Month: May 2026

There are growing concerns from some of the 590,000 buyers that preordered Trump Mobile’s T1 phones. Customers recently received disappointing emails from Trump Mobile, telling them that the gold-colored Trump phones they preordered from June 2025 when the venture was first announced will not be shipping. Customers had previously been given promised delivery dates that changed several times, for various reasons, but no phones are ever reported to have been delivered. Trump Mobile is offering no updates on when the $499 phones might be shipped. 

Additionally some email recipients have reported that the emails said that their $100 deposit was non-refundable- though Trump Mobile maintains that all initial deposits remain fully refundable upon request. It states on the website that:

“If Trump Mobile cancels or discontinues the Device offering prior to sale, Trump Mobile will issue a full refund of the deposit amount paid.” 

Preorders: Yes. Shipping: Maybe.

The Trump Mobile website currently shows that people can still make $100 pre-orders for the phone- however rumors of the cancellation of the T1 program started with the email’s announcement of no phone shipments. There is no official statement about any T1 program cancellation, but a recent update on the website also raised questions about that possibility. A recent April 6, 2026 update was added to the website and  states:

“A preorder deposit provides only a conditional opportunity if Trump Mobile later elects, in its sole discretion, to offer the Device for sale. A deposit is not a purchase, does not constitute acceptance of an order, does not create a contract for sale, does not transfer ownership or title interest, does not allocate or reserve specific inventory, and does not guarantee that a Device will be produced or made available for purchase.” 

This update has led some to believe that the T1 phone project will eventually be cancelled. How any potential refund of preorder requests would proceed is unclear. 

Made in USA…?

There have been other questions raised about the T1 phone. Initial claims about the product said it was to be proudly designed and built in the United States, with all-American service through AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. The product description online was later changed as being “American service by an American company” with “100% US-based support.”

In light of these customer complaints over Trump Mobile’s delayed product, 11 Democratic lawmakers- Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Representatives Greg Casar (D-Texas), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)- made a January 2026 request to the Federal Trade Commission. They asked FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson for investigation into the shifting delivery dates, claims that the phone is made in the USA, and conflict of interest presented by Trump Mobile’s relationship to the President.

“We write today regarding questions about false advertising and deceptive practices by Trump Mobile, and to seek information on how the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) intends to address any potential violations of consumer protection law given the inherent conflicts of interest presented by the company’s relationship to President Donald Trump.”   

In their letter, the 11 Congressional members pointed out that marketing claims that a product is “Made in USA” must follow a specific set of FTC standards, violations of which come with civil penalties. The letter referenced similar companies that the FTC acted against when their customers were misled with similar made-in-USA claims for products actually made overseas, bait-and-switch tactics involving deposits for products never delivered, and failure to honor by stated delivery dates. They also asked how the FTC would proceed “if the President were to intervene and seek to influence your agency’s decisions related to Trump Mobile.”

Independent Agency vs Executive Authority?

This request to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson is considered to be a critical test of FTC independence. The FTC has historically operated as an independent regulatory agency, but early in Trump’s second term Trump declared by executive order that agencies such as the FTC may no longer contradict his legal interpretations. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has supported Trump’s claim of presidential authority, breaking with the FTC’s long-standing precedent to remain independent. He defended Trump’s April 2025 firing of the agency’s Democratic commissioners, saying at a Y Combinator’s Little Tech Competition Summit that:  

“I’m firmly of the view that he had the authority, and that independent agencies [are] not good for a democracy. All powerful executive branch officials should be accountable to the people on whose behalf we are governing, and the only person in the executive branch that gets elected is the president.”  

His sentiment potentially runs counter to the historical foundation of independent regulatory agencies like the FTC.  Such bodies are established by Congress to operate without direct presidential control, so as to limit any president’s ability to interfere with Congressional enforcement of laws. Members are non-partisan, serve staggered terms and can only be fired “for-cause.” Executive agencies whose leader sits on a president’s Cabinet- e.g. the Department of Justice- differ in that they are partisan, expressly carry out specific presidential policies, and can be fired/replaced at his call.  

There has yet to be an FTC response to the Jan 2026 letter about any potentially deceptive practices taking place with the Trump Mobile program.  

