Korean War

(The Center Square) – The taxable value of Wisconsin property went up 8% again in 2026, matching the rise from the year before, according to new data from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

The total equalized value of residential property in the state jumped up nearly $52 billion to $776 billion. Overall, there is now more than $1 trillion of property in the state, up from $654.8 billion in 2021 after it steadily rose from 1988 to 2008 before five years of lowered prices began.

The overall state property value was $126.6 billion in 1988, then $514.4 billion in 2008 before going to $467.5 billion in 2013.

Since then, values have increased each year with large jumps in 2022 and 2023.

There is now nearly $210 billion worth of commercial property, up nearly $18 million and 9% from the year before.

“Equalized values are calculated annually and used to ensure statewide fairness and equity in property tax distribution,” the report said. “The equalized value represents an estimate of a taxation district’s total taxable value and provides for the fair apportionment of school district and county levies to each municipality. Changes in equalized value do not necessarily translate into a change in property taxes.”

(The Center Square) — Federal agents will be monitoring polling places in Florida and Wyoming as voters in both states head to the polls on Tuesday. 

The U.S. Department of Justice announced it would send four Civil Rights Division attorneys to Miami-Dade County polling locations in Florida to monitor election activities. The department also said it sent two attorneys to Laramie County, Wyo., to monitor activities. 

Both counties hold large urban centers in each state. The Justice Department has sent more than 75 election monitors across five states and 200 polling locations during the primary season. 

“Election monitoring is an ongoing priority for this office,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Nondiscriminatory monitoring ensures all elections remain free, fair, and accessible to all.”

The department announced in July that it would target certain states in which to send election monitors. Arizona, Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Virginia topped the list for states the department planned to focus on monitoring. 

The Justice Department previously sent monitors to polling locations in Florida and Wyoming during the 2022 elections. 

Dhillon said the efforts are part of the Justice Department's work to bring transparency and public confidence to American elections. 

Officials in Minnesota decried the federal government's efforts to deploy agents for poll watching last week. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon deployed state-backed observers to monitor federal agents' activity at various polling locations. 

"They have in other states, to my knowledge, behaved themselves. We don't have any reason to believe they'll depart from that record this primary cycle, but we want eyes on the observers, and that's what we're aiming to do," Simon said.

Public officials in Florida and Wyoming have remained largely silent about the DOJ's efforts to send election monitors ahead of polls closing in the state's primaries. Polls in both Florida and Wyoming are open until 7 p.m. local time. 

(The Center Square) – National teacher unions contribute at least 10% of their annual budget to lobbying and political activism, which includes calling for the impeachment of Republican President Donald Trump in the 2026 AFT handbook. Efforts also include supporting Democratic causes such as messaging against immigration enforcement.

Some teachers raise questions about whether union dues are being used to advance causes the instructors actually support.

Todd Loeffler, a California elementary public school teacher for over 25 years, said the cost of joining the union and some of their political tactics turned him off.

“Knowing that our union dues were primarily going to Democratic candidates, it was very difficult," he told The Center Square.  

Another issue was the cost. He initially declined to join his union when he began teaching because the dues were too expensive.

“When I was just hired as a new teacher, I was asked to join the union along with all the other new teachers,” Loeffler said. “We discussed joining the union, but we agreed it was too expensive, and our salary was very low.” 

Loeffler recalled that a seasoned teacher tapped him on the shoulder and said: “You better join the union.” But at the time, Loeffler said, membership was voluntary.

Closed shop

That changed the following year.

“Realizing that too many teachers were not joining the union, our school district teachers' union changed it to a closed shop union,” Loeffler said. “That made us join, and we did not like it.” 

States like California are non-right-to-work states, meaning they can require union participation and employees to pay agency fees or dues.

Right-to-work states like Texas offer union membership and dues as optional to workers. However, for public school teachers, that all changed in 2018 following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which prohibited public employees from paying union fees as a condition of employment. 

Loeffler said he paid $1,200 in dues a year to the Association of Classroom Teachers, a chapter affiliated with the California Teachers Association, the state's largest teachers' union.

