The Common Ills: 2026

Wednesday, July 8, 2026. Chump announces the cease-fire with Iran is over, the markets react, Chump's done nothing to help with jobs and more and more employers are closing doors, he's back on his quest to steal and colonize Greenland, he's getting cozy with War Criminal Erdogan, and much more.

As Ben notes in the MEIDASTOUCH NEWS video above, the Iran War continues. Jason Karaian and Jenny Gross (NEW YORK TIMES) report:

Oil prices spiked on Wednesday to the highest level in weeks and stocks dropped after President Trump said that he thought the Iran cease-fire was “over” amid a volatile 24 hours in the Persian Gulf region.

The Trump administration launched a series of strikes on Iran and revoked a waiver that had allowed Iran to sell oil. The actions against Iran on Tuesday were in retaliation for attacks on tankers this week in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial conduit for the world’s energy.

U.S. Central Command said that it hit over 80 targets in Iran, including dozens of small boats used by the Iranian military, “to degrade Iran’s ability to continue attacking international commerce.” Iran’s military responded by targeting 85 U.S. military sites in Bahrain and Kuwait, prolonging a retaliatory cycle that could impede the nascent recovery in shipping traffic in the region.

This morning's WAY TOO EARLY (MS NOW) noted the developments.

And today MORNING JOE (MS NOW) addressed the crumbling cease fire.

As this takes place, Convicted Felon Donald Chump continues to bleed supporters. Nick Hilden notes:

According to a new poll, President Donald Trump is losing the support of his most essential voting bloc fast, as his net approval among men has plunged from -13 to -19 in just one month.

The six-point decline was revealed in a Focaldata/Financial Times survey, and it represents a dramatic loss of ground among the very voters who put Trump in office in 2024. According to Newsweek, “He won male voters by 12 percent over then-Vice President Kamala Harris, making them a cornerstone of his electoral coalition, data from Pew Research Center shows…It also fits into a broader pattern of slipping approval for the president.”

What’s more, the new poll “found Trump's overall approval at 34 percent versus a 57 percent disapproval rating, while recent polling has shown growing voter dissatisfaction over the economy, inflation and the cost of living, issues that consistently rank among Americans' top concerns ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.” As the survey itself notes, “President Trump's net approval rating has reached an all-time low of -23, with the share of Americans disapproving of his performance rising for the fourth consecutive month to 57 percent.”

We are now in July. The midterms are Tuesday, November 3rd. When does Chump plan to stop dragging his political party down?

Harry Thompson (THE DAILY BEAST) notes:

Even more Republicans now think the economy is headed in the wrong direction.

An affordability crisis is now in effect, according to 95 percent of Americans, as high gas and grocery prices hammer people’s wallets.

The new Harris Poll revealed that just 27 percent of Republicans think the economy is traveling in a positive direction, down from 49 percent in February.

In February, just 22 percent of Republicans thought the economy was getting worse, but that number has now shot up 16 points to 38 percent in the latest poll, conducted for The Guardian.

Democrats have become further entrenched in their belief that the economy is not moving in the right direction, up to 71 percent from 62 percent in February.

Independents, meanwhile, aligned far more closely with Democrats than Republicans, swinging 10 points since February up to 63 percent.

Check my math, but I believe November 3rd is 118 days from now. 118 days. Chump seems to be pinning a lot of hope on his party's September convention in Dallas.

Jordan Major (FINANCEBUZZ MONEY) notes:

Affordability is back at the center of the economic debate, with Elizabeth Warren arguing that American families are still feeling squeezed by rising everyday costs.

In recent remarks, Warren said Donald Trump's policies have pushed up prices on essentials like gas, groceries, and housing, leaving many households increasingly reliant on credit cards just to keep up as they try to cope with increasing bills.

Speaking during a Senate committee hearing on affordability, Warren laid out a broad critique of the current economic landscape, focusing on how multiple cost pressures are hitting households at once.