Governance or Enterprise? The Ethics Question

Ethics experts continue to raise questions about the various Trump ventures. At the beginning of his second term, the Trump Organization stated that any business ventures would be distinctly run by the Trump children, not Trump. Whether it is the T1 phone, line of sneakers, Bible partnership, or gold card visa (attracting the wealthy and successful to America), these ventures appear to be based on politics and personal branding, blurring the line between business and presidency. 

Photo by Arun Thomas

With the May 5, 2026 announcement that Primm, Nevada’s last casino will close, many travelers are wondering if this once-bustling desert stop will slowly transform into a modern ghost town. 

With a population at 774 residents in 2023- many tied to road-trip traffic and casino jobs- the population now faces an uncertain future. While some new owners may be interested in taking over certain businesses (such as the popular gas stations and EV charging locations), bigger questions remain. What will happen to the workers, empty hotel towers, the Star of the Desert Arena, Prizm Outlets, and quirky amusement park attractions that once made Primm, NV a memorable stop along this lonely stretch of the Mojave Desert?  

Major casinos such as Buffalo Bill’s, Whiskey Pete’s and Primm Valley Resort were once central to Primm’s bustling tourist town, located some 45 miles south of Las Vegas on Interstate 15. Primm was the last gambling opportunity in Nevada before crossing into California. Californians heading toVegas often stopped in Primm, NV for its outlet mall shopping, cheap buffets, casino gambling- and of course the towering Desperado roller coaster.

The Primmadonna Company LLC officially announced the shutdown of Primm Valley Resorts (the last fully operational casino), Buffalo Bills’s Resort & Casino (which had only been open for special events), and Whiskey Pete’s Hotel & Casino (closed for over a year). The Primm Center gas station, the Lotto Store, and the Flying J truck stop are also shuttering. Prizm Outlets (formerly called Primm Outlets), has been effectively closed- though Sanithrift was a sole remaining mall tenant- and still currently shows hours of operation on its website.  

Visitors have nostalgic memories of Whiskey Pete’s Hotel- named after the bootlegger that was allegedly buried standing up in the desert with a whiskey bottle in hand. There was a popular Bonnie and Clyde’s death car exhibit there. Cult-following gamers loved Whiskey Pete’s in particular because parts of the establishment were used as inspiration in the video game Fallout: Las Vegas (the game recreated a post-apocalyptic Primm).  

Buffalo Bill’s Resort and Casino with its “Old West” theme and buffalo-shaped pool was part of Primm’s neon-roadside atmosphere long before glitzy Las Vegas fully took over the desert. Buffalo Bill’s boasted the Desperado roller coaster and Adventure Canyon flume ride. But its “star” attraction was their 6,500-seat Star of the Desert Arena, which hosted rodeos, boxing matches, and touring acts for almost three decades. Performers included Ringo Starr and his All-Starr Band, Kenny G, Isley Brothers, Patti LaBelle, Los Lobos, and many others. 

The upscale Primm Valley Resort was the flagship of the Primm properties, featuring a large casino and hotel tower, and the Primm Valley Golf Club. With two championship style courses, designed by renowned golf course architect Tom Fazio, the club attracted serious golfers from both Southern California and Las Vegas.  

Long-time Vegas drivers remember the huge “Terrible’s” signs along the interstate that advertised for tourists to visit Terrible’s Hotel & Casino in Primm. This rebranded casino property was best known for its low-cost gas, and budget gambling promotions, which made it a familiar stop for road-trippers over the years.   

So now, as all the Interstate 15 travelers who grew up stopping in Primm say their fond farewells, it marks the end of a peculiar era. Perhaps it is time for the ghosts of the desert to take one last ride in the Bonnie and Clyde death car, drifting away from this fading town. Or maybe what sounds like laughter and distant shouts by the amusement park rides are just the wind moving past empty buildings and abandoned parking lots. And perhaps, inside the darkened casino rooms, there are still a few imagined sounds of rolling dice- echoes from those unwilling to leave the last table behind. 

Rest in peace, Primm- you were part of an era.

