In political campaigns’ waning days, candidates behind in their races may hope for an October surprise, like a news story or a gaffe in their favor, to propel them to victory.

Particularly panicked campaigns, however, may reject waiting for the organic October surprise in favor of tossing a Hail Mary. I’ve been in journalism for more than 40 years, and I’ve never seen a Hail Mary as desperate, vicious and vile as the one released this week in Ohio by gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.

The Republican nominee has spent his campaign portraying his Democratic opponent, Dr. Amy Acton, as a mentally unstable and violent drunk who is unfit for office.

Portraying an opponent as trigger-happy or lying about her faith is one thing. Going after a sexual abuse survivor is quite another.

In a normal election cycle, that would be repulsive enough, but this week, a video appeared on social media featuring Donna Arthur, Acton’s estranged mother. In the video, after touting her work with sexual abuse survivors, Arthur says her daughter has a “serious problem: She is a liar … She has lied her entire life.”

Writing what Arthur said doesn’t do justice to the wickedness of the spot. Acton is a victim of sexual abuse. Her stepfather, Cledith Arthur, was arrested and indicted by a grand jury in 1978 for raping Acton, who was 12 at the time. Donna Arthur lost custody of Acton and her brother, but she stayed married to Cledith Arthur, who reportedly fled after the indictment and died in 2004 in Pennsylvania. Donna Arthur had not spoken to Acton or her brother in nearly 50 years.

That’s the cliff notes version of a painful family history — and Ramaswamy is looking to capitalize on the agony. Back in April, he appeared to criticize Acton for being sexually abused when he said that he had “a positive vision for our state versus a governor who has none at all other than to complain about what someone else did to her.”

The video caused a firestorm that repulsed Democrats and Republicans. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine asked Ramaswamy to take down the ad. Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio, who is in a close race against former Sen. Sherrod Brown, said that he “would not have run” the ad.

The backlash seems to have only fueled Ramaswamy, however. He acknowledged his campaign was behind the video and will spend $4 million to further advertise it. At a rally for Ramaswamy and Husted, Vice President JD Vance said he was “disgusted” by Republicans “whining” about the ad. Republicans should be more concerned with winning, he argued, echoing remarks Ramaswamy made about the domestic abuse allegations against Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio. And on Thursday, President Trump defended the ad while calling DeWine “disloyal to the Republican Party.”

Perhaps Ramaswamy has no other tactic. A recurring pattern in his campaign is an emphasis on character assassination instead of issues.

Sometimes Hail Mary ads work. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson’s campaign commissioned the “Daisy” ad, which showed a little girl holding a flower before she’s killed by a nuclear blast. It only aired once, but subsequent news coverage frequently repeated the commercial, spotlighting Republican Barry Goldwater’s controversial views on the use of low-grade nuclear weapons. “Daisy” was the nail in the coffin of Goldwater’s campaign, and a landmark in political advertising.

But most times, Hail Marys fail. In 2008, the campaign of Republican Elizabeth Dole released an ad attacking Democrat Kay Hagan, her challenger for a North Carolina Senate seat. The ad questioned Hagan’s faith in God and featured statements from atheists. That might have been effective, but Hagan was a Sunday school teacher and elder in her church. The ad backfired, and Hagan won.

Portraying an opponent as trigger happy or lying about her faith is one thing. Going after a sexual abuse survivor is quite another.

Donna Arthur calls the daughter she had not seen in decades a “liar,” using the same innuendo Ramaswamy did when he said Acton was simply complaining about what happened to her before she was even a teenager. Doubting victims of sexual assault is bad enough, but using their pain and suffering for political gain is a low point in American politics.

Yet perhaps Ramaswamy has no other tactic. A reoccurring pattern in his campaign is an emphasis on character assassination instead of issues. One ad featured a woman accusing Acton, who ran the Ohio Department of Health during Covid-19, of being responsible for her 88-year-old mother’s death. The mom, however, lived in Kentucky. Other ads from Ramaswamy-aligned PACs have accused Acton of lying on her medical license application and abusing alcohol and prescription drugs. The Acton campaign has rebutted the allegations, and media outlets have found multiple claims “that are unsupported by the facts.”

“It’s not surprising that Vivek Ramaswamy has stooped to such a despicable low as to attempt to turn the sexual abuse Amy endured at 12 years old from our birth mother’s husband into a political talking point,” Philip Stearns, Acton’s brother, said in a statement.

But it should be surprising. Men continue to marginalize women who have experienced an unimaginable violation. These women demand support. Full stop.

I’ve been a reporter and editor, run the largest (at the time) journalism organization in the country and covered my share of elections. The Ohio gubernatorial contest is gutter politics at its best. The Ramaswamy ad featuring a mother who supported her husband over a preteen daughter who said he raped her is the worst I’ve ever seen. Let’s hope it doesn’t get worse from here.

The post Ramaswamy’s new ad is the most vile Hail Mary I’ve seen in my 40 years of journalism appeared first on MS NOW.

CNN anchor Bianna Golodryga announced Thursday that she is leaving the network, days after its chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, made a similar announcement.

“After nine wonderful years at CNN, I’ve decided to leave for an opportunity that I couldn’t pass up,” Golodryga said in a statement shared on X. “I’m grateful for the experiences, friendships and support from fabulous colleagues during my CNN years. Exciting news to share very soon!”

Golodryga is a co-anchor of CNN International’s “One World,” alongside Zain Asher. She has also regularly filled in for Amanpour, host of the network’s eponymous global affairs interview show.

Prior to CNN, Golodryga was a co-host of CBS News’ “This Morning.”

Friday will be Golodryga’s final day at CNN, a spokesperson for the network confirmed to MS NOW. Golodryga did not provide further details about her next opportunity.

Like Golodryga, Amanpour, who has hosted “Amanpour” for 17 years, did not give a specific reason for her departure when she announced it Monday.

“After many months of thought and a few sleepless nights, I have decided to separate from CNN, my partner of 43 fantastic years!” the journalist said in a statement.

Amanpour’s show will be scaled back from a daily show to a weekly one at the start of 2027, with its final episode set to air in May.

Golodryga’s and Amanpour’s announcements come amid major shake-ups at the network’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, following its acquisition by Skydance, the company run by billionaire David Ellison. Skydance is financially backed by Ellison’s father, Larry Ellison, the co-founder of Oracle and a major Trump donor.

The post Bianna Golodryga latest CNN heavyweight to leave network appeared first on MS NOW.

Calley Means, a top aide to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced Thursday that he is resigning.

Means, who played a major role in pushing Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, announced his departure from the Department of Health and Human Services on X, saying he is leaving “with tremendous respect” for President Donald Trump and Kennedy.

“They laid out a vision of combatting the entrenched, dark forces in DC that profit from Americans getting sick,” Means wrote. “More policy and cultural change has happened around these goals in the past 2 years than any time in history — and I know this movement is just getting started.”

I am resigning from the White House with tremendous respect for President Trump and Bobby Kennedy.

They laid out a vision of combatting the entrenched, dark forces in DC that profit from Americans getting sick.

More policy and cultural change has happened around these goals… pic.twitter.com/8vtSjgbmKx

— Calley Means (@calleymeans) October 22, 2026

Means did not say in his statement why he resigned. Neither Means nor the White House immediately responded to MS NOW’s requests for comment.

The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, reported Thursday that Means was unhappy about the White House dragging its feet on some of Kennedy’s policy ideas and blamed other administration officials for allowing special interests to have too much influence. The Journal was the first to report Means’ departure.

Means, a former lobbyist and longtime alternative health and wellness proponent, played a critical role in the Trump-Kennedy alliance during the 2024 election. He was a major driving force behind Kennedy’s MAHA policies in the Trump administration. As senior adviser supporting food and nutrition policy, he had a hand in the new U.S. dietary guidelines that encouraged Americans to eat more protein.

