That is how investigative reporter I.F. Stone, who died in 1989, described his role as a journalist. Stone pursued these goals by publishing I.F. Stone’s Weekly, an independent newsletter, from 1953 to 1971. Stone, best known for his indefatigable scrutiny of government documents, is considered one of the top journalists of the 20th century.

Eight years ago, inspired by Stone’s legacy, I started Popular Information. Today, you are one of 540,000 people who receive Popular Information in your inbox. I am proud of what it has accomplished so far.

The reporting in this newsletter helped secure guaranteed sick leave for 170,000 restaurant workers, prompted dozens of major companies to cut off funding to Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 election, and exposed a scheme to cripple Social Security, forcing the Trump administration to scrap its plans.

In 2026, this newsletter was honored with the David Nyhan Prize for Public Policy Journalism from the Harvard Shorenstein Center, which praised Popular Information’s work as “meticulous investigative reporting” that is “timely, fearless, and factual.” In 2023, Popular Information was featured in the Washington Post as one of a handful of “news outlets reimagining political journalism in smart ways“ and “addressing some of political journalism’s long-standing shortcomings.” In 2020, Popular Information won the Online Journalism Award for Excellence in Newsletters.

Stone was fiercely protective of his independence and, therefore, relied on readers — not corporations — to fund his work. Popular Information has taken the same approach. And for the next 24 hours, to mark our 8th anniversary, you can upgrade to a paid subscription for 28% off.

Upgrade to paid

The truth is, only a small percentage of Popular Information’s readers are paid subscribers. Part of the reason is that we do not have a paywall. I believe that access to Popular Information’s reporting should not be determined by whether someone has disposable income.

But it is paid subscribers who have allowed me to hire two talented colleagues, Rebecca Crosby and Noel Simms, who make Popular Information’s most ambitious reporting possible. In the last month, paid subscribers enabled us to purchase a new tool that tracks political ads across the country — allowing us to follow the money with new precision.

If a few more people upgrade to a paid subscription, Popular Information could expose more lies, root out more corruption, and call out more hypocrites. So, if you can afford this discounted rate ($36/year or $4.32/month), please support this work.

Support accountability journalism

There have been more than 1,500 editions of Popular Information since we launched. If you missed an issue or two, I understand. I’ve included some highlights from the last eight years below.

Please keep reading. And, as always, feel free to get in touch. You can reach me at judd@popular.info.

Here’s to another eight years!

With thanks,

Judd

“Watershed moment for the restaurant industry.” As the pandemic began to take hold of the nation in early 2020, Popular Information reported that restaurant group Darden Restaurants, the parent company of Olive Garden, was not offering employees paid sick leave unless required by law. Popular Information spoke to several current and former Darden employees who shared stories of workers who came into work sick to avoid missing a shift. Ten hours after Popular Information published its reporting, Darden, which previously lobbied against paid sick leave legislation, announced that all employees would receive paid sick leave benefits, effective immediately.

“...After the journalist Judd Legum pointed out its long history of fighting sick-leave policies, Darden Restaurants, which runs several restaurant chains, including Olive Garden, said that its 170,000 hourly workers would now get paid sick leave,” wrote Opinion Columnist Farhad Manjoo in the New York Times. Business Insider described the move as a “watershed moment for the restaurant industry.” The story was picked up by the New York Times, The Financial Times, CNBC, and Fox.

Research published in August 2021 by Harvard professor Daniel Schneider and UCSF professor Kristen Harknett in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs looked at the impact of Popular Information’s report on working conditions at Olive Garden. According to the study, this reporting “was highly effective,” dramatically increasing “employee-reported access to paid sick leave.” Further, the change in sick leave policy significantly reduced the number of employees who came to work sick at Olive Garden. “We have shown that online investigatory journalism coupled with social media activity led to substantial changes in corporate practices,” the study concluded.

Exposing and preventing a plan to cripple Social Security. On March 17, 2025, Popular Information exclusively published an internal Social Security Administration (SSA) memo that revealed plans to significantly limit phone service beginning April 1. The memo said the plan would flood already overburdened field offices with millions of additional people, creating “service disruption,” “operational strain,” and “budget shortfalls.”

After the publication of Popular Information’s report, major national news outlets, including Axios, the Washington Post, CNN, USA Today, and Newsweek, picked up the story. Popular Information was featured on The Rachel Maddow Show and Democracy Now! to discuss the report. Millions of people read the story online. Powerful advocacy groups, including the AARP, blasted the proposal.

On March 26, however, the SSA announced it was delaying the implementation until April 14. Then, on April 8, the SSA announced that it was canceling its plans to limit phone service entirely.

Support accountability journalism

“Corporations’ Political Reckoning Began With a Newsletter.” Following the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, Popular Information contacted 144 corporations and asked if they would continue to support members of Congress who voted to overturn the election. In response to Popular Information’s inquiry, three companies — Marriott, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and Commerce Bank — announced that they were suspending their donations to the 147 Republicans who objected to the certification of the Electoral College.

The report had vast ripple effects in the corporate world and was picked up by The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, The Financial Times, Reuters, MarketWatch, Forbes, Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Axios, and other publications.

“One after another, major companies pledged this week to stop donating to politicians whose objections to America’s election results led to a riot at the U.S. Capitol. They were reacting to pressure that began with an article not in the New York Times or Washington Post, but a newsletter called Popular Information,” Bloomberg media reporter Gerry Smith wrote.

Eventually, dozens of the world’s most prominent corporations — including AT&T, Amazon, Intel, Disney, and Walmart — announced they were also suspending donations to Republican election objectors. An even larger group of companies said they were suspending all corporate PAC donations.

After our initial reporting, Popular Information tracked which corporations maintained their pledges — and which returned to business as usual.

Revealing how Trump’s Argentina bailout enriched one well-connected billionaire. On October 22, 2025, Popular Information revealed that the Trump administration’s $20 billion bailout of Argentina would benefit hedge fund billionaire Robert Citrone, a personal friend and former colleague of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Popular Information’s reporting became national news, with outlets like CNN, The New Yorker, The New York Times, and CNBC picking up the story. Our work was also cited in a letter from over 50 members of Congress demanding answers from Secretary Bessent about his ties to Citrone.

Upgrade to paid

Accountability for right-wing billionaire Charles Koch. On March 14, 2022, Popular Information broke the news that Koch Industries, the conglomerate run by billionaire Charles Koch, was continuing business in Russia following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The report was picked up by several major media outlets, including the New York Times, CBS News, Newsweek, Marketwatch, Salon, and The Daily Beast.

Two days later, Popular Information uncovered how a network of pundits and groups publicly arguing against the imposition of economic sanctions on Russia was receiving funding from Charles Koch’s nonprofit network. Koch Industries made its first public statement acknowledging its Russian operations on March 17. The company insisted that exiting Russia would “do more harm than good.”

On April 6, 2022, Popular Information obtained an internal email from Charles Koch’s umbrella non-profit, Stand Together, stating the group’s opposition to economic sanctions. It also explicitly linked this position to Koch Industries’ decision to maintain its operations in Russia. On April 18, a Popular Information report revealed that a foreign policy analyst funded by Stand Together was publicly casting doubt about whether Russian forces were attacking civilians in Ukraine. On April 21, under increasing pressure, Koch Industries announced that it was halting business operations in Russia.

Protecting democracy in North Carolina. On April 15, 2025, Popular Information reported that at least 29 people had their ballots in the 2024 general election wrongly invalidated by the North Carolina Supreme Court. The state’s highest court ruled that about 260 ballots must be tossed because they were cast by people who were “never residents” of the state. The ballots — and thousands of others — were challenged by Jefferson Griffin, a Republican candidate for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court who lost by 734 votes to Democrat Allison Riggs. On April 16, the North Carolina Board of Elections filed a notice in federal court, citing Popular Information’s reporting, stating that the votes of people who were wrongly identified would be restored. On May 5, in a decision that referenced Popular Information’s reporting, a federal court declared Riggs the winner and Griffin conceded.

Support accountability journalism

Expanded sick leave at the nation’s largest supermarket chain. As COVID-19 cases began to soar in 2020, Popular Information reported extensively on Kroger’s inadequate sick leave policies. At the time, many employees told Popular Information that they were not receiving paid sick leave, which created an incentive to work while ill. Those who did have paid sick leave explained that it came with significant restrictions. Kroger proceeded to attack Popular Information, telling HuffPost that the newsletter “only serves to divide people at a time when we should all be pulling together to manage this public health crisis.”

Popular Information then reported on Publix’s much more expansive paid sick leave policy for COVID-19. The following weekend, Kroger announced a significantly expanded paid sick leave policy for COVID-19 that largely mirrored Publix’s policy. David Leonhardt of the New York Times credited Popular Information for pressuring Kroger to change its policies and expand leave. The story was also featured in Business Insider and the podcast On the Media.

Uncovering a multi-million dollar GOP dirty tricks operation. In May and June of 2026, Popular Information exposed that Lead Left, Real Change, and other purportedly “progressive” super PACs spending millions in Democratic primaries were actually part of a GOP dirty tricks operation connected to the House Republican super PAC. Within 24 hours of our initial report, Speaker Mike Johnson was forced to respond. The story was also featured on CNN.

Pulling back the curtain on the ideological agenda of a media giant. In July 2024, Popular Information revealed that the lead anchor of Sinclair’s national evening news broadcast, Eugene Ramirez, resigned over concerns about the accuracy and right-wing bias of the content he was required to present on air. The broadcast, known as The National Desk, appears on at least 70 local television affiliates owned by Sinclair. The report detailed how a small group of operatives embedded in Sinclair’s headquarters pushes right-wing propaganda dressed up as news to local outlets, where it is given the imprimatur of mainstream media brands, including NBC, ABC, and CBS. The story was covered in The Daily Beast, the Columbia Journalism Review, and NPR.

Upgrade to paid

Exposing the consequences of Trump’s pardons. Jaime Davidson, a drug kingpin convicted in the murder of a federal law enforcement officer, had his life sentence commuted by Trump. In September 2024, Popular Information uncovered that Davidson, after being set free by Trump, was accused by authorities of strangling his wife during a 2023 dispute. Davidson was subsequently convicted by a jury of domestic violence, and sentenced to three months in jail. Our reporting was picked up by the New York Times, Newsweek, the New York Daily News, the Orlando Sentinel, the Syracuse Post-Standard, and other outlets.

A scandal in Tennessee, exposed. In April 2023, Popular Information broke the news that Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R) secretly purchased a $600,000 home in Nashville. Our reporting forced Sexton to admit that his family lives in Nashville and raised serious questions about whether Sexton can legally represent a district two hours away. We also revealed that Sexton overcharged Tennessee taxpayers $78,000 by collecting per diem payments reserved for representatives who live more than 50 miles from Nashville.

The news generated a flurry of national and local media coverage, including a lengthy piece in the Tennessean, the state’s largest paper. A non-profit watchdog group called for state and federal criminal investigations into Sexton’s conduct. More than a dozen residents of Sexton’s district filed a civil complaint with the Tennessee Attorney General based on Popular Information’s reporting.

This week, Newsmax — a far-right news organization with a strong allegiance to President Trump and a history of pushing wild conspiracy theories — announced it had struck a deal with Meta. Under the agreement, Meta will “draw upon Newsmax’s significant current reporting as well as archived content across its platforms to support AI queries across Meta’s apps and devices.” Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy said the company was “pleased to work with Meta to help ensure users have access to timely, high-quality journalism through AI technologies.”

Although Meta’s AI products are currently less popular than those of OpenAI and other rivals, CEO Mark Zuckerberg is investing hundreds of billions in data centers and other infrastructure to catch up. Zuckerberg is also aggressively integrating AI into Meta’s suite of apps, including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, which collectively have over 3.9 billion monthly users. In short, how Meta’s AI products are trained could have enormous impacts.

The financial terms of Meta’s deal with Newsmax were not disclosed.

