Federal judge dismisses former Trump supporter’s defamation suit against Fox News | US Capitol attack

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-09 11:37:00 — www.theguardian.com

Federal Judge Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News

A federal judge has once again dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Raymond Epps, a former supporter of Donald Trump, against Fox News. Epps had claimed that the network’s inaccurate portrayal of him as a government operative involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack led to severe personal repercussions, including death threats. This ruling marks the second dismissal of Epps’ claims, with the judge finding insufficient evidence of "actual malice" on the part of Fox News.

Case Background and Judicial Decision

Raymond Epps, who had previously been associated with the far-right Oath Keepers group, alleged that Fox News falsely accused him of inciting violence during the Capitol riot, an accusation that forced him and his wife to sell their Arizona ranch and live in a recreational vehicle to escape harassment. However, Jennifer L. Hall, a Delaware-based U.S. district judge, concluded that Epps failed to demonstrate that Fox News knowingly broadcast false information about him. Despite allowing Epps to amend and refile his lawsuit in 2024, his subsequent submissions did not meet the legal threshold of proving "actual malice," a requisite for defamation cases involving public figures.

Fox News and Tucker Carlson’s Role

The lawsuit specifically pointed to former Fox host Tucker Carlson as a significant proponent of the conspiracy theories about Epps. Carlson, who left Fox News in April 2023, frequently discussed Epps on his show, contributing to the spread of the allegations. Despite these claims, the court found no plausible evidence that Carlson or his team knew the information aired was false or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

Fox News’ Response

Following the dismissal, Fox News expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, emphasizing that it preserved the press freedoms protected under the First Amendment. This statement came amidst ongoing discussions about the role of media in spreading misinformation related to political events.

Legal and Political Implications

Epps had previously admitted guilt to a misdemeanor related to the Capitol attack and received a one-year probation sentence. Notably, he was pardoned by Trump along with approximately 1,500 others involved in the incident. Federal prosecutors have supported Epps’ strong denials of any collaboration with the FBI or being planted by the government during the attack.

How This Sits Against Accuracy, Norms, and Governing Rules

Truth and Evidence

The claims about Epps’ involvement in the Capitol attack and his role as a government operative were central to the lawsuit. Normally, such serious allegations would require robust evidence, including independent corroboration or primary documents, which were not sufficiently provided in this case. The judge’s ruling highlighted the lack of evidence indicating that Fox News or Tucker Carlson acted with actual malice or had a reckless disregard for the truth.

What the Excerpt Shows About Verifiable Lies

Based on the information provided, there are no explicit statements from Trump or verifiable lies directly tied to him in the excerpt. The dismissal of the lawsuit primarily hinged on the legal standards of defamation and the inability of Epps to prove actual malice. Additional evidence or testimonies, not included in the excerpt, would be necessary to fully assess the veracity of the claims made by both parties.

Conclusion

The dismissal of Raymond Epps’ defamation lawsuit underscores the complexities of defamation law, especially concerning public figures and media outlets. It also highlights ongoing concerns about the accountability of news organizations in their reporting on sensitive political matters. As this legal battle concludes, it leaves a precedent about the evidentiary standards required for defamation claims against major media players.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/09/defamation-lawsuit-dismissed-raymond-epps-fox-news-january-6

President Donald Trump said U.S. consumer confidence is ‘way up.’ Metrics don’t bear that out

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-05-06 16:50:00 — www.politifact.com

Assessing Trump’s Claim on Consumer Confidence at White House Summit

During a recent event at the White House, President Donald Trump asserted that "consumer confidence is way up," suggesting a robust economic outlook and satisfaction with his policies. However, this claim contrasts sharply with data from established economic indicators. At the White House small business summit on May 4, Trump’s optimistic statement about the economy was directly challenged by findings from the University of Michigan, the Conference Board, and aggregated public polling data, all of which indicate a decline in consumer confidence compared to the end of former President Joe Biden’s tenure.

Contradictory Economic Indicators

The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index, a long-standing measure of consumer confidence, recorded a score of 53.3 for March 2026, marking it as one of the lowest since the survey’s inception in 1978. Similarly, the Conference Board’s index showed a decrease in consumer confidence during Trump’s second term, with a score of 92.8 in April 2026, significantly lower than during Biden’s administration.