Means has long shared Kennedy’s skepticism toward established health policy. He has denigrated mandatory Covid-19 vaccines and the presence of fluoride in water. He has said that children should drink “more raw milk and less juice,” advice that conflicts with warnings from the Food and Drug Administration of the dangers of raw milk.

A 2024 book he published with his sister, Casey Means — Trump’s second failed choice for U.S. surgeon general — argues that the pharmaceutical and food industries have a stake in keeping people sick.

The post Calley Means, top aide to RFK Jr. and major MAHA proponent, quits appeared first on MS NOW.

There are several threads to pull on when it comes to the federal charges unveiled Thursday against Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas. One of them is the Supreme Court’s narrowing of public corruption charges in recent years.

Although the Democrat and her co-defendants face several counts, including drug charges related to a marijuana business, one allegation that stands out, from a Supreme Court perspective, is the claim that Lucas conspired with others to commit “honest services fraud.”

That count alleges that she was part of a scheme “to defraud and deprive the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia of their intangible right to the honest services of” the state senator “through bribery.”

According to the indictment, one purpose of the alleged scheme was for Lucas “to use her official position as a state senator of the Commonwealth of Virginia to enrich herself by soliciting and/or accepting payments, gifts, and other things of value from others (including conspirators).” It alleged that she “sought opportunities to invest in and benefit from anticipated recreational marijuana licensing.”

Responding to the charges Thursday, Lucas wrote in a statement posted to social media that her case represented the authorities bringing “the full weight of the federal government” against “an 82-year-old great-grandmother.” She recounted that she “grew up under Jim Crow” and has “seen what happens when people in power try to silence those who stand up to them. I spent my life fighting back, and I’m not stopping now.”

She has not yet been arraigned or entered a plea. All criminal defendants are presumed innocent, and Lucas and her co-defendants will have a full opportunity to contest the charges, which the government bears the burden of proving at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Most cases don’t go to trial.

But when it comes to the public corruption aspect of the case, the high court’s defense-friendly jurisprudence lurks in the background. A former federal prosecutor recently lamented that the court “has interpreted anti-corruption laws in ways so narrow as to effectively legalize flat-out corruption. These decisions put whole categories of politicians’ conduct beyond a prosecutor’s reach. It’s an absurd result. But we live in the Court’s world.”

While it’s too early to say how the Lucas case will turn out, the court’s narrow view of corruption laws would have almost certainly been part of any serious internal discussions at the Department of Justice about how to charge it. Similarly, it will likely be something defense lawyers closely scrutinize as the case takes shape and they prepare pretrial motions to dismiss.

That doesn’t mean the government can’t succeed in bringing public corruption-related charges. And sometimes the issues that arise on appeal don’t materialize until trial, so it’s impossible to know the full range of legal challenges at this point. But if the government obtains corruption-related convictions here, then it will stand out for doing so despite recent Supreme Court precedent.

The post Supreme Court’s narrowing of public corruption charges lurks in Lucas case appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In Ohio’s closely watched gubernatorial race, JD Vance publicly urged Republicans to stop criticizing GOP nominee Vivek Ramaswamy’s abhorrent attack ad, but a growing chorus of conservatives is ignoring the vice president’s appeal.

On Thursday morning, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio denounced the ad featuring the estranged mother of Dr. Amy Acton, the Democratic nominee, calling it “deeply, deeply troubling.” The governor added, “It’s wrong to run this ad. I would urge Ramaswamy’s campaign to take this down.”

The comments came a day after Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican who is running for state auditor, similarly said during a local radio interview, “I probably wouldn’t run an ad like that, but every candidate gets to make their own decision.”

For his part, President Donald Trump defended the ad and said it doesn’t have “anything to do with” Ramaswamy, despite the fact that the Republican candidate’s campaign created and aired the ad.

Trump on Vivek Ramaswamy's ad featuring Amy Acton's estranged mother:I don't know anything about it. It's a very unusual situation to have a mother hate a daughter that much. But I don't think that has anything to do with Vivek.

— FactPost (@factpostnews.bsky.social) 2026-10-21T20:57:12.498374172Z

Hours after the president’s comments, the latest Fox News poll found Acton narrowly leading Ramaswamy, 50% to 48%, though the poll was conducted before the latest controversy.

* Speaking of Ohio, in the state’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, the aforementioned Fox News poll found former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown with a 5-point advantage over appointed Republican incumbent Sen. Jon Husted, 52% to 47%.

That said, Brown is facing a daunting new challenge: Politico reported that a super PAC funded by the cryptocurrency industry is dumping an additional $9 million into the effort to defeat him, raising the group’s total spending in the race to a staggering $55 million.

* Though Mississippi was assumed to be a safe red state, Trump’s political operation confirmed that the president will hold a rally Monday in the hopes of boosting Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, who’s facing an unexpectedly tough challenge from local prosecutor Scott Colom, the Democratic nominee.

The news coincides with an Axios report that said Senate Republicans are so concerned about the Mississippi race that it’s “weighing a cash infusion” for the contest.

* In Minnesota’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan did not qualify to be a member of Phi Beta Kappa when she graduated from college, as she had previously claimed, but Phi Beta Kappa soon after provided evidence of her membership in the academic honor society, defusing the story.

* And it appears New York’s gubernatorial race is slipping away from Republicans: The latest Quinnipiac University poll found Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul with a double-digit lead over GOP nominee Bruce Blakeman, 55% to 41%.

The post Thursday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.22.26: GOP opposition to Ramaswamy attack ad grows appeared first on MS NOW.

In July several Democratic senators wrote to Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano with a specific concern. The agency he leads, they wrote, has sent “unsolicited” messages to Social Security recipients, pushing misleading statements about Donald Trump.

“You are misusing official resources to heap praise on him,” the letter said, adding that the Social Security Administration appeared to be “bombarding Americans with blatantly partisan emails” touting the president.

If Bisignano saw the letter, he apparently didn’t care.

On Thursday morning, with less than two weeks remaining in the election cycle and with early voting underway across much of the country, the Social Security Administration sent out yet another political message, which began:

Last year, President Donald J. Trump signed into law the Working Families Tax Cuts, which included a historic tax cut for America’s seniors. That law also created Trump Accounts, individual investment accounts for America’s children designed to grow with the U.S. economy and build long-term savings.

Today, nearly 70 million Trump Accounts are open for all American children. … Trump Accounts are one of the most significant investments in the next generation of Americans in our nation’s history, by giving every American child a stake in our country’s success and a strong financial foundation for the future.

The relatively brief email referenced the president’s surname 10 times.

It also misnamed the Republicans’ domestic policy megabill: At Trump’s insistence, the GOP package was named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Republicans later decided that name wasn’t doing them any favors, so party officials were told to start referring to the package as the “Working Families Tax Cut Bill” or the “Working Families Tax Plan” as part of a clumsy rebranding, which the Social Security Administration has apparently embraced as part of its election-season messaging.

Making matters worse is the broader pattern. In early July the Social Security Administration sent out an unsolicited email celebrating Republican tax breaks — it referred to Trump, by name or title, six times in a five-paragraph email — which followed related political emails to Social Security beneficiaries in July 2025 and August 2025.

Americans need to be able to rely on ostensibly apolitical federal agencies for accurate information, free of partisan taint. When the public sees Trump rant online or during a media interview, most probably realize it’s best to approach his nonsense with skepticism.

But when people get unsolicited official statements from the Social Security Administration, they should be able to have some confidence that the agency isn’t trying to lobby them with political messaging.

And yet, here we are, watching the SSA join a list of politicized agencies, being used as partisan tools in the White House’s political toolbox, creating a dynamic in which many Americans are likely to approach the next message they receive from the government about Social Security with some skepticism.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Social Security Administration pushes yet another Trump-centric message as elections approach appeared first on MS NOW.