Newsmax is not an objective news source but a far-right organization that routinely distorts reality to suit its ideological goals. NewsGuard, which uses journalists to rank the credibility and reliability of news outlets, gives Newsmax a 20 out of 100. Newsmax “is unreliable because it severely violates basic journalism standards,” NewsGuard concluded. Newsmax received similar ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check (”Low“ for factual reporting) and Ground News (”Very Low“ on factuality.)

Ruddy is a longtime friend and informal advisor of Trump. He is a member of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, where the pair frequently dine together. Ruddy was described in the Washington Post as a “pioneer of America’s looming misinformation complex — making a name for himself by pushing stories that badly lacked substantiating evidence.”

After the 2020 election, Ruddy praised Trump for attempting to undermine the credibility of the election, saying it made more people interested in the news. “You know what? At the end of the day, it’s great for news,” Ruddy told the New Yorker in November 2020. “The news cycle is red-hot, and Newsmax is getting one million people per minute, according to Nielsen, tuning into Newsmax TV. I think it’s good.”

Newsmax aggressively promoted the lie that the 2020 election was stolen, using the false claims to bolster ratings. For example, on November 16, 2020, Newsmax played a clip of lawyer Sidney Powell claiming there was “massive election fraud.” According to Powell, the fraud involved “Dominion and its Smartmatic software,” which allowed people to “drag and drop Trump votes to a separate folder and then delete that folder.”

Nearly a month later, Newsmax was still promoting Powell. On December 13, 2020, Mike Huckabee introduced Powell as someone who “says she has evidence of voter fraud on the biggest scale in world history.” Powell then claimed:

We also identified the fact that the Smartmatic Dominion people left VPNs wide open and unencrypted to allow access by all kinds of foreign actors, the night of the election. This election was manipulated by evil nations like China Communist Party, which owns 75% of the investment company that owns Dominion, and then, also by Iran, there were Serbian people in the system at the time. Lichtenstein, I mean, there were hackers all over in our own election system during the election.

Newsmax was ultimately sued by both Smartmatic and Dominion. The cases were settled for over $100 million combined after judges issued several rulings favorable to the plaintiffs. The 2020 election coverage that resulted in these settlements is part of the “archived content” that Meta will apparently be using “to support AI queries across Meta’s apps and devices.”

The AI-training deal with Newsmax is the latest by Meta with a right-wing outlet that pushed pro-Trump conspiracies. Meta has also agreed to train its AI on content from Fox News, which pushed election conspiracies and settled a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion for $787 million. It has made similar deals with other right-wing outlets with poor reputations for factual accuracy, including The Daily Caller, The Washington Examiner, and News Corp, the parent company of the New York Post. Meta has also included several mainstream outlets that provide centrist coverage, including USA Today, CNN, and People Inc.

Meta has no AI-training partnership with left-leaning outlets. The company did not respond to a request for comment.

Misinformation-maxxing

Newsmax has promoted misinformation on topics beyond the 2020 election.

In 2019 and 2020, according to the Washington Post, a member of the Qatari royal family invested about $50 million in Newsmax as the network was struggling to keep up with rival Fox News. Senior leadership instructed reporters to soften their coverage of Qatar and Ruddy reprimanded a host for a critical comment on air.

A 2021 report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate identified Newsmax as one of ten sites contributing to 69% of user interaction with climate misinformation on Facebook. According to the report, Newsmax was the third most common site linked to in posts containing climate misinformation. Newsmax has posted articles promoting conspiracy theories about chemtrails and denying that climate change is caused by humans. (Facebook objected to the report’s methodology.)

In 2014, Newsmax aired and promoted a film pushing conspiracy theories about John F. Kennedy’s assassination. An article on the film published by Newsmax states that it “presents compelling forensic and eyewitness evidence, previously unavailable to the public, supporting [Mafia hit man James] Files’ contention that he, and not Lee Harvey Oswald, fired the fatal shot at America’s 35th president.”

In addition to spreading misinformation, Newsmax has also silenced criticism of Trump.

During a September 2021 interview with an Iraq War veteran, Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield abruptly cut off his guest when he started to criticize Trump over his efforts to get U.S. citizens out of Afghanistan. Stinchfield attempted to interrupt the guest, but when he continued speaking, Stinchfield shouted, “Cut him off please, cut him off now!” The guest quickly disappeared from the broadcast.

Last Friday, President Trump released an executive order directing officials to install signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History (NMAH) informing visitors that the museum presents history inaccurately.

The order is the latest attack in a lengthy campaign by the Trump administration to discredit and control the Smithsonian Institution. The Trump administration has argued that the institution, which includes 21 museums and the National Zoo, has a liberal bias.

The order cites a 162-page report released by the White House on July 4. The report, written by the White House Domestic Policy Council, argues that the “Smithsonian Institution, and the National Museum of American History in particular, under its current leadership and current interpretive ideology, cannot be trusted to tell America’s story honestly and in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic.” The report criticizes the NMAH for “extreme political activism,” “anti-White activism,” “transgender activism,” and supporting illegal immigration.

The executive order states that the temporary signs outside the museum should tell visitors that exhibits should be altered to reflect the report’s findings and “direct visitors to locations and resources for accurate information regarding America’s history.” It does not specify where visitors will be redirected.

Trump’s war against the Smithsonian began shortly after the start of his second term. In March 2025, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” that stated that the Trump administration would “restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.” The Trump administration has since threatened to withhold federal funding, ordered a comprehensive review of eight museums, and released a list of exhibits it did not agree with.

Congress has also gotten involved in the Trump administration’s battle. Last week, Anthea Hartig, the director of the NMAH, was questioned by a House subcommittee, during which Republicans accused the Smithsonian of being “infected by a woke ideology.”

“Examining the harder chapters of our history is not the same as hostility toward America,” Hartig said in her testimony. “We can and do honor the Declaration, the Revolution, the Constitution, and our national symbols, and also tell the truth about the times the country fell short of its own founding ideals. Telling our history fully is not anti-American.”

So why does the Trump administration care so much about controlling the Smithsonian Institution? One factor: the influence of right-wing Christian nationalist “historian” David Barton and his son Tim.

Who are David and Tim Barton?

The father and son are founder and president, respectively, of WallBuilders, a Christian nationalist advocacy organization founded in 1988. WallBuilders aims to “teach US history and how our beginnings were overwhelmingly rooted in Christian ideology.”

Despite having no degree in history, David Barton calls himself a historian. He has amassed a large collection of documents related to America’s founding and published several books. For decades, he has pushed the view that the founding fathers never intended for there to be a separation between church and state. David Barton’s work has been rejected repeatedly by actual historians. Most notably, a book he published in 2012 about Thomas Jefferson was pulled from the shelves by its publisher after a group of historians from Christian universities accused him of including distortions and false information.

This has not prevented David Barton from gaining political influence. In Texas, David Barton has advised the Texas State Board of Education on public school curricula. According to Barton’s own social media posts and statements, he has attended several meetings at the White House during Trump’s second term and has been in communication with Trump officials about the “crazy stuff” in the Smithsonian museums.

How the report mirrors the Bartons’ ideology

While the exact role of the Bartons has not been disclosed by the White House, there are several instances in which the report closely mirrors their ideology.

For example, the report accuses the NMAH of presenting slavery too negatively. “[The museum] should tell the story of how the colonies inherited slavery from both global and European slaving practices, but also how the words, actions, and ideas of America’s Founders helped spark a worldwide movement that ultimately ended slavery,” the report states.

The Bartons strike a very similar tone, arguing that the issue of slavery actually demonstrates “American exceptionalism.” A page on their website says, “[A]nti-American revisionism forgets that America’s record of anti-slavery actually is exceptional compared to the rest of the world.”

Both the Bartons and the report treat Christopher Columbus as an “American” hero and any attempt to criticize his actions as an effort to undermine the American historical narrative. Additionally, the report calls out the Smithsonian for its support of the 1619 Project, which the Bartons criticize frequently.

The report also alleges that the NMAH does not give proper attention to the founding fathers or the Declaration of Independence because it does not want to show that Christianity had an influence on them. The report states, “it was Christian moral philosophy that undergirded the Declaration of Independence’s assertion of God-given, unalienable rights.”

The idea that historians downplay the role of Christian values in the founding is something the Bartons have championed for many years. In a May podcast episode, Tim Barton said, “Literally the first paragraph [of the Declaration of Independence], they talk about the laws of nature and nature’s God. That’s the foundation that they’re building on.”

What the Bartons say about their involvement in the Smithsonian report

Over the last year and a half, the Bartons have frequently discussed the Trump administration’s campaign against the Smithsonian and repeatedly suggested that they have been involved.

On an April 2025 podcast episode, David Barton said that he and his son had discussed the Smithsonian “a little bit when we were up in DC with some individuals with the White House.”

Later, in a podcast episode from January 6, 2026, the Bartons said that the White House had asked them to help identify problematic Smithsonian exhibits. “Dad, you and I have gone through and reviewed several of the Smithsonian [museums] and there’s some crazy stuff there,” Tim Barton said. “You turned that over to the White House on how bad the stuff was, how misleading it was,” David Barton replied.

In a June 1 episode, Tim Barton said, “We might have been invited to help with some other initiatives and projects going on” as a “rebuttal” to the Smithsonian’s programming for America 250. The White House report was released a little over a month later.

Most recently, on a podcast episode released last week, Tim Barton said that members of the Committee on House Administration, which held a hearing last week about the report, had called the Bartons for advice on questions to pose during the hearing. One member of the committee, Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), also said on a separate podcast that he had spoken with the Bartons on the day of the hearing.

What comes next for the Smithsonian?

Neither Trump nor Congress has the power to oust museum leadership. This power lies with the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents. So, Trump and Congressional Republicans are focused on stacking the board with conservatives.

There are currently three vacancies on the board and three more will open in October. The board nominates members itself and sends their names to Congress for approval. But according to the New York Times, Vice President JD Vance, who is a member of the board, has “delayed action on the names because President Trump hoped to substitute more like-minded candidates.”

On a podcast last week, Loudermilk said that he was working with the White House to try to make these leadership changes. In what he described as a “half-serious comment,” Loudermilk said, “Let’s just let David Barton… or some of these others obtain some of the artifacts that [the Smithsonian has]... And let’s just let those guys run our national museums.”

The New York Post story is about a petition on Change.org started by Giovanni Galante, whose wife Grace Catherine Galante was among the nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 attacks. “[W]e, the family members of those murdered on 9/11, write to express our concern regarding the potential inclusion of Zohran Mamdani in the 25th-year commemorative events,” the petition states.

The story went viral on right-wing social media, garnering millions of views on X. Within hours, the story was being featured on Fox News, the cable network that is also owned by Murdoch.

“I can fully understand why the families wouldn’t want him there,” Fox News pundit Tomi Lahren said Sunday. On the same program, Fox News’ Senior National Correspondent Rich Edson suggested that Mamdani could demonstrate “respect” for the families by not showing up. On Fox Business, host Cheryl Casone said she understood the position of the families because Mamdani “does not have much sorrow about 9/11“ and “if it was 25 years ago, he’d be probably supporting the attackers on the World Trade Center.”

But the text of the New York Post article directly contradicts its cover. While the cover says that “thousands of 9/11 families demand Mamdani be banned,” the article itself says the petition “has collected over 1,100 signatures in a little over a week, including from at least 300 victims’ families.”

That “300 victims’ families” claim was initially repeated across right-wing and Jewish press, including RedState, The Times of Israel, The Daily Wire, The Post Millennial, The Jerusalem Post, Just the News, and i24News.

By Monday evening, the story had hit CBS News New York. “Thousands of 9/11 victims' families are asking New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani not to attend this year's solemn remembrance ceremony,” the network reported. After Popular Information reached out for comment, that line was removed. A revised article on the CBS website says the petition has “purportedly drawn thousands of signatures, including some victims' families.”

