分类： 未分类

Pentagon plots new nuclear options for Trump as America’s biggest adversaries raise stakes: report

August 7, 2026 10:56am EDT / Fox News

Elbridge Colby leads classified effort to expand shorter-range nuclear capabilities to deter China and Russia

By Morgan Phillips Fox News

US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker discusses escalating U.S.-Iran tensions amid reports of Chinese missile transfers to Tehran. He also addresses Russia’s missile attack on Kyiv after Zelenskyy’s warning and Ukraine’s urgent need for air defense.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/3f29d483-22f4-4989-923b-8615302ba305

Listen to this article

3 min

The Pentagon is drafting a new nuclear strategy aimed at giving President Donald Trump more options for using shorter-range nuclear weapons in a potential regional conflict with China or Russia, according to a report.

The classified effort, led by Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, would put greater emphasis on tactical nuclear weapons — systems intended for use against military targets in a regional conflict — rather than relying primarily on long-range strategic forces, NBC News reported, citing five people familiar with the plans.

The strategy is designed for scenarios in which China or Russia attacks a U.S. ally and Washington must determine how to respond without immediately escalating to a large-scale strategic nuclear exchange, according to the report.

TRUMP HEADS TO BEIJING FOR HIGH-STAKES XI TALKS AS TAIWAN TENSIONS, TRADE DISPUTES TEST US STRENGTH

FILE – This photo taken from video provided by the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on Feb. 19, 2022, shows a Yars intercontinental ballistic missile being launched from an air field during military drills in Russia. The Russian Defense Ministry said that the military will hold drills involving tactical nuclear weapons – the first time such exercise was publicly announced by Moscow. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP, File)(Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)

“Our view is that we need credible nuclear options,” a senior War Department official told NBC. The official said the strategy would “expand the President’s option space by providing him with realistic and credible options and therefore strengthen deterrence.”

The reported shift comes as the United States confronts two nuclear-armed adversaries with increasingly capable arsenals.

Russia retains a large stockpile of theater nuclear weapons and has repeatedly invoked its nuclear capabilities during the war in Ukraine. China, meanwhile, is rapidly expanding and modernizing its nuclear forces, creating what U.S. military officials increasingly describe as a two-peer nuclear challenge.

Tactical, or non-strategic, nuclear weapons are generally designed for theater or regional use rather than long-range strategic missions. They often have shorter-range delivery systems and may be intended for military targets.

But the label does not mean they are limited in consequence: a nuclear detonation could kill large numbers of people, spread radioactive fallout and trigger nuclear retaliation.

US FALLS BEHIND IN HYPERSONIC RACE AS CHINA, RUSSIA GAIN EDGE

China may be conducting low-yield nuclear tests, a State Department official says.(Tingshu Wang/File Photo/Reuters)

The War Department has not publicly announced a change in nuclear employment policy or a new tactical nuclear weapons program. Fox News Digital has reached out to the Pentagon for comment.

The review also comes six months after New START, the last treaty limiting U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals, expired without a replacement, leaving Washington and Moscow without binding limits or inspections for the first time in decades.

The treaty did not cover tactical nuclear weapons, an area in which Russia holds a substantial numerical advantage. U.S. Strategic Command estimated this year that Moscow possesses up to 2,000 theater nuclear warheads.

An unarmed LGM-30G Minuteman III sits inside the silo of U-01 at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, July 9, 2025.(Staff Sgt. Michael A. Richmond/U.S. Air Force)

Russia has long relied on its non-strategic nuclear arsenal in part to offset NATO’s conventional military strength. China’s growing arsenal is adding a separate challenge for Pentagon planners preparing for the possibility of confronting two nuclear-armed competitors.

Supporters of the Pentagon’s reported shift argue that giving Trump more credible limited-response options could strengthen deterrence by convincing an adversary that Washington has ways to respond short of an all-out strategic exchange.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Critics argue that putting greater emphasis on weapons intended for regional use could lower the threshold for nuclear employment and increase the risk that a limited conflict spirals into a broader nuclear war.

