Her future involvement in the Met Gala is not yet clear

'Enhanced detection and monitoring'

'Ready to celebrate the love story of our friends'

'We are doubling down hard'

This is a pretty cool story

At a recent Senate hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said something I never thought I’d hear from a top federal health official: “I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me.” That wasn’t a dodge. That was honesty. And, frankly, it’s a breath of fresh air. For too long, health […]

'They would have supported Trump'

News Street Fighter 50 Cent Is Ready to Punch Up in Street Fighter Adaptation The Legendary movie has an impressive roster in the making. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on June 26, 2025 Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson photo by Senior Airman Nia Jacobs, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons; Balrog drawing courtesy of Capcom Comment 0 Share New Share Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson photo by Senior Airman Nia Jacobs, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons; Balrog drawing courtesy of Capcom We already knew a lot of actors on the call sheet for Street Fighter, including Jason Momoa as Blanka, Andrew Koji (Warrior) as lead character, Ryu, WWE powerhouse Roman Reign as Akuma, Noah Centino as Ken, Callina Liang (Presence) as Chun-Li, and country singer Orville Peck as Vega. Today, The Hollywood Reporter broke the news that Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson will also be in the film as Balrog, a character loosely based on Mike Tyson who the trade describes as “a disgraced boxer who is also the bodyguard of the villain.” Jackson, who is a Grammy-award winner and also behind several projects including the Power series at Starz, is reportedly already in training for the part and plans to do his own stunts. Plot details for the film remain unknown, though I bet a quarter that there will be a lot of fighting, with at least some of it occurring in the street. The adaptation of the Capcom video game, where myriad characters with numerous fighting skills (some of which are magical) fight each other in bloody battles around the world, has had a long road to production under different companies. But this project from Legendary, which has Kitao Sakuri (Twisted Metal) in the director’s chair, looks like the one that will finally make its way to the big screen. Production will begin in Australia this August, with a current premiere date of March 20, 2026.[end-mark] The post 50 Cent Is Ready to Punch Up in <i>Street Fighter</i> Adaptation appeared first on Reactor.

