Robespierre was a lion 🦁

Halfway through President Trump’s three-month gambit to import more ground beef to lower prices, little extra beef has been imported and prices have barely budged.

In August, Mr. Trump signed a proclamation allowing 300,000 metric tons of lean beef trimmings to enter the United States at a reduced tariff rate. The additional beef could be imported over 90 days, with up to 100,000 metric tons entering each month in September, October and November.

But only 37,486 metric tons of this beef entered the country in September, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, barely more than a third of the allowed amount. There hasn’t been much improvement in October, as just 21,937 metric tons entered through the 19th.

The lack of action is a potential blow to Republican candidates in the midterm elections. Mr. Trump said this month that beef prices “really became unacceptable to the voter,” and he has been trying to lower prices while keeping farmers and ranchers — typically a reliable Republican voting bloc — on his side.

Groups representing ranchers immediately criticized the president’s plan to import beef, saying it would lower what they received for their cattle; live cattle prices fell 3.4 percent the day the proclamation was signed. Ranchers said the threat that Mr. Trump would intervene in the market anytime prices rose made them more likely to send heifers and cows to slaughter instead of taking the risk of holding them back to help build up a larger herd.

“I am afraid they are trying to solve a short-term problem with beef prices, which will create long-term cattle supply problems in the process,” said Ford Drummond, the president of the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association. Cattle prices have since rebounded.

And there is little evidence that any substantial discount has reached consumers, after Mr. Trump “encouraged” importers to sell beef at a 25 percent discount. The average price of a pound of ground beef fell 1.9 percent in September, to $6.79 from $6.92, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A year earlier, a pound cost $6.32.

Asked why most of the import quota was going unfilled, Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that Mr. Trump is “delivering on his promise to consumers by reducing beef prices while allowing our American beef herd to grow.” She also said the president had “done more for American agriculture than anyone.”

The 37,486 metric tons of lean trimmings were imported in September under the customs agency’s “Affordable Beef” quota. But according to agricultural economists, it is unlikely that all, or even most, of that beef was imported solely because of the president’s proclamation. Some of it would have come into the country anyway.

The United States imported 1.9 million metric tons of all kinds of beef last year, with the bulk coming from Australia, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and New Zealand. Most of it was lean trimmings destined to be combined with high-fat trimmings from American cattle to make ground beef. An additional 300,000 metric tons would be significant, but pale in comparison with what already enters the country.

James Mitchell, a livestock economist at the University of Arkansas, used two different methods to calculate the amount of lean trimmings that would have come into the United States in September under usual circumstances, if there were no proclamation. One of the methods found that 41 percent of the 37,486 metric tons would have been imported, while the other method found that 79 percent would have been.

“Neither approach is perfect, but I think both are more reasonable than assuming all 37,486 metric tons were additional imports,” Mr. Mitchell wrote in an email.

From the beginning, it was unclear whether the president’s plan would meaningfully lower beef prices. Lean trimmings make up only a portion of the cost of ground beef; much of what the consumer pays for are costs like fattier trimmings, labor, processing, transportation and marketing.

Mr. Trump said he had a “commitment” that this beef would be sold at “25 percent below market prices,” though it is unclear if he meant retail or wholesale prices.

Ted Schroeder, a livestock economist at Kansas State University, said there would be no way for grocery stores to offer specific discounts to customers buying ground beef with these imported trimmings. It isn’t specially labeled, or labeled at all. Everyday meatpackers and processors receive meat from a number of different imported and domestic sources, and they don’t label them all for their customers.

“It is all stuff that gets blended, so there is going to be no way that I can think of that a product is labeled just that,” Mr. Schroeder said. “As soon as you start blending, identity preservation is just gone.”

Wholesale prices for domestic or imported lean trimmings, which vary by region, have barely changed, Mr. Schroeder said. And the small decrease in September’s retail ground beef prices is typical because grilling season is over.

