Democratic US Senator Shaheen says she will not seek reelection in 2026
"There are urgent challenges ahead, both here at home and around the world and while I am not seeking re-election, believe me, I am not retiring," she said.
(Writing by Brendan O'Brien in Chicago; Editing by Katharine Jackson)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
Can States Handle Disasters Without FEMA? The Legal Gaps Business Leaders Should Know
HUNT, TEXAS - JULY 6: Vehicles sit submerged as a search and rescue worker looks through debris for ... More any survivors or remains of people swept up in the flash flooding on July 6, 2025 in Hunt, Texas. Heavy rainfall caused flooding along the Guadalupe River in central Texas with multiple fatalities reported. (Photo by) A year already marked by record-smashing heatwaves, catastrophic storms, and deadly flash floods is forcing business leaders to reckon with an unsettling question: What happens if the federal government pulls back from disaster response? The idea of handling disasters without FEMA is not an abstract worry. In recent weeks, political debates have intensified over proposals to reduce federal spending on disaster relief or even eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after the 2025 hurricane season, as reported by NBC News. Former President Trump and some congressional leaders have floated plans to shift primary responsibility for disaster recovery to state governments—a move that could leave businesses navigating a patchwork of legal systems without the backstop they've come to rely on for decades. This uncertainty comes as disasters batter communities from coast to coast. In the first half of 2025 alone, the U.S. suffered at least 15 billion-dollar weather disasters, including historic flooding, tornado outbreaks, and prolonged heat waves, according to Yale Climate Connections. Just this past weekend, flash floods devastated Kerr County, Texas, forcing rescues and shutting down businesses in a region still recovering from earlier storms. For business owners, investors, and insurers, this brewing shift raises urgent questions: If FEMA disappears, can state laws and budgets fill the gap? Will private enterprises have to shoulder more responsibility for disaster planning and recovery? And which states are prepared—or dangerously unprepared—to protect their residents and economic lifelines in a post-FEMA landscape? A Federal Safety Net Under ThreatALTADENA, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 30: People walk past a FEMA sign following a press conference at the ... More Altadena Disaster Recovery Center on January 30, 2025 in Altadena, California. House Democratic leaders and local officials held the press conference near the Eaton Fire burn zone to call for federal disaster assistance following the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles County. (Photo by) Since its founding in 1979, FEMA has been the cornerstone of America's disaster response. It funds emergency shelters, debris removal, rebuilding grants, and cash assistance for displaced families. Critically for businesses, FEMA programs like the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant fund projects that reduce future risks, a crucial buffer as extreme weather grows more frequent. Yet the agency has long faced political crossfire, with critics labeling it bloated or inefficient. Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed against the Trump administration's previous halt to BRIC funding for certain states, highlighting how political swings can upend even well-established federal programs. If proposals to wind down FEMA proceed, business leaders would be left relying on a fragmented patchwork of state disaster laws—many of which, my research suggests, lack the resources or legal frameworks to handle large-scale crises. State Disaster Laws Are A Patchwork of Authority Every U.S. state has laws empowering governors and local officials to declare emergencies and coordinate response efforts. Yet those powers vary widely in scope, funding, and legal protections for vulnerable communities. Despite these structures, most states still rely heavily on FEMA for funding, specialized teams, and logistical support. Without FEMA, states would have to cover enormous costs themselves. For example, after Hurricane Harvey, Texas received over $13 billion in FEMA aid, money that state coffers alone could not match. The Business Risks Of A FEMA Void Businesses have more skin in this game than ever. Beyond humanitarian concerns, legal and financial risks loom if federal safety nets vanish. Federal aid often helps cover costs insurers won't, such as temporary housing, debris removal, and infrastructure repair. Without that aid, insurance companies may face larger payouts or withdraw entirely from high-risk markets. In Florida, for example, multiple insurers have already exited the market due to hurricane risks, leaving