Sen. Darline Graham wins GOP nomination for U.S. Senate in South Carolina : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-25 15:47:00 — www.npr.org

Trump’s Endorsement Proves Decisive in South Carolina GOP Senate Primary

President Trump’s influence over Republican primaries was on full display in South Carolina, where he threw his support behind Darline Graham, a political newcomer and sister of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham. Trump’s endorsement helped Graham secure the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate, defeating Rep. Ralph Norman in a runoff after no candidate won outright earlier in the month.

At a Myrtle Beach rally on August 21, Trump made his position clear: “I’m doing this to honor Lindsey. That’s why I’m here. So, Darline, we got to win that race.” Trump’s backing of Graham was one of his biggest bets of the midterm cycle, as he staked his reputation against more established party figures. His super PAC, MAGA Inc., spent over $827,000 to support Graham, a notable investment given that the PAC had largely stayed out of other close primaries this year.

Graham, who was appointed to her brother’s seat after his death, openly touted her connection to Trump on the campaign trail. She told supporters, “The critics say I shouldn’t run for the Senate. They say I’m not a politician. You know what I say? Guilty as charged. By the way, President Trump has never served in elected office before and I think he’s done a damn good job.”

Despite setbacks in other states like Florida, Georgia, Iowa, and Minnesota, Trump’s endorsement record remains more positive than negative in this year’s primaries, underscoring his continued sway with the Republican base.

Conclusion

President Trump’s active involvement and public endorsement played a pivotal role in Darline Graham’s victory in the South Carolina GOP Senate primary. His willingness to back political outsiders over established figures continues to shape the Republican landscape, demonstrating that his influence remains a defining factor in party politics.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/25/nx-s1-5943041/south-carolina-senate-runoff-graham-norman-trump-endorsement

Donald J. Trump: “Very sad to report that Dolly Parton, one of the greatest Country singers, a…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-08-25 13:32:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Falsely Announces Dolly Parton’s Death and Claims Nationwide Flag-Lowering

In a statement, “Very sad to report that Dolly Parton, one of the greatest Country singers, and far beyond, EVER, has just passed away. This is a true loss for millions of people. There has never been anyone like her, and never will. In her honor, I am lowering the American flag throughout the United States for a one week period beginning tonight at 6:00PM. Rest in Peace, Dolly! The World loves you. President DONALD J. TRUMP,” Donald Trump made a series of claims regarding Dolly Parton and national observance.

False Claim About Dolly Parton’s Death

Trump’s statement asserts that Dolly Parton “has just passed away.” As of the time of this report, there is no credible information or official confirmation that Dolly Parton has died. The claim is entirely false and appears to be a fabrication.

Misstatement on Flag-Lowering Authority

Trump also declared, “I am lowering the American flag throughout the United States for a one week period beginning tonight at 6:00PM.” While presidents have the authority to order flags lowered on federal property, there is no evidence that such an order has been issued or is in effect. Additionally, no official government channels have corroborated this claim.

Exaggeration and Public Confusion

The statement, “There has never been anyone like her, and never will,” is an example of hyperbolic language, but the more significant issue is the spread of misinformation regarding a living public figure. Such false announcements can cause unnecessary distress and confusion among the public.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s statement regarding Dolly Parton’s supposed passing and the lowering of American flags is not supported by any factual evidence. This episode highlights the importance of verifying information before sharing it publicly, especially when it concerns the health and status of beloved public figures. Readers are encouraged to seek out reliable sources for updates on public figures and national observances.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/41213

Trump threatens to demolish Kennedy Center if $250m renovation not done | Trump administration

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-08-25 16:10:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Administration Threatens Demolition of Kennedy Center Amid Legal Battle Over Naming Rights

In a striking escalation, Donald Trump’s administration warned in a court filing that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts could face demolition if a $250 million renovation is not carried out. Lawyers for the president argued that without immediate repairs, the national arts complex in Washington, DC, would “deteriorate further into an unsafe, decrepit structure that will be required to be taken down,” raising the prospect of replacing it with a large outdoor amphitheater overlooking the Potomac River—a proposal floated for years.

