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.

Elon Musk is arguably the most powerful man in the world — and increasingly he is using that power in deeply dangerous ways.

The Wall Street Journal, citing “U.S. officials and people familiar with the matter,” reported earlier this week that Musk ordered the slowdown of “a military-grade version” of SpaceX’s Starlink satellite system. Ukraine relies upon the system to intercept incoming Russian missiles and fire its drones against Russian targets.

One sentence in the Journal’s reporting speaks volumes about Musk’s increasingly malign influence on politics at home and foreign policy abroad: “With a seeming flick of a switch, Musk has the power to alter the course of a deadly conflict.” (SpaceX didn’t respond to the Journal’s request for comment.)

Since the beginning of the war, Russia has directly targeted civilians with missile and drone strikes. Thousands have been killed and injured. Just this week, a Russian drone attack in a central park in the city of Nova Vodolaha killed two women and four children. The dead included Inna Mariukhna, a 28-year-old school teacher, and her one-year-old daughter Anhelina, who was still strapped into her stroller as the bombs fell.

Musk’s actions make it more difficult for Ukraine to stop these attacks — and increase the chances of a Russian victory against its neighbor. Never before in human history has a single individual not involved in the fighting exercised such extraordinary power over the direction of a major military conflict.

Why is he doing this? In the past, he’s expressed concern that the satellite-based network could play a role in offensive operations that could escalate the conflict into nuclear war. But that doesn’t explain why he’s now making it harder for Ukraine to defend itself.

The simpler explanation is that the world’s richest person is working in concert with President Donald Trump. Over the past two weeks, Musk has joined Trump in publicly attacking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — and blaming him for the continuation of the war.

Trump increasingly holds Zelenskyy and Ukraine responsible for higher global energy prices, which he says are a result of Kyiv’s attacks on Russian diesel refineries. In reality, gas prices are up because of the Iran war that Trump initiated.

Trump is also desperate for a peace deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin and has been increasing pressure on Zelenskyy to capitulate to Russian demands. Hindering Ukraine’s ability to stop drone and missile attacks is consistent with that strategy.

Trump somehow believes that a peace agreement or an end to Ukraine’s attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure will save Republicans in the midterm elections.

But his obsession with the midterms mirrors that of Musk, who has already spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars supporting GOP candidates this year — which dwarfs the $200 million he spent in 2024.

Musk’s most astounding intervention is in the Texas Senate campaign. Musk, who lives in Texas, has bankrolled Republican candidate Ken Paxton to the tune of $150 million. That windfall has not only kept the state attorney general competitive but also allowed Republicans to spend more freely on non-Texas races.

It is obscene that a single American citizen can exercise so much influence over one election. While we can thank the Supreme Court for loosening campaign rules and allowing such excess, Musk’s profligate spending again speaks to his outsize influence. And now, in addition to millions in donations, Musk’s attempts to boost Republicans have extended to interfering directly in an overseas conflict.

Is America a true democracy when a single, unelected citizen can have such a big impact on an American election? Is it consistent with America’s founding ideals for one citizen, unelected and unaccountable, to have the power to influence the outcome of a foreign war in which vital U.S. national security interests are at stake?

This isn’t the first time Musk has gotten involved in matters of state and left behind a trail of damage. After Trump won back the White House in 2024, he rewarded Musk by putting him in charge of the Orwellian-named Department of Government Efficiency.

In its short, calamitous tenure, DOGE wreaked havoc on the federal government, needlessly firing hundreds of thousands of government employees, weakening the Social Security Administration, undermining decades of scientific research and saving very little money in the process.

Worst of all, in Musk’s own words, DOGE fed the U.S. Agency for International Development to “the wood chipper.” According to the Center for Global Development and researchers at Boston University, the global death toll from USAID’s shuttering is estimated at between half a million and 1 million people.

Musk’s defenders will point to his successful businesses. But clearly Musk is not content with merely being a successful entrepreneur. His net worth is now around a trillion dollars, and he’s using that fortune to exercise power that, in effect, trumps governments and politicians.

He wants vast, outsize domestic and global influence — and that influence is subverting democracy and quite literally leading to deaths around the world.

While once Musk might have played the part of a cartoon villain, he’s increasingly become an actual villain. If Democrats take control of Congress in two weeks, scrutinizing Musk’s business practices, his vast government contracts and his control of the Starlink system should be among the party’s top priorities.