In an interview with Popular Information, Galante acknowledged that there was no actual list of family members who had signed the petition. “We don’t have a list,” Galante said. Rather, the 300 figure that organizers shared with the New York Post was an estimate based on how they believe the petition spread before it received much publicity. “We all know each other, so…think about it. If you know 10 people and they give it to 10 more people they know that lost. That’s how we got the 300 number,” Galante explained. “I don’t go through the list and look at the names.”

As of Monday afternoon, almost 16,000 people have signed the Change.org petition. Change.org lists these as “verified signatures,” but that verification means the signatures are “from real people” and not bots. Neither Change.org or the petition organizers have verified that 300 or more people who lost a family member on 9/11 have signed the document.

The New York Post article quotes three individuals who lost a family member on 9/11 and have signed the petition. The author of the story, reporter Rich Calder, did not respond to a request for comment.

Galante also provided more detail on his motivation for starting the petition. In the interview, Galante described Mamdani as “a Muslim that has thoughts to get rid of all Jewish people, and to agree with 9/11.” At another point in the interview, Galante claimed Mamdani “believes 9/11 should have happened to us.” (Mamdani has called suggestions that America deserved to be attacked on 9/11 “objectionable and reprehensible.”)

Galante is a registered Republican who donated $250 to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2019.

The petition includes somewhat more staid criticism of Mamdani, suggesting he has not demonstrated a “respect for the victims, recognition of the gravity of the attacks, and a clear rejection of the ideologies that contributed to such violence.”

The petition’s evidence, however, relies primarily on guilt by association. It cites views or remarks by Mamdani’s father, a Brooklyn Imam, and a Congressional candidate. It does not contain any direct quotes from Mamdani himself.

Mamdani was asked about the petition during a Monday press conference and indicated that he planned to attend the 9/11 anniversary ceremony. “I will proudly honor the families, the survivors, the first responders, forever impacted by that horrific terror attack by standing alongside them at this year’s 9/11 commemoration, reaffirming that we will never forget the solemn day felt by all of us who call this city home and, frankly, by all of us who call this country home,” Mamdani said.

Sometime before the anniversary, Galante says the organizers will go to Mamdani’s office to deliver the petition. They will deliver the full list of everyone who signed on Change.org with no designation of which signatories lost a relative on 9/11.

“I can’t separate,” Galante said. “[Change.org] doesn’t give you much information as far as who they are, where they came from.”

American taxpayers are spending billions every year providing Medicaid benefits to hundreds of thousands of employees of Amazon and Walmart, a new analysis by Popular Information reveals.

Amazon and Walmart are two of the largest and most profitable companies in the country — collectively generating $100 billion in profits in 2025 — but many of their employees still qualify for Medicaid because their take-home pay hovers around (or below) the poverty line.

As taxpayers keep their workers afloat, the wealth of the two companies’ largest shareholders is increasing exponentially. The Walton family, the largest shareholders of Walmart, saw their collective wealth increase from $238 billion in 2021 to $513 billion at the end of 2025. Meanwhile, Amazon founder and current executive chairman Jeff Bezos saw his net worth increase from $187 billion to $255 billion over roughly the same time period.

Popular Information calculated the public subsidy to Amazon and Walmart by cross-referencing several publicly available data sources. Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report examining the top 25 employers of Medicaid enrollees in six states: Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island. This provided state-level Medicaid enrollment for Amazon and Walmart workers in all six states, with the exception of Amazon in Maine.

Popular Information compared these figures to the total number of employees working for Walmart and Amazon in each state, sourced from company disclosures, to establish an average Medicaid enrollment rate for each company. The average Medicaid enrollment rate was then used to establish an estimated Medicaid enrollment for employees of each company in the remaining states.

Finally, the estimated number of employees receiving Medicaid in each state was multiplied by that state’s average annual cost of a non-elderly, non-disabled Medicaid enrollee, as published by the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC).

Using this methodology, Popular Information estimates that, nationwide, over 156,000 Walmart employees are enrolled in Medicaid at an annual cost to taxpayers of approximately $1.04 billion.

This figure significantly understates the true cost of Medicaid for Walmart employees to taxpayers. First, the calculation only includes the direct cost of Medicaid for the employees themselves. But Walmart’s low wages for these employees also makes their families eligible for Medicaid. Taking into account dependents, the cost to taxpayers would roughly double. Further, the most recent data on Medicaid cost per enrollee from MACPAC is from fiscal year 2023. Costs for 2025 and 2026 are likely significantly higher.

In Walmart’s 2026 fiscal year, then-CEO Doug McMillon was paid over $29.2 million in total compensation while the median Walmart worker earned $30,520 — a ratio of 958 to 1. The earnings of an average worker put them well below the cutoff for Medicaid eligibility for a family of three.

For Amazon, the same methodology finds that an estimated 123,000 Amazon employees are enrolled in Medicaid at a cost to taxpayers of $927 million.

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy was given a massive compensation package of $212 million in 2021, mostly in stock that vests over 10 years. Jassy’s compensation has been smaller since; he was paid another $2.1 million in 2024. Meanwhile, the median Amazon employee earned $40,206 that year. This global number includes the many higher-paid technical employees who work at Amazon. Warehouse workers in the United States, and others in blue collar positions, make much less, making them eligible for Medicaid.

“Amazon is one of the largest job creators in the country, so looking at raw numbers instead of percentages is misleading,” an Amazon spokesman said in response to Popular Information’s request for comment. “Also, eligibility for both SNAP and Medicaid is based on total household income and family size, not individual wages or benefits – so employers that offer part-time options for those who want them, like we do, are likely to have more people who are eligible.”

While Walmart ranked first in terms of “raw numbers” of employees on Medicaid, Amazon had a higher percentage of its workforce on Medicaid (11.7%) than Walmart (9.4%).

Not everyone who works parttime does so by choice. In June 2026, 4.7 million “individuals would have preferred full-time employment but were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs,” according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Moreover, according to the GAO, 66.1% of employed individuals on Medicaid work full-time.

Walmart declined to comment on the record. According to the company’s corporate website, starting wages at Walmart have increased by 93% since 2015.

After two fatal shootings by ICE agents in Texas and Maine, during which officers were not wearing body cams, White House Border Czar Tom Homan defended the agency. He said Democrats held up the purchase of body cams and “as soon as [ICE] had funding they bought them.” That funding was provided in April. Documents uncovered by Popular Information show that it was not until July 17 and 20, days after Homan claimed the purchases had already been made, that ICE spent over $30 million on body cams.

On May 26, the Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to pharmaceutical company QOL Medical with serious allegations that could pose an existential threat to the company. Days later, QOL Medical CEO Frederick Cooper wrote a $1 million check to Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration announced a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that could pave the way for the kingdom to enrich uranium. The deal comes after the Saudi government’s Public Investment Fund invested $2 billion in Jared Kushner’s private equity fund. Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, is continuing to collect fees from the Saudi government as he has resumed his role as a top foreign policy aide in the Trump administration. Nearly all major media coverage of the nuclear agreement ignored Kushner’s financial conflicts.

The best of the rest

Crypto investors Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and their crypto company donated over $10 million to MAGA Inc. The donations were made “less than a month after the Trump administration moved to vacate a Biden-era enforcement action against the brothers’ crypto exchange, Gemini.” (The Lever)

Florida gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds (R) has received large donations from multiple companies seeking to build data centers in the state. According to Politico, “[a]t least four developers that are actively pursuing or had previously proposed data centers… have offered five- and six-figure donations to Donalds’ political action committee.” (Politico)

Afraid to leave the house during ICE’s crackdown in Minneapolis, many undocumented single mothers lost months of work, putting them and their children in precarious financial situations. Now, some who are authorized to work under their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status are being forced to pay upwards of $1,000 to renew it. (The 19th)

Shortly after Trump’s reelection, his son Donald Trump Jr. announced that he was joining an investment firm founded in 2023, 1789 Capital. Since then, the firm has invested in multiple companies that either have government contracts or have benefited from decisions by the Trump administration. 1789 Capital has generated 200% returns, far higher than the 21% average returns of other firms started the same year. (The New York Times)

Numerical information

$4.09: The average price of a gallon of gas nationwide as of Thursday, according to AAA. Gas prices crossed the $4 a gallon threshold again this week after the war with Iran resumed.

$37.5 billion: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Senate committee this week that the war with Iran has cost $37.5 billion so far. A Popular Information analysis, however, found that the U.S. spent over $103 billion on the war in the first 120 days.

2,295: The number of measles cases reported so far in the U.S. in 2026. Just over halfway through the year, the number of cases has already exceeded all of 2025.

Quote of the week

“It comes down to one simple fact: these people failed to comply with law enforcement… If they did, they’d be alive today.”

– White House Border Czar Tom Homan on the two people fatally shot by federal immigration agents in Texas and Maine.

Photo of the week

On Wednesday, the Trump administration signed a 30-year nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that paves the way for the kingdom to enrich its own uranium. The Saudi government has been aggressively seeking such a deal for years, eager to gain an edge over regional rivals. The agreement lacks safeguards that previous administrations, and many independent foreign policy analysts, viewed as essential to prevent nuclear proliferation.

The deal comes after the Saudi government’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) invested $2 billion in Jared Kushner’s private equity fund, Affinity Partners. Since 2021, Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, has collected over $110 million from the Saudi government in management fees. In March, Kushner was seeking billions more from the Saudis. (After Kushner’s fundraising was exposed, his efforts were purportedly put on hold.)

Kushner also has a close personal relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) — the pair are known to communicate regularly over WhatsApp. In 2021, when the PIF committee originally recommended rejecting Kushner’s proposal due to the high price and Kushner’s inexperience, MBS overruled the recommendation.

As he continues to collect fees from the Saudi government, Kushner has resumed his role as a top foreign policy aide to Trump. He has played a key role in virtually every significant foreign policy negotiation since Trump returned to the White House.

Kushner’s specific involvement in the nuclear pact, if any, has not been disclosed. But the fact that one of the president’s top foreign policy advisors is receiving large, ongoing financial payments from the Saudi government is unquestionably relevant to the story.

Nearly all major media coverage of the US-Saudi nuclear agreement ignored Kushner’s financial conflicts — including articles by the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, AP, and CNN.

Semafor, for example, called the deal “a major win for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman,” who has been negotiating with Trump for months, but did not note the potential conflict of interest stemming from his involvement with Kushner. The New York Times explained how the deal with Saudi Arabia broke a precedent for nuclear deals set by previous administrations, but did not examine the unprecedented relationship Trump has with Saudi Arabia through his son-in-law.

As of Wednesday, Popular Information could only identify one article on the deal from a prominent outlet mentioning Kushner. Mediaite briefly discusses the funding that Kushner’s private equity firm has received from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund. (A Forbes piece focused on the Trump Organization’s financial ties to Saudi Arabia, but did not mention Kushner.)

This is not the first time that the media has ignored Kushner’s conflicts of interest.

In April, Popular Information reported that in 202 articles published by major outlets about Kushner’s role in negotiations with Iran, only six mentioned his financial connections to Saudi Arabia. The silence continued after it was reported that MBS had pushed Trump to initiate the war with Iran and later to continue attacking.

The information landscape in the United States is busted. Billionaires are using the powerful social media platforms and media outlets they control to curry favor with Trump.

Google paid Trump $25 million to settle a bogus lawsuit.

Jeff Bezos purged Trump critics from the Washington Post opinion page.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg canceled fact-checking on Facebook.

A pro-Trump billionaire bought CBS News — and is now buying CNN.

The only way to fight back is to build up independent media that is free from the influence of billionaires and corporate America.

If you believe in independent accountability journalism and can afford $50 per year or $6 per month, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

A sweetheart deal for MBS

The deal with Saudi Arabia will reportedly allow the kingdom to begin a civilian nuclear program. The Wall Street Journal, which was first to report the approved deal, reported that it was a “30-year, multibillion-dollar deal.” (The full text of the agreement has not been released.)