"Our housing bill is an affordability accomplishment that everyone on this committee can all be proud of," she said. "But it is not nearly enough to offset the economic policies of President Trump—and the devastating impacts they have had on American families."

She argued that while some policy wins have helped on the margins, they are being outweighed by rising costs across key categories that matter most to consumers.

But remember that Donald Chump insists affordability is a hoax? In fact, "a Democrat hoax." He also declared, "The word 'affordability' is a con job by the Democrats."

Must have been the dementia speaking, right? December 5th, US House Rep Hillary Scholten issued a press release on Chump's lies. She noted, "Make no mistake: the affordability crisis is real, and it is crippling the American dream. The only people who don't realize that are the out of touch billionaires that the president continues to put before American families." US House Rep Greg Landsman was quoted in the press release stating, "The affordability crisis didn’t start 10 months ago -- families have been feeling this for years. But this administration has made it worse, from cutting healthcare to pushing sweeping tariffs that drive up prices." And US House Rep Derek Tran was quoted declaring, "President Trump’s claim that ‘affordability doesn’t mean anything to anybody’ is an insult to the millions of American families who are struggling to pay their bills and keep food on the table. Affordability means everything to the parents working multiple jobs, seniors living on fixed incomes, and young people trying to build their future."

That was December 5th. What's Chump done in the months since? Well, he's started the Iran War. He's destroyed the economy further with the Iran War. Steve Kopack (NBC NEWS) reports:

Oil prices jumped Tuesday to their highest level since late last week after reports that two tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz had been hit by unknown projectiles.

U.S. crude oil rose more than 3% to above $70 per barrel for the first time since July 1. International Brent crude oil also rose 3% to more than $74 per barrel.

And then there's the job market. Where are the jobs, Donald? Huh? Where are they? Jenni Fink (NEWSWEEK) reports:

America’s unemployment rate is holding relatively steady at 4.2 percent, but a Newsweek analysis found the number of Americans who are giving up looking for jobs because they’re discouraged about finding one is higher than it was at the beginning of the year, which economists say may be masking a looming problem in the labor market.

“The June jobs report has some eyebrow raising data, especially the big drop in the labor force,” Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, told Newsweek, adding the caveat that one month doesn’t make a trend.

A key concern is the rising number of Americans who have stopped actively searching for work and therefore are no longer counted as unemployed. Economists say an increase in discouraged and marginally attached workers often signals weakening labor demand and suggests the labor market may be softer than headline employment figures indicate.

According to recent labor force data, roughly 1.83 million workers were classified as marginally attached to the labor force in June, including about 499,000 discouraged workers who said they had stopped looking because they believed no jobs were available for them.

Glenn Taylor (SOURCING JOURNAL) reports:

More than 300 employees at Levi Strauss & Co. are expected to lose their jobs due to the closure of the denim giant's Hebron, Ky. distribution center.

Employment separations are expected to begin on Aug. 30. The company first indicated last June that it was closing the 772,150-square-foot Kentucky facility. At the time, the closure was expected to impact 346 employees, but the building was kept open for another year to fulfill high demand as it transitioned products to other warehouses slower than initially expected.

Levi's associate general counsel Emily Knoles filed the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act Notice on June 30.

Some of the 303 employees affected will be able to apply to another company location, according to the WARN notice.

And it's not just Levis. Cat Lafuente (FINANCEBUZZ) notes:

In July 2026, several big chains say they'll continue with downsizing plans as they adapt to changing consumer spending, increased costs, and more.

[. . .]

Kroger closing stores has become one of the most talked-about retail stories of the summer, and at least one Kroger location is closing in July in Atlanta (at 2452 Morosgo Way), though that's likely far from the only store on its way out. Kroger announced that 60 locations were on the chopping block in a June conference call with investors.

The closures will happen over an 18-month period and are being attributed to declining profits. The company says it's working to find solutions for impacted workers.