By striking Iran’s nuclear facilities and immediately getting a ceasefire in the Iran-Israel conflict, President Donald Trump was sending a message not just to the mullahs of Iran, but to China and our other potential rivals. The message Trump sent is this: Believe the president’s red lines. You don’t want to tangle with the United States or our allies. Make a deal, or there will be consequences. “The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant, showing the world that American deterrence is back,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Sunday. That’s right. As conservative commentator Ben Weingarten wrote on X, any assessment of Trump’s strike on Iranian nuclear facilities that doesn’t include its effect on China is “woefully incomplete.” Any analysis of America’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure (calling the mullahs’ bluff after giving them opportunity after opportunity to pocket massive gains) that ignores the deterrent message this sends to Communist China, and the coming impact to the PRC given its…— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) June 22, 2025 Trump is reinforcing U.S. deterrence that had been quickly losing ground under the previous administration. Under President Joe Biden, hollering loudly, scaring no one, and blathering pointlessly about “shared democratic values” seemed to be the primary and totally ineffectual modus operandi of the executive branch. Now, things are different. A report Thursday in Financial Times noted that Trump’s “dramatic intervention in the Iran-Israel war” is having an impact outside the Middle East and is “forcing rival China to reassess how the U.S. president might wield American military power in the event of a conflict in Asia.” The Financial Times reported that China must now consider “whether Trump will favor a more isolationist approach of disengagement from regional flashpoints during his second term—or whether he would be likely to intervene militarily if China used force to press its claim to sovereignty over Taiwan.” Even The New York Times acknowledged that Trump’s actions against Iran may make CCP leaders think twice about military action against Taiwan. And they should. Obviously, a confrontation with China presents a much higher risk for the U.S. than a still nonnuclear Iran. However, as mighty as China may have become, incurring the wrath of an American president willing to occasionally unleash the U.S. military likely poses an even bigger risk to China. And while there is certainly an argument to be made that America’s continual focus on the Middle East harms the long-term goal of pivoting to Asia (and that using up shallow stockpiles of expensive weaponry will make it harder for the U.S. in a confrontation with China if it comes to that), at the very least Trump’s actions demonstrate that the president is very much willing to use military strength when he thinks he must. Trump set a very bright, red line for Iran that he has remained consistent about since before he became president. He’s insisted that Iran will not get nuclear weapons under his watch. When Trump returned to the White House the administration put out a memo telegraphing that it intended to put maximum pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. When Trump ascertained that negotiations were going nowhere and that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons was getting close, he struck hard. Then, once the limited goal was accomplished, he quickly negotiated a ceasefire and ended the conflict. What’s interesting is that many commentators on the Left and Right are so surprised about Trump’s actions. Some have said that Trump’s strike was an example of his “unpredictability.” I don’t think that’s quite true. Trump was never an “isolationist,” that loaded word often unfairly thrown at skeptics of American interventionism. He isn’t a neoconservative looking to make the world safe for democracy, either. If Trump’s foreign policy can be defined as anything it would be “Jacksonian.” There’s a reason Old Hickory’s portrait has been a fixture in Trump’s Oval Office. A Jacksonian policy is defined first by restraint. The United States, the thinking goes, is not responsible for maintaining a “liberal democratic order” that was never particularly liberal, democratic, or orderly. Instead, U.S. policy through a Jacksonian lens is tightly constrained by narrow interests, primarily the safety of the American people. Trump focuses mostly on immediate U.S. concerns such as border enforcement, pushing hostile powers out of the Western Hemisphere, and keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terror-exporting states that have been calling the U.S. the “Great Satan” since 1979. Trump’s Jacksonian policy is far from pacifist. From time to time, he’s been willing to make a quick, overwhelming strike on a geopolitical foe. He’s also avoided “nation building” projects that have rightly left the American people cynical about U.S. military involvement anywhere in the world. In a basic sense, Trump upholds the foreign policy represented by the eagle on the seal of the United States. One set of talons holds an olive branch. The other, a quiver of arrows. The eagle faces the olive branch, indicating that we first desire peace with all nations, but we are prepared for war if threatened. The Trump administration from day one made a blitz to create peace and stability through his unique kind of transactional diplomacy. The president made it clear that he wanted to calm the multiple conflicts that had ramped up during Biden’s term in office. He helped mediate a growing conflict between India and Pakistan, two nuclear armed powers that appeared to be on the edge of large-scale war and even successfully applied pressure on Congo and Rwanda to end their long, terrible but often ignored war. President Trump had three major foreign policy victories this week, but you’ve probably only heard about two. In addition to the Iran strikes and securing increased NATO defense contributions, the Trump administration helped end a 30-year war in Africa.@VictoriaCoates pic.twitter.com/oLfjOGPMPf— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) June 26, 2025 However, just because Trump wants to be a dealmaker and a peacemaker doesn’t mean he’ll refrain from using the military option as his Iran strike indicates. He just won’t use it recklessly. Trump gave Iran time to take a deal from the U.S. When they refused to bite, he backed a strong ally and struck when he thought it was militarily necessary. This all matters very much in the signals we are sending China. Trump intends to strategically decouple from a communist powerhouse that’s abused its inclusion in the global trade system to wipe out critical manufacturing in other countries while boosting the strength of the Chinese state. But Trump doesn’t want to lead the two great powers straight into war. He’s combined a strategic shift on trade with a fair number of concessions to China. That while committing to shoring up deficiencies in shipbuilding and warfighting that may leave the U.S. vulnerable in a future conflict. Combine that with the strike on Iran and the message should be clear to China and any potential rival about where things stand. It’s better to make a deal with this administration than to refuse one. Let us have peace and commerce, not chaos and war. The post Trump’s Iran Strike Sends a Clear Message to China appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Among the most unexpected developments in the debate over the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act is how fierce the debate over artificial intelligence deregulation has become, with lawmakers on both sides of the issue fighting to determine how the technology will shape the world by 2035. Currently, the Senate’s framework for the bill contains a provision that would cut states off from critical federal broadband funding if they don’t eliminate regulations on artificial intelligence.  