土耳其巴基斯坦与沙特签署共同防务协议

2026年8月7日 20:41 / 联合早报

8月7日，沙特阿拉伯王储兼首相穆罕默德（中）与到访的土耳其总统埃尔多安（左）和巴基斯坦总理谢里夫麦加签署了《麦加共同防务协议》。 （路透社）

沙特阿拉伯、巴基斯坦和土耳其在麦加签署了一项联合防务协议。协议旨在巩固这三个与美国结盟的逊尼派穆斯林国家的联盟。

沙特阿拉伯王储兼首相穆罕默德与到访的土耳其总统埃尔多安和巴基斯坦总理谢里夫星期五（8月7日）在沙特麦加签署了《麦加共同防务协议》。

巴基斯坦外交部和沙特阿拉伯电视台（Al Arabiya）说，这份《麦加共同防务协议》在中东战争和沙特南部邻国也门冲突再度爆发的背景下，将这三个国家联系在一起。

路透社报道，三国在联合声明中说，协议旨在加强对任何侵略行为的共同威慑，并规定对三国中任何一方的武装攻击都视为对所有三国的攻击。声明并未详细说明各方在协议中所作出的承诺或义务，但表示协议旨在加强三国的集体安全，并促进该地区及其他地区的和平、安全与稳定。

一名土耳其官员指出，协议本质上是防御性的，并非针对任何特定行为体，对其他地区国家开放，并且不废除或取代任何现有的双边或多边安排。

Don Lemon seeks dismissal of criminal civil rights charges, claiming vindictive prosecution

2026-08-07T09:46:00-0400 / CBS News

By Jacob Rosen

Former CNN anchor Don Lemon asked a federal judge in Minnesota to dismiss criminal civil rights charges against him on Friday, saying he is being unlawfully targeted for vindictive prosecution.

His attorneys wrote that President Trump’s animosity toward Lemon “is well documented, stretching back over a decade.”

They argued that the Justice Department charged Lemon “as punishment for his First Amendment protected reporting on protests related to Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota.”

Lemon and several other journalists have been charged alongside a group of protesters with violating the FACE Act, which prohibits people from intimidating or interfering with people exercising their constitutional freedom to practice religion. It also charged them with a felony of conspiring to interfere with individuals’ religious rights.

His lawyers in their motion cited public statements made by senior current and former Justice Department officials and Mr. Trump that targeted Lemon in the lead-up to his indictment. They pointed to comments from then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division.

Lemon’s legal team also filed a separate motion to dismiss the indictment on First Amendment grounds, arguing that he has a “right to report on issues of intense national concern” and that he is shielded by newsgathering protections under the First Amendment.

“Even assuming the protestors crossed the line from protected speech to criminal conduct, Mr. Lemon did not commit a crime in covering their actions as a journalist,” his legal team wrote. “From war correspondents embedded with the military during the Vietnam War to journalists who entered the U.S. Capitol while covering the January 6 protests, our country has long recognized that the First Amendment protects the rights of the media to cover newsworthy events and that journalistic proximity to crime does not equal complicity. Journalists routinely go where crimes are occurring.”

In a third motion to dismiss filed Friday morning, Lemon’s legal team argued that the indictment against him should be dismissed because the “charges are fundamentally flawed and must be dismissed” because the government wrongly applied two criminal statutes in the indictment.

Initially, the Justice Department tried to charge Lemon by criminal complaint, but a magistrate judge rejected the effort, citing a lack of probable cause.

The Justice Department then took the extraordinary step of asking first the chief judge, and then the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene. When those efforts failed, prosecutors took the case to a grand jury and secured an indictment.

“Upon hearing rumors of an indictment, counsel for Mr. Lemon contacted the Department of Justice to coordinate Mr. Lemon’s self-surrender,” his lawyers wrote.

“Instead of arranging the normal self-surrender after a charge would be filed, in what can only be described as an effort to punish and humiliate Mr. Lemon, the government ignored the request to arrange an orderly surrender and chose to deputize agents to his Los Angeles hotel—where he was covering the music industry’s annual awards show—to arrest him at midnight.”

The White House subsequently mocked Lemon in a post on X that read, “When life gives you lemons” and included a photo and information about his arrest.

“Perhaps recognizing that Mr. Lemon’s presence as a journalist was protected by the First Amendment, the government’s case agent falsely claimed in numerous sworn affidavits that Mr. Lemon affirmatively joined the protestors by ‘chanting with agitators and obstructing parishioners’ path of travel,’” his lawyers wrote.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the motions.