Burgers and fries are as American as apple pie, but "financial hardship" has caused Five Guys Burgers and Fries to shutter locations from Florida to California, as reported in May of 2026.

Additional locations will close on the West Coast during the summer months, including in Hanford, California, on July 2, 2026. While the restaurant appears to be decreasing its presence domestically, internationally, it appears to be growing.

Torrid has been on the decline for several years now and has announced plans to close up to 180 locations. So far, 171 stores have already turned off the lights. The plus-size retailer cites the growing use of GLP-1s like Ozempic as a reason for the drop in sales.

For now, Torrid says it will maintain its brick-and-mortar locations while expanding web sales, though you may see more store closures in July.

July of 2026 will be the last full month you can enjoy picking up all of your Ulta favorites while on your Target run, as the brands revealed their partnership is coming to a permanent close the following month.

This means that over 600 Ulta stores will close, a hefty share of the market. Target will instead sell a "curated" selection of beauty products at "affordable prices."

That's just the top four closings. And Nina Zdinjak (THE STREET) reports:

Luxury brands are typically considered recession-resistant. Yet recent store closures suggest that luxury is not always enough to keep a business afloat amid shifting consumer habits and economic challenges.

McKinsey & Company reveals an important shift in consumer behavior: Emotional connection is now a top driver of purchasing decisions, ahead of traditional luxury markers such as craftsmanship, heritage, and exclusivity.

[. . .]

On May 27, Capri Holdings, the parent company behind fashion icons such as Michael Kors, Versace (recently sold), and Jimmy Choo, disclosed its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year Fiscal 2026 ended March 28, 2026.

The fashion giant reported fourth-quarter total revenue of $796 million, down from $827 million in the same period of fiscal 2025.

The document further revealed that as of March 28, 2026, Capri Holdings owned 673 Michael Kors and 211 Jimmy Choo stores, while on March 29, 2025, there were 711 Michael Kors and 219 Jimmy Choo stores.

The data reveals that in 12 months, Capri Holdings has closed 38 Michael Kors stores.

And Nina Zdinjak (THE STREET) notes:

While there are occasional headlines in local outlets about sporadic Save A Lot closures, an exclusive data analysis by TheStreet comparing U.S. location datasets revealed that the discount supermarket giant has quietly shuttered roughly 100 stores.

In its official Save A Lot 2025 Business and Social Impact Report published on May 28, 2026, the company reported operating approximately 650 stores in 29 states. However, an earlier report published in January 2025, reveals the discount chain owned around 750 stores across 32 states.

The numbers reveal that in a span of only 16 months, the discount retailer has completely transformed its retail footprint, shedding roughly 100 stores.

Meanwhile, Chump took the crazy for a walk. Kevin Breuninger (CNBC) reports:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday resurrected his push for the U.S. to acquire Greenland, and suggested the U.S. could pull all of its armed services members out of Europe in response to the Continent's continued pushback on the issue.

The island territory "should be controlled by the United States," Trump said shortly after he arrived in Ankara, Turkey, for a NATO summit.

The 32-member alliance — which includes Denmark, of which Greenland is a part — fell into a crisis in January, as Trump demanded that the U.S. must take control of the island territory on national security grounds.

This comes a little over a day and a half after Michael Luciano (MEDIAITE) reported:

A stunning report in The Wall Street Journal described a marathon meeting of U.S. European allies who had come to view the country as a security risk under President Donald Trump.

Citing national security, Trump has repeatedly insisted that the U.S. must acquire Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory in the North Atlantic and Arctic Circle. The U.S. already maintains one military base on the island and, under an agreement, may increase its military presence there. However, Trump has indicated he wants Greenland to become a U.S. territory.

On Jan. 3, the U.S. military raided Venezuela and abducted then-President Nicolas Maduro before bringing him to the U.S. to face drug trafficking charges. Shortly after the raid, Trump reiterated his desire for Greenland. So concerned were U.S. allies in Europe, they met to discuss how to approach the president, according to a report published by the Journal on Sunday.

