Blog

Trump’s order to replace the USS Doris Miller’s electromagnetic launch system with steam catapults puts staffing, construction schedules and a potentially multibillion-dollar redesign at the center of the Navy’s next carrier decision.

President Donald Trump has directed the Pentagon and Navy to develop plans to remove EMALS from the USS Doris Miller and replace it with older steam catapults. The mandate, issued August 13, 2026, would likely cost billions of dollars and could require more sailors to operate the carrier’s launch system.

The Navy now has two months to present Trump with plans. Those plans must address not only the practical work of changing an unfinished Ford-class carrier, but also the staffing, maintenance and scheduling tradeoffs tied to returning to steam.

Staffing is central to the decision

The order arrives as the Navy tries to fill positions across its fleet. The Associated Press reported that the service had about 20,000 unfilled jobs on its ships at the beginning of 2026, even after recruiting improved.

Steam catapults require more sailors to operate and are more difficult to maintain than the electromagnetic system, according to AP. EMALS reduced the catapult operating crew on the USS Gerald R. Ford from roughly a dozen sailors to two, AP reported.

That makes the launch-system decision more than a debate over familiar technology. A return to steam could add personnel demands for a service already balancing staffing needs throughout the fleet.

Other carrier programs are continuing to use electromagnetic launch technology. According to AP, China’s newest carriers use electromagnetic catapults, while France has said it plans to use the technology on its next carrier. Those choices do not resolve questions about EMALS reliability, but they show the technology remains central to other carrier programs.

An unfinished carrier faces a costly redesign

AP reported that the directive would likely cost billions, though no public price estimate or implementation timeline was provided. General Atomics, the company that makes EMALS, told AP that removing the system from the Doris Miller deserves “careful reconsideration.”

The company said work on the ship’s catapults and arresting gear was already about halfway complete. It warned of integration, schedule and cost risks.

Changing the launch system would involve more than swapping equipment on the flight deck. Steam catapults need different support infrastructure, potentially requiring changes to construction plans, maintenance arrangements, training and supply chains.

The White House memo also calls for replacing the Ford-class carrier’s electromagnetic weapons elevators. Together, the changes could require substantial work on interconnected systems already included in the ship’s design.

What EMALS was designed to do

EMALS, short for Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, is the Navy’s newest carrier-based launch system, designed for the USS Gerald R. Ford and future Ford-class carriers. It uses stored kinetic energy and solid-state electrical power conversion rather than steam pressure.

NAVAIR says the technology permits a high degree of computer control, monitoring and automation. The Navy has also cited increased reliability and efficiency, smoother acceleration, more precise end-speed control, reduced manning and maintenance requirements, and the ability to launch aircraft ranging from lightweight unmanned platforms to heavy strike fighters.

Steam catapults, by contrast, have been used to launch aircraft from U.S. carriers for more than 50 years. They remain the same basic launch function, but rely on different technology and supporting machinery.

The Navy has promoted the intended operational benefits of EMALS. In a February release cited by AP, the service said the USS Gerald R. Ford could launch and recover aircraft at a higher rate than older Nimitz-class carriers.

A longtime Trump preference becomes an order

Trump has criticized the magnetically powered system since at least 2017, when he said in a Time magazine interview during his first term that the new system was “not good” and did not have the power of older steam systems.

He has raised the subject at rallies and other public events since then. The August directive turns that longstanding preference into a specific shipbuilding decision focused on the USS Doris Miller, the fourth Ford-class aircraft carrier.

The order does not direct the same overhaul for every Ford-class carrier. AP reported that the USS Gerald R. Ford, USS John F. Kennedy and USS Enterprise would remain unchanged under the current direction.

That leaves the Doris Miller as the first designated test of whether an older launch system can be incorporated into a carrier designed around electromagnetic technology.

The Navy’s two-month planning test

Trump’s directive does not provide an engineering blueprint. The Pentagon and Navy must determine whether a steam conversion can be designed, funded and scheduled for the Doris Miller within the plans due in two months.

The decision also comes amid a broader defense-spending debate. AP reported that Congress is considering funding requested by the Trump administration for Pentagon priorities and the Iran war, with the Senate expected to act after returning in September.

Supporters may view steam as proven technology with a long service record. Critics are likely to weigh that familiarity against the Ford class’s intended gains in space, staffing and launch performance.

For now, the final price, construction timetable and precise operational tradeoffs remain unresolved. The Navy’s plan will show whether the conversion can deliver the reliability Trump wants without creating further cost, delay and staffing pressures.

A major Goldman Sachs project in Texas has sharpened political arguments about New York’s ability to retain financial-sector growth. But the available reporting leaves key claims about Florida job moves and Mamdani’s response unconfirmed.

Goldman Sachs is expanding its presence in Dallas, Texas, with a campus planned for more than 5,000 employees, and the expansion has brought Zohran Mamdani into New York’s Wall Street debate. The argument is over whether financial-sector growth is shifting beyond New York because of costs and taxes—and what that could mean for Wall Street jobs.

The confirmed development is Goldman Sachs’ Dallas growth. What remains unestablished is equally important: the available material does not document a specific Goldman Sachs job shift to Florida, a defined transfer of jobs from New York, or a direct public response from Mamdani.

Dallas project drives the argument

Goldman Sachs’ planned Dallas campus is the clearest fact behind the broader political discussion. The firm says the facility is intended to accommodate more than 5,000 employees.

That scale makes the project notable in a city that has increasingly attracted banks, investment firms and corporate headquarters. But Dallas is not a newly created Goldman Sachs outpost. The bank has maintained a presence there for years, and the campus fits into a longer-term expansion in Texas.

Goldman Sachs also has significant North American operations outside New York, including in Salt Lake City. That wider footprint points to a multi-city workforce strategy rather than, based on the material available, a confirmed decision to move a specified number of Manhattan jobs elsewhere.

Expansion is not the same as exit

Corporate announcements can quickly be framed as relocations, even when a company is adding capacity without reducing its presence in another city. For a financial institution, the distinction is particularly significant.

