I will join my fellow Gulf War veterans in Washington on Saturday for the dedication of the Desert Shield and Desert Storm Memorial. Our journey began Sunday, Aug. 5, 1990, three days after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, when President George H.W. Bush stood on the White House lawn and declared, “This will not stand — this aggression against Kuwait.”

I was privileged to have been a battalion commander then and, soon after Bush’s speech, led roughly 700 soldiers from Germany to the Middle East. At the end of the ground campaign, my unit was astride the so-called Highway of Death that connects Kuwait City to Basra following the famous “left hook” into Iraq. This weekend, I am looking forward to seeing many of my men — some of whom I have not seen for more than 30 years — but I fear my pride in my soldiers’ bravery and accomplishments will be tempered by what I believe the nation has lost since that conflict.

We deployed to liberate a sovereign nation from a totalitarian government. Our approach was the same as our parents’ in World War II, when American soldiers freed Europe from fascist occupation.

I told my soldiers in 1990 that American interests as well as our values — democracy, freedom, justice and respect for international law — were the basis for our deployment. We deployed to defend and liberate a sovereign nation from aggression by a totalitarian Iraqi government. Our approach was the same as our parents’ in World War II, when American soldiers helped free Europe from fascist occupation.

But based on how President Donald Trump has approached Ukraine and its ongoing efforts to resist Russian aggression, it appears that the democratic values that have long guided our national security policy are no longer relevant, and the use of U.S. military power is now based solely on the cold calculation of economic gain. The United States no longer supports nations, even fledgling democracies, that are the victims of aggression, but aligns itself with totalitarian states.

Recent decisions by the Trump administration are not only contrary to American values but a watershed for the future of U.S. national security policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed in September that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been invited to attend December’s Group of 20 summit in Miami. The Trump administration has also proposed unfreezing Russian assets in Europe to encourage Moscow to participate in peace talks. European and Asian leaders were surprised, shocked, upset and deeply critical of these decisions, which effectively seek to normalize economic relations with Russia.

Trump said on Oct. 9 that he and Putin had talked on the phone and reached an agreement for Russia to supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel fuel to U.S. and global markets. This translates into $4 billion for the Russian war machine. The president said this deal would lower diesel prices — and he blamed Ukraine for the rise in fuel costs here — but it is brutally clear that Trump is simply trying to appeal to American voters in the final days before the midterm elections. Energy experts are nearly unanimous that this agreement will have a limited impact on the cost of fuel and that the overwhelming driver for skyrocketing fuel costs is the president’s war with Iran. The agreement has been condemned by U.S. allies as well as congressional leaders on both side of the aisle.

On Oct. 11, Trump announced a unilateral “energy ceasefire” on his social media platform. He said that the truce between Russia and Ukraine was “effective immediately” and that both parties had agreed to halt strikes on energy infrastructure. But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy subsequently noted that Kyiv learned of the purported truce through media reports, and Russian forces continued striking Ukrainian power facilities immediately following Trump’s announcement.

The president subsequently declared that Russia “has been fine on Ukraine,” argued that Ukraine was largely responsible for the continuation of the war, accused Zelenskyy of ingratitude and called for him to be replaced.

The president subsequently declared that Russia “has been fine on Ukraine,” argued that Ukraine was largely responsible for the continuation of the war, accused Zelenskyy of ingratitude and called for him to be replaced. At the same time, his administration hasn’t explained the disruption of Ukraine’s use of SpaceX’s Starshield, which provides Kyiv with critical intelligence on both incoming Russian ballistic missiles and jet-powered drones as well as command and control. An increase in Ukrainian civilian casualties followed as Russia continued its relentless bombardment. The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. officials, reported Thursday that the president had called SpaceX chief Elon Musk to have those restrictions lifted.

Trump has waived the imposition of new sanctions against the Russian government, oligarchs and companies as well as nations purchasing Russian energy consistent with the so-called Graham Act, named in memory of the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham. The president argued that negotiations with Russia were ongoing, and he did not “want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.” As Bush told the nation from the Oval Office on Aug. 8, 1990, “Appeasement does not work.” History bears him out.

It is true that the Bush administration was also pursuing economic interests in thwarting Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait. Secretary of State James Baker argued that allowing Iraq to control the crucial economic lifeline of the Persian Gulf would trigger a worldwide recession and subsequent American job losses. Yet the Bush administration didn’t seek to avoid war by pursuing an agreement with Saddam for American economic advantage, like Trump is doing with Putin.

Trump has shown a problematic lack of support for Ukraine since the outset of his second term, and he is likely frustrated by his failure to deliver on his campaign promise to end the war in 24 hours. The Trump administration is no longer treating Ukraine as a victim of aggression but as an obstacle to the president’s admiration for Putin and desire for closer economic cooperation with Russia. Trump seems to believe this would be an economic bonanza. American national security policy is now transactional and bereft of values.