Loeffler said his concerns went beyond the cost of dues. He objected to what he believed was the union’s political spending, particularly its support for Democratic candidates.

Loeffler also questioned how much of his dues actually went toward political activity and how much went toward representing teachers.

Teachers were told union membership could provide legal protection if they were sued by a parent or student, he said.

“It was a scare tactic,” Loeffler said. “I don’t know of any teacher who had to use the union to manage a legal battle.”

The National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers represent millions of educators nationwide and are among the most politically active labor organizations in the country. The NEA has about 3 million members, while the AFT represents roughly 1.8 million.

In 2025, the NEA received almost $400 million in membership dues, and the AFT got over $270 million in dues.

Taxpayer-funded dues 

Union members pay membership dues via payroll deduction from taxpayer-funded salaries. Many critics of teacher unions argue these dues are critical taxpayer dollars.

For example, for the California Teacher Association, which is under the NEA, dues are split into CTA dues of $899 annually per member for the 2026-27 year and NEA dues of $234.  

In 2025, the NEA spent a total of $448,171,192, according to Union Facts, a nonprofit that focuses on transparency and accountability. AFT spent a total of $278,261,430.  

The NEA spent more than $51 million on political activities and lobbying in 2025, and the AFT spent more than $41 million, according to Union Facts. 

In comparison, the national average salary for a public school teacher is $74,000, according to the NEA.

Depending on the state and school district, a good portion of local budgets is allocated to teacher pay and benefits. For example, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation's second-largest school district, allocated 93% of its budget to employee salaries, with 40% of the budget going to teacher pay and benefits. 

Advocate for 'members, not kids'

Aaron Garth Smith, director of education reform at the Reason Foundation, told The Center Square that unions' influence extends well beyond contract negotiations.

“Teacher union influence goes well beyond money, especially at the local level with school board races,” Smith said. “Ultimately, the job of teachers’ unions is to advocate for their members, not kids. Sometimes these interests align, but often they don’t.”

The NEA has taken public positions such as criticism of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The NEA provided $1.7 million in funding to a May Day 2026 training toolkit that includes anti-ICE messaging, The Center Square previously reported.

Rusty Brown, director of special projects at the Freedom Foundation, which advocates against public-sector unions, told The Center Square that unions give money to what they align with.

“I see them not really giving money to people that are not gonna be perfectly aligned with them,” Brown told The Center Square. “It's to push either a radical agenda or to help their own bottom line.”

In January, The Center Square attended a virtual conference hosted by Sunrise Movement, a political action organization, titled "Roadmap to Political Revolution," where U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California, and NEA President Rebecca Pringle talked about the controversy surrounding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minnesota and across the country.  

“It is no surprise that the NEA is this administration's top target. Dictators always come for educators because we teach the children how to think for themselves … [T]his administration is using ICE to bring fear and trauma into our schools,” Pringle said during the conference.  

Impeachment and ICE

The AFT has also taken political stances on various issues. 

Its 2026 policy handbook includes positions addressing the separation of church and state in education, cuts to the military budget and the Trump administration. 

One resolution calls for the impeachment, conviction and removal of the president.

“WHEREAS, Donald Trump’s fascist takeover of American democracy is real — including the threat to the right to public education — but the mass movement to defend democracy and stop the rise of fascism is real too," the resolution reads.

“RESOLVED, that the AFT will call for the impeachment, conviction and removal of Donald Trump from the U.S. presidency as soon as possible.” 

“RESOLVED, that the AFT will fight back against the chaos that the Trump administration is creating, and the AFT will fight forward by building a movement with the members, students, other workers, and our communities to fight for a stronger democracy and build a better future for all.”

Critics say such positions go beyond traditional union responsibilities.

"The job of a union used to be and should be to represent the interests of its members as they relate to the workplace,” Mika Hackner, research director at the North American Values Institute, told The Center Square. 

Hackner said the NEA and AFT have embraced what she described as “social justice unionism,” arguing that the approach assumes members share the same political views.

“It is a wholly inappropriate use of union resources and a dereliction of the union's duty,” Hackner added.

