Trump Rips Fed Rate Hike But Gives Kevin Warsh A Pass
The Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the first time in more than three years, increasing its target rate by 25 basis points to a range of 3.75%-4.0%. President Donald Trump criticized the decision, calling for lower rates, but praised Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh, whom he nominated earlier this year. Trump claimed he had advised Warsh to vote with the Fed board, as he believed the outcome would not change. Warsh stated that inflation remained elevated and that the rate hike would support a faster return to the Fed’s 2% inflation target.
Trump expressed confidence in Warsh despite the Fed’s decision, calling the board “hostile and political.” He also reiterated his belief that U.S. interest rates should be 1% or less. Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Warren softened her tone toward Warsh, acknowledging his actions as a signal that he was “committed to bringing inflation under control,” though she stopped short of fully endorsing him.
Where the accounts differ
The Daily Wire and BBC both report that Trump called for lower interest rates and praised Warsh, but only the Daily Wire mentions Trump’s claim that he told Warsh to vote with the board. The BBC notes that Trump said the Fed board was “hostile,” a claim also made by The Daily Wire and ABC News. The Washington Examiner and Axios both mention Trump’s criticism of the Fed board, but only Axios includes Trump’s specific quote about the “hostile” board. The Hill and ABC News report that Trump accused the Fed of raising rates for political reasons, a claim not included in the Daily Wire or BBC accounts. The Daily Wire and BBC both attribute the statement about inflation being “too high and had been for too long” to Warsh, while The Hill and ABC News attribute it to Warsh as well. The Daily Wire and BBC both mention Trump’s social media post calling for lower rates, but only the Daily Wire includes the exact quote “LOWER THE INTEREST RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND FAST!” The Daily Wire and BBC both report that Trump said he was “aligned with Kevin,” but only the Daily Wire includes the specific quote about Warsh being “central casting.”
Ed Sheeran Responds To The Macklemore Mess: ‘I Am Not Complicit’
Ed Sheeran stated he is not complicit in the removal of rapper Macklemore from his tour, asserting that the decision was made by the promoters, not himself. Sheeran said venues on his tour informed him they would pull their shows if Macklemore remained on the bill, following the rapper’s two controversial performances at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. Sheeran emphasized that he does not use his platform for politics, as his audience comes from diverse backgrounds and does not expect political opinions. He also noted that Macklemore’s contract for the tour was with the promoter, not him. Macklemore, in turn, blamed Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, for orchestrating his cancellation, claiming Kraft told Sheeran he would not be allowed to perform at Gillette Stadium, which Kraft owns. The tour promoter, Messina Touring Group, confirmed that multiple venues had said they would not allow a concert with Macklemore on the lineup.
Macklemore alleged that Kraft, whose company owns Gillette Stadium, refused to let him perform during Sheeran’s upcoming shows at the Massachusetts venue and “rallied” other stadium owners to take the same position. He claimed that Sheeran was in a difficult position and that refusing to take a side between the oppressor and the oppressed left him in a neutral stance. Macklemore also implied that Sheeran was a coward for not taking sides, suggesting that the stage had become a space for resistance.
Where the accounts differ
The Daily Wire and The Hill both state that Sheeran said venues told him they would pull their shows if Macklemore stayed on the bill, while The Nation and CBS News describe the decision as being made by the promoters. The Hill and The Nation mention that Sheeran asked Kraft to match a $2 million donation to Palestinian humanitarian aid, which is not mentioned in The Daily Wire or CBS News. The Nation and CBS News attribute the decision to Kraft’s influence, while The Daily Wire and The Hill state that the decision was made by the promoters. The Nation and CBS News also describe Kraft as a “friend of Donald Trump” and a “mega-donor to AIPAC,” which is not mentioned in The Daily Wire or The Hill.
Congress passes sweeping US sanctions bill targeting Russia
The House of Representatives passed a bipartisan sanctions bill targeting Russia over its continued war in Ukraine, sending it to President Donald Trump’s desk. The legislation, named after late Senator Lindsey Graham, includes provisions for up to 100% tariffs on countries importing Russian energy and sanctions on Russian officials, banks, and a shadow fleet of tankers. The bill passed with a vote of 262 to 159, marking the first time in more than two years the US Congress has passed legislation supporting Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been a vocal advocate for the bill’s passage. While most Democrats supported the bill, some, including House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, opposed it due to concerns over the tariff authorities granted to Trump.