businesses scrambling for coverage. A weakened federal role could mean higher premiums, stricter underwriting, or outright denial of coverage in disaster-prone regions, especially for small and midsize enterprises without deep cash reserves. If state laws differ significantly on evacuation orders, business owners may be caught between conflicting mandates. For instance, if local officials order an evacuation, but state law vests that authority only in the governor, businesses face legal ambiguity about when to close operations, protect staff, or move inventory. Disaster response gaps also raise potential civil rights issues. Federal laws like the Stafford Act prohibit discrimination in disaster aid based on race, disability, or language. Many states lack comparable mandates, meaning vulnerable communities—and businesses serving them—could fall through the cracks if federal oversight disappears. Companies with operations across multiple states face a regulatory minefield if FEMA's uniform national standards vanish. Without coordinated federal logistics, restoring supply chains and reopening businesses could take longer, increasing downtime and losses. Which States Are Ready? Which Aren't? Few states are fully prepared to absorb FEMA's responsibilities. According to my analysis of disaster laws across the South and Mid-Atlantic, only a handful—like Virginia and Texas—have begun integrating equity planning, vulnerable population registries, and robust local emergency powers into state statutes. Other states, particularly smaller ones with limited budgets, may lack: That leaves gaps businesses can't ignore. A company operating in Virginia might navigate disaster recovery relatively smoothly, while the same company in Mississippi or Georgia could face a chaotic patchwork of legal obligations, prolonged closures, and community backlash. What Business Leaders Should Do Now While FEMA's fate remains uncertain, businesses should: FEMA's potential dismantling would represent the biggest shift in American disaster management in generations. Businesses that fail to prepare for handling disasters without FEMA amidst a state-led disaster regime risk higher costs, legal headaches, and reputational damage. Disasters don't respect state lines, but the laws governing them increasingly do. For business leaders, understanding those legal boundaries might be the key to survival in a future where the federal safety net is no longer guaranteed.
Time Magazine
27 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Netanyahu Speaks Out Against NYC Mayoral Candidate Mamdani
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken out against Zohran Mamdani, referring to the Democratic New York City mayoral candidate's proposed policies as 'nonsense.' During an appearance on the Full Send Podcast—which was filmed on July 8 in Washington, D.C., and premiered on Monday—Netanyahu engaged in a wide-ranging conversation with the right-wing hosts. He mentioned the protests across the U.S. in relation to the Israel-Hamas war, and accused participants of being 'against' Israel and America. It was after this that one of the hosts, Aaron 'Steiny' Steinberg, brought up Mamdani, the Muslim democratic socialist who celebrated a decisive victory after the Democratic mayoral primary in June. 'In New York City, right. Zohran? He's an antisemitic guy in the highest population of Jews,' alleged Steinberg, seemingly referencing how the New York metropolitan area has the largest Jewish population in the United States. Netanyahu responded by labeling Mamdani's proposed policies as 'nonsense' and said the 33-year-old assembly member would likely only serve 'one term' if elected in November. 'A lot of people have been taken in by this nonsense. You want to defund the police? You want to have people go into stores and rob them and be free? You think that really creates a good society?' said Netanyahu. 'Sometimes you have to get mugged by reality to understand how stupid that is.' Mamdani has said he will 'not defund the police.' Addressing that concern during a debate in June, he said: 'I will work with the police because I believe the police have a critical role to play in creating public safety.' He went on to flag the numbers of unsolved crimes from this year alone, saying police need to have the time to 'focus on those crimes' and that the city should have 'mental health professionals and social workers' to address the 'mental health crisis and homelessness.' The Democratic NYC mayoral candidate has also proposed city-run, non-profit grocery stores as part of his "affordability" platform. Read More: Netanyahu at the Crossroads This isn't the first tussle of words exchanged between Netanyahu and Mamdani. In December, Mamdani said, if he were to become the Mayor, then New York City would arrest Netanyahu if he visited. Netanyahu has an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged war crimes, which Israel has strongly denied. The U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC. During Netanyahu's visit to the White House in early July, Mamdani's mention of a possible arrest was brought up at a roundtable conversation. Netanyahu said he was 'not concerned' about Mamdani's vow, while President Donald Trump interjected: 'I'll get him out,' referring to the Democratic mayoral candidate. It's thought that Netanyahu may travel to New York in September, prior to the mayoral election, to speak at the U.N. General Assembly's world leaders meeting. Meanwhile, there have been numerous instances of Mamdani being referred to as 'antisemitic' by critics. He has strongly rejected any accusations of antisemitism. 