The leaders met at the European Council headquarters in Brussels. Cameras and phones were not allowed, and each head of government had been told to come alone. French President Emmanuel Macron was blunt in his assessment. He had just deployed French soldiers to Greenland to participate in Denmark’s Operation Arctic Endurance, in which Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden also participated. The Journal reported that the forces there – or at least the French and Danish ones – were prepared for a hot war with the U.S. Around the five-hour mark of the meeting, Macron addressed his counterparts:

“We are drawing a line here,” began Emmanuel Macron, president of France, according to several leaders present and their most senior aides. For a year, America’s closest allies had tried to placate Trump with a mix of flattery and concessions on mutual-defense and trade issues, hoping to buy time. Now, French soldiers were in Greenland, alongside Danish special forces equipped for a shooting war with America. The French president repeated an argument he’d been pressing for years, with mounting urgency: that Europe’s overreliance on America was a security risk. “There is no going back,” he said.

The report highlighted that European nations are accelerating their divestment from U.S. technology.

Donald Chump is a deranged and demented threat to the world. The United States and France should never be on the verge of war. They are one of this country's strongest allies

And that bond didn't start yesterday. As America celebrates its 250th year, it worth noting that France was a critical ally during the Revolutionary War.

You don't try to shake a mutual bond like that. Unless you're suffering from dementia like Donald Chump is.

Chump went to Turkey yesterday. From ALL THINGS CONSIDERED (NPR):

SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

NATO leaders, including President Trump, arrived in Turkey's capital, Ankara, today. Most European and other allies are spending more on defense and expanding their military capabilities, but President Trump's increasingly confrontational approach toward many NATO countries has forced a debate into the open - how NATO projects unity despite uncertainty about the U.S.'s commitment to the alliance. NPR's Hadeel Al-Shalchi reports from Ankara.

HADEEL AL-SHALCHI, BYLINE: At this year's summit in Ankara, there was one arrival everyone was bracing for.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: (Speaking Turkish).

UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: (Yelling, inaudible).

(SOUNDBITE OF MILITARY BAND MUSIC)

AL-SHALCHI: President Trump opened his visit with a few words of Turkish.

(SOUNDBITE OF FIGHTER JETS PASSING OVERHEAD)

AL-SHALCHI: He's the only leader who got the full ceremonial welcome, a flyover, a military band and a personal greeting from host President Erdogan. And as anticipated, it didn't take long before he showed his disquiet to his NATO alliance partners.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

TRUMP: I was very disappointed with NATO. And frankly, if it weren't held in Turkey, where my friend happens to be a very strong leader, a very strong person, it's possible that I wouldn't have attended.

AL-SHALCHI: Trump has long argued that NATO allies rely too heavily on the U.S. He says Europe isn't doing enough to help in his war in Iran. Allies have been reluctant to take part in efforts to secure shipping through the Strait of Hormuz or provide military support to the U.S.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

TRUMP: Italy turned us down. And Germany turned us down, and France turned us down. And it's OK. But, you know, why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars and they're not there for us? We've always been there for them.

Jared Malsin and Robbie Gramer (WALL STREET JOURNAL) report:

President Trump said Tuesday that he would consider selling the F-35 jet fighter to Turkey, signaling his embrace of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and setting up a potential showdown with U.S. lawmakers who have long opposed such a deal.

Trump spoke alongside Erdogan at the presidential complex in the Turkish capital, where he landed on Tuesday for a summit of the leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

“We have a better relationship with Turkey, and Turkey has been in many ways much more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal,” Trump said when asked about the program by reporters.

“So yeah, it’s something certainly we’d consider. It’s a great plane. It’s the best, currently the best plane by far, and certainly something we will consider,” he said.

The U.S. and Turkey have been stuck in a yearslong diplomatic impasse over weapons sales since Erdogan in 2017 approved Turkey’s import of a Russian air-defense system called the S-400. The move triggered American sanctions, and the first Trump administration removed Turkey from the F-35 fighter program in response.