Where the accounts differ
Al Jazeera and The Hill both report that the bill passed with a 262-159 vote, but The Hill specifies that 203 Republicans, 58 Democrats, and one Independent voted in favor, while 7 Republicans and 152 Democrats opposed. Al Jazeera does not mention the breakdown of votes. The Hill and FOX News both note that 58 Democrats joined Republicans to pass the bill, while Al Jazeera and Axios do not specify the number of Democrats who supported the bill. The Hill and FOX News also mention that the bill includes a provision extending sanctions on Iran, which is not explicitly stated in Al Jazeera or Axios. The Hill and FOX News attribute the opposition of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries to concerns over Trump’s tariff authority, while Al Jazeera and Axios attribute his opposition to the bill’s loopholes and potential for exploitation.
Lawmakers and leaders debate AI regulation amid growing concerns
Lawmakers across the U.S. are grappling with how to regulate artificial intelligence, with some expressing concern over its potential risks and others advocating for minimal government intervention. A growing number of politicians, including several senior lawmakers, have admitted they do not use AI personally, raising questions about their ability to craft effective policies. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has dismissed warnings about AI as a "hoax," arguing that a strong president should be able to manage the technology without additional regulations. At the same time, figures like Rep. Chip Roy and Sen. Bernie Sanders have called for more oversight, emphasizing the need for a "human-first" approach to AI development. Industry leaders and some lawmakers have also raised alarms about the technology's potential to disrupt jobs, national security, and societal norms, prompting calls for a slowdown in its advancement.
The debate has intensified following recent warnings from AI executives and researchers, who have urged caution as the technology continues to evolve rapidly. Some lawmakers, like Rep. Frank Pallone and Sen. Mazie Hirono, have acknowledged their limited understanding of AI but argue that legislation is still necessary. Others, such as Sen. Tim Kaine, have stated they do not need to use AI personally to form opinions on its regulation. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has pushed for federal preemption of state-level AI regulations, a stance that has drawn criticism from lawmakers and advocacy groups.
Where the accounts differ
Axios reports that more than two dozen lawmakers said they don't use AI or have rarely done so, while BBC highlights Trump's dismissal of AI concerns as a "hoax" and his endorsement of the technology. The Daily Caller notes that Rep. Chip Roy broke with Trump on AI, calling for increased guardrails, while CBS News and The Guardian both mention Roy's skepticism of Trump's stance. NPR and CBS News describe bipartisan calls for a "human-centric" approach to AI, while The Guardian adds that Sanders and Bannon offered competing visions for dealing with China in the AI race. Axios and CBS News both mention Rep. Frank Pallone's statement about not needing to use AI to regulate it, but CBS News includes additional context about his spokesperson's comments.
EU's Ursula von der Leyen proposes Canada as first associate member
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed making Canada the European Union's first associate member during her annual State of the Union address at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. She framed the move as part of a broader alliance aimed at creating "a common prosperity and economic security space." The proposal comes amid deteriorating U.S.-Canada relations, with President Donald Trump imposing tariffs and suggesting Canada could become the 51st state. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney welcomed the proposal, calling for a "unique alliance" with the EU to reduce economic dependence on the U.S. Canada has already joined the EU's defense procurement program, and discussions are expected to continue at a Canada-EU summit in Montreal.
Von der Leyen described the expanded partnership as covering advanced manufacturing, technology, defense production, the Arctic, energy, critical minerals, batteries, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, cybersecurity, and economic security. She emphasized shared democratic values, stating that "democracies have the freedom to choose with whom to work." Carney is set to address the European Parliament on Thursday, and the EU is seeking to deepen ties with Canada without granting full membership.
Where the accounts differ
NPR reports that von der Leyen proposed Canada as the first associate member and that Carney welcomed the idea, while Al Jazeera and Fox Business note Trump's criticism of the proposal, calling it a "hostile act" and warning of heavy tariffs. Axios and Newsweek describe Trump's reaction as dismissing the idea as "laughable" and threatening tariffs. The Guardian does not mention Trump's reaction but focuses on Carney's push for a "unique alliance" with the EU. NPR and Newsweek both mention that Canada has joined the EU's defense procurement program, while Al Jazeera and Fox Business do not. Axios and The Guardian note that associate membership is not yet defined under EU treaties, while NPR and Newsweek describe it as a new status.
Trump says Kennedy Center to close as court rules his name must stay off building
The Kennedy Center board voted to close the performing arts center for two years, following a federal judge's ruling that blocked the addition of Trump's name to the building. The closure comes amid ongoing legal challenges to Trump's efforts to rebrand the institution. Trump claimed the closure was for safety reasons and that renovations cannot begin until the court rules on the board's approved name. He also vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court if the ruling is negative. The center's administration has stated it is on the brink of bankruptcy, with concerns about covering payroll obligations.