Cliff Smith, government affairs director at the North American Values Institute, said unions have a legitimate role in education policy but risk losing credibility when they move into issues far removed from their core mission.

“It's perfectly appropriate for unions to have opinions on issues closely related to education,” Smith told The Center Square. “But when a union, or any other entity, steps wildly outside its area of expertise, not only does it promote ideas that it shouldn't, but it creates distrust when they speak out on issues they truly are experts on.”

The Center Square reached out to the NEA, CTA and AFT multiple times for comments but did not receive a response.

(The Center Square) – The typical American has to save for at least a decade to afford a home in their state, despite the federal government spending nearly half a trillion dollars on housing programs since 2015, a new report reveals.

Open The Books analyzed state-by-state median household income, the federal government's House Price Index, and spending by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on 18 housing programs over the past decade. Open The Books is an organization that tracks government spending.

It found that the median home price outpaced median household wages in all 50 states from 2015 to 2024.

In all but two states, there was a double-digit difference between the growth rate of income versus home prices, which Open The Books calls the “affordability gap.”

Notably, the report, "Extreme Makeover: American Dream Edition?," found broad geographic and political diversity among states with the most severe affordability gaps. The report was released Monday night.

Idaho has the highest affordability gap, its score of 83.3 reflecting the median home price growing by 151% as median incomes rose only 68% from 2015 to 2024.

Florida follows behind with a 77.2 affordability gap, trailed by Utah, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, Nevada, Maine, Rhode Island and Washington.

The 10 states with the lowest affordability gaps are equally diverse. Louisiana has the lowest affordability gap, 6.6, with home prices rising 40% and income rising 33.4% over the decade studied.

West Virginia has the second lowest affordability gap, followed by North Dakota, Mississippi, Alaska, Illinois, Maryland, Iowa, California and Hawaii.

Besides comparing home price and wage growth, Open The Books also calculated what fraction of a household income is needed for the typical state resident to afford a 20% down payment on a typically-priced home.

In every state but Alaska, the cost of a 20% down payment on a typical home exceeds 100% of the typical household’s pre-tax annual income.

That means it will take the median U.S. earner who saves 10% of their pre-tax annual income at least nine and a half years to achieve home ownership in any state.

In some states, the wait time is more than two decades.

A Maine resident making the state median income and saving 10% pre-tax each year has to wait 25 years before they can afford a 20% down payment on a home.

The median home cost in Maine is over $962,000, and the median salary is less than $77,000, meaning a down payment costs 251% of the typical resident’s pre-tax median income.

New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Florida, Montana, Idaho, Vermont, Washington, Oregon, California and Tennessee all have down payment costs between 246% and 185% of pre-tax median income levels.

By contrast, Alaska has the most attainable down payments, followed by West Virginia, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Illinois, North Dakota, Wyoming, Texas, Ohio, and Minnesota. Even in those states, however, the price of a down payment on a home ranges from 95.8% to 132% of pre-tax annual income.

Christopher Neefus, vice president of communications at Open The Books, said the findings speak to a “generational tension” between younger generations and the Boomer generation, where home ownership was considered a key part of “the American dream.”

“A down payment on a home is so far off in the distance for some folks, it makes sense to reconsider what the American dream looks like,” Neefus told The Center Square. “And in the meantime, the government is throwing a ton of cash at the situation, and as we've seen time and again, this top-down spending is not really moving the needle the way that it needs to for folks.”

Between 2015 and 2024, HUD spent more than $460 billion on 18 housing affordability programs.

Yet when Open The Books broke down that spending for each state on a per-capita basis, researchers found that those taxpayer dollars reduced the affordability gap over that decade by a statistically insignificant 2.75%.

“It speaks to the inefficiency of some of these programs. When you spend from the top down, it's very difficult for dollars to end up where they're needed the most,” Neefus said. “And then you have a problem similar to what we've seen in higher education, which is to have all of this government investment to help people afford higher education, but ultimately it doesn't control cost.”

Real reform, Neefus argued, needs to happen at the state level.