This is the Oct. 22, 2026, edition of “The Tea, Spilled by Morning Joe” newsletter. Subscribe here to get it delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday.

“Have they forgotten that people who turn their backs on friends often lose what they cherish most for themselves?”

— Ronald Reagan, April 5, 1982

The president of the United States and the people around him have never understood American history or our constitutional republic’s special place in the world. Because they don’t know that history, they have twisted the meaning of Western civilization from the elevation of individual rights over ruling monarchs and autocrats to political battles over a handful of trans athletes.

Western civilization is not about culture wars or campaigns of conquest. It is defined by the advancement of freedom, science, reason, and discovery.

It is the belief that every individual has dignity, that people find the truth by freely asking questions, and that even the powerful must always answer to the law.

One of the best definitions comes from Winston Churchill in July 1938, as Hitler threatened Czechoslovakia:

“It means a society based upon the opinion of civilians. It means that violence, the rule of warriors and despotic chiefs, the conditions of camps and warfare, of riot and tyranny, give place to parliaments where laws are made, and independent courts of justice in which over long periods those laws are maintained. That is Civilization — and in its soil grow continually freedom, comfort, and culture.”

The West’s birth cry came at the Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. Against all odds, Athenian citizen-soldiers drove back the mighty Persian Empire.

The March of the Ten Thousand 90 years later found Greek soldiers stranded in Persia after their generals were murdered. Instead of surrendering as armies of the East would do, these mercenaries elected their own leaders and fought their way home — electrifying the rising West. Free men who governed themselves suddenly mattered more than generals or kings.

In 1215, English barons forced King John to accept that even a king must abide by the law. Donald Trump would do well to read the Magna Carta.

Joan of Arc showed how even a young peasant girl could make a difference by rallying a broken France and lifting the siege of Orléans.

Churchill refused to bargain with Hitler, a small group of pilots in the Royal Air Force saved a nation, and the British people defended Western civilization until the New World, in all its might, arrived to join the cause.

On June 6, 1944, Americans and their allies stormed Normandy to free a continent, not conquer it.

In 1989, ordinary people tore down the Berlin Wall with hammers and bare hands, as the West’s twilight battle against Soviet aggression ended in victory.

In 1989, the front line of freedom ran through Berlin. In the 1990s, it moved east to Poland and the Baltics. Today it runs through the heart of Ukraine — and the American president has sided with the invader against Western freedom.

In appeasing Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump is betraying more than Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

He is betraying more than the Ukrainian fighters protecting their wives, children, and homes.

He is betraying more than our allies in Poland, the Baltics, and across the East.

He is betraying the very idea of Western civilization.

That idea born at Marathon, written into the Magna Carta, defended in the skies over London, won back at Normandy, and set free at the Berlin Wall.

The West has never been about who plays on girls’ softball teams. It has always been about whether free nations stand together when tyrants and despots invade free countries and start redrawing their borders with tanks.

Donald Trump’s betrayal of Western democracy will forever darken his legacy in shame unless he starts defending freedom soon.

I am not optimistic.

CHARTS OF THE DAY

Source: New York Times/Siena poll of 3,494 voters conducted Oct. 16-19, 2026. Margin of error: +/- 1.9 percentage points

ON THIS DATE

On Oct. 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy announced in a televised address that the Soviet Union was building nuclear missile sites in Cuba and that the United States would impose a naval quarantine on offensive weapons bound for the island.

WHAT THEY SAID

Katty Kay on Trump 2.0

“The story of this administration is one of incompetence — they just aren’t very good at what they’re trying to do. They have the ideology, but they’re there because they’re loyal to President Trump, not because they have expertise in what they’re doing. People around the country are exhausted and frustrated: This is not a well-run government, and a government that’s not well run doesn’t produce good results for its voters.”

David French on corruption and the cost of living

“Every two days, there’s a new story about the Trump family enriching itself or about people using money to influence the pardon process. While people are struggling with their paychecks, there’s a French-aristocracy feel from this incredibly gilded White House. The combination of economic headwinds and corruption is really fanning the political flames.

Jonathan Lemire on the president’s squandered capital

“Trump completed arguably the greatest political comeback in U.S. history in 2024, and then proceeded in 2025 to enact his agenda. Now the administration has blown almost all of that political capital on hard-line deportation and the war in Iran. They’re underwater on every issue, including ones that used to be strengths.”

The post Joe Scarborough: Trump is betraying the very idea of Western civilization appeared first on MS NOW.

Nicolle Wallace blasted Ohio gubernatorial nominee Vivek Ramaswamy and other Republicans for doubling down on what she called a “despicable” campaign ad that targeted his Democratic opponent, Amy Acton. On Wednesday’s “Deadline: White House,” Wallace questioned “just how low” some Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance, were willing to go.

While campaigning in Ohio on Wednesday on behalf of Ramaswamy, whom Vance said he considers a friend, the vice president defended the ad. The video features Acton’s estranged mother accusing her daughter of lying about her childhood. (When Acton was 12, she testified before a grand jury against her stepfather, who was later indicted on charges of raping her. He left the state and never went to trial. Acton’s mother remained by his side until his death in 2004.)

Vance, who represented Ohio in the Senate before becoming vice president, said he was “disgusted” by the backlash and characterized Republicans’ criticism of the ad as “whining.” On Thursday, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, denounced the video and urged the Ramaswamy campaign to take it down. (He stopped short of rescinding his endorsement, however.)

By appearing with Ramaswamy and offering a full-throated defense of the video, Wallace said, Vance was “normalizing” that kind of rhetoric. “He could have canceled his appearance,” she said of Vance, “but he didn’t.”

The broader silence, and support for the ad from some Republicans, left Wallace stunned. “Just how low should we be prepared for this to go?” she asked. “And can I stop preparing myself for that? The answer is no, because if you look to Ohio’s governor’s race for the answer, it would suggest that the bottom isn’t there — that it’s truly bottomless in the MAGA Republican Party.”

The MS NOW host said she had “vowed every year” since Donald Trump first took control of the Republican Party that she would “stop being shocked and horrified,” but she confessed that Ramaswamy’s ad had resulted in just that. “This is, for me, one of the most disturbing stories that I’ve covered over the last decade, and it is very much what Trump has ushered in,” she said.

Wallace added that if there were any “gravity” in U.S. politics, Vance’s comments would be “disqualifying” and put any future presidential campaign in jeopardy. But, she said, the country was not living in “normal times.”

You can watch Wallace’s full commentary in the clip at the top of the page.

The post ‘Just how low’ is the GOP willing to go, Nicolle Wallace asks after Vance defends Ohio ad appeared first on MS NOW.

MS NOW’s Joe Scarborough reacted to what he called an “absolutely extraordinary” new poll from The New York Times and Siena University, which found Democrats leading Republicans nationally ahead of November’s midterms by 11 points.

“My, how things have changed in two years,” he said Thursday on “Morning Joe.”

According to the poll, released Wednesday, likely voters preferred a Democrat to represent their congressional district over a Republican, 52% to 41%. Democrats also led Republicans on major issues, including immigration and corruption.

Scarborough ticked through the results and explained why he believes Democrats are pulling ahead. On healthcare, 57% of likely voters said they trusted Democrats to do a better job, compared with 37% who preferred Republicans.

“Republicans gave tax cuts to billionaires so they could cut healthcare in rural America,” he said, referring to President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

On cost of living, something Scarborough said Trump “will not talk about,” voters backed Democrats 55% to 40%. The “Morning Joe” co-host said Trump was also dragging down his party on international issues. Republicans trailed Democrats by 10 points on their handling of foreign wars.

Trump “can’t get out of the war he started in Iran, even though he was warned by everybody not to go into Iran,” Scarborough said.

