More than 15 politicians from across the country have signed on to the AI Pact, vowing to regulate data centers and AI. “We’ve got to get this right,” says Senate candidate Dan Osborn of Nebraska.
Dolly Parton performs during halftime in the game between the Washington Commanders and the Dallas Cowboys at AT&T Stadium on Nov. 23, 2023, in Arlington, Texas. —Ron Jenkins––Getty Images
The death of country music legend, actor, and philanthropist Dolly Parton has prompted a rare moment of bipartisanship, with tributes pouring in from both sides of the political aisle.
Parton, who died at the age of 80 on Tuesday, was widely loved and celebrated around the world and leaves behind a life that touched the lives of millions of Americans.
“Dolly Parton’s legacy is one of love, compassion, and resilience. With a seven-decade career, she inspired multiple generations of artists and fans with her music and an unwavering commitment to making the world a better place,” read a statement shared on Parton’s social media page.
President Donald Trump ordered U.S. flags at the White House and other federal facilities to be flown at half-staff through Sept. 1.
Trump called Parton an "amazing" person who and "to lose her is like to lose her a member of the family."
"She wasn't a very political person," Trump said during a live radio interview Wednesday morning with conservative host Glenn Beck.
Despite her grand public presence and persona, Parton often chose to stay out of political discourse.
“Everybody knows I don't do politics because my mother was a Democrat, my daddy was a Republican, so I'm a hypocrat,” she joked in 2017 when asked on Fox & Friends why she had not joined Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin’s anti-Trump remarks at the Emmys.
“I've got as many Republican fans as Democrats, and I don't want to make any of them mad at me, so I don't play politics. Plus, I'm an entertainer, I don’t usually voice my opinion in a situation like that,” Parton added.
Parton reiterated her apolitical stance during an interview with ABC's David Wright in 2018, where she again repeated, “I'm not being political.”
“I don't do politics. I'm not getting into any of that because I have a lot of fans out there, and I don't want to offend anybody,” she said.
When pressed to answer questions about Trump, who at the time was just over a year into his first term as President, Parton said: “I have my opinion about everybody and everything, but I learned a long time ago: Keep your damn mouth shut if you want to stay in show business.”
“I'm not in politics. I'm an entertainer,” she said.
That broad appeal was reflected in tributes from across the political spectrum.
How Democrats are remembering Parton’s advocacy
Major Democratic figures have cast Parton as a progressive figure who advocated for minority rights through her music, philanthropy, and public comments.
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and is a leading voice of the progressive movement, said Parton “was one of the great entertainers of our era” whose “music and humanity touched millions.”
“She was not only a talented musician & songwriter, but a lifelong philanthropist and advocate for literacy, education, LGBTQ+ rights, healthcare and disaster relief,” he said.
Despite Parton’s desire to remain politically neutral, her reputation as an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights stems from both her public comments and her work.
When asked in an interview aired in 2009 with Joy Behar whether she supported gay marriage, Parton said: “I always say, sure, why can't they get married? They should suffer like the rest of us do.”
At the time, the statement was politically significant, with same-sex marriage not becoming legal nationwide in the U.S. until 2015 and the issue still a source of intense political division.
Again in 2016, Parton underscored her support for the community, saying: “I do not believe that we should criticize and judge other people.”
“I think we should be accepting and loving. We are all God's children. We are who we are, and we should be allowed to be who we are,” she told Larry King during an interview.
Similarly, Tennessee Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerri Green said Parton was one of "Tennessee's finest," noting that Parton "always used her platform to lift others up."
"She was also an unapologetic advocate for the most marginalized, including our LGBTQ+ neighbors. The world is brighter and better simply because she existed,” she added.
Asked in 2023 about Tennessee’s anti-trans legislation, Parton said she wanted “everybody to be treated good,” described the queer and transgender people in her life, and said their identities were as intrinsic to them as hers was to her.
“That’s who they are. They cannot help that any more than I can help being Dolly Parton, you know, the way people know me. If there’s something to be judged, that is God’s business. But we are all God’s children and how we are is who we are,” she toldThe Hollywood Reporter.
Former President Joe Biden also reflected on Parton’s legacy, describing her as “an American original” who “was an inspiration to millions” and “a relentless advocate for women and for equality.”