Oddly, as of Friday morning, there had been no announcement about who would speak at the dedication of the Gulf War memorial on Saturday. I suspect the president and senior members of his administration are too busy campaigning. In some ways, I hope they are too busy, because I fear the president would attempt to turn a day set aside to honor Desert Storm veterans into a campaign rally. But if he shows up, it may do him some good. We’ll gather a short distance from memorials dedicated to World War II, Vietnam and Korea, and not far from the Lincoln Memorial. To stand in that space is to reflect on the values our nation holds dear.

The post May the new Desert Storm Memorial inspire President Trump to forcefully defend Ukraine appeared first on MS NOW.

The Trump administration plans to lift 50% tariffs on certain Canadian goods critical to Maine’s agricultural industry less than two weeks before Election Day, while also imposing new duties on other imports.

The move, announced Friday, hands Republican Sen. Susan Collins a political boost as she fights to retain her seat in one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate races.

President Donald Trump signed a proclamation exempting certain Canadian products, including seaweed, packaging materials, plywood, refrigeration equipment and agricultural machinery, from the steep tariffs.

While the exemptions, set to take effect Oct. 30, ease some trade restrictions, the proclamation also imposes 50% tariffs on other Canadian imports, including certain cocoa powders, carpets and floor coverings.

Trump’s latest ease on tariffs marks another shift in his administration’s contentious trade relationship with Canada. The president has repeatedly imposed and modified tariffs on Canadian imports, prompting concerns among U.S. businesses and lawmakers about rising costs and disruptions to cross-border trade.

Tensions between Trump and the U.S.’ northern neighbor appeared to reach a boiling point earlier this year after Trump announced a round of tariffs of up to 50% on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods. In response, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney threatened to match those tariffs “dollar for dollar.” Days later, Trump signed an executive order renaming Lake Ontario, which forms part of the U.S.-Canada border, “Lake America” in the U.S.

Collins, who has sought tariff relief for Maine businesses amid Trump’s escalating trade tensions with Canada, celebrated the exemptions Friday, saying she had repeatedly pressed senior administration officials to ease the financial burden on farmers and growers.

“I am pleased to have secured additional tariff exemptions [for] products crucial to Maine’s agricultural industries, including blueberry, potato, apple, and seaweed producers,” Collins wrote on X.

The senator said she had raised the issue in repeated conversations with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and other administration officials. She also pledged to continue seeking additional exemptions and a broader trade agreement with Canada, which she described as Maine’s “largest trading partner.”

The announcement comes as Collins faces a competitive re-election challenge from Democrat Troy Jackson in a race that could help determine control of the Senate.

Collins has sought to distance herself from some of Trump’s policies, particularly his tariffs on Canada, while emphasizing her ability to secure concessions from his administration for Maine residents.

The tariff relief gives Collins a tangible policy achievement to highlight in the final days before the Nov. 3 election, as voters remain concerned about rising costs and the economy.

The post Trump rolls back some Canadian tariffs with Maine Senate race on the line appeared first on MS NOW.

This is an adapted excerpt from the Oct. 22 episode of “The Briefing with Jen Psaki.”

This week, we learned about an incident that feels like a perfect metaphor for the moment we are in.

For decades, two globes used by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II had been carefully preserved in the custody of the U.S. Army. That is, until this year, when one of those globes ended up broken on the floor of the Defense Department — the bottom smashed down into its ornamental base, which punched a large hole directly through the continent of Antarctica.

So how did that priceless artifact end up broken? In the most predictable way possible, of course.

According to reporting from The Washington Post, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wanted Eisenhower’s globe for his office and ordered the artifact to be moved earlier this year, and the Army office in possession of the globe “had expected to consult with experts at the U.S. Army Center of Military History on how to ensure its safe transport and properly document its relocation to Hegseth’s office, according to two people familiar with the matter.” But at the time, “the history staffers were furloughed due to a partial government shutdown.”

When the experts could not be reached, according to the sources who spoke to the Post, Hegseth’s staff decided to move the globe themselves. An “apparent lack of patience appeared to be a factor,” according to a person familiar with the situation. Their impatience was especially unfortunate, given that the partial government shutdown ended the very same day the globe was clumsily damaged.

After the Post published the story, a Defense Department official provided the outlet with a brief, unattributed statement acknowledging the broken globe, writing that accidents “happen.” The statement said the globe was in the process of being repaired but did not say how much those repairs would cost or when they are expected to be completed.

For an insecure man baby, there is nothing worse than when the people taking back control from them are women.

The story is a perfect metaphor for what it feels like to live in this country right now: a country run by small, insecure, petulant little men with too much power — men who will break the world if they don’t get what they want, when they want it.

