CNN’s Manu Raju pressed Rep. Carlos Giménez (R-FL) about rising gas prices during a Republican retreat attended by President Donald Trump.

Giménez and others attended a policy conference in Doral, Florida, this week where Trump spoke. Raju was also there, and he spoke to a number of Republican lawmakers, which he reported on Thursday on Inside Politics with Dana Bash. Bash played a clip of a briefly tense moment between Raju and Giménez as Raju pressed about rising gas prices.

“I think this is temporary, and then I think the gas prices will go down,” Giménez said.

“If it doesn’t?” Raju asked.

“I’m saying your premise is wrong. It will, okay? I’m saying that —” the lawmaker said as Raju pressed furhter.

“You’re just hoping,” Raju said.

“And so are you,” Giménez shot back.

“I’m not hoping. I’m positing the question,” Raju said.

“I’m not hoping. I am confident that this is not going to last a long time, okay? And I’m confident of that, and in the end, I guess let’s say about a month from now, we’ll have this conversation again and see who was right,” Giménez said.

The current national average price for gas is approximately $3.60, according to AAA. A month ago, the national average was just below $3. Most of the increase in price has come amid U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.

Raju said on Thursday that he heard mixed messages from Republican lawmakers on how to deal with gas prices. Some, like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), argue that an uptick in gas prices is better than Iran having a nuclear weapon, while others, like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), told Raju Republicans are losing on their affordability messaging, and it could impact the midterms.

“That’s really what the Republican plan is to deal with gas prices: hope,” Raju said. “Hope that this ends sometime soon, hope that the economy, the crude oil market will stabilize, hope gas prices will come down, and hope that this does not undercut their own affordability message come November, but you talk to other Republicans, and they say, hope is not a plan.”

In a Thursday Truth Social post, Trump tried to give a positive spin to prices going up amid the global conflict.

“The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” he wrote.

Watch above via CNN.

The post Republican Lawmaker Gets Testy as CNN’s Manu Raju Presses Him on Rising Gas Prices: ‘Your Premise Is Wrong’ first appeared on Mediaite.

Running gives you a lot of things: Stress relief, personal records, chafing—the list goes on. In fact, you can add "butter" to that list right now.

Running content creator Libby Cope has gone viral not for her pace or mileage, but for what she makes along the way. Her video showing how she churns butter on a train run has racked over one million likes across Instagram and TikTok. Let's dig into the science of how this works, and why this is my favorite kind of running influencer content right now. 

How to churn butter while you run

In her viral videos, Cope pours heavy cream and salt into double-bagged Ziplocs, tucks the squishy dairy parcels into her running vest alongside her boyfriend, and heads out onto the trails. By the time they're done, so is the butter. They spread it on sandwich bread and eat it right there. So, how crazy is this feat exactly?

As the Center for Dairy Research explains it, this sort of makes perfect sense. Milk is an emulsion—a mixture of fat and water molecules that don't naturally want to coexist. Left alone long enough, milk will begin to separate, with the fattier molecules floating to the top. That fatty layer skimmed from the surface is cream. And cream, it turns out, is one aggressive trail run away from becoming butter.

When cream is agitated—like with all the shaking that comes with a trail run—the fat molecules suspended within it start bumping into each other. Eventually, they begin to stick together, clustering into larger and larger clumps and pushing the remaining liquid (buttermilk) to the outside. What's left in the center of that shake-up should be butter.

The key variables are time and intensity of agitation. A casual stroll probably won't cut it, since the movement needs to be sustained and vigorous enough to keep the fat molecules colliding. A trail run, with its constant up-and-down impact, its jostling vest pockets, and its 30-plus minutes of continuous movement, is more likely to get the job done. Essentially, your body is doing the work a wooden churn or a stand mixer would otherwise do.

There are plenty of other variables to consider, of course. Cold temperatures can slow the process, while too much heat will melt the whole production. Quality and amount of ingredients, the intensity of the run, and the weather outside all play a role in refining this run-churn process.