Really? That's what we say? About 2017? It was in May 16, 2017, when Chump was in the White House, that Erdogan's security thugs attacked peaceful protesters outside the Turkish embassy in D.C. Did we all forget that?

Ishan Jain (MEAWW) notes, "President Donald Trump said that he would not have attended the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara for most world leaders, but that a personal appeal from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan changed his mind, offering one of his warmest recent endorsements of any foreign leader as he heads into a summit where he has clashed with several European allies."

Let's go to WIKIPEDIA for what happened May 16, 2017

The clashes were decried as a Turkish attack on American protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly.^[5]^[6] Turkey declined to apologize for the incident, blaming the protestors for provoking the response.

Of the 24 men who were filmed attacking protesters, nearly a month passed before any were charged with a crime.^[7] However, on June 6, a U.S. House resolution unanimously passed calling for all Turkish security guards involved to be charged and prosecuted under United States law.^[8] On June 14, two men were arrested for assault in connection to the attacks, while arrest warrants were issued for the bodyguards.^[9] The charges were dropped in March 2018, days before high level meetings between US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Erdoğan.^[10]

[. . .]

United States

Immediately following the events, U.S. lawmakers condemned Turkey's actions during the clashes. Republican Senator John McCain called for the expulsion of the Turkish ambassador.^[20] Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill agreed, saying "They were assaulting these people on US soil. Turkish Ambassador should be kicked out of country."^[20] A group of nearly 30 Democratic lawmakers, led by Representative Carolyn Maloney, wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson demanding that the Turkish guards be "arrested, prosecuted and jailed."^[21] Tillerson said that he was going to wait for the findings from a State Department investigation before taking any action.^[22] Peter Newsham, the Chief of the Metropolitan police announced that nine people had to be taken to hospital due to the clashes.^[12]

On May 18, Under Secretary of State Tom Shannon summoned Turkish Ambassador Serdar Kılıç after the events.

Washington, D.C.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser called the clashes a "violent attack on a peaceful demonstration," and said it "is an affront to DC values and our rights as Americans."^[23]

On May 17, the D.C. Police Department announced that two individuals had been arrested in connection with the clashes,^[12] and stated "The actions seen outside the Turkish Embassy yesterday in Washington, D.C. stand in contrast to the First Amendment rights and principles we work tirelessly to protect each and every day." The department announced further cooperation with the United States State Department and United States Secret Service "to identify and hold all subjects accountable for their involvement in the altercation."^[23]

[. . .]

On June 6, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives called for the members of the security detail who were involved in the melee to be brought to justice.^[27] The resolution, which passed in a unanimous 397–0 vote, called for "any Turkish security official who directed or participated in efforts by Turkish security forces to suppress peaceful protests outside of the Turkish ambassador's residence" to be charged and prosecuted under U.S. law.^[8] The measure was similar to a Senate demand to waive diplomatic immunity for security forces involved in the assault.^[27]

Congressman Steny Hoyer called the incident an outrage that the U.S. cannot tolerate.^[27] Congressman Ed Royce called the violence an "act of suppression on American soil".^[27] Speaker of the House Paul Ryan called for the Turkish government to "finally accept responsibility for this egregious incident and apologise to those who were harmed".^[8]

The day following the vote, Turkey dismissed the resolution saying that it would "distort and politicize" matters and that the measure was "against the spirit of alliance and partnership" between the two countries.^[28]

[. . .]