Banks often divide technology, operations, compliance, trading support and other functions among several locations. A larger Dallas operation may reflect lower real-estate costs, access to workers, or a desire to spread operational risk across regions. None of those factors, by themselves, establishes that Goldman Sachs is abandoning New York.

Goldman Sachs remains headquartered in New York. The city retains the tightly connected network of clients, markets, regulators, professional-services firms and specialized talent that gives global finance a strong reason to maintain substantial operations there.

There is no figure in the available reporting for jobs transferred from New York to Dallas, no timetable for such transfers, and no Goldman Sachs statement saying the campus represents a withdrawal from Manhattan.

Why Mamdani became part of it

Mamdani, New York City’s mayor, is central to a larger dispute over affordability, public services and the tax burden borne by corporations and high-income residents. Goldman Sachs’ Texas expansion has been folded into that debate, even though the available material does not tie the company’s plans to a policy associated with him.

Supporters of Mamdani’s approach contend that public investment and improved affordability can make New York more livable for workers and more sustainable over time. Critics argue that higher taxes or business costs could encourage employers to expand in other places.

Texas is frequently invoked in those arguments because it has no state personal income tax and has actively promoted itself as a destination for major employers. Still, a single campus project cannot settle a larger question about New York’s economic competitiveness.

Business location decisions can involve labor needs, office space, executive preferences, client proximity, regulation, infrastructure and the value of spreading operations across different markets. The available reporting does not quote Mamdani or identify a public statement from him about Goldman Sachs’ workforce plans.

Florida claim lacks key details

Florida, and Miami in particular, has long sought to attract finance companies and wealthy investors. Its tax structure, climate and expanding professional-services sector have made it a recurring comparison point in discussions about New York’s future.

Yet a broad trend of financial activity in Florida is not evidence of a particular Goldman Sachs relocation there. The material available contains no named Goldman Sachs Florida project, employee count, announcement date or account of roles moving to the state.

That absence matters because several very different developments are often grouped under the word “move.” Opening an office, hiring locally, relocating back-office functions, reducing a New York team and moving a headquarters would have different consequences for workers, tax revenue and city policy.

Without supporting details, a claim that Goldman Sachs is shifting jobs to Florida should not be treated as confirmed.

New York’s bigger competitive test

New York faces genuine competition from Dallas, Miami, Salt Lake City and other markets. Remote and hybrid work have made it easier for large employers to distribute teams, while high rents and taxes remain persistent concerns for companies and workers.

At the same time, Wall Street’s leading banks, exchanges, investors, law firms and institutional clients remain heavily concentrated in New York. That ecosystem is a durable advantage, even as companies build more capacity elsewhere.

The meaningful policy question is not whether New York can prevent every corporate expansion in another state. It is whether housing, transit, public safety, workforce training, taxes and quality of life give companies enough reason to keep creating jobs in the city.

Questions that still need answers

Goldman Sachs could clarify whether the Dallas campus will be filled through net new hiring, transfers from other offices, or a combination of both. It could also specify whether it has announced any comparable Florida expansion.

Mamdani’s office could clarify whether he has made a statement about Goldman Sachs’ workforce decisions. Until then, the most supportable reading is narrower than the political rhetoric: Goldman Sachs is growing in Dallas, and that growth has intensified New York’s debate over financial jobs, costs and taxes.

It is not, on the available evidence, confirmation of a Goldman Sachs exit from New York, a documented job shift to Florida or a verified Mamdani response.

A claim about a Trump-versus-Harvard court loss collapses under a basic question: where is the case record? The available evidence points instead to separate legal stories involving the Trump administration, Harvard and Trump’s unrelated litigation history.

Donald Trump, Harvard University and the Trump administration are at the center of a claim that Trump personally filed a lawsuit against Harvard and had it dismissed by a court. That claim is not substantiated by the available record: no court, date, case number, judge or ruling has been identified. The claim combines separate legal stories involving Trump and Harvard.

What is documented is different. Trump’s Justice Department has sued Harvard University, while Trump has had personal lawsuits dismissed in unrelated cases. Those facts may make a Trump-Harvard lawsuit claim sound plausible, but they do not verify a court dismissal of a case brought by Trump himself.

The record needed to prove it

A court-loss claim has basic building blocks. It should establish where the case was filed, who the judge was, what legal claims were made and what order the court issued.

It should also show the date and procedural result. A dismissal can end a case permanently, allow a complaint to be revised, or dispose of only part of the dispute. Without the order itself, those distinctions cannot be known.

None of those details was provided for the alleged Trump personal lawsuit against Harvard. The underlying article text, court opinion and docket information were not available in the supplied material.

The available evidence therefore supports only a narrow conclusion: the claimed dismissal of a lawsuit personally filed by Trump against Harvard cannot be verified here.

A dramatic headline is not a docket

The direct item behind the allegation was a manual source title describing Trump’s supposed lawsuit as “fevered” and the purported ruling as “blistering.” Those are descriptions of tone, not legal proof.

A headline can suggest conflict without identifying the plaintiff, court, legal theory or result. It cannot establish that a complaint was filed or that a judge issued a ruling.

That matters particularly in a dispute involving a president, a federal agency and a prominent university. Claims of major litigation ordinarily can be checked against filings, court documents, statements from the parties or reliable independent reporting.

Until such material emerges, it would be inaccurate to state that a court definitively shut down Trump’s own lawsuit against Harvard.

The documented case has different parties

The documented Harvard development runs in the opposite direction from the viral-style claim. According to an Associated Press report included in the available research, Trump’s Justice Department is suing Harvard University.

The Justice Department is a federal executive agency. Its litigation may be described in political coverage as an administration case, but that is not the same as a lawsuit in which Donald Trump is the named plaintiff in his personal capacity.

The distinction is not a technicality. The plaintiff determines the legal authority being asserted, the claims at issue, the relief being sought and who can appeal.

Harvard’s conflict with the administration has drawn attention amid wider disputes over higher education, federal authority, campus policy and conditions attached to public funding. That political context does not supply the missing facts for a separate Trump-versus-Harvard case.

