The president is on vacation in Florida, but that has never stopped him from manufacturing news. The last 24 hours have brought: a tweet denying the existence of global warming because it’s cold outside; a lengthy, improvisational interview with The New York Times in which he made 25 false claims; and attacks on China that were provoked by a Fox News segment. None of this is out of character for Trump, but an Axios report on Friday suggests that it may be just a prelude: “If you ask some close to President Trump what worries them most about 2018, it’s not Robert Mueller’s probe. It’s that establishment guardrails of 2017 come down—and Trump’s actual instincts take over. Next year will bring ‘full Trump,’ said one person who recently talked to the president.”

What is “full Trump”? However belligerent, Trump mostly played by the typical conservative Republican playbook in 2017: governing with an emphasis on supply-side economics, rolling back regulations, and appointing conservative justices. But according to Axios reports, next year’s Trump will be a throwback to 2016. The president is yet again itching to start a trade war with China, and keeps asking advisers about placing tariffs on steel and aluminum. He is insisting that a deal to protect Dreamers include funding for a wall between the United States and Mexico. And he’s increasingly pushing the U.S. closer to war in the Korean peninsula.

It’s not clear, however, if “full Trump” differs from the Trump we’ve seen in office for the last year. That Trump explored the possibility of a trade war, pushed the U.S. toward hardline immigration policies, and was belligerent toward North Korea. But he also ultimately governed like a conservative Republican, largely because he was surrounded by conservative Republicans. There’s no indication yet that this dynamic—Trump being Trump rhetorically, while governing like a conservative Republican—is going to change any time soon. Instead, this seems like an inversion of the phantom “pivot” that obsessed pundits in 2016. Now, instead of waiting for Trump to act “presidential,” pundits are waiting for him to start governing with utter abandon.

The president essentially proclaimed himself West Virginia’s coal messiah in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday. “I’m the one that saved coal,” he said. “I’m the one that created jobs. You know West Virginia is doing fantastically now.”

The interviewer, reporter Michael S. Schmidt, did not question Trump’s claims. Trump has started the process of repealing numerous environmental regulations that affect coal’s profitability, and that’s led to an expected short-term increase in coal mining and production jobs. But the coal industry is far from secure in the long term—and is in fact “on life support,” as noted by The Washington Post in October:

[The Trump administration’s] moves to save this industry have actually exposed its weaknesses — and revealed a trend that coal companies and the Trump administration have not acknowledged publicly: The companies are scaling back, in some cases shedding workers and declining the opportunities the federal government now wants to give them. Despite Trump’s best efforts, the American coal industry remains on life support.

Trump’s claim that his policies somehow revived West Virginia is also false. The modest increase in mining jobs since Trump’s election occurred in the Powder River Basin, which runs through Wyoming and Montana. This summer, West Virginia ranked at the very bottom on CNBC’s “Top States for Business” list for the first time. “West Virginia has always been known as a place where people have to work incredibly hard in order to barely get by,” the article reads. “But with the decline of the major source of that work—coal mining—the Mountain State has in many ways become an empty symbol.”

So coal has not been saved, by Trump or anyone else. And the only way to make sure West Virginia is doing “fantastically” is to make sure its economy doesn’t depend on only one, dying industry to survive.

Amid multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, the state’s junior senator announced in early December that he would step down “in the coming weeks.” But a Public Policy Polling survey released on Thursday reveals that his constituents don’t want him to go: 50 percent say he shouldn’t resign, compared to 42 percent who say he should. He remains popular not only with Democrats, but independents, who are split 52-41 percent in favor of not resigning. Franken also has the support of 57 percent of women.

These numbers are extremely high, especially for a public figure facing more than half a dozen allegations of groping women. And they align with the opinion of some liberals, including a few prominent Democrats, who say he’s being forced out of the Senate unfairly.

“Due process means a fair, full investigation, with a chance for the accused to respond,” Zephyr Teachout, who ran against Gov. Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic nomination for governor of New York, wrote in The New York Times earlier this month. “And proportionality means that while all forms of inappropriate sexual behavior should be addressed, the response should be based on the nature of the transgressions. Both were missing in the hasty call for Senator Franken’s resignation.” Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Leahy have both said Franken should undergo an ethics investigation rather than resign.

Nonetheless, Franken apparently isn’t wavering on his plans to quit. In an emotional speech to supporters in Minnesota on Thursday, he said, “I may be leaving the Senate but I’m not giving up my voice.”

The president’s first public statement about climate change since taking office came—how else—in the form of a tweet on Thursday evening. With a potentially record-breaking cold snap headed for the northeastern United States this weekend, he repeated a joke he’s been making for years:

This tweet doesn’t shed any new light on Trump’s views on climate change, which he has said is a “hoax” (for the record, it’s not, and there’s a big difference between climate and weather). But there is something to be gleaned from Trump’s use of the term “global warming” instead of “climate change,” because it shows how Trump and other climate deniers manipulate scientific terminology for ideological purposes.

Trump constantly uses the phrase “global warming” instead of “climate change.” On Twitter, he’s used the former 106 times, and the latter only 36 times. But there’s a fundamental difference between the two: Global warming refers to the overall, average increase in atmospheric temperature and sea surface temperatures across the world, which is happening because of heat-trapping gases emitted by humans. Climate change refers to the many other weird things happening because of the increase in greenhouse gases. Climate change includes global warming; global warming is just one part of climate change.

Climate-change deniers have, over the years, accused scientists of changing the term—from global warming to climate change—because people were starting to catch on that it still gets extremely cold sometimes. That’s not true, as Trump’s own NASA explains: Climate scientists have used both terms to describe different things since at least 1975. But the idea that scientists somehow changed the terminology appears to have caught on; some even think it was changed to make sure deniers like Trump don’t make dumb jokes about the cold.