The reported details of the deal involve American companies developing the program and providing Saudi Arabia with “new power reactors and other nuclear technology.” The Trump administration argues that U.S. involvement would prevent a weapon from being developed.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the agreement “would have American companies build a uranium enrichment facility in Saudi Arabia if a joint U.S.-Saudi study determines such a step would be warranted.” If a nuclear enrichment facility is not built under the terms of the agreement, Saudi Arabia would be prohibited from advancing enrichment activities for 10 years.

The agreement takes effect automatically unless Congress blocks it, but that is unlikely. It requires a two-thirds majority to override a Trump veto.

The facility would be built under a “black box” agreement that purportedly would prevent the transfer of sensitive technology to the Saudi government. Critics argue that the reported deal does not include enough safeguards to prevent Saudi Arabia from eventually attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

While Saudi Arabia is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “the agreement is not expected to include the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which would allow for more monitoring, inspections and verification,” the Associated Press reported.

Trump administration officials said that there is a separate agreement that “will still provide for adequate monitoring of the U.S.-provided sites,” but critics argue that would be “inadequate to investigate suspected nuclear activities that don’t involve the U.S.”

The new agreement could also increase tensions with Iran, as the U.S. is currently involved in negotiations with Iran to limit its nuclear program. While Saudi Arabia “insists its intentions are peaceful,” MBS said in 2018 that his country would “without a doubt” develop a nuclear weapon if Iran did first.

Saudi Arabia is not the only country with connections to Kushner that the Trump administration has recently negotiated with despite security risks. Politico reported that the “Trump administration ignored warnings from career staff at the Commerce Department when it granted the United Arab Emirates sweeping access to advanced American semiconductors and other technology.” The UAE has invested over $200 million into Affinity Partners.

QOL Medical sells Sucraid, a drug that treats congenital sucrase-isomaltase deficiency (CSID), a rare but serious medical condition. Sucraid is effective at treating CSID but is very expensive. The list price can exceed $12,000 per month or $150,000 per year.

The FDA letter accused QOL Medical of using “false or misleading” advertising to sell more Sucraid. The marketing materials, according to the FDA, encouraged doctors to prescribe Sucraid to “patients suffering with unresolved IBS-like symptoms, including gas, bloating, diarrhea, and/or nausea.”

But Sucraid cannot treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or its symptoms. It can only be used to treat “sucrase deficiency.” Overall, the FDA said, the advertising creates a “misleading impression.” As a result, the FDA informed QOL Medical that it was in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits the misbranding of drugs in advertising.

This letter must have been of particular concern to Cooper. In November 2024, QOL Medical and Cooper agreed to a $47 million settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) for using a kickback scheme and aggressive sales tactics to induce doctors to prescribe Sucraid to patients who did not need it. As a result, the DOJ alleged, QOL Medical defrauded federal health systems.

“Let this case be a warning to others that we will aggressively pursue all those, motivated by greed, who try to unlawfully enrich themselves at taxpayers’ expense,” Jodi Cohen, FBI Special Agent in Charge, said in a statement.

In return for the $47 million payment, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed not to seek to exclude QOL Medical and Cooper “from Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health care programs.” Exclusion from federal health care programs would be a devastating blow to nearly any medical company.

The agreement by HHS, however, was contingent upon QOL Medical and Cooper abiding by the terms of a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA), which the parties signed simultaneously with the DOJ settlement. The CIA requires QOL Medical and Cooper to comply “with the statutes, regulations, and written directives” of the FDA. Any material breach of the CIA “constitutes an independent basis for QOL’s exclusion from participation in the Federal health care programs.”

Specifically, under the agreement, any “probable violation of FDA requirements relating to the marketing or sale of Government Reimbursed Products” would be considered a “reportable event.” The letter the FDA sent to QOL Medical unambiguously qualifies as reportable. Ultimately, the Office of the Inspector General of the HHS makes a determination about whether any conduct constitutes a material breach.

In any event, the FDA’s May 26 letter gives QOL Medical 15 working days to respond. On June 8, MAGA Inc. received a $1 million check from Cooper.

This isn’t Cooper’s first donation to MAGA Inc. Cooper also donated $2 million to MAGA Inc. in February 2025 and another $1 million in October 2025. Cooper’s donations to MAGA Inc. in the last two years dwarf all of his previous political donations.

As of now, QOL Medical’s alleged violation appears to still be pending. The FDA has not posted a “close out letter,” which would indicate that the issue has been resolved.

Inside QOL’s fraudulent scheme

QOL Medical and Cooper’s 2024 settlement with the DOJ involved an aggressive marketing scheme to increase Sucraid prescriptions. According to the settlement agreement, starting in 2018, QOL Medical began offering health care providers free Carbon-13 breath test kits for people with common stomach and digestive symptoms, claiming that the test kits could “rule in or rule out” CSID.

But the breath test, which was not FDA-approved, did not actually diagnose CSID. It tested for sucrase activity, and other conditions could cause a positive result. According to the settlement, around 30% of the breath tests provided by QOL Medical came back positive. QOL Medical then used these positive tests to convince doctors to prescribe Sucraid to patients.

Between 2018 and 2022, QOL Medical paid for a laboratory to run more than 75,000 of the breath tests, paying around $105 for each test to be analyzed. QOL Medical also paid for the results to be sent to the health care providers and QOL Medical. While the results delivered to QOL Medical did not contain the names of the patients, they “did contain the name of the health care provider who ordered the test, along with the patient’s age, gender, symptoms, and test result.”

QOL Medical then “disseminated this information to its sales force with instructions to make sales calls for Sucraid” to providers of patients with a positive breath test. The company kept track of whether its sales representatives converted positive test results into new prescriptions for Sucraid. According to a press release, “Cooper was aware of and approved the implementation and continuation of this marketing program.”

According to the settlement, some members of the QOL Medical sales teams made unsupported claims about the test’s ability to diagnose CSID. In 2019, at a national sales training, QOL Medical said in slides reviewed by Cooper that sales representatives should tell providers, “If you have a positive breath test, the patient will not improve unless you treat with Sucraid.”

This was all part of a scheme to charge the government, private insurers, and others thousands of dollars a month for a highly specialized drug many patients did not need. QOL Medical’s conduct “resulted in some patients taking Sucraid even though it wasn’t medically necessary,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a January 2025 press release.

In the settlement, the United States contends that QOL Medical and Cooper “caused the submission of false claims to Medicare, TRICARE, VA, and Medicaid.” These false claims were significant because the “restitution” portion of the settlement was $23.5 million. The remainder of the settlement is a penalty for the fraudulent conduct.

If the Trump administration, however, determined that QOL Medical violated its CIA, the economic consequences could be even more severe.

Durán Guerrero was the eighth person killed in federal immigration enforcement actions during the current Trump administration. In only one instance were federal immigration officers wearing a body cam.

Why are ICE officers not equipped with body cams?

Shortly after Durán Guerrero was killed, DHS blamed Democrats. According to a DHS statement the “process of purchasing and issuing body-worn cameras to all of our ICE field offices was interrupted by the Democrats’ multiple government shutdowns.”

On July 14, answering questions from CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, White House Border Czar Tom Homan had a similar message:

COLLINS: Why were the ICE agents not wearing body cameras in Houston or in Maine during these two incidents?

TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: Good question. I -- you know, when the Democrats shut down the Department of Homeland Security… There was a $120 million in the budget they were holding up to buy those body cameras.

…

COLLINS: That funding was approved in April for body cameras, $20 million I believe. So why has that not been distributed? And will these arrests now--

HOMAN: Cameras were bought. One of the first things I did in Minnesota is bring hundreds of cameras to Minnesota that were recently purchased. But there wasn’t [sic] the cameras to -- to outfit every ICE agent. I was waiting for more money… As soon as they had funding they bought them. If Democrats wouldn’t have shut down the government it would have been a lot quicker.

Homan repeated that line — “As soon as they had funding they bought them” — twice, for emphasis.

Not only did ICE not purchase the body cams “as soon as they had funding,” but ICE had not purchased the body cams at the time of Homan’s statements, according to government contracting documents unearthed by Popular Information. On July 17 and July 20 — days after the Homan interview — a division of ICE, the Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs, issued two delivery orders for $30.9 million of body cams.

Between April 30, when Trump signed the DHS appropriations bill with $20 million in funding specifically for body cams, and July 17, DHS had spent just $75,000 on new body cams. The more recent order for over $30 million of body cams shows that was a nominal sum far below ICE’s actual needs.

Moreover, ICE did not need additional funding in April to purchase body cams. On July 4, 2025, Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which provided ICE with $75 billion in additional funding — with few restrictions. Since then, ICE has been sitting on tens of billions of dollars in unspent funds. The government shutdowns cited by Homan had no impact on these funds. The contracting authority to purchase up to $100 million in body cams from Axon Enterprise has existed since 2023.

Since February 2025, it has been the official policy of ICE for law enforcement officers to wear body cams “to collect audio and video recordings of interactions with the public during Enforcement Activities.” But the policy was contingent on body cams being “issued enterprise-wide.”

They were not issued. In February 2026, months after ICE’s $75 billion windfall, Acting Director Todd Lyons said that only 3,000 of ICE’s 13,000 officers wore body cams. ICE was avoiding compliance with the policy by simply not ordering many body cams.

Now, after many deadly unrecorded incidents, the body cams have finally been ordered. Will the body cams actually be distributed to ICE officers and used? Time will tell.

Two unrecorded ICE killings in six days

Durán Guerrero was the second unrecorded killing by an ICE officer in less than a week.

On July 7, an ICE officer fatally shot Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Houston father of three who worked in the US for 35 years. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims that Salgado Araujo, who had no criminal record, “rammed an ICE law enforcement vehicle, refused to follow multiple verbal commands, and weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer resulting in our officer firing his weapon in self-defense.”

The DHS account is similar to the justification provided by the Trump administration for the January 7 killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis. DHS described Good as a “violent rioter” who “weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism.” The ICE officer, DHS said, “fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots.” President Trump said Good “ran him over.”

In Good’s case, none of the ICE officers involved were using a body cam, but bystander video directly contradicted the DHS account. None of the ICE officers at the scene of Salgado Araujo’s killing were using body cams either, but no clear photos or videos of the incident have emerged.

From the outset of President Trump’s second term, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has engaged in a deadly immigration crackdown that has trampled the constitutional rights of migrants and US citizens.

During the operation, there have been 28 incidents where immigration agents shot at people, resulting in eight deaths, according to an analysis by The Trace. On July 13, an ICE officer fatally shot Joan Sebastian Durán Guerrero, a 25-year-old delivery driver from Colombia authorized to work in the US. On July 7, an ICE officer shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a father of three who worked in the US for more than three decades.

According to federal courts, ICE agents have repeatedly violated the rights of citizens, stopping people for “looking Mexican,” conducting warrantless raids, and ignoring due process. Peaceful protestors and journalists have been targeted with chemical agents, rubber bullets, and flash grenades. Since January 2025, at least 52 people have died in ICE custody from a variety of causes, including medical neglect and homicide.

While this dragnet reflects the priorities of Trump and his top advisors, it cannot persist in a vacuum. It requires broader political and economic support. The political support for ICE has come from Congress, which has both massively increased ICE’s funding and repeatedly failed to rein in its excesses.

Popular Information identified the core of ICE’s Congressional support by cataloging members of Congress who, looking at this record, have sought to increase ICE’s power by sponsoring or co-sponsoring pending legislation. This includes bills like the “10 Years of ICE Funding Act,” sponsored by Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO), and co-sponsored by Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Bernie Moreno (R-OH), which provides $105 billion in dedicated funding for ICE through 2036. And the “287(g) Cooperation Act of 2026,” sponsored by Congressman Ben Cline (R-VA) and co-sponsored by 16 Republican colleagues, which conditions federal public safety funding for state and local governments on the signing of a cooperation agreement with ICE within 180 days.

Overall, 40 bills — including 27 House bills and 13 Senate bills — were included in the analysis. (A complete list of those bills, and their sponsors, is available here.)