Trump’s past losses are unrelated

The Associated Press account does document personal lawsuits brought by Trump that were dismissed. Those cases help explain why an allegation of another dismissal might appear believable, but they do not establish one involving Harvard.

One example was Trump’s 2022 lawsuit accusing Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and others of a broad conspiracy connected to the 2016 election and the Russia investigation. U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks dismissed the case.

In a January 2023 order, Middlebrooks wrote that the case should never have been brought, according to the AP report. The report also said legal-fee consequences later reached into the millions.

AP recounted other unsuccessful Trump litigation as well. A New Jersey court dismissed Trump’s suit against author Timothy O’Brien over statements about Trump’s net worth, and an appeals court upheld that decision. A federal court also dismissed Trump’s lawsuit concerning criticism of a proposed Manhattan development.

Why the labels change the story

Political litigation is especially prone to confusion when the same names recur across several disputes. “Trump,” “the Trump administration,” “the Justice Department” and “a federal court” can all appear in coverage while referring to different parties, cases and outcomes.

That confusion can flatten legally important differences. A personal suit, a federal government action and a fight over funding can involve related political debates while following different rules and raising different questions.

The word “dismissed” also requires precision. A dismissal with prejudice generally prevents the same claim from being filed again, while a dismissal without prejudice can leave room for a revised complaint. A court may also dismiss one claim while allowing others to continue.

No order has been produced to show whether any of those outcomes occurred in the alleged Harvard matter. The unresolved possibilities are that the claim refers to an undisclosed filing, identifies the wrong plaintiff or merges separate legal episodes.

What would resolve the claim

Verification would require a reliable record: a complaint naming Trump and Harvard as parties, a docket number, a judicial order or on-the-record confirmation from the court or the litigants.

Those materials would identify the venue, claims, procedural posture and actual outcome. They would also allow readers to distinguish a final ruling from commentary about one.

For now, the supportable account is more limited than the headline-style assertion. The available material documents a Justice Department case involving Harvard and Trump’s history of losses in other personal lawsuits, not a verified court dismissal of Trump’s own lawsuit against Harvard.

That difference is central to accurate legal reporting: related names and political context cannot substitute for a court record.

The court fight is not a final ruling on the proposed tax. It centers on whether New York City gave owners a reliable and fair way to contest being labeled as second-home owners.

Judge Wayne Ozzi temporarily blocked Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s proposed New York City surcharge on high-value second homes after the city’s Department of Finance sent roughly 17,000 notices to property owners. The pause halted enforcement of the NYC second-home tax rollout, but it did not permanently invalidate the proposed surcharge.

The homeowners’ lawsuit says the city wrongly identified some primary residences as non-primary or second homes. Their challenge focuses on whether New York City gave owners a fair, accurate and workable way to contest the classification before enforcement began—not simply on whether the city can impose a charge on expensive part-time homes.

The proposed surcharge would apply to non-primary residences in houses worth more than $5 million and condominium or cooperative units valued at least $1 million. Judge Ozzi also ordered the Department of Finance to remove a published roll containing about 960,000 properties while the legal dispute proceeds.

The court halted the rollout

Judge Wayne Ozzi issued a temporary emergency pause after a group of homeowners sued Mamdani and the city’s finance director. Reporting by The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal said the order requires the New York City Department of Finance to remove the published tax roll and stop enforcement actions.

The city also cannot send additional letters notifying homeowners that they may owe the proposed surcharge while the case moves forward, according to The Wall Street Journal.

That matters for people who already received notices. The order does not mean those owners have been permanently cleared from the program or that the policy itself has been ruled unlawful. It preserves the status quo while the court weighs the challenge.

A residency question drives the case

The proposed charge is often called a pied-à-terre tax, a term used for a second home maintained in a city. It is intended for high-value New York City properties whose owners do not live there full-time.

Value alone would not make a home subject to the surcharge. Under the reported thresholds, a house would need to be worth more than $5 million, while a condominium or cooperative unit would need a value of at least $1 million. In each case, the property would also have to qualify as a non-primary residence.

That second step is at the center of the lawsuit. The homeowners argue that the city’s process swept in homes that are actually their primary residences, forcing residents to establish that they should be exempt.

17,000 notices raised the stakes

The Department of Finance published a tax roll involving about 960,000 properties or owners that could potentially fall within the new charge. It then sent about 17,000 notices to addresses linked to possible liability.

The city’s broad screening approach may have been intended to identify every possible candidate before making final eligibility determinations. But the homeowners’ complaint argues that the process moved too quickly and relied on information that could incorrectly label full-time residents as second-home owners.

A preliminary list can still create significant obligations for an owner. Someone who receives a notice may have to assemble records showing where they live, challenge the classification and navigate a process that can be costly or confusing before any surcharge is collected.

The key legal issue, then, is not simply whether affluent property owners should pay more. It is whether people named in the city’s initial process had a sufficiently accurate and workable path to contest that designation.

City Hall sees a revenue tool

Mamdani and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced the measure in April and said it was expected to bring in about $500 million a year. Supporters view it as a way to raise money from affluent owners who benefit from New York City while living there only part of the year.

The mayor’s office has argued that owners of second homes valued at $5 million or more should contribute more to the city they use and benefit from. After the ruling, Mamdani’s office criticized the decision and said it planned an immediate appeal.

In a statement reported by The Guardian, spokesperson Matt Rauschenbach said the administration remained confident the surcharge could be carried out fairly and effectively.

For supporters, the distinction between a luxury second home and ordinary owner-occupied housing is crucial. They say the policy is narrowly aimed at very expensive non-primary residences, not at typical city homeowners.

Critics focus on classification errors

Opponents’ concerns go beyond the individual notices at issue in the case. They argue that faulty classifications and the burden of correcting them can undermine a tax policy even if its intended target is narrowly defined.

Some business leaders, Republicans and moderate Democrats have also warned that additional taxes could make New York City less attractive to wealthy residents who can reduce their time in the city or relocate. Supporters counter that the city’s housing costs and public-service needs justify drawing more revenue from owners at the very top of the property market.