The poll found that voters preferred Democrats to address potential threats from artificial intelligence, 48% to 37%. Scarborough blamed the gap on Trump’s refusal to take action, even as industry researchers warn of the dangers of leaving the technology unregulated.

“He just says he’s not going to do anything about the most challenging, most hopeful, but also the most dangerous technology of our lifetime,” he said.

The results mark a sharp shift from 2024, when Trump drew a broad coalition of voters who viewed him as the change candidate to deliver on the issues they cared about. Scarborough recalled that “bro culture was ushered in” and “we were told that we were in the dawning of sort of the age of Joe Rogan.”

“So you look at all of those numbers … my, how things have changed in two years,” he said.

The poll was conducted Oct. 12-19 among 3,494 voters and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.

View this post on Instagram

You can watch Scarborough’s analysis in the clip above.

The post ‘Absolutely extraordinary’: Scarborough reacts to new poll showing Democrats’ midterm lead appeared first on MS NOW.

President Donald Trump directed his ire at yet another journalist this week, lashing out at The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg in the Oval Office and subsequently removing him from the White House press pool.

A verbal clash first broke out Tuesday at the Oval Office, when Feinberg asked Trump questions during a press gaggle.

“Wait, wait. Quiet,” Trump barked. “What’s wrong with you? Are you a sick person? I actually think there’s something wrong with you.”

At one point, Trump also warned Feinberg, “I don’t know who the hell you are, but you better be careful.”

The exchange was caught on video by other news outlets, and the White House later posted the footage on X, using a slur to refer to the reporter. Vice President JD Vance also shared the exchange on X and called Feinberg an “imbecile.”

The White House penalized Feinberg on Wednesday, barring him from the press pool scheduled to travel to Iowa for Trump’s Thursday campaign rally. White House Correspondents’ Association President Jacqui Heinrich called the removal of Feinberg from his pool duties “retaliation.”

“The American public’s right to an independent press depends on reporters being able to do their jobs without fear that challenging the president will cut off their access,” Heinrich, a Fox News correspondent, said in a statement.

The White House’s attempts to ice out Feinberg and The Independent typify Trump’s approach to traditional news outlets, which has grown increasingly combative.

Although he has directed most of his wrath at female reporters, Trump has frequently snapped at journalists pressing him on difficult questions. He has also sought to use the power of his office to punish media outlets. Last month, he banned reporters with MS NOW, CNN and Politico from the White House, though a federal judge has temporarily blocked that ban.

The Independent was not the only news outlet the White House has targeted this week. CNN was also barred from fulfilling its out-of-town pool duties on Wednesday when Trump traveled to South Carolina to stump for Republican Sen. Darline Graham.

On Monday, the White House threatened Politico over its reporting about Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff, warning the outlet to retract or correct several articles or “face the consequences.” Politico corrected a detail in one of its stories but said it would continue its work despite the White House’s “ongoing attempts to intimidate Politico and chill and punish that reporting.”

Trump may even be considering removing the press corps from the White House altogether. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Trump has said he would like to revert the White House press briefing room back to the indoor pool it was first built as before the Nixon administration covered it to make space for reporters. Last month, he posted images on Truth Social that suggested as much.

The post White House uses slur against journalist after Trump berates him in Oval Office appeared first on MS NOW.

At a distance, it’s tempting to think Donald Trump would want his defamation case against the BBC to move forward as quickly as possible. The president, however, has apparently been reluctant to sit down for a deposition in his own lawsuit.

Over the summer, attorneys for both sides negotiated a schedule, which included plans for an Oct. 16 deposition. That didn’t happen: The Republican’s lawyers recently canceled the session and said he was unavailable “due to other matters of national importance.”

Left unsaid was that the “matters of national importance” were campaign rallies in red states as the president tried to rescue the careers of Republicans struggling in their campaigns due to his historic unpopularity.

Lawyers for the British broadcaster, dissatisfied with this state of affairs, went back to court to ask the judge to force Trump to set a firm date to submit to questioning in the case. This proved effective, as U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett on Thursday morning ordered the plaintiff to sit for a deposition by Dec. 11.

An Associated Press report noted that Lett went on to say that if Trump failed to comply with the new deadline, the court could penalize him, possibly by dismissing the lawsuit altogether.

While Trump has earned a reputation as a president who loves to file outlandish lawsuits against major news organizations, this gambit against the BBC was weird even for him.

Late last year, Trump sued the British broadcaster for $10 billion over a news program that focused on the Jan. 6 attack. Defending the litigation, Trump told reporters that the network “literally put words in my mouth,” adding, “I guess they used AI. … They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say.”

That wasn’t quite right. For one thing, the BBC didn’t use artificial intelligence. For another, the network did air a program that edited Trump’s Jan. 6 speech, connecting two clips that were delivered roughly 50 minutes apart, but the news outlet didn’t manufacture words or phrases out of whole cloth.

Nevertheless, the editing sparked a controversy that led to an internal investigation, and the BBC ultimately fired some senior officials and issued a written apology.

Trump, however, apparently doesn’t want an apology. He wants $10 billion.

The president has filed a great many dubious lawsuits against independent news organizations, nearly all of which have ended in failure, and given what’s publicly known about his case against the BBC, there’s no reason to assume it will fare any better.

As for why Trump appears reluctant to be deposed, his lawyers haven’t offered any explanation, though it’s worth emphasizing that the president has a rather embarrassing track record when it comes to his performance in depositions in other, unrelated cases — a point one would expect his attorneys to be aware of.

Another point of contention in the BBC case is the network’s interest in speaking to former special counsel Jack Smith, whom Trump’s lawyers want to exclude. That matter has not yet been resolved. Watch this space.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Judge orders Trump to sit for deposition in his own BBC defamation case appeared first on MS NOW.

Those who spend enough time reading about current events on social media will inevitably come across the “writers’ room” joke. The basic idea is that our civic lives during Donald Trump’s presidency have become so ridiculous — and at times, almost literally unbelievable — that they more closely resemble a satirical television show than actual political events in the world’s preeminent global superpower.

The joke came to mind reading The Washington Post’s latest report on developments inside Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon.

According to the reporting, the hapless defense secretary decided earlier this year that he wanted to decorate his office with one of the floor globes said to have been used by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II. That did not turn out well. From the article:

Ordinarily, moving historical items within the building is a deliberate process overseen by trained curators. Instead, Hegseth’s staff dispatched its own team to relocate an Eisenhower globe. They lost control of the artifact and dropped it, sending the globe crashing onto its base and impaling the fragile shell near Antarctica, according to those familiar with the incident. The resulting gash appears to be several inches wide.

Pentagon officials denied The Washington Post’s request for a photo of the globe or to examine the artifact in person, but The Post separately obtained images of the damage.

In a written statement, the Army acknowledged that the globe had been damaged and said it occurred during an “attempted move” in February. (“Attempted” is apparently a key detail: After Hegseth’s staff damaged the priceless artifact, they abandoned the plan to relocate the 30-inch globe.)

If I’d seen this in an episode of “Veep,” I would’ve quietly chided the writers for concocting a ham-fisted metaphor about an unqualified defense secretary, in the midst of a failed war, literally breaking the world.

And yet, in this case, there is no writers’ room. This is just our reality.

The Post went on to note that there are experts at the U.S. Army Center of Military History who know exactly how to ensure safe transport of treasures like these. But since the history staffers were furloughed due to a partial government shutdown, Hegseth’s staff decided to move the globe themselves. From the article:

It is unclear why Hegseth’s team did not wait for experienced help to move the artifact during the partial government shutdown, which ended the same day the globe was damaged. An “apparent lack of patience,” said one person familiar with the situation, appeared to be a factor.