This threat comes as the Trump administration continues its efforts to put Trump’s name on the Kennedy Center, despite a federal judge’s ruling in May that only Congress has the authority to change the memorial’s name. The administration’s latest filing was made in response to a legal challenge from Democratic congresswoman Joyce Beatty, who sits on the Kennedy Center board and has fought to prevent Trump’s name from being restored to the facade.

The court battle has intensified since the Kennedy Center board, now dominated by Trump appointees, voted 20-3 in August to change the building’s signage to read: “The John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated by President Donald J Trump,” and to name the grounds the “President Donald J Trump Plaza.” The administration claims this does not violate the court’s injunction, arguing that the new inscription merely acknowledges Trump’s role, similar to donor acknowledgments at other institutions.

However, critics argue that these moves are legally baseless and represent an attempt to rewrite the Kennedy Center’s legacy, which Congress established in 1971 as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy. The administration’s aggressive stance has sparked outcry from preservation groups and prompted warnings of legal and public backlash.

The Kennedy Center has faced significant turmoil since Trump took control, including staff cuts and a campaign against “woke” programming. Reports indicate that ticket sales, already declining, have plummeted further following the board’s decision to rename the complex and add Trump’s name to its marble facade.

The administration’s threat to demolish the Kennedy Center if its demands are not met marks a dramatic turn in the ongoing dispute, raising questions about the future of one of the nation’s most prominent cultural institutions. As the legal battle continues, the fate of the Kennedy Center—and its name—remains uncertain.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/25/trump-kennedy-center-demolish

Watchdog files bar complaint against Pirro over efforts to indict Democrats for video urging troops to resist illegal orders

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-25 13:27:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Accuses Democratic Lawmakers of Sedition, Calls for Death Penalty in Social Media Post

President Donald Trump accused six Democratic lawmakers of sedition, stating on social media that their actions were “punishable by DEATH.” This accusation came after the lawmakers appeared in a video urging U.S. service members to resist unlawful orders and follow established military protocols. All six lawmakers have prior service in the military or intelligence agencies.

Legal Actions and Bar Complaints

The Legal Accountability Center has filed bar complaints against U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and two of her subordinates, alleging they abused their prosecutorial powers by seeking “meritless” indictments against what the watchdog described as Trump’s “perceived political enemies.” The grand jury in Washington ultimately refused to indict the lawmakers, a decision described as extraordinarily rare but increasingly common during Trump’s second term.

Politically Motivated Prosecutions

Critics argue that Pirro, acting at Trump’s behest, has pursued other legally dubious and politically motivated cases, including a recently abandoned felony charge against a former Olympian. The Legal Accountability Center’s complaint asserts that there was no legal basis for the attempt to indict the six lawmakers, and that the effort was driven by “political animus and a desire to intimidate perceived enemies of the federal government and the President.”

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s claim that the lawmakers’ actions amounted to sedition “punishable by DEATH” is not supported by the grand jury, which refused to bring charges. The lawmakers’ video called for adherence to lawful orders, not insubordination or sedition. The watchdog group and other legal experts have criticized the use of prosecutorial power to target political opponents, raising concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department under Trump’s administration.

Conclusion

President Trump’s public accusation of sedition against Democratic lawmakers, and his call for the death penalty, represent a significant escalation in rhetoric against his political opponents. The refusal of the grand jury to indict, and the subsequent bar complaints against the prosecutors involved, highlight ongoing concerns about the use of the justice system for political purposes. This episode underscores the importance of independent legal judgment and the dangers of allowing political demands to drive criminal prosecutions.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watchdog-files-bar-complaint-against-pirro-over-efforts-to-indict-democrats-for-video-urging-troops-to-resist-illegal-orders

How the Supreme Court Is Issuing Orders as Trump ‘Emergencies’ Return

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-08-25 15:56:00 — www.nytimes.com

Supreme Court Clears Path for Trump’s Mail-In Voting Restrictions, Raising Concerns Over Emergency Orders

The Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to continue pursuing proposed restrictions on voting by mail, issuing a 10-page opinion that characterized lower-court rulings against the administration as premature. This marks a shift from the court’s earlier approach during Trump’s second term, when emergency requests from the administration were often granted with little or no explanation.