The competing positions leave a practical question for the court and the Department of Finance: what evidence should be required to distinguish a true pied-à-terre from a home where an owner actually lives?

The appeal will shape next steps

The administration’s planned appeal could determine whether the temporary pause is changed or remains in place. A successful appeal or revised process could allow the city to resume pursuing a major piece of Mamdani’s affordability agenda.

A longer block could require the city to revise how it screens properties, defend the program in a fuller court fight or both. The proposed $500 million in annual revenue is therefore part of the stakes, but so is the credibility of the system used to identify taxpayers.

For now, New York City cannot treat its second-home surcharge rollout as complete. Judge Ozzi’s order puts the focus on implementation: whether the city can pursue a tax on luxury non-primary homes while giving property owners a fair and accurate way to show when they do not belong on the list.

The deal resolved litigation over leaked tax information, but its wording has opened a larger debate about the limits of federal tax enforcement. Lawmakers, companies with Trump-family ties and senators from both parties have raised questions that the public record does not yet answer.

Todd Blanche signed a Justice Department settlement involving Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service on May 19 that barred certain tax claims involving Trump and his family business. The deal’s broad language has raised questions about whether it could protect Trump, his sons, the Trump Organization or related entities from future IRS audits or claims tied to earlier tax returns.

The settlement resolved a lawsuit over the unlawful disclosure of Trump tax-return information. What remains unsettled is the scope of the agreement: whether it is a tailored remedy for a serious privacy breach, as supporters could argue, or an unusually broad limit on tax enforcement, as critics contend.

What the May 19 deal says

According to CBS News reporting cited in the available record, the Justice Department finalized the settlement in May involving Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization. The defendants were the IRS and Treasury Department.

The underlying lawsuit concerned tax-return information that was unlawfully disclosed by a government contractor and later reached media outlets in 2020. A settlement in response to that breach is not, by itself, the source of the current controversy.

The concern centers on the wording in a one-page document dated May 19 and signed by Blanche while he was acting attorney general. CBS News reported that it said the IRS and Treasury Department were “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from pursuing claims related to tax returns filed before the agreement took effect.

That reported provision applies to Trump, his two oldest sons and the Trump Organization. It is the reason critics have described the arrangement as an audit-immunity deal.

The phrase at the center

The dispute turns on language that reportedly reaches beyond the plainly named parties. The settlement refers to trusts, parent companies, sister companies, related companies, affiliates and subsidiaries.

Those terms are broad enough to invite questions, but the available reporting does not establish that every business with a Trump-family connection is covered. The agreement does not, on its face, identify every venture that might later be described as an affiliate.

That distinction matters. A reference to related entities is not the same thing as a definitive finding that all such entities are insulated from audits, civil penalties or federal prosecution connected to conduct before the settlement.

There also has been no reported court test of the agreement’s reach, no reported IRS interpretation defining its limits and no documented instance in the supplied reporting of a Trump-affiliated company invoking the settlement as protection.

Senators seek answers from companies

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Ron Wyden wrote to 11 companies and organizations with Trump-family ties, seeking to learn whether they believed the settlement applied to them.

Their inquiry focused on whether the deal could affect audits, civil penalties or federal prosecution tied to conduct predating the settlement. Warren called the agreement corrupt and warned that companies could see it as a “get-out-of-jail-free card.” That is a political characterization, not a judicial conclusion.

Still, the inquiry reflects a practical concern: if the terms are understood to extend beyond the named plaintiffs, the government may have given up enforcement authority broader than what is typical in a settlement involving confidential taxpayer information.

Senate Democrats, as the minority party, did not have subpoena power to force responses from Trump, his children or the businesses they contacted. That left key questions dependent on voluntary answers and the legal interpretation of the document itself.

Businesses distance themselves from deal

Several companies contacted by Senate Democrats did not embrace the idea that they were covered. CBS News reported that representatives for Trump Media and Technology Group, Kalshi, Polymarket, Kaz Resources, Powerus and American Bitcoin distanced themselves from the settlement.

A lawyer for Trump Media and Technology Group told senators that the company was not a party to the settlement and was unaware that it applied to the company, according to CBS News. Trump Media is majority owned by a trust listing Trump as a beneficiary.

Other recipients of the senators’ letters included World Liberty Financial, 1789 Capital, Tag Air and Foundation Future Industries. Warren’s office said some companies did not respond to the questions.

The companies’ responses do not settle the legal issue. They do show that businesses with direct or indirect Trump-family connections did not uniformly assume the deal created an automatic shield.

Why Blanche’s signature matters

Blanche’s role has become politically significant because he signed the document at issue. The settlement became a point of contention in efforts to confirm him permanently as attorney general, according to CBS News.

Republican senators also expressed reservations about the IRS provision and a separate $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund connected to the deal. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said the agreement appeared to give Trump audit immunity that no other taxpayer could receive.

The opposing view begins with the tax-return leak. Trump and his co-plaintiffs alleged that government failures allowed highly sensitive information to be disclosed, and a substantial negotiated settlement could be seen as a remedy for that violation rather than preferential treatment.

Neither argument resolves the central legal uncertainty: which claims, taxpayers and entities are actually covered by the agreement’s language.

What remains unknown

The supplied headline characterized Blanche as acting immediately after his swearing-in to preserve Trump’s IRS audit deal. The available reporting supports that Blanche signed the settlement as acting attorney general on May 19, but it does not independently document a separate post-swearing-in intervention or establish that motive.

That is more than a wording dispute. Signing a settlement is a documented government action; describing it as a rescue effort after a swearing-in suggests a sequence and purpose that would require separate evidence.

For now, the durable reported fact is narrower: Blanche signed a settlement that permanently bars certain government claims connected to earlier tax returns. Whether references to related companies, affiliates and subsidiaries create a broader barrier to IRS action remains unresolved.

Until the government provides a definitive interpretation or a court addresses the agreement, the debate will continue to rest on competing readings of a short settlement with potentially wide consequences.