“When dollars are spent on a more local level, where people understand the terrain and the needs of the community, that’s always going to be better than a giant lump sum from the federal government,” he said.

“These are big-picture factors that go beyond any narrow fix. But what’s been proven over the decades is [that] more local decisions tend to lead to better outcomes. Letting laboratories of democracy compete and identify solutions is likely better than a single decisionmaking body at the federal level.”

(The Center Square) - Billions of dollars of government spending over a decade have done nothing to stop homeownership from slipping out of reach for millions of Americans.

That's especially true for California.

And that's according to a report released Monday night, “Extreme Makeover: American Dream Edition?” The study by Open the Books, an organization that tracks government spending at the local, state and federal levels, examined public data from 2015 to 2024 to determine whether spending by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped bridge the gap between Americans’ wages and increasing home prices.

The conclusion? It did not.

In fact, despite receiving $81.4 billion from HUD during 2015-2024, California remains one of the least affordable states to live in the U.S., according to Open the Books. Besides California, Open the Books tracked states across the nation, including Colorado, where home prices doubled during those years. Meanwhile, Nevada faces an affordability gap, but household incomes have grown in Arizona.

Christopher Neefus of Open the Books said Californians are looking at the better part of two decades of savings to get themselves into the average home.

Home prices grew at a rate 27% faster than the median income, Neefus, vice president of communications at Open the Books, told The Center Square during a phone interview. He added that although California's gap is among the lowest in the U.S., the figure is misleading because in 2015, the state was already seeing home prices exceeding the reach of the median income.

Home prices during 2015-2024 grew by more than 82% in the Golden State, Neefus said.

“Another factor to consider in California is that home prices started a lot higher and finished a lot higher than most of the country,” Neefus said.

The report also details California's multi-layered financing rules, expensive construction costs and strict single-family zoning that leaves thousands of affordable units unbuilt. Construction costs average up to $570,000 per unit for affordable housing.

Across the border in Nevada, the Silver State had one of the top 10 affordability gaps in the country.

This is driven by pandemic-era relocation trends. Neefus said price hikes "could be partly attributed to COVID flight."

“What we do see in Nevada’s case is that where taxpayers and potential homebuyers are heading, economic opportunity follows," he told The Center Square. "The state is among the top 10 when it comes to income growth over that decade, suggesting new opportunity may start to help close the affordability gap.”

“You’re looking at 150% of median pre-tax income that you would need to put down on an average home in the state,” said Neefus. “If you were to set aside 10% of your pre-tax income every year, which not everyone can afford to do, you’re still looking at 15 years of working to save."

As in California, local policies have made the economy difficult in parts of Nevada, Neefu said.

“Another piece of the puzzle in Nevada is it is home to a major tourist destination in Las Vegas,” said Neefus. He added that Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, has made it difficult to get approval for short-term rentals, which homeowners rely on to defray costs.

Neefus said the county's bureaucracy is siding with hotel chains over homeowners.

The neighboring state of Arizona experienced an influx of Americans headed out of major cities during the COVID-19 era and had a high affordability gap. However, Neefus said the Grand Canyon state was also No. 2 in the nation for growth in median household income.

“That suggests the sort of economic dynamism that can be reparative in the future,” said Neefus.

Elsewhere, Colorado is a state that is closer to the middle of the pack, but one that still highlights the broader national reach of the U.S. housing crisis. For example, while Colorado’s 49-point affordability gap was modest compared to Idaho or Florida, home prices in the Centennial State still doubled over the 10-year period that Open the Books examined.

“In Colorado, if you keep setting aside 10% of that median income before taxes, it is a 17-year wait to put a strong down payment on an average home there,” said Neefus. “This is a politically moderate state for the most part, so this could be one of the bellwether states to watch over the next several years.”

To solve affordability problems, Open the Books said, officials at various levels should address local zoning restrictions, regulations on permits and inflationary federal spending. 

(The Center Square) – Voters in California’s 14th Congressional District will head to the ballot box Tuesday to choose the successor to former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell.

Swalwell, D-San Francisco Bay Area, resigned in April from Congress amid sexual misconduct allegations. He also quit the gubernatorial race. 