We see it every day among the impulsive man babies in President Donald Trump’s inner circle. And often the world they are wrecking isn’t just a replica.

For example, consider what is happening in Ukraine right now: For over a week, the Ukrainian army has been blindsided by the sudden slowdown of Starshield, a critical military-grade satellite system run by Elon Musk’s company SpaceX. Lives were at stake while the Ukrainian army could not operate its missile interceptor systems at full capacity, which meant more Russian missiles and drones were able to get through.

You would think when an ally like Ukraine raises the alarm about a life-threatening problem like that, leaders in the United States would immediately try to remedy the situation. But instead, we have spent the past week watching a game of “he said, he said,” as both Musk and the White House try to deflect blame for the fiasco. All the while, more Russian missiles and drones were getting through.

When members of Congress had the audacity to suggest they would investigate what happened, Musk lashed out like an angsty teenager whose parents took away his favorite video game. “Live by the sword, die by the sword,” he threatened in a statement posted to his social media platform, X. “Those who pick fights with me should understand that I will find out who is really pulling the strings and come for them, not just their puppets.”

For a full week, we have watched Trump and Musk deliver exactly what Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted, while they thumped their chests, pretending they are all-powerful but also not responsible for anything that has gone wrong.

It was only on Thursday, more than a week after Ukraine lost this critical service, that, as The Wall Street Journal first reported, Trump called Musk and told him to restore full access to Starshield.

This was all happening while Musk was hard at work trying to amass more power that he can wield recklessly. Musk-backed super PACs have now spent more than $400 million supporting Republicans in the midterm elections, according to the latest filings.

We also learned that he’s putting up $1 billion for a stake in a new megamedia company run by one of Trump’s allies. It’s a move I see as less about protecting the freedom of the press and more as an effort to exert control over the media.

There is clearly no amount of power Musk can obtain that will satisfy his own insecurity. To Musk, the world is one big, ornamental globe that he thinks he’s allowed to break.

For two years now, we have watched man babies like Hegseth, Trump and Musk act this way. Whenever their power is threatened, whenever someone dares defy them, they lash out. They hate losing control, and they hate it when someone takes power back from them. And for an insecure man baby, nothing is worse than when the people who are taking back control from them are women.

We saw that most recently on Thursday, when an angry Trump decided to jump headfirst into the controversy roiling the race for Ohio governor.

As you probably know by now, the Republican candidate in that race, Vivek Ramaswamy, has sparked national outrage for airing an ad featuring the estranged mother of his opponent, Amy Acton. The 60-second video shows Acton’s mother calling her a liar. However, it leaves out the important context that Acton was removed from her mother’s custody at age 12, when her stepfather was criminally charged with raping her (he fled the state before he could be put on trial).

The ad caused national outrage, and even Ohio’s sitting Republican governor called on Ramaswamy to take it off the air.

But when Trump was asked about his thoughts on the ad, he decided to go absolutely all-in on defending it and attacking a childhood rape victim. Speaking to reporters at the White House, the president said the press had “ganged up on a woman making a horrible statement about her daughter” and insisted Acton was “fair game.”

The truth is, Trump cannot stand the idea that he and his party have lost control of this moment. He cannot stand that most of the country has, understandably, taken the side of a woman who survived serious trauma at the hands of a man with power over her. And he cannot stand that a woman chose to take that power back.

Trump has not forgotten how a movement of women taking back power from their abusers overshadowed his first inauguration as president. He has not forgotten how a woman stood up to him in court and accused him of abusing her — and how a jury sided with that same woman against him.

There have been several moments over the last year when Trump seemed to be afraid. But nothing reveals his insecurity, nothing shows you the whites of his eyes, quite like these moments.

This moment can feel really dark at times, but here’s the good news: We are just over a week away from Election Day, when half the population will get a chance to show this group of insecure man babies exactly how they feel.

Allison Detzel contributed.

The post Trump’s man babies keep breaking what they can’t control appeared first on MS NOW.

One group is oddly overrepresented among those whom Donald Trump has trotted out during his recent rallies ahead of the midterms: dudes who used to take blows to the head for a living.

Yes, just like in 2024, Trump is leaning on aging boxers — including some with disturbing histories — in his late-stage voter mobilization push.

Convicted rapist Mike Tyson sang the president’s praises during a recent rally in upstate New York. In turn, Trump touted Tyson’s brutality during his prime, calling him a “very dangerous person.” Floyd Mayweather Jr., who served time for domestic violence, recently touted Trump at a rally in Arizona.

And Evander Holyfield appeared alongside Trump this week at a rally in South Carolina, where the president evoked Holyfield’s name to cheer on a supporter who punched a heckler in the crowd. The retired boxer made headlines in 2014 for making homophobic remarks, which certainly makes me wonder what he thinks about Trump’s lecherous observations about men’s bodies lately.

