July 28, 2026 – Short News

Senate Clears the Way: Trump's Intelligence Chief Is Coming, But the Doubts Aren't Going Away

Washington is expected to have a new permanent head of America's intelligence agencies as early as today. The Senate is set to confirm Jay Clayton with Republican support, permanently filling the position that has been held on an acting basis since Tulsi Gabbard stepped down. The vote is widely seen as a formality after the Senate already advanced Clayton's nomination by a 51 to 43 vote. Ironically, it was his confirmation hearing, the very moment that was supposed to inspire confidence, that sparked the biggest controversy. Time and again, Clayton refused to plainly state that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. Instead, he said only that the election had been certified for Biden. For Democrats, that was an attempt to dodge a simple fact.

Even so, several Democrats said they had more confidence in Clayton than in Bill Pulte, Trump's acting intelligence chief, who has no known intelligence background. Pulte had already drawn criticism during his brief tenure after Trump once again used the White House to repeat his debunked claims about the 2020 election while also releasing classified documents he claimed supported his arguments. Even some Republican senators had recently expressed unease with that temporary arrangement. Clayton therefore tried to emphasize his experience as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He promised discipline, integrity, and close cooperation among the nation's intelligence agencies. But the political baggage surrounding his nomination has not disappeared. By refusing to clearly acknowledge the outcome of the 2020 election, Clayton begins his tenure under a cloud that is likely to follow him well beyond the 2026 midterm elections.

Fake Colosseum, Real Prison: Italian Man Charged Tourists for a Roman Ruin That Never Existed

For nearly ten years, Franco Malosso guided tourists through what he claimed was an ancient Roman amphitheater in Italy's Vicenza province. For 40 euros, visitors were promised a journey back in time, complete with Roman and Greek artifacts and even relics dating back to the Neolithic Age. What they were actually looking at, however, wasn't an archaeological site at all. It was a carefully built stage set. The so-called Berico Amphitheater was entirely man-made. Workers carved steps into a hillside using artificially aged stone blocks, added an artificial lake, concrete columns, and plaster statues. Malosso claimed archaeologists had uncovered an ancient amphitheater there. In reality, every bit of it had been fabricated.

Italy's courts have now finally sentenced the 69-year-old to two years and four months in prison, along with a 3,000-euro fine. He was convicted of illegal construction and forging works of art. The investigation began back in 2016, and the first verdict was handed down in 2021. Only now, after every appeal has been rejected, is he headed to prison. The story still isn't over. As far back as 2019, a court ordered him to compensate the municipality of Arcugnano and restore the roughly 5,000-square-meter site to its original condition. That order has still not been carried out. What remains of the supposed Roman amphitheater is exactly what it always was - an elaborate deception that generated money for years. What was marketed as an ancient landmark has now become a criminal fraud case that is sending its creator to prison.

Trump Mocks CNN Reporter Again: Now Even the White House Correspondents' Dinner Is Under Fire

CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins said on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart that she wasn't surprised by Donald Trump's personal attacks. According to Collins, those kinds of insults happen regularly inside the Oval Office. The only difference this time, she said, was that a much bigger audience got to watch. Collins described the attacks as simply part of her job.

The rescheduled White House Correspondents' Dinner was supposed to symbolize reconciliation. After the armed attack that disrupted the original event in April, Donald Trump had promised to deliver "a speech of love." What followed was the exact opposite. Standing before a room full of journalists, the president launched personal attacks against several reporters, but no one drew more attention than CNN's Kaitlan Collins. He told her to smile and compared her appearance to transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. Just hours later, Trump doubled down on Truth Social by posting an edited beer advertisement that replaced Mulvaney's face with Collins's. Even an official White House social media account shared the image. The backlash came quickly. Prominent journalists and media critics are now openly calling for an end to the long-standing White House Correspondents' Dinner. They argue that inviting a president who routinely attacks press freedom and publicly humiliates reporters raises serious questions about whether the event still serves any purpose.

Peter Baker of The New York Times said the entire concept should be reconsidered. Others went even further, calling the evening an embarrassment. CNN publicly stood behind Kaitlan Collins, describing her as an outstanding and trusted journalist. Network CEO Mark Thompson also reaffirmed the company's support for all of its reporters and their constitutional right to report without government intimidation. The White House responded with more ridicule. A spokesperson said the liberal media can dish it out but can't take it. The dispute comes as CNN is already facing a period of uncertainty. The planned multibillion-dollar merger involving its parent company has been delayed by a federal court and may now be pushed back until 2027. While CNN's future remains uncertain, the president continues escalating his campaign against the news media. Lawsuits against news organizations, investigations targeting broadcasters, and personal attacks on journalists have become routine. What was once intended as a shared evening between the White House and the press has now become a symbol of just how deeply the relationship between the presidency and an independent press has fractured.

France Wants Tougher Penalties for Foreign Election Interference and Plans Up to Six Years in Prison for Disinformation

France is taking a much tougher approach to foreign interference in its elections. The government has introduced a bill that would impose prison sentences of up to six years for deliberately spreading false information on behalf of a foreign organization. Simply distributing misleading or intentionally false information during an election campaign would carry a penalty of up to three years in prison and a 45,000-euro fine. If those actions are carried out for or on behalf of a foreign actor, the maximum sentence would double.

