A Fragile Cease-Fire Between Iran and Israel, and Toxic Homes in L.A.
Produced by Michael Simon Johnson and Ian Stewart
Edited by Ian Stewart and Jessica Metzger
Featuring Patrick Kingsley
Hours After Israel and Iran Agree to Truce, Its Fate Is Uncertain, by Patrick Kingsley, Isabel Kershner and Aaron Boxerman
Supreme Court Lets Trump Deport Migrants to Countries Other Than Their Own, by Adam Liptak
Florida Builds 'Alligator Alcatraz' Detention Center for Migrants in Everglades, by Hamed Aleaziz
'Unsafe to Inhabit': The Toxic Homes of L.A., by Blacki Migliozzi, Rukmini Callimachi and K.K. Rebecca Lai
Vera Rubin Scientists Reveal Telescope's First Images, by Kenneth Chang and Katrina Miller
Tune in, and tell us what you think at theheadlines@nytimes.com. For corrections, email nytnews@nytimes.com.
For more audio journalism and storytelling, download the New York Times Audio app — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'
Fox News
2 minutes ago
- Fox News
Political analyst offers an answer to who is the leader of the Democratic Party
Panelists Matt Towery and Dan Turrentine discuss former Vice President Kamala Harris' interview with Stephen Colbert on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
Senate Passes Its First Spending Bills, but Battles Lie Ahead
The Senate on Friday overwhelmingly passed the first of its spending bills for the coming year, with bipartisan approval of measures to fund military construction projects, veterans and agriculture programs and legislative branch agencies. But the broad agreement over the $506 billion package of bills, typically the least controversial of the annual federal spending measures, masked a bitter fight in Congress over how to fund the government past a Sept. 30 shutdown deadline. Senators pushed through the legislation after several intense days of haggling as part of an agreement to allow the chamber to make progress on funding the government before senators leave Washington for a monthlong summer recess. 'We are on the verge of an accomplishment that we have not done since 2018 — and that is pass appropriation bills across the Senate floor prior to the August recess,' Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said on the floor. Still, debate over the package hinted at the bigger spending challenges that lie ahead. Democrats, furious about the White House's efforts to subvert Congress's power in the purse, are wary of striking spending deals with Republicans when President Trump and his team have signaled they intend to continue ignoring or defying lawmakers' spending dictates, even those enacted into law. And Republicans are fighting among themselves over how closely to hew to the Trump administration's spending targets. The package approved on Friday night would provide $452 billion for veterans programs, $300 billion of it mandatory spending to fund veterans benefits; $19.8 billion for military construction and family housing projects; $27.1 billion for agricultural programs; and $7.1 billion for the operations of Congress and legislative agencies. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
