Trump Administration Is Considering Pausing the Federal Gas Tax to Lower Prices, Energy Secretary Says

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-05-10 14:52:00 — www.nytimes.com

Gasoline Tax Measure Offers Minimal Relief Amid High Fuel Prices

In the face of soaring gasoline prices, a tax measure imposing a little over 18 cents per gallon is under scrutiny. With the national average price of gasoline exceeding $4.50, the effectiveness of this tax measure in providing significant economic relief to consumers appears limited.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• Specific details about the implementation timeline of the tax measure.
• The geographic scope affected by the average price mentioned.
• Long-term impacts on consumer spending and economic behavior.
  

  How this sits against verifiable accuracy
  

  Truth and evidence (grounded in the excerpt):
  The factual claim here centers on the tax measure, which is a little over 18 cents a gallon for gasoline, and its relative insufficiency in providing relief given the high average national price of gasoline, which is above $4.50. Normally, evaluating such claims would require access to economic data on fuel prices, tax rates, and consumer impact studies. The excerpt does not provide external verification from economic reports or expert analysis to support the assessment of the measure’s effectiveness.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies:
  The excerpt does not contain sufficient material to verify any falsehoods directly. It states the tax rate and the average national price of gasoline but does not contradict itself or provide any retracted statements. Additional evidence, such as economic forecasts or consumer price indices, would be necessary to fully assess the claim’s accuracy, but these are not available in the excerpt.

  Targets and tone:
  The excerpt does not show any disparagement or hostile speech directed towards specific individuals or groups. It focuses solely on the factual reporting of the tax measure and gasoline prices, maintaining a neutral and informative tone.

  This analysis underscores the importance of additional context and data when discussing economic measures and their real-world implications, particularly in a climate of rising fuel costs.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/10/us/politics/energy-secretary-federal-gas-tax.html

Trump calls for Jeffries to be charged with ‘inciting violence’ in social media post

Donald Trump — 2026-05-07 10:17:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Links Jeffries’ Redistricting Comments to White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting

In a recent statement, Donald Trump implied a connection between Hakeem Jeffries’ call for "maximum warfare" against the GOP in redistricting efforts and a subsequent shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which occurred three days later. The assertion suggests a causal link between the rhetoric used by Jeffries and the violent event.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• The specific details of Jeffries’ statement on redistricting.
• The identity and motivations of the shooter at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
• Evidence directly supporting Trump’s implication of a causal connection.
  

  How this sits against verifiable accuracy
  

  Truth and evidence (grounded in the excerpt):
  Trump’s implication that Jeffries’ aggressive political rhetoric led to a violent act hinges on establishing a direct cause-and-effect relationship, which would typically require evidence such as statements from the shooter aligning their motives with Jeffries’ comments, or credible sources drawing the same conclusion. The excerpt does not provide such corroboration.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies:
  The excerpt does not contain sufficient information to verify the truthfulness of Trump’s claim. Additional evidence, not available in the excerpt, would be necessary to confirm or refute the alleged connection between Jeffries’ comments and the shooting.

  Targets and tone:
  The excerpt indicates that Trump’s comments were directed at Hakeem Jeffries in the context of his remarks on GOP redistricting efforts. There is no direct quote in the excerpt that shows Trump using disparaging or hostile language towards Jeffries or any group. The tone and nature of Trump’s criticism are thus not fully detailed in the provided text.

  This analysis is based solely on the information provided in the excerpt, without additional external verification or evidence.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/07/trump-jeffries-charge-inciting-violence-00909976

After Standing Rock, could a canceled mine project offer a roadmap for opponents of a new oil pipeline in South Dakota? | South Dakota

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-10 11:00:00 — www.theguardian.com

New Tribal Rights Disputes Emerge in South Dakota’s Black Hills

A decade after the Standing Rock protests spotlighted the conflict over the Dakota Access pipeline, new legal battles over tribal rights are unfolding in South Dakota’s Black Hills. This month, environmental and Native American advocacy groups have taken legal action against the US Forest Service. They argue that an exploratory graphite drilling project threatens Pe’ Sla, a sacred ceremonial site in the Black Hills, known to the Lakota people as Ȟe Sápa.