The episode became instant fodder for gossip and jokes inside the Pentagon, with some decrying the apparent brashness and affinity for World War II nostalgia that they characterized as common themes throughout Hegseth’s tenure as defense secretary.

That this leaked is itself evidence of Hegseth’s unpopularity inside the Pentagon he ostensibly runs.

What’s more, let’s note that this incident came on the heels of the Trump administration firing the director of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Museum, and Boyhood Home after he objected to a White House request. Team Trump wanted to give an Eisenhower sword to King Charles as a gift, and when the library’s director, Todd Arrington, said it would be illegal to give away U.S. property like this, his nearly three-decade career came to an abrupt end.

Team Trump also, incidentally, wants to paint the entire exterior of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, turning the building white.

The moral of the story: Maybe these guys should stop messing with Eisenhower?

The post Hegseth staffers damage historic Eisenhower globe in an unusually apt metaphorical incident appeared first on MS NOW.

Shortly after starting his second term, President Donald Trump urged the American auto industry to help realize his dream of a domestic manufacturing revival.

He began by promising untold riches from tariffs on foreign automakers.

“Congratulations, if you make your car in the United States, you’re going to make a lot of money,” Trump told NBC News in March 2025. “If you don’t, you’re going to have to probably come to the United States, because if you make your car in the United States, there is no tariff.”

Trump cast himself as a friend to American carmakers. But it didn’t take long for him to show how unpredictable that friendship could be — and how much it could threaten their bottom line.

In less than two years, three major policy decisions from the Trump administration have left the American auto industry in a worse position than it had been in 2024, struggling to keep pace with Chinese electric-vehicle makers, paying more for materials and facing weaker demand for traditional gasoline-powered vehicles.

Step 1: The attack on electric vehicles

The shift toward electric cars was already underway when President Joe Biden took office, but he helped nudge it along.

The Biden administration encouraged automakers to build EVs by imposing stricter fuel economy standards for gas-powered cars and creating a $7,500 tax credit to help consumers buy electric.

Foreign automakers were gaining ground in the U.S. market, and Detroit’s Big Three saw affordable EVs as a chance to win customers back. They bet heavily on that future, building battery factories and rolling out scores of new models. For a while, sales surged.

The transition proved harder than automakers had hoped. As Biden left office, EVs remained too expensive for many buyers, and demand was not growing fast enough to justify the industry’s ambitious plans. Still, American automakers were willing to wait. Before Trump returned to the White House, Ford, Stellantis and General Motors asked him to keep the EV mandates in place.

Trump ignored the request, pulling away the supports that had helped the market grow. His administration paused $3 billion in federal funding for a program to expand charging stations. Then, in the summer of 2025, Republicans scrapped the $7,500 tax credit for EV buyers.

The president, however, threw his support behind Tesla, the EV automaker run by billionaire Elon Musk, who served as the chief architect of the chaotic Trump-backed effort to downsize the federal government. At one point in March 2025, Trump turned the White House grounds into a makeshift showroom featuring Tesla vehicles and bought a red Model S at market price. The presidential stamp of approval though did nothing to end the 40% freefall in Tesla’s share prices through the spring.

Meanwhile, Detroit’s automakers were left scrambling to change course. They took $52 billion in losses on their short-lived push toward an electric future. Stellantis, the maker of Jeep, accounted for about half the total. Ford discontinued its all-electric F-150 Lightning pickup — the same truck Biden had once taken for a spin.

“Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting,” Ford CEO Jim Farley told The Wall Street Journal in December.

Step 2: Impose tariffs

Next came the tariffs. Trump quickly revived the trade wars from his first term, imposing taxes on imported cars starting in March 2025.

Some auto parts qualified for an exemption under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement his first administration negotiated in 2020. But the tariffs still raised costs for American-made cars, which rely on imported parts and raw materials. Steel and aluminum — two essentials of carmaking — were hit with steep tariffs too.

Trump seemed to focus on the promised benefits while overlooking the bill his policies were handing automakers.

“They’ve come a long way. It’s amazing what tariffs will do for GM and what the [2024] election has done,” Trump said in late July, standing alongside General Motors CEO Mary Barra and other executives at a company proving ground in Michigan. “General Motors is doing fantastic … we’ve been very good to General Motors.”

GM’s own financial disclosures told a less triumphant story. The company reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that tariffs could cost it as much as $3.5 billion in 2025. GM also pulled back on its EV manufacturing plans, though it continued to offer a dozen electrified models.

Step 3: Start a war with Iran

The final link in the chain was the war with Iran. The conflict disrupted oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, pushing Brent crude past the dreaded $100 a barrel. As gas prices climbed, more drivers began looking again at electric vehicles — the very market Detroit’s automakers had scaled back.

The shift is happening around much of the world. Ember, a clean-energy think tank, reported record EV sales this year in 49 countries, including Germany, New Zealand, Chile and Uruguay. The contrast with the United States is stark: U.S. EV sales fell about 31% in the first eight months of 2026, according to Reuters.

China, meanwhile, has made major strides in the global shift to electric vehicles. Its automakers are expanding into new markets, including Canada, where Prime Minister Mark Carney struck a deal with Chinese leader Xi Jinping earlier this year to open the market to Chinese EVs.

The American auto industry wanted an ally in Trump. Instead it got tariffs that raised costs, a weakened domestic EV supply and a future outlook clouded by uncertainty.

This is a preview of MS NOW’s Project 47 Newsletter. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, get expert analysis on the administration’s latest actions and how others are pushing back sent straight to your inbox every Tuesday. Sign up now.

The post Trump’s three blows to American car companies appeared first on MS NOW.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas, one of the state’s most powerful Democrats, was charged on Thursday in connection with what federal authorities alleged was a role leading a criminal enterprise that acquired and distributed large quantities of marijuana and laundered the proceeds.

An indictment unsealed on Thursday charged Lucas and six other defendants, including several of her relatives, the Department of Justice said in a statement ahead of a scheduled news conference. Lucas surrendered, a Justice Department spokesperson said.

The charges, including drug trafficking and money laundering, came after the FBI searched Lucas’ hometown office and a cannabis shop in which she has a stake in May. At the time of the search, Lucas — who has been a vocal critic of President Donald Trump’s administration — characterized it as an attempt to intimidate her.

“This is the circus we always expected it to be, and we will wait for further details to have a more specific response,” said Brian Woolfolk, chief counsel for the L. Louise Lucas Legal Defense Fund.

In a statement on social media about the charges, Lucas said: “Today, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the full weight of the federal government have been wielded against an 82-year-old great-grandmother. I grew up under Jim Crow. I’ve seen what happens when people in power try to silence those who stand up to them. I spent my life fighting back, and I’m not stopping now.”

Luca has spent decades ascending the ranks of Virginia politics and has served since 1992 in the state Senate, where she is the president pro tempore, overseeing the chamber in the lieutenant governor’s absence. More significantly, she leads the powerful Senate finance committee, through which all legislation with any budget impact must flow. She has used the position to stop and ultimately kill legislation she opposes.

FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement that the charges allege “Lucas and a close-knit group of family members and associates orchestrated a multi-year scheme to enrich their own criminal marijuana enterprise, ‘the Lucas Enterprise’ — using Lucas’ position as Chairwoman of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee to insulate the enterprise from criminal scrutiny and influencing legislation to financially benefit themselves.”

“No one is above the law,” the statement said, “and this FBI will continue to follow the facts with our Justice Department and ensure those responsible for criminal conduct are held accountable.”

Lucas has been a leading voice in Democrats’ ultimately failed attempt to redistrict the state’s congressional map this year, a bid to hedge against Republican efforts in other states to redraw maps for their advantage in midterm elections.

A forceful advocate of legalizing marijuana, Lucas partnered in opening the shop, The Cannabis Outlet, in Portsmouth, Virginia, in 2021, selling hemp and CBD products. While marijuana is legal to possess in Virginia, recreational retail sales of the drug are not yet underway, though shops across the state do sell other cannabis-derived products.