A federal judge, Christopher Cooper, ruled that the board cannot install memorials for Trump or anyone else at the Kennedy Center without Congress's approval. The judge cited a statute that established the center as a memorial to President John F. Kennedy. The board's proposal to add language to the center's name and campus was deemed to violate this statute and a previous court order. The center's closure is contingent on the judge lifting a temporary block that requires it to stay open while a lawsuit brought by board member Joyce Beatty proceeds.
Where the accounts differ
BBC reports that Trump claimed the board voted "almost unanimously" to close the venue "for safety reasons" and that the closure "will take place immediately." Washington Examiner states that Beatty said Trump "threw a tantrum" during a board meeting and claimed the venue is still open despite Trump's assertion. The Guardian and CBS News both mention that Trump and his allies on the board warned of financial and physical ruin for the center if no action is taken. Axios notes that the closure timing and duration were not confirmed, while Straight Arrow News reports that the board argued the center is in "dire" financial and structural shape.
Key House Democrat refuses to clear Trump’s $2.8bn arms sale to Israel
Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has placed a hold on a $2.8bn arms sale to Israel, citing concerns over the use of 2,000lb bombs in accordance with US law and protections for civilians. The sale includes 40,000 bombs, comprising 20,000 MK-84s, 20,000 BLU-117s, and 20,000 I-2000 Penetrator warheads. Meeks emphasized that the decision does not reflect a lack of support for Israel’s defense needs but rather a responsibility to ensure weapons are used lawfully. The sale is part of a broader pattern of arms transfers to Israel since Trump took office, with over $12bn in weapons cleared or expedited.
The sale is subject to informal congressional review, where top lawmakers can delay the process before formal notification to Congress. While Meeks cannot unilaterally block the sale, his hold carries significant weight. The State Department has not yet commented on the matter, though the administration has previously bypassed congressional review in cases of national security emergencies.
Where the accounts differ
The Guardian and Al Jazeera both report that the sale includes 40,000 bombs, with specific breakdowns of 20,000 MK-84s, 20,000 BLU-117s, and 20,000 I-2000 warheads. The Guardian adds that the sale is funded through US Foreign Military Financing. The Washington Examiner and Just The News also mention the same breakdown but do not specify the funding mechanism. The Daily Wire and BBC do not mention the funding method. The Guardian and BBC note that the sale is part of a broader pattern of arms transfers to Israel since Trump took office, while the Daily Wire provides additional context on the rationale for the sale, including the use of heavy bombs in underground warfare.
Below the fold
One nomination from outside the front page. The model's printed reason — judge it:
Climate change-linked Nepal-Tibet floods displaced thousands, destroying homes and livelihoods while worsening global climate crisis impacts.
Climate change played role in Nepal-Tibet flood, study finds
A study has found that climate change likely contributed to the avalanche of rock and ice that unleashed devastating floods on the Nepal-Tibet border. The disaster, which killed over 1,300 people and left more than 5,000 missing, was caused by a massive section of overhanging glacier and rock measuring roughly 200,000 sq metres falling from Langtang Lirung mountain on 26 August. The collapse sent an avalanche of 110m cubic metres of snow and ice into the valley below, triggering flash floods that swept away homes, roads, bridges and other infrastructure. The event registered as an earthquake and moved at speeds exceeding 110 mph.
The World Weather Attribution study, led by Dr Friederike Otto of Imperial College London, identified unusually warm conditions before the glacier’s collapse, with temperatures in July and August 2026 being around 1.5C warmer than the 30-year average. The study also noted that the freezing threshold in the Himalayas has risen by about 100 metres per decade since the 1980s, weakening mountain slopes shaped by permafrost. The researchers concluded that climate change was a destabilising factor on a pre-existing geological predisposition, but not the sole cause of the disaster.
Where the accounts differ
The Guardian reports that the death toll is around 1,300 with more than 5,000 people missing, while the BBC states the death toll remains at around 1,400, with the number of missing revised to 6,150. The Guardian attributes the glacier collapse to a combination of factors including climate breakdown, glacier recession, and the 2015 earthquake, but does not directly ascribe climate breakdown as the fundamental cause. The BBC states that the study found climate change was a "destabilising factor acting on a pre-existing geological predisposition," but not the only cause. The Guardian mentions that the study did not directly ascribe climate breakdown as the fundamental cause, while the BBC does not mention this nuance.