Inquirer.com – Zurich DR

Category: Politics

  • Trump mulls renaming Lake Ontario as ‘Lake America.’ Canadians balk at the idea

    Trump mulls renaming Lake Ontario as ‘Lake America.’ Canadians balk at the idea

    WINDSOR, Ontario — With his trade war with Canada intensifying, President Donald Trump floated the idea of renaming Lake Ontario to become “Lake America.” America’s northern neighbors quickly panned the idea.

    “He can blow out his hole as much as he wants to, but it’s never going to happen, because Canadians are strong,” said Patricia Wiseman, an Ontario resident, as she walked along the waterfront of the Detroit River.

    It may be more complicated than that. Trump has wide latitude over how the U.S. government recognizes geographic places and landmarks. But the Republican president cannot force Canada or individual citizens on either side of the border to follow his preferred naming conventions. And his latest branding idea — reminiscent of his move to rechristen the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” — highlights how much his rhetoric and trade policy have sundered the previously warm relationship between Washington and Ottawa.

    “I believe the American people love us, and we love them,” Wiseman said. “They’re going through as much turmoil as we are. Hopefully, one day we can reunite.”

    Trump introduced the idea of renaming the easternmost area of the Great Lakes hours before Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s scheduled announcement of reciprocal tariffs on U.S. imports into his country.

    “The United States is giving serious consideration to changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America in that we don’t expect to doing much business with Ontario any longer,” Trump posted Tuesday on Truth Social.

    The White House followed later in the day by posting on social media a toy Lego map of the U.S. labeling the Gulf of Mexico with Trump’s preferred name, Gulf of America.

    Ontario is leading trade partner for many U.S. states

    The U.S. and Canada, which share borders along multiple Great Lakes, including Lake Ontario, are locked in an extended trade dispute, with the Trump administration imposing 50% tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods over the weekend after talks between the countries broke down. That ratcheted up lower tariffs that Trump imposed in 2025, shortly after his second presidency began.

    Trump has also threatened new 50% tariffs on Canadian vehicles, auto parts and steel, while Carney said U.S. trade demands showed that Washington wanted to “destroy our major industries,” including autos, steel and aluminum.

    The official U.S.-Canada border stretches across the water between Lake Ontario’s northern and southern shores. The body of water forms much of New York State’s coastline and separates Buffalo from Toronto, the capital of the province of Ontario. Toronto is Canada’s most populous city and Ontario its most populous province.

    Ontario is also the single largest export destination for more than a dozen U.S. states.

    “It’s disappointing,” Ontario resident Paul Butler said of Trump’s policy and rhetoric. “The more you hear it, it just gets downright infuriating.”

    Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who traded personal insults with Trump on Monday, dismissed the Lake Ontario threat as “a lot of rhetoric” and urged the two countries to resume negotiations. Ford acknowledged in a CNN interview that the dispute had “got a little personal” and agreed it was time to lower the temperature, saying the trade fight was hurting both countries and that Canada and the United States should “get back to the table” to negotiate.

    Lake Ontario’s name predates either country

    The lake’s name comes from the Huron Indigenous people’s word “oniatarí:io,” which means “lake of shining waters,” and it predates European settlement in the region. The province, founded in 1867, took its name from the lake.

    The International Hydrographic Organization — of which both the United States and Canada are members — works to ensure that the world’s seas, oceans and navigable waters are surveyed and charted uniformly, and also names some of them. But there is no single international body that determines names of international bodies of water.

    “It’s been like that for so long, so, why do we need to change it?” said Nancy Minard, an Ontario resident. “It seems to work for Canada and I think probably works for the U.S., too.”

    Trump has at least some support for his idea on Ontario’s south shoreline.

    “I like it. Absolutely. Because I like America, and right now Canada’s not treating us very nicely,” said Jim Fetterhoff, a resident and fisherman in Port Ontario in upstate New York.

    He cited Canadian tariffs on dairy and other products. Nothing against Canadians themselves, Fetterhoff added, “just the Canadian government. I love Canadians.”

    Trump has been antagonizing U.S. neighbors

    Canada and Mexico are the largest U.S. trading partners but have drawn Trump’s ire throughout his second presidency on trade, immigration and crime. He has called for Canada to become the 51st state, alternating between joking tones and seemingly serious assertions that Carney and other Canadians have rejected and mocked.

    On the day of his second inauguration, Trump fulfilled one of his 2024 campaign promises with an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. The body of water forms a shared border between Mexico and the U.S.

    Mexico does not recognize the change, nor do many other countries and international bodies.

    In 2015, President Barack Obama changed the name of Alaska’s Mount McKinley, named for the 25th U.S. president, to Denali, its historical name given by Alaska Natives as well as the preference of many Alaska residents. Trump, the same day he ordered the Gulf of Mexico to be renamed, returned McKinley’s name to the Alaska mountain to honor “a great president.”

    That back-and-forth in Alaska could be a preview for a certain ancient lake. Said Wiseman of Trump, “He’s not going to be in the presidency forever.”

    ___

    This story has corrected to reflect that Trump floated the idea in a social media post on Tuesday, not Monday.

    ___

    Barrow reported from Atlanta. Gillies reported from Toronto. Associated Press writer Cara Anna in Lowville, N.Y., contributed to this report.

  • In headache for Republicans, second Dan Sullivan advances in Alaska Senate race

    In headache for Republicans, second Dan Sullivan advances in Alaska Senate race

    Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher who is challenging Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan of Alaska, won a spot on the general election ballot Tuesday, according to The Associated Press.

    His emergence from the state’s nonpartisan primary poses a headache for the incumbent.

