Welcome to Monday, August 26th, pens and pencils...

Trump said he has "second thoughts" about the U.S. trade war with China, but the White House clarified the regret was "not raising tariffs higher."

During the G7 summit in Biarritz, France, President Donald Trump was asked if he had "any second thoughts on escalating the trade warwith China?”

"Yeah, sure. Why not?” Trump responded. "Might as well. Might as well."

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham later clarified the remarks which had sent the pundit-sphere (and financial analysts) reeling:

"The president was asked if he had ‘any second thought on escalating the trade war with China,'" Grisham said. "His answer has been greatly misinterpreted. President Trump responded in the affirmative—because he regrets not raising the tariffs higher."

Trump told reporters Sunday that he has no current plans to follow through on his emergency declaration to force U.S. companies to leave China, but he warned: "If I want, I could declare a national emergency."

Should Trump declare a national emergency to force U.S. companies out of China?

On the Radar

Endangered Species React

Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration's rollback of the Endangered Species Act.

Last week, the Trump administration finalized sweeping changes to the ESA, including reducing protections for endangered animals and giving industry more leeway to develop in areas where threatened animals live.

“Nothing in these new rules helps wildlife, period. Instead, these regulatory changes seek to make protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species harder and less predictable. We’re going to court to set things right,” Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said in a statement.

Nick Goodwin, a spokesman for the Interior Department, said: "It is unsurprising that those who have repeatedly attempted to weaponize the [ESA] - instead of use it as a means to recover imperiled species - would choose to sue."

Do you support rolling back protections for endangered species?

Here's what you're telling your reps so far:

Under the Radar

Wealth Tax Taxing

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has proposed several ambitious, high-cost plans as part of her campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, such as moving toward Medicare for All by expanding Obamacare and forgiving most student loan debt. But the wealth tax she wants to impose to pay for them may not be constitutional.

Warren’s proposed wealth tax would impose an annual 2% tax on household net worth between $50 million and $1 billion, and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion. She argues that it’s “time to fundamentally transform our tax code so that we tax the wealth of the ultra-rich, not just their income.” In the July 2019 Democratic presidential debate, the Massachusetts senator was pressed about the near-certain legal challenge to the constitutionality of her wealth tax. Warren said she was assured by experts it would pass judicial muster.

The Constitution allows the federal government to tax income under the Sixteenth Amendment but prohibits the federal government from imposing direct taxes unless they’re apportioned based on population. While the Constitution’s definition of federal direct taxes in Article 1, Sections 2 & 9 is unclear, the Supreme Court has considered the definition of a “direct tax” in several notable cases, which we look at here.

Do you support a wealth tax?

Identifying Links Between Mental Health and Violence

The White House is considering a proposal to develop ways of identifying early warning signs of violent behavior in people with mental illness.

 The “Safe Home” — “Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes” – project would use AI to try and identify “neurobehavioral signs” of “someone headed toward a violent explosive act.”

“There is no doubt that addressing this issue helps the president deal with two issues he has yet to find real success on: one is the health-care front and one is on the gun-violence front,” a person familiar with discussions told the Washington Post.

But mental health experts note that the majority of people suffering from mental illness are not violent, and are actually more likely to be the victims of violent crime than perpetrators.

"If mental illness were the driving factor, we would expect the countries with highest suicide rates to have higher rates of public mass shootings. That's not what we see," said Adam Lankford, a University of Alabama criminologist.

Do you support using AI to identify mentally ill at risk of committing violence?

What You're Saying

Here's how you're answering Should the Feds Provide Free Childcare for Needy Families & Subsidize Childcare Costs for Others?