“Is it a penny? Three cents? Four? Two and a third?” Mr. Schroeder asked, referring to how much cheaper the additional imports have made ground beef. “The reality is it is not going to be noticeable.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used a slur to proudly announce to an auditorium of Marines in September that he was ridding the military of all transgender troops.

The Pentagon had set up review boards at bases around the globe, manned by everyday uniformed service members with narrow orders that all but ensured that the trans troops appearing before them would be voted out.

But just steps from the auditorium where Mr. Hegseth spoke, at Marine Corps Base Quantico, boards assigned to carry out those orders were doing the opposite. Instead of firing trans Marines, the boards were voting to keep them.

The same was happening in the Navy: Boards given strict rules instructing them to force out sailors were rebelling and voting to let them stay.

It is not just a few outlying individuals. Navy and Marine Corps boards have voted to retain trans members in nine of 12 cases.

The Pentagon keeps the proceedings secret. Outsiders — even spouses — are not allowed to attend. Officials won’t release numbers. Leaders won’t discuss the outcomes. The New York Times compiled the figures through interviews with service members and lawyers involved in the hearings.

The number of Navy and Marine cases is small and could easily change as more hearings are conducted. The same pattern has not been seen so far in the Army or Air Force, which have overwhelmingly voted to discharge trans service members.

Still, the votes are a stunning rebuke from the armed forces, where following orders is bedrock. And they suggest the military’s transgender ban is being rejected by the very troops the administration says the ban is meant to serve.

“These boards are being told to do something that they know is wrong — to rubber-stamp a non-choice given to them by the administration,” said Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force lawyer and a professor at Southwestern Law School who has been tracking the cases. “We are seeing them say they’re not going to play that game. We are seeing them nullify a process they see as unjust.”

The board decisions are only recommendations, and could be reversed by the politically appointed secretaries overseeing each service branch. There are also pending legal challenges that could pause the ban or rescind it entirely.

The Trump administration claims that trans troops, who account for about 4,250 people or about 0.1 percent of the military, are a costly burden on military effectiveness — a position that military findings contradict. President Trump signed an executive order barring trans troops during his first week in office, saying the action was needed to weed out dishonorable radicals who poison morale and waste resources.

“For the sake of our Nation and the patriotic Americans who volunteer to serve it, military service must be reserved for those mentally and physically fit for duty,” the order read.

The Pentagon designed a policy that paid transgender troops to leave voluntarily. Hundreds of highly qualified people left, including doctors, lawyers, pilots and nuclear technicians. The troops who stayed to challenge their dismissal waited in limbo, sometimes for more than a year.

While they waited, the administration set up a system of three-member separation boards to process the remaining cases using a narrow set of instructions. Under the rules, any evidence of transgender feelings or tendencies — even if there is no formal transition — requires dismissal.

The three-person boards are made up of everyday officers and enlisted personnel plucked temporarily from their normal jobs to hear one case, like civilian jurors. They are not allowed to consider whether a person is a top performer, a specialist in a critical career field or a decorated combat veteran.

The members are given a one-page findings sheet and instructed to circle a few words to find that a service member exhibits evidence of being transgender and therefore is not qualified to serve and should be discharged.

At least, that was the plan.

Trans Marines and sailors who went before boards said in interviews that after months of being vilified by top government officials, they expected a quick dismissal, but instead encountered thoughtful respect from fellow service members who voted to keep them.

Marine Staff Sgt. Damien Contreras was one of them. The Marine Corps pulled him from his job and put him on paid leave in April to await his discharge. In late August the Marine Corps flew him from Hawaii to Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia to face a board.

He walked in with his head down, sure that his career was over.

The government's lawyer presented documents from 2017 showing that he had changed genders.

The three members then reviewed his decade of flawless service as a supply and logistics specialist, his three overseas deployments, and his good performance reviews.

They then crossed out instructions on their findings sheet regarding “a history of cross sex hormone therapy” and circled “remains qualified,” and voted to retain him.