Rep. Ro Khanna of California said Parton “chose to continue her life pursuing the arts, and pushing boundaries to advocate for inclusion, women’s rights, children’s literacy, and more.”
The Country Music Hall of Fame credits Parton and her female contemporaries with revolutionizing country music through their “strong feminine stances.”
In 1995, Parton began her Imagination Library project, which sent an age-appropriate book to children in the U.S. every month until they turned 5. The program has since expanded to multiple countries around the world and delivered more than 300 million books to over 3 million children from all backgrounds.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani called Parton “an extraordinary person and an irreplaceable champion of the working class.”
How Republicans are honoring Parton as an American icon
On the other side of the political aisle, Republicans have sought to highlight Parton as a symbol of American and Appalachian identity.
“Today our nation lost an American icon. Dolly Parton stood on the global stage for many decades and helped define the cultural image of our nation,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Dolly was an Ambassador for American music and entertainment. She will be missed, but her legacy will continue.”
House Republicans, in a statement, described Parton as an “unmistakable voice” and “joyful presence” whose “deep love of country made her a national treasure.”
Parton was one of 12 children and was raised in poverty in rural Tennessee amid church music and a strong extended-family tradition. Rather than leaving the region behind, she invested heavily in East Tennessee with the opening of the Dollywood amusement park, which became a major tourism and employment engine, while the separate Dollywood Foundation funded scholarship opportunities.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee said that all Tennesseans feel “the loss of Dolly Parton.”
“Dolly’s life and career are forever woven into Tennessee’s music, culture, and history. Her extraordinary talent, generosity, and love for the Volunteer State (the nickname for Tennessee) touched hearts around the world and will continue to inspire generations to come. Tennessee will forever be grateful for Dolly,” she added.
Rep. Diana Harshbarger, who represents East Tennessee's 1st Congressional District, where Parton was born and raised, said the singer “never forgot where she came from” and praised her ability to appeal to people across the political aisle.
“She was so apolitical. She did not want to be on one side or the other, and that made people love her,” she said. “She remained true to who she was, she was a genuine person. She was authentic as all get out, and nothing could sway her.”
President Donald Trump tours the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and leads a board meeting in Washington, D.C., on March 17, 2025. —Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images
In the filing, Justice Department lawyers representing the center argued that Trump’s proposed renovations were necessary to prevent what they called "a financial and structural death spiral." They described the building as ‘structurally unsound, fundamentally unsafe, and embarrassing to the Nation’s Capital’ and warned that without the work, it could deteriorate to the point that it would need to be demolished.
The filing suggested that the building could be replaced by a large outdoor amphitheater overlooking the Potomac River. The lawyers said that “such a replacement will fail to adequately honor President John F. Kennedy, but would be simpler and more economical to build, operate, and maintain.”
The filing marks an unusually explicit reference by the Trump Administration to the possibility of demolishing the venue, which first opened its doors in 1971 as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963.
How the fight over the Kennedy Center escalated to demolition threats
At the start of Trump’s second term, he overhauled the center’s governing board and replaced several members with allies. That board voted in December 2025 to rename the venue as the “Trump Kennedy Center.” In February, he also ordered the center to close for two years to make way for renovations.
In May, a judge ruled that only Congress could rename the center and temporarily blocked both the name change and the planned closure. The judge ordered Trump’s name removed from the building.
Earlier this month, the board voted to rename the building “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump,” setting up a new test of the court’s ruling.
Internal records obtained byThe Washington Post showed that ticket revenue and fundraising fell sharply after Trump’s name was added to the building.
The reference to demolition comes as Trump has pursued major changes to other Washington landmarks. His Administration demolished the White House’s East Wing to make way for a ballroom costing hundreds of millions of dollars—a project facing its own legal challenges.
In a statement Tuesday, lawyers for Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty, an ex officio member of the center’s board, called the Justice Department’s threat “unconscionable.”
“This is a not-so-subtle threat to demolish the Kennedy Center if the President doesn’t get his way,” attorneys Norm Eisen and Nathaniel Zelinsky said. “This is unconscionable, it is unbecoming of the Department of Justice to even put this in a filing, and we will answer in court.”
A hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. on Thursday, Aug. 27, on Beatty’s emergency motion seeking to block the board’s latest attempt to add Trump’s name to the center.
TIME has reached out to the Justice Department and the Kennedy Center for comment.
Even people sympathetic to President Donald Trump’s economic nationalism seem confused about the trade war with Canada. | Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
LONDON, Ontario — President Donald Trump seems dead set on escalating his trade war with Canada. And no one is really sure why.
On Monday, Trump threatened another round of 50 percent tariffs on top of the ones he just implemented — this one targeting Canada’s auto industry, which is so deeply integrated with its American counterpart that large duties would do major damage on both sides of the border. By Tuesday morning, he had begun musing about renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America” to spite Canadians. And throughout all of this, he and Vice President JD Vance had renewed their “jokes” about absorbing Canada as the 51st state.
But who is this even for? While the White House’s behavior infuriates Canadians — it is palpable on the ground here in Canada — it’s unusual by Trump standards in that nobody seems to want this conflict but him.
Even the most fringe, or unpopular, foreign policy ideas he’s pursued typically have think tanks devoted to pushing them, or a loyal ally to please, or a voting bloc to rile up before the midterms. But unlike, say, Trump’s conflicts with Iran, or Cuba, or China, it’s hard to find a highly visible corner of conservatism that’s the driving force behind a nationalist campaign against Canada.
When I reached out to trade experts, political scientists, and in-the-know Republicans of the pro- and anti- Trump persuasion to try to trace the origins of Trump’s trade war, they had trouble pointing to anything solid. As one veteran GOP lobbyist put it, there doesn’t seem to be any ideological, business, or congressional coalition devoted to egging on the trade fight.
Even people sympathetic to Trump’s economic nationalism seem confused: Michael Lind, a populist pundit who last year penned a piece titled “Why tariffs are good,” has just written a follow-up titled “The madness of Trump’s Canada trade war.” And while there are some affected industries — autos, steel — they don’t seem to be main characters: United Auto Workers, which backed some prior tariffs, came out strongly against the proposed auto tariffs.
The politics don’t make much sense either. American voters have long disapproved of Trump’s tariffs on Canadian-made goods, and the current escalation threatens to be the largest and most economically damaging yet. Republicans sound anxious about its impact on the midterms; several key Senate races are in states right on the Canadian border, and any tariff-related price spike there could supercharge Democrats’ core midterm message about affordability.
“This has never been a particularly well-thought strategy. I think that the biggest, most coherent explanation is that this is about power.”
Kim Clausing, UCLA trade economist
“If I were [Senate Majority Leader] John Thune, I’d be very pissed at Trump right now,” says Adam Carlson, a Democratic pollster at Zenith Research.
So why are we at (economic) war?
The best answer is deceptively simple: because Trump, and Trump alone, wants to be.
There is no good strategic rationale for the way Trump has gone about badgering America’s northern neighbor, even if you share his broadly nationalist view about trade. Rather, Trump has become fixated on dominating or even possessing Canada. And his top deputies are backfilling his fixation, including by offering terms of surrender the Canadians simply couldn’t accept.
“This has never been a particularly well-thought strategy,” says Kim Clausing, a trade economist at UCLA. “I think that the biggest, most coherent explanation is that this is about power.”
It’s the latest example of the risks of governance by one man’s whims — one that could both damage America’s economy and burn its relationship with its staunchest ally before it resolves.
Trump’s northern power trip
Typically, when you try to explain the policy of any government, you look at two main factors: interests and ideology. In this case, neither is close to sufficient to explain the intensity of Trump’s war on Canada.
It is true that, for decades, the United States has had meaningful trade disputes with Canada over issues like lumber and dairy. But these issues never boiled over into a massive trade war, for the simple reason that they simply aren’t that large as a percentage of GDP. There’s a reason that every administration prior to this one — including Trump’s first — handled these issues through normal negotiating processes rather than loud bullying.
On the ideology front, it is true that Trump’s 2016 victory has revived conservative interest in economic nationalism — leading to the creation of groups like American Compass, a think tank dedicated to putting policy meat on the bones of the right’s nationalist spirit. But these nationalists largely converged on China as their principal economic enemy. While Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro is helping run Canada policy now, there was no sign in his essay in Project 2025 — or from other allies — that anyone was contemplating a full-on trade war with Canada beforehand. And American Compass does not appear to be involved in the current fight, offering no official comment on its press page or founder Oren Cass’s X feed.