Trump’s Push for Mail-In Voting Restrictions

President Trump has instructed the Postal Service not to mail ballots on behalf of anyone whose name is not on U.S. citizenship lists his administration is creating. This directive is part of the administration’s broader effort to restrict mail-in voting, a move that has sparked ongoing litigation and confusion among election law experts. The Supreme Court’s recent opinion did not resolve the legality of Trump’s proposed restrictions, instead leaving key issues unaddressed, including new Postal Service regulations issued just days before the ruling.

A Pattern of Fast-Tracked, Unexplained Orders

During Trump’s first year in office, the Supreme Court was inundated with 30 emergency requests related to his policies. The court overwhelmingly sided with Trump, often issuing brief, unsigned orders with little or no explanation. These temporary orders had immediate and sometimes far-reaching consequences, such as stripping deportation protections for Venezuelans, discharging transgender troops from the military, and firing thousands of federal workers.

The use of the emergency, or “shadow,” docket has surged since Trump returned to office. In just 19 months, Trump has asked the justices to intervene more times than George W. Bush and Barack Obama did during their combined 16 years in office.

Court’s Evolving Approach and Public Scrutiny

Recently, the Supreme Court has started to provide more detailed reasoning in Trump administration cases, a response to criticism from the public, Congress, and within the judiciary about the lack of transparency. However, experts note that this increased explanation is not consistent across all cases, and the court remains divided on how much reasoning should be provided for emergency orders.

Despite these changes, critics argue that the emergency docket still cuts short the development of facts and legal arguments that would typically unfold over months or years in lower courts. The court’s handling of Trump’s requests continues to draw scrutiny, especially as the pace of voting-related disputes is expected to increase ahead of the midterm elections.

Conclusion

President Trump’s ongoing efforts to restrict mail-in voting, backed by emergency Supreme Court orders, highlight the administration’s aggressive use of the fast-track docket. While the court has begun to offer more explanation in some Trump-related cases, the process remains controversial and has significant implications for voting rights and the transparency of the judicial system. As the legal battles over mail-in voting continue, the court’s approach to emergency requests will remain a critical issue for both the public and the integrity of American democracy.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/25/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-emergency-shadow-docket.html

Canada hits back at U.S. with tariffs as trade war deepens : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-25 10:20:00 — www.npr.org

President Trump Escalates Rhetoric and Trade Tensions with Canada

President Trump intensified his attacks on Canada as the two countries entered a deepening trade dispute, accusing Canada of “ripping off” the United States for decades and publicly insulting Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney by referring to him as “Governor Carney.” Trump also claimed the U.S. was considering renaming Lake Ontario to “Lake America” and has repeatedly stated that Canada should become a U.S. state.

These remarks came as Canada announced retaliatory tariffs on hundreds of U.S. goods, matching U.S. tariffs “dollar for dollar, rate for rate,” with new duties of up to 50% on a range of American exports. The Canadian response followed Trump’s imposition of 50% tariffs on many Canadian goods and threats of further measures after trade talks collapsed.

Trump’s repeated assertions that Canada has taken advantage of the U.S. are not supported by the excerpt, which instead highlights the Canadian government’s position that its countertariffs are designed to protect Canadian industry and workers. The Canadian finance minister described the U.S. demands as excessive and the last-minute changes to the U.S. proposal as “unfair” and “uneconomic.”

The president’s public insults and exaggerated claims—such as suggesting a major geographic name change and advocating for Canada to become a U.S. state—reflect a pattern of inflammatory rhetoric and distortions that have characterized his approach to international trade disputes.

As the trade conflict escalates, Trump’s statements and actions continue to strain relations with a key U.S. ally, raising questions about the long-term impact on North American economic stability and diplomatic ties.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/25/nx-s1-5944240/canada-us-tariffs

Hegseth Cut Civilian Protections Over Objection of Top Commanders — ProPublica

ProPublica — 2026-08-25 10:05:00 — www.propublica.org

The Trump Administration’s Civilian Harm Program Cuts Spark Military Pushback and Global Outcry

A rare internal revolt has emerged within the Department of Defense, as top military commanders pushed back against the Trump administration’s dismantling of a program designed to protect civilians during U.S. military operations. The episode underscores the administration’s broader posture—one that, under President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has prioritized “maximum lethality” over civilian safeguards, despite repeated warnings from military leaders about the strategic and moral costs.