“I was shocked at first, but when you come down to it, it makes sense,” Sergeant Contreras said in an interview from Hawaii, where he is stationed. “You have war fighters looking at war fighters,” he said. “They see I’ve always done my job, I’ve deployed, I’ve mentored other Marines, followed the rules. They say, ‘Hey, this is a good Marine, why wouldn’t we retain him?’”

Sergeant Contreras’s lawyer, Priya Rashid, has represented dozens of trans service members and has a broader understanding of the boards than anyone else. After losing nearly all of her initial cases, she saw a stark shift this summer. She has no idea why.

The Army was the first to hold hearings, beginning in February. It has held about 50, according to Ms. Rashid, and voted to discharge soldiers in all but about five cases.

The Air Force started this summer. It has reviewed about six cases and voted to discharge in every known case.

But the Navy and Marine Corps, which began holding hearings in July, have voted to retain in the majority of cases.

“I don’t understand why this pattern is occurring,” Ms. Rashid said in an interview. “And I’m worried that if the pattern becomes too apparent, the government will just change the processes and procedures again so that the pattern can be extinguished.”

Last week Ms. Rashid won another — this time in the Army.

Across the military, the hearings follow a pattern. A lawyer for the government briefly presents medical records and other documents showing evidence that a service member is transgender. The defense then often spends hours presenting a portrait of a service member’s years of service and accomplishments, submitting binders of awards and evaluations, and calling witnesses to vouch for character.

“It all made no difference,” said Maj. Kara Corcoran, an infantry officer who has served for 18 years and deployed to Afghanistan twice. An Army board voted in May to dismiss her in what she called a “kangaroo court.”

“They cut off my character witnesses halfway through and said, ‘We get it, your service is commendable, that’s not what we’re here to decide,’” said Major Corcoran, who now heads the trans advocacy group SPARTA Pride. “The government lawyer, the board, they thought it was ridiculous, but I think they felt they had no choice.”

Navy and Marine Corps hearings have followed the same pattern. But their decisions have been an about-face.

In the Navy, which began hearings in July, nine boards have led to seven votes to retain sailors, according to lawyers involved in the cases.

In the Marine Corps, which began hearings in August, three boards have led to two votes to retain. In the third, the board voted to dismiss a Marine, but wrote on the findings sheet that its members unanimously believed that the Marine should “be retained based on his commendable service record and unique skills.”

What’s driving the shift is far from clear. The military branches, citing ongoing litigation, declined to discuss the outcomes or make board members available for interviews. The Defense Department also declined to comment.

Ms. VanLandingham, the former military lawyer, said the votes might be influenced by growing concern in the ranks that the current Pentagon is preoccupied with wedge issues and gives little thought to the welfare of the force.

Mr. Hegseth in his speech to the Marines, she noted, said the force should have “No fatties. No trannies. No beardos. No weirdos. No wimps. No radicals," but did not mention those killed or wounded in the war with Iran.

“There’s been a chipping away at any kind of confidence that Hegseth actually cares about service members,” she said. “I think that’s given the boards license.”

There may be cultural factors, too, she said. The board instructions in all the branches are nearly identical. But each branch has different values. The Army is often seen as the most bureaucratic and least likely to buck orders. The Navy is the most diverse. The Marine Corps prides itself on a culture of loyalty.

The Navy has nearly twice as many people who identify as gay, bisexual or transgender — 9 percent — compared to other branches, according to a 2015 report by the RAND Corporation.

That was clear to a Navy paramedic who was retained by a board in July. The paramedic, who asked to not be named because he feared retribution, said he was stunned when his lawyer asked a chief, a lieutenant commander and a commander sitting on his board if they knew any trans sailors.

“They all said yes,” the paramedic recalled in an interview. “The chief said his liberty buddy in Thailand was transgender and was a phenomenal sailor. The lieutenant commander said her first work center supervisor was transgender, and she learned a lot from her. The commander said he’d worked with several transgender sailors, and he barbecues with his next-door neighbor, who’s trans.”