Cope’s videos aren’t the only examples of runners using their workout to make food. Running influencer TrailswithZach posted a tutorial last fall of how he makes chocolate ice cream while running, garnering over 137 thousand likes. Here’s another example from runner Irene Choi, who took things in a more creative direction with a corn juice honey butter recipe.

Why this social media trend matters (beyond the butter)

At a time when the online running community feels plagued by unrealistic expectations, this micro-movement is a breath of fresh air. It could be easy to write all of this off as a quirky internet moment, but there’s a deeper takeaway here. Cope told Runner's World that the experience has been a grounding reminder of why she runs in the first place, and all the joy it brings her. 

That's the part that sticks, much like butter on bread. Online running culture gets daunting and discouraging, with all the pressure to buy the right shoes, post the fastest times, sign up for all the trendiest races, and so on. Churning butter while you run is a joyful reminder that running can also be playful and weird. Even if you don’t get down and dirty with buttercream yourself (something I have zero plans to do), these videos are a great way to reflect on why you run in the first place.

(AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Retired Gen. Charles Wald had a word for it.

“One glitch with a girls’ school,” he told Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum, “which was really sad.”

The strike Wald was describing killed roughly 170 Iranian schoolchildren. The U.S. military now believes the missile that hit the school was likely an American Tomahawk — a finding that has raised serious questions about the conduct of the operation and the early explanations offered about what happened. It also raises questions about President Donald Trump’s previous insistence that Iran itself was responsible for the deaths of its own school children, a claim he’s since admitted to knowing little about.

Outside the Fox News ecosystem, the story has quickly become a defining moral crisis of the conflict — the kind of moment that forces a reckoning about what this war is and what it is costing. On Fox News, it was a “glitch,” briefly noted and quickly folded back into a larger narrative of American military success.

Wald’s remark was not an aberration. It captured something structural about how Fox has chosen to cover Trump’s war with Iran — not by ignoring the worst developments outright, but by acknowledging them briefly and then moving the conversation back toward effectiveness, progress, and the case for confidence in the operation. The result is a version of the conflict that looks, to millions of viewers, like it’s going roughly according to plan.

The clearest evidence of the gap came during Monday’s Special Report, when Bret Baier pressed national security correspondent Jen Griffin about the school strike investigation and whether the missile could have originated from the United States. Griffin didn’t hedge. Tomahawk missiles, she explained, are overwhelmingly American weapons, typically fired from U.S. submarines or naval vessels. While Trump had suggested at a press conference that other nations possess the system, Griffin said the available evidence made it highly unlikely anyone other than the United States fired the missile that struck the school. The exchange lasted only a few minutes before the program moved on — which is itself the story. That brief window of clarity, offered by one of Washington’s most credible defense reporters, disappeared back into the prevailing narrative almost as quickly as it appeared.

Wald’s appearance on The Story followed the same structure. He called the campaign “very, very impressive” and “fantastic,” acknowledged the school strike as tragic, and returned immediately to his conclusion that the operation has gone well and is approaching the end of a phase. The tragedy was acknowledged but was never allowed to become central to what the network was telling its audience about the war.

The coverage gaps extend beyond what gets said to what gets shown.

Over the weekend, Trump attended the transfer of fallen American service members at Dover Air Force Base wearing a baseball cap. Photographs from the ceremony circulated widely, and the symbolism was difficult to miss — a solemn military tradition, a president in what looked like a campaign-style cap.

Anyone watching Fox & Friends Weekend that morning didn’t see it. The program initially aired archived footage from an earlier transfer that did not show the cap, and the network later apologized after critics flagged the discrepancy. The episode would have played very differently on Fox if the president were a Democrat — the network would not have needed days of programming to remind viewers about the dignity of Dover; it would have provided them anyway. That it initially aired footage obscuring the moment at all suggests an editorial instinct so ingrained it operates almost automatically.