    Dan J. Sullivan is not expected to wage a competitive general-election campaign. But Republicans have worried for months that some voters may confuse the two Sullivans in November, potentially depriving Sen. Sullivan of votes and lifting his well-funded Democratic challenger, former Rep. Mary Peltola, to victory.

    Sen. Sullivan and Peltola easily earned spots on the general election ballot; soon after polls closed a week ago, The Associated Press said they both had advanced. But Dan J. Sullivan won just a few thousand votes, and it took a little more than a week for it to become clear that he had secured one of the four spots on the November ballot.

    Democrats and Republicans alike see Dan J. Sullivan as no mere campaign curiosity. If he wins even a sliver of general-election votes, it could be decisive in a narrow race. Alaska uses a ranked-choice general-election system, which means that voters confused about the Sullivans could simply rank them both before Peltola — but it is unclear how the dynamic may play out in voting booths.

    Sen. Sullivan trailed Peltola by more than 5 percentage points in the nonpartisan primary.

    The contest in Alaska is one of a handful of competitive races seen as the most likely to determine which party wins control of the Senate. With Republicans now holding 53 seats, Democrats would have to keep all their seats and flip four to win the chamber in the midterms. Democratic leaders consider Alaska to be one of their most promising targets.

    It was not always clear that Dan J. Sullivan, running as a Republican, would even be eligible.

    The Alaska Division of Elections, which is overseen by the state’s Republican lieutenant governor, removed Dan J. Sullivan in June from the primary ballot, finding that his candidacy was intended to confuse voters and was not a “good-faith” effort. An Alaska judge, in turn, restored his spot on the ballot, saying that the elections agency had exceeded its authority.

    Republicans have claimed that Peltola’s campaign planted Dan J. Sullivan in the race to trick voters. But the Peltola campaign has denied coordinating with him. He said in a recent interview that he had voted for Peltola in her bids for the House of Representatives in 2022 and 2024, but that he was running in good faith and was not a secret Democrat.

    Broadly, Democrats in Alaska have dismissed allegations of foul play, casting Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy as an amusing but far from unheard-of quirk of the insular world of Alaska politics.

    When Sen. Sullivan was first elected to the Senate in 2014, another Republican named Dan Sullivan, then the mayor of Anchorage, was also on the primary ballot as a candidate for lieutenant governor.

    On the day of this year’s primary, the former mayor weighed in on the Senate race. “As the OG Dan Sullivan, I urge Alaskans to vote for Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan,” he said in a statement on social media. “He’s been great for Alaska.”

    When Dan J. Sullivan announced in May that he was entering the race, he said in a statement, “It’s time for Alaska to elect a Sullivan that’s on their side.”

  • Before Hegseth fired him, top general was advised to drop Kid Rock probe

    Before Hegseth fired him, top general was advised to drop Kid Rock probe

    Days before the Army’s top officer was abruptly fired earlier this year, he was advised by a fellow general now vying to replace him to stop the military’s investigation into an unauthorized helicopter flyby of musician Kid Rock’s Tennessee estate, three people familiar with the matter said.

    Gen. Randy George, whom Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth removed as the Army chief of staff without explanation, felt it was important to follow typical protocol and determine whether any safety regulations had been violated during the March 28 flyby, these people said. Like some others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the episode.

    Gen. Chris LaNeve, the Army’s No. 2 officer, told George that Hegseth did not want the investigation to proceed, one person said. The two others said that George later confided in colleagues about the encounter with LaNeve and seemed troubled by it. George told them that LaNeve suggested it would be best if the review was scuttled, those people said.

    The revelation, which has not previously been reported, adds a new layer of understanding to Hegseth’s potential motivations for firing George on April 2. Kid Rock, whose legal name is Robert Ritchie, is a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and avowed critic of many Democratic politicians and causes.

    Through a spokesman, George, who is now retired, declined to comment. Army officials did not respond to questions about LaNeve, whose candidacy for the chief of staff job faces resistance in Congress.

    Hegseth, in a statement provided to The Washington Post, did not directly address the discussion between the two generals and described LaNeve as “precisely the kind of leader the U.S. Army needs right now,” interested in strengthening the Army, and “not interested in playing politics in Washington.”

    “He is a back-to-basics, no politics, no-nonsense General — exactly what President Trump expects,” Hegseth’s statement said. “The critics coming after him are the same out-of-touch so-called insiders who’ve spent years undermining our military with woke policies and endless wars. They hold deep grudges against any commander willing to put America and our troops first, but their days of influence are over.”

    Sean Parnell, a spokesman for Hegseth, said that the new reporting about George’s departure amounted to a “regurgitating” of a “tired, old story simply to manufacture drama.”

    Hegseth and his advisers have for months declined to say what precipitated George’s ouster, even when asked directly by Republican and Democratic lawmakers who objected to the firing. He has long been at odds with the service’s senior leadership — including Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, a fellow Trump appointee who at one time was viewed as a potential replacement for Hegseth. Driscoll is now expected to leave the administration soon, perhaps within weeks, officials said.

    Others familiar with George’s firing have said that multiple factors were probably at play, including his close working relationship with Driscoll.

    Since taking charge of the Pentagon in January 2025, Hegseth, a former Fox News personality who spent years in the Army National Guard, has overseen the dismissal of more than two dozen top officers. The firings typically occur without cause, though he has complained broadly that the military’s upper ranks are insufficiently loyal to the president or caught in old ways of thinking. Many of those removed have been women and minorities.

    LaNeve’s actions in the Kid Rock investigation could further complicate his ascension to the Army’s top post. While he has filled the role on an acting basis since George’s ouster nearly five months ago, Trump administration officials have not yet formally nominated him to become the chief of staff amid concerns that he lacks support within the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee, said three separate people familiar with the views on Capitol Hill.

    Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican and retired Army National Guard officer initially skeptical of Hegseth’s nomination to lead the Pentagon, opposes LaNeve, these people said. Both George and Gen. James Mingus, another top Army officer forced out by Hegseth, are from Iowa.

    Without votes from Democrats, nominees require unanimous Republican support on the committee to advance.

    Ernst’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

    The Wall Street Journal first reported her opposition to LaNeve.

    Parnell, Hegseth’s spokesman, downplayed the situation, saying in his statement that Pentagon officials are “actively coordinating with our Senate partners to lock in the optimal moment to formally submit his nomination, and we intend to do so.”

    On March 31, three days after two AH-64 Apache helicopters flying outside Nashville buzzed the home of Kid Rock, Army officials with the 101st Airborne Division at nearby Fort Campbell announced they were grounding the pilots and launching an administrative investigation.

    Video shared on social media by the musician showed the aircraft at low altitudes. In his post, he also criticized California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is a frequent critic of the Trump administration. “This is a level of respect,” Kid Rock wrote, that Newsom “will never know.”

    At the time, the Army said it also was reviewing the flight path of a helicopter that flew the same day over a “No Kings” protest against Trump in nearby Clarksville, Tennessee. Flight tracker data showed that the aircraft dipped to as low as 625 feet, at one point circling over where protesters were gathered.

    When the incidents attracted unflattering news coverage, Hegseth promptly intervened. He terminated the Army’s investigation and exonerated the aircrews involved — encouraging them to “Carry on, Patriots.”

    A few weeks later, Hegseth and Kid Rock flew in Apache helicopters from Fort Belvoir in Virginia, located in suburban D.C. Parnell said then that it was part of a broader community relations event.

    LaNeve, 59, was not viewed by his Army peers as a likely future chief of staff before the Trump administration came into office, but he caught the president’s attention with a congratulatory call during the Commander-in-Chief Inaugural Ball, people familiar with the matter said. At the time, LaNeve was commanding U.S. soldiers in South Korea and called the president from there.

    LaNeve was moved into a more influential position as Hegseth’s senior military aide after the defense secretary’s team ousted Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short from the role the following month.

    This past fall, Hegseth elevated LaNeve again, nominating him to become the Army’s vice chief of staff while forcing Mingus into retirement early.

    In a May hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, LaNeve faced sharp questions from Republicans over the Pentagon’s decision to cancel the deployment of an Army brigade to Poland, a NATO ally that borders Ukraine.

    When Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) asked him about the Poland decision, LaNeve declined to say why the deployment was canceled, arguing he was not part of the military’s “policy side.”

    “But you’re the chief of staff of the Army,” Bacon responded, noting his acting role.

    George had been expected to serve as the Army’s chief of staff until fall 2027, completing a typical four-year assignment in the role. Hegseth asked him to retire early during a phone call, news of which was leaked minutes later to CBS News, officials have said previously. The move thwarted any effort by Driscoll, the Army secretary, to save the general’s career before the decision was publicized.

    Hegseth’s campaign of firings and forced retirements has removed a number of other candidates who may otherwise have been considered for elevation to Army chief of staff, officials said. They include Mingus, who retired early this year; Gen. David Hodne, who was fired without explanation in April; and Gen. Christopher Donahue, who is expected to retire soon after Hegseth stonewalled efforts within the Army and on Capitol Hill to extend his career.

    Amid the purge, Driscoll has begun to consider his own departure, officials familiar with the matter said. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that he could leave the Trump administration by the end of the year. That appears likely, officials said, but no firm plan has emerged yet.

    As The Post and others reported in the immediate aftermath of George’s firing, aides to Hegseth have touted Parnell, the Pentagon spokesman, becoming Army secretary. Parnell has told colleagues privately that he is interested in the job should it become open.

  • Democratic states file new lawsuit seeking to block Trump’s order limiting mail voting in midterms

    Democratic states file new lawsuit seeking to block Trump’s order limiting mail voting in midterms

    Democratic-controlled states on Wednesday filed another lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to limit mail voting in this year’s midterm elections.

    The action, filed by about two dozen states against the U.S. Postal Service, marked a new phase in the high-stakes litigation just two days after the Supreme Court ruled against them in a separate case, but did not say Trump’s order was legal.

    The high court majority found the Democratic lawsuit was premature, but that was before the Republican administration issued a rule governing Postal Service delivery of mail ballots. Election officials warn it will be impossible to implement in the days before the first wave of mail ballots are sent out next week.

    “Across the country, states are already deep into preparations for the 2026 elections. Now, at the last moment, the federal government is attempting to meddle in those preparations and potentially threaten countless Americans’ right to vote,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of 25 Democratic attorneys general filing the lawsuit, said in a statement. “USPS has no authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail.”

    Trump’s executive order remains barred from taking effect under a separate injunction that the administration argues needs to be immediately rescinded in light of the high court’s ruling in the previous Democratic state lawsuit. It also had succeeded in a third case filed in May in the District of Columbia, convincing a judge that it was too early to prevent its implementation of the executive order.

    All previous challenges were filed before the administration published its mail ballot rule Friday night. The rule says that if states want their mail ballots delivered, they will need federal approval of the design of their envelopes and must give the Postal Service a list of voters eligible to receive them.

    White House spokesperson Lauren Bis on Wednesday said the Postal Service’s proposals were “commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots” and that the administration would continue to work to implement them to boost “the safety and security of our elections.”

    The Postal Service said it would not comment because of the pending lawsuit.