In total, Popular Information has identified 110 House members and 37 Senators who have sponsored or co-sponsored at least one of the 40 bills expanding ICE’s power during the 119th Congress. The most prolific supporter of these bills was Congressman Barry Moore (R-AL), who sponsored or co-sponsored 12. Following close behind were Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Congressman Brandon Gill (R-TX), who each sponsored or co-sponsored nine. In the Senate, Eric Schmitt (R-MO) sponsored or co-sponsored seven such bills, with Rick Scott (R-FL) sponsoring or co-sponsoring five.

Popular Information then analyzed corporate PAC donations reported to the FEC during the 2026 political cycle to the campaign committees and leadership PACs of these members.

The top consumer brand financially backing this group of ICE supporters is SpaceX, Elon Musk’s newly public company that runs Starlink satellite internet, xAI’s Grok chatbot, and the X social media platform. SpaceX’s corporate PAC donated $589,000 to 63 members of Congress who sponsored or co-sponsored legislation expanding ICE’s power. Other consumer brands near the top of the list include Home Depot ($536,500 to 77 members), Walmart ($308,000 to 88 members), Toyota ($262,500 to 75 members), and Google ($257,500 to 48 members).

In the first Trump administration, some of the companies on the list opposed Trump’s immigration policies, including those targeting the undocumented. In 2017, for example, the CEOs of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, AT&T, and Walmart all signed a letter calling for legislation to protect undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children. During the second administration, none of these companies have publicly opposed any of Trump’s immigration policies.

Corporations have recently been under fire for their economic support of ICE’s immigration crackdown. Last week, Citizens Bank “announced it will be ending its financial relationship with prison companies” that run detention facilities for ICE. The move came “after months of public outcry and hundreds of millions being divested” from Citizens Bank in response to it extending credit lines to CoreCivic and The GEO Group.

Since the United States attacked Iran on February 28, Iran has closed or restricted passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has claimed on at least two dozen occasions since the start of the war that the Strait of Hormuz was “open” or controlled by the U.S., according to a Popular Information analysis. But these claims are false.

On Wednesday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee as he seeks confirmation to the post. Blanche is under scrutiny for withholding documents he is required to release under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, according to a lawsuit by journalist Katie Phang. Even after a federal judge ruled in Phang’s favor, Blanche has not released additional material.

At the direction of Elon Musk, Tesla has spent tens of billions of dollars to research and produce driverless taxis called Cybercabs. These cars cannot be used on the road because they lack steering wheels or pedals. Now, the Trump administration is quietly moving to alter federal safety regulations to allow Musk to deploy Cybercabs nationwide.

The best of the rest

A Washington Post analysis found that funds linked to Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump “have invested in more than a dozen defense tech companies and other firms seeking businesses from the Pentagon and federal agencies.” The companies have together “generated at least $3.2 billion in direct government business since the sons invested.” (Washington Post)

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioners have accepted expensive tickets to the Kennedy Center Honors Gala from CBS and Paramount, CBS’ parent company, as they considered whether to approve Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media. (ProPublica)

A report released this week identified 412 instances in which law enforcement officers have misused “less-lethal weapons,” such as tear gas and rubber bullets, against protestors at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities. The report, which covered the period from June 2025 to May 2026, also found 203 instances of injuries resulting from this misuse. (The Guardian)

Republican lawmakers in three states — North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah — are asking citizens to vote on whether to raise the threshold for approving ballot measures to 60%, instead of a simple majority. Currently, the only state with this higher threshold for ballot measures is Florida. In 2024, the 60% threshold led to the failure of a ballot measure to enshrine abortion access in the state constitution that was approved by 57% of Florida voters. (NPR)

Numerical information

$5.6 million: On Monday, E. Jean Carroll was finally paid after a lengthy legal battle over a 2023 jury verdict that found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

$81 billion: The amount the U.S. government has already paid in tariff refunds after the Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs were illegal.

2 million: The number of Americans facing long-term unemployment, meaning they have been without work for half a year or more. This is approaching the highest level since 2021.

Quote of the week

“I don’t think the problem is that our elections aren’t secure because we control the House, we control the Senate, we control the White House, and to some degree we control the Supreme Court. So I ask my Republican colleagues, why are you complaining about election fraud? We won all the damn elections.”

– Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)

Photo of the week

Four years ago, Elon Musk conceded that Tesla, his automotive company, would be “worth basically zero” if it failed to deliver true autonomous driving technology.

Since then, Musk, Tesla’s chief executive and largest shareholder, has directed the company to pump tens of billions of dollars into speculative autonomous driving research, development, and hardware. Recently, Tesla used its Gigafactory in Texas to produce scores of Cybercabs, a driverless-only model that the company cannot currently sell or deploy on public roads.

However, the Trump administration is now moving to fulfill the regulatory wishlist necessary for Musk’s autonomous driving dream — including deregulatory actions that would clear the way for automakers to drop traditionally required manual controls and safety features. These changes that would accommodate the Cybercab’s lack of a steering wheel, mirrors, and brake and acceleration pedals.

Accompanying the deregulations is a Department of Transportation (DOT) initiative to establish a uniform framework for evaluating the safety of automated driving systems at the federal level.

Musk — who shelled out $290 million to help elect Donald Trump in 2024 and another $85.1 million this cycle, largely backing congressional Republicans — has long lobbied for a similar national framework. According to Musk, the current fragmented system, in which individual states and cities decide whether automated driving systems are safe enough to deploy on public streets, is to blame for the plodding rollout of Tesla’s so-called Robotaxi ride-hailing service.

The DOT’s push to create a federal safety standard for self-driving systems and to loosen vehicle safety requirements to allow for autonomous vehicles like Tesla’s Cybercab were both included in the White House’s “2026 Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.” The agenda, a massive document quietly released last week, proposed eliminating or weakening hundreds of federal regulations.

“Tesla will have the largest fleet of autonomous vehicles”

For years, Musk has said the future of Tesla hinges on its ability to create driverless vehicles that it can both sell to consumers and use to dominate the ride-hailing industry.

“Tesla will have the largest fleet of autonomous vehicles as far into the future as I can imagine,” he wrote in a February post on X.

Part of that vision, he has said, includes doing away with steering wheels or pedals, despite the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a DOT agency, enforcing a litany of safety standards requiring vehicle manufacturers to include analog controls.

Amid the Trump administration’s deregulatory binge, DOT has proposed carving out numerous special exceptions to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that would apply to Tesla’s steering-wheel-less, pedal-less, and mirrorless Cybercab model.

One new deregulatory proposal from DOT indicates that current FMVSS requirements for vehicle electronic stability controls need to undergo “modernization” to allow approval of automated vehicles “that lack manually operated driving controls.”

Another deregulatory change calls for an “update [to] the light vehicle brake systems standard… to except ADS-equipped vehicles without manually operated driving controls from the requirements for physical brake controls that presume a person is driving the vehicle.”

A third safety overhaul would apply to the Cybercab’s mirrorless design: Because the FMVSS requires that new vehicles be equipped with rearview mirrors and backup cameras, DOT has proposed establishing new functional requirements specific to automated vehicles that would not require vehicles “to be equipped with mirrors and a rearview image display.” Instead, separate requirements would be created for the “detection of… standardized objects that simulate small obstacles such as a child,” according to a deregulatory notice issued by the Office of Management and Budget.

According to Musk’s biographer, Walter Isaacson, the centibillionaire has previously said that Tesla would commit to a car with “No mirrors, no pedals, no steering wheel,” adding, “This is me taking responsibility for this decision. Let me be clear. This vehicle must be designed as a clean robotaxi. We’re going to take that risk. It’s my fault if it fucks up. But we are not going to design some sort of amphibian frog that’s a halfway car. We are all in on autonomy.”

In a July interview, NHTSA administrator Jonathan Morrison made clear that federal regulators were supportive of that vision, saying the agency would “absolutely” do away with the steering-wheel requirement in the future. “If you’re developing a vehicle that is designed never to be driven by a human operator, does it make any sense to require manual controls for the vehicle?” he told CNBC. “I think the answer is pretty clear there.”

“It’d be wonderful for the United States to have a national set of rules for autonomous driving”

Last year, when Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy visited Tesla’s facilities, Musk lobbied for Washington to override states by setting national safety rules for automated driving technologies.

“It’d be wonderful for the United States to have a national set of rules for autonomous driving as opposed to 50 independent sets of rules on a state-by-state basis,” he told Duffy at the time.

Duffy, a former reality TV star, congressman, and Fox Business host, appears to have taken that request to heart.

In a notice listed as a “Deregulatory” agenda item, DOT announced plans for a new protocol to decide the operational “concept” of self-driving vehicles and select “operational areas” where automated driving systems could serve as “the sole driver” of a vehicle. “NHTSA will also identify metrics to predict and to track safety outcomes,” read the notice that was included in Trump’s 2026 “Unified Agenda.”

It continued:

To date there is no uniform approach to assess the safety performance of [Automated Driving Systems] ADS-equipped vehicles intended to operate on U.S. public roads. Currently, ADS entities must navigate a patchwork of State laws and regulations to deploy ADS-equipped vehicles. This rulemaking will provide Federal leadership on the safety performance of ADS-equipped vehicles. A uniform ADS safety performance assessment approach encourages American innovation and ADS development and promotes continued safe operation of ADS-equipped vehicles on U.S. public roads.

So far, Tesla has only tested its driverless Robotaxi ride-hailing service in two Republican states — Texas and Florida — with permissive regulatory environments. Even in Austin, Texas, where Tesla has its largest and longest-running Robotaxi test pool, the company has only deployed a few dozen vehicles. Many of those vehicles are partially accompanied by a human “safety monitor,” and all of them are overseen by remote human operators.

While Musk and other executives have marketed Tesla’s advanced driver assistance systems as up to 10 times safer than human drivers, a Reuters investigation in May found the company had significantly skewed comparison data to arrive at that claim. “The automaker counted Tesla crashes with airbag deployments and compared them with federal data on all crashes in which a tow-truck removed a vehicle — a far less restrictive criterion,” Reuters reported.

Tesla, which has repeatedly missed deadlines set by Musk to achieve autonomous driving, also faces a growing number of lawsuits and investigations into the role its driver assistance systems — Full Self-Driving (Supervised) and Autopilot — have played in fatal crashes.

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider the nomination of Todd Blanche to be the next U.S. Attorney General. Blanche, President Trump’s former personal attorney who has been serving in an acting capacity since April, faces a number of obstacles to his confirmation.

One of the biggest is Jeffrey Epstein.

Blanche stands accused of failing to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the public disclosure of most Department of Justice (DOJ) files associated with the late sex criminal. On April 27, journalist Katie Phang sued Blanche in federal court, alleging he had “either retracted, or failed to produce entirely, documents that should have been produced” under the law.

The most explosive of Phang’s allegations is that Blanche has “withheld notes from FBI interviews with a victim who has alleged that in the 1980s, when she was about 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, who in turn assaulted her.”

In March, the DOJ belatedly released redacted typed summaries of three interviews with the woman discussing her interactions with Trump, including the alleged sexual assault. Those summaries were initially excluded from the DOJ’s primary release of Epstein files in January and disclosed only after their exclusion received media attention.

Phang sued to force Blanche to release the FBI’s handwritten notes from the interviews with the woman, which were also referenced in the Maxwell case. According to Phang, the disclosure of these notes was required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

In response to Phang, Blanche did not address the substance of Phang’s argument. Instead, he argued that the Epstein Files Transparency Act did not create a private right of action and, therefore, Phang did not have standing to sue. He also argued that, even if Phang had standing, she did not suffer any injury from his refusal to disclose the interview notes and other documents.

Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected all of Blanche’s arguments. He ruled that Phang did have standing and that Blanche’s failure to fully disclose the Epstein files created real harm to Phang as a journalist. Sullivan also found that, in not addressing the substance of Phang’s arguments, Blanche “conceded that he is in violation of the Act.” Sullivan ordered Blanche to produce the documents Phang was seeking by July 2 or “show cause” as to why they should not be produced.