If left in the bill, that provision would strongly discourage states from regulating the developing technology for a decade. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., has said she will vote against the bill if it contains the provision, which she calls a “poison pill” and contends violates states’ rights. Greene’s opposition could spell trouble for the bill, which passed the House by just a single vote in May. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, also has criticized it, albeit more obliquely, saying AI regulations are “used by states to protect their constituents.”  House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., however, told The Daily Signal that he wants AI deregulation to remain in the bill. “If some of the deep blue states smother it with regulation, as they’re prone to do, then it might hamper our development, and it could put us in a compromised position against our enemies, China and others,” he said. Asked if he might tweak the disputed provision instead of seeking to get it removed, Johnson said, “I like it in its current form. I mean, I know the president supports it in its current form, so we’ll see where that goes.” .?@SpeakerJohnson? tells me he doesn’t want to throw out a provision ?@RepMTG? has criticized in the one big beautiful bill which blocks state regulation of AI?@RepMTG? has said she won’t vote for the bill with these provisions in it ?@DailySignal? pic.twitter.com/CbkggN8E6F— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) June 4, 2025 But what’s at stake with the provision, and is it a make-or-break issue? Wesley Hodges, who covers Big Tech issues at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal, “What currently is at play is a provision in the big, beautiful bill that if a state takes a single dollar of new BEAD [Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment] funding … that state is subject to a 10-year—what they call a ‘temporary‘—pause on all tech governance.” That new broadband funding amounts to about $500 million. But the AI regulation moratorium provision gets even more severe than that, Hodges said. “The provision allows the Commerce Department not just to take back that small pot of money, but the entirety of the grants given through the BEAD program. So, this is not just a $500 million problem. This is a $42 billion problem for any state that governs tech and takes BEAD funding.” As of Thursday afternoon, it was still unclear whether or not the language might be changed to ensure only the $500 million could be denied. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, was quoted by Politico on Thursday as saying that the Senate parliamentarian was asking the committee to exclude the $42 billion from being held hostage in the provision. Hodges thinks cutting BEAD funding would devastate rural states. “What this means is, predominantly rural, red states are not going to get the funding that they need to connect them to the internet … to connect them to the broader United States economy,” he said. He added that “it puts handcuffs on the states that may well be providing a much better framework for AI governance.” The Daily Signal asked members of the House Freedom Caucus—a group Greene used to be a member of—whether or not the issue was high on their radar. “Not at all,” said House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md. “That’s not going to be a deal-breaker for anyone.” Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal that artificial intelligence is not a main focus for him in the big, beautiful bill, as he is currently fighting for spending reductions. “It’s one of the many things on [my radar],” said Cloud. “I know [Greene’s] been focused on that, and we all have the different niches that we’re focused on. I’ve been looking at the overall spending levels.” Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told The Daily Signal, “It’s not a dealbreaker for me. I get the underlying premise behind it. I can see both sides, right? This is an industry that we need to keep open.”  He added, “We need to allow innovation to occur. We don’t want to throttle it back, because anything that we do to regulate it is going to slow it down, and we need to beat China to the punch.” Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., told The Daily Signal he understood both sides and heard concerns about artificial intelligence’s copyright infringements on music. “I had a conversation earlier today with some folks in the music industry, in the copyright industry, about that very thing,” he said. “So, there’s a lot more to what the standards are going to be. Nobody wants the federal government to put a big footprint in there. But at the same time, I think the idea behind it was to make sure they weren’t like a patchwork quilt, 15 different versions of what it was going to be.” But, he added, “to me, it’s not a top-tier issue.” Vice President JD Vance addressed the artificial intelligence copyright issue in a recent podcast interview, saying he understood the views of Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty, both R-Tenn., who have sounded the alarm on potential AI copyright infringements on musicians’ work in the state that is the home of country music. “I can kind of go both ways on this, because I don’t want California’s progressive regulations to control artificial intelligence. I also agree with Marsha and Bill that you want to protect country artists in Nashville from having their crap stolen by AI,” said Vance. Vice President JD Vance (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) In addition to Blackburn and Hagerty, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has also been a skeptic of the provision. “I would think that, just as a matter of federalism, we’d want states to be able to try out different regimes that they think will work for their state,” Hawley said in May. “On AI, I do think we need some sensible oversight that will protect people’s liberties.” Hawley is joined in his criticism by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who tried in vain to get the provision thrown out by the Senate parliamentarian. Whether or not the provision is amended before the bill’s potential passage remains to be seen. Whatever the case may be, Hodges tells The Daily Signal that AI will be one of the most important issues in the years to come. “It is going to multiply the positives and negatives in society to an extreme scale. We’re going to see unrivaled growth and medical and scientific advancements,” said Hodges.  “It’s a multiplying effect for the negatives as well … it’s substituting real human relationships for virtual relationships. Unless something is done to prevent that for the default American child, what happens when you replace relationships with a self-gratifying mirror machine?” Hodges suggests it is within Americans’ power to reasonably regulate artificial intelligence to prevent its abuse. “We’re going to see a lot of people try and use this technology to take advantage of other people, and we should use our generally applicable laws to enforce against that as much as possible,” he said. The post Could Artificial Intelligence Regulation Fight Doom ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’? appeared first on The Daily Signal.