The company behind the graphite project, Pete Lien and Sons, has withdrawn its plan and stated it will reclaim the site, marking a significant victory for the opposing groups. However, the resolution of this dispute does not signal an end to challenges as other similar projects loom on the horizon, including a Canadian firm’s uranium mining project that could impact Craven Canyon, home to ancient Indigenous sites.

Ongoing Energy Projects and Tribal Opposition

The region continues to be a focal point for energy projects that raise concerns about water safety and the sanctity of sacred sites. These projects include a proposed pipeline intended to transport Canadian crude oil to the US, a project that has moved forward after receiving permits issued by an executive order from former President Donald Trump.

The Standing Rock Sioux and other groups argue that such projects pose a threat to their survival and cultural heritage, citing violations of historical treaties like the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. These disputes underscore ongoing tensions over energy policy, environmental protection, and Indigenous rights.

Perspective on Truth and Evidence

How this sits against verifiable accuracy

The claims surrounding the impact of the graphite drilling project on Pe’ Sla and other energy projects in the Black Hills involve complex issues of environmental and cultural impact. Normally, such claims would require thorough environmental impact assessments and cultural studies, corroborated by independent experts and regulatory reviews. The article mentions that the graphite project was challenged for bypassing these reviews under a "categorical exclusion," suggesting procedural concerns that align with the claims of the tribal groups.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

The excerpt does not provide direct evidence of verifiable falsehoods made by any party involved in these disputes. It focuses instead on the claims of impact and procedural concerns raised by the tribal and environmental groups. To fully verify these claims, one would need access to detailed environmental impact statements, legal documents, and responses from the US Forest Service, which are not provided in the excerpt.

Targets and tone

The excerpt does not include any direct disparagement or hostile speech by Donald Trump or any other individuals. It focuses on the factual reporting of ongoing legal and environmental disputes related to tribal rights and energy projects in the Black Hills. The tone is informational and centers on the concerns and actions of the tribal groups, companies, and government agencies involved.

Conclusion

As the Black Hills continue to be a battleground for energy projects and tribal rights, the resolution of the graphite drilling project at Pe’ Sla represents a temporary victory for Native American tribes and environmentalists. However, the broader issues surrounding energy independence, environmental protection, and respect for sacred sites remain unresolved, reflecting deeper national debates over these critical issues.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/10/south-dakota-sioux-oil-pipeline

Comey seeks to cancel upcoming court appearance in North Carolina in Trump threat case

Donald Trump — 2026-05-07 20:57:00 — www.politico.com

Former FBI Director Surrenders on Charges of Threatening the President

According to a recent report, the former FBI director has surrendered in Virginia facing charges related to a social media post. The charges allege that he threatened the president by sharing an Instagram photo of seashells arranged to represent the numbers "86 47."

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• The specific legal implications of the numerical arrangement "86 47."
• Further details on the context or intent behind the Instagram post.
• Any statements or responses from the former FBI director or his legal team.
  

  How this sits against verifiable accuracy
  

  Truth and evidence (grounded in the excerpt):
  The claim centers on the former FBI director allegedly threatening the president through a coded message in a social media post. Normally, verifying such a claim would require understanding the context of the numbers "86 47," any known coded language associated with these numbers, and any direct threats linked to them. The excerpt does not provide external verification or context to support the charges.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies:
  The provided excerpt does not contain enough information to verify any falsehoods directly. It does not detail the evidence used to interpret the seashell arrangement as a threat, nor does it provide counter-evidence or corrections. Additional evidence, such as the interpretation guidelines for "86 47" or corroborative statements from law enforcement, would be necessary but are not available in the excerpt.

  Targets and tone:
  The excerpt does not show any direct disparagement or hostile speech by Trump towards specific individuals or groups. The focus remains solely on the alleged actions of the former FBI director and the resulting charges. The tone of the report is factual, without any loaded or hostile language directed at any party.