Blanche did not produce the documents sought by Phang on July 2. Instead he filed a response to Sullivan’s order to show cause. Blanche said he had cause not to release the interview notes “because, by their nature, the underlying notes are substantially similar to the ultimate reports, and have accordingly been deemed duplicative.” Blanche also said the fact that the notes were handwritten “further complicates the redaction process and increases the risk of inadvertent disclosure” of the victim’s identity.

In a response to Blanche filed July 13, Phang said that Blanche was openly defying the court and the law. Blanche “makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires him to do, he will not comply,” Phang argues.

Phang notes that Blanche claims “that FBI handwritten interview notes are similar to subsequent FD-302s [interview summaries] as a general matter.” But “he has not argued—let alone provided any evidence—that the specific handwritten notes at issue here are substantially similar to the FD-302s that have been produced.” Further, “[t]he Epstein Act does not exempt from production documents that are ‘substantially similar’ to those that have been produced.” This amounts to an attempt by Blanche “to write exceptions into the Epstein Act that don’t exist.”

Phang is now asking the court to fine Blanche $1,000 per day until he complies with the judge’s order.

Blanche has until July 20 to respond to Phang. But he will almost certainly have to address his handling of the Epstein files during today’s committee hearing.

Other documents Blanche refuses to release

Along with the interview notes, Phang has highlighted four other categories of information she says Blanche has illegally withheld. Sullivan sided with Phang in each instance.

First, Phang notes that Blanche has redacted the identity of the senders or recipients of at least eight damning emails. These messages, some of which were sent to Epstein, include “Thank you for a fun night… Your littlest girl was a little naughty” and “the key are the 14 to 15 year old girls—i am a sexual pervert because i say they are now of a reproductive age?” In his latest filing, Blanche claims that the senders of some of these messages are “victims.” But even in two instances where Blanche concedes the sender is not a victim, Blanche has refused to unredact the emails, citing generalized concerns about “personal privacy.”

Second, Phang seeks to unredact the identity of four names listed as “co-conspirators” on two documents. Blanche argues that three of the four individuals are also “victims.” The fourth is Lesley Groff, Epstein’s former assistant who has not “asserted victim status.”

Third, Phang notes that Blanche has not released any material in the files that was written in a language other than English. Blanche’s response is that a review of documents written in other languages is “not practical.” In this case, the court order did not give Blanche the option to “show cause” in lieu of complying with the order. Blanche decided not to take action anyway. Phang argues Blanche has “obviously and arrogantly ignored this Court’s order here.”

Finally, Phang seeks a log of all redactions from the Epstein files, along with an accompanying justification, as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Blanche acknowledges the DOJ has not produced such a log but claims there is no deadline for the DOJ to do so. This directly contradicts both Sullivan’s order and any reasonable interpretation of the law.

Since the United States attacked Iran on February 28, 2026, Iran has closed — or severely restricted passage through — the Strait of Hormuz. As a result, the global supply of oil has been constrained, raising prices for U.S. consumers and others worldwide. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital route not just for oil but also for fertilizer, and its closure has contributed to a significant increase in food prices.

On at least two dozen occasions since the outset of the war, according to a comprehensive Popular Information analysis, Trump has declared that the Strait of Hormuz was “open” or controlled by the United States.

“The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran,” Trump said on Monday on Truth Social. Trump’s claim is false. So are similar declarations that Trump has made for months.

Simultaneously, Trump announced a plan to reinstate a U.S. blockade of the strait for Iranian ships and have the U.S. charge a 20% fee on all cargo. But it’s unclear how any of this accomplishes the goal of opening the strait or bringing down the cost of energy. In response to Trump’s announcement, energy prices spiked.

Maritime traffic in the strait has been severely disrupted since February. Prior to the war, an average of 125-140 vessels a day traversed the strait. On July 12, the number was 14. (Some tankers, fearful of attacks, have switched off their transponders, making tracking more difficult.)

This outcome was entirely predictable. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz as a response to foreign aggression for 50 years. Four months later, the Trump administration still has not identified an effective strategy to reopen the strait. Instead, Trump simply asserts that the Strait of Hormuz is open or under U.S. control — over and over again.

Trump shifted abruptly between claiming the strait would open soon, claiming the strait was already open, and claiming the strait was closed only because he decided to close it. At no point were any of these claims accurate.

Subscribe now

Iran has closed or severely restricted traffic in the Strait of Hormuz using a combination of mines, anti-ship missiles, drones, and small high-speed attack boats. The U.S. military has been unable to effectively counter these measures, despite its massive budget and superior capabilities. Iran can create enough uncertainty to dissuade transit through the strait with cheap, haphazard tactics.

The Trump administration, through the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, announced it “will insure losses up to $40 billion for tankers brave enough to transit the Strait of Hormuz.” That has not been enough to entice most shippers to risk passage.

Trump now finds himself in an intractable situation. His only apparent avenue for opening the strait is to get Iran to agree to open the strait. But Iran has come to the conclusion that its control of the strait is its best leverage against the United States and other enemies. Trump’s diplomatic team of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff — with occasional cameos by Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — has been unable to convince Iranian officials otherwise.

That leaves Trump with no way to open the Strait of Hormuz and no way to extricate himself from an unpopular war while the strait remains closed.

The Trump administration’s failure to anticipate Iran’s response to a U.S. attack was one of the biggest military blunders in recent history. American consumers will likely pay the price for years to come.

Last week, the Trump administration published the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The purpose of the Unified Agenda is to detail all of the proposed rules and rescissions under consideration by the current administration. The voluminous document, which is so large it is no longer printed, contains 450 pages of narrative text and an additional 3,954 individual rule entries.

Many of these entries catalogue actions that were previously announced by individual agencies. But sprinkled throughout the text are genuinely new policy actions.

The Unified Agenda released last week includes a new massive giveaway to corporate poultry processors, who rank among Trump’s largest political donors.

Pilgrim’s Pride, the nation’s second-largest poultry processor, donated $5 million to President Trump’s 2025 inauguration — the single largest donation by any corporation or individual. Pilgrim’s Pride’s donation was more than the donations of Meta, Amazon, Google, and Apple CEO Tim Cook combined.

In the 2026 cycle, Ronald Cameron, the owner and chairman of Mountaire Farms, the nation’s fourth-largest poultry processor, donated about $5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) and the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), the two super PACs devoted to maintaining Republican control of Congress. Since 2016, Cameron has donated about $29 million combined to the CLF and SLF.

In the 2024 cycle, Cameron donated $1 million to MAGA Inc, Trump’s main Super PAC, and $2 million to Preserve America, another super PAC supporting Trump. Cameron also made a critical $2 million donation to Rebuilding America Now, a Super PAC formed to support Trump’s candidacy, in August 2016. That donation came at a time when Trump was trailing in most polls and his political support was flagging.

The latest Unified Agenda reveals the Trump administration plans to repeal rules that protect farmers from abuses by large poultry processors, including Pilgrim’s and Mountaire.

Farmers who raise chickens are paid by companies like Pilgrim’s and Mountaire through the “tournament system.” Under this arrangement, the large poultry processors supply birds, provide feed, provision veterinary care, and dictate production methods. The farmers are paid a fee to raise the birds.

The tournament system compensates farmers based on how efficiently they convert feed to the weight of the birds. The most efficient farmers receive bonuses while less efficient farmers see their fees docked. (The bonuses are essentially funded by the reduced fees paid to some farmers.) This is seen as a rigged game that leaves the chicken farmers open to exploitation. After all, it is the poultry processors that control the inputs that largely determine the efficiency of the operation.

The Rural Advancement Foundation International called the tournament system “a manipulative scheme designed by poultry processing corporations to stabilize and control their own production expenses—in the form of prices paid to farmers—while transferring as much of the financial risk involved with growing chickens as possible onto growers they contract with.”

In February 2024, an Agriculture Department rule went into effect that required corporate poultry processors to provide more transparency to chicken farmers. Specifically, poultry processors were required to disclose the typical annual earnings of comparable farmers, a summary of the processor’s litigation and bankruptcy history, and company policies on depopulation events like disease outbreaks. This was a modest effort, but it did give farmers more information before contracting with companies like Pilgrim’s and Mountaire.

The National Chicken Council, which includes Pilgrim’s and Mountaire, “strongly“ opposed the disclosure rule. The new Unified Agenda revealed that the Trump administration is planning to repeal this rule. The Trump administration, according to the Unified Agenda, is also planning to repeal a related rule that prohibits poultry processors from retaliating against farmers that speak to regulators or join grower associations.

On July 1, another, more significant rule was supposed to take effect. The rule would have required corporate chicken processors to guarantee a base rate of pay to farmers and limited the amount of price variability that could be imposed with the tournament system. Under the current system, chicken processors can cut payments to farmers “by 50% or more.”

This rule had already been delayed by the Trump administration. The new Unified Agenda revealed that the Trump administration is planning to eliminate it entirely.

Although the rule reforming the tournament system was issued during the Biden administration, it is not a partisan issue. In a June 10 hearing, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) questioned Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on why the rule was being delayed.

“Going back 10 or 15 years, I’ve been involved in trying to help these poultry farmers not be screwed by the people that they’re producing the chickens for,” Grassley said. “So, how does this delay help our small family farmers, and does this delay help meatpackers more than family farmers?”

Rollins replied that she was focused on “making it better,” adding “I look forward to working with you on that.” But Grassley pressed. “How does the delay help the small family farmer?” he asked. “Can I circle back to you on that?” Rollins asked in response. “I want to get fully up to speed.” Rollins added that there were “real concerns with the way the Biden team wrote the rule” and “some real concerns with the profitability — and to ensure we are protecting all American agriculture.”

Less than a month later, Rollins’ department proposed scrapping the rule entirely. Grassley did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The move was announced very quietly, buried amid thousands of other rules and rescissions. This may be because it could create political problems for Trump and his allies. Trump has sought to portray himself as a champion of the family farmer.

As Grassley intimated, this is a move to benefit corporate poultry processors at the expense of the family farmer.

The gift to Pilgrim’s Pride and other large poultry processors comes after these companies paid hundreds of millions of dollars over schemes to raise prices for consumers and shortchange farmers. In 2021, Pilgrim’s Pride pleaded guilty and was “sentenced to pay approximately $107 million in criminal fines for its participation in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products.” Separately, Pilgrim’s Pride paid “$75 million in 2021 to settle with poultry buyers over claims they colluded with Tyson Foods, and another $100 million in 2023 to resolve claims from poultry farmers alleging it colluded with rivals to underpay them through unfair tournament-style payment systems.”

Pilgrim’s Pride and Mountaire are also defendants in a long-running class action lawsuit, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, alleging that numerous large poultry processors have been conspiring to raise chicken prices since 2008. In 2025, Mountaire was among a group of defendants who paid $22.4 million to settle a portion of the claims brought by consumers. Pilgrim’s Pride was among a group of defendants who paid $181 million to settle consumer claims in 2021.

A White House official recently claimed that the Iran War has cost $30 billion. But a new comprehensive analysis, published exclusively in Popular Information, demonstrated that the direct cost of the Iran War was at least $103 billion over the first 120 days.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has led an effort by the Trump administration to discourage the use of antidepressants. His claims about antidepressants mirror those of the Church of Scientology, which has targeted psychiatric medications, and psychiatry in general, for decades. Notably, Kennedy has an ongoing financial relationship with a law firm connected to Scientology that has pursued numerous lawsuits against antidepressant manufacturers.