特朗普下令对多晶硅开征15%关税 设最低进口价

2026年8月7日 21:29 / 联合早报

美国总统特朗普周四在白宫签署两道限制美国出生公民权的行政令，并发布总统公告，对用于半导体和太阳能产业的多晶硅征收15%关税。负责执行新关税的美国商务部长卢特尼克（右）也在场，他宣称美国的多晶硅产业将在特朗普领导下爆炸式增长。 （彭博社）

（华盛顿综合电）美国总统特朗普下令对用于半导体和太阳能板的多晶硅和衍生品征收15%关税，并设定一系列最低进口价，希望减少依赖外国供应，吸引投资扩大本土产量。

有分析指，美国的新贸易限制举措并不会影响中国这个全球最大多晶硅（polysilicon）生产国，因为美国早已停止从中国进口，受冲击的反而是盟友德国和韩国企业，以及美国本土的太阳能业者。

特朗普星期四（8月6日）签署总统公告，援引《贸易扩张法》第232条款，以国家安全为由，从今年12月4日起对进口的多晶硅衍生品包括晶圆、太阳能电池和模组等征收15%关税。

特朗普政府也为多晶硅制定每公斤21美元（约26.9新元）的最低进口价，多晶硅锭和硅片是每公斤100美元，至于制成品太阳能电池的最低进口价为每瓦特22美分，太阳能模组则是每瓦特38美分。

白宫文告称，新举措的目标是要“为这些战略物品的美国生产商创造一个平等竞争环境”，以及“鼓励产业回流美国”。特朗普同时下令美国商务部制定措施鼓励业者在美国投资扩厂。

特朗普当天在白宫椭圆形办公室发表公告时，在场的商务部长卢特尼克对记者说：“我们制定（最低）进口价是要让中国不能再继续倾销产品。我们制定关税是要告诉商家来这里设厂。这里已有相关产业，规模还太小，接下来将在您（指特朗普）的领导下爆炸式增长。”

美多晶硅太阳能业者欢迎关税与进口价机制

多晶硅是超高纯度的硅，处于半导体和太阳能产业链的起点。其中，电子级多晶硅纯度最高，是制造各种电子产品中的晶片不可或缺的原料；至于占全球产量近98%的太阳能级多晶硅纯度较低，用于制造太阳能电池，再组装成太阳能项目所使用的面板。

行业数据显示，虽然中国在低成本的太阳能级多晶硅掌握绝大优势，但低产量高利润的半导体多晶硅约60%在美国生产。

美国目前有两家多晶硅厂，一家是美国光纤公司康宁（Corning）和日本信越半导体（Shin-Etsu Handotai）合资的赫姆洛克半导体（Hemlock Semiconductor），另一家是德国公司瓦克化学（Wacker Chemie）。

康宁发言人称，新措施将鼓励业者继续投资扩大美国产能，支持美国的长期竞争力。瓦克也感谢特朗普政府持续关注半导体供应链韧性和美国安全利益，但它正在评估最新措施的可能冲击。

至于美国的太阳能业者，长久以来一直指中国和其他外国业者通过不平等的补贴倾销产品。它们在星期四纷纷对新宣布的举措表示赞赏。

大力提倡制造业回流的美国繁荣联盟（Coalition for a Prosperous America）公开赞扬新举措，称这是美国政府“历来首次通过单一措施就维护了整条太阳能供应链、奖励在本地生产的制造商，同时大大加强本土半导体供应链”。

分析：关税料不直接影响中国

不过，彭博社发表分析文指，美国其实自2022年便不再从中国进口多晶硅，这是因为在拜登前总统时期制定的《防止强迫维吾尔人劳动法》 禁止美国使用所有新疆产品，而新疆是主要的硅产业中心。

因此新关税将直接打击的主要是德国和韩国出口商，以及美国本土的太阳能面板制造商，因为它们的生产线高度依赖进口的太阳能材料。

分析也认为，美国的贸易保护措施并没有对本土太阳能产业落后的病因对症下药。中国得以主导这个市场并不是因为补贴，而是拥有巨大的规模效益，而这又是因为有确定的市场需求。

相反地，美国本身对能源转型踌躇不前，拖累本土太阳能业者。

Trump’s firings of federal officials set stage for next test of presidential power

August 7, 2026 / 10:20 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court just over a month ago expanded presidential power when it struck down removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission, clearing the way for the president to fire members of certain independent boards and commissions at-will.

But as the high court considered the legality of Congress’ efforts to shield those officials from political pressure, legal fights arising from President Trump’s attempts to fire an array of other federal workers — from Justice Department lawyers to immigration judges to FBI agents— have been moving through the federal courts.