But that’s not the case either. Deniers like Trump started lying about how scientists use terminology in order to perpetuate the myth that scientists are lying to the public. And Trump only uses “global warming” because he can’t make the “ha ha it’s cold” joke if he uses “climate change,” which is the more encompassing and more correct term for the phenomenon ravaging the country. But that’s not to say that deniers, including those in the White House, haven’t found a way to manipulate that term, too.

The Environmental Protection Agency wanted six years to study and review a 17-year-old rule on lead paint and dust exposure. But on Wednesday, an appeals court ruled that the agency must now update the rule in the next 90 days and implement a final regulation one year after that. “Since January of 2001, scientific research has further advanced our understanding of the dangerousness of lead, yet the EPA’s standards have not changed,” reads the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. “The children exposed to lead poisoning due to the failure of EPA to act are severely prejudiced by EPA’s delay.”

The dangers of lead are well-documented. The EPA itself has called lead poisoning “the number one environmental health threat in the U.S. for children ages 6 and younger.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention details the extent of the problem: “Today at least 4 million households have children living in them that are being exposed to high levels of lead. There are approximately half a million U.S. children ages 1-5 with blood lead levels above 5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL), the reference level at which CDC recommends public health actions be initiated.” Those children are often fare even worse than those living in Flint, Michigan, the city most notoriously known for its lead-tainted tap water. A Reuters analysis released in November found 3,810 neighborhoods with childhood lead poisoning rates “at least double those found across Flint, Michigan, during the peak of that city’s water contamination crisis in 2014 and 2015.”

And yet, the EPA has consistently failed to update standards for lead exposure in children in the last 17 years. That’s not just because of the Trump administration; the Obama administration also delayed updating lead standards for six years. The last action was taken in 2010, when Obama’s EPA asked its scientific advisors to evaluate a proposed approach. After that evaluation, however, work on updating the rule halted, which the Environmental Defense Fund blames on “limited resources” within EPA.

The government seems to agree that the rule needs updating, as Wednesday’s ruling noted: “EPA does not appear to dispute the factual record ... showing that, according to modern scientific understanding, neither the dust-lead hazard standard nor the lead-based paint standard are sufficient to protect children.” The EPA’s argument is that it wants time to develop its own standard. But Trump’s EPA also requested a delay of a different regulation for lead in drinking water, proposed after the Flint water crisis, and in April proposed to eliminate programs intended to limit children’s exposure to lead-based paint. Millions of children in the U.S. simply can’t afford to wait any longer.

It’s been 16 days since the former Alabama Supreme Court justice and accused child molester lost his race for the U.S. Senate, Roy Moore still refuses to concede. Late Wednesday, he took his denial one step further: He filed a complaint in a circuit court, claiming “systematic voter fraud” and asking state officials not to certify the historic victory of his Democratic opponent, Doug Jones. Moore’s complaint asks for a full investigation of the election, which he lost by about 22,000 votes, and calls for a new election.

That’s not happening, according to Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill. “[Moore’s lawsuit] is not going to delay certification,” he told The Associated Press on Wednesday night, “and Doug Jones will be certified [on Thursday] at 1 p.m. and he will be sworn in by Vice President Pence on the third of January.”

But Moore’s lawsuit is not meaningless. The complaint specifically takes issue with “highly unusual” turnout in counties with large black populations. By denying the validity of an election where black voters turned out in extraordinary numbers, tipping the election in Jones’s favor, he provides a rallying cry for the 48 percent of Alabamans who voted for him—and for Donald Trump supporters who still believe, as the president does, the myth of widespread voter fraud in America.

Before last year’s election, many Americans rightly worried that if Trump lost to Hillary Clinton, he would refuse to concede. “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election... if I win,” he said in October 2016. Trump later said he would “reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result.” Since Trump’s victory rendered the issue moot, Moore’s decided to steal Trump’s strategy for himself.

In early October, four American soldiers were killed in an ambush by a small band of Islamic State militants during a mission in Niger. But much remains unknown about what happened. For instance, how did Sergeant La David Johnson get separated from his unit, and why did it take two days to find his body? Was he killed in the ambush, or captured alive and later executed? These and other questions may be answered when the Department of Defense completes its investigation.

In the meantime, Frederica Wilson, a Democratic congresswoman from Florida, is validating one of the Republicans’ most disingenuous partisan stunts in recent memory: the Benghazi hearings. “The American people need to know what happened to Sgt. La David Johnson. And I think that his family needs to know what happened to Sgt. La David Johnson,” Wilson said on The Washington Post’s “Cape Up” podcast. “It’s sort of like a coverup. And from the very beginning, I was calling it ‘Mr. Trump’s Benghazi.’”

Wilson is a longtime friend of the Johnson family, as well as their U.S. representative, so she’s right to seek answers for them. But there is no evidence yet of a coverup. Worse, she is implying that there was a government coverup of the 2012 Benghazi attack, as many on the right wrongly claimed. Even House Republicans, who spent two years and $7 million investigating Benghazi eventually concluded that it wasn’t a coverup and that Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state at the time of the attack, was not at fault.

There can be only two interpretations of Wilson’s comment then: Either she misunderstands what really happened in Benghazi, which would be inexcusable for someone who served in Congress during Republicans’ Benghazi hysteria, or she cynically appealed to misconceptions about Benghazi in a bad-faith attempt to smear the president. Either way, she just validated one of Republicans’ most cynical ploys of the Obama era.