The two candidates on the ballot Tuesday are both Democrats: state Sen. Aisha Wahab of Hayward and former Dublin Mayor Melissa Hernandez, who sits today on the Bay Area Rapid Transit board. 

Wahab and Hernandez squared off in two June primaries, but neither of them received more than 50% of the vote. That made Tuesday's special election necessary.

The winner of Tuesday’s election will serve during the rest of Swalwell's term, which ends Jan. 3. The entire district is in Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Regardless of the outcome Tuesday, Wahab and Hernandez will square off again in the Nov. 3 general election to determine who will serve during the term starting Jan. 3.

Neither Wahab nor Hernandez responded to The Center Square’s requests for comment.

Affordability has been mentioned as a top issue for voters in the 14th Congressional District, and on her website, Wahab promises to advocate for affordable housing, expand homeownership opportunities and improve overall living conditions in the Bay Area.

“The status quo is afraid because I work for you – not billion dollar corporations,” said Wahab on her website.

Hernandez also claims to have an eye on what concerns Bay Area residents. The candidate's campaign promises include “lowering costs, building housing people can afford, and protecting access to healthcare.”

Meanwhile, the race has seen its share of mudslinging. On Aug. 12, the Hernandez campaign published a press release about a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing Wahab of “laundering corporate money into their campaign for Congress.” An Aug. 7 press release from Hernandez involved Latino leaders condemning “Aisha Wahab’s father’s racist rant calling for Melissa Hernandez to be deported.”

The Wahab campaign has responded to what it calls “political attacks” by saying on its website that Hernandez lost two primary elections by more than 20 percentage points. 

That's confirmed by results from the California Secretary of State's Office, which reported Wahab led the nine-candidate race during the regular June 2 primary with 59,238 votes or 38.3% of the vote. Hernandez placed second with 26,579 votes or 17.2%.

Wahab and Hernandez squared off again during the special June 16 primary. Wahab won 52,961 votes or 42.8% of the vote, the Secretary of State's Office said. Hernandez won 20,731 votes or 16.8% of the vote. 

“Instead of running on a record of results, she is relying on misleading attacks to tear Aisha Wahab down,” said the Wahab campaign in a section of its website called The Truth Behind The Attack Ads.

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon a $22.9 billion, multi-year contract to accelerate production of Tomahawk cruise missiles, aiming to build more than 1,000 of the long-range strike weapons a year.

The Department of War announced the award Monday as part of its "Arsenal of Freedom" initiative to expand weapons production.

"This landmark $22.9 billion investment will accelerate Tomahawk missile delivery to our warfighters at unprecedented speed," said Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao.

Raytheon, an RTX business, said the contract supports increasing annual output to more than 1,000 Tomahawks and that it is investing in its workforce, supply chain and facilities to meet demand.

"Tomahawk is the Navy's most important strike weapon, able to target hostile forces hundreds of miles away without ever risking the lives of our sailors," Raytheon President Phil Jasper said.

The contract comes as the U.S. works to rebuild a depleted arsenal. American forces have expended about a third of the nation's Tomahawk inventory, the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated in a July analysis, including at least 135 fired during the campaign against Yemen's Houthis and 24 during the Twelve Day War with Iran.

The Navy's own budget documents show how sharply spending is climbing. The department's fiscal 2027 request seeks 785 Tomahawks for $5.88 billion, about $7.5 million per missile, up from 55 missiles the year before, and the budget says the Pentagon will "leverage the Tomahawk Multi-Year Procurement contract that the Department will initiate in FY 2026" to lower unit costs and speed delivery.

But more money will not quickly yield more missiles, according to a July report by the Project On Government Oversight. The watchdog group estimated current Tomahawk production at about 60 missiles a year and said the weapon takes 47 months to deliver once a contract is signed, with manufacturing capacity, not funding, as the binding constraint. POGO found the Tomahawk to be the military's most depleted munition, with recent strikes consuming far more than the U.S. had produced in recent years.