  This case presents a unique intersection of social media use and legal boundaries, highlighting the complexities of interpreting online content within legal frameworks. As this situation unfolds, further details are necessary to fully understand the implications and the basis of the charges laid against the former FBI director.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/07/comey-seeks-to-cancel-upcoming-court-appearance-in-north-carolina-in-trump-threat-case-00911119

NRCC unveils internal polls in key battleground House races

Donald Trump — 2026-05-08 04:00:00 — www.politico.com

GOP House Campaign Arm Releases New Polls

The GOP’s House campaign arm has recently shared five new battleground polls with POLITICO, marking its first publicly released surveys this election cycle. This development could provide insights into the current political landscape and voter sentiments in key areas.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• Specific details about the battleground areas covered by the polls.
• The polling methodology and sample sizes.
• The exact findings of the polls and how they compare to previous data.
  

  How this sits against verifiable accuracy
  

  Truth and evidence:
  

  The factual claim here is that the GOP’s House campaign arm has released five new battleground polls to POLITICO. To treat this claim as well-supported, one would typically look for additional confirmation from the GOP’s House campaign arm or POLITICO, including specifics about the polls’ methodology and results. However, the excerpt does not provide these details or any external verification.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies:
  

  The excerpt does not contain enough material to verify any falsehoods. It simply states that new polls have been released, without providing further details that could be contradicted or verified. Additional evidence needed to assess the truthfulness of the claim includes the actual poll results and independent confirmation of the release.

  Targets and tone:
  

  The excerpt does not show any disparagement or hostile speech towards specific people or clearly described groups. It focuses solely on the factual reporting of the release of new polls.

  This brief update highlights the release of new polls by the GOP’s House campaign arm, as reported by POLITICO. Further details and analysis of the poll results would be necessary to understand the broader implications of this data on the political landscape.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/08/gop-polls-show-they-have-a-shot-at-flipping-house-dem-districts-trump-won-00910791

From 2020 election to retribution, how the Justice Department is advancing Trump’s agenda

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-05-07 17:40:00 — www.pbs.org

Justice Department Advances Trump’s Priorities, Including Election Investigation and Legal Actions Against Critics

The Justice Department is actively advancing several of President Trump’s key legal and political priorities. This includes a continued focus on the 2020 election with an investigation into voting records in Georgia, as well as legal actions targeting lawmakers and organizations perceived as opposed to the president’s agenda. Justice correspondent Ali Rogin provided these updates in a discussion with Amna Nawaz.

Fulton County Election Records Controversy

The situation in Fulton County, Georgia, remains a significant point of contention. Stemming from an FBI raid in January that resulted in the seizure of over 600 boxes of election records from 2020, the local authorities sued to reclaim these documents. However, a recent judicial ruling has allowed the FBI to retain the records and proceed with their investigation, marking a victory for those in the administration seeking to challenge the election results.

Legal Challenges Against Senator Mark Kelly

In another development, a federal appeals court heard arguments regarding whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has the authority to penalize Democratic Senator Mark Kelly for his critical remarks about the administration. Previous court decisions have favored Kelly, and the appeals court judges appeared to maintain this stance. Senator Kelly has emphasized that the administration’s actions are intended to intimidate not just him but others who might speak out against it.

Case Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), known for its investigations into extremist groups, faces legal challenges from the DOJ, which last month secured indictments accusing the SPLC of fraudulent practices concerning its donor funds. The SPLC has countered these allegations, arguing that their informant payments were vital for law enforcement collaborations. They are now seeking to have the grand jury proceedings unsealed to potentially expose any misrepresentations by the DOJ.

Perspective on Truth and Evidence

The claims and actions of the Trump administration, as reported, hinge significantly on the outcomes of ongoing legal proceedings and investigations. The factual basis of the administration’s allegations, particularly regarding election fraud and the operations of the SPLC, has not been independently corroborated in the details provided.

What the Excerpt Shows About Verifiable Lies

Based on the information available in the excerpt, there are no explicit contradictions or corrections offered that would directly challenge the truthfulness of President Trump’s statements or the DOJ’s actions as presented. Further evidence, not included in the excerpt, would be necessary to fully verify or refute the claims made.