The latest numbers show a tightly contested open-seat race in a state Republicans have dominated in recent statewide elections. Multiple polls and prediction markets point to uncertainty, not a settled outcome.

Amy Acton led Vivek Ramaswamy 46% to 44% in an Ohio governor’s race poll conducted by Tulchin Research from July 29 to August 4. The two-point lead was within the poll’s plus-or-minus 4-point margin of error, meaning the survey cannot establish a clear statewide leader.

Still, the result suggests Ohio’s governor’s race could be competitive. In an open contest for an office Republicans have held for years, the narrow gap gives both campaigns reason to treat turnout, undecided voters and coalition-building as central tests.

The lead is not decisive

The Tulchin Research survey puts Acton just ahead, but the difference between 46% and 44% is smaller than the survey’s stated margin of error. Put simply, the poll offers a snapshot of respondent preferences during its field period, not a prediction of the final result.

A margin of error does not mean every result inside that range is equally likely. It does mean a two-point separation should not be read as proof that Acton has built a durable advantage. The underlying race could be effectively tied or lean narrowly toward either candidate.

The poll was sponsored by Democratic attorney general candidate John Kulewicz. It also found 5% backing another candidate and 6% undecided, leaving 11% of respondents outside the two leading candidates’ columns.

That remaining group matters in a contest this close. Neither campaign can assume those voters will break in one direction, and even a modest shift could change the apparent leader.

Several surveys show a narrow race

The Tulchin result fits a broader run of polling that has kept Acton and Ramaswamy close while producing different leaders. The common thread is not a consistent advantage for one candidate; it is the absence of a commanding one.

• A Times/Siena University poll of 601 likely voters, conducted June 15 to 28, found the candidates tied at 47% each, with a plus-or-minus 4.7-point margin of error.
• An AARP survey of 800 likely voters, conducted June 14 to 16, showed Acton ahead 47% to 44%, with a plus-or-minus 3.5-point margin of error.
• A Fox News poll of 1,015 registered voters, conducted May 28 to June 1, put Acton ahead 50% to 49%, within a 3-point margin of error.
• A YouGov and Bowling Green State University poll of 1,000 registered voters, conducted April 7 to 14, gave Ramaswamy a 48% to 47% advantage, with a 3.9-point margin of error.

Those polls are not directly interchangeable. Some surveyed likely voters and others registered voters; their field dates differed, as did the organizations conducting them. Question wording and question order can also influence results.

But taken together, the surveys describe a contest in which each candidate has a plausible route to victory. They do not support a conclusion that either side has locked down the race.

Ohio’s history favors Republicans

The close polling stands out because Ohio has moved in a more reliably Republican direction over the past decade. Donald Trump carried the state by about 11 percentage points in 2024, after winning it by roughly 8 points in both 2016 and 2020.

Republicans also have a long hold on the governor’s office. Ohio last elected a Democratic governor in 2006, when Ted Strickland won. Republican John Kasich defeated Strickland in 2010, and Republican Mike DeWine has held the office since 2019.

DeWine cannot seek a third consecutive term, creating an open-seat race rather than an election against an incumbent. That distinction is important: Ramaswamy can point to the state’s recent Republican results, while Acton can argue that a new contest creates room for a different coalition.

Acton, a former director of the Ohio Department of Health who became widely known during the COVID-19 pandemic, has a case that gains around Columbus and Cincinnati’s suburbs could help a Democrat compete statewide. Ramaswamy, the entrepreneur and former 2024 presidential candidate, enters with a national profile and the backdrop of Ohio’s recent GOP strength.

Both campaigns have coalition questions

Ramaswamy’s profile brings advantages and complications. His presidential campaign gave him a built-in audience, but it also means the governor’s contest may be filtered through national political disputes.

In late July, he was booed and heckled at a Young Americans for Liberty gathering in Cincinnati, including over positions related to Israel. It remains unclear whether that moment will affect statewide turnout or persuasion; a confrontation at an ideological event is not a measure of the broader Ohio electorate.

Acton also faces competing pressures within her potential coalition. She has drawn criticism from some LGBTQ+ activists over remarks that she does not support boys playing in girls’ sports. She has also said she supports Ohio’s Issue 3 voter-ID amendment, a position that separates her from some Democrats.

Those stances could help Acton appeal to persuadable voters, create friction among Democratic activists, or do both. Their eventual electoral value remains unproven, but close polling leaves little room for either campaign to dismiss internal divisions or enthusiasm concerns.

Markets echo the uncertainty

Political prediction markets cited in the reporting offered no clearer answer. At the time those figures were reported, Kalshi gave Ramaswamy a 51% chance of winning, while Polymarket gave Acton a 52% chance.

Those figures are not scientific voter surveys. They reflect the prices traders are willing to pay for outcome contracts, and they can move quickly after polling, fundraising reports, debates or national events.

Their value here is limited but notable: like the public polling, they point to a closely watched race without an obvious favorite. They should be read as measures of market sentiment, not forecasts that settle the election.

Turnout could decide the margin

The 6% of respondents who were undecided in the Tulchin poll is not large enough to guarantee a late rescue for either candidate. In a two-point contest, though, it is large enough to be consequential.

The 5% selecting another candidate could also shape the outcome, depending on whether those voters eventually consolidate behind a major-party contender. Turnout among voters who already have a preference may be just as important as persuading the remaining undecided group.

For Democrats, Acton’s 46% to 44% edge provides a credible reason to compete aggressively in Ohio. For Ramaswamy, the state’s Republican lean and the poll’s razor-thin, within-error-range margin provide an equally credible argument that the race remains fully winnable.

The key point is restraint: Acton’s lead raises the stakes, but it does not resolve the contest. The available polling shows Ohio’s open governor’s race as competitive, with its final direction still dependent on events and voters beyond this single survey.

The proposed DOGE dividend has generated attention because of its potential $5,000 payout. But the idea still depends on verified savings, congressional authority and rules that have not been set.