The cases could pose the next test of presidential power and have significant implications for civil service protections that have been in place since the late 1970s and the federal workers covered by them, legal scholars say.

“The question of whether we can have a civil service staffed by individuals who are selected and retained based on their expertise, qualifications and employment performance, rather than the political ideology of the president is the entire foundation of our modern system of administrative governance,” Nicholas Bednar, a University of Minnesota law professor who has studied the civil service, told CBS News.

Since the start of his second term, Mr. Trump has undertaken sweeping efforts to reshape the federal government. As part of his plans, which include downsizing the executive branch, more than 25,000 government workers who were still in their probationary periods were terminated and agencies implemented plans for mass layoffs, called reductions in force.

But for hundreds of other civil servants — those considered “inferior officers,” as well as employees — the president has invoked Article II of the Constitution to fire them outside of procedures dictated by civil service laws, arguing it is an exercise of his executive power. “Inferior” executive branch officials may be appointed by the president or the head of a department, and they’re generally supervised by principal officers, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Mr. Trump’s firings of those federal officials are now on a track headed for the Supreme Court, as a federal appeals court is poised to hear arguments this fall in a case brought by two former immigration judges, Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, who were terminated in February 2025. While cases before appeals courts are typically heard first by three-judge panels, the Federal Circuit in June granted Jackler and Jaroch’s request for its full slate of judges to consider their case from the outset — an indication that it recognizes the importance of the dispute.

“This is the case that is going to go to the Supreme Court to test this issue,” Bednar said of whether the president has the power to remove federal employees without cause.

Jackler and Jaroch’s case landed before the Federal Circuit after the Merit Systems Protection Board, which hears appeals from federal employees of adverse actions, ruled in favor of the Justice Department. In a little-noticed March decision, the board found that “no entity, including Congress or the Board, may place restrictions” on the president’s removal authority, “for doing so would infringe upon the president’s ability to faithfully execute the laws.”

The Justice Department had argued that Article II invalidated removal protections for inferior officers under the Civil Service Reform Act, a landmark law enacted in 1978 that provides protections for federal workers, and the Merit Systems Protection Board agreed.

“The government’s argument in Jackler is potentially so sweeping it would mean the president could fire every single civil servant at will,” Nathaniel Zelinsky, a lawyer representing Jackler and Jaroch, told CBS News. “The issue in this case is about whether this country can have civil service laws at all or instead, whether the president can fire whomever he wants, whenever he wants, for any reason.”

He continued: “If the president is right in this case, it doesn’t mean that just Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch can be fired at will. It would likely mean that every single one of the millions of federal workers throughout the federal government would not be protected from arbitrary abuse, discrimination and retaliation.”

Trump’s power to fire principal officers

The decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board came as the Supreme Court was considering the case Trump v. Slaughter, which arose out of the president’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. Slaughter was ousted from her role in March 2025, soon after Jackler and Jaroch lost their jobs as immigration judges.

In a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court’s conservative majority said Congress cannot “saddle” the president with officials “with whom he cannot work.”

“Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him,” Roberts wrote. “Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

The decision is likely to have ramifications for dozens of other independent multi-member agencies, which Congress sought to insulate from politics by allowing the president to remove their members only for cause — typically instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

While that case before the Supreme Court solely involved the president’s ability to remove principal officers, legal scholars noted that the language in Roberts’ opinion can be read to apply beyond those officials.

“‘What text, history and structure settle, our precedent confirms: the president may remove his subordinates at will.’ That’s pretty broad,” said Joel Alicea, a law professor at Catholic University, quoting Roberts’ decision. “That language does not seem to limit itself to principal officers. The opinion does not often focus on principal officers. It seems to just focus on the logic of all the executive powers being vested in the president, so anyone who’s exercising that power has to be removable at will. Well, if that’s the logic, that arguably includes inferior officers and employees, too.”

And already, the Justice Department has argued in other legal battles that the Supreme Court’s decision bolsters its view that federal employees can be fired at will.

Citing Roberts’ majority opinion, Justice Department lawyers wrote in a July filing defending Mr. Trump’s firing of Mary Comans from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, “The president can only be ‘personally responsible for everything’ in the Executive Branch if he is personally responsible for — and therefore able to freely remove — officials exercising those functions Ms. Comans exercised in her former role.”

