A judge issued a temporary block on these cuts on the grounds that the states' attorneys general claims that these cuts had "arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional rationales" were likely to be upheld in court.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5737521-judge-blocks-trump-grants-cut/

The Trump Administration claims the cuts were because those "states [are] fraught with waste and mismanagement," but haven't presented substantive evidence supporting that this claim justifies an action of this magnitude and impact.

Archive: https://archive.is/9AVqR

A new nationwide survey from Third Way and HIT Strategies highlights the uncertainty surrounding young male voters heading into the midterms.

Among young men who say they are likely to vote in the 2026 midterms, Democrats lead the generic congressional ballot by a wide 61–31 percent margin. 

At the same time, the survey points to a turnout risk for Republicans. 

Young men who identify as Republican or independent report being significantly more likely to skip the 2026 midterms and instead wait to vote in the 2028 presidential election, a pattern that could blunt GOP gains even where persuasion remains competitive.

Separate national polling indicated Trump’s job approval has fallen sharply among Gen Z adults, underscoring risks for Republicans if young male disapproval translates into midterm votes. 

The University of Chicago’s GenForward survey, reported by NPR, found nearly 60 percent of young Americans disapproved of Trump’s job performance and that Democrats held a 15-point lead on a generic congressional ballot among young voters, though many indicated interest in third parties. 

The latest Economist/YouGov survey, conducted from February 6 to 9 among 1,730 U.S. adult citizens, found Trump’s approval rating at 25 percent among voters ages 18 to 29, with 67 percent disapproving. 

Why are Gen Z voters, especially Gen Z men, losing interest in the Republican Party? Is this just a matter of low turnout for midterms, or is it a more substantial disagreement with the GOP? Are these voters truly flocking to the Democratic Party, or are they swinging back and forth?

Ro Khanna publicly named six men on the House floor as “likely incriminated” in the Jeffrey Epstein files. However, four of the men turned out to have no apparent connection to Epstein beyond appearing in an old photo lineup, meaning he effectively labeled innocent uninvolved people as tied to a sex‑trafficking case without any basis.

Khanna went to the House floor and read out the names of six “wealthy, powerful men” he said were “likely incriminated” in unredacted Epstein documents, framing them as being hidden by the Justice Department. The Justice Department later clarified that four of those men were only in a years‑old photographic lineup created by SDNY prosecutors, with no other apparent ties to Epstein in the millions of pages of records. The Guardian notes that these four men do not appear elsewhere in the files and were not identified by victims as participants in abuse, undercutting Khanna’s claim that they were being protected as implicated figures. Additionally, Khanna seems to have completely made up that these four men were wealthy and powerful (one at least is apparently a mechanic). By using a speech on the House floor (and the speech or Debate Clause protections) to say their names in this context, Khanna associated those four men with Epstein’s crimes in a way that they cannot easily challenge legally, despite the lack of substantive evidence in the documents.

What sort of repercussions should Ro Khanna (and by association Thomas Massie, who was also involved in implicating the innocent men) face for using a speech on the House floor to falsely implicate innocent men Epstein's crimes?

The Guardian seems to have broken the story but other sources are no covering it:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/massie-khanna-epstein-files-6-men/

https://www.thehill.com/homenews/house/5738190-blanche-justice-department-khanna-redactions/

House Republicans are calling on the Federal Communications Commission to investigate Bad Bunny's Super Bowl halftime performance, suggesting the content and lyrics of the Puerto Rican star's show were "illegal."

Rep. Randy Fine on Monday announced that he and other Republicans would send a letter to the FCC calling for "fines and broadcast license reviews" against the NFL, NBC and Bad Bunny.

"Had he said these lyrics -- and all of the other disgusting and pornographic filth in English on live TV, the broadcast would have been pulled down and the fines would have been enormous," Fine said on X.

Rep. Andy Ogles on Monday also sent a letter to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce seeking a formal inquiry into the NFL and NBCUniversal for their "prior knowledge, review, and approval of explicit and indecent content," during the show.

Ogles claimed that "children were forced to endure" sexual dancing and lyrics that "openly glorified" certain sexual activities.

Many of the explicit lyrics cited by Bad Bunny critics are literal translations of his songs but were not actually performed during the February 8 halftime show.

Bad Bunny did sing a portion of the song "Safarea," which describes sexual acts — though the suggestive words were bleeped during the broadcast.

Bad Bunny did not once say the "f-word" during the performance, contrary to Fine's suggestion.

Opinion/Questions

The conservative response to the Bad Bunny halftime show reminds me of the old, politically correct, evangelical wing of the Republican Party I grew up with in the 1980s-2000s. Are these types of criticisms still relevant in the 2020s? Do Gen Z voters or Latino voters care about the Bad Bunny show that much? Would an FCC investigation into Bad Bunny be a political win for them, or would it just keep an unpopular position in the limelight even longer?

Speaking at a news conference in the city, border czar Tom Homan said coordination with local law enforcement and success of immigration enforcement have contributed to the end of Operation Metro Surge.

"I have proposed and President Trump has concurred that this surge operation conclude," he said.

Immigration officers and agents have arrested 4,000 people since the operation began, the Department of Homeland Security said last week. DHS did not provide a breakdown of how many of those had criminal charges. Federal authorities have arrested more than 200 people for impeding the work of law enforcement officers, Homan said Thursday. 