Public opinion polls further reflect this trend, with a notable decline in approval of Trump’s economic policies. A compilation by Silver Bulletin indicated that net approval for Trump’s economic management has significantly dropped, turning negative shortly after his second term began in January 2025.

Retail Sales: A Silver Lining?

In defense of Trump’s claims, the White House cited retail sales figures, which have shown resilience. Retail sales data indicated an average monthly increase of 3.75% during the first 14 months of Trump’s current term. However, experts argue that this metric, unadjusted for inflation, may not accurately reflect consumer confidence as it could be influenced by inflationary pressures, including those possibly stemming from tariffs.

How This Sits Against Accuracy, Norms, and Governing Rules

Truth and Evidence:
Trump’s assertion that consumer confidence is surging lacks support from the primary economic indicators traditionally used to gauge this sentiment. Reliable sources like the University of Michigan and the Conference Board show a decline, not an increase. Normally, such claims would require backing by independent data or corroborative reports from credible institutions, which in this case, contradict the president’s statement.

What the Excerpt Shows About Verifiable Lies:
Based on the data provided in the excerpt, Trump’s claim about rising consumer confidence is demonstrably false. The traditional metrics used to assess consumer confidence all indicate a decrease during his term compared to his predecessor’s. The assertion lacks factual support within the context of the provided economic indicators and public opinion trends.

In summary, while retail sales figures offer a more positive outlook, they do not directly correlate with consumer confidence, especially when inflation is considered. The broader economic indicators suggest that American consumers are less confident now than they were under the previous administration, directly contradicting President Trump’s claims at the White House summit.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/may/06/donald-trump/consumer-confidence-sentiment-spending-second-term/

Which Trump Tariffs Are in Place, in the Works or Ruled Illegal

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-05-09 04:02:00 — www.nytimes.com

President’s Tariff Adjustments Continue Amid Legal Challenges

The president has been actively modifying his tariff policies, facing legal setbacks that have sometimes resulted in these tariffs being declared illegal. Further changes to these policies are anticipated.

Ongoing Tariff Revisions

According to the report, the president has not only adjusted the tariffs multiple times but also faced legal challenges that have occasionally resulted in these tariffs being deemed illegal. The exact reasons for the legal rulings against the tariffs are not specified in the excerpt. Moreover, it is indicated that more updates to the tariff policies are expected, suggesting an ongoing process of revision and adaptation in response to legal scrutiny and possibly other factors.

What’s unclear / what to watch

• Specific details about which tariffs were affected.
• The legal grounds on which some tariffs were declared illegal.
• The nature and scope of the anticipated updates to the tariff policies.
  

  How this sits against accuracy, norms, and governing rules
  

  Truth and evidence
  

  The factual claim implied by the president’s actions, as stated in the report, is that the tariffs have been modified multiple times and sometimes declared illegal. Normally, such claims would require confirmation from independent sources such as court documents or statements from legal authorities, which are not provided in the excerpt. The excerpt does not offer outside verification or counter-evidence to these adjustments and legal rulings.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies
  

  Based on the information provided in the excerpt, there are no explicit statements from the president that can be verified as false within the text itself. The excerpt does not contain enough material to assess the veracity of the president’s statements or actions beyond what is mentioned. Additional evidence, such as specific legal documents or further details on the nature of the legal challenges, would be necessary to fully verify these claims.

  This analysis highlights the importance of accessing complete information and context when evaluating governmental actions and statements, particularly in complex areas such as tariff regulations and legal challenges.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/09/business/economy/trump-tariff-timeline.html

Tennessee redistricting plan splits Memphis neighbors and reshapes midterms as other states follow

ABC News: Politics — 2026-05-09 09:21:00 — abcnews.com

Memphis Redistricting: A Shift in Voting Dynamics and Community Representation

In a significant reshaping of electoral boundaries, Memphis, Tennessee, has seen its congressional districts redrawn, affecting the voting dynamics of its residents, including musicians Steve Fowler and Sam Wilson, who have shared a stage and neighborhood for over two decades. The redistricting has placed Fowler and Wilson in different districts despite living across the street from each other. This change reflects a broader trend influenced by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that weakened protections under the Voting Rights Act, leading to redistricting efforts across several Southern states.