Lucas also runs a network of companies that provide residential, transportation and other services to adults with intellectual disabilities.

Court records related to the case for months have been sealed, though earlier this year the Department of Justice sent at least two rounds of letters notifying journalists, politicians and others in Lucas’ orbit that their communications with Lucas had been intercepted as part of a court-approved wiretap that ran for two one-month time spans.

At the time of the search, many Democrats spoke up to defend Lucas, expressing skepticism about the basis for the search, given the Justice Department’s efforts to establish criminal conduct by perceived Trump opponents.

Lucas has publicly spoken about her ownership stake in the cannabis shop as recently as June, though her most recent financial disclosure forms do not list the business by name.

Lucas amassed a six-figure following on X, using the social media platform to advocate forcefully for her priorities and to bash her critics, including former GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin. She’s also occasionally blasted members of her own party, including Gov. Abigail Spanberger, with whom she’s had disagreements.

The post Virginia state Sen. Louise Lucas charged with drug trafficking, money laundering, DOJ says appeared first on MS NOW.

Many of Donald Trump’s recent campaign rallies have been interrupted by protesters, but as MS NOW reported, the president’s Wednesday night rally in South Carolina, intended to rescue appointed Republican Sen. Darline Graham, featured an unusually high number of disruptions. From the article:

The effort was an uphill battle from the start, and it didn’t get easier. … Roughly five minutes into Trump’s speech, security escorted at least four protesters out of the event, with that number rising to at least 11 by the end of the 93-minute remarks. About 20 minutes into the speech, an attendee appeared to punch a protester on the floor directly right in front of Trump. As those involved were escorted out, Trump remarked on the altercation.

“Wow, thank you, that was great, man,” Trump said. “I love — I watched that. Man. You know I watched that, I saw that. That was incredible. Wow.”

The president added, in apparent admiration, “Who was the guy that threw that punch? Who threw that punch?” After identifying the pugilist who hit a protester, Trump said, “You know, you reminded me of Evander ‘The Real Deal’ Holyfield,” referring to a retired professional boxer.

The Republican went on to celebrate the fact that the protester “got whacked.”

Trump effusively praises his supporters for punching a protester:Who's the guy that threw that punch? You reminded me of Evander "The Real Deal" Holyfield. That guy stood up and he just got whacked. Man! Evander, he wants your autograph! Don't fight him, Evander, don't fight him!

— FactPost (@factpostnews.bsky.social) 2026-10-21T23:53:16.857158105Z

If this sounded a bit familiar, it’s not your imagination. In June 2017, after then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders argued that the president had never “promoted or encouraged violence,” The Washington Post published an analysis that characterized the claim as “laughable,” adding, “Even if you don’t believe Trump has technically incited violence (which he has been sued for), he clearly nodded toward violence at his campaign rallies. Sometimes it was veiled; other times it was unmistakable. Sometimes he was talking about self-defense, but it was clear he was advocating for a ‘form of violence.’”

In February 2016, for example, Trump offered some advice to supporters in Iowa. “[I]f you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of him, would you? Seriously, OK, just knock the hell,” he said. “I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees; I promise, I promise.”

A month later, in response to a protester at a rally, the then-candidate said, “Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do, I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it.”

Around the same time, after one protester was punched by one of the future president’s supporters, Trump declared, “Maybe he deserved to get roughed up.”

To be sure, many Americans are probably familiar with Trump downplaying Jan. 6 violence, but this is qualitatively different: A decade ago, the Republican offered tacit support for his followers assaulting protesters, and Wednesday night in South Carolina, he did it again, reinforcing concerns that he sees political violence as a legitimate response to detractors.

The post As Trump celebrates violence against protesters, it’s like 2016 all over again appeared first on MS NOW.

By any fair measure, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has long been at roughly the center of the Democratic Party’s mainstream. Few observers could credibly accuse her of being a conservative Democrat along the lines of former Sen. Joe Manchin or of being a progressive firebrand trying push the party to the left.

I mention this because Clinton took a policy position this week that’s likely to raise some eyebrows.

Expanding the Court is the moderate position

— Thor Benson (@thorbenson.bsky.social) 2026-10-21T17:47:34.491Z

In the latest episode of “High Stakes,” a limited series from podcast host Kara Swisher and Clinton, the discussion turned to possible Supreme Court reforms, and the former presidential candidate raised some practical concerns about term limits on Supreme Court justices — before expressing support for an alternative solution to the status quo.

“I think, instead, we should seriously look at expanding the court while the Democrats are in power,” Clinton said. “You know, it used to be that you’d have one justice for each circuit. We now have 13 circuits, we should have 13 justices. So I would be in, you know, favor of looking at that and see if we could make it work.”

The former secretary no longer holds public office, so it’s not as if she would be in a position to vote on such a proposal, but let’s not miss the forest for the trees: When Hillary Clinton expresses public support for Supreme Court expansion, it’s evidence that a reform idea has reached the political mainstream.

She’s not alone. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina is also widely recognized as a prominent voice representing the Democratic establishment — the 17-term incumbent has spent much of his career as a member of the party leadership in the House — and in late August he also publicly endorsed expanding the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13.

“I think we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand,” Clyburn said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” adding that “13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen, it would be a good number to have on the court.”

Clyburn’s comments came just a few weeks after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke at the National Association of Black Journalists’ convention and voiced support for “dramatic” Supreme Court reforms.

“The Supreme Court, the conservative right-wing majority on the Supreme Court, has become basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party,” the New York Democrat said, adding that the justices seem to believe “the status quo is acceptable. It’s not.”

Jeffries didn’t elaborate on which specific reforms he had in mind, though the Democrat, positioned to be the next House speaker if his party reclaims the majority, said there are “a variety of different options that are on the table” and he’s not prepared to “foreclose any single one of them.”

If it seems like leading Democratic voices are embracing similar stances with increasing frequency and enthusiasm, it’s not your imagination. Just two weeks before Jeffries made his comments, former Vice President Kamala Harris spoke at the National Urban League’s annual conference and said, “We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices, like we have 13 district courts.”

A month earlier, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro voiced support for “radical reform” of the Supreme Court, which came on the heels of Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia agreeing that “all options have to be on the table” when it comes to changing the high court.

In the coming months, there is likely to be plenty of debate among advocates about the kind of changes to pursue and the political viability of the competing ideas. It’s also a safe bet that many reformers will disagree about the details. But the bottom line remains the same: In Democratic politics, the conversation has shifted rapidly to how, not whether, to reform the Supreme Court.

As many in the party start eyeing the 2028 presidential race, don’t be surprised if this issue becomes a litmus test for many Democratic voters.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Hillary Clinton joins growing chorus in support of Supreme Court expansion appeared first on MS NOW.

Over the past decade or so, Donald Trump hasn’t exactly been subtle about his support for Vladimir Putin, but in recent weeks, the American president has gone to almost cartoonish lengths to reward his Russian counterpart.

The list includes instances in which the Republican offered sanctions relief for Russian diesel fuel, echoed Kremlin talking points, pumped billions of dollars into the Russian economy, peddled false accusations against Ukraine, ignored existing U.S. laws that ban Russian oil imports, looked the other way on Russia aiding Iran during the ongoing U.S. war, and delivered diplomatic victories for Moscow — all in exchange for nothing except more deadly attacks.

On Wednesday morning, however, Trump finally claimed to have secured a concession of sorts from the Russian leader. In a statement published to his social media platform, the American president said Stephen Hubbard, a 74-year-old retired teacher who had been imprisoned by the Putin government, had been released from detention and was headed home.

