May 10, 2026: All Newsclips

Lead Stories

White House distances itself from tighter AI regulation

Senior White House officials are trying to soothe industry concerns that the administration could require tech companies to submit their advanced artificial intelligence models for federal vetting before releasing them to the public. A day after one top White House economic adviser publicly confirmed that such a review was under discussion — likening it Wednesday to the Food and Drug Administration’s yearslong testing of prescription drugs — aides to President Donald Trump were sending a different message: Not so fast. “There’s one or two people who are very intent on government regulations, but they’re sort of the minority of the bunch,” said one senior White House official. This person, like others in this report, was granted anonymity to describe sensitive policy discussions.

click here for more

The back-and-forth messaging comes as tech industry officials anxiously await an executive order spelling out how the administration plans to prevent powerful new AI models from being misused to launch cyberattacks or even develop bioweapons. POLITICO reported Tuesday that the White House is eyeing a vetting system that could require AI giants such as OpenAI, Anthropic and Google to go through the government before releasing new models. While it is not immediately clear how onerous that oversight system would be, Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, said in a Fox Business interview Wednesday that the administration was considering a pre-release safety testing regime akin to what the FDA does for drugs. “We’re studying possibly an executive order to give a clear roadmap to everybody about how this is gonna go, and how future AIs that also potentially create vulnerabilities should go through a process so that they’re released into the wild after they’ve been proven safe — just like an FDA drug,” Hassett said.

State Department reviewing all Mexican consulates in U.S. as tensions grow

The State Department is initiating a review of all 53 Mexican consulates operating in the United States, a U.S. official told CBS News on Thursday, in a move that could lead Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider ordering the closure of some diplomatic offices. The review comes as bilateral tensions build over security cooperation and cartel violence, and it follows the deaths of two American CIA officers after a counter-narcotics operation in northern Mexico last month. A State Department official said the review is part of a broader effort to align U.S. foreign policy with the Trump administration's priorities.

click here for more

Dylan Johnson, assistant secretary of state for global public affairs, said the "Department of State is constantly reviewing all aspects of American foreign relations to ensure they are in line with the President's America First foreign policy agenda and advance American interests." Mexico maintains the largest foreign consular network in the United States, with offices that provide documentation and legal aid to millions of Mexican citizens living across the country. Most are concentrated in border states and cities with large Mexican American populations, including California, Texas and Arizona. In recent years, U.S. consulate closures have usually reflected rising tensions with rival countries rather than routine diplomatic changes. In 2020, as relations between Washington and Beijing worsened, the Trump administration ordered China's consulate in Houston to close, citing concerns over espionage and intellectual property theft. In 2017, the U.S. ordered Russia to close its consulate in San Francisco, along with diplomatic facilities in Washington and New York, in response to Moscow expelling American diplomats.

National Stories

The man trying to make Trump’s tariffs go on forever

Jamieson Greer is a trade lawyer. He is a well-respected trade lawyer. He was chosen by President Donald Trump to be the country’s top trade lawyer: the U.S. Trade Representative. He is not a member of a union. He is not a welder. He is not a manufacturer. He is definitely not a salesman. But here he is one cloudy morning on a factory floor in Michigan, in front of an American flag that could hide an elephant, selling the administration’s trade agenda in one of the most important political states in the country with a man hoping to become its next governor. And that man just went soft on the core tenet of Trump’s efforts to reshape global trade. “We don’t want the tariffs to go on forever,” said Rep. John James (R-Mich.). “We want reciprocal tariffs. We want fair trade.”

click here for more

Greer stares off at a machine in the distance. He’s heard a similar line from tariff-skittish Republicans before — that the tariffs are a tool, a way to get countries to open markets and expand exports, and then they will come down. But those reassurances contradict his daily reality: His boss does want tariffs to go on forever. And he’s made it Greer’s job to ensure they do. Trump has never hidden his love of tariffs. But his second term has seen the so-called “Tariff Man” unleashed, with a trade policy defined by a fire-from-the hip approach that’s upended global markets. He immediately set about imposing tariffs on three of the country’s top trading partners — China, Canada and Mexico — and quickly followed with “Liberation Day,” when he imposed duties on goods from nearly every country in the world in the hopes that it would end the alleged global exploitation of American commerce and mark the beginning of a grand resurgence in domestic manufacturing. He justified those tariffs with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to regulate trade during a national emergency. The trade deficit between the U.S. and other countries, Trump said, constituted such an emergency. But the law had never been used for that purpose and doesn’t explicitly mention tariffs. In April, the Supreme Court ruled that it couldn’t be used that way at all, striking down the cornerstone of Trump’s economic agenda.

Redistricting fight now going badly for Dems

On April 22, House Democrats were riding high. They’d just won a huge gamble in Virginia, spending tens of millions of dollars on a redistricting referendum aimed at netting them up to four new seats. President Donald Trump — who set off the unprecedented national redistricting fight in Texas last year — was tanking in the polls, dragging down Republicans everywhere. Overall, it looked like Democrats had held Republicans to a draw in the redistricting wars and were on their way to the House majority. But the last two weeks have suddenly turned rough for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the Democratic Caucus. They’re facing legal setbacks on redistricting across multiple fronts, developments that have reshaped the battle for the House.

click here for more

As many as 10 seats could now swing toward Republicans in a worst-case scenario for Democrats, although this all remains very fluid. What is clear is that the Supreme Court’s decision to gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and another late round of GOP redistricting have dramatically altered Democrats’ fortunes. We’re not saying Democrats won’t win the House. But the hill has gotten steeper. First, Florida Republicans shoved through an aggressive gerrymander that could boot four Democrats from the delegation. Even many Republicans were surprised at GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis’ proposal. Then, Virginia’s Supreme Court signaled that it was considering striking down Democrats’ hard-won referendum victory. No one is sure what will happen there. Plus, the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais has put a number of seats in play across the South, including in Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee. Democrats knew their fortunes could turn quickly, especially if the VRA ruling went against them. But the size, scale and speed of the redistricting reversal is stunning.

Copyright May 10, 2026, Harvey Kronberg, www.quorumreport.com, All rights are reserved