By DEE-ANN DURBIN

Nestle said Wednesday it will eliminate artificial colors from its U.S. food and beverages by the middle of 2026.

Related Articles

Apple Valley senior living community adding independent living apartments

Asked on Reddit: Should I repair or replace my broken appliance?

Kroger announces closure of 60 stores across U.S.

How ChatGPT and other AI tools are changing the teaching profession

Trump administration wants to reopen logging in Superior National Forest

It’s the latest big food company making that pledge. Last week, Kraft Heinz and General Mills said they would remove artificial dyes from their U.S. products by 2027. General Mills also said it plans to remove artificial dyes from its U.S. cereals and from all foods served in K-12 schools by the middle of 2026.

The move has broad support. About two-thirds of Americans favor restricting or reformulating processed foods to remove ingredients like added sugar or dyes, according to an AP-NORC poll. Both California and West Virginia have recently banned artificial dyes in foods served in schools.

On Sunday, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signed a bill requiring foods made with artificial dyes or additives to contain a new safety label starting in 2027. The label would say they contain ingredients “not recommended for human consumption” in Australia, Canada, the European Union or the U.K.

The federal government is also stepping up its scrutiny of artificial colors. In January, days before President Donald Trump took office, the U.S. regulators banned the dye called Red 3 from the nation’s food supply, nearly 35 years after it was barred from cosmetics because of potential cancer risk.

In April, Trump’s Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency would take steps to eliminate synthetic dyes by the end of 2026, largely by relying on voluntary efforts from the food industry.

Nestle has pledged to remove artificial dyes before. Early in 2015, the company said it would remove artificial flavors and colors from its products by the end of that year. But the promise didn’t hold.

Nestle said Wednesday it’s been removing synthetic dyes from its products over the last decade, and 90% of its U.S. portfolio doesn’t contain them. Among those that do is Nesquik Banana Strawberry milk, which is made with Red 3.

Nestle said Wednesday it wants to evolve with its U.S. customers’ changing nutritional needs and preferences.

“Serving and delighting people is at the heart of everything we do and every decision that we make,” Nestle’s U.S. CEO Marty Thompson said in a statement.

At a time when polarization often drowns out nuance, a new report from More in Common titled “Shared Ideals, Divergent Realities” offers a revealing portrait of Americans’ views on democracy in the Trump era.

Despite a political climate dominated by division and distrust, the findings underscore a striking and perhaps hopeful truth: Americans across the political spectrum still overwhelmingly support democracy and constitutional norms. The danger lies not in disagreement over those ideals but in our profound divide over who — and what — endangers them.

The report, based on a representative national survey and in-depth qualitative interviews, shows that 63% of Americans—including 69% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats — believe democracy is “definitely the best” form of government for the United States. Over 70% agree the president should always act within the bounds of the Constitution, even if it limits his ability to get things done. These are not small numbers. They reflect shared civic values at a time when such agreement often feels out of reach.

But while Americans agree on the importance of democracy, they diverge sharply on how to apply it—particularly when evaluating the actions of President Donald Trump. For most Democrats, Trump’s return to power signals a clear threat to democratic norms. Nearly 80% believe he aspires to become a dictator. By contrast, 60% of Republicans say it is the courts — not the presidency — that pose the greater threat to democracy. In this mirror-world divide, the same actions are interpreted either as anti-democratic power grabs or as much-needed efforts to root out corruption and inefficiency.

Federal budget cuts by the Trump administration exemplify this split. Most Republicans view them as responsible governance — long overdue trims to bloated bureaucracies. Many Trump voters express genuine frustration with wasteful spending and see the cuts as fulfilling campaign promises. Yet even within the Republican base, some express unease with the execution. They worry about chaos, lack of planning, and unclear criteria. “I agree that some cuts are needed,” one independent Trump voter from Ohio notes, “but not in the haphazard methods deployed at the start.”

Democrats, meanwhile, view the same cuts through a lens of fear and suspicion — seeing them as politically motivated attempts to undermine government capacity and redirect resources to Trump’s allies or private interests. “Many of the cuts have been done as political retaliation,” says one Kamala Harris voter from Connecticut, “just for a headline.”

The research also captures a significant warning signal: overall, Americans are more concerned than confident about the health of democracy under Trump. This concern is strongest among Democrats and Independents, nearly half of whom believe Trump harbors dictatorial ambitions. Even among Republicans, a noteworthy minority — 23% — say Congress isn’t doing enough to provide oversight of the executive branch.

And here lies another emerging fault line: the role of Congress. While many Trump-aligned respondents say Congress is acting appropriately or should defer to the president, others from across the spectrum express alarm at legislative passivity. A lack of visible checks and balances, some argue, creates fertile ground for democratic erosion.

This isn’t just about policy; it’s about trust, legitimacy, and the mechanics of governance. Americans of all political stripes want leaders to respect the Constitution and uphold democratic rules — but differ dramatically on who is breaking them and why. These divergent interpretations challenge advocates of democracy reform to move beyond sweeping, partisan warnings and instead speak to shared values and specific concerns. The report urges those working to defend democracy to “focus on moments and issues that evoke bipartisan unease,” rather than blanket condemnations.