    National Democrats on Tuesday cited the rule in asking the federal judge in the Washington case to block Trump’s order after he declined to do so last spring, saying the administration at the time had not taken concrete action. In Boston, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani also found that the administration moving forward with the mail ballot rule had violated a separate injunction she had placed on the Postal Service prohibiting it from enacting Trump’s order, although she did not take any action against the government.

    Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, had issued the injunction against Trump’s executive order in the prior Democratic state case, which is the one the Supreme Court overturned on Monday. She has yet to act on the administration’s urging her to revoke her second injunction. It was issued Aug. 11 in a case against the executive order and was filed by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups while the Supreme Court was considering the administration’s appeal of the judge’s first order.

    Trump has long targeted mail voting, which he falsely blames for his 2020 election loss and is disproportionately used by Democrats as a result of Trump’s condemnations. Since returning to power, Trump has tried to claim authority over election rules, saying he thinks Republicans should “take over” vote counting in Democratic areas.

    He issued his first election executive order just months after retaking office, attempting to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, among other changes. He has also been pushing a sweeping election bill that has stalled in the Senate amid opposition from Democrats and even some within his own party.

  • Democratic states file new lawsuit seeking to block Trump’s order limiting mail voting in midterms

    Democratic states file new lawsuit seeking to block Trump’s order limiting mail voting in midterms

    Democratic-controlled states on Wednesday filed another lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to limit mail voting in this year’s midterm elections.

    The action, filed by about two dozen states against the U.S. Postal Service, marked a new phase in the high-stakes litigation just two days after the Supreme Court ruled against them in a separate case, but did not say Trump’s order was legal.

    Pa. Democrats vow to keep fighting for mail voting after Supreme Court ruling creates uncertainty as November approaches

    The high court majority found the Democratic lawsuit was premature, but that was before the Republican administration issued a rule governing Postal Service delivery of mail ballots. Election officials warn it will be impossible to implement in the days before the first wave of mail ballots are sent out next week.

    “Across the country, states are already deep into preparations for the 2026 elections. Now, at the last moment, the federal government is attempting to meddle in those preparations and potentially threaten countless Americans’ right to vote,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of 25 Democratic attorneys general filing the lawsuit, said in a statement. “USPS has no authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail.”

    Trump’s executive order remains barred from taking effect under a separate injunction that the administration argues needs to be immediately rescinded in light of the high court’s ruling in the previous Democratic state lawsuit. It also had succeeded in a third case filed in May in the District of Columbia, convincing a judge that it was too early to prevent its implementation of the executive order.

    All previous challenges were filed before the administration published its mail ballot rule Friday night. The rule says that if states want their mail ballots delivered, they will need federal approval of the design of their envelopes and must give the Postal Service a list of voters eligible to receive them.

    White House spokesperson Lauren Bis on Wednesday said the Postal Service’s proposals were “commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots” and that the administration would continue to work to implement them to boost “the safety and security of our elections.”

    The Postal Service said it would not comment because of the pending lawsuit.

    Pennsylvania is one of the states suing the Trump administration.

    “Absolutely nothing has changed here in Pennsylvania. You can vote in person on Election Day or you can vote by mail before Nov. 3,” Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro said Tuesday evening before the suit was filed.

    “Your vote will be counted. Your vote is safe and secure,” Shapiro said. “No matter how many times the president wants to try and undermine people’s right to vote in this commonwealth, he needs to know that he will be met with a swift rebuke from me.”

    National Democrats on Tuesday cited the rule in asking the federal judge in the Washington case to block Trump’s order after he declined to do so last spring, saying the administration at the time had not taken concrete action. In Boston, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani also found that the administration moving forward with the mail ballot rule had violated a separate injunction she had placed on the Postal Service prohibiting it from enacting Trump’s order, although she did not take any action against the government.

    Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, had issued the injunction against Trump’s executive order in the prior Democratic state case, which is the one the Supreme Court overturned on Monday. She has yet to act on the administration’s urging her to revoke her second injunction. It was issued Aug. 11 in a case against the executive order and was filed by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups while the Supreme Court was considering the administration’s appeal of the judge’s first order.

    Trump has long targeted mail voting, which he falsely blames for his 2020 election loss and is disproportionately used by Democrats as a result of Trump’s condemnations. Since returning to power, Trump has tried to claim authority over election rules, saying he thinks Republicans should “take over” vote counting in Democratic areas.

    He issued his first election executive order just months after retaking office, attempting to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, among other changes. He has also been pushing a sweeping election bill that has stalled in the Senate amid opposition from Democrats and even some within his own party.

    Staff writer Jeff Neiburg contributed reporting.

  • 6 in 10 Pennsylvania voters oppose data center development, new poll finds

    6 in 10 Pennsylvania voters oppose data center development, new poll finds

    A majority of Pennsylvania voters oppose data center development in the United States, according to a new poll, as the issue has quickly become a flash point in the state’s gubernatorial race and other midterm elections.

    Six in 10 likely Pennsylvania voters do not want the U.S. to construct data centers to house artificial intelligence, according to a poll conducted from Aug. 17 to 21 by The Inquirer, the New York Times, and Siena University. The poll, which surveyed 760 likely voters in Pennsylvania, found that Democratic and independent voters oppose data centers at higher rates, while just over half of Republicans support their construction.

    (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

    The United States is in an international race to lead advancements in AI, with $2.3 trillion in data center projects underway or in the planning stages across the country. Pennsylvania, with more than 100 proposed projects, is among the hot spots targeted by developers for its key location near top U.S. metropolitan areas, vast rural space for building, and significant energy resources.