Donald Trump is considering a DOGE dividend proposal linked to Elon Musk and savings claimed by the Department of Government Efficiency. The idea could mean $5,000 checks for Americans if 20% of DOGE savings were returned to taxpayers—but those payments are not approved benefits, and no one can claim one now.

Trump discussed the concept in February 2025 as Musk was associated with DOGE’s cost-cutting effort. The attention-grabbing number is based on a large savings assumption, not on legislation, an announced Treasury payment schedule or a confirmed list of eligible recipients.

The proposal starts with 20%

The central idea is straightforward: use part of the money DOGE says it saves through federal spending reductions and send it back to taxpayers. Supporters have described that potential rebate as a “DOGE dividend.”

Reuters reported on Feb. 19, 2025, that Trump said his administration was considering devoting 20% of DOGE savings to Americans and another 20% to reducing federal debt. The rest of the claimed savings would not be part of the dividend calculation.

James Fishback, chief executive of the investment firm Azoria, publicly promoted the concept. Musk said on his social-media platform that he would check with Trump, a response that helped move the proposal from a policy suggestion into a widely discussed national idea.

Still, public interest from Trump and Musk does not create a federal payment program. A government check would require savings that are real and available, as well as legal authority to redirect those funds.

How the $5,000 figure emerged

The possible $5,000 payment is an illustration based on ambitious math. It assumes DOGE could find $2 trillion in savings.

Under that scenario, 20% for a dividend would equal $400 billion. Dividing that amount among an estimated 79 million tax-paying households produces a payment approaching $5,000 per household.

That calculation is not a promise of a $5,000 check. It is especially sensitive to the assumptions beneath it:

• Whether DOGE can produce $2 trillion in savings.
• Whether 20% of any savings would actually be directed to payments.
• Whether recipients would be households, individual filers, joint filers or another group.
• How many people or households would qualify.

If savings are lower, the dividend would be lower. If the eligible group is larger, the amount per recipient would fall. A narrower group could raise the estimated payment while leaving more Americans out.

Claimed savings are not cash

A major unanswered issue is what counts as savings in the first place. Ending a contract, cutting a grant, reducing a workforce or proposing a future budget reduction can reduce planned spending, but none automatically produces money ready for distribution.

Federal finances also involve existing obligations, contracts, appropriations rules and possible legal challenges. Some spending reductions may create savings over multiple years rather than generate an immediate pool of cash.

That distinction sits at the center of the debate. Supporters argue that sharing verified savings could give taxpayers a direct interest in controlling government spending. They also say allocating only part of the savings to a dividend, while directing another portion toward debt reduction, would be more restrained than borrowing money for a broad stimulus program.

Critics question whether projected cuts can be measured accurately and whether reductions in one place could shift costs elsewhere. Some also warn that large direct payments could add inflationary pressure, while others argue all available savings should go toward deficits and debt instead of rebates.

Congress would control the next step

The executive branch cannot establish a new nationwide cash-payment program simply because the idea has been discussed publicly. Congress generally controls federal spending through appropriations laws and would likely need to authorize any rebate, tax credit or direct payment.

Lawmakers would have to settle fundamental questions before any money could be sent. They include the total amount available, the source of funds, who would qualify, whether payments would be taxable, how fraud prevention would work and which agency would distribute the money.

The IRS has experience sending large-scale payments, including pandemic-era Economic Impact Payments. But those checks were enacted under specific laws, with defined payment amounts, income limits and administrative instructions.

No comparable final framework was laid out for a DOGE dividend. Congressional support for spending cuts would not necessarily translate into agreement that savings should become direct payments rather than debt reduction, tax cuts or funding for other priorities.

What would show the idea is real

For now, the DOGE dividend remains a proposal under consideration, not a pending check. There is no application, official payment date or verified payment amount for Americans to expect.

The clearest evidence of movement beyond discussion would be formal government action: a White House policy proposal, legislative text, a congressional vote or guidance from the Treasury Department or IRS.

Until then, claims that a $5,000 DOGE check has already been approved should be treated cautiously. The eventual value of any dividend would depend on documented, sustained savings; congressional authorization; eligibility rules; and a workable payment system.

The proposal has a simple appeal: share a portion of government savings with taxpayers. Its unresolved question is more complicated—whether DOGE can produce savings at the necessary scale, whether those savings can legally be used this way and whether Congress would choose checks as their best use.

A reported finding of no voting-machine fraud did not settle the argument around election technology. Instead, it put the cybersecurity firm behind the test at the center of a familiar dispute over who gets trusted when political claims meet technical evidence.

A cyber firm found no fraud while testing a voting machine for the Trump administration, according to CNN, and the firm then faced a wave of backlash. The dispute matters because the test involved election technology, a subject where claims about security flaws are often treated as proof that votes were changed—even when investigators do not reach that conclusion.

The reported episode shows how difficult it can be for technical findings to land in a political environment shaped by years of election-fraud allegations. A finding of no fraud is not a claim that any machine is beyond scrutiny; it is a narrower conclusion about what the testing did and did not show.

No fraud finding, fierce response

CNN reported that the cybersecurity firm tested a voting machine for the Trump administration and did not find fraud. Rather than ending the debate, that result reportedly triggered backlash against the company.

That reaction reflects a central tension in election-security arguments. Some people want technical reviews to uncover proof for longstanding claims of widespread manipulation. When a review instead fails to substantiate fraud, the researchers, their methods or their motives can quickly become the focus.

The available source material does not establish that the firm’s work was intended to answer every question about every voting system. That distinction is important. Testing one machine or one configuration cannot, on its own, serve as a comprehensive verdict on election administration nationwide.

Security questions are not fraud proof

Voting equipment can be examined for software weaknesses, configuration problems, physical-access risks and procedural failures. Those are legitimate security concerns, and identifying one may justify a fix, stronger safeguards or additional testing.

But a vulnerability is not the same thing as evidence that fraud occurred. To establish election fraud, investigators would need evidence connecting a specific action or weakness to altered results, lost ballots or another concrete impact on an election outcome.