The racial component here is unavoidable. As his administration wages war on Black America in a host of ways reminiscent of the Jim Crow era, Trump is trotting out old Black boxers during rallies — events filled with bigoted diatribes — in a way that might suggest he’s not actually leading a movement fueled by blatant racism. It’s also easy to see how these kinds of men can be made into pawns in a conservative movement that is steeped in toxic masculinity and displays of bravado.

In reality, Trump’s return to office has done very little for men, substantively speaking. He has failed to make good on his vow to bring back supposedly manly jobs — and, in fact, women have accounted for almost all of the net job creation that has occurred since he returned to office.

It’s a topic MS NOW’s Chris Hayes discussed with journalist Adam Serwer during a recent episode of “Why Is This Happening?” And it seems like at least part of the reason why Trump’s support among men has shown signs of softness.

Given all of that, prizefighters of past and present have basically become shiny objects that can distract MAGA men from the president’s failings. I’ve written previously about Trump’s use of combat sports — both boxing and mixed martial arts — to give his movement an air of toughness that he seems to lack on his own. Journalists like Luke Thomas have excellently homed in on this trend in even greater depth.

And the question for voters is whether they think these alliances serve any purpose other than to stroke fragile male egos. If political expertise were measured in jabs taken to the head, endorsements from Tyson, Mayweather and Holyfield might mean something of value. But that obviously is not the case.

These endorsements seem to me, more than anything else, like favors called in for a wannabe strongman whose clout is waning among a core constituency. In other words: weakness masked as strength.

The post Trump’s midterm closing message keeps featuring aging boxers appeared first on MS NOW.

Unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have long captivated Americans — a majority of whom, recent polling suggests, believe the government is hiding information about the phenomena. And the debate has also made its way to Capitol Hill. In recent years, conversations surrounding UFOs, which the government now refers to as unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs), have heated…

Unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have long captivated Americans — a majority of whom, recent polling suggests, believe the government is hiding information about the phenomena. And the debate has also made its way to Capitol Hill. In recent years, conversations surrounding UFOs, which the government now refers to as unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs), have heated…

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers is pressing the Trump administration to restore and expand Ukraine’s access to Starshield satellite systems, warning that a failure to do so will cripple Kyiv’s military operations against Russia. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the lawmakers — all of them staunch Ukraine allies —…

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers is pressing the Trump administration to restore and expand Ukraine’s access to Starshield satellite systems, warning that a failure to do so will cripple Kyiv’s military operations against Russia. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the lawmakers — all of them staunch Ukraine allies —…

The Trump administration has now announced or completed deals to take ownership stakes in 40 private companies. Just this week, the Commerce Department added four more proposed stakes to the running count we maintain at the Cato Institute’s Restoring Free Enterprise initiative. Those inclined to applaud the president’s dealmaking should consider what a Democratic president might do with those stakes after Trump is no longer in office.

Democrats are certainly thinking about it. Semafor reports that former Biden officials are licking their chops at the prospect of using government ownership to pressure gun and oil companies. Doug Farrar, who worked for then-Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan during the Biden administration, sees a future president leveraging government ownership to turn the screws on AI companies, "especially a Democrat who wants to seriously regulate this industry." Remember when the Biden administration bullied social media platforms to remove content it didn’t like during the COVID pandemic? That was done without government ownership.

I warned about this two weeks into Trump’s second term after he signed an executive order seeking to create a sovereign wealth fund, noting that a government investment fund would eventually become a vehicle for Democratic administrations to pursue policies Republicans oppose. The White House ditched the idea for a formal fund and proceeded to cobble together an ad hoc presidential portfolio despite having no clear legal authority to do so.

INSIDE TRUMP’S DEAL TO GIVE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS A MASSIVE STAKE IN NEW $6.6B SUBMARINE DEAL

If a Democratic administration had done this, it would be practically impossible to imagine a Congress controlled by Republicans allowing it to continue. And yet congressional Republicans, who never miss a chance to tag Democrats as socialists and communists, have collectively done nothing to stop the Trump administration. In fact, congressional Republicans are actively trying to give the executive branch—and thus future administrations, not just the current administration—the legal authority to continue doing it.

The Trump administration’s supporters cite its claims that equity stakes are better for taxpayers than blank checks, or that they are necessary to bolster supply chains for national security. Setting aside that they aren’t the administration’s true motivation, neither justifies Washington becoming a shareholder in a portfolio of companies.

COMMERCE DEPT TO DEMAND EQUITY FROM 7 TECH COMPANIES AS A CONDITION TO TAP INTO MILLIONS IN FEDERAL FUNDING

Sure, if the government is already handing a company money, getting shares in return sounds better than a straight giveaway. But the trade-offs can’t be ignored. 