Politico reported this week that senior House Democrats on multiple committees are planning to do just that should the House flip. But investigations are not enough. Making it harder for the obscenely wealthy to exercise such influence in American elections and on American statecraft should also be at the top of the Democrats’ agenda. Musk’s actions over the past two years provide firsthand evidence of the dangers of allowing one man to have so much influence and power.

Musk is increasingly a menace, and since we know Trump won’t rein him in, Democrats must.

The post Elon Musk is trying to make himself more powerful than the government appeared first on MS NOW.

President Donald Trump heads to Iowa on Thursday, looking to energize his base as he touts a financial-support plan to reassure farmers, a key constituency that has been hit hard by rising prices.

It’s another campaign trip to a reliably red state that has become surprisingly competitive. Trump won Iowa three times — carrying it by 13 points in 2024 — but this year several Republicans are in tight races.

Returning to Iowa for the first time in nearly 10 months, Trump will campaign, in part, for Rep. Ashley Hinson, the GOP Senate hopeful who is running to fill retiring Republican Sen. Joni Ernst’s seat. Hinson and her Democratic rival, state Rep. Josh Turek, are almost neck and neck in polling averages from MS NOW/FiftyPlusOne.

“There are a number of Senate seats in play that we did not expect to be in play,” said Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster. “[Trump’s] record and his approach are likely to appeal much more to members of his base than they are to independent or swing voters.”

Thursday’s rally at Sioux Gateway Airport is the first of at least two planned visits to Iowa by the president in the final stretch of the midterms. The president’s campaign blitz in typically Republican strongholds reflects shifts in the political landscape in a midterm that initially favored the GOP.

“The problem right now is that people perceive that the economy is not better, and inflation has not only not come down, but it’s higher,” Ayres said.

A GOP strategist familiar with Republicans’ thinking in the midterms, granted anonymity to speak freely about internal strategies, told MS NOW the president’s visits to some of the reddest districts in states like Iowa in the final days of the campaign are part of a deliberate strategy to maximize turnout by loyal Trump voters in key races.

“Specifically, the 4th District, where we’re deploying him, is the heart of the base, the heart of Republican support,” the strategist said. “If we can churn out our base voters in that area, Democrats’ path to winning the state just shrinks dramatically.”

Seeking to address the financial hardships hitting major agricultural states like Iowa, the Trump administration has announced an $8 billion relief package for farmers and construction plans for a $15 billion steel plant in the state. The president himself has also touted new foreign trade deals to export American farm products and other efforts to boost farmers and ranchers.

But some farmers MS NOW spoke to say Trump’s trade deals have made little impact on their businesses as their operating costs have increased from rising diesel and fertilizer prices. And the president’s announcement that he would lower tariffs on ground beef from Argentina earlier this year came as a blow to the state’s cattle industry, with both Hinson and Turek calling the policy a bad idea.

Craig Moss, a fifth-generation cattle and hog farmer from Hull, about 50 miles north of Sioux City, told MS NOW the volatile cattle market had been “rough” in the past year, in part because of the president’s lifting of tariffs on Argentine ground beef.

“Trump makes a trade deal with Argentina, and then when he’s questioned about it by reporters, he says, ‘You don’t know anything about what’s going on over there,’” Moss said. “Well, sir, you don’t know anything about the cattle market.”

Moss said the current diesel price “kind of stinks,” adding that the ongoing Iran war was to blame. Still, Moss, who voted for Trump in the past, said he agreed with the president on most issues and did not regret voting for him before.

Julius Schaaf, a corn-and-soybean farmer of more than 40 years based in Fremont County, voted against Trump in past elections and said the current volatility in the farming industry was because of Trump’s trade policies. Schaaf criticized the administration as a “rude and difficult” trading partner.

“A lot of the people that supported him were farmers that have a lot of equity in their property, and they can weather a storm for a while,” Schaaf said. “But you talk to the young guys that are just getting started and trying to buy inputs and inputs have gone through the roof — they’re the ones that are really struggling.”

Vice President JD Vance addressed some of those concerns last month at a rally in the state, telling supporters that the Trump administration’s trade and tax policies have directly benefited farmers and blue-collar workers. He has also sought to show understanding of economic realities, acknowledging the high cost of gas and telling voters “we’re working on it.” Trump, for his part, has at times downplayed those concerns, calling the focus on affordability a “hoax” and insisting that prices would plummet once the Iran war ends.

