HOUSTON, May 27 (Reuters) — Exxon Mobil shareholders on Wednesday approved the company’s plan to redomicile in Texas, marking a win for the top U.S. oil producer after two leading proxy advisory firms advised investors to strike down the proposal. The oil producer is incorporated in New Jersey, but the company has been headquartered in Texas since 1989. It said moving its legal home to the state was logical and made more sense for the business. Other companies, including SpaceX, Tesla and Coinbase, have recently shifted operations to the Lone Star State. A Texas law passed last year enhanced legal protections for businesses in several ways, including reducing the threat of shareholder litigation by allowing companies to set stock ownership thresholds for lawsuits. Proxy advisory firms Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services had recommended that Exxon investors oppose the redomiciling, saying the move could erode shareholder rights. When it announced in March its plan to switch the state of incorporation from New Jersey to Texas, Exxon said it did not plan to raise its ownership thresholds for shareholder lawsuits and argued that Texas officials have a better understanding of its business.  “The Board believes Texas legislators, judges, and juries who might make decisions that impact Exxon Mobil are generally more familiar with our business and operations,” the company said in its proxy filing. The Texas proposal passed with 71.3% of votes in support, according to preliminary results from the annual meeting.  Investors also rejected a shareholder proposal to add more automatic voting options to the company’s retail investor voting program, handing Exxon another win. The oil producer introduced a unique voting mechanism last year to allow retail investors to automatically cast their votes in lockstep with the board’s recommendations at annual meetings. The shareholder proposal requested the program be modified to add more options, including a way to automatically vote against Exxon management’s stances. It received 23.5% of votes in support.  (Reporting by Sheila Dang in Houston and Arunima Kumar in Bengaluru; Editing by Joyjeet Das, Nathan Crooks, Rod Nickel and Nia Williams)

United States and Iranian negotiators have reportedly reached a settlement to extend the current ceasefire by 60 days. Axios first reported Thursday that White House officials confirmed a ceasefire agreement that would also launch a new round of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear facilities, including addressing its stockpile of enriched uranium. The deal is awaiting President Donald Trump’s approval. “The agreement would see the US drop its blockade on Iranian ports in exchange for a return to ‘unrestricted’ shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the White House,” the New York Post reported. The U.S. claimed that Iran violated the current ceasefire agreement on Thursday morning by firing a ballistic missile at Kuwait. “This egregious ceasefire violation by the Iranian regime occurred hours after Iranian forces launched five one-way attack drones that posed a clear threat in and near the Strait of Hormuz,” CENTCOM posted on X Thursday morning. This story is developing and may be updated. Reuters contributed to this report.

“House Democrats oppose a bill for a Smithsonian women’s history museum.” This is not a sentence I ever expected to read. Aren’t Democrats supposed to be the feminists? The champions of inclusion? The self-appointed defenders of the “disadvantaged?” And on top of that, they are the ones who pushed for the Women’s Museum to begin with. Last week, the House voted on H.R. 1329, legislation concerning the establishment of the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum. Despite the Office of Management and Budget’s statement of support for the bill, it failed to pass the vote. Initially introduced by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., the bill later became the subject of controversy after Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., added language clarifying that the museum would recognize biological women in its exhibits. Apparently, complying with the actual definition of a woman makes you “far-right”; at least that is what a quick online search of Mary Miller will tell you. Once Miller’s amendment was adopted, many Democrats who had previously supported the bill suddenly withdrew support—an unsurprising choice given the Left’s agenda. An American Women’s History Museum was acceptable only so long as the definition of “woman” itself remained, well … undefined. In the final 204-216 vote last week, several brave Republicans actually joined the Democrats to vote against the bill. But this was because they rightly don’t see the need for a women’s history museum at all. Probably because they understand what so many don’t: The Smithsonian doesn’t care about everyday women who are mothers and professionals and students who contribute to this country. Instead, they emphasize the oppressed/oppressor blueprint promoted by the Left. Race, immigration, sexuality, and discrimination are all legitimate subjects of historical discussion. The problem comes when they cease to be mere components of history and instead become the predominant framework through which all history is interpreted. The Smithsonian already does this consistently. The National Museum of American History—which will likely shed many of its women’s history didactics and displays for the Women’s museum—is perhaps the very worst example of this. For example, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History already frames portions of women’s history through explicitly modern identity politics and gender ideology. One athletics exhibit features “Lia” Thomas and asks visitors, “Do transgender athletes upset the competitive balance?” Another panel praises actress Charlotte Cushman, who portrayed male roles in the mid-19th century and is celebrated for having “flouted traditional gender roles” while living among a circle