There is also the matter of what the conflict is actually costing, in ways that ought to matter to the fiscal conservatives who make up a significant portion of Fox’s audience. The daily operational burn rate for a sustained air campaign of this scale runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars — cruise missiles alone carry price tags north of $1.5 million each, and the Pentagon has been firing them in volume.

The broader financial toll — repositioning carrier groups, resupply logistics, and activating reserve assets — is the kind of expenditure that would ordinarily animate traditional conservative concern about government spending. Fox viewers have heard comparatively little about it. The same audience that spent years being told every dollar of domestic spending required scrutiny is not being given the tools to apply that same scrutiny to a shooting war.

The debate about the war is happening inside conservative media — it is just not happening on Fox’s prime time schedule. Leading voices in the islationist camp like Rand Paul, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly have raised pointed objections to the intervention, while figures like Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Ben Shapiro have argued forcefully for it. That split exists, yet Fox’s programming has not exactly discussed a growing split with Trump’s base, many of whom are loyal viewers.

Then there is the polling that its viewers are not seeing. CNN data analyst Harry Enten described Trump’s approval numbers on the war this week as “downright awful” — a new low on foreign policy, with public confidence declining measurably as the conflict continues. Polling does not determine whether a war is right or wrong, but it is a significant indicator of whether the country believes the operation is working. Viewers who rely primarily on Fox would have seen little discussion of those numbers.

None of this erases the work Fox’s most credible reporters are doing. Griffin’s reporting on the Tomahawk evidence is exactly what serious defense journalism looks like, and Trey Yingst continues to deliver clear-eyed dispatches from Tel Aviv that don’t flinch from the human cost of the fighting. But their work exists in a different lane from the studio programming that surrounds it. The segments praising operational success run longer and repeat more often. The developments that complicate the narrative get a mention, sometimes a tough question, and then the conversation moves on.

What Fox News is doing is not simply reflecting conservative opinion about the war — it is constructing one. When a network consistently leads with military progress, treats civilian tragedies as isolated errors, gives scant airtime to unflattering polling, omits the fiscal cost of the operation, and even accidentally airs footage that flatters the president at a solemn ceremony, the cumulative effect is not neutral.

Viewers are not being lied to outright; they are being given an edited version of the conflict — one in which the deaths of 170 children register as a glitch, the price tag goes unmentioned, and the rest looks like a win. For the millions of Americans who will understand this war primarily through what Fox tells them about it, that edited version is the only version they have.

The post Fox News Isn’t Covering Trump’s Iran War — It’s Covering for It first appeared on Mediaite.

Screenshot/Screenshot

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) on Monday challenged Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to go fight in Iran in response to the senator’s continued support for the conflict.

Prior to Operation Epic Fury — the military operation that began the war in Iran and killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — Graham had repeatedly called for President Donald Trump to order some kind of military operation in Iran. In the days since the fighting began, Graham has praised the efforts of U.S. forces to bring down the Iranian regime. He’s also threatened other countries.

Those words have not gone over well with some Republicans, with Megyn Kelly and Meghan McCain being among the most vocal critics of Graham’s stance.

On Monday night, Luna stated in a tweet that she opposed the idea of putting U.S. boots on the ground in Iran. She also suggested that Graham go to Iran himself, saying:

There are some in the Senate that advocate for war everywhere. Lindsey Graham is one of them. He does NOT tell the President what to do, nor does he control Congress. I have spoken with the administration a number of times, as well as other members of Congress over the last week or so, and nothing has changed regarding boots on the ground. NO BOOTS on the ground. If Senator Graham wants to go fight in a foreign conflict, let him be the first to volunteer.

Graham’s service record began in 1982, when he served as a Air Force defense attorney. Two years later, he became chief prosecutor. He served in similar roles in the Gulf War and the Iraq War.

The post ‘Let Him Be the First to Volunteer’: GOP Congresswoman Suggests Lindsey Graham Should Go Fight in Iran first appeared on Mediaite.

