Last month, the Northshore School Board voted to remove the only armed officer from our campus at Bothell High School in Washington, Officer Garrett Ware. The district’s own evaluation recommended keeping the Student Resource Officer (SRO) program. Our principal recommended keeping it. Students, parents, and teachers packed the meeting room and begged them to keep it. Four members of the school board voted to terminate the program anyway. By doing so, they deliberately ignored the will of the students at our school and stripped our campus of a sense of safety and continuity that cannot be replaced. We became another familiar story: our common sense voices were ignored in favor of a political agenda that prioritizes “equity” over the safety of the students the Board is supposed to serve. When students first learned that the Board was planning to cut funding for our SRO program, we were shocked and devastated. Officer Ware has served as our School Resource Officer since 2017. His presence on our campus is simply irreplaceable. Officer Ware does more than just protect us physically — his involvement in student life boosts morale, promotes positive behavior, and cultivates a community spirit like no other. He has been a mentor and friend to countless students over the years. He has helped students successfully navigate difficult high school years, from social anxiety to drugs and alcohol. Importantly, his presence on campus taught students to trust and respect police officers who are there to help when things go wrong. They went wrong just days ago, when a student brought a kitchen knife to campus. One building was evacuated. We were in lockdown for nearly an hour. Officer Ware responded immediately and handled the situation. Next fall, he’ll be replaced by an unarmed campus supervisor. I’d like the four board members who voted to end this program to explain to me — and to every student who was sitting in a locked classroom that afternoon — how that’s an improvement. Our shock quickly turned into action. We started a petition on Change.org that quickly amassed over 4,000 signatures from students, parents, and staff across the community. People shared their own touching personal stories about Officer Ware in the comments. We showed up to the school board meeting, where dozens of us shared personal stories about Officer Ware and what his presence means to our school. The board voted to terminate the program anyway. Their stated reason? The program needed to be more “equitable” and that it made some students “uncomfortable.” They offered no evidence for either claim. A student survey showed overwhelming support for Officer Ware. Students from all walks of life, including members of the Black Student Union, came out to support him. The board members were offered a chance to shadow Officer Ware to witness firsthand his positive presence on our campus — they declined. After the vote, we organized a walkout. Several hundred students left class and marched a mile from Bothell High to City Hall, chanting “We want Ware” and “Vote them out.” No outside groups pushed us to do it. No adults organized it. It was entirely student-led because this has been a student issue from the beginning. People may think our generation is civically apathetic and lazy, but we’re just getting started. We gave the four school board members a deadline of June 1 to defend their votes with facts and data or resign. They once again ignored us. I’m a senior. I’m graduating in a few weeks and this decision won’t affect me personally. But it will affect my younger classmates and every student who walks through those doors after them. As one of my classmates’ protest signs read: Our safety is more important than their politics. The school board may not be listening, but our community is. Board members are elected. If they won’t revisit this decision, our community will hold them accountable at the ballot box. *** Brady Minneman is a senior at Bothell High School.

