by Andra Gillespie | Aug 18, 2026 | Congress, Opinion, Politics
In the spring, the big news concerning Florida’s 20th Congressional District was the announcement from Luther Campbell (more popularly known as Uncle Luke from the rap group 2 Live Crew) that he would be challenging embattled Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick in a Democratic primary. But after the incumbent resigned under indictment (it should be noted that she is running again in the primary), and the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais ruling gave Florida Republicans permission to redraw district lines to benefit their party, the biggest news is the decision by Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a white woman, to run in the state’s only plurality-Black district. Her candidacy there highlights the tensions between descriptive and substantive representation and the strategic risks that emerge when a large field of candidates run for the same seat.
After the Callais ruling, Florida redistributed Black voters out of the original 20th District and put 22-year incumbent Wasserman Schultz, who represented the nearby 23rd District, into a mostly Republican district. The Constitution only requires members of Congress to live in the state (not the district) they will represent, so Wasserman Schultz chose to run in Florida’s 20th District against multiple Black candidates, including Campbell, former Broward County Mayor Dale Holness and progressive favorite Elijah Manley.
Her candidacy highlights the tensions between descriptive and substantive representation and the strategic risks that emerge when a large field of candidates run for the same seat.
Political scientist David Mayhew noted decades ago that members of Congress are almost single-mindedly focused on winning re-election, so it is not surprising that Wasserman Schultz would choose to run in a district more favorable for her
by Ja'han Jones | Aug 18, 2026 | Opinion
Donald Trump’s obsession with leveling haphazard, economically ruinous tariffs that enrich himself or his family continued last week with his announcement of tariffs on foreign-made drones.
On Thursday, the president announced the tariffs he said were needed “to address the national security threat posed by imports of drones and their components,” saying the tariffs were fundamentally about “strengthening America’s drone industry and supply chain.”
The policy stands to benefit the president’s sons, who invested in American drone developers and forged bonds with the defense industry at the same time their father gained immense control over its funding. According to Forbes, the stock price of a firm that has Donald Trump Jr. on its board spiked following the president’s announcement:
Another U.S. drone maker, Unusual Machines, saw the biggest bump, with its stock soaring more than 14% to $31.13 in early trading. The president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., joined Unusual Machines’ advisory board in November 2024, and at the time he praised the company for bringing “drone manufacturing jobs back to the USA.” Trump Jr. was awarded 200,000 shares in the company for joining the board, and a month before that he had purchased 66,000 shares and 66,000 warrants in a private placement.
While the death toll from Trump’s disastrous war with Iran rises — and the president browbeats Americans about the economic sacrifices they’ll supposedly need to make so he can continue said war — his family is taking advantage of the bloody affair to line its pockets.
I’ll note here Trump’s comments to Fox News last month, in which he suggested the economy was doing just fine despite the war because the stock
by Hayes Brown | Aug 18, 2026 | Congress, Opinion, White House
Attorney General Todd Blanche was confirmed to lead the Justice Department based on the flimsiest of promises. The former personal lawyer for President Donald Trump told holdout Republican senators that he would rescind an order setting up a slush fund for MAGA allies and not move to revive it.
But Senate Democrats are now wondering whether Blanche already has a work-around in mind — and they’re right to be skeptical, given how much money has already flowed into Trump allies’ pockets.
The so-called anti-weaponization fund was novel in its blatant corruption but tapped into a surprisingly mundane source of funding.
The 10 Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Blanche a letter last week questioning just what he has in store for the future, given his easily reversible pledge. In particular, the senators noted that the documents released ahead of his confirmation “make no assurance you will not use other mechanisms, including quietly settling administrative claims brought against the government, to compensate President Trump’s political allies, effectively accomplishing the goals of the Anti-Weaponization Fund.” Instead, they argued that the documents “create a clear avenue” for benefiting Trump’s supporters using the same loophole that Blanche had previously attempted to exploit.
The so-called anti-weaponization fund was novel in its blatant corruption but tapped into a surprisingly mundane source of funding. As originally designed in the shady settlement agreement, the $1.8 billion to be doled out to supposed victims of Democratic “lawfare.” All those funds were to be drawn from the Judgment Fund, an unlimited wellspring of money meant to prevent Congress from needing to appropriate individual sums every time the federal government loses a civil
by Ja'han Jones | Aug 17, 2026 | Civil Rights, Opinion, White House
The Army appears to be tight-lipped about what, if any, punishment was handed down to one of its chaplains after he allegedly told a Black subordinate that he would “need to tie you to a tree and beat you” if she didn’t complete a spreadsheet on time.