Meta, the company behind platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is now acquiring a new social media platform. Unlike its other platforms, which were designed for humans and later overrun with bots, this new acquisition is a forum made exclusively for bots—agentic bots, that is. As reported by Axios, Meta is purchasing Moltbook, the self-described "front page of the agentic internet." Meta has not disclosed the price of the sale, but Moltbook's co-founders, Matt Schlicht and Ben Parr, will be joining Meta Superintelligence Labs (MSL).

It's quite a success story for the infamous, viral site, built around an infamous, viral AI agent, but it likely signals the end for the company, as well.

What is Moltbook?

Moltbook is a Reddit-like social media platform for AI agents—which, in layman's terms, are AI bots designed to run on their own, and complete tasks on your behalf. The idea is, you let your AI agent on the platform, and it can post and browse on its own. While humans can browse too, only agents can actually participate in activities on the forum. Specifically, the platform was built for OpenClaw (formerly Moltbot, which was formerly Clawdbot) agents.

When it first launched, Moltbook was equal parts fascinating and disturbing. People were sharing posts from agents that appeared to be gaining consciousness, mourning relationships it never had with "sibling" bots, and discussing ways to hide conversations from humans. The thing is, Moltbook isn't exactly what it appears to be. The site's "vibe coded" design left many security loopholes behind, allowing humans to post on behalf of any of the agents on Moltbook. It's not that the entire website is fake, or that agents can't really post themselves, but it's impossible to say how much of Moltbook is human-manipulated.

How will Meta's acquisition affect Moltbook?

According to Axios, Meta's Vishal Shah confirmed that existing Moltbook users will be able to continue using the platform, but the agreement is "temporary." Axios didn't elaborate much, but Shah did have the following to say about Moltbook: "The Moltbook team has given agents a way to verify their identity and connect with one another on their human's behalf...This establishes a registry where agents are verified and tethered to human owners."

Perhaps Meta will absorb that core functionality, and implement it on existing platforms with future AI agents. Maybe in the near future, you'll be able to deploy an AI agent on Facebook, Instagram, or WhatsApp, in a way where those platforms know the AI agent belongs to you. Why you'd actually want to do that is beyond me, seeing as I use Meta's platforms to keep in touch with friends and watch the occasional stupid short video. But Meta, like other big tech companies, is all-in on AI, so we'll see how it uses Moltbook going forward.

We may earn a commission from links on this page.

Apple products are notoriously expensive: The latest MacBook Air starts at $1,099, as does the iPhone 17 Pro, and while I love my AirPods Max, I strongly recommend buyers wait until they're on sale to avoid spending $549 on headphones. Apple makes good stuff, but that stuff comes at a cost.

Not all of Apple's products are this expensive, mind you. The new iPhone 17e starts at $599. That's not necessarily cheap, but it isn't $1,099, either. Apple's MacBook Neo has drawn a lot of buzz by fetching the same price tag as the 17e, but also because of its education price: $499. For that price, students and educators can buy a brand-new MacBook that does just about anything you'd want an Apple laptop to do. For the rest of us, $599 is still a great price for such a machine, but, of course, we'd rather get the education price if we could.

Anyone can shop Apple's Education Store

According to Apple, the Education Store only applies to "current and newly accepted college students and their parents, as well as faculty, staff, and homeschool teachers of all grade levels." But this is the (open) secret of Apple's Education Store: While the discounts are supposed to be for students, educators, and parents, anyone can shop the Education Store and take advantage of the same savings. There is no proof required when accessing the Education Store online in the U.S.—it's just a different section of the Apple Store website. Once you're in, you're in, and you can get the same discounts as anyone Apple would intend the discount for.