Many Iowans across the political spectrum whom MS NOW spoke with agreed that their No. 1 concern was the cost of living. And while Trump’s performance got mixed reviews, they still had not decided how they would vote in the Senate and House races.

Tiffany, an Iowa voter who backed Trump in 2024, plans to vote in the midterm races but said she is currently undecided. Her top issue: the cost of living, she said, because “prices keep going up.”

“If you can’t afford to put gas in your car, how can you go to work to make money to put a roof over your head to put food on your table?” said Tiffany, who asked to go by her first name only. “You can only stretch your penny and your dollars so far until you can’t stretch it anymore.”

The post Trump rallies in Iowa, where farmers have been hit hard by tariffs and rising fuel prices appeared first on MS NOW.

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russian attacks on Ukraine’s capital with ballistic missiles and drones overnight into Thursday killed one person and wounded 22, Ukrainian authorities said. The strikes in Kyiv came hours after the Kremlin agreed to restart U.S.-brokered talks aimed at ending the war.

The attack damaged homes, transportation infrastructure and other civilian sites in several districts of the city, Ukraine’s State Emergency Service said. In the Dniprovskyi district, on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River, one person was killed and six were wounded, including a child, as fires broke out.

On Wednesday, Kremlin foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov said that Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed “in principle” to resume three-way negotiations involving Russia, the United States and Ukraine after Nov. 10, a week after the U.S. midterm election. Putin had met with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff in St. Petersburg.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy backed the push for new talks, but was cautious.

“We’ll see what happens this time,” he said shortly before missile alerts sounded over Kyiv.

The post Russia pounds Kyiv with missiles and drones, hours after agreeing to peace talks appeared first on MS NOW.

PENDLETON, S.C. — Sparks, and even a few punches, flew at President Donald Trump’s rally in South Carolina Wednesday night, as he tried to mobilize voters behind Sen. Darline Graham in the Palmetto State’s unexpectedly competitive Senate race.

The effort was an uphill battle from the start, and it didn’t get easier. Trump arrived in Pendleton to a crowd of supporters excited about his presence but unenthused about Graham’s candidacy, with voters still unsure who the novice senator is and what she stands for.

Almost immediately, the protests started.

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. That was unbelievable. Is everybody okay?”

Protesters have become a regular presence at Trump rallies, particularly of late, with some confrontations turning violent. But Wednesday night brought an unusually high number of disruptions.

Law enforcement officers ran around the Clemson University livestock facility removing protesters in what resembled a game of whack-a-mole. At one point, an officer had to abandon her pack at a press table to run and de-escalate another outburst.

Trump repeatedly claimed they were “paid protesters,” saying, “They’re a bunch of fakers. They’re terrible people.”

But the protesters were the least of his problems.

As Trump tried to circle the wagons around Graham — who is in a tight race against Democrat Annie Andrews — he was met with Republicans who said they were unenthusiastic about her candidacy.

Mark Sanford, a 63-year-old landscaper from Spartanburg, told MS NOW he voted for Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., in the primary and is now backing Graham — but he’s not thrilled about it. Sanford said he would have preferred Graham leave the Senate after completing her appointment to serve out the remainder of the term of her brother, the late Sen. Lindsey Graham.

“We just don’t know nothing about her,” said Sanford, who shares a name with but is no relation to the state’s Republican former governor. “And she was put in a spot and we thought she was just gonna hold the position. So then we worried about, does she know what she’s getting into?

He said his main hesitation was Graham “just being fresh and her not really knowing what’s going on.”

Willene Allen, a 73-year-old retiree from Taylors, S.C., told MS NOW she was voting for Graham, but wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about her candidacy

“She’s fine,” Allen said of Graham. “Trump supports her. I support her.”

While some voters were adjusting to Graham, others at the rally were still unsure whether they were going to vote for her.

Rachel, a 45-year-old stay-at-home mom from Walhalla told MS NOW she hasn’t decided who to vote for yet. She said she was concerned about Graham assuming the role because she was “a little hesitant about family members taking over,” adding, “we’re not a royalty.”

Rachel, who declined to give her last name, also said she did not know much about Graham. “I don’t know anything about her, so that’s a concern,” she told MS NOW. “I’m interested to see where she stands.”

