethics reckoning this week. On Tuesday, the House Ethics Committee announced it would investigate Rep. Max Miller over allegations of domestic abuse and possible drug use. Miller denied the abuse allegations and said he had a prescription for the drugs in question.
Unlike Edwards, Miller said Tuesday he intends to stay in his reelection race. The contrast is notable: Edwards faced a censure recommendation and stepped aside; Miller faces an investigation and has drawn pressure from fellow Republicans to resign but so far refuses to budge.
Whether the House follows through on censuring Edwards, and how it handles the Miller case, will say a great deal about whether the institution takes its own accountability mechanisms seriously or treats them as optional when politically inconvenient.
Edwards said serving western North Carolina was "the honor of my life." The two young women who left his office because they were uncomfortable with his behavior might describe the experience differently.
Accountability in Congress shouldn't depend on whether a member decides to run again. If the conduct warrants censure, the House owes it to the staffers, and to the voters, to follow through.
Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton was rushed to a Miami hospital after deputies responded to multiple emergency calls reporting apparent self-harm on a TikTok livestream, and he now faces an involuntary psychiatric hold under Florida law.
Miami-Dade County Sheriff's Office deputies arrived at a home south of Miami described as Hilton's mother's residence after fans flooded 911 lines with reports that the gossip columnist, born Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., was broadcasting disturbing behavior on TikTok. Clips from the stream appeared to show Hilton covered in blood while holding a knife. The Daily Mail reported that deputies spoke with family members at the scene and confirmed Hilton was alone inside the home.
What followed was a hours-long standoff that ended without force, but raised hard questions about what happens when a mental health crisis plays out in real time on a platform accessible to millions, including children.
Rather than force entry, deputies made the decision to "tactically disengage" while continuing to monitor the situation. The Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office explained the reasoning in a statement to the Daily Mail.
"In many incidents involving a person experiencing a mental health crisis or actively harming themselves, deputies prioritize de-escalation by creating time, distance, and opportunities for communication."
The sheriff's office added that unless an immediate threat to others exists, slowing the situation and using crisis intervention techniques "can reduce the likelihood of a suicide-by-cop encounter and minimize the risk of injury to the individual, deputies, and the public." The Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office Crisis Response Unit and licensed mental health professionals remained on scene, providing support and resources to Hilton's family members.
Hours later, authorities announced that Hilton had been "safely recovered and transported by Miami-Dade Fire Rescue to a local hospital, where he is receiving medical attention." The specific hospital was not identified.
Fox News reported that Hilton was placed under Florida's Baker Act, the state law that allows an involuntary psychiatric hold of up to 72 hours when a person is deemed a danger to themselves or others. A source close to the situation told the outlet that Hilton had "superficial cuts all over the body" but was alive.
The livestream was eventually taken down by TikTok, and Hilton's account on the platform was suspended. But unnamed users on X criticized the platform for allowing the broadcast to continue for what they estimated was roughly 30 minutes, a figure that came from social media users, not from any official source.
One X user wrote that TikTok "should be held liable in some way" for letting the feed run as long as it did. Another said the platform "allowed for many people, including children to come across a live where a man was going through a mental health crisis." The duration and viewership figures remain unverified by any named source or official body.
The incident is a reminder of the gap between what social media platforms promise in terms of content moderation and what they deliver in real time. TikTok acted, but only after the damage was done and the emergency calls had already flooded in. In an era when anonymous social media critics can shape public narratives about anyone's health or mental state within minutes, the platform's delayed response stands out.
Hilton's talent representatives, Dante Rusciolelli and Rebekah Kochan, co-CEOs of Golden Artists Entertainment, issued a statement to TMZ acknowledging the situation but admitting they had been unable to make contact with their client.
"We are aware of the concerning content circulating online involving our client, Perez Hilton. At this time, we have not been able to make direct contact with him, despite our ongoing efforts to reach him. Our primary concern is Perez's health and well-being, as well as the well-being of his family."
They asked that Hilton's privacy be respected and said they would not speculate further until they had confirmed information. Breitbart reported that the TikTok video showed Hilton with visible cuts on his arms and torso, holding what appeared to be a knife, consistent with the clips described in other accounts.
Hilton's current medical condition remains unclear beyond the Fox News source's description of superficial cuts. No official update from the hospital or from Hilton's family has been reported.
Several people who know Hilton publicly reacted. Singer and Las Vegas Morning Blend host Jessica Rosado posted on Instagram that she was "at a loss for words."