    Gov. Josh Shapiro originally welcomed data center developments to the state, and last year championed a $20 billion investment from Amazon to build at least two data center campuses in Bucks and Luzerne Counties. He also offered developers fast-track permitting in an attempt to establish Pennsylvania as a leader in AI development.

    But in a year’s time, public animosity toward data centers has grown in Pennsylvania and beyond, as residents say they fear the facilities will drive up electricity costs, overuse water supplies, depreciate home values, and disrupt their daily lives. Last week, Shapiro, a Democrat running for reelection in November and a 2028 presidential prospect, announced plans to restrict data center development in the state.

    In a major shift, Gov. Josh Shapiro restricts data center development in Pennsylvania

    Shapiro said his position on data centers evolved as he listened to more constituents who live in areas like Archbald, a small northeastern Pennsylvania town with six data center campuses under construction, and pointed to a developer in Montgomery County who he said is “bullying” residents to push projects through amid public opposition.

    (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

    Pennsylvania’s youngest voters were most likely to reject data centers, according to the poll: 83% of likely voters ages 18 to 29 opposed their development, as did 71% of voters ages 30 to 44. Opposition, while above 50% for all age groups, decreased among older voters.

    Kelly Harrington, 29, of Conshohocken, who participated in the poll, said she has been attending Plymouth Township Council meetings to oppose a controversial proposal for a 2 million-square-foot data center project there.

    “Some of my concerns about that specific data center are selfish in the sense that I think my home value is going to go down, I think it’s going to be loud and obstructive, I think it’s going to pollute the air that I want to breathe every day,” Harrington said. “But in a wider sense, I’m also concerned about the environmental impacts of data centers.”

    Front and center in the Pa. governor’s race and beyond

    Data centers have become a key issue in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, where Shapiro hopes to ride his high popularity to reelection and usher in Democratic gains in down-ballot races for the statehouse and Congress.

    Both Shapiro and his Republican opponent, State Treasurer Stacy Garrity, have released ads criticizing the other’s past support for data center development.

    The issue also is animating down-ballot races across the state, where candidates from both parties are campaigning on their opposition to data center development.

    Democratic and Republican politicians across the country have reversed course on data centers in recent months as the projects have grown increasingly unpopular.

    Does Pennsylvania now have ‘the strictest guardrails in the nation’ for data centers?
    Gov. Josh Shapiro answers questions after signing an executive order restricting data centers in Pennsylvania during a ceremony in the Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa., Tuesday August 18, 2026.Kalim A. Bhatti / For The Inquirer

    Prior to Shapiro’s announcement last week touting the “strictest guardrails in the nation” for data center development, his support for the projects appeared to be one of the major tests of his popularity. A Quinnipiac University poll published in July found that while 56% of voters approved of Shapiro overall, only 24% approved of how he was handling data center development in Pennsylvania.

    And some Pennsylvanians who had voted for Shapiro in 2022 said his support for the developments had caused them to contemplate sitting out the November election or writing in a different candidate for governor.

    How Josh Shapiro’s early embrace of data centers is testing his high popularity in Pennsylvania

    For some voters, like Montiese McKenzie, Shapiro’s change in position has been enough.

    “I’m very proud of Gov. Shapiro for being anti-data center,” said McKenzie, 48, of West Philadelphia. The Democratic voter said she fears that poor communities will face disproportionate consequences of the construction of AI data centers.

    “What happens will be very important for how I see him as a future leader,” McKenzie said.

    Montiese McKenzie, 48, poses for a portrait near her home in West Philadelphia on Monday, Aug. 24, 2026.Allie Ippolito / For The Inquirer

    Still, Shapiro’s recent change in position has not wooed all Pennsylvania voters.

    Maryann Klaus, 82, a Democrat in Upper Bucks County, supported Shapiro in 2022. But, she said, his initial embrace of data centers in the region without consulting the community was “just not good governance.” Despite Shapiro’s recent moves to restrict data center development, Klaus said, she is still reconsidering her vote for his reelection this fall.

    The executive order Shapiro signed last week is a “a start,” Klaus said. “But, unfortunately, when you open the door, too many things occur and then you can’t walk them back.”

    Others, like Steven Keenan of Ridley Township, say they want more data center development in the state.

    Keenan, 60, a Republican who is supporting Garrity in November, said he wants Pennsylvania to lead on data centers.

    “I’m not afraid of advancement in technology,” Keenan said. “I think we need all that [development]. We’re in a race with other countries that we want to dominate.”

    Keenan said Shapiro’s change in position reaffirmed his support for Garrity. The shift in stance, he said, showed Shapiro was reacting to public opinion instead of doing what is right for the state. (Garrity, too, has moved away from her public support for data centers. She has called for the state to temporarily pause all data center development.)

    “He goes where the wind blows,” Keenan added.

    Staff writer Fallon Roth contributed to this article.

  • How to avoid a Social Security cut? Lawmakers are floating ideas for what to do

    How to avoid a Social Security cut? Lawmakers are floating ideas for what to do

    WASHINGTON — With the few months they have left as senators, Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Bill Cassidy have embarked on a mission to save tens of millions of Social Security beneficiaries from a projected 22% cut in their benefits, starting in just six years.

    It is one of the most perilous political efforts that a member of Congress can undertake, so it is telling that the push is being led by two lawmakers who have little to lose at this stage of their careers.

    “We’ve been at this six years, eight years. It’s incredible how long I’ve been at it,” Cassidy said. “But Durbin came up to me and he goes, ’Bill, I’m leaving the Senate soon. We need to take a ride at it.’”