Arrests and warrants

On June 14, 2017, two men, Sinan Narin of Virginia and Eyup Yildirim of New Jersey, were arrested for aggravated assault in connection to the clashes.^[9]

On June 15, the United States issued 16 arrest warrants, 12 of which were for presidential security guards involved in the clashes. President Erdoğan criticized the United States for issuing the arrest warrants, saying "They have issued arrest warrants for 12 of my bodyguards. What kind of law is this? If my bodyguards cannot protect me then why am I bringing them to America with me?". Erdoğan also claimed that D.C. police failed to intervene during the clashes.^[30] Turkey summoned Ambassador John R. Bass and stated that Turkish citizens cannot be held responsible for the clashes since U.S. and local security authorities failed to take the proper measures during Erdoğan's state visit.^[31]

In August 2017, a grand jury indicted 19 defendants in connection with the clashes. The 19 defendants included the 16 individuals criminally charged in June. Fifteen of the defendants are Turkish security officials. All the defendants were indicted on a charge of conspiracy to commit a crime of violence. Additionally, many of the defendants were indicted on charges such as assault with a dangerous weapon and aggravated assault.^[32]

September phone call between Erdoğan and Trump

In a PBS NewsHour interview with Judy Woodruff on September 19, 2017, Erdoğan said that Trump had called him the previous week to apologize for the incident, and promised to follow up on it during future talks with the Turkish government.^[33] A spokesperson for the White House said that while many issues were discussed during the call, Trump had not offered an apology.^[34]^[33]

That's who Chump is making nice with now. Who he's calling a friend. Erodgan. The man who has been either the prime minister of Turkey or the country's president for the last 23 years. He's not a leader, he's a dictator and Chump loves him for it.

He is in Turkey, cozying up to Erdogan while threatening to take Greenland.

Equally as disgusting as Chump is Graham Platner -- the hopefully soon to be former US senate candidate out of Maine.

When Platner’s questionable treatment of women first surfaced, he hardly needed to defend himself because other people were happy to do it for him. It wasn’t just that his fans dismissed these accusations, but that they had nothing but contempt for the people who did worry about them. In fact, when he clinched the Democratic nomination in the June 9 primary, his fans doubled down. Journalist Ken Klippenstein called it the end of “smoothgroin” politics, comparing certain politicians to real-life Ken dolls. “People are done with the clean-cut types who’ve harbored ambitions for political office since they were on high school student council and have lived every waking moment accordingly,” he wrote, and went on to describe politicians he thought fit that mold. “In the real world, it seems everyone and anyone can have dark present and past,” he wrote.

Matt Stoller, the anti-monopoly journalist, declared it the end of “Dem HR lady politics.” After some backlash, he tried to claim he was making the case against “authoritarian corporate officers.” But it was hard not to envision what he meant in his first post. You can make any case against corporations you want, but the fact is that in most workplaces sexual harassment claims are handled by H.R. offices—often populated by middle-class women, by the way—and to the extent they still exist, most of us encounter H.R. officers as the person who makes sure you get your vacation time and sign up for your health insurance and 401(k). Stoller wants us to believe that lurking behind H.R. is a corporate machine that protects itself from liability by being unfair to men. (The #MeToo movement showed how wrong that is because it took outrageously horrendous examples of sexual assault to bring down powerful men—and even then many of them got a second or even third chance.)

For some of Platner’s male supporters, or perhaps many of them, his violent edge was always part of his appeal. He seemed like he could punch someone, and people are angry and want a fighter. But that is not what it means to be working-class—and working-class voters in Maine apparently sensed that Platner was a phony. While it’s still early in this midterm election year, with most voters still tuned out, a recent New York Times poll showed that Collins led him by 30 points among white men without college degrees. She’s a known quantity in the state with a lot of name recognition, and a newcomer like Platner had some campaign work to do. But most of his support was coming from those with bachelor’s degrees, 66 percent of whom backed him over Collins.

That may seem surprising given how Platner portrayed himself on the campaign trail. But it’s less surprising when you consider that his loudest supporters online were that same demographic. They, at least, were fooled: To lefty college graduates who pay close attention to politics no matter the month or year, Platner did indeed appear authentically middle-class—or at least close enough not to question it, given that he adopted all of the progressive positions that this online cohort supports. Perhaps Platner’s press photo was modeled on a romance novel, after all, because these people swooned over him.