"I know the move to Miami hasn't been an easy one, but never could I ever have imagined something as dark and deeply disturbing as this. He is clearly in distress, and as someone who is also in media, I'm not rushing to discuss things I don't have all the facts on."
Trisha Paytas wrote on social media: "The Perez Hilton video is so upsetting. I hope he's OK. I hope his children are OK. Crashing out on the internet, whether it's fake or real, is a cry for help."
Former politician George Santos wrote on X: "Please pray for Perez Hilton folks. He needs the power of prayer and the strength of our Lord and Savior." The range of public reactions, from media figures to politicians, reflected the breadth of concern the livestream generated.
Tuesday's incident came after a turbulent stretch for the 47-year-old celebrity blogger. Earlier this year, Hilton revealed he had spent 21 days in Southern Hills Hospital and Medical Center in Las Vegas battling sepsis, undergoing two surgeries during the stay. The fight was serious enough that Hilton described it in spiritual terms.
In April, he wrote on social media: "like I should be scared right now, but I'm not. I definitely am worried, though. God show me the way!" In a separate post, he referred to himself in the third person, writing that "Perez Hilton is GOING THROUGH IT right now" and asking for prayers and "for Christ to intervene, sooner rather than later." The tone of those posts, read now in light of Tuesday's events, suggests a man who had been struggling for months. While political leaders push forward on legislative priorities, personal crises like Hilton's unfold largely out of public view until they erupt on camera.
In a Daily Mail interview during his recovery from sepsis, Hilton described a religious experience. "It was God presenting Himself to me, and then doing something that I could only describe as a miracle to heal me," he said. "I was still unwell, and then God did something."
He also reflected on his career, one that spanned 22 years and made him one of the internet's first celebrity gossip powerhouses. Hilton acknowledged the cost of that fame.
"I made a lot of mistakes in the past which are very public. Which I own. Which I regret, which I have deep shame for, which I've apologized for repeatedly, publicly as well as privately."
He compared his earlier pursuit of attention to addiction: "It's like if you're a drug addict, and you're stealing from your parents' money to buy drugs. You know what you're doing is wrong, and you don't care. You just want that hit." He said finding God allowed him to forgive himself for decisions he described as "awful." Hilton is a father to three children, born via surrogacy, a son born in 2013 and two daughters born in 2015 and 2017. Their whereabouts during Tuesday's incident were not reported.
Several unanswered questions hang over the episode. TikTok suspended Hilton's account after the fact, but the platform has not publicly addressed how the livestream continued long enough for viewers to call police in large numbers. The company's content moderation systems, which claim to detect harmful content in real time, failed to intervene before ordinary users did.
That failure fits a pattern. Social media companies promise robust safety measures and then rely on users to do the actual policing when something goes wrong. In this case, it was fans, not algorithms, who recognized the danger and picked up the phone.
Whether Hilton's injuries were serious or superficial, whether his children were present, and what specifically drove the crisis all remain unanswered. His representatives have not issued a follow-up statement.
When a man's worst moment plays out live for the world to watch, and the platform hosting it does nothing until the police show up, the system has not worked. It has simply waited for someone else to act first.
Chatham County commissioners have terminated their agreement with Vietnamese electric vehicle maker VinFast, ending a billion-dollar deal that former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper once hailed as a landmark for North Carolina's clean energy future.
The county board voted at its scheduled monthly meeting on July 27 to pull the plug, citing VinFast's failure to meet performance obligations and project deadlines. The decision caps a slow-motion collapse that began almost as soon as the ink dried on the original 2022 agreement, and leaves North Carolina taxpayers asking what happened to the $1.2 billion the state committed to lure the project.
Cooper announced the VinFast deal with fanfare in 2022, pledging $1.2 billion in taxpayer money to bring the Vietnamese-based manufacturer to a site in Chatham County, about 35 miles west of Raleigh. A company slide deck promised the facility would be the "largest economic development project in North Carolina history" and produce 7,500 full-time jobs. VinFast held a groundbreaking ceremony at the site in 2023. But work fell consistently behind schedule, and by 2024, the company said it was delaying the project altogether, blaming a market slowdown.
At the time of the announcement, Cooper framed the project as proof that his climate agenda was delivering results. He had issued executive orders directing what he called "bold action on climate change and the transition to a clean energy economy," and the VinFast factory was supposed to be the crown jewel.
"North Carolina is quickly becoming the center of our country's emerging, clean energy economy. VinFast's transformative project will bring many good jobs to our state, along with a healthier environment as more electric vehicles take to the road to help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
That was Cooper in 2022. Three years later, no factory stands, no 7,500 jobs materialized, and the county that was supposed to benefit has walked away from the agreement entirely.