When the government picks a racehorse, that horse is given advantages and privileges that leave the competing horses at a disadvantage. But the danger goes well beyond current competitors. Upstart firms, including those that don’t yet exist, already face a steep hill to climb in bringing their products and ideas to market. Government ownership steepens that hill, threatening to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit critical to America’s economic success.

The value of the shares on the government’s books isn’t the same as revenue in the Treasury. Realizing the gains requires selling the shares and subtracting what taxpayers put in. And as my colleague Scott Lincicome explains, Intel’s stock gains partly reflect expectations of government favoritism, including pressure on other companies to use Intel products. That points to the possibility that the government is diverting private investment from businesses with better commercial prospects.

WE WILL ALL PAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS’ ANTITRUST CRUSADE THAT KILLED SPIRIT AIRLINES

Even if the administration could sell its entire Intel stake today, it would net roughly $28 billion—less than 1.5% of the $2 trillion deficit Washington ran up in the fiscal year just ended under President Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress. The stakes the administration has acquired should be divested, regardless. But if the administration wants to raise funds productively, it could revisit Cato’s recommendations to sell excess federal buildings and privatize government businesses like Amtrak.

The national security rationale also sounds reasonable until you realize the federal government already has plenty of ways to support companies on such grounds without becoming an owner. Our Restoring Free Enterprise initiative lays out both market-based and government alternatives to equity stakes that would help bolster critical supply chains. Easing permitting requirements and removing tariffs on production inputs would make it easier for private companies to invest and expand supply. And the government can address specific defense needs through purchase contracts or stockpiles of critical materials.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Invoking "national security" also has a long-standing tradition in Washington as an excuse for politicians to justify actions they might not otherwise get away with. Back in April, the administration pursued a bailout that could have given the government 90% of Spirit Airlines on dubious national security grounds, until a group of the airline’s bondholders balked at the terms. 

Last week, Politico reported that the Federal Aviation Administration is exploring an ownership stake in a company that develops software for managing air traffic control. National security or not, having the government become an investor in a company it is supposed to evaluate objectively is an objectively bad idea.

Defenders will also point to promises that the government will remain a passive shareholder and argue that concerns about federal control over the corporate boardroom are overblown. That’s a painfully naïve view of how Washington works. The Trump administration is already using contracts and regulatory authority to favor companies it owns.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

While Trump’s supporters may applaud that favoritism today, will they still applaud when a President Gavin Newsom or President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does it? 

No.

That is why Republicans should use the time they still have to end this ownership experiment instead of waiting until a Democratic president makes them wish they had.

Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) said Friday he plans to introduce a resolution to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) if a federal investigation finds she broke the law. The Florida Republican is a conservative firebrand sometimes known for his controversial comments, including describing Omar as a “terrorist” in 2025, a comment House Democrats condemned as racist. …

Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) said Friday he plans to introduce a resolution to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) if a federal investigation finds she broke the law. The Florida Republican is a conservative firebrand sometimes known for his controversial comments, including describing Omar as a “terrorist” in 2025, a comment House Democrats condemned as racist. …

Among the more amazing things about Donald Trump’s crusade against Rep. Ilhan Omar is how utterly brazen it is. The president and his team could at least try to keep up appearances, to maintain some kind of pretense that the scrutiny of the Minnesota Democrat is legitimate — but the Republican officials have largely decided not to bother.

On the contrary, Trump publicly demanded an investigation into a political opponent — which is itself an abuse — all the while making clear that he hoped to strip Omar of her citizenship and to deport a sitting congresswoman who dared to cross him. Soon after, federal departments did as they were directed to do, in pursuit of the president’s stated goal.

“It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say,” Barack Obama said in a statement. “But that’s exactly what the Trump Administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.”

Despite highly dubious evidence of wrongdoing, federal agents seized the laptop, cellphone and passport of a sitting member of Congress, at which point the president who demanded this probe received a highly unusual briefing from Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

While there’s still no evidence that the Minnesotan has done anything wrong, Trump took some time during his Thursday night rally in Iowa to insist that Omar resign. The Republican added that “the Democrat [sic] Party has conceded her seat” and she will no longer be permitted to serve in Congress.

Trump calls for Ilhan Omar to immediately resign & says, "please inform our great Speaker, James Michael Johnson that the Democrat Party has conceded her seat … she will not be allowed to me a member of that body any longer"Trump's crowd in Iowa then starts chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-23T00:27:55.342Z

At that point, as if on cue, his followers chanted, “Lock her up! Lock her up!”

After the event, the president published a statement to his social media platform, again calling on Omar to “IMMEDIATELY resign from Congress,” adding that someone should inform House leaders that the congresswoman has “openly admitted to FRAUD, and she will not be legally allowed to be a Member of this August Body.”