After some pointless and gratuitous whining about the Biden administration, Trump wrote that Putin agreed to free Hubbard “out of respect” for the American president, adding that the United States “was not required to give anything in return — an unprecedented situation for Russia.”

Just 12 minutes later, the Republican published a follow-up item, which read, “Numerous people, who requested that sanctions be immediately imposed on Russia, have called to apologize to President Trump in that they didn’t know that he was negotiating the release of Stephen Hubbard, a truly big and important deal for the U.S. If sanctions would have been placed, certainly those negotiations would have come to a complete and total halt.”

Putting aside the fact that those calls of apology almost certainly didn’t happen in reality, the second message clearly contradicted the first. After saying his administration didn’t have to give Russia anything to secure Hubbard’s release, Trump effectively conceded that he had to waive sanctions on Russia in order to secure Hubbard’s release.

Hours later, at an unrelated White House event, he did it again.

TRUMP: We gave nothing in exchange for Stephen. We never give anything in exchange for hostages.TRUMP LITERALLY MOMENTS LATER: If I implemented sanctions on Russia, Steven wouldn't be coming out right now.

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-21T19:33:20.698Z

“We gave nothing in exchange, which is very rare,” the American president boasted. “We never give anything in exchange.” Moments later, he added that if he had implemented sanctions on Russia, as required by the U.S. law he recently signed, Hubbard “wouldn’t be coming out right now, he’d be in there for another 20 years.”

Trump seemed entirely oblivious to the obvious tension between claiming that he made no concessions, except for the concessions he made.

During a Wednesday afternoon Q&A with reporters, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins pressed him on this point, subtly trying to explain to Trump that, based on his own explanation, he obviously did give Putin something in return for Hubbard’s release.

Apparently frustrated by the cognitive dissonance, Trump decided to resolve the dispute by telling Collins, “You’re a low-IQ person. You’re a dummy.”

Hours later, Russia launched a new round of attacks on Ukraine’s capital, killing one person and wounding 22, as part of an assault that targeted civilians. A day earlier, Russia also unleashed another missile and drone blitz of civilian areas in Ukraine, killing at least four people.

As recently as Monday, Trump told reporters, “Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine, they haven’t been doing much.” The White House has not yet explained why the Republican routinely sounds like he’s reading from a script written by the Kremlin.

The post Trump struggles to keep his story straight on prisoner release from Russia appeared first on MS NOW.

BRUSSELS (AP) — The International Criminal Court and its embattled staff have won the European Union’s top human rights honor, the Sakharov Prize, an official said Thursday.

The award came just days after the Trump administration announced sweeping new sanctions on the court, which is based in The Hague, Netherlands, as part of its campaign to dismantle the tribunal over investigations into the United States and its allies, including Israel.

“The European Union is built on respect for multilateralism and international institutions, and this prize recognizes the important work of the court in upholding international law and justice,” European Parliament President Roberta Metsola said.

Her announcement at the parliament in Strasbourg, France, was greeted with a standing ovation.

The annual EU award, named after Soviet dissident and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov, was created in 1988 to honor individuals or groups who defend human rights and basic freedoms.

A court under fire welcomes the award

ICC President Tomoko Akane of Japan welcomed the award, saying that it “comes at a time when the court and its officials face unprecedented challenges.”

“Against this backdrop, the Sakharov Prize carries particular significance, reaffirming the importance of independent judicial institutions and of those who work to uphold international law,” she said in a statement.

The ICC opened in 2002 as a court of last resort to prosecute senior leaders it deems responsible for crimes that, according to its founding treaty, “deeply shock the conscience of humanity.” It has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression.

The Trump administration’s sanctions cut off the court from U.S.-based financial services, technology companies, and even the use of U.S. dollars. They set a six-month timeline for U.S. companies and individuals that have business with the court to wind that business down.

The EU considers options to respond

In a statement after their summit last week, EU leaders said that the 27-nation bloc “deeply regrets” the Trump administration’s sanctions move and “urges the United States to reverse these latest measures.”

They noted that the U.S. has delayed the full impact of the sanctions by six months, and that “this creates space for diplomacy,” and expressed hope that the measures can ultimately be reversed.

Should diplomacy fail, however, the leaders insisted on “the EU’s readiness to take all necessary measures.”

They tasked the European Commission “to take all appropriate initiatives” to help protect the ICC and mitigate the impact of the sanctions, “specifically towards EU companies so that they can continue providing services to the Court.”

One possible retaliatory measure is the EU “blocking statute,” which could be used to protect European court staff, and possibly the Dutch-based court itself, by preventing European companies from complying with the U.S. measures.

An award for when rights and justice come under attack

The ICC and its officials were nominated for the prize by the Socialist and Democrats group in the European Parliament. The group, which unites center-left parties across Europe, said that it was “proud to have put forward their candidacy at a time when international justice is under attack.”

The Sakharov winner is chosen by the European Parliament’s president and top EU lawmakers from among candidates nominated by the parliament’s various political groups. The assembly says the award is “the highest tribute paid by the European Union to human rights work.”

Imprisoned Tanzanian opposition leader Tundu Lissu and Taraneh and Romina Rahimi — twins being held in prison for taking part in demonstrations against the Iranian government — were the others to make the EU shortlist.

Last year’s prize went to journalists Andrzej Poczobut and Mzia Amaghlobeli, who were imprisoned in Belarus and Georgia, respectively. Metsola said at the time that “their courage has made them symbols of the struggle for freedom and democracy.”

Several Sakharov laureates, including Nelson Mandela, Malala Yousafzai, Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad, went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, picked up the Sakharov Prize in 2024.

The post European Union awards top rights prize to International Criminal Court targeted by Trump appeared first on MS NOW.

Democrats are now more trusted than Republicans to handle the economy, inflation, immigration, crime — even national security.

The New York Times released a poll, conducted jointly with Siena University, on Wednesday showing just 34% of registered voters in the United States approve of the job that Donald Trump has been doing as president, while 60% disapprove. The Times noted that this is a lower approval than that of any president at this point before a midterm, with the lone exception of Harry Truman, who limped into the 1946 midterm elections with a 33% approval rating, which the Times noted was “at the dawn of modern polling.”

The numbers are even worse for the president if you compare the difference between his approval and disapproval rating — his “net” rating, as we call it here at FiftyPlusOne — to that of his predecessors. In October 1946, Truman’s approval in our historical average hovered between 35% and 38% — about where Trump is now — but “only” around half of Americans disapproved of him.

Fourteen days before the 1946 midterms, Truman’s net approval stood at −10.3 (37.9% to 48.2%). That is much better than Trump, who, as of our average on Wednesday afternoon, has a 34.8% approval and 62.0% disapproval rating — for a net of −27.2.

Trump approval rating: The latest polls

MS NOW’s polling data partner FiftyPlusOne weights its average by poll quality and recency. Full results are available here.

This comparison makes Trump the most unpopular president of all time, and it isn’t close: The previous record for worst-ever presidential approval before a midterm cycle belonged to George W. Bush in 2006, at −19.3. That was the “thumpin” year of 2006, when Democrats gained 31 House seats and five in the Senate amid widespread backlash to the Iraq War and the federal mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath. Trump is eight points below that level — and 17 below his own standing at this point in 2018, when Democrats gained 40 House seats.

It is not hard to explain this drop in views of the president. Voters elected Trump in 2024 largely because of economic anxiety resulting from rising costs under Joe Biden. But the president has delivered a hard-right agenda — tariffs, mass-deportation tactics — without bringing down the cost of living.

In a CNN/SSRS poll released back in July, 73% of Americans said Trump had not paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems — a record high. Just 27% said he had the right priorities.