The best of the rest

An analysis by ProPublica found that “unaccompanied minors living in the U.S. are being detained and removed at about three times the rate they were during the last” Trump administration. (ProPublica)

“Mamdani asked [New Yorkers] to keep air conditioning at 78 degrees. A wave [of] criticism hit online. A[n] MSNBC broadcast pointed out the US Department of Energy recommends that 78 degree figure. Immediately after, the US Department of Energy deleted 6,000 web pages related to energy saving.” (Bluesky)

A survey conducted by federal workers that were laid off by DOGE found that many people have struggled to find new work. The survey found that around 40 percent of people job searched “for at least six months,” and “almost 17 percent remained unemployed” after a year. Over two-thirds of people reported taking a pay cut at a new job. (Mother Jones)

The Federal Trade Commission has taken the unusual step of investigating medical professional associations that have issued guidance on care for transgender youth, even suing in one case. (The 19th)

“Nearly 1 million people who bought President Trump’s memecoin have lost money through the end of June, according to a report by the cryptocurrency analytics firm Nansen. Their losses total $3.81 billion.” (New York Times)

Numerical information

$5.8 million: A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll after the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal of a 2023 jury verdict that found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Trump appealed the decision, but a federal appeals court rejected the effort late Wednesday.

$350 billion: In a Tuesday post on Truth Social, Trump asked Congress to approve a massive new spending bill for the Defense Department.

$3.47: The price of gas at 25 White House-promoted “Freedom Fuel” gas stations, which the White House hailed as an affordability win. In 2024, during the Biden administration, gas averaged $3.30 per gallon. The current average price of gas is $3.84.

Quote of the week

“It’s really a question of whether or not you believe the woman. A lot of people say big falsehoods.”

– Trump on Graham Platner, who dropped out of the U.S. Senate race after a woman accused Platner of rape.

Photo of the week

The Trump administration has engaged in a lengthy campaign to discourage the use of antidepressants. The effort has been led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has spent years spreading misinformation about these types of medications. The Trump administration has specifically targeted selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which include medications like Prozac, Lexapro, and Zoloft.

Kennedy’s claims about antidepressants mirror those of the Church of Scientology, which has a long history of disdain for psychiatry and has targeted psychiatric medications for decades. Kennedy has an ongoing financial relationship with a law firm connected to Scientology that has pursued numerous lawsuits against antidepressant manufacturers.

At a 2023 Scientology event, the church’s current leader, David Miscavige, described psychiatry as “the greatest evil on Earth.” Scientology’s main vehicle for targeting this “evil” is a nonprofit it founded called the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR). CCHR runs a museum in Los Angeles called “Psychiatry: Industry of Death” and has produced several documentaries. Among the group’s claims are that psychiatry was responsible for the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo, 9/11, and several mass shootings.

One documentary produced by CCHR focuses on the connection between antidepressants and mass shootings in the U.S. The documentary claims that many mass shooters take antidepressants and presents this as evidence that the medications are the cause. Experts say there is no evidence linking antidepressants to mass shootings. A study from Columbia found that around 4% of mass shooters had used antidepressants in their lifetime, which is less than the proportion of all adults in the U.S. who take antidepressants. The documentary also makes the false claim that “psychiatric drugs are among the most addictive on Earth” and compares some of them to cocaine.

Kennedy pushes many of the same myths about antidepressants. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Kennedy claimed that SSRIs were harder to quit than heroin. (Experts disagree with this comparison. “Antidepressants and heroin are in different universes when it comes to addiction risk,” Keith Humphreys, an addiction expert, told NPR.) Kennedy has also repeatedly suggested that SSRIs may be linked to mass shootings. In 2025, after a shooting at a school in Minnesota, Kennedy said in an interview on Fox News, “We’re launching studies on the potential contribution of some of the SSRI drugs and some of the other psychiatric drugs that might be contributing to violence.”

In 2024, Kennedy said he wanted to create free “wellness farms” in rural areas where people “can go to get off of illegal drugs, off of opiates, but also legal drugs, other psychiatric drugs,” including SSRIs. This is similar to Narconon, a program run by Scientologists to help patients get off prescription medications they claim are addictive. Narconon facilities have faced multiple lawsuits from patients and families of patients who attempted or died by suicide after being taken off their psychiatric medication.

Kennedy’s financial stake in the anti-psychiatry movement

Kennedy’s connection to Scientology’s views on antidepressants is more than ideological — it’s financial.

In CCHR’s anti-SSRI documentary, a lawyer named R. Brent Wisner said, “There’s no question that there’s people right now who are in jail after committing violent crimes who never would have done that if they hadn’t taken these drugs. There’s no question that people right now are dead because of these drugs.”

Wisner’s law firm, Wisner Baum, has led dozens of lawsuits against the manufacturers of psychiatric medications and other psychiatric tools that Scientology has targeted. Kennedy referred clients to the firm and has a contingency fee agreement with them in which he receives a percentage of the payout if they win their cases. During his 2025 nomination process, Kennedy reported receiving over $850,000 in fees from Wisner Baum. He did not specify which cases generated those fees.

After senators criticized the arrangement, Kennedy said he would assign most of his payouts from Wisner Baum to “a non-dependent, adult family member,” rather than giving up the payments entirely. One of Kennedy’s sons, Conor Kennedy, also works at Wisner Baum as an attorney.

Kennedy’s campaign against SSRIs

Under Kennedy’s leadership, the Trump administration has launched a war on antidepressants.

On May 4, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced multiple initiatives to stop “psychiatric overprescribing” and encourage providers to deprescribe patients when appropriate. In a “Dear Colleague” letter, HHS encouraged providers to utilize “nonmedication approaches, such as family support, psychotherapy, nutrition, and physical activity.”

SSRIs, which are used to treat mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, can be life-saving. Around one in six adults in the U.S. are on some type of antidepressant medication. SSRIs are the most common type of antidepressant.

Overprescription, which can refer to issues such as patients taking medications longer than necessary, is a concern in the medical community. But while the American Psychiatric Association (APA) said it supported research on the issues with prescribing and deprescribing, it objected to the Trump administration “framing the nation’s mental health crisis as primarily a problem of ‘overmedicalization’ or ‘overprescribing,’” stating it “oversimplifies a complex crisis.” The APA noted that many patients already “cannot access timely, comprehensive care,” and the initiative fails to account for other factors such as “barriers to psychotherapy.”

“Misrepresented evidence and spread misinformation”

The Trump administration efforts to discourage SSRI use began shortly after Trump started his second term. In a February 2025 order establishing Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, President Trump instructed the commission to “assess the prevalence of and threat posed by the prescription” of SSRIs and other medications to children. Multiple “MAHA” reports have since promoted the idea of the “overmedicalization” of children, including the usage of SSRIs.

In July 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hosted a panel discussion about the use of SSRIs during pregnancy. The majority of the panelists promoted claims that SSRIs can lead to serious health risks for the mother and baby. Multiple groups of healthcare providers condemned claims made by the panelists, stating that “it misrepresented evidence and spread misinformation,” NPR reported.

Two members of the panel have connections to Scientology through Wisner Baum or CCHR. David Healy is a psychiatrist who has served as an expert witness for Wisner Baum in their lawsuits against antidepressant manufacturers. Another member of the panel, psychologist Roger McFillin, has posted on Substack about the “mass psychiatric drugging of America’s poorest children,” citing data from FOIA requests that was shared with him by CCHR.

“Scientology covert operative”

According to an article published by the Daily Beast, Wisner and Wisner Baum’s other partner, Michael L. Baum, are Scientologists. Popular Information could not independently verify their membership in the church, but there is evidence suggesting their involvement. Wisner is in the documentary produced by CCHR. Baum’s name appears in a stipulation of evidence from a criminal case against several prominent Scientologists over a 1970s conspiracy to steal records about Scientology and its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. The stipulation describes Baum as a “Scientology covert operative” and says he was directed to “make weekly entries into [an Interpol office] where [he was] to methodically examine each file cabinet for any Interpol documents.”

The Genetic Literacy Project (GLP), a science advocacy nonprofit, says it asked Wisner Baum in 2019 to explain the firm’s connection to Scientology. GLP says that Wisner Baum did not respond and instead posted an article attacking GLP.

Scientology thanks Kennedy

Scientologists have praised Kennedy’s actions as HHS secretary to cast doubt on SSRIs.

The president of CCHR’s National Affairs Office called the May 4 initiative to stop “psychiatric overprescribing” an “extremely important step forward in correcting the nearly sole reliance on psychiatric drugs as mental health treatment—drugs which the latest scientific research finds do more harm than good.”

CCHR also issued a press release saying it “applauded the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for launching a significant initiative to address psychiatric drug prescribing,” though it encouraged HHS to go further.

Kennedy’s actions are a win a long time in the making for Scientologists.

Hubbard began waging war on the field of psychiatry in the mid-20th century after his book on the pseudoscientific psychological treatments at the core of Scientology was rejected by the medical establishment. In a 1969 article, Hubbard wrote that “the psychiatrist and his front groups operate straight out of the terrorist textbooks” and said that a psychiatrist “kidnaps, tortures and murders without any slightest police interference or action by western security forces.” He also wrote later that psychiatry was the cause of crime.

Today, Scientologists carry on Hubbard’s hatred of psychiatry. A page on the official Scientology website says “[psychiatry] is [a] staggeringly profitable business. But while psychiatrists rake in billions, society receives a new generation of life-long drug addicts and thus still more customers for psychotropic drugs.” The website claims the diseases antidepressants are meant to treat do not exist, calling it all “an elaborate and deadly hoax.”

Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee last week, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought said the US had spent $30 billion on the Iran War. The real cost is over $100 billion.

The Trump administration has offered Congress lowball war cost estimates before. On May 12, Pentagon comptroller Jay Hurst, testifying alongside Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, said the war had cost $29 billion. On April 29, Hurst said it was $25 billion. Despite repeated congressional requests, neither Hurst nor Hegseth has provided supporting documentation for the estimate. Vought hasn’t either.

The Trump administration itself has admitted that the war has cost far more than $30 billion. On June 24 — a week before Vought’s testimony — the White House formally requested $88 billion in supplemental funding from Congress, including $72 billion for the Iran War. No doubt Vought was aware of this funding request; after all, he wrote it — his signature appears on the second page.

Throughout the conflict, the cost of the Iran War has been habitually understated. Establishment media have parroted Hegseth’s defactualized cost estimates and similarly low estimates from establishment think tanks. The estimate that came closest to the Trump administration’s requested $72 billion for the war came from Popular Information. In May, we estimated the Iran War had cost $71.8 billion.

But that estimate was just for the war’s first 60 days, and the Trump administration plans on funding additional war costs through another reconciliation bill. In short — not all war costs are accounted for in that $72 billion figure. Another cost assessment is needed.

Despite de-escalation, costs continue to mount

Through four months, the US has spent more than $103 billion on the Iran War — larger than all but three countries’ military budgets. The figure refers only to direct war costs — the immediate budgetary costs directly tied to the war, including operations, personnel, and matériel.

This table provides an overview of the $103 billion in direct war costs incurred from February 28 to June 27, 2026.

Despite a lack of full-scale conflict, the US accrued $31 billion in war costs from days 60 to 120. Costs stem from US forces maintaining a wartime posture in the Middle East, enforcing a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz (after Iran had already shut down the Strait), and firing hundreds of munitions, including at least 49 Tomahawk cruise missiles during the June 10 strikes alone (FY2027 unit cost: $3.7 million). Iranian drones and missiles have inflicted additional damage to US military bases in the region and destroyed more US military equipment.

Other cost increases are related to data availability: New satellite imagery has revealed far more extensive damage to US military bases than previously known. (Under government pressure, US satellite imagery companies like Planet Labs have withheld imagery of large swaths of the Middle East, concealing damage to US military property.) The Trump administration’s supplemental funding request disclosed war costs incurred by nonmilitary US agencies, including for the State Department — $1.9 billion for diplomatic protection, civilian evacuation, embassy fortification, and equipment replacement — and the Department of Homeland Security — an additional $2 billion for operational costs incurred by the Coast Guard in assuming roles vacated by US military units to fight in the Iran War.1

Neither the Trump administration nor congressional Republicans have a plan to “pay for” the Iran War, either through a commensurate increase in taxes or reduction in spending.