of so-called “female bachelors.” Elsewhere in the exhibit, an entire wall is dominated by a projected image of a drag queen accompanied by the phrase, “And may the best drag queen win.” Additional displays emphasize themes such as sexual independence from men, feminism, cross-dressing, and sexual freedom. Increasingly, women are presented less through their contributions to a shared American story—as mothers, builders of communities, educators, reformers, artists, professionals, and citizens—and more through stories centered on sexuality, identity, and resistance to traditional social norms. In a post explaining his decision to vote against the bill, Rep Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., said, “Without clear statutory guardrails to protect against radical left-wing ideology being injected into American/women’s history at the Smithsonian, this new museum is set to provide a permanent venue on our National Mall for pro-abortion and LGBT ideology.” The debate over H.R. 1329 was never simply about celebrating women’s history. It was about whether or not the Left could put a chokehold on yet another institution telling the American story. And that distinction matters because the Smithsonian has demonstrated, repeatedly, which side it takes. In short, the National Women’s History Museum should not exist in the first place. And it doesn’t, yet. It was authorized by Congress in the 2020 omnibus bill, but Congress hasn’t designated a site yet. In the unfortunate case that it is built, it will merely become another battleground for gender ideology and the many other falsehoods of the woke agenda. But the achievements of American women are not separate from the American story; they are inseparable from it. Their history should remain integrated within the broader American narrative rather than isolated into another ideological silo. As Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., commented, “We say we need to unite this country, but then we isolate every group.” He is correct. At the 250th anniversary, now is not the time to endlessly subdivide citizens into competing demographic categories, each encouraged to view itself primarily through grievance, identity, and difference, as the Left so encourages. Rather, it is time to put an end to it—and that starts with the end of the Smithsonian’s National Women’s History Museum.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are now locked in a virtual dead heat in a hypothetical 2028 GOP presidential primary matchup, according to a new poll from Emerson College Polling. The poll, which shows Rubio gaining ground since February in the hypothetical matchup, comes as Vance denies a report that he has become “isolated” in the White House and is considering not running in 2028. Neck-and-Neck in the Polls In the survey, Vance earned 36% support and Rubio 35% among Republican primary voters. Lagging far behind are Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley at around 5%. About 15% of voters are undecided. Both DeSantis and Haley were GOP presidential candidates in 2024, and Haley served as Trump’s UN ambassador during the president’s first term. The numbers show an age gap among GOP voters. Voters under 50 favor Vance 37% to 26%, while older voters favor Rubio 41% to 35%. Support has “shifted significantly” in Rubio’s direction, according to Spencer Kimball, Emerson College Polling’s executive director. In a February poll, Vance had 52% support to Rubio’s 20%. “The potential 2028 contenders now compete evenly,” Kimball said. Rubio Backs Vance, Considers Current Job His Career Apex While a Vance-Rubio battle to succeed Donald Trump would be a matchup of heavyweight contenders, there might not be a fight. The secretary of state has stated his support for a potential Vance candidacy. “I think JD Vance would be a great nominee if he decides he wants to do that,” Rubio told Lara Trump of Fox News in July 2025. “I think he’s doing a great job as vice president. He’s a close friend and I hope he intends to do it.” In a December 2025 interview with Vanity Fair, Rubio said, “If JD Vance runs for President, he’s going to be our nominee, and I’ll be one of the first people to support him.” Rubio, in a May interview with NBC News, said of a potential Vance candidacy, “I’ll be the first person to sign up and support him. I think JD would do great.” Vance Rejects Daily Mail Story He’s Thinking of Not Running Vance’s team is rejecting a claim made this week by The Daily Mail that the vice president is considering abandoning a run for the presidency in 2028. Citing unnamed sources, The Daily Mail alleged that Vance has become “more isolated than ever” in the West Wing, particularly with the upcoming departure of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Both are considered noninterventionists in foreign policy, which the Daily Mail source claims irritates Trump. ‘The president has made it very clear in recent months that he doesn’t abide by this strong, silent Gary Cooper style approach to foreign policy,’ a White House insider told The Daily Mail. ‘He’s loud, he’s active. These guys prefer to speak softly and carry a big stick, but Trump speaks loudly and carries a massive cannon,’ the source added.’ A Vance spokesman immediately shot down the story, saying it’s “just a flimsy compilation of completely illegitimate sources who have no idea what they’re talking about.” Vance himself has said he won’t make a decision about 2028 until the birth of his fourth child in July, according to The Washington Post. Still, the vice president was in Iowa earlier this month—the traditional starting line for presidential bids—where he was introduced by the GOP county chair as the “next president of the United States.” Meanwhile, the current president weighed in on the 2028 race during a Rose Garden event May 11. After polling the crowd on who they preferred, Vance or Rubio, Trump once again described the pair as a 2028 “Dream Team.” Last year, he described Vance and Rubio as “a perfect ticket” and “unstoppable.”