In reality, of course, Omar has not “openly admitted” to any wrongdoing and has repeatedly denied the White House’s allegations. No one has conceded their seat — Omar is likely to be re-elected in 11 days — and she is absolutely still permitted to serve on Capitol Hill, doing the job Americans in her district elected her to do.

I have no idea what, if anything, will come of this relentless campaign. Given that Team Trump also ordered an investigation into Omar’s records in his first term and that probe was eventually abandoned for lack of evidence, the president might want to temper his expectations.

But that this is happening at all reflects unmistakable authoritarian tactics.

“The investigation of her is a chilling example of the federal government using its immense power to silence a critic,” the editorial board of The New York Times explained. “It is an affront to free speech, the rule of law and American ideals.”

The editorial added, “In the case of Ms. Omar, the administration has gone back more than a quarter-century to investigate a prominent critic. If her naturalization can be revisited, it suggests that no naturalized citizen is safe. It also indicates that the federal government can go searching for any decades-old problem to hound somebody who has criticized the White House. Those are the tactics of authoritarian societies.”

The post Trump’s crusade against Ilhan Omar follows a familiar authoritarian playbook appeared first on MS NOW.

While many Republican candidates are keeping Donald Trump at arm’s length, Iowa’s Joe Mitchell has moved in a far more obsequious direction, despite running in one of the nation’s most competitive congressional districts.

The 29-year-old former state representative, hoping to succeed Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson in Iowa’s 2nd District, joined the president during a rally Thursday night and offered the kind of gushing praise Trump likes to hear. Mitchell said Trump has “kept this country more safe than any other president, ever,” before expressing outrage that Trump hasn’t been given a Nobel Peace Prize.

It was at that point when the Iowan decided to give the president a different honor — one he had made up.

Joe Mitchell gives Trump "the man of the century" award (that he just made up)

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-23T01:40:34.634Z

Mitchell held up a framed certificate and said, “So what I came up with, Mr. President, is a new award. It’s called the ‘Man of the Century Award.’” The congressional hopeful went on to insist that Trump has “fought more for humanity and for America than any other president ever” and has become “the greatest president we’ve ever had.”

The president accepted the certificate, handed it to an aide and continued with his rally.

Time will tell whether locals in one of the nation’s true toss-up House races are impressed with such sycophancy, but the presentation got me thinking about the larger pattern: Trump has struggled to earn the kind of awards he desperately wants, but he has managed to receive all kinds of fake honors.

Earlier this year, for example, several coal industry executives and miners in hard hats presented Trump with a trophy that labeled him the “Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal.”

This was not an isolated incident. Shortly after Trump lost his re-election bid in 2020, the National Republican Senatorial Committee made up an honor for him called the Champion for Freedom Award.

More recently, after the president’s begging didn’t lead to a Nobel Peace Prize, soccer’s global governing body, FIFA, concocted its own peace prize in the hopes of making Trump feel better.

A month after Trump picked up a trophy from coal industry representatives, House Speaker Mike Johnson held an event in which he announced another made-up honor, called the America First Award. The Louisiana Republican then handed the president, the first recipient, with a giant eagle statue.

Let this be a lesson to those hoping to curry favor with the White House: If you haven’t already visited a store that makes trophies and prizes, you’re making a mistake.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post ‘Man of the Century’: Republicans keep presenting Trump with made-up awards appeared first on MS NOW.

After months of arguments, a state judge in Alaska ruled in late June that retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan could run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, overturning the ruling from the Alaska Division of Elections. A few months later, after the first round of balloting, state election officials finalized the top four candidates for Alaska’s unique system, and both Dan Sullivans advanced to the general election.

That Donald Trump and his political team are worried about the race is obvious, but what the president’s team is doing about it is another matter entirely.

Late Thursday, Trump’s Justice Department filed a preemptive lawsuit that intends to block certification of the Senate race — but only if the Republican incumbent loses while the rival with the similar name remains on the ballot.

As The Associated Press reported, the litigation kicks off “what many have feared could become a lengthy battle between the U.S. government and states over certifying an election where the president’s party is struggling.”

What’s more, it’s entirely possible that former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola will win this race and the efforts by Trump’s DOJ will determine whether she’s seated — and which party ultimately holds a majority in the Senate.

The lawsuit is a dramatic escalation, but it didn’t come out of nowhere. At a White House event in early September, the president publicly urged Attorney General Todd Blanche to pursue a case in Alaska specifically focused on the competing candidates with nearly identical names.

Last week, Trump went further, claiming that federal authorities were “looking into” the matter and pushing assorted conspiracy theories for which there was no evidence. As recently as Wednesday of this week, the president used his social media platform to publish a statement that read, in part, “Dan S. Sullivan is leading by a lot, but this is CHEATING in an Election, and the Judge that allowed this to happen should be ashamed of himself. We are looking at powerful legal options to remove the fraudulent Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot, and holding the Democrats accountable for their Election Interference, in the pursuit of Justice and Fairness.”