While President Donald Trump lost his sweeping tariffs after the Supreme Court ruled against his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on Tuesday that tariffs are far from over. “What we are doing now is we have investigations ongoing in my office and we are investigating specific unfair trading practices,” Greer told CNBC. “You will see over the next few weeks, we will be releasing our findings. We are covering a lot of countries, over 70 countries. If we find unfair trading practices — structural excess capacity, forced labor, things like this — we will put out proposals on how we think we should fix it and that may be proposed tariffs.”  Trump initially relied on IEEPA because it allowed him to impose broad tariffs quickly without the lengthy investigative processes required under traditional trade laws. “When the president used his emergency authority he was able to move very quickly to get at this issue, get a lot of leverage, and impose tariffs,” Greer explained. After the Supreme Court blocked Trump’s use of IEEPA earlier this year, the administration turned to Section 122 and implemented a temporary 10% tariff on February 24. But unlike the tariffs announced on “Liberation Day” in April 2025, Section 122 tariffs are temporary by law and were later struck down by the U.S. Court of International Trade. With those options curtailed, the administration has shifted its focus to Sections 301 and 232: the two principal trade authorities that require the involvement of Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Greer said the results of his Section 301 investigations would be released in the coming weeks, which could introduce new tariffs across the world. Under Section 301, the Office of the United States Trade Representative investigates whether foreign countries are engaging in unfair trade practices, gathers evidence, solicits public comments, and holds hearings before recommending tariffs or other trade restrictions.  That is the same authority Trump used to impose tariffs on China during his first term. Those tariffs survived legal challenges, but investigations typically take between three and nine months to complete, making them slower and less useful as an immediate negotiating tool than emergency tariff authorities. Lutnick, like Greer, can also launch investigations, not into unfair trade practices, but into industries that are crucial to national security. Unlike Greer’s Section 301 investigations, which focus on unfair trade practices, Lutnick’s Section 232 investigations examine whether imports threaten industries deemed critical to national security. Those investigations allowed Trump to impose tariffs if the Commerce Department determines that a strategic industry is vulnerable because of import dependence.  The department began launching Section 232 investigations just weeks after Trump returned to office. Global Trade Alert observed that Section 232 “had never stopped expanding” and noted that the administration had launched, relaunched, or expanded roughly 20 actions from the section before the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, suggesting the White House was already building alternative pathways for trade restrictions. The pathway no longer available is Trump’s ability to wield tariffs during negotiations. In January, he threatened to impose tariffs on countries that do business with Iran, citing the country’s repression of protesters, support for proxy terrorist groups, and continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities. In negotiations with China, Trump warned that tariffs would increase if China continued withholding rare earth minerals from the United States. Rare earth minerals are vital for products ranging from household appliances and automobiles to semiconductors for artificial intelligence chips. The delay in collecting additional tariff revenue could raise budget concerns, with Trump repeatedly claiming that tariffs would help fund the extension of his 2017 tax cuts in the “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Former reality star Spencer Pratt (MTV’s “The Hills”) raised eyebrows when he threw his hat in the ring to run for mayor of Los Angeles — but soon, Pratt may not be the only one. Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino, who popularized the errands trifecta known as “GTL” (Gym, Tan, Laundry) on MTV’s “Jersey Shore,” said recently that he was thinking about a future run for governor in the Garden State. Sorrentino has had his share of ups and downs since finding fame on the popular reality show, but has since parlayed his own previous struggles with addiction into a drug and alcohol rehab center called Archangels. At a recent launch party for VUE magazine in Wall Township, the former MTV star said that he planned to move into politics after he’d opened an Archangels Center in each of the 50 states.   “I’d like to have an Archangels Center in every 50 states [sic], and after that, you know, I will introduce everybody to Governor Situation,” he explained. He did not immediately give a party affiliation — but did offer a major hint in the form of a policy he might support: “I can’t announce it yet but I think the residents of New Jersey would like no property tax.” New Jersey currently has the highest median property tax in the United States — meaning that residents pay more to own property in the Garden State than they would anywhere else in the country. Illinois ranks second, and Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont round out the top five. Sorrentino may be preparing to follow Pratt’s road map and capitalize on the failures of previous leadership — which, in New Jersey, might simply mean finding a way to provide meaningful relief from the high property tax rates. Pratt used that strategy to great effect, pressing incumbent Mayor Karen Bass on her handling of the deadly Palisades fire (in which Pratt lost his own home as well as his parent’s home) and the homelessness crisis and rampant drug use in Los Angeles. With 62% of the votes counted as of Thursday afternoon, Pratt is holding steady at second place in California’s jungle primary. If he remains in second place, he will head into a November runoff against Bass, who has already secured the top spot in the primary.