A federal judge ruled in July that Comans’ firing was unlawful. The Justice Department has appealed the decision.

“If I’m the Justice Department working on any of these cases, the first thing I do is cite Slaughter and say Slaughter says we can remove subordinates. Employees and inferior officers are subordinates, ergo this case is covered by Slaughter,” Bednar said. “The chief gave them that fuel. The chief could’ve written an opinion that just said principal officers, and Slaughter wouldn’t have given them much to go off of.”

Instead, by talking broadly about “subordinates,” Bednar said, it “raises this question of whether the civil service and inferior officers might be next.”

The Supreme Court’s decision invalidating removal protections for members of certain independent agencies capped a string of rulings that chipped away at a 1935 decision that allowed Congress to limit the president’s ability to fire those officials at will. The court’s conservative majority officially overruled that New Deal-era precedent in June.

But the high court has in a series of decisions over the last 140 years — most recently in 2021 — upheld the civil service system and reaffirmed that Congress can “limit and restrict” the removal of inferior officers.

In his June opinion in Slaughter’s case, Roberts noted that the court did not “determine the fate of officials not before us.” And in a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted civil service laws, writing they “ordinarily afford rank-and-file agency employees considerable protection against removal.” Still, he added that a president can “seek to exert greater control” over federal workers by reclassifying their roles to be outside the reach of those laws.

“The government certainly faces, we think, a high hurdle in this case,” Zelinsky said. “We think the arguments for these civil service laws being constitutional are incredibly strong. They are deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition and precedent. It would be astonishing if the Constitution granted the president the authority not just to fire millions of federal workers, but to affirmatively discriminate against them on the basis of their partisanship, their religion, their sex.”

Still, in a dissenting opinion in the Slaughter case in June, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the ruling could have “major implications for inferior officers and civil-service employees.” The majority, she said, “at best consigns these issues to years of future uncertainty and at worst risks the end of the employment protections that apply to members of the civil service.”

“This court does seem pretty committed to the formalist and textualist position that all executive power is vested in the president,” Alicea said. “If that is true, it is hard to see how that does not extend to inferior officers, so I would think they might carry it to that logical conclusion.”

特朗普下令对多晶硅开征15%关税 设最低进口价

2026年8月7日 21:29 / 联合早报

美国总统特朗普周四在白宫签署两道限制美国出生公民权的行政令，并发布总统公告，对用于半导体和太阳能产业的多晶硅征收15%关税。负责执行新关税的美国商务部长卢特尼克（右）也在场，他宣称美国的多晶硅产业将在特朗普领导下爆炸式增长。 （彭博社）

（华盛顿综合电）美国总统特朗普下令对用于半导体和太阳能板的多晶硅和衍生品征收15%关税，并设定一系列最低进口价，希望减少依赖外国供应，吸引投资扩大本土产量。

有分析指，美国的新贸易限制举措并不会影响中国这个全球最大多晶硅（polysilicon）生产国，因为美国早已停止从中国进口，受冲击的反而是盟友德国和韩国企业，以及美国本土的太阳能业者。

特朗普星期四（8月6日）签署总统公告，援引《贸易扩张法》第232条款，以国家安全为由，从今年12月4日起对进口的多晶硅衍生品包括晶圆、太阳能电池和模组等征收15%关税。

特朗普政府也为多晶硅制定每公斤21美元（约26.9新元）的最低进口价，多晶硅锭和硅片是每公斤100美元，至于制成品太阳能电池的最低进口价为每瓦特22美分，太阳能模组则是每瓦特38美分。

白宫文告称，新举措的目标是要“为这些战略物品的美国生产商创造一个平等竞争环境”，以及“鼓励产业回流美国”。特朗普同时下令美国商务部制定措施鼓励业者在美国投资扩厂。

特朗普当天在白宫椭圆形办公室发表公告时，在场的商务部长卢特尼克对记者说：“我们制定（最低）进口价是要让中国不能再继续倾销产品。我们制定关税是要告诉商家来这里设厂。这里已有相关产业，规模还太小，接下来将在您（指特朗普）的领导下爆炸式增长。”

美多晶硅太阳能业者欢迎关税与进口价机制

多晶硅是超高纯度的硅，处于半导体和太阳能产业链的起点。其中，电子级多晶硅纯度最高，是制造各种电子产品中的晶片不可或缺的原料；至于占全球产量近98%的太阳能级多晶硅纯度较低，用于制造太阳能电池，再组装成太阳能项目所使用的面板。