    Their idea to extend Social Security’s solvency is one of a few that have been formally offered this Congress. None has gained much traction, but it is a start as more lawmakers weigh in on a problem that will likely confront the group of senators elected this fall as well as the next president. Pressure for action is sure to grow as 2032 draws closer.

    Senate bill seeks 50 years of Social Security solvency

    The measure that Durbin, D-Ill., and Cassidy, R-La., are pushing would not dictate an outcome, but instead set up a process for Congress to take action. It calls for the bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board to collect public input and submit draft legislation to Congress that would keep the program’s retirement trust fund solvent for at least 50 years.

    The resulting bill would then be introduced by the majority leaders of the Senate and House. If they do not want to go along, any member could sponsor the bill. It would then be referred to the two committees with jurisdiction over Social Security — the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.

    Both committees would have the chance to debate the bill and amend it if they wish. If not, the original bill drafted by the advisory board would be placed on the Senate and House calendars for consideration. Lawmakers could offer substitute proposals, with final votes after 100 hours of debate. Passage would require a three-fifths vote in the 100-member Senate and a simple majority in the 435-member House.

    Even though the bill does not prescribe a solution for replenishing Social Security, sponsors have struggled to win support. Cassidy voiced exasperation in a recent floor speech.

    “For some people, the time to do Social is never,” Cassidy said. “Don’t disturb Congress. They don’t want to take a tough vote. Even if that vote only sets up a process.”

    AARP has come out against the bill, saying that the effort amounts to “fast-tracking” Social Security changes through a process that limits what type of amendments are offered and sets arbitrary procedural deadlines.

    A different bill proposes an investment fund for older adults

    Separately, Cassidy has a proposal with Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that calls for the creation of a $1.5 trillion fund that would be invested in stocks and other higher-risk assets over 75 years.

    The seed money would be financed by the Treasury Department through additional borrowing. At the end of the 75 years, the fund’s assets would be used to repay the Treasury for the seed money as well as the borrowing that would occur over those years to keep Social Security payments going out — now projected at about $26.6 trillion.

    Cassidy projects such an investment fund would earn enough to cover about two-thirds of that $26.6 trillion in borrowing, meaning other actions such as raising payroll taxes or cutting benefits would still be required to completely close the gap. But those tax increases or benefit cuts would be smaller than otherwise necessary without the investment fund.

    “The advantage of the ‘Save Our Seniors Fund’ is that it lessens your political battle,” Cassidy said.

    Debt watchdogs are worried.

    The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said “this is a dangerous, debt-funded gamble that would come with huge risks and costs.”

    Some propose lifting the payroll tax cap

    Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, do not agree on much, but they have joined forces in calling for lifting the cap on the Social Security payroll tax.

    Currently, the payroll tax that funds Social Security applies to a maximum of $184,500 in income. That means most people pay Social Security taxes on all of their income, but the wealthier do not.

    “Why should a middle-class nurse pay a larger share of her paycheck than a wealthy corporate lawyer?” the two senators wrote in The New York Times.

    But while the two promised forthcoming legislation on the matter, they have not filed it yet. Some conservative groups have forcefully pushed back on the idea, saying the tax increase would lead to lower wages and fewer jobs at businesses seeking to offset the additional tax burden.

    Eliminating the cap would generate more than $3.2 trillion for the trust fund over the course of a decade, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a nonpartisan debt watchdog.

    Others have called for lifting the cap, but only above a certain income threshold. For example, a bill from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., would apply the payroll tax to income above $400,000. The bill would require those making more than $400,000 to contribute more to Medicare.

    Others are calling for lifting the cap and increasing benefits

    Progressives in the House and Senate have sponsored a bill that would lift the payroll tax cap to cover all earnings above $250,000, including capital gains and dividends, and increase the tax that high earners must pay on investment gains.

    The bill would boost payments to Social Security beneficiaries by roughly $2,400 a year and increase the annual cost-of-living adjustment. The effort is being led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, and Rep. Val Hoyle, D-Ore. The House version has 39 cosponsors, all Democrats.

    In a recent letter to colleagues, Sanders said expanding benefits and requiring the wealthiest in the United States to pay the same percentage of their income into Social Security as tens of millions of working people is “how we extend Social Security’s solvency for generations to come. That is how the Democratic Party begins to regain the trust of the American people.”

  • Trump administration sends Saudi nuclear deal to Congress for review

    Trump administration sends Saudi nuclear deal to Congress for review

    WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has submitted to Congress a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia that could allow the kingdom to enrich its own fuel for nuclear reactors, according to two officials with firsthand knowledge of the transmission of the agreement.

    The accord, announced by the White House last month, would deepen ties between the United States and Saudi Arabia at a moment when the war with Iran has strained the relationship between the two countries. The 30-year agreement would give U.S. companies a central role in developing Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear infrastructure while largely shutting out foreign competitors.

    The submission formally begins a congressional review process required under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, which gives such nuclear cooperation accords their shorthand name, “123 agreements.” Unlike treaties, they do not require approval by two-thirds of the Senate. Instead, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee review the agreement during a period totaling 90 days that Congress is in continuous session. Unless Congress passes a joint resolution rejecting the agreement during that period, the accord can take effect without an affirmative vote by either chamber.

    The transmission of the agreement to Congress was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.

    The prospect that Saudi Arabia could enrich uranium — the technology at the center of the conflict with Iran — has drawn sharp opposition from some Democratic lawmakers and revived long-standing concerns about nuclear proliferation in the region.

    “This deal is the starting gun for a Middle East nuclear arms race,” Sens. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, along with Reps. John Garamendi of California and Donald S. Beyer Jr. of Virginia, wrote in an essay last month. The four Democrats contended that the agreement should require Saudi Arabia to forgo the production of weapons-grade uranium and accept the International Atomic Energy Agency’s most stringent inspection standards.