That damage has also spread from the president to his party’s reputation — and trust in it to handle those issues. Wednesday’s Times/Siena poll found Democrats ahead by eight to 20 points on the economy, cost of living, gas prices and healthcare. And that’s not a one-poll fluke. FiftyPlusOne compiled every available poll asking which party Americans trust more on a given issue — Gallup back to 1951, plus ABC/Washington Post, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Fox News, CNN and others more recently — and averaged net trust within each two-year cycle, weighting polls taken closer to Election Day more heavily.

The results are shown in the graph below as the gap between the percentage of Americans who said they trust the Democrats and Republicans on each of six key issues. (Positive values indicate Americans are more likely to trust Democrats than Republicans).

Start with the economy. In 2022, Americans trusted Republicans over Democrats on the economy by 14 points in our average; in 2024, it was by 10 points. Today, Democrats lead by six points — a 20-point swing in four years, and the party’s best showing since 2008. Gallup’s long-running measure tells the same story: 51% of Americans now say Democrats will do a better job of keeping the country prosperous, versus 37% for Republicans, the widest Democratic lead since 2007.

The shift on prices is even sharper. Republicans led on inflation by 13 points in 2024. Democrats now lead by 10 — a 23-point swing, and the best Democratic showing according to data going back to 1990.

Immigration has gone from the issue where the GOP posted its best cycle on record — a 14-point Republican lead in 2024, in data going back to 2006 — to a three-point edge, and polls from the latest quarter are roughly even. MS NOW reported the administration’s crackdown is pushing Latino voters away. Republicans still lead on border security and crime, but by far less than they did: 15 points on the border, down from 26, and eight on crime, down from 16.

Even national security, a Republican calling card for decades, has flipped. Gallup now finds 46% of Americans trust Democrats more to protect the country from international terrorism and military threats, compared with 42% for Republicans — the first Democratic lead since 2007. As recently as 2023, Republicans led by 22 points.

The polls indicate Trump has squandered his party’s advantage on several issues it has dominated for decades. The view from political science is that issue advantages take decades to build — but evidently, only a year to crumble.

Low-info or low-engagement voters — the ones only starting to pay attention to the races in the weeks immediately prior to the elections — tend to react more to the general vibes of the incumbent than particular issues. If that holds, and these voters are turning in now to a president with a worst-ever approval, that will bode well for Democrats in a few weeks.

Control of the House: The latest polls

MS NOW’s polling data partner FiftyPlusOne weights its average by poll quality and recency. Full results are available here.

Faced with these numbers, Republicans may be looking for an escape hatch from the damage Trump has done to their party. They may yet get one by the next presidential election, but are unlikely to get one before votes are counted for the midterms next week. In recent weeks, Trump has held a half dozen unhinged rallies throughout the country that are likely to do little to reassure voters about his performance on the economy, cost of living or foreign entanglements.

If the polls are right, this failed strategy could result in one of the largest popular-vote victories for the Democrats since Watergate.

The post Trump’s historic unpopularity gives Democrats a shot at last-minute undecided voters appeared first on MS NOW.

In the grand Constantine Palace outside St. Petersburg on Wednesday, Steve Witkoff thanked Vladimir Putin for freeing Stephen Hubbard, a 74-year-old retired schoolteacher from Michigan who had spent four years in Russian detention. “You talk so much about my president, President Trump, being a humanitarian. You are a humanitarian also, sir, and I salute that,” President Donald Trump’s envoy told him. The video traveled faster than Hubbard’s plane.

“Humanitarian” is a generous word for a man the International Criminal Court has wanted since 2023 for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children — not to mention a brutal war launched against Ukraine that has killed up to 600,000, and countless allegations of torture, authoritarianism and cruelty by Putin’s government. In Moscow, that deportation was billed as humanitarian, too. The poor children could not stay in a war zone, the Kremlin claimed, so Russia took them.

“Humanitarian” is a generous word for a man the International Criminal Court has wanted since 2023 for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children.

Kyiv counts them in the tens of thousands. How many there really are, and how they are being treated, is hard to verify. According to Ukrainian sources, a few thousand have been returned home. But the formula never changes: What Ukraine and the West call theft, the Kremlin calls rescue. Nobody uses the word “humanitarian” as freely as the people who create the need for it.

The Hubbard story is not a simple one. He had reportedly lived in Ukraine since 2014. After the 2022 invasion, he joined a territorial defense unit in Izium, and Russian forces captured him within months. In 2024, a Russian court gave him almost seven years as a “mercenary.” Washington declared him wrongfully detained. His own relatives had said he held pro-Russian views and was too old to fight. But war is war, and an allegedly pro-Russian pensioner ended up as an enemy combatant.

George Kennan, the great American diplomat who was my mentor at Princeton in the 1990s, taught me to judge a country’s politics from its own point of view, not the one we would like it to have. From Moscow, a foreigner in a Ukrainian unit is an enemy. In Joseph Stalin’s time, he would not have been pardoned, but shot. By the Kremlin’s own standards, letting him go is a real gesture — so it is worth asking what it bought.

Trump says there was “no swap.” True, no one was released in exchange for Hubbard. But five days earlier, the White House waived new Russia sanctions. Trump himself said Hubbard would not be free otherwise. So it was not a swap. It was a down payment.

Witkoff is a real estate man, and a skilled one. He knows to tell the client what the client wants to hear. Since his first visits in 2025, hand pressed to his heart, he has understood how Putin likes to see himself. And Putin very much wants to be seen as something other than what he is.

Witkoff, of all people, must have appreciated the setting. Peter the Great began the Constantine Palace in 1720 and never finished it, and by 1945, only its walls were standing. In 2001, Putin had it rebuilt as his presidential residence, gilded in time for the city’s 300th birthday. As flips go, it is hard to beat. Western leaders once came to admire it, too, at the G8 in 2006 and the G20 in 2013. Six months later, Russia annexed Crimea — the opening act of the current war — and most of them stopped coming.

Last month, Alexander Lukashenko said he and Putin often argue over which of them is the bigger dictator. For Lukashenko, who runs Belarus like the collective farm he once managed, it is an earthy joke he enjoys. For Putin, it is an insult. He sees himself as a benevolent KGB major, even a democrat. Russia holds elections, he likes to remind everyone, while Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose official term ran out in 2024, postponed his because of the war. That Russian elections are staged does not matter. They are proof of good character.

Putin’s well-known deepest conviction is that he would be gentler — if only the circumstances allowed. According to his own rhetoric, he believes he is fighting not just Ukraine but the whole West, which has spent years turning up its war rhetoric. Europe now warns that Russia may turn on it next. In the Kremlin, this reads as a story for tired taxpayers about why Ukraine needs their money. So, Putin has no choice but to be tough. And a man forced into harshness is grateful when someone notices his soft side.

Yet Putin is less original than both his admirers and his enemies think. Nearly every Kremlin occupant, tsarist or Soviet, has said the same thing: I would be different, but the people and the times are not right. In the 16th century, the Habsburg envoy Sigismund von Herberstein, watching Muscovite rule, wondered whether a brutal people made their prince a tyrant, or the tyrant made the people brutal.

Witkoff found the soft spot and pressed it. That is what good negotiators do.

A century later, the story goes, a European diplomat rode into the capital of Moldavia past rows of rebels impaled on stakes. On arrival, he reproached the country’s ruler for such cruelty. “It’s easy for you to govern your people,” the prince replied. “Try governing mine.”

In Russia, the line is usually credited to Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great. The mix-up is telling: In Moscow, it has always sounded like something a tsar would say. Kremlin rulers have preferred that answer ever since.

So Witkoff found the soft spot and pressed it. That is what good negotiators do. But Putin is not a typical client. He took the sanctions relief, the praise and the photo opportunity, and gave back one sick 74-year-old man. As deals go, it was a truly humanitarian gesture — if you ask the Kremlin.

The post With his ‘humanitarian’ comment, Witkoff found Putin’s soft spot appeared first on MS NOW.