Cooper is now running for a U.S. Senate seat against Republican nominee Michael Whatley. The VinFast debacle hands his opponent a ready-made argument: that Cooper's green energy bets were built on promises from an unproven company, backed by enormous sums of public money, and delivered nothing. Democratic Senate candidates have flooded 2026 races with cash, but money alone cannot erase a record like this one.
The state did not simply accept the collapse. In May, North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson, himself a Democrat, filed a lawsuit against VinFast on behalf of the state commerce department. Jackson was blunt about the company's track record.
"VinFast agreed to build a factory and create jobs for North Carolinians, it didn't do either."
Jackson's statement cut straight to the problem. The company took the deal, held a ceremony, and then stopped delivering. The current status of the lawsuit, whether it is ongoing, settled, or resolved, remains unclear from available details. So does the question of whether any of the $1.2 billion in committed taxpayer funds can be recovered, and what specific form that commitment took, grants, tax incentives, infrastructure spending, or some combination.
Those are not small questions. North Carolina residents who were promised an economic engine in Chatham County deserve clear answers about where their money went and whether any of it is coming back.
VinFast was not exactly a household name when Cooper staked more than a billion dollars on its success. The Vietnamese manufacturer had drawn poor reviews for the vehicles it did manage to sell in the United States. And the broader electric vehicle market, buoyed by Biden administration tax credits enacted through the Inflation Reduction Act, has not performed the way its political champions predicted. Consumer demand softened, and VinFast itself cited a market slowdown as its reason for shelving the North Carolina project in 2024.
The pattern is familiar. Politicians announce a splashy green energy project, commit massive public subsidies, hold a press conference, and then quietly move on when the venture stalls. Taxpayers are left holding the bill. Democrats have shown a pattern of dodging tough questions when their policy bets go sideways, and the VinFast collapse fits that mold precisely.
The VinFast deal was not Cooper's only green energy gamble to fall apart. The former governor also advanced offshore wind energy projects in the Outer Banks. In 2023, military leaders flagged concerns that large turbines could interfere with pilot training operations in the area. Earlier this year, Duke Energy scrapped the Outer Banks offshore wind project entirely.
Two signature clean energy initiatives. Both gone. Cooper built a political brand around climate action and clean energy transition, but the tangible results in North Carolina tell a different story, one of missed deadlines, broken promises, and abandoned projects.
The broader Democratic approach to energy policy has leaned heavily on subsidies and mandates to reshape markets that consumers and companies have not always been willing to follow. Democrats have been quick to criticize courts and opponents when their preferred policies face resistance, but slower to account for the failures those policies produce on the ground.
The people most directly affected by this collapse are not in the governor's mansion or the state legislature. They live in Chatham County. They were told a massive factory was coming, one that would bring thousands of jobs and transform their local economy. Instead, they got a groundbreaking ceremony, years of delays, and a county commission vote to terminate a deal that never delivered.
What work, if any, was actually completed at the Chatham County site before the agreement was terminated is not clear. Whether the state intends to acquire the undeveloped property remains an open question. The gap between what Cooper promised in 2022 and what Chatham County residents have in front of them today is enormous, and no amount of climate rhetoric fills it.
When politicians gamble billions of taxpayer dollars on unproven companies and untested markets, the politicians move on to their next campaign. The taxpayers stay behind and live with the result.
A 67-year-old Long Island father spent five days in the hospital and waited five years for a diagnosis after contracting a rare tick-borne virus that has no treatment, no vaccine, and no commercial test.
Michael Larkin was doing yard work at his home in Suffolk County in 2021 when two lone star ticks bit him. He removed them quickly. Days later, a fever and a crushing headache knocked him flat. He went to a local clinic, told the staff about the bites, and they tested him for Lyme disease. The test came back negative. Nobody mentioned Bourbon virus, a pathogen so rare that health authorities believe it strikes roughly one American per year.
Larkin's condition kept deteriorating. Rash, night sweats, and a headache he described as excruciating followed. Doctors prescribed antibiotics for Lyme disease anyway, but nothing worked. Larkin told CBS News:
"Three or four hours later, I would hit rock bottom and can't get off the couch. I demanded my wife take me to the hospital because that's how bad it was. I couldn't stand it anymore."
He spent five days hospitalized. When he was released, he still had no confirmed diagnosis. It would take until April 2026, roughly five years after the tick bites, before researchers at Stony Brook University's Tick-borne Disease Clinic finally identified what had made him so sick: Bourbon virus, the first confirmed case in New York State.