The statement included obvious falsehoods — most recent polling in Alaska shows the Republican incumbent trailing, not “leading by a lot” — and there is nothing to suggest Democratic officials have engaged in “election interference,” other than championing their party’s nominee.

Nevertheless, there have long been concerns that the Trump administration might try to derail election results it doesn’t like, and the DOJ’s new lawsuit regarding Alaska suggests those concerns are well grounded.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

The post Trump administration sues to block possible Democratic win in Alaska Senate race appeared first on MS NOW.

US First Lady Melania Trump has secured an agreement for a localized ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine in the Russian-occupied city of Oleshky, Kherson Oblast, to allow humanitarian aid deliveries and civilian evacuations to begin on 29 October, the White House announced on 23 October.

The proposed truce comes after months of worsening conditions in Oleshky, where Russian restrictions have left residents without reliable access to food, drinking water, medicine, and medical care. Ukrainian officials and international monitors have called for a humanitarian corridor as civilians face hunger, landmines, and regular attacks, with residents unable to leave safely.

Update: Ukraine launches humanitarian mission to occupied Oleshky after US-mediated agreement

Update 21:31: Ukraine’s Human Rights Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets announced the launch of a humanitarian mission to Russian-occupied Oleshky in Kherson Oblast, saying an agreement had been signed following negotiations coordinated by the US side, with mediation by US First Lady Melania Trump. 

The agreement provides for several stages, including preparations for a ceasefire, clearing routes of mines, delivering humanitarian aid, and unblocking evacuation routes. 

Lubinets said his office had been raising the alarm about the looming humanitarian catastrophe in Oleshky since late February 2026 and would report on each stage of the mission.

Ceasefire aims to open evacuation route

According to the White House, Trump and her representative worked directly with Russian and Ukrainian leadership to agree on the ceasefire's terms, timing, and procedures. Civilian representatives from both countries are expected to visit residents to assess their needs, while those wishing to leave will receive transportation to their preferred destination.

The White House said an American media organization would accompany the teams to document the process and help ensure families' wishes are respected.

Trump said she initiated discussions after learning about the crisis during a private conversation at an event in New York during the 81st United Nations General Assembly. She said the agreement also involves technical preparations, including demining.

Oleshky residents face hunger and isolation

Oleshky, on the Russian-occupied left bank of the Dnipro River, had around 24,000 residents before Russia's full-scale invasion. Recent estimates put the remaining population at roughly 1,700 to 2,000, including about 50 children.

Residents face severe food and medicine shortages, while Russian forces have restricted movement and attacked vehicles attempting to deliver humanitarian supplies. Ukrainian officials have also said Russian troops have seized food parcels delivered by Ukrainian drones and detained or beaten some residents who received them.

The crisis has drawn growing international attention. Pope Leo XIV appealed to Russian leader Vladimir Putin for a truce to allow aid deliveries and safe civilian evacuations, while Ukraine's human rights ombudsman, Dmytro Lubinets, said on 18 October that negotiations over a ceasefire and evacuation had advanced to the stage of agreeing on final details.

The White House announcement sets 29 October as the start date for the localized ceasefire. Its implementation will determine whether aid can reach residents and civilians can leave safely after months of isolation.

“If Donald Trump defies court orders because the Supreme Court said he cannot be prosecuted for actions he takes as president, could those people who carry out his illegal requests be prosecuted or fined even though they are acting on his orders?” — Kit Read

Hi Kit,

Maybe.

The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States only dealt directly with criminal immunity for presidents, holding that they have at least presumptive immunity for all official acts, as well as absolute immunity for acts within their “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority.

What all that means in practice hasn’t been fully fleshed out. It would take a follow-up case to clarify the ruling’s limits, and it’s unclear if or when such a case will come.

At any rate, the court focused on presidents in that ruling. It did not grant immunity to aides acting on the president’s behalf.

Yet, while arguments have been made against subordinate immunity, it’s technically an open question that the justices haven’t decided one way or the other.

So the answer to your question at the moment is: maybe.

But you might wonder: What could the argument be for immunizing presidential underlings?

One scholarly account argued that the logic of the immunity ruling “renders the President’s subordinates absolutely immune for a potentially broad range of official acts, even if those acts are otherwise unlawful.” That’s because if the president has complete power over executing the law, then, the argument goes, subordinate actions that implement that power are lawful, as opposed to being unlawful but immune from prosecution.

As with clarifying the immunity ruling’s limits as it applies to presidents, whether the Supreme Court will decide the subordinate immunity question depends on the court taking an appeal that raises that issue in the future. And as with presidential immunity itself, there is no clear candidate for an appeal the court would take to answer that question.