行业数据显示，虽然中国在低成本的太阳能级多晶硅掌握绝大优势，但低产量高利润的半导体多晶硅约60%在美国生产。

美国目前有两家多晶硅厂，一家是美国光纤公司康宁（Corning）和日本信越半导体（Shin-Etsu Handotai）合资的赫姆洛克半导体（Hemlock Semiconductor），另一家是德国公司瓦克化学（Wacker Chemie）。

康宁发言人称，新措施将鼓励业者继续投资扩大美国产能，支持美国的长期竞争力。瓦克也感谢特朗普政府持续关注半导体供应链韧性和美国安全利益，但它正在评估最新措施的可能冲击。

至于美国的太阳能业者，长久以来一直指中国和其他外国业者通过不平等的补贴倾销产品。它们在星期四纷纷对新宣布的举措表示赞赏。

大力提倡制造业回流的美国繁荣联盟（Coalition for a Prosperous America）公开赞扬新举措，称这是美国政府“历来首次通过单一措施就维护了整条太阳能供应链、奖励在本地生产的制造商，同时大大加强本土半导体供应链”。

分析：关税料不直接影响中国

不过，彭博社发表分析文指，美国其实自2022年便不再从中国进口多晶硅，这是因为在拜登前总统时期制定的《防止强迫维吾尔人劳动法》 禁止美国使用所有新疆产品，而新疆是主要的硅产业中心。

因此新关税将直接打击的主要是德国和韩国出口商，以及美国本土的太阳能面板制造商，因为它们的生产线高度依赖进口的太阳能材料。

分析也认为，美国的贸易保护措施并没有对本土太阳能产业落后的病因对症下药。中国得以主导这个市场并不是因为补贴，而是拥有巨大的规模效益，而这又是因为有确定的市场需求。

相反地，美国本身对能源转型踌躇不前，拖累本土太阳能业者。

Exclusive: House Democrat urges Goldman Sachs to cut ties with former top lawyer over Epstein scrutiny

2026-08-07T14:07:28.786Z / CNN

The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee is calling on Goldman Sachs to sever all remaining ties with Kathy Ruemmler, the firm’s former chief legal officer, following her testimony last month about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

In a letter sent on Friday to Goldman CEO David Solomon, Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia called Ruemmler’s testimony before the committee “nothing short of shocking” and said that she was “clearly demonstrating a refusal to take accountability for her conduct.”

“Ms. Ruemmler should not serve as a Goldman Sachs executive in any capacity,” Garcia wrote. Ruemmler initially announced her resignation from the bank in February after a series of reports, including from CNN, detailing the extent of her relationship with Epstein in the years before he died in 2019.

While Ruemmler initially said she intended to leave the bank on June 30, she has since remained in an advisory role, reportedly at the behest of Solomon, while the firm seeks to replace her.

Garcia also called on the bank to commit that its next chief legal officer have no connection to either Epstein or his convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell after Ruemmler declined to promise so in her closed-door interview last month. The bank is under no obligation to respond.

CNN has reached out to Ruemmler and Goldman Sachs for comment.

The demand from Garcia marks the latest round of congressional scrutiny over Goldman’s handling of Ruemmler.

In June, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi questioned Solomon’s “professional judgement and fitness” to lead the bank following reports that he had asked Ruemmler to remain as an adviser after her planned departure.

Last month, Ruemmler testified before the Oversight committee for more than seven hours — one of its longest interviews yet in its Epstein probe. Ruemmler said she regretted ever knowing Epstein, called it a “mistake to deal with him” and expressed sympathy for his victims.

Garcia, however, was unsatisfied with many of her answers and called on the bank to reply by August 21. In his letter, he cited Ruemmler’s responses to jokes she and Epstein made about his criminal history and attacks she made against Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers who died by suicide in 2025.

When asked specifically by investigators whether she believed Giuffre was a victim of Epstein and Maxwell’s, Ruemmler answered, “I don’t know.” She added that some of Giuffre’s allegations “lacked inherent credibility.”

Giuffre’s family swiftly blasted Ruemmler’s answer. “The only person who lacks credibility is Kathy Ruemmler, who is trying to get people to believe she didn’t know Jeffrey Epstein was actively engaged in sex trafficking,” Sky and Amanda Roberts, Giuffre’s brother and sister-in-law, said in a statement to CNN last week, adding that Ruemmler “should be ashamed of herself.”