    “Congress must reject it,” they wrote.

    The lawmakers also said that President Donald Trump’s launching a war with Iran over the country’s nuclear ambitions while negotiating a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia was a fundamental contradiction to U.S. nuclear policy in the region. “That contradiction doesn’t make America stronger,” they wrote. “It makes American policy impossible to take seriously.”

    Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, the Saudi energy minister, signed the agreement last month as part of a broader package of cooperation on civilian nuclear power. The two officials also signed what the administration described as a bilateral agreement on nuclear safeguards.

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

  • Graham, and Trump, triumph: Six takeaways from South Carolina’s Senate runoff

    Graham, and Trump, triumph: Six takeaways from South Carolina’s Senate runoff

    ROCK HILL, S.C. — Sen. Darline Graham won the Republican Senate nomination in South Carolina on Tuesday, relying on the strength of President Donald Trump’s political capital to overcome her inexperience as a first-time candidate for public office.

    Graham defeated Rep. Ralph Norman, a five-term member of Congress, in deeply red South Carolina after Trump did more to support her than he has for any other Republican candidate this year — out of apparent affection for her late brother, Lindsey Graham, who died last month.

    Her win showed the president’s continued ability to move Republican primary voters, especially when he goes all in on a race. His chosen candidates won a series of key primaries in the spring, but a few of his picks have more recently lost, putting the power of his endorsement in question. That he could lift Graham, who is poised to win a six-year Senate term after being virtually unknown six weeks ago, may have settled that question, for now.

    Trump’s pick also prevailed in Oklahoma’s Republican primary for governor, where Mike Mazzei, a former state lawmaker, defeated Gentner Drummond, the state’s attorney general. Mazzei was ahead by less than half of a percentage point when The Associated Press called the race.

    Here are six takeaways from Tuesday night’s primaries:

    Trump’s support faced a big test in South Carolina. He aced it.

    Trump won South Carolina by more than 18 percentage points in 2024. But twice in the past six months, candidates he endorsed have fallen in the state.

    Graham looked like she could become one of only a handful of Trump-backed Senate candidates to lose their primaries nationwide since 2017. She initially struggled to introduce herself to voters in the extraordinarily short campaign and flubbed a debate answer about national security.

    But on the campaign trail, she said, voters asked her about kitchen-table issues, not national security. And she wrapped her candidacy around her support for Trump and his for her. She will now face Dr. Annie Andrews, a pediatrician and the Democratic nominee, in the November general election, where Graham will be heavily favored.

    Trump-backed candidate prevailed in a tough fight in Oklahoma

    Mazzei, the president’s pick to succeed Oklahoma’s term-limited governor, Kevin Stitt, won the Republican nomination after a neck-and-neck race against Drummond, a former Air Force pilot who is in his first term as attorney general.

    Trump not only endorsed Mazzei but also went out of his way to attack Drummond during the campaign.

    “Everybody I know dislikes him,” Trump told supporters in a telephone rally for Mazzei on Monday.

    A key issue in the race was a $4 billion aluminum smelter project that has been a priority of Trump’s. Mazzei initially opposed it and then reversed his position. Drummond campaigned against it.

    Where Trump goes, his voters vote

    Trump rallied for Graham last Friday in Myrtle Beach, an area where the candidate who came in third place in the primary, Rep. Russell Fry, performed best. On Tuesday, Graham trounced Norman in Horry County, home to Myrtle Beach.

    Graham also did well across the eastern part of South Carolina, including in Charleston County, which had been a base of support for another rival, Mark Sanford, in the primary.

    When Trump’s allies send texts, his voters vote

    Trump’s super political action committee, MAGA Inc., spent more than $800,000 on the special primary runoff, nearly a third of the organization’s total spending in this election cycle. And South Carolina Republicans had the evidence on their cellphones: They said they received repeated text messages, including Tuesday, urging them to cast ballots for Graham.

    Republicans nationwide have fretted about MAGA Inc. not spending as quickly as some in the party would like to help vulnerable Republicans. The organization’s investment in South Carolina may not stop the grumbling, given the ongoing battle for control of Congress and the fact that the Senate seat was expected to stay in Republican hands regardless of who won the nomination. But it will allow MAGA Inc. to say that when it does enter a race, it does so decisively.

    Winning South Carolina’s most conservative region was not enough for Ralph Norman

    Norman performed best in the Upstate region of northwest South Carolina, which includes Greenville and Spartanburg and surrounds his congressional district. The area is rich in Republican voters who lifted him into second place in the crowded primary two weeks ago.

    But the rest of South Carolina went for Graham, leaving Norman without the broader support needed to win a two-way runoff. His supporters pinned much of their hopes Tuesday on Greenville County. But they were not enough.

    Norman told supporters in Rock Hill on Tuesday night that he “couldn’t have done anything different,” but he did lament that Trump took sides in the race.

    “He has that right,” he said, as his supporters booed. “He has that prerogative.”

    Lindsey Graham’s legacy didn’t sink his sister

    Graham, who was running for reelection when he died, won his Republican Senate primary in June with 56% of the vote. That was a low ceiling for a four-term incumbent, and one he reached only after he and his allies spent more than $18 million on the race. He had long struggled with some Republican voters who were skeptical of his past support for immigration reform and for Trump’s rivals in the 2016 presidential primary.

    When Darline Graham entered the race to succeed him, her ceiling was even lower: She was a first-time candidate known to voters only as the sister of a senator they had complicated feelings about. And many Republican voters said they disliked the perception of nepotism.