The department publicized the $22.9 billion award through news releases from the Department of War and Raytheon, but the contract does not appear on the department's daily list of contracts, where the government itemizes major awards and the funding obligated to them.

The award is part of a broader Department of War effort to expand munitions production under what it calls its Acquisition Transformation Strategy. The Center Square previously reported that the department signed framework agreements with Northrop Grumman in August to expand production of PAC-3 and THAAD missile-defense interceptors, deals that fed much larger prime contracts.

"The Department called upon industry to expand munitions production, and RTX has answered that call," said Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael P. Duffey.

(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump says he'll declare the Strait of Hormuz a U.S. territory, but no federal agency has said what controlling the key oil chokepoint would cost taxpayers.

"After we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States," Trump said Friday at an event on Long Island.

Asked to elaborate Monday in the Oval Office, Trump did not detail a legal basis or cost.

"I just think it's a great idea," he said. "We control it with the blockade. ... I like the idea of declaring it a territory."

The strait is at least the fifth foreign territory Trump has proposed bringing under U.S. control, after Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada and the Chagos Islands. The strait isn't for sale: it runs through Iranian and Omani territorial waters, and neither country is offering to hand it over. What it would come with is the open-ended cost of a military presence to control it.

A Congressional Research Service report updated Aug. 7 lays out several possible scenarios for U.S. involvement in the strait, including establishing "its own formal administration" of the waterway. The CRS report puts no dollar figure on any of them, noting only that such a commitment "could require long-term investments of U.S. military, diplomatic, and other resources."

The Center Square asked U.S. Central Command, the Department of War and the White House what controlling the strait would cost. None provided a figure. The command referred the question to the Department of War, which pointed to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's congressional testimony from May. In that testimony, Hegseth did not give a cost for the blockade or for controlling the strait.

In practice, the Trump administration has sought to control shipping through the strait with a U.S. naval blockade. Central Command said on X that as of Monday, its forces had "redirected 64 commercial vessels, disabled 3, and boarded 2 to ensure compliance," part of an operation the command calls a "steel wall" against Iran. The blockade has been imposed, lifted and reimposed since April as fighting and negotiations have flared and stalled.

What the government has quantified is the cost to Iran. The Pentagon estimated in May that the blockade had cost Iran about $4.8 billion in lost oil revenue, and officials have cited figures of roughly $435 million a day. No comparable figure has been offered for what the operation costs U.S. taxpayers.

Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has said the Navy is poorly equipped for the mission. In a July analysis, he wrote that the service spent "tens of billions" on carriers and destroyers while neglecting the mine-clearing and convoy-escort capabilities a strait fight actually requires.

Iran rejects the idea outright. Its judiciary chief, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, called Trump's claim a product of "delusions" and said Iran "is the owner and ruler" of the waterway, according to the state news agency IRNA. Iran and Oman, which share the strait's territorial waters, have been negotiating its future without the United States.

Those talks drew a threat from Trump. In a Fox News interview Monday, he said that "if Oman gets in the way, we'll bomb the s--- out of them." Asked about it later in the Oval Office, he said Oman had not "behaved very well" but that the U.S. would "handle them very easily." Oman, a longtime U.S. partner and frequent intermediary with Iran, had not responded to a request for comment as of Monday evening.

In March, Trump directed the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to provide political-risk insurance for commercial shipping in the Gulf. The agency committed $20 billion in coverage, and by April, the facility had grown to $40 billion, with private insurers led by Chubb. Earlier reporting indicated the facility went largely unused. A DFC spokesperson said the agency was preparing a comment but did not provide one by the deadline.

The territory claim is the latest in a shifting set of proposals for extracting money from the strait. In June, Trump floated charging for passage, describing the U.S. as a "Guardian Angel" owed reimbursement "for services rendered." By mid-July, he had dropped the fee idea in favor of having Gulf states make what he called "massive" investments in the U.S.

Iran, meanwhile, has pursued its own version. Tehran established a "Persian Gulf Strait Authority" in May to charge vessels for passage, a body the U.S. Treasury sanctioned that same month, and has estimated that charging for security and other services could bring in about $40 billion a year, according to the CRS report.