Trump Administration’s Stance: “No More Politically Correct and Overbearing Rules”

The excerpt details how, shortly after taking office, Defense Secretary Hegseth—serving under President Trump—sought to gut the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) program. Hegseth’s approach, described as “Bombs away!” by one official, was rooted in the belief that focusing on civilian security was “woke” and incompatible with the administration’s vision of a reimagined “Department of War.” Hegseth later told a gathering of generals and admirals, “No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement,” a sentiment that reflected the administration’s broader attitude.

Military Leaders Rebuke Cuts, Cite Risks

Despite Hegseth’s expectations, every top commander polled in early 2025 rejected the idea of eliminating the civilian protection program. Instead, they argued that CHMR enhanced operational effectiveness and precision, with leaders at U.S. Central Command warning that scaling back the effort would “result in decreased efficiency of U.S. lethal operations due to an increased risk of target misidentification and reduced battlespace awareness.” These warnings went unheeded, and the program was slashed from nearly 200 staff to just a handful, even as new U.S. campaigns began in Somalia, Yemen, and Iran.

Civilian Casualties and Congressional Backlash

The consequences were swift and severe. In the spring of 2025, a U.S. air campaign in Yemen killed 153 civilians and wounded 243 others, with the Pentagon’s own annual report confirming the toll. The following year, a U.S. airstrike on a school in Iran killed more than 100 children, drawing international outrage. Democratic senators and humanitarian groups directly linked the tragedy to the administration’s cuts, writing that the attacks reflected “the administration’s broader disregard for the strategic, legal, and moral imperative to minimize civilian harm.”

A Reluctant Reversal Amid Mounting Pressure

Facing mounting pressure from Congress and within the military, the Defense Department has begun to backtrack, considering a partial restoration of the civilian protection program. This about-face marks a rare reversal in a department that, the excerpt notes, “hasn’t tolerated dissent under Hegseth and President Donald Trump.”

Conclusion: Strategic and Moral Costs

The Trump administration’s approach to civilian harm mitigation—marked by dismissals of “politically correct” safeguards and the gutting of established programs—has drawn sharp criticism from military leaders, Congress, and international observers alike. The episode highlights a fundamental divide between the administration’s rhetoric of “maximum lethality” and the military’s own assessment that protecting civilians is both a strategic and moral imperative. As the Pentagon moves to partially revive the program, the legacy of these decisions—and their human cost—remains under scrutiny.

Source article

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/hegseth-civilian-harm-mitigation-response-trump-defense-department

[No Title] – Post from August 25, 2026

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-08-25 10:47:00 — trumpstruth.org

In a series of late-night posts on Truth Social between 12:30 and 1:20 a.m. on August 24, 2026, President Donald Trump shared content that has raised concerns about the accuracy and coherence of his statements. (thedailybeast.com)

One notable post featured an AI-generated image of George Washington pointing over a podium, accompanied by the caption: “WE FOUGHT A REVOLUTION AND WORKED TO GIVE YOU PEOPLE FREEDOM.” (thedailybeast.com)

This post appears to misrepresent historical context. George Washington, as the first President of the United States, did not make such a statement. The use of AI-generated imagery to attribute modern political sentiments to historical figures can be misleading and distort public understanding of history.

Additionally, the timing and nature of these posts have sparked discussions about the President’s communication habits and the potential implications of sharing unverified or altered content on social media platforms.

It is crucial for public figures to ensure the accuracy of the information they disseminate, as misleading content can have significant impacts on public perception and discourse.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/41209

South Carolina could give Trump a revitalizing win — or his most embarrassing loss

Politics — 2026-08-25 04:00:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Frames South Carolina Senate Primary as Referendum on His Influence

Donald Trump has cast the upcoming South Carolina GOP Senate primary as a direct test of his political power, urging voters at a recent rally to “pretend, please, that I’m on the ballot.” The president’s involvement in the race to help Sen. Darline Graham defeat Rep. Ralph Norman marks one of his most significant investments of time and resources this midterm cycle.