'It pains me to be painted as if I am somehow in opposition to the very Jewish New Yorkers that I know and love and are such a key part of this city,' Mamdani said in June. The mayoral candidate has also vowed to increase spending to tackle hate crimes in New York by 800%. In an interview with NBC after his primary election victory, he said: 'Ultimately, we cannot simply say that antisemitism has no home in this city or no place in this country. We have to do more than talk about it. We have to tackle it, and that's what we will do through this funding and through this commitment, we will root out bigotry across the five boroughs.' Mamdani, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has faced criticism from Republicans and some Democrats, also. After Mamdani's victory in the primary, Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York said: 'A radical, antisemitic socialist was just nominated to be the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City—and Kathy Hochul [New York's Governor] didn't lift a finger to stop it from happening.' (Lawler is thought to be mulling over a potential run for New York Governor.) Read More: Islamophobia Surges Online After Zohran Mamdani's Win In the immediate aftermath of Mamdani's primary victory, Islamophobia surged online, research found. Mamdani previously addressed his experience of Islamophobia during his campaign, sharing the impact it has on him. 'I get messages that say 'the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.' I get threats on my life, on the people that I love,' he said in June. 'I try not to talk about it, because the function of racism, as Toni Morrison said, is distraction.'
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Coca-Cola to add new drink made with cane sugar after Trump's push
Coca-Cola will add a new soda beverage made with real cane sugar this fall, the company says. Coca-Cola announced the development in its second-quarter report, according to a news release on Tuesday, July 22. The beverage company was reticent last week when President Donald Trump proclaimed on July 16 that Coca-Cola had agreed to use real cane sugar for its soda beverages sold in the U.S. The Atlanta-based company did not announce that switch, however, but said that this fall Coca-Cola "plans to launch an offering made with U.S. cane sugar to expand its Trademark Coca-Cola product range," according to the news release. "This addition is designed to complement the company's strong core portfolio and offer more choices across occasions and preferences." Explainer: Trump says Coca-Cola is switching it up: Explaining cane sugar vs. high-fructose corn syrup It will carry the Coke name. "Yes, as noted in the release, this will be under the Coke trademark," Coca-Cola spokesperson Scott Leith said in an email exchange with USA TODAY. Coca-Cola currently uses high fructose corn syrup to sweeten its U.S. products while cane sugar is used in other countries, including Mexico. There's been a long-running debate on whether Mexican Coke is better than Coke in the U.S. What did President Trump say about Coke? President Trump announced July 16 on Truth Social that Coca-Cola would switch from high fructose corn syrup to cane sugar. "I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so," Trump wrote. "I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them – You'll see. It's just better!" After Trump's announcement on July 16, a Coke spokesperson told USA TODAY it appreciated the president's enthusiasm for its product and that it would release details on new offerings soon. Trump's announcement, in part, supports Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s efforts to change U.S. food production and consumption away from ingredients such as artificial dyes. While his Make America Healthy Again has deemed both sweeteners unhealthy, some scientists say sugar has some nutritional benefits over high fructose corn. Contributing: Anthony Robledo and Reuters Mike Snider is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can follow him on Threads, Bluesky, X and email him at mikegsnider & @ & @mikesnider & msnider@ What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day