“I really do think it is Trump’s idiosyncrasies that caused him to settle on Canada,” says Phil Magness, an economic historian who closely tracks intra-right economic disputes. “Others in the admin are going along with it.”
The timeline backs up Magness’s assessment.
In November 2024, shortly after winning the election, Trump began feuding with then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — calling him “governor” and beginning his talk of Canada as the 51st state. Less than two months after taking office, Trump targeted Canada with (at that point) historically high 25 percent across-the-board tariffs.
When the Washington Post investigated the rationale behind these tariffs at the time, they found a void. There was no policy paper behind the Canadian tariffs, nor any clear intellectual godfather or industry backer. People inside the administration put all the credit (or blame?) solely at the president’s feet. Within MAGA media, the closest to radical anti-Canada sentiment might have been Tucker Carlson’s trollish musing about “regime change” in 2023.
After Mark Carney replaced Trudeau as prime minister, and won the general election primarily on an anti-Trump platform, tensions cooled to a somewhat surprising degree, at least when it came to trade talks. Prior to this week, the 51st state rhetoric had declined dramatically; negotiations on trade looked like they had a real chance of success. Indeed, just this Tuesday, Trump himself declared they had reached a deal and postponed tariff implementation as a result. The Friday breakdown thus felt like a bit of a shock.
But reading detailedaccounts of the negotiation collapse, including a brand-new ticktock from the New York Times, it’s clear that overweening American conditions were a major part of the failure. Most strikingly, and relevant, were US demands that it have control over Canada’s tariff rates with other countries and that it be able to reimpose American tariffs on Canada at will.
The key point here is that the Trump administration was not, and never has been, interested in a reciprocal trade deal between allies based on clear and cogent principles. Instead, they want to vassalize Canada — to bully it into surrendering elements of its sovereignty, or even its sovereign existence altogether. It is clear that this is the direct result of the president’s personal fixation.
Why exactly Trump has become so obsessed with controlling Canada is harder to say. Per the Post, there are theories ranging from bitterness around a legal battle over Trump Tower Toronto to his friendship with Kevin O’Leary, Canadian entrepreneur and host of the reality show Shark Tank. Certainly, his more recent rivalry with Carney hasn’t helped: “Canada lives because of the United States,” Trump declared, menacingly, after the prime minister delivered a critical foreign policy speech in January.
My own personal theory is that it’s of a piece with Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland, another cause that’s largely unique to him. He is looking toward his presidential legacy, and nothing makes a real estate developer think “legacy” more than literally enlarging the size of the United States on the map.
But in practical terms, the reason may be immaterial. Whatever the roots of Trump’s Canada fixation, we know that it is real and a major driver in US foreign policy — one so important, in fact, that he is willing to jeopardize his party’s all-important Senate majority in order to pursue it.
Sen. Darline Graham (R, S.C.) speaks during a campaign event following her win, at the Willoughby, Humphrey & D'Antonio Law Firm in Columbia, S.C., on Aug. 25, 2026. —Megan Varner—Getty Images
South Carolina Republicans voted to try to keep one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats in the Graham family, as Darline Graham Nordone, who was appointed to fill it temporarily, has won the runoff for the special Republican primary election to replace her late brother Lindsey Graham on the ballot in the November general election.
The Associated Press called the race at 9:01 p.m. ET, as Nordone led with about 52.5% of the vote.
Nordone said in a speech after securing the nomination that she has mixed emotions about her primary victory and that she misses her brother.
“There is still a big hole in my heart,” Nordone told supporters at a rally, “but I know he’s looking down right now very proud of everyone in this room.”
She then added that her nomination is merely “the starting line for an even bigger fight which lies ahead.”
Nordone will next face off against the Democratic candidate Annie Andrews, a pediatrician who won her primary in June. The upper chamber seat, though, is unlikely to flip in Democrats’ favor; the Cook Political Report rates the race as “Solid Republican.”