But Potts is wrong to state it was just men. Michelle Goldberg was right there with the bros pimping Platner -- October 31st and May 8th being only two examples. She was not the only female fanboy of Platner.

Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:

Washington, D.C. — Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-09), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, sent a letter to White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought calling on him to rescind OMB’s proposed rule governing all federal grants and financial assistance.

In the letter, the top Democratic energy appropriators underscore how OMB’s proposed rule would politicize grants and loans made by the Department of Energy (DOE) and enable political appointees to terminate grants for virtually any reason they please, which will put critical energy projects on the chopping block and scare private investment away from projects that lower Americans’ costs. Moody’s recently warned that the proposed rule would be “credit negative for entities with high dependence on competitive federal funding because it would materially weaken the reliability of multi-year discretionary funding commitments.”

“We write to express our unequivocal and strong opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed changes to the rules governing the Federal grants system,” write Murray and Kaptur. “We urge immediate withdrawal of this proposed rule. This proposal represents dangerous executive overreach designed to usurp Congress’s constitutional power of the purse and replace objective, merit-based grantmaking with a system highly vulnerable to government corruption and political cronyism.”

“By allowing an Administration to arbitrarily terminate or withhold awarded grant funds based on shifting political whims, this proposed rule would freeze critical energy and water investments needed to lower everyday costs for Americans and improve affordability for working families,” they continue. “Furthermore, turning grant funding meant to support reliable Federal partnerships into a political ‘slush fund’ will drive away private capital, stifle domestic innovation, and severely undermine America’s global competitiveness—ceding our Nation’s technological leadership to foreign adversaries at the worst possible time.”

Murray and Kaptur underscore that the proposed changes will significantly impact DOE programs and undermine congressional intent.

“These concerns are particularly acute at the Department of Energy, which administers billions of dollars in grants, cooperative agreements, and formula funding enacted through annual appropriations acts and major energy-related statutes,” they write. “DOE award recipients often make long-term hiring, contracting, and investment decisions based on Federal awards. If recipients cannot rely on those awards being administered according to congressional intent, participation in DOE programs will decline and Congress’s objectives will be frustrated.”

The full letter is available HERE and below:

Dear Director Vought:

We write to express our unequivocal and strong opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed changes to the rules governing the Federal grants system as printed in the Federal Register on May 29, 2026 (91 FR 32198; “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance”). We urge immediate withdrawal of this proposed rule. This proposal represents dangerous executive overreach designed to usurp Congress’s constitutional power of the purse and replace objective, merit-based grantmaking with a system highly vulnerable to government corruption and political cronyism.

By allowing an Administration to arbitrarily terminate or withhold awarded grant funds based on shifting political whims, this proposed rule would freeze critical energy and water investments needed to lower everyday costs for Americans and improve affordability for working families. Furthermore, turning grant funding meant to support reliable Federal partnerships into a political “slush fund” will drive away private capital, stifle domestic innovation, and severely undermine America’s global competitiveness – ceding our Nation’s technological leadership to foreign adversaries at the worst possible time.

Under our constitutional system of government, Congress appropriates funds for specific purposes and directs agencies to carry out those programs consistent with statute. Appropriations laws are deliberately written to provide clear direction regarding how taxpayer funds are to be used and are intended to be administered according to law, not according to the political preferences of any particular Administration. The Federal grant process works because applicants can rely on the expectation that once Congress has enacted funding and established eligibility requirements, awards will be made and administered by the Executive Branch based on those statutory criteria as a matter of public law rather than shifting political considerations. For the system to work well and Federal grants to have the maximum impact possible, recipients must be able to trust that they will receive funds based on fair and transparent criteria and that their grants will not be ripped up suddenly because an Administration has a political disagreement.