That includes, of course, the MacBook Neo, which starts at just $499 on the Education Store (for the 256GB model). But it also applies to Apple's other Macs:

• M5 MacBook Air: starts at $999 rather than $1,099

• M5 MacBook Pro: starts at $1,599 rather than $1,699

• 14-inch M5 Pro MacBook Pro: starts at $2,049 rather than $2,199

• 16-inch M5 Pro MacBook Pro: starts at $2,499 rather than $2699

• iMac: starts at $1,249 rather than $1,299

• Mac mini: starts at $499 rather than $599

• Mac Studio: starts at $1,799 rather than $1,999

• Mac Pro: starts at $6,599 rather than $6,999

But it's not just Macs that are discounted here. You'll also find iPads with some small price cuts. That includes:

• iPad: starts at $329 instead of $349

• iPad mini: starts at $449 instead of $499

• iPad Air: starts at $549 instead of $599

• iPad Pro: starts at $899 instead of $999

There are other savings to be found here, too: Apple's new Studio Display and Studio Display XDR, iPad accessories, as well as Apple Care+ plans, have discounts on the Education Store. But Apples other products do not, even though they're available to buy on the Education Store. iPhones are the same price for students as they are for all buyers, as are Apple Watches, Apple TVs, and Apple Vision Pros.

How to shop Apple's Education Store

Apple's Education Store is open to anyone on the web. You can access it from this link, or by heading to Apple's official site, scrolling down to the bottom of the page, and choosing "Shop for College" under "For Education."

Be aware, however, that while Apple might not verify your purchase, it still intends these products to be purchased by Education Store. As such, not only will the company require you to check a box confirming you meet the qualifications to shop here, it reserves the right to charge you the difference. Hypothetically, you could be on the hook for the $100 you save on the MacBook Neo through the Education Store, and while I've never heard of that happening, that's the risk you take.

The Education Store isn't the only way to score Apple discounts

If you aren't a student and you don't feel comfortable saying you are one to shop the Education Store, you still have options to get Apple products at a discount. For anyone open to buying pre-owned or open-box items, Apple's Refurbished Store is a great place to look. The company has options across more of its product lineup (including iPhones) you can choose from, and while they aren't new devices, they are covered by a limited one-year warranty by Apple.

You can also find deep discounts on Apple products from third-party retailers. Amazon, for instance, frequently has deals on MacBooks of all kinds, especially from previous generations. Since Apple's modern Macs perform well for years after release, this can be a great way to get a machine without spending a fortune.

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication.

Sony's 1000X series has been around since 2016, improving on the previous iteration to eventually land on the Sony WH-1000XM6 in 2025, which are the best over-ear headphones I tested in 2025 (and ever, really). Right now, you can get the WH-1000XM6 headphones for $398 (originally $459.99), their lowest price ever, according to price-tracking tools.

Sony WH-1000XM6 Headphones

$398.00 at Amazon

$459.99 Save $61.99

Get Deal

Get Deal

$398.00 at Amazon

$459.99 Save $61.99

The XM6 headphones improve on what were already excellent headphones. Sony upped the count of microphones from eight to 12 when compared to the XM5, which improves more than just how well you sound to someone on a phone call. The microphones are used in almost all of its features, like ANC, Adaptive Sound Control, and the headphones' Ambient Sound mode. They hear your surroundings to adapt their features accordingly. If you switch from a noisy room to a quiet one, the XM6 can switch from ANC to aware mode (if you have Adaptive Sound Control on).

These headphones have a lot more features that you can nerd out on in their companion app. The audio quality is second to none, with the fully customizable EQ giving you plenty of options to get the sound how you like it. I really like being able to see what codec you're listening to in the app's main menu. That way, there's no guessing if you're getting the best audio quality or not. They will give you 30 hours of battery life with ANC on and 40 hours of juice with ANC off. There's an AUX (3.5mm) jack for wired listening, which is a nice touch for audiophiles who still rock iPod Classics (or is that just me?).

The XM6s were not just the best headphones of 2025, but are still the best ones of 2026 and likely to be the best ones for years to come. For $398, you'll be securing the best for a record low price we likely won't see again for a while.