If voters are still trying to learn just who Graham is, they are running out of time.

The gaffe in the room

Trump’s rally in Pendleton was held with less than two weeks to go until Election Day, with control of the Senate for the final two years of his presidency hanging in the balance.

Republicans had not expected South Carolina’s Senate race to be competitive until Lindsey Graham unexpectedly died in July, upending the race. Trump first encouraged Gov. Henry McMaster to appoint Darline Graham to serve out the remainder of her brother’s term. He then urged her to run for a full six-year term and endorsed her after she entered the race.

Despite that backing, her candidacy took a hit during the primary debate in August, when Graham — who had never held elected office before her appointment — conceded during a GOP Senate primary runoff debate that she wasn’t “that informed on national security.” The remark drew criticism and sparked worries among Republicans about her electability.

The gaffe was the elephant in the room on Wednesday.

After the debate, as Graham fielded questions about her qualifications, she frequently cited the passage of a bill to impose sanctions on Russia and Iran, an effort she inherited from her brother. Trump signed the legislation into law, which Graham cited as a significant achievement — and proof that she could get things done in Washington.

But earlier this week, Trump signed an executive order exempting Russia from the sanctions, undercutting what Graham had touted as her signature achievement. During another campaign stop, Graham made it clear that she disagreed with Trump’s move. But when Trump landed in Washington after the rally, he told reporters Graham thought he “did the right thing.”

Despite the legislation being a key talking point for Graham, she didn’t mention it during Wednesday’s rally. The only reference came from Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who said Graham has “been in the Senate for about 30 seconds and she’s already passed a bill signed into law by President Trump.” He didn’t say what the bill did.

Russia did, however, come up during the rally.

At one point, Trump talked about the release of Stephen Hubbard from detention in Russia. He recalled calling Russian President Vladimir Putin and asking for Hubbard to be released, to which Putin responded: “Yup, you can have him.”

It was a notable mention. While Trump initially said he didn’t give Russia anything in exchange for Hubbard’s release, the timing of the sanctions rollback has drawn scrutiny.

Familiar attacks

Beyond his commentary on the protesters and discussion of Hubbard, Trump’s speech was mainly filled with familiar themes for his conservative base. He railed against gender-affirming care for minors, griped that he wasn’t awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and criticized the media sitting toward the back of the room.

He also attacked Andrews, Graham’s opponent, once again invoking an anti-transgender slur as he referred to her as “Trannie Annie Andrews.”

He invoked another familiar line, but on Wednesday night, it took on outsized meaning.

Trump returned to his frequent message of encouraging supporters to vote as if he were on the ballot. In South Carolina, it rings particularly true: Trump pushed Graham for the short-term appointment, encouraged her to run for a full-six year term, endorsed her candidacy and has rallied twice to try to push her over the finish line.

In a cycle where Trump’s star power is in question, Graham’s success — or lack thereof — will be a test of the president’s ability to mobilize Republican voters.

“In this election I’m asking you to pretend I’m on the ballot,” he told the rallygoers.

“For the sake of our country, just pretend because you have to get out and vote,” Trump continued. “When I’m on the ballot, you go vote. When I’m not, you tend not to. But I really am on the ballot because we did so many things.”

The post Fists fly in S.C. as Trump tries to rally unenthusiastic voters behind Darline Graham appeared first on MS NOW.

Rep. Ilhan Omar revealed new details about last week’s federal raid on her home in Washington, D.C., which she said was “designed” to intimidate her. The Minnesota Democrat sat down with MS NOW’s Chris Hayes on Wednesday for her first interview since federal agents searched her residence as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Omar, who is the first Somali American member of Congress, said she had returned home from traveling and was only asleep for 2 1/2 hours before she was awakened by agents “pounding on the doors” on Oct. 12. The congresswoman told Hayes her first thought was that “something was on fire.”

“You don’t show up to somebody’s house that early in the morning unless you’re trying to freak them out. And you know it obviously did freak all of us out,” Omar said.

“It sounded like an urgent evacuation sort-of situation,” she added. “So it took us a while to figure out what was actually happening.”

When her husband opened the door, Omar said she was presented with a warrant. She also said she was asked to sign a document waiving protections provided to her in the Constitution as a member of Congress. Omar declined.

“That was obnoxious. I couldn’t understand why they would think that I would sign such a thing,” she said.