The proposed rule would dismantle this system and breaks faith with the American people. It would provide agencies broad discretion to terminate, condition, or otherwise withhold grants and cooperative agreements based on ever-changing Executive Branch priorities rather than Congressional direction. The practical effect of this change would be to create uncertainty for States, local governments, universities, nonprofits, utilities, and private-sector entities considering whether to apply for Federal assistance. Organizations are far less likely to invest the time and resources required to pursue Federal funding if they believe an award can be terminated at any time for reasons unrelated to organizational integrity, program performance, or statutory requirements, and without required justification.

These concerns are particularly acute at the Department of Energy (DOE), which administers billions of dollars in grants, cooperative agreements, and formula funding enacted through annual appropriations acts and major energy-related statutes. DOE award recipients often make long-term hiring, contracting, and investment decisions based on Federal awards. If recipients cannot rely on those awards being administered according to congressional intent, participation in DOE programs will decline and Congress’s objectives will be frustrated.

The proposal raises serious concerns that agencies would violate the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Congress enacted the ICA to prevent the Executive Branch from unilaterally withholding appropriated funds. Yet OMB’s proposal appears designed to expand agencies’ ability to accomplish indirectly what they cannot do directly: prevent congressionally appropriated funds from reaching recipients through broad termination authorities and subjective policy-based conditions. Agencies should not be given tools that effectively allow them to substitute presidential priorities for enacted spending laws. DOE has previously been found to have withheld congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the ICA, as determined by a US Government Accountability Office legal decision issued in July 2025.

We are particularly concerned by OMB’s proposed revisions to Federal regulations codified in Section 200.340 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (2 C.F.R. §200.340), which significantly expand agencies’ ability to terminate Federal awards for just about any reason they like. OMB, under the current Administration, has repeatedly pointed to this provision to justify widespread politically motivated grant cancellations and funding freezes across the Federal Government. The proposed changes would further broaden this authority and make it easier for agencies to terminate awards based on vague and subjective policy considerations rather than clear statutory requirements. Such an approach undermines funding certainty, discourages participation in Federal programs, and weakens Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. Several courts have ruled DOE’s prior attempt to terminate projects on political grounds by targeting “blue” States, Cities, and Congressional Districts to be illegal and ordered Federal funding to be reinstated.

The proposed rule raises additional concerns about due process and fair competition in Federal funding allocation. Under current rules, DOE discretionary grants must be awarded through a merit-based competitive selection process unless a formal Determination for Noncompetitive Financial Assistance (DNFA) is provided. The proposed 2 C.F.R. §200.204 revision would carve out a “national interest” exception to public posting of funding opportunities on Grants.gov, effectively removing the requirement of formal justification for non-competitive award selections. Additionally, OMB’s proposed revisions to 2 C.F.R. §200.205 would require pre-issuance review of all discretionary awards by senior political appointees to ensure that awards advance the President’s policy priorities in line with Executive Order 14332. The insertion of such a political filter compromises the merit-based foundation of award selection.

The proposed rule would also drive-up costs for the businesses, investors, and startups that help build America’s energy future. These companies rely on Federal awards to secure financing, bring in private investment, and commit to projects that take years to complete. When the government can pull an award at any moment for political reasons, lenders and investors have no choice but to treat every dollar as if it could disappear. That makes capital more expensive, discourages private partners, and can leave high-quality, strategic energy projects unbuilt. The Federal award recipients that do move forward will have to track and comply with vague, shifting conditions – a burden that lands hardest on the small firms and new companies least able to afford it. The result is less private money behind every Federal dollar and fewer energy projects coming online, which ultimately means higher energy costs for American families.

Federal grants should not be transformed from effective vehicles for implementing laws enacted by Congress into mechanisms for advancing or withholding funding based on political preferences and priorities. The certainty, predictability, and technical, merit-based governance of Federal assistance programs is essential to ensuring that qualified applicants continue to seek Federal funding and carry out activities consistent with the laws enacted by Congress.

For these reasons, we urge OMB to withdraw the proposal.

Sincerely,

###