Impact on Local Communities

The redistricting in Memphis has divided the city into three Republican-leaning districts, diluting the majority-Black population’s voting power by merging them with predominantly white, rural, and conservative areas. This has sparked concerns about the adequacy of representation and services for both Black and poor white communities within these newly drawn districts. Critics argue that the new boundaries could hinder the ability of congressmen to effectively serve such a diverse and dispersed population.

Legal and Political Repercussions

The changes have not gone unchallenged. Democrats and civil rights groups are actively suing to block the new maps, emphasizing the city’s historical and ongoing struggles for racial justice. The redistricting has been met with public protests, including chants of "hands off Memphis!" which underscore the city’s significant place in America’s civil rights movement. The situation is further complicated by state-level interventions in local governance, which some perceive as undermining the autonomy and interests of Memphis’s predominantly Black population.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• The outcome of the legal challenges against the redistricting.
• The impact of the new districts on the 2024 elections and beyond.
• How the redistricting will affect the delivery of services and resources to the diverse communities in Memphis.

  How this sits against accuracy, norms, and governing rules

  Truth and evidence:
  The redistricting in Memphis, as reported, aligns with a broader pattern of gerrymandering following the Supreme Court’s decision to relax the Voting Rights Act’s enforcement. This ruling has allowed for more aggressive redrawing of political maps without stringent checks against racial discrimination. Normally, claims of racial discrimination in redistricting would require robust legal scrutiny, including detailed demographic analyses and testimonies, to establish whether minority voting power is being diluted unlawfully.

  What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies:
  The excerpt does not provide direct evidence of verifiable lies but highlights contentious political and legal interpretations of redistricting’s motives and impacts. To fully assess the truthfulness of claims regarding the intent and consequences of the redistricting, additional legal documents, demographic data, and court rulings would be necessary, none of which are detailed in the excerpt.

  This situation in Memphis serves as a critical example of how changes in electoral boundaries can reshape political landscapes and community representation, raising significant questions about fairness, equity, and the preservation of democratic norms.

Source: https://abcnews.com/Politics/wireStory/tennessee-redistricting-plan-splits-memphis-neighbors-reshapes-midterms-132807431

With Trump’s low approval rating and Republicans’ ‘self-destruction’, can Democrats take the Senate? | US midterm elections 2026

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-09 13:27:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump’s Approval Ratings Decline Amid Policy Backlash

In the rural expanses of Louisa County, Iowa, where the largest town, Wapello, is humorously dubbed the “Capital of the World,” political shifts reflect broader national trends. This area, which once supported Barack Obama, has seen a significant political transformation, increasingly leaning Republican with each election since 2016. However, the recent policies under Donald Trump’s administration, particularly those targeting immigration and economic management, have stirred significant controversy and fear among the populace.

Community Response and Political Repercussions

In Columbus Junction, Iowa, a town known for its diverse immigrant population due to local employment opportunities at a slaughterhouse, the community’s sentiment has shifted. Araceli Vazquez-Ramirez, a community advocate, notes a growing fear among residents due to aggressive deportation campaigns and the ending of temporary deportation protections. The local support for Trump, initially strong due to his promises of economic benefits and improved healthcare, has waned as the community feels the adverse effects of his policies.

National Political Landscape

The political landscape across the United States is showing signs of strain within the coalition that re-elected Trump in 2024. His approval ratings have dipped, reflecting dissatisfaction in key areas like the economy and inflation. Despite the White House’s efforts to adjust strategies, the administration’s approach, including a controversial military campaign alongside Israel against Iran, has only fueled public discontent, particularly affecting gas prices and thereby the everyday American.

What’s Unclear / What to Watch

• The long-term impact of Trump’s policies on his voter base.
• Potential shifts in party allegiance in upcoming elections.
• The effectiveness of the Democratic strategy in capitalizing on Republican vulnerabilities.
  