During the raid, which Omar said lasted four to five hours and involved as many as 25 agents, the authorities “mostly conducted themselves in a decent way” as they searched the home for items in compliance with the warrant, the congresswoman said.

‘A bizarre, bizarre thing’

Omar said the federal agents seized her phone, an old phone, her youngest daughter’s old phone, her husband’s notebooks and a camera he had received from his uncle. She also said they took a Somali phrase book for children, which her husband was using to learn the language.

The Democrat said she was “surprised” when she was handed a receipt for the items.

“To walk away with 17 items of, like, 10 that were just notebooks and like old phones was such a bizarre, bizarre thing,” she said.

Asked about the raid on Omar’s house, the Justice Department told MS NOW in a statement last week that Homeland Security Investigations “executed a judicially authorized search warrant” and said it was “part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.”

A source told MS NOW the warrant listed potential violations involving immigration fraud, false statements in immigration proceedings and conspiracy. According to CNN, which cites people familiar with the probe, investigators are looking into whether Omar or her late father made false statements about her age during the citizenship process.

Omar arrived in the United States in March 1995 at the age of 12 after fleeing the civil war in Somalia and spending four years in a refugee camp in Kenya. She later became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2000 at 17.

“The people who knocked on my door, searching for papers, literally have his papers,” Omar told Hayes of her father on Wednesday. “They are the ones who processed us to come to the United States.”

While she said she takes the matter “seriously,” she doesn’t believe the federal government has a case to prosecute her.

“It would be a huge undertaking to, I suppose, indict a 12-year-old for being so cleverly conspiring to defraud immigration services to come to the United States,” she said. “I’m sure there are a lot of smart 12-year-olds, but that seems like a leap.”

Trump’s ‘obsession’

This isn’t the first time Omar’s immigration status has been scrutinized. The Washington Post reported that in 2019, during President Donald Trump’s first term, a political appointee asked immigration authorities to look into Omar’s records for any evidence of fraud. But Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to open a full investigation, according to the report.

Omar also told Hayes she did not know about the 2019 probe until she “saw it in The Washington Post reporting a couple of days ago.”

“I did hear that they opened, that there was an opening of my immigration file, but I didn’t know to the extent of what the opening of my investigation meant and who opened it,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal reported the Biden administration also looked into Omar but declined to move forward due to lack of evidence.

When asked if she believes Trump has nothing to do with the ongoing investigation into her, Omar told Hayes, “Absolutely not.”

“He’s got everything to do with it,” she said of Trump, pointing to reported efforts by his first administration to investigate her.

Trump and Omar have had a long-standing, contentious relationship. In 2019, the president attacked Omar and three other Democratic congresswomen in a series of tweets telling them to “go back” to the countries they came from. At a rally days later, Trump criticized Omar by name as the crowd chanted “Send her back.”

Over the years, Trump has frequently repeated unproven rumors about the congresswoman’s personal life, including her immigration status and an unproven conspiracy theory that she had married her brother to bypass U.S. laws.

In 2025, Omar told The Guardian she believes Trump has an “unhealthy and creepy obsession” with her.

Omar told Hayes she suspects the raid was partly the president making good on his promise after years of threatening the congresswoman.

“They’ve done this sort of full press where they kept alluding to the fact that something was going to happen to me,” she said. “And I think a lot of their right-wing influencers, who seem to have direct connection to not just the president but his orbit, I think they were starting to lose faith that these were empty promises and they had to do something. I believe to say, ‘Hey, look, we raided her house.’”

The 44-year-old and mother of three has spoken openly about the surge of death threats she has received since taking office. She told Hayes that she and her family will have to move from their home due to the highly publicized raid.

“Obviously, I can’t continue to live there,” she said. “So we have to figure out where to move to because our address has been public, and with the death threats that I deal with, it’s no longer going to be feasible to be in that house and have my kids visiting off and on, having people track them.”

Despite the challenges, the congresswoman said she would not let the president’s efforts break her.

“In my faith teachings, we believe that God doesn’t give you more than you can handle,” she said. “I think I’m designed uniquely by God to withstand all of this.”

Omar said she was “confident” in her truth that she did nothing wrong and told Hayes she believed the justice system would prevail.

“If I continue to stand up to bullies and people who are carrying out ungodly corruption, I’m going to be okay,” she said.