Photo by Elizabeth Ferreira

Many Americans may not fully grasp the deeper implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Callais v. Louisiana, which weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The following excerpt from the dissent by Justice Kagan, joined with Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, helps clarify the implications of racial vote dilution:  

Consider the story of a hypothetical congressional district in a hypothetical State, subjected to a redistricting scheme. The example is admittedly stylized, but in its essence simulates the dispute before us and clarifies the immense issues at stake. The district, let’s say, is a single county, in the shape of a near-perfect circle, sitting in the middle of a rectangular State. The State is one with a long history of virulent racial discrimination, and its many effects, including in residential segregation and political division, remain significant even today. The population of the circle district is 90 percent Black; the rest of the State, divided into five surrounding districts, is 90 percent white. And voting throughout all those districts is racially polarized: Black residents vote heavily for Democratic candidates, while white residents vote heavily for Republicans. The circle district thus enables the State’s Black community to elect a representative of its choice, whom no neighboring community would put in office. But that arrangement, in this not-so-hypothetical, is not to last. The state legislature decides to eliminate the circle district, slicing it into six pie pieces and allocating one each to six new, still solidly white congressional districts. The State’s Black voters are now widely dispersed, and—unlike the State’s White voters—lack any ability to elect a representative of their choice. Election after election, Black citizens’ votes are, by every practical measure, wasted. That is racial vote dilution in its most classic form.  A minority community that is cohesive in its geography and politics alike, and that faces continued adversity from racial division, is split—“cracked” is the usual term—so that it loses all its electoral influence. Members of the racial minority can still go to the polls and cast a ballot. But given the State’s racially polarized voting, they cannot hope—in the way the State’s white citizens can—to elect a person whom they think will well represent their interests.

Electoral influence is the key– the political power of voters in Congress is based on the state delegates that are sent to it. Districts where black voters have opportunity to influence delegate outcome can affect close votes in the House, change the parties in power, or influence legislation with committee control and leadership roles.  Gerrymandered districts where black voter influence has little impact outside of 1 district ultimately have little effect on Congress. Racial vote dilution results in black voters being unable to elect representatives of their choice to Congress. These delegates do not reflect race alone, but the black community’s preferences and priorities for issues that disproportionately affect them (such as housing, healthcare access, or policing concerns).

Promoting unequal racial representation in government is not the direction for the Supreme Court of the United States to take. The Voting Rights Act was especially effective at expanding black access to the ballot- dramatically increasing black voter registration and gaining them increased political representation. That representation is vital in addressing ongoing issues facing black citizens. Here are a few data-driven examples of implicit bias and structural disparities that black communities continue to face in America today:

• Wealth gap–  White household median wealth is $285,000 compared with $44,900 for black households- white Americans (57% of the population) hold 83.5% of the country’s wealth vs blacks Americans (13.7% of the population) with 3.4% of the country’s wealth.
• Homeownership– Homeownership is at 75% for whites, and 45% for blacks.
• Infant mortality– Black infants die at a rate 2.53 higher than that of white infants. 
• Criminal justice disparity- Blacks are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated as whites, and black men make up 35% of those incarcerated, despite being only 13% of the US population.
• Higher unemployment– White unemployment is 3.4%, the black unemployment rate is 5.3%.

Despite gains in representation following changes brought about by the Voting Rights Act, inequalities affecting black voters continue to persist in broader economic or social systems. Policy changes remain frustratingly slow when addressing wealth, education and housing gaps that have developed over generations. 

In summary, the Court’s limitation of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act appears to rest on the view that it is problematic to remedy racism with race-conscious laws that treat one group differently. To be fair, shouldn’t voting rules be race-neutral? 

But theoretical neutrality does not necessarily produce fairness in practice. When past or current systems have created unequal starting conditions, race-neutral policies that ignore those differences do not level the playing field and achieve fairness. For example, rules like stricter voter ID requirements or closure of polling places appear neutral on the surface- yet they can impose greater burdens on some communities more than others. Or drawing electoral districts without any consideration of race in areas with historically polarized voting can dilute minority voting power, even if that was not the explicit intent. It’s like two runners that start a race from different distances from the finish line. Treating them the same with identical rules during the race doesn’t change the gap in their earlier starting points. Ignoring inequities does not achieve fairness- and ends up just preserving the inequities instead.

At its core, this Supreme Court decision regarding the Voting Rights Act raises difficult questions. If laws no longer take any account of racial disparities- if they treat unequal conditions as though they do not exist- how can they remedy anything at all? By emphasizing race-neutral voting rules that prioritize theoretical neutrality over practical fairness, the Supreme Court risks preserving the very conditions that perpetuate racial inequity in America. 

Photo by Sora Shimazaki