In other words, this is not the moment for alarmist rhetoric. It is a moment for precise engagement. Most Americans, even many who support Trump, do not want to throw away the guardrails of our constitutional system. They are not immune to democratic concerns — hey just may not see them where others do. That’s not apathy. That’s perspective.

To bridge these realities, we must anchor the pro-democracy movement not just in defending institutions but in listening. We must ask: What do different Americans believe the government should do? What do they fear losing? And how can we meet them in those spaces of shared concern?

The public doesn’t need to be convinced that democracy is worth saving. They already believe it. The challenge is showing — clearly, calmly, and credibly — when and how it’s being undermined. Only then can we shift from abstract ideals to a renewed civic commitment strong enough to weather even the most divergent of realities.

Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. The Fulcrum is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news platform covering efforts to fix our governing systems.

 

By ALEX VEIGA

The head of the federal government agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wants the mortgage giants to consider accepting a homebuyer’s cryptocurrency holdings in their criteria for buying mortgages from banks.

Related Articles

Trump voters cheer his move against Iran. MAGA leaders had warned the bombing could backfire

Trump wraps up a NATO summit far chummier than the tense meetings of his first term

CDC nominee Susan Monarez sidesteps questions about disagreements with RFK in Senate hearing

Fed’s Powell repeats warning about tariffs as some GOP senators accuse him of bias

California found in violation of Title IX in clash with Trump officials over transgender athletes

William Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, ordered the agencies Wednesday to prepare a proposal for consideration of crypto as an asset for reserves when they assess risks in single-family home loans.

Pulte also instructed the agencies that their mortgage risk assessments should not require cryptocurrency assets to be converted to U.S. dollars. And only crypto assets that “can be evidenced and stored on a U.S.-regulated centralized exchange subject to all applicable laws” are to be considered by the agencies in their proposal, Pulte wrote in a written order, effective immediately.

Pulte was sworn in as the head of FHFA in March. Public records show that as of January 2025, Pulte’s spouse owned between $500,000 and $1 million of bitcoin and a similar amount of Solana’s SOL token.

Banks seeking to make mortgages that qualify for purchase by Fannie and Freddie have not typically considered a borrower’s crypto holdings until they were sold, or converted, to dollars.

FILE – This July 13, 2008, file photo, shows the Freddie Mac headquarters in McLean, Va. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

The policy is meant to encourage banks to expand how they gauge borrowers’ creditworthiness, in hopes that more aspiring homebuyers can qualify for a home loan. It also recognizes that cryptocurrencies have grown in popularity as an alternative to traditional investments, such as bonds and stocks.

The agencies have to come up with their proposals “as soon as reasonably practical,” according to the order.

Fannie and Freddie, which have been under government control since the Great Recession, buy mortgages that meet their risk criteria from banks, which helps provide liquidity for the housing market. The two firms guarantee roughly half of the $12 trillion U.S. home loan market and are a bedrock of the U.S. economy.

Mohamed Sabry Soliman (Photo courtesy of Boulder Police Department)

Federal prosecutors this week brought additional hate-crime and explosives charges against the suspect in the fire attack on Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall, according to an indictment unsealed Wednesday.

Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, who had before faced only a single federal hate-crime count in the June 1 attack, was charged in the new indictment with nine hate-crime counts, as well as two charges that he used a fire or explosive device to carry out a felony, and a single count of carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony, court records show.

An Egyptian immigrant who officials say was living in the U.S. illegally, Soliman is accused of shouting “Free Palestine” and throwing Molotov cocktails at people who had gathered on the popular pedestrian mall for a weekly demonstration urging the release of Israeli hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza.

The new federal charges, which replace the original single hate-crime count, come days after Soliman’s motivations in the attack were debated in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado during a preliminary hearing last week.

Federal prosecutors are pursuing the hate-crime charges under the theory that Soliman targeted his victims because of their actual or perceived national origin — that is, that his victims were Israeli or that he believed they were Israeli.

Soliman’s defense attorneys have argued that Soliman considered his named target — “Zionists” — to be people who hold particular political views, and that those political views are not tied specifically to Israeli nationality, but, rather, are held by people of varying nations.

A federal judge allowed the hate-crime case to move forward after a June 18 preliminary hearing, but said the issue of Soliman’s motivations — and whether they are directly tied to nationality — will be up to a jury to decide.

Soliman also faces 118 criminal charges in state court, including dozens of counts of attempted first-degree murder and assault.

Fifteen people and a dog were victimized in the attack. Eight are listed as victims of a hate crime in the new indictment.

Soliman told police he wanted to “kill all Zionist people,” but also said his attack had nothing to do with Jewish people or the Jewish community. He wrote the number “1187” in marker on the T-shirt he wore during the attack, an apparent reference to a historic battle in the year 1187 in which the city of Jerusalem changed hands from Christian to Muslim control, according to court testimony.

Soliman planned the attack for more than a year and initially sought to carry out a mass shooting against the group, law enforcement officials said. When his gun purchase was blocked by a background check, he instead armed himself with Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower made from a weed sprayer.

He dressed as a gardener and attacked the demonstrators as they paused at the historic Boulder County Courthouse.

All 15 of the injured victims were expected to survive, Boulder officials have said. They range in age from 25 to 88, and include eight women and seven men. The most severely injured victim suffered burns to 60% of their body, court testimony revealed.