This story has been updated to include additional information.

The post Rep. Ilhan Omar details early-morning raid she says was ‘designed’ to ‘freak’ her out appeared first on MS NOW.

Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign has made Amy Acton’s estranged mother — whom Acton has accused of childhood neglect — the face of its latest attack on the Democrat in the Ohio governor’s race. Even some of Ramaswamy’s fellow Republicans are condemning it.

A top official in Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s administration said that “exploiting someone’s childhood trauma is wrong.” Ohio’s Republican secretary of state distanced himself from the ad, saying his office is reviewing complaints about it. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called Ramaswamy a “bad guy.” But Vice President JD Vance, campaigning in Ohio on Wednesday, defended it.

In the video, which has circulated online but not yet aired on TV, Donna Arthur calls Acton “a liar” about her past and urges voters not to support her. Acton has said that her stepfather raped her as a child and that Arthur stood by him even after he was criminally charged and remained at large for more than two decades until his death. The two have not spoken since 1978, according to Acton, who has said her mother is “clearly not well.” Arthur has disputed the allegations.

“The media and the Democrats in the state of Ohio are obsessed because guess what? Vivek Ramaswamy had the audacity to run a TV commercial which calls it out like it is and calls Amy Acton a liar,” Vance said. “Whatever you think about any of the TV advertisements, focus on the substance and focus on the facts.”

Wednesday’s stop was Vance’s second visit to the state in two weeks amid Republican worries about losing tight races for governor and U.S. Senate.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie took issue with the vice president’s comments on Wednesday.

“Vance’s acceptance of this campaign ad only breathes life into the disease that we should be seeking to cure,” Christie told The Washington Post.

Closer to home, Lydia Mihalik, director of the Ohio Department of Development under DeWine, wrote on X that she didn’t have to agree with Acton’s politics to object to the ad.

“I haven’t changed my political beliefs. I’m simply unwilling to set aside my personal values to defend a political ad,” she wrote.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who is running for state auditor, told a local ABC affiliate that his office is ensuring the video complies with the law. He also distanced himself from the ad.

“Candidates will answer for their own ads,” LaRose told WSYX. “I probably wouldn’t run an ad like that, but every candidate gets to make their own decision.”

“This is going to cost Mr. Ramaswamy the election right here,” said Don Kissick, Ohio’s long-shot Libertarian gubernatorial candidate in a video posted to Facebook. “He obviously has no respect for anyone’s humanity. If he did, this wouldn’t be a thing.”

Ramaswamy’s Trump-endorsed campaign is standing by the ad and has plans to spend $4 million airing it, Axios has reported. According to AdImpact, Ramawamy’s campaign has added $4.5 million in spending on ads and reservations on Wednesday, most of which would presumably be spent on this video.

A Ramawamy spokesperson did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment.

Backlash to the ad has fueled a late fundraising boost for Acton, with early voting already underway. On Wednesday, Illinois first lady MK Pritzker, the wife of Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, said she would donate $500,000 to Acton’s campaign.

Acton holds a 5-point edge over the entrepreneur-turned-politician, according to a polling average from MS NOW’s partner FiftyPlusOne — a notable edge in a state that has become reliably Republican over the past decade-plus.

GOP pollster Frank Luntz plainly described the spot as a “Hail Mary” for Vivek’s campaign to drive up turnout, adding that “Vivek’s team is hoping voters don’t dig into” the details of Acton’s relationship with her mother.

Haley, who faced personal attacks from Ramaswamy on the debate stage during the 2024 Republican presidential primary, also said on social media that it’s “a shame he continues to get away with it.”

Summit County Republican Party Chair Bryan Williams acknowledged that the video was bound to upset critics of negative campaigning, but he said none of his constituents have reached out to him about it.

“This commercial is a punctuation of the fact that Amy Acton is not mentally stable and as a result shouldn’t be governor,” Williams told MS NOW.

Acton’s campaign responded Tuesday evening with its own video, describing Ramaswamy as unfit to lead. The campaign has yet to buy airtime for it, according to AdImpact.

In the video, Acton’s brother, Philip Stearns, says his sister was abused by her stepfather when she was as young as 11.

“To think that that’s somehow a talking point, shame on Vivek,” he said.

The post In Ohio’s final stretch, a controversial ad featuring Amy Acton’s mother has Republicans divided appeared first on MS NOW.