That gap is often lost in public debate. A system can require continual auditing and improvement while there remains no evidence that it changed votes in a particular contest. Conversely, a statement that no fraud was found should not be distorted into a claim that oversight is unnecessary.

What federal officials said in 2020

The federal government’s election-security agencies and state election officials made a similarly narrow but significant assessment after the 2020 presidential election. In a joint statement, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Election Assistance Commission and election officials said there was no evidence that any voting system deleted, lost or changed votes, or had been compromised.

The statement also pointed to several layers of protection: pre-election testing, state certification, federal certification and paper records. Paper ballots and paper records are especially consequential because they allow election officials to audit or recount votes independently of the machines used to tabulate them.

Those agencies described the November 3, 2020, election as the most secure in American history. Their assessment did not mean election systems were immune from risk. It meant officials had not found evidence that voting systems had been used to change the vote in that election.

Why the messenger becomes the target

A cybersecurity firm asked to assess election technology occupies an awkward position. Its credibility depends on being rigorous enough to find problems when they exist and disciplined enough not to claim more than the evidence supports.

That can leave little room for a result that disappoints people on either side of a polarized debate. Skeptics may view a no-fraud finding as proof the reviewer is protecting institutions. Others may worry that public attention on individual system weaknesses can be exaggerated into claims that undermine confidence without demonstrating a real-world effect.

The backlash reported by CNN is therefore part of a larger problem: technical work is being pulled into an argument that is also about political identity, trust in government and the legitimacy of elections.

Questions the testing cannot settle

The key unanswered questions are about scope and transparency. What machine and software version were tested? What access did the firm receive? Which potential attack paths were examined? Were its methods and findings independently reviewed? Was a written report released in full?

Without those details, readers should be cautious about sweeping claims in either direction. A narrowly designed test may be useful evidence while still leaving other systems, jurisdictions or procedures outside its reach.

It is also worth separating the administration’s decision to seek or consider testing from the conclusions of the tester. Government-commissioned technical work can inform policy, but the credibility of the result ultimately depends on the methodology, evidence and whether qualified reviewers can evaluate the work.

The stronger standard for election claims

The most useful standard is straightforward: match the size of the claim to the strength of the evidence. A reported security issue deserves investigation. A documented fraud claim deserves a transparent accounting of how it affected votes. A finding that no fraud was found deserves to be reported accurately, even when it frustrates partisans.

Election confidence is not strengthened by treating every machine concern as proof of rigging, or by dismissing all questions about technology as bad faith. It is strengthened by audits, paper records, public explanations and precise claims about what testing can actually establish.

In this case, the cyber firm’s reported experience is a reminder that the hardest part of election-security work may not be running the test. It may be preserving a shared expectation that evidence should matter after the results arrive.

Crowley’s nomination puts the Milwaukee County executive on a statewide stage against Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany, with Democratic unity, the governor’s office and legislative control all at stake.

David Crowley’s narrow Wisconsin Democratic primary victory does more than set up a governor’s race against Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany. It makes Crowley the first Black candidate to win a major-party nomination for Wisconsin governor, according to The Associated Press.

If elected, Crowley would become Wisconsin’s first Black governor and only the fourth Black governor elected in U.S. history, AP reported. His general-election contest also comes as Democrats try to retain the governor’s office after Gov. Tony Evers and flip both chambers of the Wisconsin Legislature, which would give the party full control of state government for the first time since 2010.

A historic nomination after a surprise primary

According to AP, Crowley beat Democratic state Rep. Francesca Hong by roughly half a percentage point after a primary that had appeared to favor Hong for much of the campaign. The result surprised observers and left Democrats with a nominee whose political profile differs markedly from Hong’s.

Crowley, 40, has made his personal story part of his public case. He has spoken about growing up in poverty on Milwaukee’s north side, his family’s struggles with drug abuse and mental health issues, and repeated evictions. He was elected to the state Assembly in 2016 before becoming Milwaukee County executive.

His route to the nomination was itself unusual. Crowley left the governor’s race on July 8, saying he did not see a path to victory, then reentered on July 18, less than a month before primary day.

What Crowley brings to the statewide contest

Crowley presents himself as a pragmatic Democrat who can work across party lines. As Milwaukee County executive, he worked with Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Legislature on a 2023 agreement that increased state aid for Milwaukee and other local communities.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who is not seeking a third term, backed Crowley and campaigned with him around the state in the campaign’s final week. That support helped establish Crowley as the continuity candidate for Democrats who value Evers’ more moderate governing style.

His governing record gives Crowley an argument aimed at a recurring Wisconsin challenge: winning substantial margins in urban Democratic strongholds while remaining credible to voters outside them. It also gives him a contrast with the more ideological labels likely to dominate campaign attacks.

Democrats move to close the primary divide

Nearly 40% of primary voters supported Hong, AP reported, leaving Crowley with a sizable bloc whose turnout and enthusiasm could matter in a race expected to be tight.

Crowley moved quickly to demonstrate unity. He appeared at an event outside Madison with Hong, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Rep. Mark Pocan and other Democrats before beginning a statewide tour. The message is that the primary’s establishment-versus-progressive divide cannot remain the party’s defining conflict through November.

Republican strategist Rusty Schultz told AP that turning out younger voters who supported Hong could be difficult. The competing view is that a clear contrast with Tiffany and Trump may give those voters a reason to rally behind Crowley even if he was not their first choice.

Tiffany’s campaign faces a changed Democratic nominee

Tiffany represents a large, rural and conservative area of northern Wisconsin in Congress. His campaign began framing Crowley as effectively interchangeable with Hong, arguing that Crowley’s Milwaukee County record points to higher taxes and poor government management.

But Crowley’s nomination complicates that line of attack. A candidate who has worked with Republican lawmakers and received Evers’ endorsement is harder to portray as an outsider to state governance than a Democratic socialist would have been.

Crowley has called Tiffany a “MAGA extremist” and is making Tiffany’s ties to Trump and the MAGA movement a major theme. AP noted that Tiffany has voted with Trump 100% of the time in Congress.