Jennifer Connelly, a spokesperson for Ruemmler, told CNN in a statement last week, “As Ms. Ruemmler told the committee, she had no knowledge of Epstein’s ongoing criminal activity and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. Ms. Ruemmler would never turn a blind eye to any criminal activity and if she had seen or heard anything to suggest that Epstein was harming women or girls, she would have taken action to stop it.”

The letter from Garcia also said Ruemmler’s testimony “raised serious concerns” about Goldman Sachs’ response to her relationship with Epstein.

According to the letter, Ruemmler told the committee that she disclosed the connection before she was hired and provided the bank with additional information in 2023, 2025 and 2026. She said she “wouldn’t characterize” Solomon’s reaction as concern and that no one at Goldman objected to her serving on the firm’s reputational risk and conduct committees.

CNN’s KFile previously reported on Ruemmler’s ties to Epstein, including the hundreds of emails they exchanged between 2014 and 2019. Some of the emails released in the Epstein files showed Ruemmler advising Epstein on legal and reputational matters in the last five years of his life.

Other emails, which are subject to attorney-client privilege but were described in a court document, suggest she was involved in advising Epstein further on a range of topics, including efforts to preserve his controversial 2008 plea deal, drafting and shaping proposed public statements, editing correspondence with a US senator, and even discussions related to victim settlements.

Some of Ruemmler and Epstein’s communications were also more personal in nature. Emails showed they exchanged pleasantries on birthdays; expressed gratitude for their friendship and the gifts Epstein gave Ruemmler; planned lunches and dinners; scheduled beauty appointments; and even proposed a trip to Epstein’s island in the Caribbean that never materialized.

美国7月非农就业人数下降 失业率降至4.1%

2026年8月7日 21:35 / 联合早报

美国7月份的就业数据通常较为疲软。图为纽约市布鲁克林的一家杂货店。 （法新社）

美国经济7月份非农就业人数意外下降，且6月份非农就业人数大幅下修，这可能引发人们对联邦储备局下个月会否加息的疑问。

路透社报道，美国劳工部劳工统计局星期五（8月7日）发布的备受关注的就业报告显示，继6月份数据向下修正为新增2万个就业岗位之后，7月份非农就业人数减少了2万3000人。

路透社调查的经济师此前预测，7月份非农就业人数将增加8万人，而此前公布的6月份增幅为5万7000人。预测范围从最低1万人到最高14万人不等。

然而，7月份的就业数据通常较为疲软。经济师认为，劳动力市场目前处于“缓慢招聘，缓慢解雇”的模式。经济似乎已挺过了持续六个月的中东冲突，第二季度国内需求增速创三年多来新高。

随着劳动参与率进一步下降，失业率从6月份的4.2%降至4.1%。

在报告发布前，金融市场预期美联储将在9月份加息。上周，美联储维持隔夜基准利率在3.50%至3.75%区间不变。

Cassidy backs Blanche for attorney general, clearing way for confirmation

2026-08-07T10:54:00-0400 / CBS News

By

Updated on: August 7, 2026 / 11:08 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana announced Friday that he will support Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general, clearing the way for him to lead the Justice Department in a permanent capacity.

“Mr. Blanche is not perfect, and he will tell you this, but the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche,” Cassidy said in remarks on the Senate floor announcing his support. “It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

With Cassidy’s backing, Blanche is expected to clinch his confirmation for attorney general, though by a narrow margin. While Republicans control the Senate, Blanche could only afford to lose the votes of two GOP senators and still win approval for the role of the nation’s top law enforcement official given Sen. Mitch McConnell’s absence.

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had already announced their plans to oppose Blanche’s nomination, making Cassidy the decisive vote. All Democrats are expected to vote against Blanche for attorney general.

The Senate is planning to hold votes on a number of GOP prioritieson Friday before leaving Washington for a five-week recess. It’s unclear whether the chamber will vote on Blanche’s confirmation as part of that sprint, since speeding up the process would require consent from Democrats.

In his Senate floor speech, Cassidy said the choice between Blanche and a different acting attorney general “puts at risk the progress made fighting violent crime, human and drug trafficking, and fraud.”