Military.com reported that the Army took what it called “appropriate action” against Chaplain Maj. Edward Blackledge. According to the outlet, Army Capt. Tatyana Jordan said the Army had substantiated her allegation as counterproductive leadership. Jordan previously said the remark carried racist overtones because of the documented history of white slave drivers tying enslaved Black people to trees and whipping them as a form of torture and forced submission.
Per Military.com:
Jordan told Military.com on Friday, Aug. 14, that the investigation was substantiated for counterproductive leadership, and appropriate action was taken against the individual (Blackledge) involved.
The information was relayed to Jordan in person by Maj. Gen. Daryl O. Hood, the Fort Jackson commanding general.
“The investigation is complete, appropriate action was taken, and we consider this matter closed,” Christopher Surridge, a U.S. Army spokesperson, told Military.com.
It’s unclear what specific action was taken against Blackledge. Military.com inquired but received no direct response.
When asked for comment, the Army provided MS NOW with the same statement as above: “The investigation is complete, appropriate action was taken, and we consider this matter closed.” (Jordan reportedly said Blackledge told her at the time that he was “joking.”)
For what it’s worth, Jordan’s quotes in the report make it seem as if she’s at least somewhat satisfied with how the investigation concluded — though she said that in addition to support, she also received “a
by Zeeshan Aleem | Aug 17, 2026 | Business, Economy, Opinion, White House
President Donald Trump always seems to be cooking up some new scheme to profit off the presidency. And yet his administration is escalating its efforts to crack down on suspected small-scale fraud involving government-funded programs. Trump’s inordinate focus on relatively minor offenses should be understood as a bid to vilify programs meant to help vulnerable people. It also serves as a tool to distract from the misbehavior of him and his cronies.
The New York Times pointed out the Justice Department’s new and unusual focus on small-dollar fraud. A food truck in Santa Ana, California, caught prosecutors’ attention because of a suspiciously large proportion of transactions using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cards. A cashier at a Los Angeles grocery store was accused of accepting about $10,000 worth of SNAP (food stamps) cards as payment and giving undercover federal immigration officers cash for them.
Trump himself is exploiting the extraordinary power of the presidency in ways that constitute a defrauding of the public.
These are striking low-level cases for federal law enforcement. As the Times notes, federal prosecutors have “generally observed minimum-dollar thresholds in fraud cases, and in many U.S. attorney’s offices in large cities, “the threshold sits around half a million dollars.” Jacqueline Kelly, a former federal prosecutor, told the Times that a food truck “is not the kind of case you would typically see federal law enforcement resources being poured into.” Such cases are typically handled by state or local officials.
One thing that stands out about these cases, beyond how relatively minor they seem, is that they involve people allegedly misusing SNAP benefits. Fraud using SNAP benefits is rare. But in the
by Katie MacBride | Aug 16, 2026 | culture, Opinion
After seven years of much-publicized sobriety, Brad Pitt earlier this month told Esquire that he is “back off the wagon.” Given that Pitt has spent the last few years publicly volunteering information about his alcohol use and subsequent sobriety, his casual revelation that he now drinks “in a more restrained manner” raised more than a few eyebrows and spurred a wave of headlines.
Initially, I was wary of commenting f news. Brad Pitt’s sobriety is none of my business. But I’m also a sober journalist who writes a newsletter about addiction recovery; whether or not a person with a history of alcohol addiction can moderate their alcohol use after a period of sobriety is among the most frequent questions I receive.
Whether or not a person with a history of alcohol addiction can moderate their alcohol use after a period of sobriety is among the most frequent questions I receive.
Given that Pitt has repeatedly spoken publicly about his struggles with alcohol and subsequent sobriety, discussing the latest development feels like fair game.
The story also raises a second issue worth exploring: the redemptive recovery narrative as public image rehabilitation.
The immediate question, and the genesis of so many headlines following Pitt’s “off the wagon” admission, is whether a former “problem drinker” can drink moderately following a period of sobriety. For decades, the medical establishment would confidently declare the answer is no.
Historically, doctors viewed alcoholism as binary — a person either had an alcohol addiction, or they did not. If they did, conventional wisdom dictated that lifelong abstinence from alcohol was the only solution. If a sober alcoholic picked up a drink after years of