The French Senate is expected to begin debating the bill on October 20. At the same time, the government wants to expand its fast-track court procedure against disinformation so it applies to every type of election. Judges would be able to order the rapid removal of content considered clearly inaccurate or misleading. A separate legal procedure is also planned for cases outside election periods. In addition, the government intends to establish an independent commission made up of representatives from the Council of State, the Court of Auditors, and the Court of Cassation. Its job would be to warn both candidates and the public about attempts at foreign interference. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said the goal of the legislation is to protect democratic debate and France's national interests from deliberately spread false information. President Emmanuel Macron first promised such a law back in April. The proposal comes against the backdrop of reports about Russian disinformation campaigns, including false claims that France had spent hundreds of millions of euros to manipulate elections in Armenia and Moldova. Whether the bill will ultimately pass in its current form remains to be seen. What is already clear, however, is that France intends to significantly increase the legal pressure on foreign influence operations and organized disinformation.

Meta Is Facing the Biggest Wave of Lawsuits in Its History - And It Couldn't Be Happening at a Worse Time

While Mark Zuckerberg is pouring billions into transforming Meta for the race to dominate artificial intelligence, another threat is growing that could shake the company to its core. Thousands of lawsuits accuse Meta of spending years putting the growth of its platforms ahead of the safety of children and teenagers. The company has already suffered major courtroom defeats in California and New Mexico, with many more trials just around the corner. The most explosive case comes from four state attorneys general seeking damages of up to $1.4 trillion - a figure that is nearly equal to Meta's entire market value.

Even if that number is ultimately reduced, the financial consequences could still run into many billions of dollars. At the same time, these lawsuits are no longer just about money. Several states and school districts are demanding sweeping changes to the very features that made Facebook and Instagram so successful. Private-by-default accounts for minors, stricter parental controls, fewer notifications, and other changes could permanently reshape Meta's business model. That would be especially painful because user growth across the company's platforms has already slowed to a standstill. At the very moment Meta is investing as much as $145 billion in new data centers, high-end chips, and artificial intelligence infrastructure, it has already laid off thousands of employees to help pay for it. Analysts also expect the company to report its first negative free cash flow. Meta insists it has introduced numerous safety measures for teenagers and says it will aggressively defend itself against what it considers baseless lawsuits. But the real danger now lies somewhere else.

For years, a federal law largely shielded internet platforms from liability for content posted by their users. More and more courts, however, are now focusing on a different question - whether these platforms were intentionally designed to keep young users hooked for as long as possible. That legal theory could become the turning point. The judgments so far - $6 million in California and $375 million in New Mexico - do not threaten Meta financially on their own. But every loss creates another legal precedent. If that trend continues, what began as individual lawsuits could evolve into the greatest legal threat Meta has ever faced.

Trump Pressures Kennedy to Cut More Childhood Vaccines and Makes the Fight Against Autism a Higher Priority Than His Own Advisers Do

Pressure is building on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and this time it is coming directly from the president. Donald Trump has reportedly confronted Kennedy in several private meetings, telling him he is not moving aggressively enough on vaccines and autism.

While White House political advisers had specifically urged Kennedy to tone down vaccine messaging ahead of the midterm elections and instead focus on healthier food, nutrition, and food additives, Trump has taken the opposite approach. Time and again, he steers conversations back to the decades-old claim that childhood vaccines are linked to autism, a claim that has repeatedly been rejected by major scientific studies. His goal is straightforward. He wants the number of federally recommended childhood vaccinations reduced. Trump believes that doing so would eventually lower autism rates. Scientific evidence supporting that theory does not exist. Large-scale studies have repeatedly examined a possible link between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and autism, and every one of them has found no connection.

Even so, according to people familiar with the discussions, Trump has made the issue one of his health secretary's top priorities. Back in January, Kennedy attempted to reduce the recommended childhood vaccination schedule from 17 vaccines to 11. A federal judge blocked the effort in March, ruling that the administration had improperly bypassed legal procedures when reshaping the advisory panel responsible for vaccine recommendations. The administration has appealed the ruling and is now working on a new structure for the committee. At the same time, Kennedy is facing growing pressure from another direction behind the scenes. While Trump wants faster action, many White House advisers have become increasingly critical of Kennedy's overall performance.

Large parts of Kennedy's broader health agenda have stalled. He has suffered setbacks on pesticides and food additives, while the department is simultaneously dealing with measles outbreaks, staffing shortages, and disputes over federal health programs. Within the administration, Medicare chief Chris Klomp is now widely seen as the person keeping the department running on a day-to-day basis. In Washington, there is already speculation that Mehmet Oz could eventually be positioned as Kennedy's successor. Publicly, Trump continues to praise his health secretary. Privately, however, he has reportedly made it clear that Kennedy's political future may depend on whether he delivers results on autism. That leaves Kennedy caught between two opposing forces. The president's advisers want the issue pushed into the background. The president himself wants it at the very center of his administration's health agenda.