AP reported that former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, a Trump supporter, believes Tiffany can redirect attention from national politics by stressing that the race is for governor, not Congress. That will be a central strategic task for Tiffany.

Wisconsin’s narrow divide shapes the campaign ahead

Wisconsin remains a national political bellwether. Trump won the state in 2016 and 2024 and lost it in 2020; each of those races was decided by less than one percentage point, according to AP.

Crowley is betting that concerns about Trump, federal policy and the president’s approval standing can help Democrats hold the governor’s office. Tiffany will likely seek to focus the debate on taxes, public spending and state management, while Crowley tries to connect those concerns to affordability, health care and the consequences of national Republican politics.

Voters may separate a state executive contest from their views of Washington, as Walker suggested. Crowley’s primary victory established him as a credible nominee with a compelling biography and a governing record, but it is not a forecast of the general election. Wisconsin’s narrow partisan divide means the result may turn on whether he can expand beyond Milwaukee, unite Democrats behind him and keep Tiffany from successfully localizing the contest.

The exchange has put two prominent athletes at the center of a wider argument about fairness, inclusion and who gets to shape the conversation around women’s sports. Cunningham has said she will not back away from her views.

Martina Navratilova commented on the argument involving Sophie Cunningham, backing the Indiana Fever guard’s views on transgender athletes competing in women’s sports. Navratilova’s support adds one of the most recognizable voices in women’s athletics to a controversy Cunningham has said she is prepared to stand behind.

The dispute matters because it reaches far beyond one player’s remarks. It sits at the intersection of competition rules, inclusion, Title IX and the increasingly public pressure on athletes to explain where they stand on a divisive issue.

Navratilova joins Cunningham’s side

Navratilova, the tennis great and longtime advocate for women’s sports, weighed in as Cunningham faced intense debate over her comments about transgender participation. The available reporting indicates that Navratilova defended Cunningham’s right to express her position and aligned herself with the core concern Cunningham raised about protecting women’s competition.

That support carries weight because Navratilova has spent decades as a major figure in sports and LGBTQ+ public life. Her involvement also demonstrates why this subject does not fit easily into simple political camps: people who share broad commitments to equality can still sharply disagree over eligibility rules in sex-segregated sports.

The full wording and context of Navratilova’s response were not included in the material available for this report. What is clear is that her intervention put fresh attention on Cunningham’s comments and the argument surrounding them.

What Sophie Cunningham said

Cunningham publicly doubled down on her view that transgender athletes should not compete in women’s sports. In remarks reported by The New York Times, she said it was “common sense” to bar trans athletes from women’s competition and argued that girls and women should not have to compete against “biological men.”

The Fever guard also said she wanted to protect young girls in locker rooms and cited Title IX, the 1972 federal law barring sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Cunningham framed her position as an effort to preserve opportunities created by women’s sports rather than as hostility toward transgender people.

She said she did not dislike anyone and believed there was “room to love everyone,” while maintaining that she would not change her position. Cunningham also acknowledged that public reaction would include both support and criticism, saying she was not interested in measuring her views by either response.

The Fever drew a boundary

The Indiana Fever responded shortly after Cunningham’s pregame remarks by stressing that its players speak for themselves. The team said its athletes are thoughtful adults with their own voices and perspectives, but said the organization is committed to welcoming fans from every background and treating people with respect.

That statement did not endorse Cunningham’s view, nor did it discipline her for expressing it. Instead, it drew a distinction between an individual player’s speech and the values the franchise says guide its relationship with fans.

That balancing act has become familiar across professional sports. Teams increasingly face the challenge of supporting athletes’ ability to speak candidly while also recognizing that those comments can affect fans, teammates, sponsors and communities that do not share the same view.

Why the debate remains so charged

Supporters of restrictions on transgender participation in women’s sports argue that sex-based categories exist to protect fair competition and athletic opportunities for girls and women. They often point to physical-development questions and to the history of women’s sports as the reason separate categories were established.

Critics argue that broad exclusions can stigmatize transgender athletes and deny them meaningful opportunities to participate. They also contend that eligibility decisions should be based on evidence, sport-specific standards and the lived realities of trans athletes, rather than political slogans or one-size-fits-all rules.

Those competing concerns help explain why the language around the issue matters. Cunningham’s supporters may see her as voicing an opinion that athletes are often reluctant to state publicly. Her critics may see the framing of transgender competitors as harmful and overly broad. Neither interpretation resolves the underlying policy questions.

• Fairness: How should sports bodies assess competitive advantage in different events?
• Inclusion: How can organizations avoid treating transgender athletes as a political abstraction rather than people?
• Authority: Should rules be set by governments, schools, leagues or individual governing bodies?
• Consistency: Can a single standard realistically cover youth, college and professional sports?

Sports rules are still shifting

The legal and policy setting is changing quickly. The New York Times reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had recently upheld individual state bans affecting transgender athletes competing alongside cisgender athletes, following a 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump aimed at limiting trans participation in girls’ and women’s sports.

Rules can differ substantially by state, sport and level of competition. A debate centered on an elite professional athlete may involve very different considerations from one involving children in school sports, which is one reason broad public arguments frequently leave important details unresolved.

Sports organizations also must make decisions that can withstand legal scrutiny while remaining understandable to athletes and families. The pressure is not only to decide who is eligible, but to articulate why a rule exists, how it will be applied and whether it treats participants consistently.

A celebrity endorsement changes the volume

Navratilova’s support does not settle those questions. It does, however, turn a controversy around a current WNBA player into a bigger discussion about the voices shaping women’s sports.

Cunningham is in her second season with Indiana after arriving from the Phoenix Mercury in 2025. The reporting cited her as averaging 9.3 points per game and shooting 42.9% from three-point range, but the attention around her comments has moved well beyond her on-court role.

For now, the central fact is straightforward: Cunningham has made her position clear, Navratilova has publicly supported that stance, and the Fever has emphasized inclusion without adopting Cunningham’s remarks as team policy. The harder questions—about evidence, governance and the effect of rules on transgender athletes and women’s competition—remain unsettled.