Either way, if a president wants to ensure that any of his henchmen won’t be federally prosecuted, he could always pardon them.

Please submit “Ask Jordan” questions through this form for a chance to have your question featured in a future edition of the Deadline: Legal newsletter.

The post Ask Jordan: Does presidential immunity extend to subordinates who carry out illegal orders? appeared first on MS NOW.

Any story about a family dispute is bound to be complex, but the politics surrounding Vivek Ramaswamy’s abhorrent attack ad are relatively straightforward. Amy Acton, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in Ohio, was allegedly raped by her stepfather when she was a child.

Her Republican opponent, Ramaswamy, is trying to weaponize this in despicable fashion, pushing a campaign commercial that features Acton’s estranged mother, who sided with the stepfather even after his arrest and stayed with him until his death.

But in recent days, it’s become clear that this ad has taken on far greater significance than one commercial in one gubernatorial election. As The New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg summarized in her latest column:

It’s quite a feat, in this numb and debased era, to create a political advertisement so shocking and indecent that people from across the political spectrum feel the need to denounce it. The Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who has long fashioned himself as a kind of Donald Trump 2.0 — younger and brainier but just as brash — has managed it.

By releasing what may be the most disgusting ad in American political history, he’s done more than just reveal his own low character. He’s opened a kind of proxy debate on the right about whether a post-Trump conservatism should try to reclaim some base-line morality or continue along its current smashmouth course.

Donald Trump has changed his party and his nation’s politics in a great many ways, but among the most important shifts is the degree to which the president has championed the politics of cruelty and dishonor. There are messages — from attack ads to speeches to social message postings — that Republican officials used to avoid, even when they agreed with the underlying point, in part to avoid backlash and in part to maintain their public reputations and credibility.

In recent years, however, those scruples have been cast aside. GOP officials and candidates no longer hedge on depraved messaging: After having seen Americans twice elevate a malicious television personality to the nation’s highest office, they now routinely echo his amorality and cynicism, seeing it as a way to satisfy the party’s far-right base, to advance their own ambitions or both.

Most decent people can and will agree that Ramaswamy’s attack ad is indefensible, but the ad has also taken on totemic value.

“What the ad represents … is an opening salvo in the post-midterms fight for the Republican Party’s future,” Politico’s Jonathan Martin explained. “It’s a battle that will accelerate next year but may not culminate until the 2030s. Put simply, what sort of party does the GOP want to be — and what will the market bear?”

Trailing in polls and short on options, Ramaswamy made his choice, and the stain on his character is likely to be permanent. What the Ohioan might not have anticipated, however, is just how much his disgusting tactic has divided his own party.

Several prominent Republicans in the state, including outgoing Gov. Mike DeWine, have publicly condemned the ad, and others outside of Ohio have taken similar steps. Former GOP presidential contender Nikki Haley, for example, said via social media that Ramaswamy is “a bad guy.” A day later, Rep. Ashley Hinson, the party’s Senate hopeful in Iowa, called the commercial “absolutely terrible.”

On the other side, there’s the White House, where the politics of cruelty and dishonor still thrive, and where there are Republican leaders who still believe repugnant messaging will dominate for the foreseeable future.

JD Vance, for example, declared this week that he’s “a little bit disgusted,” not by Ramaswamy’s gutter politics, but by members of his own party who are “whining” about civility.

The vice president’s reaction itself drew swift rebukes — The Bulwark published a piece that described Vance as a “sociopath” — but that didn’t stop Trump from picking up where his vice president left off.

On Wednesday, the president told reporters he didn’t “know anything about it,” before shifting gears and talking about how important he considers it to see a mother “hate her daughter that much.”

A day later, Trump went much further and spent much of Thursday defending the ad, urging Ramaswamy to keep running it, demanding the public take the underlying claims “seriously” and at Iowa rally, predicting that the ad would work in the GOP candidate’s favor.

In other words, Trump took care to keep dividing Republicans — with less than two weeks remaining, during the early voting period — in one of the nation’s most important gubernatorial races, by leaning into support for one of the most repulsive campaign ads in recent memory.

Election Day is 11 days away. Watch this space.

The post Ramaswamy’s vile ad is dividing the Republican Party. Trump is leading the wrong side. appeared first on MS NOW.

The 'Summer House' spinoff is currently filming in New York.

The move comes amid increased attention to the worsening humanitarian crisis in the city, which over the past weeks has gained international attention, including from Pope Leo XIV.

President Trump called on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) to “IMMEDIATELY resign” and accused her of using a fake name in a Truth Social post on Thursday evening.  “Please inform the Speaker of the House of Representatives, James Michael Johnson, that the Dumocrat Party has just conceded her seat,” Trump wrote. “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, her…