Drag queen and environmental activist Pattie Gonia, whose real name is Wyn Wiley, rejected Patagonia’s offer to settle a lawsuit, claiming on social media that the outdoor clothing brand is “trying to erase my advocacy.” Patagonia posted an offer on Instagram in an attempt to resolve its trademark infringement lawsuit against Wiley on June 1. The company requested him to “Withdraw all trademark applications … Stop using our logos … Stop selling and promoting apparel and other products as Pattie Gonia.”  “If we can agree on this, we can work out everything else, and Pattie Gonia could continue as a performer and activist,” Patagonia said. In response, Wiley posted his rejection of the offer, writing, “If I can’t do partnerships as Pattie Gonia, it breaks the whole ecosystem of advocacy and community engagement.”  The public response to these Instagram posts has sparked highly polarized discussions and protests. In the comments section, many LGBTQ advocates and fans of Pattie Gonia accuse Patagonia of homophobia and bullying while vowing never to buy from the brand again.  Prior to the lawsuit, Hydro Flask and Patagonia communicated via email in 2022 to ensure there was no customer confusion for an upcoming collaboration between Hydro Flask and Pattie Gonia. They made an agreement that he would refrain from using Patagonia’s logo, iconic Belwe font, or the name Pattie Gonia on any products. Wiley’s 2025 merch drop, however, featured apparel with the phrase “Pattie Gonia Hiking Club” and stickers with a strikingly similar mountain logo and font.  Patagonia responded in an email to Wiley over the apparent breach. “Patagonia remains supportive of your work but must insist that the Pattie Gonia persona not be commercialized and continue to adhere to the commitments made in 2022,” the company said. “Unfortunately, these latest product sales force Patagonia’s hand and so I’m asking that you discontinue sales of t-shirts and stickers (or any product) using Pattie Gonia branding or designs substantially similar to Patagonia’s logos.” Patagonia’s lawsuit, which was previously reported by The Daily Wire, was filed on January 21 in response to Wiley’s trademark application for the rights to the Pattie Gonia brand.  “This matter is not about seeking financial gain, nor is it about challenging anyone’s identity or right to advocacy, protest, or creative expression,” Patagonia said in a recent press release. “The last thing we wanted was a legal fight with someone who shares our values, but we must protect our business and employees.” 

The State of California takes longer than anywhere else count votes thanks to its prioritization of inclusivity over speed in elections.  California has the largest population of registered voters in America, totaling around 23.2 million, and it makes it as easy as possible for them all to vote, at the expense of timely counting.  California passed legislation in 2021 to send mail-in ballots to each registered voter in a push for making voting accessible to all Californians. “Our priority is trying to maximize participation of actively registered voters,” said Democratic Assemblymember Marc Berman, who wrote the bill. “What that means is things are a little slower. But in a society that wants immediate gratification, I think our democracy is worth taking a little time to get it right and to create a system where everyone can participate.” Mail ballots are notorious for slowing down elections, as each ballot needs to be individually opened and each requires extra validation steps. Although California allows absentee ballots to start to be processed 29 days before Election Day, California law accepts mail-in ballots up to seven days after Election Day if they are postmarked or timestamped before or on the day of the election. It can take a whole week for the state to determine how many ballots have been cast in the first place. California does require ID to register to vote, but it does not require any identification when voting in-person or absentee. Instead of using ID, California election officials compare the ballot’s signature to one on file, which is a process that can take much longer than using an ID. Many of the ballots have errors, which can draw out the election as voters fix their mistakes. Ballot curing is the process of correcting errors in a ballot. California is one of 24 states that both allow for ballot curing and allow for curing after election day.  While most states require that the ballot be cured within a week after election Day, California allows voters to wait until two days before election certification to fix their ballots, which could be weeks after election day. California’s lengthy election process can be seen with the highly-contested Los Angeles mayoral race, with only 63% of the vote counted by the day after the election. The results of the race are not expected to be confirmed for days, if not weeks.