Ahead of the November general election, Democrat Texas state Rep. and candidate for the U.S. Senate James Talarico is distancing himself from some of the “cringey” comments he has made. “There are some statements that I’ve made that I certainly regret. There are statements that I’ve made where I’ve missed the mark. I’ll be the first to admit that,” Talarico said during a CBS interview on Wednesday. “But Ken Paxton is intentionally clipping my cringey comments to distract from his career of corruption.” A new ad from Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is now running for Senate against Talarico, shows the Democrat saying that there are “six biological sexes,” “the American flag is a complicated issue,” that he “loves trans-children,” that the “Southern border should be like our front porch, there should be a giant welcome mat out front,” and that it is existential that Americans should try to reduce their meat consumption. “I am proud to say that our campaign has now become a non-meat campaign.” NEW AD: James Talarico is a threat to everything we hold dear.  This is Texas, and we will fight to protect it. pic.twitter.com/7bI9jti6Gz— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) May 27, 2026 During Paxton’s speech after obtaining his party’s nomination on Tuesday, the attorney general referred to Talarico as “Talafreako,” “Tofu Talarico,” and “Low T Talarico.” Talarico responded to the criticism, telling CBS that he now backtracks on some of those comments. “I know there are two sexes, men and women. I also know there’s a very small percentage of people who have these chromosomal abnormalities, and I believe they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect,” Talarico said. As seen in a resurfaced video, Talarico once claimed that “God is nonbinary,” which is now being challenged by conservative and Christian voices on social media. He would later double down on those remarks, saying if people had a problem with what he said, “Take it up with St. Paul.” Tony Kinnett, host of The Daily Signal’s Tony Kinnett Cast, challenged Talarico’s remarks about God and Paul, claiming that the Democrat misinterpreted Scripture. “Paul repeatedly refers to the Lord God in the Koine Greek as πατήρ (patēr), meaning ‘father,’ and ὁ θεός (ho Theos), which is grammatically masculine,” Kinnett wrote on X. Paul repeatedly refers to the Lord God in the Koine Greek as πατήρ (patēr), meaning "father," and ὁ θεός (ho Theos), which is grammatically masculine.In short, James Talarico is illiterate & a fraud. https://t.co/ix05o3ZH4Y— Tony Kinnett (@TheTonus) May 27, 2026 President of The Heritage Foundation Kevin Roberts also disagreed with Talarico’s assessment. “Ironically, the verse he and other progressives often use to argue that sex is fluid actually proves the opposite,” Roberts wrote on X. “Paul lists three binaries in Galatians 3:28—including male and female—and explains that salvation is equally available to all despite these real, unchangeable distinctions.” Talarico’s remarks come after he called on the voters of Sen. John Cornyn, who lost his primary race on Tuesday against Paxton, to rally behind him instead of the attorney general in November. “You have a place in our campaign,” Talarico wrote on X. Talarico has raised $40 million and has welcomed endorsements from progressive Democrat politicians and groups, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Houston LGBTQ+ Caucus, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.