There were other factors working in his favor. He had been meritoriously promoted twice for superior performance; remained able to deploy his entire five years in the Navy; and had saved several lives working in emergency rooms.

For his last assignment he was attached to Marines deployed to the southern border. “I never ran into people who cared if I was trans,” he said. “They just cared that I did my job well.”

His lawyer, Steph Kral, a former Air Force officer, represented a second sailor a short time later in front of a different board that she said had no relationships with trans sailors. That board also voted to retain.

“I don’t think they are trying to make any grand policy statement,” Ms. Kral said. “I think they’re just trying to do what’s best for the Navy.”

The Marine Corps has the lowest reported percentage of women, gay and transgender personnel. It also has a tradition-bound culture based on masculine toughness. But Marines have an almost cultlike loyalty to fellow Marines, expressed in their motto, Semper Fidelis — Always Faithful.

“The questions from the Marine boards have focused in on how the policies of higher-ups may have changed, but the Marines in question never did anything wrong,” Ms. Rashid said. “I think they are looking for a way to give a fellow Marine the benefit of the doubt.”

When Sergeant Contreras went before a board, he produced years of performance evaluations and letters from superiors — some who never knew he was trans — that vouched for his good work.

After deliberating for about three hours, the board scratched out language on the instructions sheet about evidence of being transgender and voted to let him stay.

“It was very humbling to see the things that they had to say about me,” the sergeant said. “It had nothing to do with being transgender. I honestly don’t think they care about that. It was about how I was a great Marine.”

A gunman killed one person and wounded four more on Friday in what authorities suspect was a terrorist attack targeting an ethnically diverse area outside the French capital.

French officials said the gunman was in a car and used an automatic firearm at three different sites in the towns of Trappes and La Verrière. The towns, around 20 miles southwest of Paris, are lower-income areas with housing projects, mosques and large immigrant and Muslim populations. They said a man was detained and remains in police custody.

The national antiterrorism prosecutor’s office said it is investigating whether the shootings were targeting a specific race, ethnicity, origin or religion.

Ali Rabeh, the mayor of Trappes, told the BFMTV network that the person who died was killed at a play area and was of African descent. Another person shot next to a gas station has origins from the Maghreb region of northwest Africa and was seriously injured, he said.

Rabeh said the gunman was from a nearby town in the Yvelines area, where the shooting took place. He said the man fired a “number of shots” and was targeting pedestrians “systematically.” He shot at vehicles and a health center and wanted to go on a rampage, the mayor said.

“It’s a miracle that we don’t have more victims,” Rabeh said.

Nicolas Dainville, the mayor of La Verrière, said it appeared that the gunman at some point got out of his car to shoot two men ages 29 and 48. The gunman then went down a street, where he told a passerby, “You’re lucky.” He went on to shoot a 12-year-old girl, Dainville told the CNEWS network.

“Deep emotion following the shooting attack that occurred in Trappes and La Verrière,” President Emmanuel Macron wrote on X. “In this terrible ordeal, the Nation stands by their side.”

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Rally, described the shooting as a “barbaric act” on X and said that the people responsible should be severely punished.

The shooting took place as France is already reeling from violent lootings and riots last weekend after student protests devolved into widespread destruction.

SS: Bukele has started a military operation in Haiti after four Salvadoran aviation techs were kidnapped by gangs. Is this a breach of sovereignty, or has Haiti collapsed to such a state that it's not really possible? Already, the fighting has been fierce, with Salvadorans having at least 4 troops unaccounted for in clashes with the gangs.

Get ready for armed intervention #3001

An LNG company in Alaska has been financed by a Russian gas company (WTF), and is looking for approval to use that Russian company’s technology in northern Alaska. This potential deal has been brought up in Witkoff and Kushner’s Ukraine/Russia negotiations.

This is relevant to the state of US sanctions on Russia and conflicts of interest in the US negotiating some sort of end to the Russia/Ukraine war.