    Graham said she knew she had to earn voters’ support. She tried to break with her brother, saying she was more focused on domestic policy and would take a harder line on immigration.

    “I continue to miss Lindsey every day, and there is still a big hole in my heart,” she told supporters in Columbia, South Carolina, on Tuesday night. “But I know he’s looking down right now very proud of everyone in this room.”

    Time to brush up on foreign policy.

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

  • Pope Leo XIV is popular with Pa. Democrats after feud with Trump. But Republicans are split.

    Pope Leo XIV is popular with Pa. Democrats after feud with Trump. But Republicans are split.

    Pope Leo XIV is significantly more popular among Pennsylvania Democrats than Republicans in the state, according to an Inquirer/New York Times/Siena University poll released this week.

    While 75% of Democrats expressed a favorable opinion of Leo, only 40% of Republicans did. Meanwhile, 37% of Republicans viewed the pope unfavorably, compared with just 7% of Democrats, according to the poll.

    The pope’s disfavor with GOP voters likely links back to his widely publicized dispute with President Donald Trump in the spring over the Iran war, when the two engaged in contentious exchanges, said Don Levy, who supervises the Siena Research Institute’s political polls.

    (function() { var l = function() { new pym.Parent( ‘nyt-pope__graphic’, ‘https://media.inquirer.com/storage/inquirer/ai2html/nyt-pope/index.html’); }; if(typeof(pym) === ‘undefined’) { var h = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0], s = document.createElement(‘script’); s.type = ‘text/javascript’; s.src = ‘https://pym.nprapps.org/pym.v1.min.js’; s.onload = l; h.appendChild(s); } else { l(); } })();

    Among independent voters, 64% viewed the pope favorably and only 16% viewed him unfavorably.

    Similarly, voters who cast their ballots for Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 were more likely to hold a favorable view of the pope than were Trump voters: 79% of Harris voters held favorable views of Leo, compared with just 38% for Trump voters.

    Read the full poll here.

    Among all likely Pennsylvania voters, nearly 60% have a favorable opinion of the first U.S.-born pope — making him about as popular as Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, according to the poll of 760 likely Pennsylvania voters conducted between Aug. 17 and 21.

    Leo has ties to Pennsylvania, having attended Villanova University as an undergraduate student and earning a bachelor of science in mathematics in 1977.

    The pontiff made a virtual appearance in Philadelphia on the eve of the United States’ 250th birthday to accept the National Constitution Center’s prestigious Liberty Medal. In a speech live streamed to an interfaith crowd inside the Center City museum, the pope extolled the virtues of immigration, drawing a clear contrast with the president.

    One day later, he spent his home country’s anniversary visiting migrants in the Mediterranean.

    “Pope Leo has embodied a different way of being an American on the world stage. He believes in collaboration with other nations, and has concerns about immigration,” said Massimo Faggioli, a professor of theology and religious studies at Villanova University and an expert on the papacy.

    “He’s relatable, and many Americans like that,” Faggioli added about Leo’s appeal.

    Vince Stango, interim president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, presents Pope Leo XIV with the Liberty Medal.The Vatican and National Constitution Center

    In the spring, the war with Iran brought tensions between the Vatican and the White House to the forefront of the national political conversation as the U.S.-born pope emerged as a leading international voice against Trump’s policies.

    “Pope Leo never wanted to get into a fight with Trump about the war,” Faggioli said. “But certain things Trump said were not acceptable to the pope.”

    The Leo-vs.-Trump fracas caught fire in April, when Trump threatened Iran by saying a “whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” if the country’s leaders did not open up the Strait of Hormuz.

    Within hours, the pope labeled Trump’s words “truly unacceptable.”

    Days later, Trump posted on Truth Social that “Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy.”

    Trump also claimed that Leo had been selected as pope only because of his election as president and referred to the fact that one of the pope’s brothers is a Trump supporter.

    Trump went further in a lengthy post: “I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. … And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do.”

    During that same period, Vice President JD Vance said the pope should “be careful” when talking about religion.

    Pope Leo responded: “I have no fear of the Trump administration.”

    Around the same time, Trump posted an image of himself dressed as Jesus healing the sick as an American solider and others reverently gaze upon him. Trump claimed that the now-deleted post was meant to show him as a doctor.

    A majority of likely Pennsylvania voters — 58% — disapprove of Trump’s performance as president and an even greater number — 66% — disapprove of his handling of the war, including 30% of Trump voters, according to the poll.

    (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

    For the poll, 592 likely Pennsylvania voters completed the full survey and responded to the question about the pope.

    Among that group Catholic voters, in particular, had a more favorable view of the pope than the overall electorate, with 81% viewing him favorably, while 15% viewed the head of the church unfavorably.

    Trump won a majority of Catholic voters in 2024, according to national exit polls. But Catholic voters were split on the president’s performance in the new Pennsylvania poll — 50% disapproved of Trump, while 44% approved.

    Explaining how people feel about the pope, the Rev. Paul Galetto, the pastor of St. Paul’s Church in South Philadelphia and a friend of Pope Leo’s for 51 years, said Tuesday that “everyone knows this pontiff is focused on peace in the world.”

    Father Paul Galetto shown here at St. Paul’s Roman Catholic parish, in Philadelphia, Friday, April 10, 2026. Galetto studied with the pope in Rome in the 1980s. Jessica Griffin / Staff Photographer

    More basically, people are drawn to his “intellect and his humbleness,” Galetto said.

    “I think Pope Leo’s favorability comes about because he is seeking solutions to problems that affect all of humanity,” he added. “People will always be attracted to someone with a larger vision to help the common good.”

    Staff writer Joe Yerardi contributed to this article.