Apparently, they don’t believe they ought to. “War is never paid for when you fight it,” House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-OK) said in a March interview. “We didn’t pay for World War II or Korea or World War I ... so I don’t think [the cost of the Iran war] should be offset.”

Rep. Cole is wrong. Taxes were levied in 1914, 1916, 1917, and 1919 to fund World War I; in 1940, 1941, 1942, and 1944 for World War II; and in 1950 and 1951 for the Korean War. Cutting taxes during major conflicts and financing them with the national debt is a post-9/11 contrivance, unique to the US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran. “How do you pay for it?” is a question imposed on many policies, but war is not one of them.

Interest on the national debt is an example of the Iran War’s indirect costs, which cover broader budgetary and economic costs like veterans care and inflation. Incorporating the full spectrum of war costs sends the Iran War’s total beyond $1 trillion over the next decade, according to Harvard University professor and public finance expert Linda Bilmes. Meanwhile, establishment media outlets like the New York Times are reporting $132 billion in combined direct and indirect war costs, not much higher than our $103 billion estimate for only the direct costs.

The $103 billion in direct costs itemized above has gone to what has become the most unpopular US war in history. Few Americans believe the Iran War is worth the cost.

A detailed methodology for the $103 billion estimate is available HERE.

Suggested citation: Popular Information, “The real cost of the Iran War: $103 billion in 120 days,” Stephen Semler, July 8, 2026, https://popular.info/p/cost-of-iran-war-120-days

On Monday, a joint investigation by Popular Information and Public Notice revealed that Kalshi has been heavily promoted by CNN and CNBC since Kalshi inked a financial partnership with both networks in December. The existence of this financial relationship, however, is inconsistently disclosed to viewers.

CNN’s response was included in the initial article. But after the story was published and spread rapidly on social media, Kalshi and CNBC also weighed in.

All three responses had one thing in common: they argued that Kalshi prediction markets are newsworthy, like other data included in journalism. CNN said that Kalshi data is “a complement to other reporting and data sources.” CNBC said that Kalshi data is “part of the broader set of market indicators.” Kalshi said, “in a world of echo chambers and clickbait, wisdom-of-the-crowd data can add additional context and perspective.”

This raises the question: if this data is being featured because of its news value, why does Kalshi need to pay CNN and CNBC to feature it?

Kalshi data is public. In the absence of a deal, there is nothing preventing CNN or CNBC from including it in their broadcasts. It only makes sense for Kalshi to pay CNN and CNBC if that secures more coverage than the networks would otherwise provide. Kalshi hinted at this in its statement, saying the deal with CNN includes “featuring our odds on Harry Enten’s show, along with other mentions across their programming” and the deal with CNBC provides “integration across their platforms, including a dedicated CNBC curated page on Kalshi.”

The CNN deal is exclusive, meaning CNN cannot mention Polymarket odds, even though Polymarket generally has more robust markets outside of sports.

Contrast this arrangement with how CNN reports on polling, which prediction market coverage generally supplements or replaces. CNN regularly reports on polls produced by companies without any kind of financial relationship because these polls are genuinely considered newsworthy. It is also free to report on polls from any source, not just one favored polling firm that pays CNN a fee.

CNBC discloses its financial relationship with Kalshi when it is “directly relevant to the story.”

The investigation by Popular Information and Public Notice documented more than 20 occasions where CNBC covered Kalshi on air or on its website but did not disclose their financial relationship. The deal between Kalshi and CNBC is extensive. CNBC invested in Kalshi and also receives a fee when it refers new users.

In response, CNBC says it “discloses commercial relationships when they are directly relevant to the story.” It defended the omissions, arguing that in those cases disclosure was not relevant

It is a puzzling position, because CNBC has included its disclosure in pieces that are substantively identical to pieces where the disclosure is omitted. For example, “As SpaceX IPO nears, traders think it’s a near-certainty Musk becomes the first trillionaire,” published May 29, includes the disclosure “CNBC and Kalshi have a commercial relationship that includes customer acquisition and a minority investment.” But “SpaceX won’t reach Mars this decade, Kalshi traders say,” published June 15, does not.

Similarly, “Nearly 40% chance of stagflation by end of 2026, traders say,” published May 14, includes the disclosure. But “Inflation peaked in May as energy prices fell in June, Kalshi traders think,” published July 1, does not.

Asked to clarify how CNBC determines when its financial deal with Kalshi is “relevant” to its audience and who makes that determination, the network did not respond.

According to Kalshi’s statement, “People aren’t dumb; they hear and see these disclosures and can choose to use our data as added context or choose not to.” Kalshi did not address the numerous documented cases where the relationship between Kalshi and cable networks was not disclosed.

In December 2025, CNN and CNBC struck landmark deals with Kalshi, a leading prediction market. Since then, both networks have promoted Kalshi to viewers extensively, frequently vouching for its accuracy. The existence of a financial relationship between the networks and Kalshi, however, is disclosed to viewers inconsistently.

Since December CNBC has published 58 articles that do little more than advertise the existence of a Kalshi market related to a news event. The headlines include “Traders predict Michael Jackson hits top Spotify after biopic,” “Kalshi traders don’t see Hormuz traffic normal until July,” and “Traders say Karen Bass and Spencer Pratt will advance to runoff in high-profile LA mayoral race.” (Pratt did not advance.)

Since April, CNBC has employed a dedicated reporter to produce these articles. CNBC also maintains a page on its website featuring Kalshi prediction markets selected by CNBC editors, along with its web coverage.

Some of CNBC’s reporting about Kalshi includes the disclosure, “CNBC and Kalshi have a commercial relationship that includes customer acquisition and a minority investment.” This means CNBC is paid every time it can convert a viewer to a Kalshi user. As an investor, the network also benefits if Kalshi’s overall valuation increases. CNBC is also paid directly by Kalshi for using its data, according to The Wrap.

In at least 22 cases, however, CNBC has written about Kalshi and not disclosed its financial conflict. In recent weeks CNBC has more frequently failed to include its Kalshi disclosure, including two pieces on June 10, one each on June 11, June 15, June 16, and June 23, three pieces on June 26, and one each on July 1, and July 2.

On air, where CNBC promotes Kalshi nearly every day, disclosure is also spotty.

On June 26, during a Squawk Box interview with California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, host Andrew Ross Sorkin brought up the fact that Kalshi gives Hilton a 9.5% chance of winning the election. Producers then cut to a Kalshi graphic depicting those odds while a Kalshi QR code was displayed on the screen. The hosts never acknowledged CNBC’s financial relationship with Kalshi during the segment.

Similarly, during a news rundown on June 23, CNBC correspondent Contessa Brewer claimed that “prediction markets are hot, hot, hot” and mentioned that in recent days Kalshi and Polymarket “handled billions of dollars in trading volume” without disclosing CNBC’s business relationship with Kalshi.

CNBC’s Fast Money and Squawk Box each recently hosted Kalshi co-founder and CEO Tarek Mansour for extended soft-focus interviews. On June 24, for example, Squawk Box host Joe Kernen gave Mansour an open mic to portray Kalshi as a “pro-regulation company” that has kept its hands clean as “our competitors” have been mired in insider trading scandals.

While the interview did include the standard CNBC disclosure, Kernen did not ask Mansour about Kalshi’s recent insider trading scandals. Earlier that month, NPR reported former Congressman George Santos was under Department of Justice investigation for allegedly being involved with insider trading on Kalshi. Other high-profile incidents of insider trading on Kalshi involved political candidates and a MrBeast editor.

CNBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

CNN aired at least 115 segments promoting Kalshi

Since December, CNN has featured Kalshi in a segment called “The Odds” at least 115 times. In these segments, Harry Enten, CNN’s chief data analyst, frequently suggests that Kalshi predictions are more accurate than other sources. While polling relies on volunteers, Enten repeatedly reminds CNN viewers that prediction markets are driven by people who “put their money where their mouth is.”

On January 7, Enten highlighted that, in six days, the odds on Kalshi that the United States would buy part of Greenland by the end of Trump’s first term increased from 12% to 36%. Enten said this was proof that “the people putting their money where their mouth is” are “absolutely taking this seriously.”

“Whoa… way up there now to 36%,” Enten exclaimed. “A tripling in less than a week. My goodness gracious.”

Enten and his co-host, John Berman, then discussed that another Kalshi market at the time showed a 43% chance that Trump would acquire part of Greenland by any means, including militarily. Berman described it as “a pretty high chance” and said that 43% odds on a Kalshi market meant “a lot of people made bets.” Enten agreed, calling it a “very high chance.”

Berman didn’t say how many people made bets because he does not know and that information is not disclosed by Kalshi. Politics markets represent just 4% of all trading on Kalshi, according to a May 2026 Pew Research study — a fact never mentioned on air. (Sports accounts for 80% of Kalshi trading volume.)

Enten and Berman promoted the 43% chance of Trump acquiring part of Greenland as reflective of people “putting their money where their mouth is.” But an analysis of Kalshi’s own data shows the price increased from 30% to 39% between January 3-5, 2026, on just $24,000 worth of “yes” trades. The market was so thin that, on January 4, the “yes” odds briefly spiked to 60%.

During most segments of “The Odds,” a special ticker scrolls across the bottom of the screen promoting Kalshi markets on a wide variety of topics.

According to reporting in The Wrap and The New Yorker, Kalshi pays for CNN to promote its data. The deal is exclusive, meaning that CNN cannot report on Polymarket odds, even though Polymarket has a much more robust market on political topics. These segments conclude with the tag, “The Odds, brought to you by Kalshi prediction market.”

That boilerplate language makes it sound like Kalshi is a typical advertiser, when its relationship with CNN is more extensive. Kalshi regularly clips and promotes CNN’s “The Odds” segments on X, but excludes CNN’s “brought to you by” tagline.

“Prediction markets offer just one source of data that journalists can use in telling a story,” a CNN spokesman said in response to a request for comment. “It is used as a complement to other reporting and data sources, such as polling. It is not a replacement for other sources and has no impact on editorial independence.”

Political prediction markets are systemically flawed

Kalshi’s political markets, which dominate the coverage on CNN and are featured prominently on CNBC, are also the least accurate.

A February 2026 study by a researcher at the National Economics University in Vietnam analyzed 292 million trades across 327,000 contracts on Kalshi and Polymarket. The study, which has not yet been formally published, found that Kalshi’s political markets “compressed toward 50%,” meaning they systematically overvalue longshots and undervalue favorites. This is exactly what we saw with the coverage of Greenland, where a Trump pipe dream was promoted as something with a “very high chance” based on the Kalshi odds.

In another recent segment on CNN, Enten, citing Kalshi data, told viewers that Trump has an 8% chance of being featured on a $250 bill. That likely significantly overestimates the actual odds, since featuring a living person on U.S. currency has been illegal for the last 160 years. A bill to amend the law for Trump was introduced in February 2025, and although the Treasury Department has produced a mockup, no congressional action has been taken.

The author of the study theorizes that “political markets attract traders with strong, opposing convictions” which can drive the price “near 50–60% even when the true probability is substantially higher or lower.” The study argues that journalists and news consumers that take prediction market prices “at face value… are systematically misled.”

UPDATE (7/6, 11:15 a.m. Eastern): CNBC responds: “CNBC discloses commercial relationships when they are directly relevant to the story, as we do across our coverage of exchanges, data providers, and other market participants. Kalshi data is publicly available, and CNBC covers it as part of the broader set of market indicators we report on.”

UPDATE (7/6, 11:30 a.m. Eastern): In a statement, Kalshi said “we’ve always been open about our news partnerships, as have our news partners.” Kalshi, CNN, and CNBC have not disclosed the financial terms of either partnership. Asked for clarity, Kalshi said its deal with CNN involves “featuring our odds on Harry Enten's show, along with other mentions across their programming” and its deal with CNBC involves “integration across their platforms.” Kalshi added, “People aren't dumb; they hear and see these disclosures and can choose to use our data as added context or choose not to.” The statement from Kalshi did not address the numerous instances documented by Popular Information and Public Notice where no disclosure was included.