Dr. Luis Marcos, director of the Tick-borne Disease Clinic at Stony Brook University, led a study that enrolled 107 patients who showed up between 2019 and 2024 with fevers and symptoms consistent with tick-borne illness. Researchers drew blood from each patient and sent samples to the New York State Department of Health for analysis. Larkin's blood was checked every three months.
The breakthrough came when his antibody levels spiked. As the Daily Mail reported, Dr. Marcos confirmed that over a single month, Larkin's antibody titers increased eight-fold, the clearest marker researchers had.
"This one case certainly was the Bourbon virus, and over a one-month period antibody titers increased eight-fold," Dr. Marcos said.
The findings were published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. The study's authors called for "expanded viral surveillance, clinical testing and assay development to improve clinical decision-making and inform tick-borne disease epidemiology and vector management."
That language is clinical. The reality behind it is blunt: no commercial diagnostic test for Bourbon virus exists anywhere in the country. Samples in New York must be routed through the state health department. Most physicians have never encountered a case and would not think to order the test even if they could.
Bourbon virus was first identified in 2014 in Bourbon County, Kansas, where health authorities believe a patient died from the infection. A second fatality is believed to have occurred in 2026. Before Larkin's case, every known instance had been detected in the Midwest, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Only a handful of cases have ever been formally identified.
The New York Post noted that two of the very few confirmed Bourbon virus cases ended in death, a fatality rate that, even on a tiny sample, should focus attention on the diagnostic gap. There is no vaccine to prevent infection, no targeted treatment once a patient is infected, and no quick way for an emergency room physician to confirm what a sick patient is carrying.
Dr. Marcos warned that the problem is almost certainly larger than the case count suggests. Lone star ticks, the species that carries Bourbon virus, are abundant across New York and the broader Northeast. Dense human populations live in close proximity to tick habitat. And because Bourbon virus symptoms mimic other tick-borne infections, misdiagnosis is the path of least resistance.
"There are a lot of lone star ticks in New York and in the Northeast. We have dense populations, and when someone is infected with Bourbon virus symptoms they are similar to other tick-borne infections," Dr. Marcos said.
His conclusion was direct: "For these reasons, the Bourbon virus is likely more prevalent than we think in our region and other cases are likely not being diagnosed."
What stands out in Larkin's case is the gap between the severity of the disease and the tools available to fight it. A virus that has killed patients and hospitalized a healthy 67-year-old for five days still lacks a commercial diagnostic test more than a decade after it was first identified. Physicians cannot order a standard lab panel. They must know enough to suspect Bourbon virus, collect the right samples, and route them to a state health department, a process that, in Larkin's case, took years to produce a result.
Fox News reported that researchers warn many cases are going undiagnosed due to the lack of testing and limited physician awareness. Dr. Marcos framed the stakes plainly: "Without identifying the cause of an infection, the chances of developing accurate diagnostic tests or effective treatments are minimal. That is why it is so important to first understand the true impact of the virus in high-risk areas."
Serious illnesses that lack treatments or cures remain a persistent concern for American families. The challenge of confronting a diagnosis with limited medical options, as seen in Carly Simon's recent Parkinson's diagnosis, resonates with anyone who has watched a loved one face a condition that medicine cannot yet solve.
Larkin survived. He now treats his outdoor clothing with permethrin, an insect-repellent chemical, before stepping into his yard. It is a practical, low-tech precaution, the kind an individual adopts when institutions have not caught up.
The timeline tells the story more clearly than any press release. In 2014, Bourbon virus killed its first known patient. Eleven years later, the country still has no commercial test, no vaccine, and no treatment. A man on Long Island can be bitten by a tick, fall desperately ill, spend five days in a hospital, and walk out without anyone being able to tell him what happened, then wait half a decade for a research team to confirm the answer.
Dr. Marcos and his co-authors at Stony Brook did the work that identified Larkin's case. They enrolled patients, collected samples, tracked antibodies over months, and published their findings. That effort deserves recognition. But it also raises an uncomfortable question: if a university clinic on Long Island had not run this particular study, would Larkin's case ever have been diagnosed at all?
The answer, based on everything Dr. Marcos has said publicly, is almost certainly no. And if his assessment is correct, that Bourbon virus is "likely more prevalent than we think", then other patients in the Northeast are walking around right now with the same infection and no idea what hit them.
When a disease can kill and the government has spent a decade without producing a basic diagnostic test, the system has not failed quietly. It has failed in the open, one undiagnosed patient at a time.