Targets and Tone

The excerpt does not explicitly describe President Trump using disparaging or hostile language towards specific individuals or groups directly. It does, however, detail legal and political actions directed against individuals and organizations like Senator Mark Kelly and the SPLC, which are framed as part of broader efforts to address perceived adversaries and enforce the administration’s policies.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/from-2020-election-to-retribution-how-the-justice-department-is-advancing-trumps-agenda

Trump says there will be 3-day ceasefire in Russia-Ukraine war

Donald Trump — 2026-05-08 14:27:00 — www.politico.com

New Ceasefire Deal Announced with Prisoner Swap

According to a recent statement, the president has facilitated a new deal that includes a prisoner swap. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has quickly signaled his support for this agreement. However, it’s important to note that previous attempts at ceasefires have not been successful.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• The specific details of the prisoner swap are not provided.
• The identity of the president who facilitated the deal is not specified.
• The reasons for the failure of past ceasefires are not detailed.
  

  How this sits against verifiable accuracy
  

  Truth and evidence:
  The claim here is that a new deal, including a prisoner swap, has been facilitated and supported by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Normally, such claims would require confirmation from independent sources or direct statements from the involved parties. The excerpt does not provide external verification or details on how the deal was reached or who the prisoners are.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies:
  The excerpt does not contain enough material to verify any falsehoods directly. It states the facilitation of a deal and support from President Zelenskyy, but without additional context or evidence from the excerpt itself, these claims remain unverified.

  Targets and tone:
  The excerpt does not show any disparagement or hostile speech toward specific individuals or groups. The tone conveyed in the excerpt is straightforward, reporting on the facilitation of a deal and the support it has received.

  Conclusion
  

  The announcement of a new ceasefire deal with a prisoner swap marks a significant development, though the lack of details and the history of failed past ceasefires call for cautious optimism. Further verification and details are needed to fully assess the impact and durability of this agreement.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/08/russia-ukraine-war-trump-ceasefire-00912463

Poll: Republicans and Democrats agree on 1 big election issue

Politics — 2026-05-09 09:00:00 — www.politico.com

Overview of Political Spending Concerns

A recent POLITICO poll highlights a widespread concern among Americans regarding the influence of money in politics. According to the poll, a significant 72 percent of respondents believe there is too much money involved in the political system, a sentiment that spans across party lines. This concern is amplified by projections that spending for the upcoming midterms will break previous records, with an estimated $10.8 billion in advertising spending alone.

Deepening Partisan Views on Political Influence

The poll reveals a deep-seated unease about the role of wealth in politics, with a majority of Americans perceiving that billionaires and special interest groups have an excessive influence over political outcomes. This view is more pronounced among Democrats, with 75 percent of Harris voters concerned about billionaire influence compared to 55 percent of Trump voters. Additionally, about half of the poll respondents feel that voters have too little power in influencing political processes.

Emerging Industries and Political Contributions

The influx of money from emerging industries such as artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency is a notable trend, with new groups pouring millions into competitive primaries. This surge in spending from outside groups, often through channels that allow unlimited contributions, is seen by many as a distortion of the democratic process.

Calls for Reform

The poll indicates a strong desire for reform, with many Americans advocating for stricter regulations on political spending. Michael Beckel, the Money in Politics Reform Director at Issue One, emphasized the need for changes to curb what he describes as "astronomical" and potentially corrupt spending that undermines public trust in the government.

What’s Unclear / What to Watch

• The specific impact of new regulations on reducing political spending.
• The role of non-voters and their perspectives in future polls.
• Long-term effects of increased political spending on public trust and policy making.
  

  How This Sits Against Verifiable Accuracy
  

  The claims about public concern over political spending are supported by the poll results showing a large majority of Americans worried about the influence of money in politics. Normally, such claims would be supported by independent polling data, which in this case is provided by The POLITICO Poll conducted with Public First. The excerpt does not provide counter-evidence or corrections to these findings.

  What the Excerpt Shows About Verifiable Lies
  

  Based on the information provided, there are no statements from Donald Trump or claims about him that are shown to be false within the excerpt itself. The excerpt focuses on general public opinion and does not delve into individual statements or claims that require external verification or correction.