  How This Sits Against Accuracy, Norms, and Governing Rules
  

  Truth and Evidence:
  The claims regarding Trump’s declining approval ratings and the negative impact of his policies on his support base are grounded in community feedback and poll results. Normally, such claims would require further independent corroboration through multiple polls or studies to be considered well-supported. The excerpt does not provide external verification of these claims, nor does it include counter-evidence or denials from other sources.

  Democratic and Civic Norms:
  Misleading or inflammatory political claims can severely strain the shared expectations within U.S. politics, which rely heavily on verifiable information and a clear distinction between allegations and established facts. When political leaders make decisions that significantly impact communities without clear, evidence-based justifications, it can lead to a breakdown in trust and hinder constructive public debate.

  Constitution and Law:
  The excerpt does not specify any legal issues or name any statutes or constitutional provisions directly related to the discussed events. Generally, in the U.S. system, disputed factual and legal questions are weighed by institutions like courts and Congress according to written law and procedure. An RSS excerpt alone cannot establish a constitutional violation or definitive legal outcome. However, the actions and decisions of a presidency, such as those involving immigration and foreign policy, often lead to legal challenges that test the boundaries of executive power and oversight.

  This analysis reflects the ongoing political dynamics and the potential constitutional discussions that might arise from the current administration’s policies. As the situation develops, it remains crucial to monitor these aspects closely, ensuring that public discourse and policy-making adhere to the norms of evidence-based governance and respect for democratic processes.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/09/trumps-low-approval-ratings-republicans-self-destruction-democrats-senate

The latest congressional redistricting changes and what to know

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-05-09 10:35:00 — www.pbs.org

U.S. Political Map Redrawing Accelerates, Potentially Favoring Republicans

Recent actions in courts and legislatures, particularly in Southern states, have accelerated the remaking of the U.S. political map, potentially boosting Republican chances of maintaining control of Congress in the upcoming November elections. This week saw significant developments, including a pivotal state court decision in Virginia and ongoing adjustments following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month.

Virginia’s Redistricting Setback for Democrats
The Virginia Supreme Court, in a narrow 4-3 decision, overturned a new Democratic-led congressional redistricting plan that had been approved by voters in April. The court cited procedural issues, noting the requirement for legislative approval of constitutional amendments twice – a step missed as the initial approval occurred after early voting had started. Consequently, Virginia will revert to its previous congressional maps for this year’s elections.

Southern States React to Supreme Court Decision
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on April 29, which invalidated a Louisiana district designed to have a Black majority, several GOP-controlled states moved quickly to redraw their congressional maps. This ruling impacted the Voting Rights Act’s provisions that support districts where minority-preferred candidates can succeed. States like Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee have proposed or enacted new redistricting plans under these revised conditions.

Implications and Ongoing Changes
These redistricting efforts are part of a broader strategy by both parties to optimize their electoral prospects ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Notably, President Donald Trump has advocated for new districts in Texas, aiming to secure a Republican majority in Congress. The dynamic nature of these changes, coupled with pending legal challenges and further state actions, means the ultimate impact on the congressional balance of power remains uncertain.

What’s unclear / what to watch:

• The final outcome of legal challenges to the new redistricting plans.
• Whether other states will follow with similar redistricting efforts before the 2026 midterms.
• The impact of these changes on voter turnout and preferences.

  How this sits against accuracy, norms, and governing rules:

• Truth and evidence: The claims about redistricting efforts are grounded in recent legal decisions and legislative actions. Normally, such claims would require detailed court documents and official statements for full verification, which are not provided in the excerpt.
• Democratic and civic norms: The use of redistricting as a political tool can strain democratic norms, particularly when it leads to significant shifts in electoral prospects without broad consensus or clear adherence to established legal processes.
• Constitution and law: The constitutional and legal discussions in the excerpt focus on procedural adherence and the implications of Supreme Court rulings. In the U.S. system, these issues are typically resolved through further legal scrutiny and legislative adjustments, reflecting the structured nature of legal and political resolution processes.

  This ongoing redistricting saga underscores the complex interplay between law, politics, and electoral strategy in shaping American democracy.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-latest-congressional-redistricting-changes-and-what-to-know