The question of who pays to keep the strait open is not new. During the 1980s "Tanker War," the U.S. Navy escorted oil tankers through the Gulf and fought Iranian forces in the largest naval surface battle since World War II. Some members of Congress, then as now, pressed for allies who relied on the strait to help cover the cost. Forty years later, the cost of the current operation remains unstated.

(The Center Square) – U.S. Customs and Border Protection Chief Rodney Scott said he paused all construction activity in Big Bend National Park and arrived in Texas on Monday to meet with Texas officials and stakeholders in person. He said he’s meeting with “a small team to evaluate the terrain and listen to local leadership, community members and stakeholders to ensure that we secure our borders while simultaneously protecting BBNP.” 

He made the announcement after extensive pressure from Texas state lawmakers, sheriffs, and business owners and after Texans have filed multiple lawsuits against CBP.

Scott succumbed to pressure after a former colleague who served with him in Border Patrol, now Terrell County Sheriff, Thad Cleveland, called on him to halt construction. Cleveland invited Scott to the area to learn what infrastructure should be installed based on “the terrain, operational effectiveness, and the realities on the ground.” Cleveland has advocated for a “virtual wall,” using radar, Anduril Autonomous Surveillance Towers, thermal cameras and other technology, The Center Square reported.

Scott’s announcement came after U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called on him and others to listen to Texans, The Center Square reported. Cornyn raised concerns about the waivers signed by former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and current secretary Markwayne Mullin authorizing destruction of Native American property, historical Texas structures and west Texas land that has existed untouched for centuries. 

Under Scott, Texans received notices that DHS would use imminent domain to take their land to build border wall barriers if they didn’t agree to terms, The Center Square reported. 

The Texas General Land Office has also gotten involved, ordering CBP to stop illegally destroying state land, or it would sue, The Center Square reported. State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-El Paso, has also sued, retaining well-known Houston attorney, Dick DeGuerin.

Thousands of Texans have called on Congress to halt construction in Big Bend, pointing to less than one percent of illegal crossings occurring there and natural 1,500-foot-high barriers providing a deterrent. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said a border wall wasn’t needed in the park and that high-ranking officials told him CBP was “only putting in a caliche road with buried cables for tech monitoring plus vehicle barriers consistent with other national parks to prevent vehicles from going places they should not, and nothing more.”  

“Congress – and specifically the Texas delegation – must get a full briefing on this issue from the administration,” he added.

Scott’s arrival in Texas comes after a bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers called on Gov. Greg Abbott to intervene to no avail. The latest request was led by Democrat state Rep. Eddie Morales, Jr., who said, “God has blessed this region with a natural border wall – there is simply no need to spend upwards of $7 billion on shady no-bid contracts on a sector that saw less than ~1% of crossings. Texas does not, and should not, bend the knee to the will of the federal government. Texas leaders swore an oath to protect our state, our land, and our communities – it is imperative that oath is upheld to protect this region for future generations of Texans to cherish.”

State Rep. Drew Darby, a Republican who signed the letter, said, “we have a duty to speak up when federal action threatens our land and our communities. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue; it is a Texan issue. We have an obligation to secure our border, but Big Bend's rugged, unforgiving terrain already serves as a natural, God-given barrier that deters illegal crossings. The border crossing data already confirms this. … We owe it to future generations of Texans to protect Big Bend, and to ensure the hunting, ranching, and agribusiness operations that sustain this region can continue unimpeded.”

Former Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, criticized the Trump administration for approving no bid contracts, saying, “The standard federal competitive bid process was waived under Section 102(c) of the IIRIRA. We know how that works out. #ReflectionPool. I agree with Morales but rarely sign letters. We can secure this area through technology and manpower.”

Contractors have been awarded billions in no bid contracts to build border barriers, including those who donated to the president and have criminal histories, The Center Square reported. 

In response to ongoing bipartisan public outrage, DHS claimed, “The mainstream media is fear mongering about our work at Big Bend. Here’s what’s actually happening: CBP is building ONE new access road, improving existing roads, installing detection technology, and placing vehicle barriers in limited, strategic locations. What people are seeing is survey and design work — NOT construction of a wall or stadium lighting through” Big Bend.