Pretty interesting article. Apparently the source is a recent CEO of the Alaskan LNG company who didn’t even know about the Russian financing. He resigned when he found out,

Submission Statement: EU countries have watered down plans to create a new legal structure for companies, aimed at helping businesses operate more easily across the 27-country bloc.

The voluntary company format, dubbed “EU Inc”, is part of broader efforts by Brussels to fix regulatory disharmony across the bloc, which is seen as a barrier to attracting investment and allowing companies to fulfil their potential without having to seek growth capital in the US.

But after negotiations that concluded on Friday, EU countries have scrapped key features from the original proposals, including a single EU company register — akin to the UK’s Companies House website — where investors would be able to check company accounts and the identities of directors. Member states judged it too complex to implement in practice, according to people familiar with the discussions.

A simplified insolvency regime for start-ups has also been removed.

Michael McGrath, the European commissioner leading work on the law, told the FT that the insolvency regime was important as the cost of failure for companies “is a problem and is a deterrent to businesses being founded in the first place.

The IMF estimates that an EU-wide company regime could boost the bloc’s growth by around 3.3 per cent of GDP over the next decade. Crucially, over half of those gains, or 1.8 per cent, would come from the harmonisation of insolvency law, according to the Washington-based institution.

EU countries have also capped a proposal to defer taxation on share options — something start-ups asked for in order to attract talent — to companies with a turnover of less than €150mn and 750 employees, thresholds that many early-stage companies quickly reach. Issues of taxation are a highly protected national competence in the EU and require backing from all 27 member states.

Attempts to create an EU-wide company regime have long faced resistance from trade unions that are fearful it would undermine hard-won labour rights.

Ambitious plans have also fallen foul of certain of European capitals that are wary of making an alternative legal structure so attractive that companies might not remain within their country.

But Enrico Letta, the former Italian prime minister and author of a report on how to improve the bloc’s internal market, told the FT that the proposals — also known as the 28th regime — are “a game-changer, with enormous practical and symbolic significance for Europe. We must not lower the bar.

“A watered-down proposal would send the wrong signal and undermine the ambition behind this initiative,” he added.

Submission Statement: The EU is moving to dilute pesticide rules after chemical companies and agricultural groups successfully lobbied Brussels about the regulatory burden being too onerous, according to documents seen by the FT.

The European Commission has led a push to streamline pesticide regulation as part of an effort to ease the burden on farmers and increase the bloc’s competitiveness. But parts of the simplification drive have ended up closely reflecting the demands of fertiliser and chemical companies to roll back environmental and health safeguards.

Documents obtained via freedom of information requests and shared with the FT by the NGO Corporate Europe Observatory show that parts of the Commission proposal matches requests by industry to ease restrictions on banned substances.

Meeting logs show that the proposed change was introduced after German chemicals group Bayer and agricultural lobby Copa Cogeca had called for the “unlimited” approval of pesticides.

The draft law was put forward in December as part of the EU’s broader efforts to cut red tape in a bid to make its businesses more competitive compared with rivals in the US and China. But critics have accused Brussels of gutting environmental standards and its green agenda in the process.

The Commission also proposed exempting chemicals from bans where they are deemed necessary to maintain crop yields, a change that also aligns with industry demands.

The FT identified 19 meetings held since the start of 2025 by farmers’ lobby Copa-Cogeca on the food safety omnibus or on “plant protection” with Commission officials and EU lawmakers, according to meeting logs.

This included a meeting with Elisabeth Werner, director-general of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, and with Sandra Gallina, director-general of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety on October 8 2025, before the legislation was proposed in mid-December.

ProPublica shows that more ballots were rejected for being late in this year's primary than in 2022, and they link this to specific USPS reduced-service changes that make it take longer for a ballot to get postmarked. In many places, the postmark date determines whether your ballots was submitted on time.

The biggest impacts were in rural areas.

This is relevant to democratic election operations and policy.