In June, Graham won the Republican primary race to compete for his fifth term as Senator, but after his death the following month, a special primary election was called for Aug. 11. While Nordone, who was appointed by South Carolina’s Governor to serve out the remainder of her brother’s term, earned the highest share of the vote on Aug. 11, she fell short of the majority she needed to win the race, triggering the runoff. Nordone earned nearly 33% of the vote on Aug. 11, while her opponent, U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, came in second, with nearly 25%, sending both candidates to the runoff race.
President Donald Trump had championed Nordone in the race, publicly encouraging her to run for a full term before she had even announced her plans to do so. In a Truth Social post in July, Trump called Nordone “a spectacular person, and a true American Patriot.”
“Lindsey was one of the greatest people and Senators I have ever known, and his sister shares his deep love of our Country, and the State of South Carolina,” Trump said in his post. He added that he asked Nordone to run for a full term, saying, “I hope Darline does this, in that there would be nobody better to honor the legacy of her beloved brother, Lindsey. Darline, who comes from an absolutely incredible family, has been a WINNER all of her life and, should she accept, has my Complete and Total Endorsement in the Special Election for U.S. Senate in South Carolina.”
Although Nordone was a strong supporter of her brother’s political career over the years, she had never before held elected office. Her lack of political experience was the subject of scrutiny during her campaign, particularly after a debate against Norman leading up to Tuesday’s runoff. When asked during the debate if Taiwan and the South China Sea are national security issues for the U.S., Nordone replied: “I’m just going to be honest here … I’m not that informed on national security, so.”
Her opponents were quick to criticize her for the remark. Nikki Haley, Trump’s former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. who endorsed Norman in the race, shared a clip of Nordone’s response to the debate question on X, saying, “Lindsey Graham was well informed on the United States’ national security. Darline Graham admits she’s not. This is not something you inherit. And it’s critical in the U.S. Senate.”
Nordone responded to the backlash in an interview on Fox News.
“I tripped up on one question last night,” she said. “But you know, I’ve said many times, I’m not a politician, certainly not a career politician. I don’t speak politician. You know, I was just honest, and I think that’s kind of a foreign concept.”
Scaffolding and tarps cover the facade of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on June 30, 2026. | Al Drago/Washington Post via Getty Images
This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.
Welcome to The Logoff: President Donald Trump is threatening that if he can’t have the Kennedy Center, no one can.
What’s going on? Trump has been trying to get his name back on the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts since June, when it was removed in response to a court order. On Monday night, the Justice Department revealed its latest ploy to make that happen.
In a court filing, the DOJ argued that if its renovation plans for the Kennedy Center aren’t allowed to go forward, “the center will deteriorate further into an unsafe, decrepit structure that will be required to be taken down” and replaced by another structure, “such as a large outdoor amphitheater.”
Tied up in the proposed $250 million renovation are three new tributes to Trump, which the Kennedy Center board (stacked with Trump appointees) voted to add earlier this month: the text “renovated and restored by President Donald J. Trump” and “endowed by The Trump Kennedy Center Fund” on the building’s facade, and the renaming of the Kennedy Center grounds as “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.”
Those changes are currently being challenged in court by Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), who successfully sued to undo Trump’s first renaming of the center. But the Trump administration claims her suit endangers the entire project.
What does Trump’s name have to do with the renovations? According to the DOJ filing, “an order blocking the Board from appropriately recognizing President Trump will cause donors to flee, financial contributions to dry up, and structural rehabilitation to stop.”
“There will simply not be the expertise or funding necessary to rebuild and renovate this decimated structure,” it adds.
Is that true? No. Congress already approved $257 million for the renovation last year, which the Kennedy Center board touted in a press release crediting Trump.
And far from being a draw, the Washington Post reported Tuesday, Trump’s previous renaming of the Kennedy Center caused ticket sales and donations to plummet, creating a $23 million deficit even after deep spending cuts.
And with that, it’s time to log off…
Universally beloved country music star Dolly Parton died on Tuesday at age 80. Here’s one song to remember her, and a story about what she described as “one of the greatest things that I’ve ever done in my life”: a literacy program that, as of this year, has gifted more than 332 million books to children.
Anthony Ralphs was frustrated by the San Diego City Council's support for Flock. He decided it would take something more than reasoned argument to get their attention.
Login
ABC News: Top Stories