Trump’s All-In Support

Trump’s support for Graham has been unusually intense. Not only did he encourage her to run for a full term, but he also held a rare in-person rally and directed substantial financial resources to her campaign. According to a Federal Election Commission report, Trump’s super PAC spent $827,000 on text messages and phone calls for Graham—one of the largest single expenditures by MAGA Inc. this cycle.

A Referendum on Trump

Trump has openly described the race as a referendum on himself, making his personal political capital central to Graham’s campaign. At the Myrtle Beach rally, he told supporters to act as if his own name were on the ballot, highlighting the stakes for his reputation. In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed his “Endorsements are stronger than ever,” while also conceding that his influence is not absolute: “The few that lost were done out of loyalty. It was almost impossible for them to win but, I felt obligated to go with them because they were, in my opinion, good people!”

The Stakes and the Risks

If Graham loses despite Trump’s backing, it would be a major embarrassment for the president, especially after a string of defeats for Trump-endorsed candidates in other states. The outcome will be closely watched as a measure of Trump’s sway over the Republican base, particularly given Graham’s lack of political experience and the heavy investment from Trump’s camp.

Conclusion

Trump’s decision to make the South Carolina Senate primary a personal referendum underscores his ongoing effort to demonstrate control over the Republican Party. The results will not only affect the candidates involved but will also serve as a barometer for Trump’s enduring influence as the party heads into the general election season.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/25/trump-test-darline-graham-south-carolina-01048663

Can Trump’s economic war on Iran do what strikes and talks couldn’t? : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-25 04:07:00 — www.npr.org

President Trump’s Promise of Swift Victory in Iran War Contradicted by Protracted Conflict and Shifting Goals

When the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran in February, President Trump vowed a swift victory. Nearly six months later, that promise stands in stark contrast to the current reality: the U.S. remains mired in a drawn-out conflict, with a failed 60-day ceasefire deadline and no clear end in sight.

Trump’s Shifting Objectives

Initially, President Trump’s stated goal was to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, as the war has dragged on, his administration’s objectives have shifted—first to regime change, and now to a focus on prying the Strait of Hormuz out of Iranian control. This evolving strategy has weakened Trump’s leverage and left the U.S. entangled in a costly and destabilizing conflict.

Economic Fallout and Sanctions

The war has battered the global economy, strained relations with Gulf allies, and depleted the U.S. arsenal. In response, the administration has launched a new sanctions campaign, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent vowing “to sever every economic lifeline that sustains this tyrannical regime until Tehran stands alone.” Trump’s approach echoes previous sanctions efforts, but experts question whether further economic pressure can truly break Iran’s ruling establishment. Past campaigns have failed to topple the regime, which has survived through smuggling and sanctions evasion.

Trump’s “ECONOMIC D-DAY” and International Resistance

On August 19, Trump posted on Truth Social, vowing to unleash an “ECONOMIC D-DAY” on Iran. However, major players like China have openly opposed unilateral U.S. sanctions, with a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman stating that “pressure would not resolve the crisis in Iran.” China remains a critical customer for Iranian oil, and its cooperation is uncertain. Analysts warn that a hard-line stance toward China could jeopardize broader U.S.-China trade relations, while a lenient approach might provide Iran with a crucial economic lifeline.

Impact on Iranian Civilians

Inside Iran, ordinary people are suffering under the U.S. naval blockade and decades of sanctions. Reports from Tehran describe shortages of medicine and skyrocketing prices for basic goods, with many unable to afford essential items or medical care. Iranian officials have acknowledged the severe impact, with one calling the blockade “worse than the war.”

Conclusion

President Trump’s initial promise of a swift victory in Iran has not materialized. Instead, the U.S. is embroiled in a prolonged and costly conflict with shifting goals and mounting humanitarian consequences. The administration’s reliance on economic pressure faces significant obstacles, both from Iran’s resilience and from international resistance, raising critical questions about the effectiveness and long-term impact of Trump’s strategy.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/25/nx-s1-5943572/trump-iran-sanctions