“This does not serve the American people well,” he said. “This is not a referendum on President Trump. It is a decision regarding Mr. Blanche in very specific circumstances. All considered, I will vote for Mr. Blanche.”

Blanche’s nomination

Mr. Trump announced Blanche as his nominee for attorney general in June to replace Pam Bondi, whom he ousted in April. Blanche, who was the president’s former personal defense lawyer, has been serving as acting attorney general since Bondi’s firing.

But his path to confirmation has been tenuous, as key Republican senators took issue with Blanche’s role in establishing the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund designed to provide payouts to people who alleged they had been unfairly targeted by the federal government.

Senators raised concerns that defendants convicted of assaulting law enforcement during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could be given taxpayer-backed payments. Cassidy was among the seven Republicans who voted to convict Mr. Trump on a charge of incitement of insurrection during his second impeachment trial in February 2021. The president, whose first term had already ended, was acquitted by the upper chamber.

The “anti-weaponization” fund was part of a settlement agreement the president reached with the IRS in May to resolve a $10 billion civil lawsuit he filed over the leak of his tax returns by a former government contractor.

In addition to the $1.8 billion program, the Justice Department also agreed to grant Mr. Trump, members of his family and affiliated entities sweeping immunity from tax audits and investigations.

Cassidy said Blanche demonstrated “poor judgment” by approving the “anti-weaponization” fund and granting the president immunity from tax probes. The Louisiana senator said that he is also “concerned” with prosecutions against Mr. Trump’s perceived political enemies, though he added that “presidents of both parties have been guilty of this.”

“It must stop. It should stop now,” he said. “A never-ending cycle of prosecuting political enemies undermines the rule of law, degrades the public’s trust in our institutions, and makes our politics more extreme when we need to unite to solve the big problems of our time.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy speaks on the Senate floor on Friday, Aug. 7, 2026. Senate TV

Still, he said Blanche is “criticized for things over which he has no control,” such as the president’s pardons for defendants convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack.

Pushback to the “anti-weaponization” fund and the immunity deal threatened to derail Blanche’s nomination, though he tried to assuage senators’ concerns during his confirmation hearing.

While the acting attorney general told senators that the fund was “dead,” the Justice Department negotiated for weeks with two key Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, before securing their backing for Blanche earlier this week.

To earn their support, Blanche issued a new order rescinding a May directive that established the “anti-weaponization” fund and clarified the scope of the tax immunity deal for Mr. Trump.

Following the agreement, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to advance Blanche’s nomination to the Senate floor.

But beyond the “anti-weaponization” fund and immunity deal for Mr. Trump, Blanche also came under scrutiny from senators for the Justice Department’s handling of the release of more than 3 million pages of documents from its investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as his meeting last year with Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend of Epstein’s who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.

Blanche acknowledged during his confirmation hearing that “mistakes were made” with some of the Epstein documents, which contained the unredacted names and personal information of victims of his sex-trafficking operation. He also met with survivors of Epstein’s crimes at the Justice Department last month after Tillis said he would withhold support until Blanche did so.

But some of the survivors criticized Blanche for his conduct during the meeting, with one describing it as a “check-the-box exercise” designed to secure votes for his confirmation. They urged senators to reject his nomination.

美国7月非农就业人数下降 失业率降至4.1%

2026年8月7日 21:35 / 联合早报

美国7月份的就业数据通常较为疲软。图为纽约市布鲁克林的一家杂货店。 （法新社）

美国经济7月份非农就业人数意外下降，且6月份非农就业人数大幅下修，这可能引发人们对联邦储备局下个月会否加息的疑问。

路透社报道，美国劳工部劳工统计局星期五（8月7日）发布的备受关注的就业报告显示，继6月份数据向下修正为新增2万个就业岗位之后，7月份非农就业人数减少了2万3000人。

路透社调查的经济师此前预测，7月份非农就业人数将增加8万人，而此前公布的6月份增幅为5万7000人。预测范围从最低1万人到最高14万人不等。

然而，7月份的就业数据通常较为疲软。经济师认为，劳动力市场目前处于“缓慢招聘，缓慢解雇”的模式。经济似乎已挺过了持续六个月的中东冲突，第二季度国内需求增速创三年多来新高。

随着劳动参与率进一步下降，失业率从6月份的4.2%降至4.1%。

在报告发布前，金融市场预期美联储将在9月份加息。上周，美联储维持隔夜基准利率在3.50%至3.75%区间不变。