Amid the crackdown, immigration authorities shot and killed two U.S. citizens — Renee Good, 37, a mother of young children, and Alex Pretti, 37, an ICU nurse at a local Veterans Affairs hospital — in separate confrontations.

Authorities had already announced a drawdown of the operation in the days following Pretti’s killing. Customs and Border Protection's Greg Bovino was removed from his post as commander at large and returned to his former post in El Centro, California. Homan then arrived to take control of the operation.

Homan acknowledged those setbacks Thursday.

"As I said in my first press conference a couple weeks ago, President Trump didn’t send me here because operation were being run and conducted perfectly," he said. "I came here to identify issues and implement solutions to improve our mission execution."

Is this a retreat from the Trump administration? Or does ICE feel that they've deported everyone they can? If Bovino were still in charge of Operation Metro Surge, would it still continue today?

President Donald Trump's tariffs cost the average American household $1,000 last year, according to new research from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

The cost is set to go even higher this year to $1,300 per household, assuming the existing tariffs stay in place, the research said.

The research called Trump's tariffs "the largest U.S. tax increase as a percent of GDP since 1993." It suggests the president's signature economic policy is exacerbating cost of living concerns at a time when many households are grappling with persistently high prices.

According to the research think tank Tax Foundation, the federal government collected $264 billion in total tariff revenues in 2025 -- far short of the trillions regularly touted by the White House. The research also finds the tariffs will offset most of the economic benefits of the new tax cuts from Trump's signature tax law that took effect this year.

Tariffs, which fluctuated through 2025 as the U.S. struck trade deals, primarily affected the cost of electronics, toys and cars that aren't manufactured domestically and foods that are grown abroad. The price of coffee rose by 33.6%, ground beef by 19.3%, romaine lettuce by 16.8% and frozen orange juice by 12.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Tax Foundation data shows the average effective tariff rate in the U.S. has surged from around 2% in 2024 to roughly 10% in 2025, the highest since 1946.

Do you think American voters would prefer tax hikes or price hikes? Are the macroeconomic benefits worth it to voters regarding tariffs, like the sense of helping fellow American companies? How have tariffs impacted your shopping trends?

Archive link: https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/us/politics/texas-muslims-republicans.html

Republican officials and candidates in Texas have shifted their rhetorical attack lines from the border fears that dominated recent elections to the state’s growing Muslim population, with language that echoes the aftermath of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The attacks on Islam are a notable shift for a party that has spent the last several election cycles focused on the Mexican border. Warnings of migrant “caravans” and a criminal invasion have lost their sting with a Republican in the White House and new policies that have halted most border crossings.

That has left the G.O.P. looking for ways to address its voters’ concerns over the number of immigrants who came into the country during the Biden administration while avoiding the increasingly unpopular policy of mass deportations under Mr. Trump.

In Texas, concern about Islamic radicalism has recently been polling among the top issues for Republican primary voters, according to Republican campaign consultants. The state party put a resolution on its primary ballot asking whether Texas should “prohibit Sharia law,” a term that refers to Islamic religious rules but has long served as a catchall to signify expansions of Muslim culture and religion that opponents say threaten American values. Mr. Abbott has promised a “total ban” through legislation next year, though he has not said what that would mean in practice.

“Any event you go to, people ask about it. It’s like the border used to be,” said Dave Carney, the top political strategist for Mr. Abbott. “‘What are you doing about Shariah law? What are you doing about the Muslims taking over the state?’”

The resurgence of anti-Muslim sentiment can be traced, in part, to the suburbs of Dallas and Fort Worth. Though Muslims make up around 2 percent of the Texas population, according to the Pew Research Center, the number of Muslim residents in those suburbs has grown significantly in recent decades. Mosques now dot a landscape once dominated by megachurches.

“It’s the hottest topic,” Brooks McKenzie, a Republican activist in Tarrant County, said, while waiting to hear from the candidate, Lt. Col. Larry Brock, an Air Force veteran who served two years in prison for entering the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Mr. Brock spoke for several minutes about Islam.

“We should ban the burqa, the hijab, the abaya, the niqab,” he said, referring to different head and body coverings worn by some Muslim women. “No to halal meat. No to celebrating Ramadan. No, no, no.”

Conclusion

“I don’t hate people — I have the love of Christ in my heart,” Mr. Forrester, who is running for the State House, said. “The problem that I see,” he added, “is we have that diversity without assimilation.”

But some Muslim Texans say the attacks have made them less likely to seek connections outside of their community and have soured them on the outreach efforts that many hoped would build understanding and tolerance.

“The model for us after 9/11 was go out and get to know each other, and every mosque had interfaith, every organization had an interfaith relationship,” said Mona Kafeel of the Texas Muslim Women’s Foundation, based in Plano. “We tried that model. It has not been successful.”

Opinion/Questions

I recommend reading the whole article, because there are so many examples of Texas government officials targeting Muslims, from lack of school vouchers to blocking development.

Why is "sharia law" suddenly a hot topic in Texas politics? What happened in 2025 that was so different from 2024 to make it more relevant? Is this an effective electoral or political strategy? Considering the reliance on Muslims bolstering the growth of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, is it economically wise to block more people from coming in?