  Targets and Tone
  

  The excerpt does not include any direct disparagement or hostile speech from Donald Trump towards specific individuals or groups. It focuses on the broader public opinion and concerns regarding political spending, without singling out specific entities or individuals in a negative light.

  In summary, the POLITICO poll underscores a significant concern among Americans about the role of money in politics, with a call for stricter oversight and regulation to ensure a healthier democratic process.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/09/poll-americans-say-too-much-money-in-politics-00912455

Virginia Supreme Court strikes down Democrats’ redistricting plan, dimming party’s midterm hopes

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-05-08 09:42:00 — www.pbs.org

Virginia Supreme Court Rejects Democratic Redistricting Plan

In a significant ruling on Friday, the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated a Democratic-led congressional redistricting plan that had been approved by voters. The court found that the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature failed to adhere to necessary procedural steps when placing the constitutional amendment for the redistricting on the ballot. This decision is a major blow to the Democratic Party, which had aimed to gain an advantage over Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections.

Court’s Decision and Implications

The court’s ruling emphasized that the procedural violation "irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void." This decision not only impacts the Democratic Party’s strategy to secure up to four additional U.S. House seats in Virginia but also plays into the larger national context where both parties are vying for control in Congress.

Background and Broader Context

The push for the mid-decade redistricting came amid a series of similar moves across the country, with President Donald Trump encouraging Republican-led redistricting efforts. This has led to a series of legal and political battles in various states, shaping the legislative landscape leading into the elections.

Legal and Political Repercussions

The ruling highlights the ongoing tensions and challenges in redistricting efforts, often leading to complex legal battles. Virginia’s case is particularly notable because it involves a voter-approved initiative, adding a layer of public involvement and scrutiny to the proceedings.

What’s Unclear / What to Watch

• Future actions the Democratic Party might take in response to this setback.
• Possible changes in voter sentiment and their impact on upcoming elections.
• Further legal interpretations and rulings related to redistricting efforts nationwide.

  This decision underscores the intricate balance between voter initiatives and legislative actions in shaping electoral districts, a key factor in the democratic process. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the implications of such rulings will play a critical role in shaping the governance and representation at both state and national levels.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/virginia-supreme-court-strikes-down-democrats-redistricting-plan-dimming-partys-midterm-hopes

State escalates trade row with China over Iran war ahead of Trump-Xi summit

Donald Trump — 2026-05-09 12:10:00 — www.politico.com

Trump to Visit Beijing with U.S. Business Leaders

In an upcoming diplomatic and business venture, President Donald Trump is scheduled to travel to Beijing in less than a week. He will be accompanied by a delegation of U.S. CEOs, who are keen to negotiate deals with China, a significant geopolitical rival of the United States. This move underscores the ongoing complexities and strategic interests in U.S.-China relations.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• Specific objectives or agreements expected from the meetings with Chinese counterparts.
• The identities of the CEOs and the companies they represent.
• Potential topics or sectors of focus for these business deals.

  How this sits against verifiable accuracy

  The factual claim here is that President Trump, along with a group of U.S. CEOs, is set to visit Beijing to engage in deal-making activities with a geopolitical rival. Normally, such claims would be supported by official statements from the White House or the businesses involved, detailing the trip’s agenda and participants.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

  Based on the information provided, there are no statements from Trump or descriptions of the trip that can be independently verified as false within the excerpt itself. The excerpt does not contain contradictions or corrections that would suggest any inaccuracies in the reported plans for the Beijing visit.

  Targets and tone

  The excerpt does not show President Trump singling out or speaking in a hostile manner about any specific individuals or groups. The focus remains on the planned trip and its business-related intentions without any disparagement or hostile speech directed towards others.

  This upcoming trip highlights the intricate balance of diplomacy and commerce in international relations, particularly between two powerful nations like the U.S. and China. As details emerge, the business and geopolitical communities will be watching closely to see how these high-level discussions unfold.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/09/state-escalates-trade-row-with-china-over-iran-war-ahead-of-trump-xi-summit-00913421