Center for Biological Diversity’s Laiken Jordahl, who is also suing the administration, posted drone footage of contractors bulldozing into Big Bend’s Mariscal Mountain in just the last two days, saying DHS was “lying.”

Abbott has remained silent on the issue and his office has not responded to requests for comment. Multiple lawmakers have called on Abbott to act and argue the attorney general should sue the federal government to stop construction but won’t. 

Jordahl added that Abbott will “forever be remembered as the one who let the feds tread all over [Texas’] sovereignty and natural heritage” and his “silence is a rubberstamp on this destruction.”

(The Center Square) – One of the latest targets in the legal battles around gun control laws is New York’s ban on Glock-style handguns.

California, Maryland, Connecticut and New York have all passed – and their governors signed – laws that restrict the sale, transfer, manufacture or importation of certain “Glock-like” or “Glock-style” handguns.

California’s law became effective July 1, 2026. Maryland’s will be effective Jan. 1, 2027. In Connecticut, their prohibition is effective Oct. 1, 2026. New York’s goes effective May 31, 2027.

Existing owners can generally keep what they already own. Law enforcement and military exemptions are standard.

These laws are sold as bans on “machinegun-convertible pistols” or “convertible pistols.”

In 2025, Maryland legislators heard from investigators looking into the use of “Glock switches,” devices designed to convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic weapons, who found the devices posed what they say is an unprecedented threat to public safety and law enforcement officers.

In California in April 2025, Gun Owners of California’s Sam Paredes laid out why he believes these bans are unconstitutional.

“Glock, the single most popular firearm for self-defense in the world, especially here in California and the United States, they are ubiquitous,” Paredes said then. “The Supreme Court in … Bruen came and said that anything, any firearm that is in common use for lawful purposes is protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned. That's the first reason where this thing is going to go to court immediately, if it is signed by the governor.”

That lawsuit against California’s ban is pending with a Biden-appointed federal judge recently refusing the Trump administration's effort to block the state of California from banning the sale of certain types of handguns. Legal Newsline reports the DOJ has alleged that the new state laws are unconstitutional.

But, unlike California’s law, New York made violations punishable by up to seven years in prison. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit against New York’s ban note the U.S. Supreme Court has already told New York it is out of step on the Second Amendment in the case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Now, plaintiffs say they’re arguing the state cannot ban one of the most popular handgun designs in America.

“Lawmakers in New York are doing nothing more than continuing their unconstitutional assault on law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights in peace,” Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said in a statement. “Making someone a criminal for selling or transferring a handgun merely because someone can illegally convert those firearms into something they are not is absurd. It’s already illegal to convert these pistols into machineguns and the conversion itself requires possession of other illegal items, but lawmakers persist in focusing on the handgun and not the criminals who will continue committing crimes with or without this new law in place.”

The Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, two private citizens, and a licensed dealer sued New York.

SAF says factory-stock Glock and Glock-style pistols have a cruciform trigger bar and that design feature alone now meets New York’s definition of a “convertible pistol.” Once the law takes effect in New York on May 31, 2027, selling or transferring them becomes illegal.

Glock and Glock-pattern pistols use a polymer frame that houses the fire-control group. There is no separate lower receiver like a rifle. A small illegal part can be inserted to turn the pistol full-auto.

Illinois advanced a similar bill through committee this year, but it didn’t advance when the session ended.

As for whether Glock itself will redesign its guns for these big states, Paredes doesn’t think it matters.

“The author criticizes Glock for doing nothing about this issue. In fact, they did so with their generation for Glocks,” Paredes said. “They modified them so the Glock switches could not be applied and all of them in the future. The problem is, the state of California prevents Glock from selling generation 4 or 5, and now 6, in the state of California because of the unreasonableness of the roster.”

California already maintains a restrictive roster of handguns approved for sale. Manufacturers must prove to state regulators that their guns meet specific safety and testing requirements. Legal challenges to California’s roster are pending.